View Single Post
Old 04-28-2011, 01:39 PM   #101
Dr.'s Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,909
Default Re: Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' Didn't Work

Originally Posted by Nuffsaid View Post
No, its the same principle. Only the gap is larger. If Iron Man takes place in 2009, why is Stark using cell phones from 2007? Someone so up to date on the latest tech would never carry such "outdated" gadget.
I’m not sure I follow. Having the timeline within the narratives be consistent is what’s germane, not the release dates of the films. When Supes first appears in STM (as Supes), the year is 1978. This is established through dialogue. The events of SII occur shortly after. (In the RDC, it’s immediately after; the Lester Cut is not as clear, it might be a few months.) Thus, the FOS tryst in SII (the alleged conception of Jason) happens around 1978-79. (Make it 1980 if you like – the difference won’t matter.) The point being: none of these possible dates can be reconciled with a timeline that has Jason being 5 or 6 years old in 2006. So, clearly, SR represents a new iteration of the Superman story. As such, it’s a non sequitur to question why Lois’s SII amnesia isn’t referenced in SR – a detail from an older, separate iteration.

But it can. Because the child won't be conceived in the 80's but closer to the millenium. It is the same concept applied in the comics. How long has it been in the Marvel universe since Superheroes started appearing? A little over a decade. Yet "over a decade" was the 40's. It is all part of the suspension of disbelieve process.
Yes, exactly! Each new generation retells the Superman story. In Action #1, Supes is active in 1938. In STM, baby Kal-El only arrives on Earth in 1948. In Smallville, the ship crashes in Kansas in 1989. The broad strokes are the same but the details have been updated in each retelling. And each new iteration establishes its own continuity – not beholden to the continuity of predecessors.


Dr. is offline   Reply With Quote