Superman Returns

[NovaStar]

Re: Superman Returns

They never indicate that the general public's feelings are in line with Lois's to begin with though. There's no backlash, and you never see it. Lois's feelings don't seem to come from any ideological viewpoint, they come from personal feelings of desertion. So her own feelings cannot reflect those of the general public, since there's a personal element involved. If the director tried to express the general public's feelings toward Superman through Lois, it was a bad move on his part, and it was ineffective.

As for Clark sifting through the channels on the TV to see how the world has changed, it's only a passing reference, one that should have been made more out of, especially to establish the NEED for Superman. As it is, Superman's presence is pretty much a non-factor to the audience. It doesn't seem like his departure and return was anything of significance, and so his return feels ultimately empty.

There are quite a few superhero movies that address these issues and do it far more effectively, IMHO. Batman Begins for one, is a comic book movie, yet it is a movie that uses these ideas as the narrative focus. So the excuse that Superman Returns is just a comic book movie, so it can't be expected to address these topics, is a poor one at that.

I initially thought that as Squint did, that to include the things that you suggested would have been a bit heavy handed for Superman(or a comic to movie project). But after reading your response I agree, both Batman and the X-men do quite an effective job of combining social delimma's with fantasy settings. I think Spiderman 2 did a great job of it especially with the scene on the subway when they pull his mask off. Yeah, that is what this movie was missing that moral issue or social hook to pull you in. I basically ended up watching this movie for the special effects more so than anything else. Good analysis Neomatrix.

[JayBee74]

Re: Superman Returns

In effect both he and lois were human at the time of the conception of the child, he would have had no powers to pass. It would seem almost impossible for his DNA to not have been the medium for his change from Kryptonian to Human. And what was up with the kid having asthma? Was that psychosymatic?

Any pure Kryptonian will be "super powered" by the earth's yellow sun, so there is no telling what powers or degrees of power a "Earthtonian" hybrid would recieve from our solar radiation. As much as I did not like this movie, the possibilities for it's sequel are interesting.

[SonicMage]

Re: Superman Returns

Theory: The kid is actually the son of Cyclops and Jean-Grey, and the piano was not moved by brute strength, but rather by his inherited tele-kinetic powers.

As we all know, Cyclops is the father raising the child, supressing his mutant genes for the time-being. I think he impregnated Jean-Grey, who tele-kinetically moved the fetus from her own womb into Lois Lane's.

Just a thought.

On a serious note, I did not understand the situation with the kid at all. He stops Mommy from being beat up, but God forbid they are all drowning in a sinking ship and he does not muster the same power to open the frickin' jammed door.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Superman Returns

What's up Neo, good to hear from you. I haven't chatted with you since our Matrix discussion. Remember my question.."Trinity ressurrected Neo, Neo resurrected Trinity, what resurrected Mr. Smith?" I know off topic, but I just recently saw the Matrix and I thought about you. At anyrate, When superman went into the chamber (in the second movie) he was warned by his father that he would be human, suffer like them, die like them etc...and that the process was irrereversible. It would have been after that, that he and lois produced the child. I am saying that the Sun gives superman his power, once he went throught the human processing he would have had no power to pass. In effect both he and lois were human at the time of the conception of the child, he would have had no powers to pass. It would seem almost impossible for his DNA to not have been the medium for his change from Kryptonian to Human. And what was up with the kid having asthma? Was that psychosymatic?

Hmm, regarding the Matrix question are you talking about Smith's resurrection and his return in Reloaded? Technically, Neo "resurrected" Smith, because Smith is Neo. He's the counterpart, his ego because when Neo entered Smith, he was attempting to delete him, but in that process, he lost some bits as well, which ended up in Smith as the personification of Neo's ego. Something to that effect. Haven't seen the Matrix trilogy in a while, but that's pretty much what I think it was.

As far as Superman's becoming human is concerned... how was that reversed if it was irreversible? I don't think they explained the mechanism of how Superman became human, but I would think his ACTUAL genetic makeup doesn't change, it's just the genes that are expressed that change.

Think of it this way: Not all cells in the body are identical. Some lack mitochondria, some are multinucleated, some aren't, etc. Yet, this isn't because of different genetic makeup, it's that certain genes in the cell's DNA are either activated or inactivated. I think more or less, that's how Superman became human. The genes that made him Superman were "turned off", but he could still pass those genes on to his progeny where they might be active.

