Superman Returns Don't act like an idiot, Lois, you already know who Superman is!

[Elisha Cuthbert]

after seeing his posts in different forums, I have concluded that aliasman2000 is an idiot.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

after seeing his posts in different forums, I have concluded that aliasman2000 is an idiot.

sherlock holmes would be proud.

 

[Immortalfire]

after seeing his posts in different forums, I have concluded that aliasman2000 is an idiot.

Where's your raincoat, Columbo?

 

[CGHulk]

at the end of superman 2. clark gives lois a kiss which wipes her memory of them being together and her knowing he is superman.

and..this opens up a whole new can of worms.
if she didnt know she slept with superman, how come she doesnt FREAK OUT THAT HER SON IS SUPERMANS!?!?!
stupid film. it has flaws everywhere.

I'm thinking after the whole kiss erasing her memory scene, Superman wanted to still have a relationship with Lois. So he got busy with her after the events in Superman II, that's how Jason came in.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Where's your raincoat, Columbo?

both had the same idea.

 

[boywonder13]

DUde u need to watch Superman II again.....

 

[Spawn187]

The article " i spent the night with superman" was from Superman 1 not 2.

 

[casketmouth]

If I stop making hate threads, do you promise to stop insulting me?

Seriously, I won't rant against movies anymore.

If you STILL choose to insult me, I'm gonna report you to the mods.

Snitch!

 

[Raiden]

I always consider the amnesia kiss from Superman II to be a lousy plot device that basically ignores much of the movie, and reboot their relationship so they won't have to deal with Lois & Clark becoming a couple in the sequels, and keep their relationship static.

Singer's mistake was to make SR a sequel to Superman 1 & 2, but his screenplay chooses to ignore parts of these two movies at its convenience. The fact that Lois in SR can somehow remember that she spent the night with Supe, yet believed that Jason is the son of Richard is a plothole. Unfortunately, it's not minor because Superman having a son will impact the rest of the sequels, if they choose to make them.

 

[Showtime]

It is a lousy plot device, just like spinning the world back in order to erase what has happened. It reminds me of Greek plays when everything would be going wrong and then at the end one of the Gods would fix everything and the curtain would close.

 

[charl_huntress]

I always consider the amnesia kiss from Superman II to be a lousy plot device that basically ignores much of the movie, and reboot thei relationship so they won't have to deal with Lois & Clark becoming a couple in the sequels, and keep their relationship static.

Singer's mistake was to make SR a sequel to Superman 1 & 2, but his screenplay chooses to ignore parts of these two movies at its convenience. The fact that Lois in SR can somehow remember that she spent the night with Supe, yet believed that Jason is the son of Richard is a plothole. Unfortunately, it's not minor because Superman having a son will impact the rest of the sequels, if they choose to make them.

Three thumbs up post!!!

It is a lousy plot device, just like spinning the world back in order to erase what has happened. It reminds me of Greek plays when everything would be going wrong and then at the end one of the Gods would fix everything and the curtain would close.

I just don't understand why Singer didn't own up to the kid? It makes no sense not too.

 

[SuBe]

edit

 

[SuBe]

1. Bullshoot. FORCE OF WILL alone has NEVER enabled him to just ignore his Achilles' heel. Kryptonite doesn't only "hurt" Superman, it weakens him. It strips him of his powers. If could ignore it's effects by sheer willpower, FORCE OF WILL should have enabled him to keep Lex from beating the crap outta him. It's a disreguard for the established rules of the movie and a retcon that is in the same league as spinning around the Earth to turn back time. Now anytime that he is faced with Kryptonite and doesn't fight back, his will wasn't great enough. Bullsh't."

1: NK was a meld of Earth, Kryptonite and Crystal thats why the Shard is a different color. a brighter green than NK
2:Superman and lois dated for 2 year after Superman2. then he left after seeing the Newpaper article
3: Lois was peeved that the man she loved abondaned her before she found out she was pregant with his child, thats why she hated him so much
4. Lois and Richard met when Jason was already 3 years old, She was still mad at Supes for leaving her and her child, Richard just flew in and got the job and asked Lois to show him around Metropolis. Thats where the pic of Jason, Lois and Richard come from
5; Lex was the one the wrote "Life on Krypton found". Using Gertrude's wealth and influence with publishing from her late husbands business
6: remember in that scene that had young Clark. he needed glasses until he flew, but in the high school scene in Superman The Movie he didnt need them. same goes for Jason, he needed that inhailer until he displayed his powers and it turned something on inside of him.


its in the novelization of the script, not in the movie though.[/quote]

 

[MasterOgami]

The Lois Lane "Official Movie Prequel" comic shows that Lois and Richard became a couple shortly after Superman's dissappearance and even has Lois blaming Richard for the pregnancy during labor. So which piece of "Official" fiction is more official?

