Holes in the superman movie

[ComicTom]

I don't get how in the superman movie how can Supes go to see a fragment of
his own planet without losing his powers. My reasoning for saying this is because wouldn't the fragments of Krypton be under the red sun which would cancel out his powers given to him by the yellow sun of earth, or is he like a battery where he stores his enery. Even so he was there 5 years. Another hole is he was go 5 years right so are you telling me she slept with another guy like a month after got pregnant and had a kid. Then 5 years later the kid looks like he's about 8-10 years old. If I'm wrong tell me but can anyone clear this up for me, and if you can't can you either give your opinion on it or point out any other holes that you found? Thanks

[J. Robb]

I don't get how in the superman movie how can Supes go to see a fragment of his own planet without losing his powers.
He didn't need his powers, he was in a space ship (which crashlanded at the beginning of the movie.)

Another hole is he was go 5 years right so are you telling me she slept with another guy like a month after got pregnant and had a kid.
She was pregant before Superman left, obviously.

[Joe Acro]

The holes in Superman Returns consist of these:

He has a spaceship that we see once, with no explanation of where it came from.

Was that heat vision he used to separate the shuttle. (This isn't a plot hole, just something I want explained.)

Lois apparently hooked up with Richard immediately after Supes left and was intimate. (This is what, I believe, ComicTom was referring to.) This seems entirely out of character.

Lois has already won the Pulitzer and has a plaque to show this, yet she has to go receive her Pulitzer during the movie. (Maybe this just requires someone explaining the award process of Pulitzers to me.)

The writers act like the fire from pipes only goes in one direction.

Superman is weakened by just standing on the Kryptonite continent, but can lift it from it's base and throw it into space, despite Kryptonite branching through the ground, towards his face and hands.

The Daily Planet is re-setup pretty fast and efficiently. The globe is even back on top of the building.

[Citizen V]

This is when people go into detail,i can imagine when you watch the movie most of these are not immediately on your mind.But the Pulitizer and the child`s age are the most ovious errors i see.

[Joe Acro]

This is when people go into detail,i can imagine when you watch the movie most of these are not immediately on your mind.But the Pulitizer and the child`s age are the most ovious errors i see.
It varies, but most of them crossed my mind while watching the movie.

[The Foreigner]

The holes in Superman Returns consist of these:

He has a spaceship that we see once, with no explanation of where it came from.

There are deleted scenes that detail this more, but I just assumed it was the same ship that he came to earth in.

Was that heat vision he used to separate the shuttle. (This isn't a plot hole, just something I want explained.)

Well, his eyes light up red and the shuttle locks burst into flame whenever he looks at them. I thought it was pretty obvious he was using heat vision.

Lois apparently hooked up with Richard immediately after Supes left and was intimate. (This is what, I believe, ComicTom was referring to.) This seems entirely out of character.

That seems like the likely explanation. I don't find anything terribly out of character with her meeting someone else a few months down the line.

Lois has already won the Pulitzer and has a plaque to show this, yet she has to go receive her Pulitzer during the movie. (Maybe this just requires someone explaining the award process of Pulitzers to me.)

I didn't quite understand this either. The immediate assumption is that the plaque Lois has was the Pulitzer award given to her years previous, but that's obviously not the case. Unclear storytelling on the filmmakers part, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a plot hole.

The writers act like the fire from pipes only goes in one direction.

They didn't all go in one direction, but the gas company was in that direction, which is why Superman would want to keep the flames from getting there of all places.


Superman is weakened by just standing on the Kryptonite continent, but can lift it from it's base and throw it into space, despite Kryptonite branching through the ground, towards his face and hands.

Which is why it was such a good indication of his will power and determination in saving everyone. It's not like it didn't effect him; remember the part where he falls to earth, lapses into a coma and nearly dies?


The Daily Planet is re-setup pretty fast and efficiently. The globe is even back on top of the building.

I doubt they'd let the globe sit in the middle of the road for days on end. And what exactly would stop them from getting re-setup fast and efficiently? Broken windows? If they aren't getting their product out, they're just losing money.

[J. Robb]

Lois apparently hooked up with Richard immediately after Supes left and was intimate. (This is what, I believe, ComicTom was referring to.) This seems entirely out of character.
Not necessarily. We don't know when Lois and Richard got together, Jason may have already been born for all we know. (And before anyone brings in the "prequel comics" again, realize that the comic adaptation was very different from the actual film.)

As for the kid's age, supposedly the child actor was five.

[Joe Acro]

Not necessarily. We don't know when Lois and Richard got together, Jason may have already been born for all we know. (And before anyone brings in the "prequel comics" again, realize that the comic adaptation was very different from the actual film.)

As for the kid's age, supposedly the child actor was five.
Actually, Lois states within the movie that she believes the child to be Richard's.

Well, his eyes light up red and the shuttle locks burst into flame whenever he looks at them. I thought it was pretty obvious he was using heat vision.
When I saw it, yes, his eyes turned red, but I saw no fire. It seemed to me to be som kind of force beam, leaving clean cuts in the metal.

That seems like the likely explanation. I don't find anything terribly out of character with her meeting someone else a few months down the line.I'm not saying it's out of character for her to meet someone. It seems slightly out of character to hook up with someone so soon after Superman left. It seems even more out of character to sleep with that someone.

They didn't all go in one direction, but the gas company was in that direction, which is why Superman would want to keep the flames from getting there of all places.I may accept this as truth. I'll think about it.

Which is why it was such a good indication of his will power and determination in saving everyone. It's not like it didn't effect him; remember the part where he falls to earth, lapses into a coma and nearly dies?The very essence of Superman's weakness to Kryptonite is that it drains his strength, his energy. Halfway through lifting that rock, he shouldn't have had the muscle or flight push to continue moving that large chunk of land.

I doubt they'd let the globe sit in the middle of the road for days on end. And what exactly would stop them from getting re-setup fast and efficiently? Broken windows? If they aren't getting their product out, they're just losing money.It's a lot harder to put that globe in place than you make it sound. Plus, all the televisions, which were broken, were back. Something tells me that amidst fixing all of the broken glass, streets, gas mains, and other damaged buildings, the Daily Planet shouldn't be fixed quickly... unless Supes assisted.

[J. Robb]

Actually, Lois states within the movie that she believes the child to be Richard's.
Only to Luthor. And with Jason on her lap, who I imagine was being raised believing Richard is his father.

I'm not saying it's out of character for her to meet someone. It seems slightly out of character to hook up with someone so soon after Superman left. It seems even more out of character to sleep with that someone.
I think you're over-assuming on the "sleeping with someone" part. Like I said before, Lois could very well have hooked up with Richard quite a bit later, even after Jason was born.

[brundlefly]

The very essence of Superman's weakness to Kryptonite is that it drains his strength, his energy. Halfway through lifting that rock, he shouldn't have had the muscle or flight push to continue moving that large chunk of land.

Yeah, that bothered me too. I get that the theme of the scene is that his strength of will and his determination to save innocent lives allows him to overcome the weakness caused by the Kryptonite in the island. But that doesn't cancel out the clearly stated science of Kryptonite + Superman = no powers. I liked the island lift-and-toss scene as a testament to his strength and will (and Luthor glaring with hatred at him from the helicopter window was priceless), but he should have lost his flight abilities halfway through the feat.

[Joe Acro]

Only to Luthor. And with Jason on her lap, who I imagine was being raised believing Richard is his father.

I think you're over-assuming on the "sleeping with someone" part. Like I said before, Lois could very well have hooked up with Richard quite a bit later, even after Jason was born.
The "sleeping with someone" part is entirely dependent on whether you're interpretation/explanation of that scene is correct. I could easily accept your observation as truth.

[Matt]

The exposure to the Kryptonite only happened towards the later portion of the island lifting feat. From what I can gather, Superman burrowed under the island some distance (thus below the Kryptonite) and lifted not only the Island itself but also a layer of rock - which shielded him from the adverse effects of the Kryptonite.

As the Island rose, the rock (not properly attached to the Island) fell away which gradually exposed the Kryptonite.

[van-zee]

Why did you make a whole new thread discussing Superman Returns when there are three right now (this (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=131368) being the most popular)?

[PatrickG]

One thread is about a sequel. One is about feedback to the movie. This one is about perceived plot holes. The movie is big enough to warrant multiple threads dealing with different aspects of it, IMO.

And for the record, my interpretation of the scene where Superman lifts the continent/planet of Kryptonite is that he charges up on sunlight first.

[Joe Acro]

Why did you make a whole new thread discussing Superman Returns when there are three right now (this (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=131368) being the most popular)?
I can't answer for the man, but maybe he wanted to start a separate discussion focusing on plot holes.

As for his question:

I don't get how in the superman movie how can Supes go to see a fragment of his own planet without losing his powers.
Presumably, he only viewed his planet from the safety of his ship.

My reasoning for saying this is because wouldn't the fragments of Krypton be under the red sun which would cancel out his powers given to him by the yellow sun of earth, or is he like a battery where he stores his enery. Even so he was there 5 years.Although not established in the movies, he is considered to be a solar battery in the comics... or that's what Byrne would have you believe. Some writers disregard this and have red sun rays instantly, or close enough, deprive him of powers. It is uncertain which stance Singer took here. However, I'll assume he stuck with the solar battery theory, considering he seems fully powered upon his return. Oh, and Supes wasn't as Krypton for five years. It took him five years to get there, determine that it's gone, and then come back.

