Sequels "Going Wrath Of Khan":The Official MOS Action Thread

[SuperDaniel]

Flawless and Mego Joe, Its good to know i`m not alone here. How hard is for them to understand this?

 

[VenomsMom]

I didn't say that Superman shouldn't be admonished for leaving without saying goodbye to Lois or others....it was a rather rude and poor taste thing to do.....but I just feel using the idea that "he should have known there was the possibility of her having a baby because they had sex" doesn't work.

Baby or not. Superman should still have been more cautious after him being an alien had sex with an earthling woman and the possible ramifications of that. There could have been something far worse that could have happen to poor Lois. The side effects could have been life threatening. Yet Supes would never had known having taken the Crystal Greyhound to explore Krypton. And Lois having no idea what happened to him in her time of need.

 

[VenomsMom]

Yes, there situations are not exactly the same, are they.

No.....they are not.

 

[C. Lee]

Baby or not. Superman should still have been more cautious after him being an alien had sex with an earthling woman and the possible ramifications of that. There could have been something far worse that could have happen to poor Lois. The side effects could have been life threatening. Yet Supes would never had known having taken the Crystal Greyhound to explore Krypton. And Lois having no idea what happened to him in her time of need.

I agree that there could have been other possible ramifications of them having sex than just having a baby. But by your supposition, it sounds like you think they had sex and about ten minutes later he was off for Krypton.

The problem we have is....we have absolutely no idea the amount of time that is involved here between any sexual encounter and the time that Superman left. Also (as I have posted before)....we have no idea of the gestation period for a Krypton/Earthling hybrid.

We know that normally a human takes an average of 9 months to produce a baby. How long does it take for a Kryptonian? Six months....twelve months? How long does it take for a Kryptonian/Human mix? A normal Earth woman isn't sure for 2 or 3 months that she is pregnant.....how long did it take for Lois to realize with this child?

We don't know if Superman left the day after he and Lois had sex.....or six months later. We haven't been given all the proper information.

 

[VenomsMom]

I agree that there could have been other possible ramifications of them having sex than just having a baby. But by your supposition, it sounds like you think they had sex and about ten minutes later he was off for Krypton.

The problem we have is....we have absolutely no idea the amount of time that is involved here between any sexual encounter and the time that Superman left. Also (as I have posted before)....we have no idea of the gestation period for a Krypton/Earthling hybrid.

We know that normally a human takes an average of 9 months to produce a baby. How long does it take for a Kryptonian? Six months....twelve months? How long does it take for a Kryptonian/Human mix? A normal Earth woman isn't sure for 2 or 3 months that she is pregnant.....how long did it take for Lois to realize with this child?

We don't know if Superman left the day after he and Lois had sex.....or six months later. We haven't been given all the proper information.

Well....Lets see. I can understand the point you are making. All this could very well be true because as we all know there is no clearcut explanation as to how all this played out. Its poorly executed for something such a major part of the story. We dont really know who what when where or why. The who being was she having sex with both of these guys or more for all we know. The what as in what immediately happened after these encounters. When did all this take place in the time frame. Where did it take place, at the fortress at Lois apartment at a sleazy motel who knows. And why. Why is she having sex with a man she loves in Supes who disappears and begins sex with another man in Richard. Yes...happens all the time but it completely lessens anything that happened between Supes and Lois which just ruins it for me and makes me feel nothing for these so called love birds. Now....having said all of this, these questions have no answers which goes back to the events of the movie. I am under the impression that Lois honestly believes that Richard is the father due to certain scenes in the movie. Maybe I am wrong but this is what I believe. Having said that it implies that this was a normal pregnancy that occurred in a normal time frame. Hence 9 months after intercourse with Supes she had a baby. It may have crossed her mind that it could be Supes but it appears Richard believes he is the daddy as well. From what I can deduce from all this is that Supes and Lois had sex he leaves shortly after and she meets Richard having sex with him and they both have a baby moving on with their happy lives for 5 years till Supes returns via the crystal express. And until there is a logical explanation from the past or future writers involved I am to believe this is the story at hand. Unfortunately there may never be an explanation for all this with no sequel. If this baby indeed took the scenic route taking 12 months or more to birth then Lois being the intelligent female she is should figure it out right away. Unless she and Richard are complete and utter idiots.

 

[C. Lee]

The thing is....you believe that Lois thinks Richard is the actual father (and so think she had sex with him soon after doing it with Superman)......I do not believe that she thinks Richard is the actual father.

So, we are at an impasse.

 

[VenomsMom]

The thing is....you believe that Lois thinks Richard is the actual father (and so think she had sex with him soon after doing it with Superman)......I do not believe that she thinks Richard is the actual father.

So, we are at an impasse.

I suppose we are since niether of us can be proven wrong.