As far as I'm concerned, the Superman II amnesia-kiss only erased Lois's knowledge of Clark being Superman, not the memory of them being together (unless I missed something). She really does believe Jason to be Richard's son until he launches the piano. There are moments in Returns where it -almost- seems as though Lois's bitterness stems from Superman leaving her alone with a son, but the film never makes a commitment one way or the other on that issue ( which is one reason why its more *** or ***1/2 instead of **** IMO).

So perhaps its like:

Superman and Lois get intimate in the Fortress
Superman blanks Lois's memory of his secret identity
Superman leaves for Krypton
Lois meets Richard, they get it on, Jason is born
Superman Returns, Lois realizes Jason is Superman's.

The new version of Superman II won't fit that though, as far as I know anyway, with Lois still knowing who Clark really is and the Fortress being destroyed.

 

[nogster]

1: NK was a meld of Earth, Kryptonite and Crystal thats why the Shard is a different color. a brighter green than NK
2:Superman and lois dated for 2 year after Superman2. then he left after seeing the Newpaper article
3: Lois was peeved that the man she loved abondaned her before she found out she was pregant with his child, thats why she hated him so much
4. Lois and Richard met when Jason was already 3 years old, She was still mad at Supes for leaving her and her child, Richard just flew in and got the job and asked Lois to show him around Metropolis. Thats where the pic of Jason, Lois and Richard come from
5; Lex was the one the wrote "Life on Krypton found". Using Gertrude's wealth and influence with publishing from her late husbands business
6: remember in that scene that had young Clark. he needed glasses until he flew, but in the high school scene in Superman The Movie he didnt need them. same goes for Jason, he needed that inhailer until he displayed his powers and it turned something on inside of him.


its in the novelization of the script, not in the movie though.

[/QUOTE]

lol. u are just making excuses up for a poor script. where in the film does it mention anything about these points. supes didnt leave after reading her article. and richard didnt meet lois 3 years after piano boy was born. lol. talk about fanboy delusions.

and the shard that lex stabs superman with and the shard that is in his body until the doctor takes out is pure kryptonite. so there goes your indefensible theory of the kryptonite not being as potent. face it.
force of will. lol. where was his force of will when he was drowning in a pool with a kryptonite necklace on and a cataclysmic event was about to happen. [superman the movie]. where was the force of will when lex was beating the crap out of him.
face it. this movies is riddled with plot holes, all it has going for it, is some great effects starring superman. everything the story was built on was poor.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Don't argue the previous statement, cause there is proof: Lex remembers being on the Fortress of Solitude (an event that happened in part 2), Lois fathered a child from Superman (which could only happen when they got intimate in part 2),Lex no longer with Otis (he dumped his sorry ass in part 2),etc.

So,why doesn't Lois remember that Clark and Superman are one and the same?

You must have forgotten, my friend. That is what marijuana can do, sometimes. It messes with your long-term memory. Can you take my advice and stop smoking it?

It's supposedly a 'vague' history anyway. So in the end, it doesn't matter what was in Superman I or II. Singer is stupid like that.

 

[BrixXx]

I think the are some plot wholes in the movies, yes, or I jts prefer to think that they'll explain it later somehow. For example:

Where was Clark during the time that Superman was in the hospital, wouldn't that, added to the fact that they went away and came at the same time, make ppl even a little suspicious?... they better come up with a good explanation of that...

If superman "erased" part of lois's memory after being with her in the FOS, did she forget everything? did she only forget that Supes is Clark?

 

[not_a_victim]

1. Bullshoot. FORCE OF WILL alone has NEVER enabled him to just ignore his Achilles' heel. Kryptonite doesn't only "hurt" Superman, it weakens him. It strips him of his powers. If could ignore it's effects by sheer willpower, FORCE OF WILL should have enabled him to keep Lex from beating the crap outta him. It's a disreguard for the established rules of the movie and a retcon that is in the same league as spinning around the Earth to turn back time. Now anytime that he is faced with Kryptonite and doesn't fight back, his will wasn't great enough. Bullsh't.