[PatrickG]

Yeah. The sequence of Superman visiting Krypton with his ship was cut.

And the whole rationale for both the ship and Luthor's plan is that the crystals can create spaceships or advanced weapons.

Luthor wasn't just creating land, he was creating fortresses, labs and (unknowingly) recreating Krypton itself.

The book claims that an exact duplicate of Krypton is in our solar system now and Singer has alluded that the neo-Krypton will be addressed in the sequel.

[slexicDys]

Lex Luthor was going to displace America with his own kryptonite continent, right? Well, wouldn't everyone on the island just get radiation poisoning and die? In fact, wouldn't a giant, irradiated mass on earth be disastrous for the planet? In fact, it'd probably mean the end of the world. That's the biggest hole in the movie plot I see.

[Joe Acro]

Lex Luthor was going to displace America with his own kryptonite continent, right? Well, wouldn't everyone on the island just get radiation poisoning and die? In fact, wouldn't a giant, irradiated mass on earth be disastrous for the planet? In fact, it'd probably mean the end of the world. That's the biggest hole in the movie plot I see.How is this a plot hole? I find this to simply be a threat not foreseen by Luthor or anyone else (considering Kryptonite poisoning hasn't happened in the movies). It just adds to the urgency of ridding the continent from the planet.

[slexicDys]

I don't like to think of Lex Luthor's character as an idiot. I like to think he'd be able to figure out that kryptonite is radioactive.

[Matt]

As far as I know, the movie version of Kryptonite is not harmful to humans in any way - only to Kryptonians.

[Dan Apodaca]

Many awards are given out separate to the cerimonies. What Lois has is the informal side of winning the Pulitzer. She goes to the ceremony for the formal side of it.

[The Foreigner]

Lex Luthor was going to displace America with his own kryptonite continent, right? Well, wouldn't everyone on the island just get radiation poisoning and die? In fact, wouldn't a giant, irradiated mass on earth be disastrous for the planet? In fact, it'd probably mean the end of the world. That's the biggest hole in the movie plot I see.

Kryptonite is only harmful to Kryptonians...

[PersonaDark]

Kryptonite is only harmful to Kryptonians...

Lex got a wicked case of cancer from it in the comics, lost his hand and eventually had to fake his death to be cloned.

[Matt]

The comics and the movies are, in case it is not clear, completely separate entities.

[Ruseri]

Quite honestly, I'm shocked that so many of you are complaining about things that are easily explainable.

Firstly, about the island. i've seen some people complain and say "if Lex drowns america, isn't he killing the buyers of his land?" ...NO. he clearly states IN THE MOVIE, that surrounding countries would be his main customers. A lot of people are also calling it a "Kryptonite Island" ...seriously, did NO ONE but me notice that it's not a big hunk of kryptonite? I feel like i'm the only one with eyes... it only had PEICES of kryptonite exposed because it was laced with the kryptonite cylinder he put the crystal in. but most of the island was not Kryptinite at all. THIS is why he was able to lift it. he burned his way down into the earth, BELOW the island and lifted it at a point where no Krytonite was exposed... the Kryptonite only got to where he was when he was already in the upper atmosphere, and therefore did not have to exert as much force onto the island... it was now weightless.. and that's when he passes out and drifts back down into the atmosphere.

I don't get how in the superman movie how can Supes go to see a fragment of
his own planet without losing his powers.

Who says he didn't? it wouldn't matter... he's in a spaceship, out in space, with no known threats nearby

My reasoning for saying this is because wouldn't the fragments of Krypton be under the red sun which would cancel out his powers given to him by the yellow sun of earth, or is he like a battery where he stores his enery. Even so he was there 5 years.

no... in this continuity, the Sun collapsed, and therefore does not exist. he IS like a "battery" per se, but the red sunlight would drain his powers either way (if it hadn't died out). and NO, he was not there for 5 years. he was GONE for five years. it probably took him a few years just to GET to Krypton's remains (plus the journey back).

Another hole is he was go 5 years right so are you telling me she slept with another guy like a month after got pregnant and had a kid. Then 5 years later the kid looks like he's about 8-10 years old.

as far as anyone can tell, she did sleep with Richard soon after Superman left earth. the kid is 5... that part is pretty obvious by just watching the movie. he doesn't even look close to 8 years old, let alone 10.

Was that heat vision he used to separate the shuttle. (This isn't a plot hole, just something I want explained.)

The writers act like the fire from pipes only goes in one direction.

Yes... i thought it was pretty obvious that he was shooting rays of HEAT out of his eyes... keep in mind, in the comics, it's called "HEAT" vision... not "LASER" vision (which it gets missinterpeted as quite often). it would not look like a simple red laser-beam, as it did back in the Donner films.

as for the fire in the pipes; Superman was "pulling" the fire toward him. I thougt this, as well, was pretty obvious... as he flew through the pipes, he was causing the air to get sucked through the pipe along with him because he was moving so quickly. trust me, this makes sense... even if it's hard to describe in text... he was basically creating a vacuum so that all the fire would follow him until he stopped and used his breath to extinguish it.

as far as Clark's spaceship goes, i honestly don't know. maybe he built it somehow, because it can't be the one he came to earth in originally if this is a sequal to the Donner films. I, personally, just believe that this is actually a new continuity that uses the main plot points of the old movies as a vague "history" of what's happened. I do NOT look at it as a direct sequal.

[West Mantooth]

In one of the deleted scenes. The point in the movie where young Clark falls through the roof is where his X-ray vision kicks in and he sees his ship under the floor. I don't know if its the same ship, but it's sci-fi. Enjoy! The crystals can do almost anything. It could have grown another one at the Fortress of Solitude. Heck, if Jor-el was able to grow one, why wouldn't Clark?

[PatrickG]

Lex Luthor was going to displace America with his own kryptonite continent, right? Well, wouldn't everyone on the island just get radiation poisoning and die? In fact, wouldn't a giant, irradiated mass on earth be disastrous for the planet? In fact, it'd probably mean the end of the world. That's the biggest hole in the movie plot I see.

It's been an extreme minority of stories in which Kryptonite has any affect (positive or negative) on humans.

[SuperBails]

Yeah. The sequence of Superman visiting Krypton with his ship was cut.

And the whole rationale for both the ship and Luthor's plan is that the crystals can create spaceships or advanced weapons.

Luthor wasn't just creating land, he was creating fortresses, labs and (unknowingly) recreating Krypton itself.

The book claims that an exact duplicate of Krypton is in our solar system now and Singer has alluded that the neo-Krypton will be addressed in the sequel.

Presumably, the "island" would keep growing in space, right? How big would it get? It should, eventually, orbit the sun.

[Joe Acro]

Presumably, the "island" would keep growing in space, right? How big would it get? It should, eventually, orbit the sun.
Well, actually, it wouldn't have any water to feed on in space. So, no, it wouldn't keep growing.

as for the fire in the pipes; Superman was "pulling" the fire toward him. I thougt this, as well, was pretty obvious... as he flew through the pipes, he was causing the air to get sucked through the pipe along with him because he was moving so quickly. trust me, this makes sense... even if it's hard to describe in text... he was basically creating a vacuum so that all the fire would follow him until he stopped and used his breath to extinguish it.I thought it was pretty obvious that he was blowing his "super-breath" to force the flames away from the central gas station. I don't think even Superman could survive having that much fire in his system.

[The Foreigner]

as for the fire in the pipes; Superman was "pulling" the fire toward him. I thougt this, as well, was pretty obvious... as he flew through the pipes, he was causing the air to get sucked through the pipe along with him because he was moving so quickly. trust me, this makes sense... even if it's hard to describe in text... he was basically creating a vacuum so that all the fire would follow him until he stopped and used his breath to extinguish it.


You're over-thinking it. The flames are already moving through the pipes before Supes starts flying past them.

The vaccuum trick has been used before (See Superman for All Seasons for example), but that's definitely not what happened in the movie.

[slexicDys]

It's been an extreme minority of stories in which Kryptonite has any affect (positive or negative) on humans.

...Also all of current Superman continuity. For example, in the recent Up Up and Away, Jimmy gets burned by Kryptonite radiation.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

If Lois really believed that Jason is Richard´s son, then she must have slept with him shortly after she did it with Superman and BEFORE he even left earth.

[Devil_LeonX]

As far as I know, the movie version of Kryptonite is not harmful to humans in any way - only to Kryptonians.
The main reason that K doesnt cause cancer to humans in the movies( in Reurns especially) is because a person has to have it within their possession for quite a while, (near a decade depending on the writer) so no one is aware of the fact that K can cause this.

[David Atkins]

Was that heat vision he used to separate the shuttle. (This isn't a plot hole, just something I want explained.)

Yes. He used his heat vision to cut the plane free from the shuttle. Hence the sparks, and the same visual effect being used in every scene in which he used his heat vision.

The writers act like the fire from pipes only goes in one direction.

This is explainable in any number of ways. Perhaps the explosion took place at a point in the system where they actually WAS only one direction to go. Or perhaps Superman did use the vaccum effect as mentioned by another poster. Or perhaps Superman dealt with further effects off-screen (things he did in Metropolis while the storyline was being further developed elsewhere).

Superman is weakened by just standing on the Kryptonite continent, but can lift it from it's base and throw it into space, despite Kryptonite branching through the ground, towards his face and hands.

