Originally Posted by Dr.
Well, that’s a somewhat problematic conclusion to draw… as the “consummation act” in SII
appears to have happened around 1978-80 while SR
(explicitly – the date is shown on the front page of the DP) takes place in 2006. Jason would be over 25 years old.
as “stand-alone,” the assumptions one makes about its “pre-narrative” events are fairly modest and straightforward: shortly prior to the 5-year absence, Supes and Lois (must have) had sex – which (apparently) resulted in a pregnancy.
In the grand scheme, this is not a profoundly mysterious occurrence which requires Sherlock Holmes–like powers to figure out. And it's not one which remotely
inspires the speculation that “amnesia” must somehow be involved.
When you go into the cinema having been TOLD this movie Is set after the events of S2, the assumptions you can make about the pre narrative, are not assumptions. They are based on what we saw in S2...
If Singer declared it was a 'stand alone' plot that mirrored the style of the previous films, then there would be no problem. But he didn't, did he?
'Why do I find all of this so horrible to explore?
Sure, they are interesting questions that I don't mind seeing in an elseworlds GN. But as a theme for the film that is kicking off the tone of the whole JL, and in a film that is presenting Superman to the general audience in a way that current generations will remember him?
I just don't like it. It's dark, it's depressing and it's not how I like the tone of Superman films to be.'