Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel
I really didn't want to go see this film in 2006, so I didn't. I avoided it like the plague. "Lois having Superman's child? No way!" Now, after 5 years I finally decided to see it.
I must admit, having watched this review "What's so bad about Superman Returns?" I agree with most of what he's saying. It is a great movie and it deserved better.
It definitely deserved a sequel. But all the squeamish fan boys and girls didn't give it a chance and so the makers didn't give it a chance. Too bad, if you ask me.
We don't mind Lois having Superman's child. OK, maybe we do, but only when it is "Lois has Superman's child without realizing it is really Clark Kent's child." It seemed even worse because it half seemed that Lois thought it was Richard's child. So was she sleeping with two men simultaneously? Do pregnancies of half-Kryptonian children last longer than normal pregnancies? Why is Lois encouraging to Superman in the hospital, instead of saying "I only half hope you live, it will be nice to see you land in jail for rape." Or does she remember having sex with Superman? I mean, it is only sort of a sequel to SMII. So did they have a long-term sexual relationship, without him ever telling her he is really Clark and he finds out about a possibility there is a Krypton and skips town without telling his lover? That is almost worse then the memory wipe kiss.
The most sympathetic to SM situation is actually we assume Donner Cut of SMII, that he reversed time and undid most of what happened. However we also assume that even reversing time does not undo the impregnating of Lois. We still should have Lois all like "I hope you land in jail for raping me", and have him explain about reversing time, but at least he would not be a dead-beat failure.
I understand why they went the no one knows who the child is route, but they put story telling conventions over logic.