[cake612]

Re: Superman Returns

I've never been a big Superman fan but I did enjoy the movie. That said sometimes he's just too super if that makes any sense. There really isn't enough drama and wondering how he'll get out of a certain situation. He can fly, has super strength, can put out huge fires with his breath, is bulletproof etc. I've always been a big Batman fan because he's really just a guy in a suit who knows how to fight.


**SPOILER**

The scene where Luthor beats the crap out of him was pathetic, he's Superman, one punch from an old bald guy sends him flying and then three scrubs with tatoos beat the crap out of him. I know he loses his powers and everything but come one, do something, you can't make him that useless and pathetic.


**END SPOILER**

Overall I liked the movie, I heard it was good not great so I didn't go in with super high expectations and I liked it well enough.

[SonicMage]

Re: Superman Returns

Think of it this way: Not all cells in the body are identical. Some lack mitochondria, some are multinucleated, some aren't, etc. Yet, this isn't because of different genetic makeup, it's that certain genes in the cell's DNA are either activated or inactivated. I think more or less, that's how Superman became human. The genes that made him Superman were "turned off", but he could still pass those genes on to his progeny where they might be active.

I always get irritated when a plot device in a movie involving fantasy tries to be scientifically explained (metachlorians, anyone?). Just use a little suspension of disbelief, keep fantasy as fantasy.

Screenplay of Superman II: "Glowing, flashing red light takes away Superman's powers", not "Glowing red source of radiation disables the membranes in Superman's cellular structure from being physically enhanced by the Sun's UV rays"

Also, remember that we still don't actually know that the kid is supposed to be Superman's kid. This fact is never shown or told to us, Lois has revealed nothing. Singer has portrayed this situation as still being an unsolved mystery to this point, but he obviously wants us to think about the possibility of it. We never actually "see" the kid push the piano either so we don't know how or "if" he did it.

[EWRMETS]

Re: Superman Returns

**SPOILER**

The scene where Luthor beats the crap out of him was pathetic, he's Superman, one punch from an old bald guy sends him flying and then three scrubs with tatoos beat the crap out of him. I know he loses his powers and everything but come one, do something, you can't make him that useless and pathetic.


**END SPOILER**

Kryptonite does that to Superman.

[EWRMETS]

Re: Superman Returns

Thought this was a very good and entertaining movie. It really seemed like a Richard Donner movie with Christopher Reeve playing Superman. I guess I can understand the criticisms but I don't think it's fair to compare this to Batman Begins or Spiderman because those are flawed characters, while Superman is perfect.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Superman Returns

I always get irritated when a plot device in a movie involving fantasy tries to be scientifically explained (metachlorians, anyone?). Just use a little suspension of disbelief, keep fantasy as fantasy.

Screenplay of Superman II: "Glowing, flashing red light takes away Superman's powers", not "Glowing red source of radiation disables the membranes in Superman's cellular structure from being physically enhanced by the Sun's UV rays"

Also, remember that we still don't actually know that the kid is supposed to be Superman's kid. This fact is never shown or told to us, Lois has revealed nothing. Singer has portrayed this situation as still being an unsolved mystery to this point, but he obviously wants us to think about the possibility of it. We never actually "see" the kid push the piano either so we don't know how or "if" he did it.

I hope you're kidding about that last paragraph. It was plain as day that the kid is Superman's. It doesn't have to be explicitly said, even though it pretty much WAS. Why else would Superman give his spiel about the father becoming the son, etc. to the kid if Lois didn't whisper that to him in the first place? Not to mention there's no other explanation for the piano scene.

In any case, I was just offering a possible explanation for how Superman could have passed his genes on to his kid since people were expressing disbelief over it (although I find that disbelief to be rather unjustified). Unless the mechanism for Superman becoming human was mentioned in any of the movies, it's really irrelevant to begin with, as Superman passing on his genes doesn't violate any internal logic within the films to begin with. However IF a mechanism was stated, then the film WOULD need to address it. Suspension of disbelief doesn't work in that instance.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Superman Returns

Thought this was a very good and entertaining movie. It really seemed like a Richard Donner movie with Christopher Reeve playing Superman. I guess I can understand the criticisms but I don't think it's fair to compare this to Batman Begins or Spiderman because those are flawed characters, while Superman is perfect.

The source of the complaints isn't about the characters, so that point is moot.

The source of the complaints is about the way the plot is structured, and how to make Superman relevant. They didn't approach it the right way, and as a result the film feels hollow when it shouldn't.

[SonicMage]

Re: Superman Returns

I hope you're kidding about that last paragraph. It was plain as day that the kid is Superman's. It doesn't have to be explicitly said, even though it pretty much WAS. Why else would Superman give his spiel about the father becoming the son, etc. to the kid if Lois didn't whisper that to him in the first place?