My thought is this: Superman was able to lift the continent because A ) he burrowed beneath the continent and lifted some of Earth's land-mass up along with it (as is plainly evident when the rocks begin falling away on the way up as the kryptonite begins pushing through it) and B ) because of sheer willpower to see the task done (I believe Superman has, even in the comics, overcome the effects of Kryptonite, if only temporarily, through willpower) and C ) because the continent WAS NOT MADE OF KRYPTONITE.

Luthor stated that the crystals would absorb the properties of the minerals around them. Meaning that the crystal continent, as it grew, was able to mimmick Kryptonite-like properties, but not that it would, itself, become Kryptonite. Had the continent been composed of true Kryptonite, it would have knocked him out of the air long before he ever set foot on it (or even the boat on which Lois, Richard, and Jason were trapped).

The Daily Planet is re-setup pretty fast and efficiently. The globe is even back on top of the building.

This can be accounted for either by simply remarking upon the likely efficiency of clean-up/repair crews in a town championed by a man as powerful as Superman. Or by saying that Wonder Woman came to town, off screen, to help out. :D

[Ronnigon]

Here are some other holes in the Superman movie:

1) The main character came back from a distant planet, and the effects of time dilation from light-speed travel had not aged anyone on earth any more than the five years he had been gone.

2) The main character is a human being who can lift an airplane.

3) The main character is a human being who can fly.

4) The main character is completely unrecognizable as the same person, just by putting on glasses.

The entire mythos of Superman is a logical contradiction. Get used to it.

[David Atkins]

Here are some other holes in the Superman movie:

2) The main character is a human being who can lift an airplane.

3) The main character is a human being who can fly.

Are you saying I'm not real? :(

[PatrickG]

...Also all of current Superman continuity. For example, in the recent Up Up and Away, Jimmy gets burned by Kryptonite radiation.

Enh.

That was a BLAST.

Metallo has had a human body with a Kryptonite heart for over a year DCU time and he's not dead.

[PatrickG]

If Lois really believed that Jason is Richard´s son, then she must have slept with him shortly after she did it with Superman and BEFORE he even left earth.

Not necessarily.

Normal pregnancies take anywhere from 8-10 months.

Presumably, Superman left earth within a week or two of sleeping with Lois and more than likely, days.

And I'm under the impression that Lois hooked up with Richard almost immediately.

She could have slept with both men in a 7 day period and had a ten month pregnancy.

Also, when it's said that Superman was gone 5 years, I don't take that to mean 60 months. I take that to mean that, by our timeframe, he left sometime in 2001 (maybe even late 2000) and returned sometime in 2006.

It could be 6 years, technically. But people tend to round things off.

If you haven't seen a friend in three weeks, you might say you haven't seen them in a month. If you haven't seen a friend in seven years, you might just say that it's been "over five years" since you saw them.

[Gilda Dent]

Here are some other holes in the Superman movie:

1) The main character came back from a distant planet, and the effects of time dilation from light-speed travel had not aged anyone on earth any more than the five years he had been gone.

Nah. Time dilation doesn't work that way. It's the subjective time of those traveling at light speed that is altered, not the others. Thus, if it's been five years, it's been five years for everyone but those travelling at near light speed, who may have experienced only a few days or moths of subjective time.

We also don't know that Superman was travelling at or near light speed. He may have been travelling sublight speed through a warp of some kind.

2) The main character is a human being who can lift an airplane.

3) The main character is a human being who can fly.

Alien, not human.

4) The main character is completely unrecognizable as the same person, just by putting on glasses.

And changing his hair, altering his stance, his attitude, his voice, etc. Also, keep in mind that a secret identity is a comic book convention; it doesn't mean that within the movie universe it's well known, or known at all to anyone but Lois, that Superman even has another identity.

And not in reply to this post, but the effect of Kryptonite radiation on humans in the comics is irrelevant to the movies, because they exist separately from one another, and have their own rules.

Gilda

[Joe Acro]

Yes. He used his heat vision to cut the plane free from the shuttle. Hence the sparks, and the same visual effect being used in every scene in which he used his heat vision.
But, when I saw, it didn't seem like the heat vision that came after had the same visual effect.

...because the continent WAS NOT MADE OF KRYPTONITE.
I never said it was.

[The Shadow]

Jesus you guys are thinking waaaaaaaaaaay too much about a comic book movie.

Do you analize ALL movies like this?
How do you get any enjoyment out of nitpicking something to death???

[Joe Acro]

Do you analize ALL movies like this?
Yes.
How do you get any enjoyment out of nitpicking something to death???
I just do, unless the plot stretches credibility (like in Batman Begins). Is it so much to ask that stories make complete sense from front to back?

[PatrickG]

Yes.

I just do, unless the plot stretches credibility (like in Batman Begins). Is it so much to ask that stories make complete sense from front to back?

Did you just suggest that Batman Begins stretches credibility?

I thought the movie's greatest flaw was being a bit TOO credible.

[Joe Acro]

Did you just suggest that Batman Begins stretches credibility?

Mainly just the last third of the movie. I don't want to provide details because this isn't the place for it.

[The Foreigner]

Nah. Time dilation doesn't work that way. It's the subjective time of those traveling at light speed that is altered, not the others. Thus, if it's been five years, it's been five years for everyone but those travelling at near light speed, who may have experienced only a few days or moths of subjective time.

We also don't know that Superman was travelling at or near light speed. He may have been travelling sublight speed through a warp of some kind.



Alien, not human.



And changing his hair, altering his stance, his attitude, his voice, etc. Also, keep in mind that a secret identity is a comic book convention; it doesn't mean that within the movie universe it's well known, or known at all to anyone but Lois, that Superman even has another identity.

And not in reply to this post, but the effect of Kryptonite radiation on humans in the comics is irrelevant to the movies, because they exist separately from one another, and have their own rules.

Gilda

Kinda missing the point...

[MythicBrawn]

How long would/did it take Lois to realize Superman was gone before she slept with another guy? Remember, that Superman didn't tell her goodbye. It seems he just up and left. So, feeling hurt she latched onto to the first guy she could and got busy. It's believable. It doesn't say much about her character but it could happen. I guess she couldn't have gone on Maury since Superman was in space. Regardless, I still don't like her.

[Ontir]

I don't get how in the superman movie how can Supes go to see a fragment of
his own planet without losing his powers. My reasoning for saying this is because wouldn't the fragments of Krypton be under the red sun which would cancel out his powers given to him by the yellow sun of earth, or is he like a battery where he stores his enery. Even so he was there 5 years. Another hole is he was go 5 years right so are you telling me she slept with another guy like a month after got pregnant and had a kid. Then 5 years later the kid looks like he's about 8-10 years old. If I'm wrong tell me but can anyone clear this up for me, and if you can't can you either give your opinion on it or point out any other holes that you found? Thanks


As someone else said, he was in a spaceship, which gave him SOME protection from the Kryptonite, and may have stored some yellow rays, I'm not sure on that, plus pre-Crisis, any kryptonese who set foot in a yellow ray environment instantly got full power, so the minute he touched Earth, he would be re-charging, even after prolonged K-exposure.

Tristan Lake Leabu is a 5 year-old, and he looks it.

[The Batman]

Superman went to Krypton via a spaceship similar to the one that brought him to Earth. I assumed that it was grown/fabricated in the Fortress. According to the novelization it offered Supes some protection from the radioactive remnants of Krypton, but not enough and Superman was stricken with Kryptonite poisoning and barely escaped with his life. I imagine that's one of the reasons he was in a weakened state when he arrived back on Earth.

Supes used heat vision during the space plane rescue and during the Metropolis disasters as well. The red laser beam was simply the best way to do that sort of effect back in the day, during the cartoons and in the comics. Both work for me really.

The only thing about the movie that really was iffy for me was the whole Lois/Richard/Jason timeline and how soon after Superman left did Lois and Richard become involved, does Richard really believe that he's Jason's biological father or was Lois just trying to throw Lex off the trail, and things of that sort.

I will admit that these might be less holes than questions that will be answered in any possible sequel.

[David Atkins]

Superman is weakened by just standing on the Kryptonite continent, but can lift it from it's base and throw it into space, despite Kryptonite branching through the ground, towards his face and hands.

...because the continent WAS NOT MADE OF KRYPTONITE.

I never said it was.

Uh... yeah... you did.

No retconning discussions in progress. You're not a mod yet, Joe! :mad: :D

[Joe Acro]

I never said it was a continent made from Kryptonite, you just inferred that from that statement. It's a continent laced with Kryptonite, hence Kryptonite continent. I'm sorry if it was vague.

[Ontir]

When he plunged/drilled into the ocean floor, he was lifting the continent up, via the rock underneath it. As the continent continued to grow, the Kryptonite bore through the rock, exposing Superman to K-radiation.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

When he plunged/drilled into the ocean floor, he was lifting the continent up, via the rock underneath it. As the continent continued to grow, the Kryptonite bore through the rock, exposing Superman to K-radiation.

Exactly, this is why he zapped the ground with heat vision, so he could burrow under the kryptonite and pick up out of range of the radiation.

However, at the end, the kryptonite expanded so far that it nearly killed him.

[The Batman]

It's also important to know that the island wasn't pure Kryptonite but only had Kryptonite like qualities and as such, it would take some time for the Kryptonite to overtake Superman.

[3D Master]

Lois has already won the Pulitzer and has a plaque to show this, yet she has to go receive her Pulitzer during the movie. (Maybe this just requires someone explaining the award process of Pulitzers to me.)