 

[C. Lee]

I suppose we are since niether of us can be proven wrong.

That is what I have been trying to get across to everyone. So many of the posters here state as an unequivicable fact that Lois is a loose woman who immediately slept with Richard the minute that Superman left for Krypton.....but we have absolutely no facts at all presented to us as to what actually did happen. I keep telling people that they need to keep an open mind about their situation....because we simply do not know what happened.

 

[Showtime]

C.lee Ftw.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

That is what I have been trying to get across to everyone. So many of the posters here state as an unequivicable fact that Lois is a loose woman who immediately slept with Richard the minute that Superman left for Krypton.....but we have absolutely no facts at all presented to us as to what actually did happen. I keep telling people that they need to keep an open mind about their situation....because we simply do not know what happened.

Depends on whether not you want to consider the SR prequel books written by Singer, Dougherty and Harris as part of the SR canon. Because then it's all pretty much laid out right there. I remember having this discussion with you before on this and you said you would discount those, others said this as well. That's fine, I count them though. You do not need to read them to understand what's going on with SR per say, and they definitely don't contradict anything that happened in SR(why would they when they were written by Singer, Dougherty and Harris) BUT they do answer some questions:

In those books, Richard and Lois definitely believe he is the father of Jason as he is seen in the hospital with Lois while she is giving birth. Lois yells at him, "You owe me!", something along those lines.

I believe they mention the time frame from when Superman leaves to when Lois meets Richard. I forget what is though. I think it's a couple of months.

 

[Showtime]

I don't consider the prequel books part of canon, nor do I consider cut scenes, or parts of the script canon. Only what I see on screen, only what was presented in the movie.

 

[C. Lee]

Depends on whether not you want to consider the SR prequel books written by Singer, Dougherty and Harris as part of the SR canon. Because then it's all pretty much laid out right there. I remember having this discussion with you before on this and you said you would discount those, others said this as well. That's fine, I count them though. You do not need to read them to understand what's going on with SR per say, and they definitely don't contradict anything that happened in SR(why would they when they were written by Singer, Dougherty and Harris) BUT they do answer some questions:

In those books, Richard and Lois definitely believe he is the father of Jason as he is seen in the hospital with Lois while she is giving birth. Lois yells at him, "You owe me!", something along those lines.

I believe they mention the time frame from when Superman leaves to when Lois meets Richard. I forget what is though. I think it's a couple of months.

It's your right to accept this as part of the story. It's the right of many of us to not accept it.

To me....when I go watch a movie...what is presented on the screen is the story. I find it no way plausible that someone would expect the public to watch the movie, read the novel, read the specific comics written about the movie, watch certain blogs by the director, read the interviews with the writers and director....to be able to fully understand the movie. If when I bought the ticket to the movie....I was handed a stack of books, magazines, and DVD set....and told to read and watch them before I was allowed to watch the movie....then, yes, I would say they were part of the story.

But I watched a movie called Superman Returns. In it....it was unclear when or how many times Superman and Lois had sex. It was unclear on how long after they had sex the last time that Superman left for 5 years. It was unclear as to how what Richard believed to be fact about the parentage of Jason. The movie was made purposefully "vague" about many plotlines....so I find it very hard to make definative judgements about many aspects of it.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

It's your right to accept this as part of the story. It's the right of many of us to not accept it.

To me....when I go watch a movie...what is presented on the screen is the story. I find it no way plausible that someone would expect the public to watch the movie, read the novel, read the specific comics written about the movie, watch certain blogs by the director, read the interviews with the writers and director....to be able to fully understand the movie. If when I bought the ticket to the movie....I was handed a stack of books, magazines, and DVD set....and told to read and watch them before I was allowed to watch the movie....then, yes, I would say they were part of the story.

But I watched a movie called Superman Returns. In it....it was unclear when or how many times Superman and Lois had sex. It was unclear on how long after they had sex the last time that Superman left for 5 years. It was unclear as to how what Richard believed to be fact about the parentage of Jason. The movie was made purposefully "vague" about many plotlines....so I find it very hard to make definative judgements about many aspects of it.

I have a question for you. There are interviews where Singer has stated that the Superman and Lois romp at the FOS from Superman 2 did not happen in his continuity. Now just by watching SR this is not clear. But Singer has clearly stated it did not exist in his Superman universe/continuity. So if someone said to me, "oh ok, Lois got pregnant because of that scene from Superman 2". Am I supposed to "yea, maybe" because it wasn't made clear in SR even though Singer said himself it didn't happen?

 

[C. Lee]

I have a question for you. There are interviews where Singer has stated that the Superman and Lois romp at the FOS from Superman 2 did not happen in his continuity. Now just by watching SR this is not clear. But Singer has clearly stated it did not exist in his Superman universe/continuity. So if someone said to me, "oh ok, Lois got pregnant because of that scene from Superman 2". Am I supposed to "yea, maybe" because it wasn't made clear in SR even though Singer said himself it didn't happen?