Really? I thought that Lois was whispering to Superman that she still loves him and didn't want the kid to hear because that would be devastating to the emotional state of a child. From there, Superman must assume something about the child being his son, and if you've ever seen any daytime talk shows, men can make many mistakes about that assumption.

Not to mention there's no other explanation for the piano scene.

Kryptonite transfers superpowers to vulnerable kids who suffer from asthma. After all, Luthor had just shoved some right in his face minutes before. I just wrote another explanation. Stupid? Yes, but feasible. That kind of explanation happens all the time in movies and comic books alike. You have to remember, this is the same director of the movie where all signs point to Gabriel Byrne being one of the most ruthless criminals in the world with a long drawn out conclusion by the movie's detective, but then, WHOOSH, it turned out to be the gimp telling the story with a complex lie all along. No conclusion is certain, unless the audience is told, not "implied".

This movie, much like the Matrix movies, was certainly not written by any grand philosopher and probably does not warrant this much in-depth analysis. I'd bet that those writers would look at religious and social commentaries about their works such as yours and say to themselves, "Wow, somebody actually swallowed my written-over-a-lunch-break BS to be interpreted as this much an important piece to society?", much like the look that appears on Stan Lee's face when some naive kid asks him about Spiderman like its the second coming of Christ. Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

[NovaStar]

Re: Superman Returns

Really? I thought that Lois was whispering to Superman that she still loves him and didn't want the kid to hear because that would be devastating to the emotional state of a child. From there, Superman must assume something about the child being his son, and if you've ever seen any daytime talk shows, men can make many mistakes about that assumption.



Kryptonite transfers superpowers to vulnerable kids who suffer from asthma. After all, Luthor had just shoved some right in his face minutes before. I just wrote another explanation. Stupid? Yes, but feasible. That kind of explanation happens all the time in movies and comic books alike. You have to remember, this is the same director of the movie where all signs point to Gabriel Byrne being one of the most ruthless criminals in the world with a long drawn out conclusion by the movie's detective, but then, WHOOSH, it turned out to be the gimp telling the story with a complex lie all along. No conclusion is certain, unless the audience is told, not "implied".

This movie, much like the Matrix movies, was certainly not written by any grand philosopher and probably does not warrant this much in-depth analysis. I'd bet that those writers would look at religious and social commentaries about their works such as yours and say to themselves, "Wow, somebody actually swallowed my written-over-a-lunch-break BS to be interpreted as this much an important piece to society?", much like the look that appears on Stan Lee's face when some naive kid asks him about Spiderman like its the second coming of Christ. Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Yeah, you sound a little cynical...just joking. Well, I don't think Neo over analyzed the movie, he took what the movie was attempting to give, they just didn't give it in the most effective way (strictly opinion of course). The kid is definitely superman's, remember when lex asked Lois "was she sure the kid's was Ricky's" he was looking through the Kryptonite sphere and noticed something that made him ask the question. There is always alot of symbolism imbedded in movies if you look close enough. Like the part when superman tosses the Kryptonite land into space, right before he starts to fall back to earth he stretches out his hands like he was Jesus on the cross. Am I being overly analytical...maybe but it was obvious what the director was going far. He had just sacrificed himself for the billions of people on the east coast.

So I think Stan Lee and all the other creators of these movies stick alot of moral and social easter eggs in their movies, you just have to keep your mind open.

[aukevin]

Re: Superman Returns

Being on vacation all this week, I haven't gotten a chance to see the movie again like I had hoped. I liked the movie so much the first time, I am really anxious to see it again. I've started listening to the novel but have only made it to chapter 5 so far and Superman has just entered where Krypton should be. The first 4 chapters were loaded with information on Jor-El and Lara. I'm hoping the novel answers more questions on the timing of Jason's conception, mainly because I still don't think it occurred during Superman II. I don't think much of Superman II is relevant in Superman Returns.