Was that a plaque? I thought it was the invitation to receive the prize.

[Joe Acro]

It's also important to know that the island wasn't pure Kryptonite but only had Kryptonite like qualities and as such, it would take some time for the Kryptonite to overtake Superman.
That statement would be more believable if Supes hadn't practically collapsed after being on the island for maybe a few minutes.

[The Batman]

^^

You mean when Luthor and his gang were beating on him?

Sure the Kyptonite affected him, but not with the same intensity as it could've if it'd been pure Kryptonite. I mean had it been a massive island of pure Kryptonite it's possible Superman wouldn't have been able to even get on the island.

[David Atkins]

It's also important to know that the island wasn't pure Kryptonite but only had Kryptonite like qualities and as such, it would take some time for the Kryptonite to overtake Superman.

Right on. I said that in a previous post, but it was overlooked in favor of focusing on a detail in my post and using it to argue the discussion's continuity. :p

If the island/continent had been made of/laced with that much real Kryptonite, as I said before, Superman would have been knocked out of the sky before he ever got close to it. However, it was not made of Kryptonite nor was it laced with Kryptonite. It was made from Kryptonian crystals and had taken on Kryptonite-like properties due to being encased in Kryptonite before it began growing.

Therefore, it weakened Superman. It burned him. But it did not, ultimately, affect him in quite the same fashion as real Kryptonite would have.

[Paul Dee]

And changing his hair, altering his stance, his attitude, his voice, etc. Also, keep in mind that a secret identity is a comic book convention; it doesn't mean that within the movie universe it's well known, or known at all to anyone but Lois, that Superman even has another identity.


Yes! This is so true and an antidote to the ''oh he slaps on a pair of glasses and no-one can tell the difference'' tedium that people usually spout. Surely no-one would think Superman has a secret identity? Why would he?

[Joe Acro]

^^

You mean when Luthor and his gang were beating on him?

Sure the Kyptonite affected him, but not with the same intensity as it could've if it'd been pure Kryptonite. I mean had it been a massive island of pure Kryptonite it's possible Superman wouldn't have been able to even get on the island.
It's just that you said it would take some time to overtake him, which it didn't. I'm not saying, anymore, that it's not possible that he wasn't harmed as much by this tainted Kryptonite or that he was able to get the continent up in the sky high enough before it affected him. I'm pointing out a flaw in your wording.

[David Atkins]

It's just that you said it would take some time to overtake him, which it didn't. I'm not saying, anymore, that it's not possible that he wasn't harmed as much by this tainted Kryptonite or that he was able to get the continent up in the sky high enough before it affected him. I'm pointing out a flaw in your wording.

No, he's absolutely right. Superman was able to land (with such force that, had he been depowered by true Kryptonite, his legs would have shattered) and walk up to Luthor, whom was meanwhile waiting for some sign that Superman was being effected (sweat, wasn't it?). It didn't affect him immediately by any means.

[Joe Acro]

No, he's absolutely right. Superman was able to land (with such force that, had he been depowered by true Kryptonite, his legs would have shattered) and walk up to Luthor, whom was meanwhile waiting for some sign that Superman was being effected (sweat, wasn't it?). It didn't affect him immediately by any means.
Some time and immediately are two different things.

[David Atkins]

Some time and immediately are two different things.

Very astute.

Where 'Some time' implies an indefinite length of time, 'immediately' means 'without lapse of time or delay.' Clearly, therefore, Superman had 'some time' as he did not feel the effects of the Kryptonite-like continent 'immediately.'

[Ontir]

Oh good lord! What's the definition of "is?"

He was able to fly to the growing continent and land with great force. He walked a bit, strolled up the stairs, and had a brief conversation with Luthor, who was watching for the affect of the K-laced crystals. He saw his evidence in the form of a bead of sweat, and knocked Superman on his ass, at which point, the others joined in. Being vulnerable, he got the snot kicked out of him, leading to the point that Luthor shanked him with a piece of pure Kryptonite, and let him fall into the drink!

[Hellcow]

Not necessarily.

Normal pregnancies take anywhere from 8-10 months.

Presumably, Superman left earth within a week or two of sleeping with Lois and more than likely, days.

And I'm under the impression that Lois hooked up with Richard almost immediately.

She could have slept with both men in a 7 day period and had a ten month pregnancy.

Also, when it's said that Superman was gone 5 years, I don't take that to mean 60 months. I take that to mean that, by our timeframe, he left sometime in 2001 (maybe even late 2000) and returned sometime in 2006.

It could be 6 years, technically. But people tend to round things off.

If you haven't seen a friend in three weeks, you might say you haven't seen them in a month. If you haven't seen a friend in seven years, you might just say that it's been "over five years" since you saw them.

Well its all within the realms of possibility, but however you work it out, its still a hole in the film. Why? Because it implies that the love Lois has for Superman can't be all that epic, or great. So if she doesn't really care that much for their relationship (beyond a tissy "what have you done for me lately" girlfriend), why should the audience?

And Superman leaving without saying anything... I don't care how much you hate goodbye's, you'd have to say something... It just doesn't ring true.

[J. Robb]

There's no reason to think Lois jumped from Superman to Richard in a short time. She could have even started dating him after Jason was born. The impression I got from the movie is that the only one who might have thought Richard is Jason's father is Jason. And by the end even he knows the truth.

[alextron]

There's holes in Superman Returns the size of Krypton before it was destroyed. Assuming there's another one, I don't think Singer should direct.

[Hellcow]

There's no reason to think Lois jumped from Superman to Richard in a short time. She could have even started dating him after Jason was born. The impression I got from the movie is that the only one who might have thought Richard is Jason's father is Jason. And by the end even he knows the truth.

So is the audience mean't to be surprised to learn that Superman has a son?

[slexicDys]

Enh.

That was a BLAST.

Metallo has had a human body with a Kryptonite heart for over a year DCU time and he's not dead.

So you're claiming that kryptonite in current continuity doesn't affect humans?

Metallo's body is, I assume, designed to withstand kryptonite radiation.

[J. Robb]

So is the audience mean't to be surprised to learn that Superman has a son?
Yes, that's why Richard and Jason's relationship is never clearly defined. The audience was meant to assume Richard was the father, so the piano scene would be a surprise.

[The Batman]

There's holes in Superman Returns the size of Krypton before it was destroyed. Assuming there's another one, I don't think Singer should direct.

... and these planet sized holes would be?

[The Xenos]

You know, all the other plot or physics or super power mythology holes I could look past. The one that gets me is the damn kid. That's the giant white elephant in the room. It was a major part of this film and it just didn't make sense. The whole situation just raises too many questions about the characters themselves. The most logical answers really just made the characters seem unlikeable and not the characters we know.

Superman knocks up Lois and leaves for five years. Not only that, but he erases the memory of them sleeping together. (Or did he?) Lois must have either slept with Jason (or someone) soon after or else she thought it was a miracle birth. What does Lois know and think about the child's father? Does she remember sleeping with Superman? Did she tell Richard? Why won't she marry the man and give Jason a father? Does Jason know who his father is?

These are serious issues that the story should have addressed. OR, if you ask me, they should never even have had the kid in the story in the first place.

Then again, there's also the problem that the end of Superman 2 is where Superman says he'll never leave Earth again and Superman has learned about the dangers of leaving behind those he loves. So much for that lesson.

[The Batman]

The movie is supposed to be based of the Donner Superman and there really is only one, true Donner Superman. Yes he did shoot some of Superman II but not all of it and the final film, from what I understand, is somewhat different from what Richard Lester and the Salkinds ultimately released. If anything the upcoming Donner Cut of Superman II would tell us exactly where Superman Returns is picking up from.

That being said Superman Returns isn't a direct sequel to the Donner film[s] but rather is a thematic one that uses what Donner has established as a "vague history" for the characters. What this means, to me at least, is that we know that Superman is known to the world, he's fought Lex Luthor and put him in jail, he's had some sort of a sexual relationship with Lois and then left in search of Krypton. This is all stuff that we're told in the film.

I agree that the stuff about Lois/Richard/Jason is a bit fuzzy with regards to who knows what and the timeline of it all and maybe there'd have been a clearer way to handle it. We know that Superman didn't leave Lois knowing that she was pregnant nor are we certain about exactly what Richard knows/believes with regards to Jason. For example, given Richard's willingness to let both Lois and Jason visit Superman in the hospital it seems possible that he knows who Jason's biological father really is. Then again, when he asks Lois if she is still in love with Superman he doesn't bring that topic up. I don't know that I see these as plot holes so much as questions that remain to be answered.

[Ontir]

There are 2 Donner Superman films, as you'll see shortly. He shot all of the first, and nearly all of the second. When he was replaced by the Salkinds, who wanted to remove his credit from the film, with Richard Lester finishing the remaining scenes to be shot, the DGA told them that they had to have a larger percent of the film directed by another director, in order to remove the initial director's name. They did re-writes, and shot new scenes to create what we've known as Superman II all these years. Singer was, I believe, intentionally vague on "SR's" continuity with "II," because he knew that Donner was re-creating HIS "II," and when we see that version, what Singer has done will be in continuity with both of Donner's films.

[The Batman]

I'm really excited to see the Donner version of Superman II since what we saw back in the day was good and in Donner's hands it might become great. How much work is being done with the film though? Is all the Lester stuff being taken out? Just how pure of a Donner film will it be?