A movie is a piece of art that has a beginning, middle, and an end. At the theater, and on DVD, I saw SR....which had a beginning, middle, and an end. No where in the movie while watching it....did anyone turn to the camera and say "To more fully understand what we are doing....go read the interviews with director Singer."

He used direct elements from the Reeve movies in his. So....if things in SR says it is directly linked to the Reeve movie (ie: Brando as Jor-El, same FOS, music, spaceship, etc....)....then for me to discount anything from the Reeve movies as being directly linked to SR....they must state that fact in the movie SR. The viewer should not be asked to do an in depth investigation (like writing a college thesis) of the background of a movie to be able to watch it and understand it. If Sr started off with Singer walking on a stage and saying....ignore this and this and this from the Reeve Superman movies....then what he says means something.....but because he stated it in a blog or in a magazine interview.....it is useless information.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

A movie is a piece of art that has a beginning, middle, and an end. At the theater, and on DVD, I saw SR....which had a beginning, middle, and an end. No where in the movie while watching it....did anyone turn to the camera and say "To more fully understand what we are doing....go read the interviews with director Singer."

He used direct elements from the Reeve movies in his. So....if things in SR says it is directly linked to the Reeve movie (ie: Brando as Jor-El, same FOS, music, spaceship, etc....)....then for me to discount anything from the Reeve movies as being directly linked to SR....they must state that fact in the movie SR. The viewer should not be asked to do an in depth investigation (like writing a college thesis) of the background of a movie to be able to watch it and understand it. If Sr started off with Singer walking on a stage and saying....ignore this and this and this from the Reeve Superman movies....then what he says means something.....but because he stated it in a blog or in a magazine interview.....it is useless information.

But that didn't answer my question, because that did happen to me. Someone mentioned that Jason was a result of the romp from FOS, what was I supposed to say? Just stay silent? Say yes it was, even though Singer said it wasn't? Or say no it wasn't and state why? And no, I never said you need to read countless interviews, prequel books, etc.. to follow what's going on with this or any movie. One doesn't need to go fishing for answers to certain questions to be able to understand or enjoy a movie, but at the same time, I can't ignore answers from the director himself when I came across them, even though they did not appear in the movie itself.

 

[C. Lee]

But that didn't answer my question, because that did happen to me. Someone mentioned that Jason was a result of the romp from FOS, what was I supposed to say? Just stay silent? Say yes it was, even though Singer said it wasn't? Or say no it wasn't and state why? And no, I never said you need to read countless interviews, prequel books, etc.. to follow what's going on with this or any movie. One doesn't need to go fishing for answers to certain questions to be able to understand or enjoy a movie, but at the same time, I can't ignore answers from the director himself when I came across them, even though they did not appear in the movie itself.

Since I saw Supes and Lois get it on at the FOS in Superman II......and I know many things from Superman I and II are incorporated into Superman Returns....and I wasn't told in SR that the romp at the FOS didn't happen.....then to me, the romp at the FOS happened in the SR continuity. If the movies are connected....they are connected until the newer movie says they aren't.

And I wasn't trying to imply that you specificly said that I or others needed to read tons of stuff.....that was put in there for the ones who will come along behind us and continue to say that such and such was mentioned here or this was mentioned there. I am simply reitierating my position that to me.....if a movie wants to be connected to another movie in continuity....then unless something is specificly said not to be in continuity in the newer movie...it is in my mind in continuity.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Since I saw Supes and Lois get it on at the FOS in Superman II......and I know many things from Superman I and II are incorporated into Superman Returns

Not to sound like a jerk but how do you know that many things from Superman 1 and 2 were incorporated into SR?

 

[C. Lee]

Not to sound like a jerk but how do you know that many things from Superman 1 and 2 were incorporated into SR?

The Fortress of Solitude looked the same....Brando was Jor-El in both movies....the spaceship that Superman returned from Krypton in looked very similar to the one he arrived in in the Reeve movie....they used the same music....the opening credits were done the same....Lois Lane's newspaper headline "I spent the night with Superman" was the same in both movies....the kryptonite that Lex steals in both movies is from Addis Adaba....

 

[turtlefocker]

I don't consider the prequel books part of canon, nor do I consider cut scenes, or parts of the script canon. Only what I see on screen, only what was presented in the movie.

as Tarantino said "If it ain't in the movie it didn't happen"

 

[FlawlessVictory]

The Fortress of Solitude looked the same....Brando was Jor-El in both movies....the spaceship that Superman returned from Krypton in looked very similar to the one he arrived in in the Reeve movie....they used the same music....the opening credits were done the same....Lois Lane's newspaper headline "I spent the night with Superman" was the same in both movies....the kryptonite that Lex steals in both movies is from Addis Adaba....

