• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Superman Returns If it's a sequel, what bridges/gaps from S:TM & SII will transcend into SR, if any?

db85usa

HeHe!
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1
Points
58
From reading on the Hype I've read that SR is a sequel to S:TM and SII. If so, there has to be some things in SR that will remind us of something that happened in the previous films. If so, what? I watched both films last night to perhaps get an idea of some kind of gap that could bridge onto SR. All I could think of is Clark telling Lois near the end of SII (when she knows hes Superman,) he tells her she'll find someone else but she says she won't/can't... does this lead to her meeting Richard White? I just can't see the film as a sequel if there is nothing that bridges onto it but then again there are films such as "stand alone" sequels or prequels like The Chronicles of Riddick for example.
 
Well from what we know, SR would begin from where Superman flies away from Metropolis in the battle scene with the villians. Atleast that's what my perception is from what I have read and heard. Though, he comes back later to apologise for his absence, I think they will simply skip over that bit for convenience sake. Look, this is not exactly a sequel in the strict sense, it is only because Singer admires the first two movies and wanted to borrow from that legacy, he decided to stick to some of the old movie themes. I mean if you really want to be picky about the gaps in the sequel you could easily say how did SUperman change so much in these 6 years, he is a different man altogether, literally! But, no you won't ask that because this is a new movie and can't really be seen as a continuity in the strict sense from the first two.
 
Gaurav Sharma said:
Well from what we know, SR would begin from where Superman flies away from Metropolis in the battle scene with the villians.

Nope, mate: there's no such a scene in Superman Returns.
 
None. Singer has said there will be no direct links between the first two film and this one (in the film). This film is a continuation. They will leave the gaps to be filled by fans (from the comics, old films and Smallville).

They will however explain some stuff in the comic books coming out soon (why Superman left and what the characters have been up to during his absence).
 
Mentok said:
None. Singer has said there will be no direct links between the first two film and this one (in the film). This film is a continuation. They will leave the gaps to be filled by fans (from the comics, old films and Smallville).


Thats pretty on the money right there, from what we know right now. No direct links per se, but there are simuler elements that are being carried over.
 
there is a new interview with dan harris in the uk mag total film.

he addresses this a little.
 
I believe this is the purpose of the prequel comics.
 
Mentok said:
Sweet, post it up for me ROBO :mad: :up:


I would..but i didn't buy the mag..

he basicly said that "metropolis is very different to what was shown in the original movies..but the charactors have been continued from donners originals."


nothing special.

:)
 
The kid will be son of supes at the end of this film, or this trilogy and thus bridge the movies together.
 
The Fortress is one thing that directly links the movies. It also provides a link between Smallville and the Movies.
 
The opening credits will explain a little of the gap as well as the prequel comics that were written by Singer, Dougherty, and Harris.
 
I hate to mention it,but do u remember the....'super kiss'....he made her forget that he was superman.I wish I could forget that kiss.....
db85usa said:
From reading on the Hype I've read that SR is a sequel to S:TM and SII. If so, there has to be some things in SR that will remind us of something that happened in the previous films. If so, what? I watched both films last night to perhaps get an idea of some kind of gap that could bridge onto SR. All I could think of is Clark telling Lois near the end of SII (when she knows hes Superman,) he tells her she'll find someone else but she says she won't/can't... does this lead to her meeting Richard White? I just can't see the film as a sequel if there is nothing that bridges onto it but then again there are films such as "stand alone" sequels or prequels like The Chronicles of Riddick for example.
 
Holy Crap!!! Good point GreenToo I forgot all about that, lets forget the superkiss and leave that in there.
 
A sequel involves the continuation of the narrative between works, and not just the inclusion of characters or set designs(FOS).
SR as we currently know it, is not a sequel to STM or SII.

However if the kid is a direct result of the Lois / Superman romance in SII..................
 
GreenKToo said:
I hate to mention it,but do u remember the....'super kiss'....he made her forget that he was superman.I wish I could forget that kiss.....


seeing that SR isn't out yet, and that concept hasn't been dispelled by the new franchise yet, I'll inform you, that the 'super kiss' DOES NOT, AND NEVER DID EXIST. Don't believe me, go watch (and torture yourself, you deserve it) Superman IV again. Watch the movie, and if you think the super-mindwipe-kiss exists, then you need to watch it again.
 
Superfreak said:
seeing that SR isn't out yet, and that concept hasn't been dispelled by the new franchise yet, I'll inform you, that the 'super kiss' DOES NOT, AND NEVER DID EXIST. Don't believe me, go watch (and torture yourself, you deserve it) Superman IV again. Watch the movie, and if you think the super-mindwipe-kiss exists, then you need to watch it again.

My thory is that Lois pretended that she don't know that Clark is Superman, because she understand Clark.
 
afan said:
SR as we currently know it, is not a sequel to STM or SII.

Wrong: Donner's Superman is heavily referenced in Singer's SR.
 
emi said:
Wrong: Donner's Superman is heavily referenced in Singer's SR.

Again; a sequel must continue the narrative.
 
Singer has chosen the route where he simply doesnt need to redo the origin. Singer can ignore everything about the previous movies(which he kinda has to since he already modernized and made a metropolis for the movie).
 
Isn't all of this info in the "Superman for newbies?" thread? I mean ALL of it?
 
GreenKToo said:
I hate to mention it,but do u remember the....'super kiss'....he made her forget that he was superman.I wish I could forget that kiss.....
So you want a smooch from Supes too?
 
musclesforsupes said:
Entertainment Weekly Called it Superman 3
They didn't write the story and haven't seen the movie.
 
So basically what we could be dealing with is that the kid is Supermans and is just experiencing his superpowers. Lois doesn't even remember having sex with Superman so she doesn't know it's his kid and thinks it's Richards. Superman is the only one who knows the kid is his but has to choose between belonging to the world and becoming a father.

I sure hope this is not the case.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,698
Messages
21,788,625
Members
45,617
Latest member
SuperheroWoman
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"