That being said, for the average movie goer who hasn't seen Superman: The Movie a million times and doesn't spend way too much time posting on comic book messageboards and isn't exactly worried about film to film continuity after 20 years everything they need to know is more or less given to them in the film. Superman came, fought Luthor, was involved with Lois and left to find Krypton.

[Ontir]

As far as I've heard, there are one or two small Lester bits that had to be used, because there wasn't another shot, and some of the stuff is taken from the screentests that Kidder and Reeve did, because it was among the bits not re-shot for the film, and that even scenes that were nearly complete Donner scenes in the final film, are restored to the original scripted version. It should be a real treat!

[3D Master]

Well its all within the realms of possibility, but however you work it out, its still a hole in the film. Why? Because it implies that the love Lois has for Superman can't be all that epic, or great. So if she doesn't really care that much for their relationship (beyond a tissy "what have you done for me lately" girlfriend), why should the audience?

And Superman leaving without saying anything... I don't care how much you hate goodbye's, you'd have to say something... It just doesn't ring true.

Well, having seen Superman 2 on TV recently again after so long, I saw something I had forgotten: at the end of Superman 2, Superman erased Lois' memories of their fling... Which means it isn't a "love Lois has for Superman is...." it's, "Who? What? I had a fling with Superman? WTF!?!?!?!? Huh!?!?"

The next movie should also rather delve into Lois' realization after seeing her son's abilities that indeed she did share Superman's bed, why the hell she can't remember it; and telling Superman what a cur he is/delving into that rather reprehensible act that Superman did.

Which actually means that Lois little "No I didn't love him" might not actually be a lie by the way; in her memories she might not have loved him; because that's something that Superman removed from them.

[J. Robb]

I guess maybe they needed to somehow make it clear in the movie that the events of Superman II didn't necessarily take place. Because a good 90% of the complaints I've read about the movie are by people who assume that bed scene was "the conception".

[aeastwic]

I've read about 1/2 the posts here, so I'm not sure if this was mentioned...but is it possible that Lois knows that Superman is the father of her child, but doesn't remember it happening....but she has some evidence that it was him, even unconciously.

If she remembers in any way that she slept with superman AND knows that no one else could have been the father, then her bitchiness in the movie is the fact that Superman left her, when she knew they had a relationship.

Of maybe she doesn't actually remember, but sub-conciously knows and that is causing her attitude.

But, if she doesn't remember at all, then she must know that there is something up with her and Superman. Why?

At the end of Superman II (either Donner or Lester cut); Superman takes away her memory of their relationship...but not what happened before Lois found out. So Lois was still in love with superman, just she didn't remember that Clark was Superman and she doesn't remember the consumation of that.

However, she must have some idea of where her child came from and Superman was the only person she had any type of relationship from the beginning of Superman: The Movie. I think Lois suspects and has some evidence, but doesn't remember...which is why she is so shrill and mean to Superman when he comes back.


I don't see it as a plot hole though. I suspect if you tried to get inside her character's head, she is someone who has some idea that something happened to her, she has a child but doesn't remember how it happened and somehow ties it to Superman.

[3D Master]

I guess maybe they needed to somehow make it clear in the movie that the events of Superman II didn't necessarily take place. Because a good 90% of the complaints I've read about the movie are by people who assume that bed scene was "the conception".

So... how then do you suppose the conception occurred? Superman really loved Lois, he really wanted a child, he focused his mind, and oops she's pregnant? A conception pretty much requires a bed scene, or a back of the car scene, whatever or wherever the hell it happened doesn't matter: sex had to have been had.

I don't see it as a plot hole though. I suspect if you tried to get inside her character's head, she is someone who has some idea that something happened to her, she has a child but doesn't remember how it happened and somehow ties it to Superman.

The thing is; it hasn't been dealt with. It should have in this movie. If she knew earlier, or at least had suspicions, then she should have been cussing out Superman left and right, not for leaving, but for leaving her while she was pregnant and ignorent of how she got that way, and demanding an answer. If she didn't until the piano, than she should have been cussing Superman and demanding answers out on that lawn after he came out of their son's bed room. And as the film would wind down, Superman would have to say something like; "We'll talk about it later, without Jason present, somewhere more private, and with your fiance there to, so we can put everything in the open." Instead all we get throughout the movie is Lois being pissed off he's back and then somewhat glad he's back and going, "Will you be around?"

"I'll be around."

No, dang it: "We need to ****ing talk! I suspected, I know for sure now. He's your son, but I can't remember doing anything with you that would result in a son. You owe me some fucking answers, buddy! And you better hope I like them!"

The next movie is supposedly more action packed. This was the introspective one. THIS movie is where that introspective: "How the hell did I get knocked up with Superman's kid; I don't remember anything." Or some such should have been dealt with; not prolong it to another movie, and shoehorn it into a movie with a very different theme, while having Lois basically languish about about nothing, and being just passive aggressive for no apparent reason in this one. We should not have to crawl in Lois' character to understand her pissed off state; and second guess all her doubts about her kid, what she does and doesn't know vis-a-vis is conception, and how much that influences her actions and emotions now; the exploration of THAT should have been a big part of this movie. It should have been dealt with. But we just get Superman hanging around the house looking in with x-ray vision and making a couple of sermons about nothing while the real issue; mind-wiping Lois of the act that produced her kid (or not) and what that means isn't being dealt with at all.

Somehow I highly doubt it EVER gets dealt with; it'll probably just stays unaddressed.

[The Batman]

Perhaps even with the events of Superman II, Donner Cut or otherwise, Superman still became involved with Lois without her knowing he's also Clark? Given the events of Superman Returns that seems to be the most likely explanation. At least to me.

Perhaps we're being too rigid in our expectations for the connections between Superman: The Movie, Superman II, and Superman Returns? Is Returns really a direct sequel or a thematic one that puts those movies into a vague history?

[3D Master]

Perhaps even with the events of Superman II, Donner Cut or otherwise, Superman still became involved with Lois without her knowing he's also Clark? Given the events of Superman Returns that seems to be the most likely explanation. At least to me.

Perhaps we're being too rigid in our expectations for the connections between Superman: The Movie, Superman II, and Superman Returns? Is Returns really a direct sequel or a thematic one that puts those movies into a vague history?

We get the same thing; it should have been dealt with. Superman II whatever cut, or no cut at all doesn't matter. The triangle of Lois/Superman/the kid, whether Lois knows or not, how that affects the characters, is too important to just leave unaddressed. Instead we have Lois blabbering about some abandonement issues without any real point to it, and Superman doing some sermons.

Now you get all those reviewers, including the link up there, about how Lois is Lana, some kind of cold-hearted, passive agressive, feminist bitch. The thing is; we don't know exactly what happened to Lois/Jason/Superman. And they're all right; not so much because of Lois, but because we never get to delve into what happened, and how that affected Lois, and what she did, or did not have to deal with. And I say; and it seems that way; if Superman indeed mind-wiped her from what happened, and she suddenly got pregnant from those actions that she can't remember, and he's gone; that she isn't a bitch at all, but a sweet nice person. I'd say she has the right to curse him to hell and back, and even get the police to go lock up Superman in jail; and if criminal court isn't allowed, civil court sue the fuck out of his ass and then some.

[J. Robb]

So... how then do you suppose the conception occurred? Superman really loved Lois, he really wanted a child, he focused his mind, and oops she's pregnant? A conception pretty much requires a bed scene, or a back of the car scene, whatever or wherever the hell it happened doesn't matter: sex had to have been had.
Yes, they obviously concieved a child together. My point was- many people have the impression the bed scene in Superman II was that conception, and I don't think that's true.

[3D Master]

Yes, they obviously concieved a child together. My point was- many people have the impression the bed scene in Superman II was that conception, and I don't think that's true.

It doesn't MATTER! Some bed scene, some back in the car scene, WHATEVER intercourse scene must have occurred in the past of Superman Returns. Where it happened, exactly how it happened doesn't matter. What matters is the result; did Superman like Superman II mind-wipe Lois of the event; and the righteous anger Lois must have felt toward Superman when she found she was pregnant and had not memory of sex with anyone. Or did she hook up White quick enough to think it was him... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. As a result we're stuck with a mess we have no idea about; and a Lois filled with emotions that we don't know the origin of. Depending on what you fill in is the origin; Lois is either a rightly pissed off woman, filled with emotions she can't vent; or just plane a bitch. And it's all because it, and probably the most important introspective thing to deal with in that situation, is not dealt with.

[J. Robb]

I don't think it's that complicated. Superman and Lois obviously had some sort of relationship and she ended up pregnant. The relationship must have quickly soured soon after that, otherwise Superman wouldn't have had trouble leaving without a 'good-bye'. Lois knew who the father was but told no one, possibly for emotional reasons, but probably also because it would endanger the kid.

[The Batman]

It seems pretty clear that Lois knows who Jason's real father is and that she's had a relationship with Superman but not that Superman and Clark Kent are one and the same. When she tells Luthor otherwise, it's simply an effort to protect Jason from a revenge minded Luthor and perhaps an attempt to spare Jason from what will ultimately a complicated and emotional discussion. That Lois doesn't tell Superman right away is because she's not sure she wants him back into her life and when she ultimately does tell him it's a sign that she's ready to have him be a part of her's and it would seem Jason's lives. Hence the change in article title from "Why the World doesn't need Superman?" to "Why the World needs Superman?". When Richard lets them both go see Superman in the hospital it's a way of indicating that he's alright with this and hints at the possibility that he knows who Jason's biological dad is too.