Ok, so you see SR as basically a sequel to Superman 2, that was what I was just wondering there. I don't. I see it more as Superman: The Movie, then there were events that occured(some that were similar to Superman 2 but not exactly) then SR. Basically, the way I see it, events that occured prior to SR are in a vague history, something that I heard Singer say.

But I get what you are saying.

Edit: I have another question. t: If you do see SR as a direct sequel to Superman 2, why don't you see it as a direct sequel to Superman 3 or Superman 4?

 

[C. Lee]

Edit: I have another question. t: If you do see SR as a direct sequel to Superman 2, why don't you see it as a direct sequel to Superman 3 or Superman 4?

Personally....I do see it as a sequel to 3 and 4....there has been nothing in SR to say they didn't happen.....it's just 99% of the rest of the world that ignores those two movies, whether in relation to Sr or to the first 2 Reeve movies.

 

[The Guard]

I can't argue with a Catholic. I used to be one, and pity stays my hand.

 

[VenomsMom]

A movie is a piece of art that has a beginning, middle, and an end. At the theater, and on DVD, I saw SR....which had a beginning, middle, and an end. No where in the movie while watching it....did anyone turn to the camera and say "To more fully understand what we are doing....go read the interviews with director Singer."

He used direct elements from the Reeve movies in his. So....if things in SR says it is directly linked to the Reeve movie (ie: Brando as Jor-El, same FOS, music, spaceship, etc....)....then for me to discount anything from the Reeve movies as being directly linked to SR....they must state that fact in the movie SR. The viewer should not be asked to do an in depth investigation (like writing a college thesis) of the background of a movie to be able to watch it and understand it. If Sr started off with Singer walking on a stage and saying....ignore this and this and this from the Reeve Superman movies....then what he says means something.....but because he stated it in a blog or in a magazine interview.....it is useless information.

These obvious links to the older Reeves movies certainly provides the connection one needs to identify with the past events of Superman. There are those such as Flawless who decided to do more searching beyond the info that was presented in the movie to make more sense of things. There is nothing stated in the movies before or after the credits that tells you to ignore or accept anything in relevance to this story so as you said you simply accept things for what they are and choose not to question it. Understandable. Now if you accept all of this as a mere direct sequel to the Donner films when you first watched it did you question anything such as the amnesia kiss and why she would remember sex with Superman after the kiss? And why she would not remember knowing his identity being Clark if she somehow recieved her memory? Of course let us say that she never remembered any of this at all and Supes somehow rekindled the relationship after all of this leading to her impregnation. Do you have a problem with him not being honest enough to tell her the truth to the woman he so loves and finds to be the most precious thing on this planet that he would reverse time to bring her back to life? That truth being the fact that he is Clark much like he was forced to reveal to her in SII that makes that relationship a special moment in both their lives? The whole reason for the amnesia kiss was to protect her from a total mental breakdown which she was suffering having to live with this knowlegde. So now he disregards all of this and sleeps with her. Out of character.


As you have stated many times on these debates that we have had for .......ummmm... ever that you can basically see the movie as a sequel to those events but as a fan of these films can you truly accept it for what it is and what was presented as one continuous story without asking yourself about certain scenes and elements that were introduced . It is quite clear to all of us that its vague now from what has been said in interviews and published articles that we post and read time and time again. So we all know but however you choose to accept it especially to the average movie goer who don't follow anything else said about these films but are fans of the Reeves films do indeed remember how those films ended and like you said sees it as a sequel for what it appears to be are asking these very questions. Once again there are many on these boards that enjoy it and chooses to ignore it for themselves which I guess you fit into this category but it does not truly make what we all have seen in this movie as well as the Reeves movies go away.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Personally....I do see it as a sequel to 3 and 4....there has been nothing in SR to say they didn't happen.....it's just 99% of the rest of the world that ignores those two movies, whether in relation to Sr or to the first 2 Reeve movies.

But SR does contradict/retcon III & IV just on the fact alone that in those films, Martha Kent had already passed away, but in SR, she's still alive and well.

 

[Nightwing1977]

That is what I have been trying to get across to everyone. So many of the posters here state as an unequivicable fact that Lois is a loose woman who immediately slept with Richard the minute that Superman left for Krypton.....but we have absolutely no facts at all presented to us as to what actually did happen. I keep telling people that they need to keep an open mind about their situation....because we simply do not know what happened.

There you go. Good choice of words there.

I don't consider the prequel books part of canon, nor do I consider cut scenes, or parts of the script canon. Only what I see on screen, only what was presented in the movie.

Same here. If it didn't happend in the film, then it's not canon. Even if they make a book that take place before or after the film, it doesn't mean it really happend. I see it as somewhat of a "What If...?" story.