Uh, we are talking about the movies, not the comics. In the movies, he has been exposed to Kryptonite how many times? Two? (And before anyone can get snotty, we are ignoring 3 and 4, remember?)
And he was most definately not "Ignoring" his weakness, you could tell it was taking a toll on him.
I am not saying that he would not hav eventually been overcome by the Kryptonite, I am saying he dug down deep, and found the strength to keep going even though the effort was killing him. Have you not ever heard of a bloodhound running itself to death when it is tracking something? Or a soldier recieving a fatal wound, but he/she keeps fighting until physiological, not psychological death takes them? Same principle. I cant remember, but did he know the kid was his at this point? Remember when he left the plane after Losi pulled the piece of Kryptonite out of his back? She said he would die if he went back, and Supes knew he probably would (and did) die. He was willing to push himself to the point of death to get it done, and he did just that. He knew he was gonna die. The effort+the kryptonite killed him.
The feat was made even more spectacular when in the hospital, they pulled a piece of kryptonite (I am tired of capitalizing it) out of his body that Lois had missed. Not only was he close to kryptonite, he still had it in his body.

 

[not_a_victim]

I think the are some plot wholes in the movies, yes, or I jts prefer to think that they'll explain it later somehow. For example:

Where was Clark during the time that Superman was in the hospital, wouldn't that, added to the fact that they went away and came at the same time, make ppl even a little suspicious?... they better come up with a good explanation of that...

If superman "erased" part of lois's memory after being with her in the FOS, did she forget everything? did she only forget that Supes is Clark?

They way I look at the Clark/Supes dichomoty, so much attention is paid to Supes, that Clark is forgotten about. Hell, he is just about forgotten about when he is standing in the room with people. People just kinda assume that Clark is there, blending into the background like he always does.

 

[nogster]

exactly, he still had kryptonite in his body. so there is no way he shouldve been able to do what he did. suntan or not.
the movie contradicted itself. and thats what annoys me most.
u can say all u want about his force of will. yadda yadda. its a weak excuse. as the movie hammered the point home that KRYPTONITE MAKES SUPERMAN WEAK AND POWERLESS by the thrashing he recieved at the hands of lex and co. and he didtn even have kryptonite in him then. then lois pulls it out. and supes IMMEDIATLEY gets up the effects appear completley gone and he flies away. the audience is led to belive that the kryptonite is gone and supes is back. he goes and gets a sun tan to power up for his sacrifice. fair enough.
but once u see the doctor pull out more kryptonite. well. i was dumstruck.
its a total contradiction within the movie.
how can u defend this. its indefensible.
stupid movie. its gets more dissapoining the more i think of it and i was sure it would be great. but the script was so bad.
superman.....why did u have to be in such a weak film? why?

 

[Raiden]

In STM, it was established that Superman would become weak and powerless when he's near kryptonite, when he was forced to wear that kryptonite necklace by Lex.

But in SR, it shows that Superman can lift an island full of kryptonite, with a shard of it embedded inside him. Seems to me that they contradict Superman's vulnerability to the green rock shown in STM, which they supposedly made a sequel out of.

 

[nogster]

exaclty.
but its not really a sequel. its more of a remake pretending to be a sequel.
go and watch the original and see how much SR borrowed from it.

superman returns shouldve been a spectacular box office smashing return of the greatest superhero ever, but the weak story and psuedo sequel/remake stylings of it caused it to dissapoint, both as a film and at the box office.

 

[not_a_victim]

Again, I just feel that you guys are missing the point that the kryptonite+the effort KILLED HIM. He succumbed to the kryptonite. He WAS NOT ABLE TO OVERCOME THE EFFECTS. THE KRYPTONITE KILLED HIM. You guys are acting like Supes threw the island into space, dustedhis hands off, then went and had a cheeseburger. He didnt do that. HE DIED.
It was the last, desperate act of a man trying to save those he loved. His love for Lois and possibly the kid lead him to do things he would not have been able to do before. Remember, Singer said this is a LOVE story above all else. I am not defending Singer's vision, I am simply telling you how Supes was able to do what he did.
Again, HE DIDNT "IGNORE" THE EFFECTS OF THE KRYPTONITE. It killed him.

 

[raybia]

at the end of superman 2. clark gives lois a kiss which wipes her memory of them being together and her knowing he is superman.

and..this opens up a whole new can of worms.
if she didnt know she slept with superman, how come she doesnt FREAK OUT THAT HER SON IS SUPERMANS!?!?!
stupid film. it has flaws everywhere.

Well maybe she thinks that its possible to get pregnant by kissing a Kryptonian.

Certainly Superman is too honorable to have slipped her a date rape drug.

 

[chicagodave]

was there ever an explanation how the doctors in the hospital just ripped off supes suit so easily yet it can with stand hundreds of bullets? or is it just something else where suppose to just ignore.