I think that we're trying to do too much with regards to putting Superman Returns in line with Superman: The Movie and Superman II. We're given enough in the movie to put everything together that we absolutely need.

[Mr Obie]

It was a movie, an (adaptation based on a comic)),things were done differently an maybe out side what comic GEEKS would want for a reason.They need more then the few houndred of us hardcore comic readers to go an see the money to justify the cost making it.There for things have to be changed an altered to get a larger audience interested in the movie so you in some form,albiet not the perfect version get to superman on film again in one way shape or form
::end post::

[The Shadow]

wow.

You guys are giving waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much thought to a Superman sex scene.

It's a movie.
Not everything is going to make sense.

Move on.

[The Batman]

I suppose.

But if you think that this is bad, on the DC Messageboards there's someone still campaigning that Mike O'Hearn get the role because Brandon Routh has too much of a vaguely homosexual look about him to play Superman.

[Hellcow]

I suppose.

But if you think that this is bad, on the DC Messageboards there's someone still campaigning that Mike O'Hearn get the role because Brandon Routh has too much of a vaguely homosexual look about him to play Superman.


Yeah, that's just crazy.... Singers the one that needs the boot!

[Eliseu Gouveia]

I agree with 3D Master, the Jason issue was done in an extremely clumsy manner, no explanations on what happened in the past, no >clear< explanation on whether Lois remembers what happened, no explanation why Lois takes so well the fact that Superman got her pregnant, wiped her memory and vanished to Kryotpn without a word....

At least a couple Alex Ross pannels depicting past events in the opening like we got in Spider-man 2 would have sufficed.


Extremely bad writing IMO.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

I agree with 3D Master, the Jason issue was done in an extremely clumsy manner, no explanations on what happened in the past, no >clear< explanation on whether Lois remembers what happened, no explanation why Lois takes so well the fact that Superman got her pregnant, wiped her memory and vanished to Krypton without a word....

At least a couple Alex Ross pannels depicting past events in the opening like we got in Spider-man 2 would have sufficed.


Extremely bad writing IMO.


Bryan Singer doing bad scriptwriting....say it ain't so!!!!!

[West Mantooth]

Lois didn't know Richard wasn't the kid's father until he threw the piano. Look at the expression on her face. She was as shocked as he was.

About their relationship, the movie gave me the impression that after the events of Superman two, Supes tried a relationship with Lois without telling her his secret and got her pregnant then, but left without knowing about his son. I base this on the comment Lois made about already "doing Superman."

I agree that if my scenerio is the truth then a better explanation was required, but that can be easily rectified in the sequel.

[J. Robb]

I agree with 3D Master, the Jason issue was done in an extremely clumsy manner, no explanations on what happened in the past, no >clear< explanation on whether Lois remembers what happened, no explanation why Lois takes so well the fact that Superman got her pregnant, wiped her memory and vanished to Kryotpn without a word....

At least a couple Alex Ross pannels depicting past events in the opening like we got in Spider-man 2 would have sufficed.
The opening text gave the viewer every thing they need to know. Yeah, an origin done in comic form would have been kind of cool, but not really needed. Like I already said, people trying to fit the events of Superman II into the past are creating a problem where there is none.

Just pretend Superman II didn't happen. Especially since in the Donner version, most of it doesn't (as Superman does the "reverse time" trick that ended up being used in the first film instead.)

[3D Master]

Lois didn't know Richard wasn't the kid's father until he threw the piano. Look at the expression on her face. She was as shocked as he was.

Well... I think she knew that Richard wasn't the father; just not (sure) that Superman was. Even if she was sure (by inferrence) that Supes was the daddy, than she'd still be shocked; Jason was weak and could barely breathe after all.

About their relationship, the movie gave me the impression that after the events of Superman two, Supes tried a relationship with Lois without telling her his secret and got her pregnant then, but left without knowing about his son. I base this on the comment Lois made about already "doing Superman."

I agree that if my scenerio is the truth then a better explanation was required, but that can be easily rectified in the sequel.

Yeah, the problem is that it doesn't belong in the sequel, as I said. The sequel is going to be more of an action packed movie; putting that in there is going to stick out like a sore thumb, and once more show that it should have been in SR.

[Joe Acro]

Just pretend Superman II didn't happen. Especially since in the Donner version, most of it doesn't (as Superman does the "reverse time" trick that ended up being used in the first film instead.)
{shivers} That actually makes me not want to see his version of the film.

I generally have tried to just assume it has its own continuity, not that your comment was aimed at me. It would be unreasonable to consider otherwise.

[West Mantooth]

Yeah, the problem is that it doesn't belong in the sequel, as I said. The sequel is going to be more of an action packed movie; putting that in there is going to stick out like a sore thumb, and once more show that it should have been in SR.

Not really, Lois and Supes need to have a conversation about Jason. As really brief " I should have told you everything conversation" wouldn't be out of line. Returns was about Supes fitting back into the world at large. Now it's about fitting into Lois and Jason's world.

[The Batman]

Any sequel to Superman Returns can easily have heart and action. It's not an either/or proposition. Wrath of Khan had a great space battle between Kirk and Khan but it also had moments with Kirk finding out he had a son (sounds familiar) and mourning Spock and dealing with mortality.

[3D Master]

Not really, Lois and Supes need to have a conversation about Jason. As really brief " I should have told you everything conversation" wouldn't be out of line. Returns was about Supes fitting back into the world at large. Now it's about fitting into Lois and Jason's world.

Which would stick out like a sore thumb, like I said, and you get; why the hell wasn't this in SR where it belons?

[The Batman]

At the beginning of Superman Returns Lois is hurt and angry with Superman because he left without really saying goodbye and she really doesn't want him back in her life. The evidence for this is in her article "Why the world doesn't need Superman" and her unwillingness to work on a story about Superman's return.

Superman tries to re-insert himself into Lois's life, right or wrong it's a very human thing to do on Superman's part, and we see for ourselves that Lois still has feelings for Superman, she almost kisses him, but she seems either unwilling or unable to forgive him and there is also her feelings for Richard White. It shouldn't too surprising to us that Lois still has feelings for Superman given her attitude towards him. It seems that the people we love the most are also the ones that can hurt us the most and make us the most angry and that's what seems to be going on with Lois here. That she didn't tell him about Jason also tells us that she's not ready to let the Man of Stell back into her life yet.

It's when Lois goes back to save Superman and later visits him in the hospital that her character arc for this film reaches it's end. She's able to forgive Superman and let him back into her life, perhaps not as lover but he will be around, and she tells him that Jason is his son.

The characters actions are telling us what they're thinking and feeling. If the characters told us exactly how they felt that would be some dreadful dialogue I think. This movie was about Superman finding a place in the world and in Lois's life, the next one will, hopefully, explore the ramifications of what this place is.

[Ontir]

She wrote the article as a means of moving on. She's trying to get past the pain of his disappearance, and focus on her life with Richard. When Superman reappears, she's confused. The feelings she'd been working hard to bury are forced to the surface, even more so, by the events on Luthor's yacht. The tragedy is that Superman chose to pursue what he wanted, over what he needed. Had he stayed, he'd have had both. Lois is now in a position where she has to choose what she needs - a stable life for herself and her son, with a steady, good, dependable father/husband. Superman, by virtue of who he is, can never be that, and ultimately he knows this. That's why he accepts his place as "Jor-el" to his son, while Richard becomes "Jonathan."

[The Batman]

What Superman Returns did not need was a scene where Superman and Lois discuss partental visitation rights and work out which weekends Jason stays with Richard and Lois at the lakehouse and which weekends he's with Superman at the Fortress of Solitude.

Though, that could be kind of funny . . .

[3D Master]

At the beginning of Superman Returns Lois is hurt and angry with Superman because he left without really saying goodbye and she really doesn't want him back in her life. The evidence for this is in her article "Why the world doesn't need Superman" and her unwillingness to work on a story about Superman's return.

Superman tries to re-insert himself into Lois's life, right or wrong it's a very human thing to do on Superman's part, and we see for ourselves that Lois still has feelings for Superman, she almost kisses him, but she seems either unwilling or unable to forgive him and there is also her feelings for Richard White. It shouldn't too surprising to us that Lois still has feelings for Superman given her attitude towards him. It seems that the people we love the most are also the ones that can hurt us the most and make us the most angry and that's what seems to be going on with Lois here. That she didn't tell him about Jason also tells us that she's not ready to let the Man of Stell back into her life yet.

It's when Lois goes back to save Superman and later visits him in the hospital that her character arc for this film reaches it's end. She's able to forgive Superman and let him back into her life, perhaps not as lover but he will be around, and she tells him that Jason is his son.

The characters actions are telling us what they're thinking and feeling. If the characters told us exactly how they felt that would be some dreadful dialogue I think. This movie was about Superman finding a place in the world and in Lois's life, the next one will, hopefully, explore the ramifications of what this place is.

Which makes her the angry bitch from hell Lois = Lana from the supermanhompage review. If she's pissed off however about how he left her with a kid she didn't know how she got until she pieces things together, than things are quite different. That's the problem; your idea of Lois and the result what she is; comes from a view of Lois and Superman's past; a different look at their past paints another very different picture; and as long as we don't know that past, and the exact circumostances of their breakup and the conception of Jason, we cannot properly classify what's going on. Did they breakup and then Superman left. Did Lois want this breakup. Did Superman just up and lift in the middle of their relationship. Did he like Superman II says and this movie being a somewhat sequel that's a valid question erase her memories and she pieces things together because of her pregnancy.