I posted earlier that someone had mentioned the Lois Lane prequel comic implies that the night the kid was conceived was the first interview night between Superman and Lois in the first movie, but I never got that impression from the comic. Superman and Lois conceiving the kid in the second movie when his powers were gone makes the most sense because that could explain why Jason can't really control his powers or continually use them, except for one thing... If we are to believe that the kid was conceived in Superman II and that Lois knows the child is Superman’s that would also mean that Lois remembers revelation that Clark is Superman and she would have to remember the trip to the Fortress of Solitude. Neither of those things was shown in Superman Returns and that is why I believe that Superman II is not part of this movie. I'm hoping to get more answers out of the novel because this is the only part of the movie that left me feeling like something more should have been explained. What Richard knows about the kid is what is interesting as well. The kid has his last name, so does that mean he thinks it is his kid? That's pretty low of Lois if she knows 100% that it isn't Richard's kid. One part of the movie made me think that he might know that he is not his kid and that is when he questioned Lois so much about her love for Superman. Who knows, there are lots of questions surrounding the kid that I hoped are cleared up in a sequel.

I thought one good scene in the movie, although short, was when Superman had just returned to the farm in Smallville and was watching TV. He was watching all the bad things that are happening in the world and he looks to be feeling regret for not being there to help. I wonder how much guilt Superman feels over that. Jor-El taught Superman that he is only to guide the people of Earth to be better beings not to really lead them or be an all powerful god to them. He is just to inspire them to become a utopian society. I think that even though articles like Lois's might have hurt him a bit, it shows that the people of Earth don't have to take for granted that Superman will be there to save him. Had Superman returned to Earth and saw that the world had fallen into despair because he was gone, it would have been failure on Superman's part. Not because he could've saved them, but because the people of Earth couldn't have saved themselves because of a reliance on Superman. I thought it was great in the movie how the world moved on without Superman but at the same time appreciated him and were overjoyed that he had returned. If the movie could have been 5 hours or so, I would have liked to see more people a little angry with him other than Lois. Of course, I think anyone outside of Lois would be acting in a selfish manner to be angry at Superman for leaving. Lois was angry because he left without a word to her when they obviously had a very personal relationship, not because he left Earth to defend itself.

Now, as for Superman lifting Luthor's kryptonite-laced landmass, I had no problem with that. It was an obvious struggle for Superman more so that usual because it was laced with kryptonite but Superman's will and selfless devotion to saving the people of Earth gave him the power to lift the mass into space even if it means his death, which it almost did. The affect of kryptonite of Superman isn't always very consistent. I've read many comics, most recently one from this year Infinite Crisis #7, or even in the animated series where Superman powers through the affects of kryptonite, but after he accomplishes his goal or saves whoever, he always pays the price like he did in this movie. The affect of the kryptonite necklace from the first movie does make it hard to see that in this movie. I suppose one could see the first movie's kryptonite attack as a special one because that was Superman's first ever contact with kryptonite and the shock of it prevented him from taking the necklace off. I thought how Lex stabs Superman in Returns with the kryptonite shard was pretty cool. If you watch Smallville, you see something similar to this with the kid that makes kryptonite bullets. This really shows a difference between Superman being near kryptonite and being actually touched by it.

Anyway, I still really like the movie and consider it the best of the Superman movies. Whereas I thought the previous movies had flaws that I couldn't come to terms with, I think this one only leaves me with questions about the kid that I would like more answers to. No movie is without its flaws or scenes that you would have liked to have seen done another way, but this movie was really great to me. I'm looking forward to seeing it again to see if it is a movie that I can really watch multiple times.

[NovaStar]

Re: Superman Returns

I hope you're kidding about that last paragraph. It was plain as day that the kid is Superman's. It doesn't have to be explicitly said, even though it pretty much WAS. Why else would Superman give his spiel about the father becoming the son, etc. to the kid if Lois didn't whisper that to him in the first place? Not to mention there's no other explanation for the piano scene.

In any case, I was just offering a possible explanation for how Superman could have passed his genes on to his kid since people were expressing disbelief over it (although I find that disbelief to be rather unjustified). Unless the mechanism for Superman becoming human was mentioned in any of the movies, it's really irrelevant to begin with, as Superman passing on his genes doesn't violate any internal logic within the films to begin with. However IF a mechanism was stated, then the film WOULD need to address it. Suspension of disbelief doesn't work in that instance.

I can buy that Neo. I just think the whole superman having a kid thing should have been left for the last movie of the series (assuming they make more). But like you, I think whenever a scenerio or situation takes place in a movie, video game etc...it should make sense within the confines of the medium that is entertaining us. The ending of planet of the apes (the one with Mark Wahlburg) comes to mind. I am not going to over analyze the fact the apes can talk, but I am damn sure going to analyze how at the end Mark ends up on a planet where apes have taken over on another planet without any rational explanation for it in the movie.

[mgoblue]

Re: Superman Returns

Lois doesn't have to remember anything about Clark being Superman...she realizes he's Superman's kid later on in the movie I thought...or did she know all along?