Superman Returns Blatant Foreshadowing In Novel Excerpt

[Cinemaman]

How I am happy that Moriarty's review wasn't true.

Still think this movie is going to be great!

 

[Desk]

I don't get it. This isn't foreshadowing anything.

It's not like Lara has psychic abilities or anything. Plus, she's dead. She will not be holding anything in her arms or pinching any cheeks.

Oh for pity's sake! Do you even know what "foreshadowing" is?

It's a storytelling device. It has nothing to do with the characters being psychic or knowing what's to unfold in the story ahead... it's about the author - the person telling the tale - establishing ideas or themes which tie-in with and compliment upcoming events.

For example... Lara is idly thinking about family, and the possibility of her son becoming a father... which is something that the reader discovers actually comes to pass later in the tale.

 

[KrypJonian]

Oh for pity's sake! Do you even know what "foreshadowing" is?

It's a storytelling device. It has nothing to do with the characters being psychic or knowing what's to unfold in the story ahead... it's about the author - the person telling the tale - establishing ideas or themes which tie-in with and compliment upcoming events.

For example... Lara is idly thinking about family, and the possibility of her son becoming a father... which is something that the reader discovers actually comes to pass later in the tale.

I'm very aware of what foreshadowing is...

I just took it more literally as in the thread-maker trying claim the foreshadowing was the part about Lara holding Kal's baby when it's impossible for that to be true. And it still isn't confirmed that it's Supes' kid, so to call this blatant foreshadowing is false.

But, y'know, thanks for not trying to be insulting or anything

 

[explode7]

^ It has to be supes kid else the kid being in danger in the luthor scene is pointless.

 

[Kryptonite]

This isnt foreshadowing at all...

 

[Matt]

My problem with the kid

1) Its not the right time, you don't restart a franchise with a 30 year old sequel and a kid.

2) Supes has been a dead beat dad

3) All action movie kids by definition suck and are annoying.

 

[Bad Superman]

My problem with the kid

1) Its not the right time, you don't restart a franchise with a 30 year old sequel and a kid.

2) Supes has been a dead beat dad

3) All action movie kids by definition suck and are annoying.

I agree with 1 and 3. Specially 3.

 

[Venom71]

^ It has to be supes kid else the kid being in danger in the luthor scene is pointless.

Because Jason & Lois are being held captive by Lex..Jason has to be Superman's son?

 

[lujho]

I don't get it. This isn't foreshadowing anything.

It's not like Lara has psychic abilities or anything. Plus, she's dead. She will not be holding anything in her arms or pinching any cheeks.

I think you're reading too much into this. (In best Gordon voice) "But I've been wrong before..."

What's being psychic or dead have to do with it?

The AUTHOR knows that Superman will have a kid and that's why he deliberately mentions one at the start of the book. Even though it's a natural thing for Lara to feel, it's not likely the author wouldn't have bothered or thought of mentioning Kal-El's potential offspring if it didn't have relevance later on.

Anyway, apart from what others are saying about the kid, my problem is that it builds on - hinges on - elements from Superman 2 that I simply do not like at all . Primarily the memory-erasing kiss. I hate that element, and the fact that in Superman Returns Lois doesn't even know that Clark is Superman, and yet had a kid with her means that that kiss still happened in continuity. I can't just ignore it because Returns delinberately points it out again.

Now if they had established that, prior to leaving Earth, Superman said goodbye to Lois and they slept together - WITHOUT erasing her memory afterwards - then it wouldn't bother me quite so much because it wouldn't hinge on sucky elements from film 2 and could more easily fit into its own continuity - less reliant on that vague history.

 

[SuperDaniel]