Notice very carefully, that this has nothing to do with them telling heir emotions to each other (which they were doing enough of anyway, just circling around the point than actually getting to it, which made it even more dreary than it would have been, but that's another point altogehter); this a question about; WHAT HAPPENED THEN.

[Ontir]

What Superman Returns did not need was a scene where Superman and Lois discuss partental visitation rights and work out which weekends Jason stays with Richard and Lois at the lakehouse and which weekends he's with Superman at the Fortress of Solitude.

Though, that could be kind of funny . . .

It would be really interesting to see the handoff of Jason to "Kal," which is probably how he'd be known to Jason, with weekends at the Fortress of Solitude, possibly visiting with "Grandma Kal."

[The Batman]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're creating alot of these problems for yourself by trying to tie this movie into the other two far too closely. Superman and Lois had a relationship, not in the highschool going steady promise rings sort of way but a relationship based on an emotional connection that obviously had a sexual component. Then, Superman left in search of Krypton and Lois, pregnant with his child, eventually moved on. Or so she thought.

All stuff we we're given in the movie. If we were supposed to know about erased memories or turned back time we'd have been told about it.

[3D Master]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're creating alot of these problems for yourself by trying to tie this movie into the other two far too closely. Superman and Lois had a relationship, not in the highschool going steady promise rings sort of way but a relationship based on an emotional connection that obviously had a sexual component. Then, Superman left in search of Krypton and Lois, pregnant with his child, eventually moved on. Or so she thought.

All stuff we we're given in the movie. If we were supposed to know about erased memories or turned back time we'd have been told about it.

Again, we don't know WHAT happened. That's the problem, and has nothing to do with Superman II. We don't know whether the relationship was over when he left, we don't know if it was still going on and he was just gone. We don't even know if Lois always knew the kid was Supes' or if she really thought it was Richard's. We DON'T know, and as a result we can't properly classify Lois; and that resulted in people looking at Lois like a callous, ungrateful bitch, like I said, like the review linked above on Supermanhomepage. Your interpretation seems rather close to his of what happaned; and as a result you get the bitchy Lois view. Might be a correct view of the Superman/Lois past and Lois now; but we don't KNOW, because it's not DEALT WITH, not shown, not told. We've only got a few vague hints; hell we barely even got that, at what might or might not have happened five years earlier. This should have been shown, told, dealt with. That's why this movie feels to so many people like it has a big hole in the middle, like somebody cut out its heart. This is probably THE singular most important part of the movie; what happened in the past which resulted in offspring, and it's never dealt with.

And why? So we can have "surprise, surprise" Jason as super strength.

[The Batman]

I'm sorry, I really don't know what to tell you. I felt that enough was told, shown, and implied to the viewer that they'd be able to put the whole story together. I certainly felt that I was given enough for everything to make sense.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Not addressing the relationship they had prior to the journey to Krypton is an omission that hurts the very core of the story Singer is trying to tell.

Were they lovers?
Just friends who had a one-night stand?
Had Superman proposed to her or the other way around?
Nothing is said, just vague nods and innuendos, leaving us wondering why Lois is in the state she is.

This is what destroys the character´s credibility and makes her look unsympathetic to the viewer,
SInger is affraid to side with either camp and as a result, hurts both characters.

[West Mantooth]

Why do people seem to be under the empression that Lois knew it was Supes son? I understand the complaints about the vague history (which could be a hook to bring people back to find out!), but the most obvious point was that Lois thought it was Richard's kid. In that speech to Clark outside the Planet, she was upset that he didn't tell her he was leaving. Those aren't the emotions of someone left while pregnant.

[J. Robb]

Why do people seem to be under the empression that Lois knew it was Supes son?
I just think it's safe to assume Lois Lane isn't the type of woman that has to go on "Maury" to find out who her baby's daddy is.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

That´s another issue that´s left out in the open for us to find out by reading extremelly vague innuendos and force us to make assumptions without palpable evidence.

Did Lois knew it was Supes´baby? Didn´t she?
There is no evidence throughout the whole movie to confirm either hypothesis.

A huge flaw if you consider that this whole movie gravitates around their relationship .... which may or may not have ocurred since.......... we don´t know.

[Piccolo]

Okay, I saw one other poster mention it, but the Pullitzer item on Lois' desk is an invitation, not a plaque. She had written the "why the world doesn't need superman" article in the last year, and was slated to attend the prize ceremony at a later time.

On the Lois/Supes/fiance/kid subject: It was my impression that the memory wipe performed on Lois not only affected the her knowledge of Superman's identity, but also the depth of their relationship, probably back to the "crush" phase she had developed after her initial interview and their flight together in Superman 1. If this was the case, then it would not be out of the ordinary to assume she began a relationship with her current fiance soon after the events of Superman 2. I have a few reasons for believing this: Her surprise after the piano incident and the way she acted throughout the movie was not like a jilted lover, but like someone who found out their hero wasn't all they had believed. (Like a kid finding out his favorite baseball player is an @##hole in real life). Also, the fact is, she is supposed to be an intrepid, award winning reporter, who would probably be able to figure out something was wrong if she one day woke up pregnant.

I think that by the end of "Returns", those feelings she had from the first movie were starting to resurface, and she knew that something more had happened between them than she suspected. Who knows, maybe they will explain it all in the next movie, then again, maybe not.

[xzilledangel]

I see a few people have addressed a concern the fact that people, including myself, link superman 2 as the predacessor for superman returns. And really and truly you cant just say superman 2 never happened simply because the name of this movie is Superman RETURNS. You need a previous connection to make your triumphant return.

If want to totaly discount II then you must get rid of the first superman movie as well. If you do that Superman returns has no legs to stand on and represents a short story turned into a movie. It has no begining and no real end just the middle of the story.

I had lots of problems with this movie as far as the story went. The special effects were pretty good though the lifting of the continent needed some more camera angles to really show the depth of this scene. It fell pretty flat for me personaly.

My biggest quip with this movie was the fact that Superman came back and found out he of all people had a son with the woman he secretly loved. If you again use the first 2 movies as your starting point for how supes feels about louis, didnt his reaction seem completely out of character. I mean he is a character that had a strong relationship with his surrogate father, a father that he lost. Also superman is supposed to be the Ultimate virtous guy alien or not, but the movie had him portrayed as just another deadbeat guy in america. Wow impressive.

I dont know if it was singers fault or not but the story was flat,clumsy and full of holes if you use your starting basis or not. It cant stand alone as a movie without the first 2 movies and as a continuation of those movies it fails.

[thanos5]

I think that what makes me so upset about these movie is that fact that there are alot of holes yes but those holes hurt the chacter of Superman.
1. He takes a woman up to his place in Superman 2 because he is looking to score. Then he flys all around the world to get flowers and food to get his mack on and does not get any birth control. What????? There is no way that anyone that saw Superman 2 can't say that he wasn't trying to get her to sleep with him. I always believed that they did have birth control and if they didn't have any then why did he do it, not a very good role model. Plus he never looked her over with his xray vison to see if she was ok after that fight in the fortress. NOT ONCE!!!! not at all. Please. If my girl was just taken from New York to the North Pole by force, I that I might give her a one over.
2. He tries to break up Lois and Richard on top of the Daily Panet by putting the moves on her again. He goes and spys outside of the house to see if she still loves him and then when he hears that she might he has her meat him on top of the Planet to try and get her back. This is a big one for me and please don't say that he was there for a interview because he tried to kiss here first. She stopped it because she believed that she had a family to go back too. That one moment let everyone know that she believed that kid was Richards. Sorry she did and if she had know then and does not tell him there she is a bitch. But this does not change the fact that it makes him look like a Jerk who just tried to break up a happy home with a sick kid.

[PatrickG]

Why does discounting SUPERMAN II discount SUPERMAN THE MOVIE?

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Yeah, the child subplot really hurts the Superman character.
Whichever angle you take it, Superman does not come off as a decent person in this movie... and DEFINITELLY not a role model..

[J. Robb]

If want to totaly discount II then you must get rid of the first superman movie as well.
Nope.

(Apparently I'm not allowed one word posts, but really, there's nothing else to say.)

[Hulk Strongest One]

The holes in Superman Returns consist of these:

He has a spaceship that we see once, with no explanation of where it came from.

But of obvious Kryptonian design. I just assumed he found it among the rubble then rode it back for ease. Or maybe he whipped it up from his Fortress databases. A small issue.

Was that heat vision he used to separate the shuttle. (This isn't a plot hole, just something I want explained.)

Yes.

Lois apparently hooked up with Richard immediately after Supes left and was intimate. (This is what, I believe, ComicTom was referring to.) This seems entirely out of character.

Yes. The overlap with the end of II is somewhat fuzzy -- at the end of II, she had her mind wiped of her relationship with Superman, and forgot that Clarke was Superman.

Yet in this, it was as if that little part didn't happen, and that, instead, he just disappeared. So it really appears that not only did movies III and IV not happen, but the last 5 minutes or so of II didn't happen, either.

Lois has already won the Pulitzer and has a plaque to show this, yet she has to go receive her Pulitzer during the movie. (Maybe this just requires someone explaining the award process of Pulitzers to me.)

The formal awards ceremony might give her another plaque, or a dummy plaque (like your HS graduation "diploma" is just a rolled up blank sheet) or maybe that's the one they sent to the newspaper for them to display.

The writers act like the fire from pipes only goes in one direction.

Down a particular pipe, perhaps.

Superman is weakened by just standing on the Kryptonite continent, but can lift it from it's base and throw it into space, despite Kryptonite branching through the ground, towards his face and hands.

He dug enough bedrock up such that he was protected by the bedrock layer. As he lifts it up, some starts growing through. It does affect him, but he gives every last ounce of effort, and falls, dead, heart stopped, after one final push.

The Daily Planet is re-setup pretty fast and efficiently. The globe is even back on top of the building.

Well, we don't know how long he was out -- presumably they didn't make it "3 days dead" to avoid being too obvious about it. Perhaps he was "dead" for a few weeks.

And yes, a few days might be mighty quick to get the planet globe back up, given there would be many more important uses for cranes in the city for the first few months.

And wasn't the globe unreasonably heavy for a decorative piece atop a tall building? It should have barely dented the top of the car when Supes put it down (though it would still be deadly to land on a person.)

[Hulk Strongest One]

Quite honestly, I'm shocked that so many of you are complaining about things that are easily explainable.

Firstly, about the island. i've seen some people complain and say "if Lex drowns america, isn't he killing the buyers of his land?" ...NO. he clearly states IN THE MOVIE, that surrounding countries would be his main customers. A lot of people are also calling it a "Kryptonite Island" ...seriously, did NO ONE but me notice that it's not a big hunk of kryptonite? I feel like i'm the only one with eyes... it only had PEICES of kryptonite exposed because it was laced with the kryptonite cylinder he put the crystal in. but most of the island was not Kryptinite at all.

I see this too. A lot of people are confused on this.

The crystal adopts the form of the crystals/rocks around it. This was why the Fortress of Solitude was made of ice or ice-like crystals -- the green one landed on ice.

Lex planned and knew the crystal would grow and multiply the bedrock or whatever he threw it into. He placed a machined kryptonite cylinder around it, so the new island would have kryptonite all bound up all through it -- so that Superman could not attack or invade.

And the island grew true to form -- mainly bedrock, but with kryptonite veins running all through it.

The island, though, was NOT pure kryptonite, so theories of it being some weird kryptonite only visible at night time or with special glasses or whatever is wrong.

[Hulk Strongest One]

Did you just suggest that Batman Begins stretches credibility?

Actually, now that you ask, why yes, that the best trained fighter who ever lived could beat up five thugs simultaneously, does indeed strain credulity quite a bit.

That's why these are comics with heroes, and not real life.

[West Mantooth]

1. He takes a woman up to his place in Superman 2 because he is looking to score. Then he flys all around the world to get flowers and food to get his mack on and does not get any birth control. What????? There is no way that anyone that saw Superman 2 can't say that he wasn't trying to get her to sleep with him. I always believed that they did have birth control and if they didn't have any then why did he do it, not a very good role model. Plus he never looked her over with his xray vison to see if she was ok after that fight in the fortress. NOT ONCE!!!! not at all. Please. If my girl was just taken from New York to the North Pole by force, I that I might give her a one over.
2. He tries to break up Lois and Richard on top of the Daily Panet by putting the moves on her again. He goes and spys outside of the house to see if she still loves him and then when he hears that she might he has her meat him on top of the Planet to try and get her back. This is a big one for me and please don't say that he was there for a interview because he tried to kiss here first. She stopped it because she believed that she had a family to go back too. That one moment let everyone know that she believed that kid was Richards. Sorry she did and if she had know then and does not tell him there she is a bitch. But this does not change the fact that it makes him look like a Jerk who just tried to break up a happy home with a sick kid.

1.Really. I don't think about whether or not a character wears a condom when I watch a movie unless it's important to the story. The kid is an idea developed twenty years later.

2. I think you misread this area. He didn't go to the house to see if she still loved him. He went to see how she was doing and overheard it. They both stopped on top of the Planet. They both understood that whatever feelings they had, they couldn't act on them. He went on top of the Planet to explain himself. When she dropped the cigarettes, he realized she was going up to smoke and took the opportunity to talk to her.

[Hellcow]

Its funny on a thread about the holes in the superman film, how many posters are desperately trying to plug those holes. And sure they play it casual, and sure they pretend they're not fussed, but here they are pluggin away.....

[Ontir]

It's funny that months on, after the film is out of first-run, even in LA, that people are still going out of their way to tear it down.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

People are just venting their anger and frustration.
i´m sure everyone who posts is or was a fan of the character and had great dreams and expectations.

It´s not fun to watch a character you liked turned into a deadbeat dad:

"- I´ll be around."

<- rolls eyes

[Ontir]

The "deadbeat Dad" thing is just crap!

He didn't walk out on his child. He didn't know that the child existed. If he'd made no attempt to be in the child's life, THEN he'd be a deadbeat! What exactly is he supposed to do in that situation? Remove Richard, the only father Jason's ever known? The situation is complex, and can't be fixed with some simplistic wave of a wand. It's also an intentional duplication of Clark's upbringing. "I'm always around.", which is what he says, repeating a line from earlier in the film, after claiming his son, quoting Jor-el, is letting Lois know that he's going to be a part of his son's life, though he can't be the kind of father (read "Jonathan Kent") he'd like to be, because of the demands the world places upon him, and so he must be "Jor-el."

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Unfortunatelly, the vibe you get IS of a deadbeat dad, soiling the name of a character who should be above that crap.

The situation should not have been raised/written in the first place, if it wasn´t to be explored properly (which is wasn´t).
So, this film serves just as a vehicle for Singer to vent out his childhood issues at the expense of an icon, leaving us all out hanging.

[The Batman]

I didn't get that vibe at all. I have a deadbeat dad and I know what a deadbeat dad is like. As soon as Superman found out that Jason was his son he goes to see him. When he says "I'll be around" what he's saying is "I'll be here for whatever you and Jason want or need Lois". They didn't have him say that because they wanted to be a little more subtle and not so on the nose about things.

I suppose they should've just had Superman and Lois sit down and hammer out a visitation schedule and decide on child support and who gets the kid on Christmas just so people wouldn't be calling Supes a deadbeat.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

No, they shouldn´t have created the damn kid to begin with.

DC is extremelly uptight when regarding morals (they won´t have WW sleep with anyone until she´s married, just like Superman was) and yet they´re okay with his movie incarnation having an ilegitimate son?

[The Batman]

Warner Bros. is ok with it. They made the movie and they own DC so I imagine that even if DC had a problem with it there wasn't much thet could really do about it.

Besides, premarital sex and children out of wedlock are hardly the social taboos they once were.

[Ontir]

Unfortunatelly, the vibe you get IS of a deadbeat dad, soiling the name of a character who should be above that crap.

The situation should not have been raised/written in the first place, if it wasn´t to be explored properly (which is wasn´t).
So, this film serves just as a vehicle for Singer to vent out his childhood issues at the expense of an icon, leaving us all out hanging.

No, that's not at all the vibe. He doesn't and didn't run out on his son. He and Lois aren't and can't be together; but that is in no way equivalent to being a deadbeat dad. If it were, then every non-custodial parent is a deadbeat dad or mom, and if you think that's the case, you're seriously deluded.

[J. Robb]

"Superman Returns" left a lot unsaid. That works great with some movies, it still tells a story, but allows viewers to fill in the blanks and can provide completely different viewing experiences for different viewers, which is kind of cool.

I liked SR, but I do believe it left a little too much unsaid. A lot of interview reviews I read filled in those "blanks" with some pretty negative stuff, mostly due to their belief this was a straight sequel to Superman II. Some of that negativity could have been countered with a little bit more information. I wouldn't want the entire movie dumbed down like most summer blockbusters, I like that there are multiple interpretations of the story, but a little more help for those who immediately assume the worst of people (even superheroes) probably would have been a good thing.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Unfortunatelly, the vibe you get IS of a deadbeat dad, soiling the name of a character who should be above that crap.


You might want to be careful about throwing around terms like deadbeat dad because you clearly have no idea what that term means.

A deadbeat dad abandons his child and refuses to take responsibility as a parent, either emotionally or financially. In the film, Superman didn't even know he had a child until the end of the film and, once he does find out, immediately flies to his son's side to assure him that he would always be there for him. The final line, "I'll be around" to Lois is a reaffirmation of this.

So, whatever "vibe" you're getting is your own horribly warped view and has very little bearing on what the film portrayed or what the vast majority of audiences saw. Keep in mind, I wasn't that big a fan of the film either, but I don't have to invent ridiculous fabrications like "Superman is a deadbeat dad" to justify my dislike of the film.

[J. Robb]

A deadbeat dad abandons his child and refuses to take responsibility as a parent, either emotionally or financially. In the film, Superman didn't even know he had a child until the end of the film and, once he does find out, immediately flies to his son's side to assure him that he would always be there for him. The final line, "I'll be around" to Lois is a reaffirmation of this.
I like to assume he knew Jason was his son the moment he saw the picture. Why? Just because he's Superman. And also because the guy in the picture (Richard) seemed to be an afterthought to him ("Wait... she's married?")

Superman doesn't confront Lois about Jason because he doesn't want to intrude on her new life, he waits to be invited. And that, I think, is basically what the "whisper" at the end was.

I realize not many agree with my interpretation, but I think it's cool that the movie works either way.