You guys simply don`t understand. In this movie, Superman is trying to regain his place in the world as a Superhero and as a human being. At the beggining of this movie, Superman is feeling like an outcast, cause he cant havea relationship with Lois. Moreover, NASA discovers some chunks of Krypton and Superman thinks its his duty to check if theres any survivors. Inside, he wants to find a place where he fits. What place is better than home? So he goes on a trip with the hope to see Keypton alive, or even some survivors `cause inside he doesn`t like that he is the last survivor of his race. So when he gets there, it is a graveyard. Krypton and its history are gone and lives only in storybooks(crystals in the fortress). He comes back more lost. Even worse, he comes back to a world that changed a lot. His mother has a boyfriemd, Kent farm is being sold, Lois articlie about Superman not being needed. He feels insecure and again like an outcast. But now he knows the answer isn`t in the stars. It`s in his heart. So his mom convinces that the world does need people to look upon to. He goes back to Metropolis hoping he would be with lois and see her with a family. Superman always wanted to fit in and he sees the woman he loves happy with another man. He gets jelous cause he cant have that. His planet is gone. He feels alone. But when a disaster is about to happen, Superman is needed once more. Now add Luthor to that, who is trying to destroy the history of krypton for his own personal gain, and destroy what Superman loves.
What i`m trying to say is that this movie is about Superman`s dreams to fit in Earth, to protect and live in it as a human being. So its perfecly resonable that the conflict in the end of the movie is solved and he finds happiness with the woman he loves and son and he`s not alone anymore. If you cant relate to that or u cant understand how great the story is, its not Singer`s fault. Its yours.

 

[Saint]

Your elementary school plot analysis notwithstanding, it is not a matter "not understanding," it's simply a matter of not liking what is being done. That's because people have these magical things called "preferences." They mean that we can understand something and still not like it. Pretty neat, huh?

Of course, I'll understand if that concept is beyond you.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Tell me what don`t u like about what i said? How can a Superman fan not like this plot is beyond me. Maybe its because its very psychollogical but in essense, its very truth to the character and his history. Lots of great stories used that.

If you don`t like it, fine by me. But i know i prefer Singers version than any of you guys haters. Thats why he is an acclaimed director and great storyteller and you`re not. Simple as that.

 

[Saint]

Anyway, apart from what others are saying about the kid, my problem is that it builds on - hinges on - elements from Superman 2 that I simply do not like at all . Primarily the memory-erasing kiss. I hate that element, and the fact that in Superman Returns Lois doesn't even know that Clark is Superman, and yet had a kid with her means that that kiss still happened in continuity. I can't just ignore it because Returns delinberately points it out again.

That pretty much nails it, right there. We can assume Singer INTENDS for that kiss to be in continuity because otherwise, he would have no reason to include SII in his vague history (since he already said he intends to ignore Zod, the only other relevant thing that happens in the film).

Even if we, the fans, wanted to pretend that kiss didn't happen, it's difficult, if not impossible, because then we'd have to assume that Lois and Superman shacked up without her even knowing his identity.

Worse still, if the stupid memory kiss is in continuity, Lois discovers the kid is Superman's, and says "why the hell don't I remember fathering a child with Superman?" Then, the film has to explain to the audience that it hinges on events in a movie from the eighties! Either that, or Lois assumes she was raped at superspeed.

 

[Saint]

Tell me what don`t u like about what i said? How can a Superman fan not like this plot is beyond me.

Because what you like isn't what I like.

Maybe its because its very psychollogical but in essense,

Oh please. It's a hackneyed soap opera plot that Singer has stapled onto Superman. If I want psychological storytelling, I'll read Alan Moore.

If you don`t like it, fine by me. But i know i prefer Singers version than any of you guys haters.

Translation: "ZOMG EVE1 WHO DOESNT LIKE TEH SR IS TEH NAZI OMG WTF!!!11ELEVEN!"

Get over yourself.

Thats why he is an acclaimed director and great storyteller and you`re not. Simple as that.

Actually, the reason I'm not an acclaimed storyteller is because I'm nineteen and still in college. Give me a few years.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Its fine if you don`t like. Movies won`t please everybody. Thats what its good. Nobody needs to agree. But when i see the plot for Superman Returns and read between the line, i see a great stroy and faithfull to the Superman i know and love. If you don`t, great. Is it my vision or my perfect vision of Superman? No. But its a great story and great way to make him relatable and also be inspired by him.

 

[Saint]

Yeah, I can really tell you respect our opinions as you label us all "haters."

 

[SuperDaniel]

You cant deny you and Oldguys are always criticizing this movie. I`ve seen you guys saying bad things about this movie all the time. More than praising it. So, yes, i consider you guys haters. But i respect u and agree to disagree with your opinion.

 

[Saint]

You cant deny you and Oldguys are always criticizing this movie. I`ve seen you guys saying bad things about this movie all the time. More than praising it. So, yes, i consider you guys haters. But i respect u and agree to disagree with your opinion.

You need to read my posts more carefully, then. I can't be blamed for your foolishness.