In completely contradicts it, in one film he has already been convicted & is serving his time in jail, then in the next film it claims he got out because Superman failed to appear as a witness in his trial.. which makes no sense given that he was already in jail serving his sentence in the beginning of the previous film, meaning his trial is already over.
And Joe Chill is the same case. He was in jail, trial over, but suddenly, he was elected for release since he had vital information against Carmine Falcone. Second part of the movie doesn't contradict the first; in stories, more often than not, things change.
Luthor never having been in jail when we all saw him going there in the previous movies, that's a contradiction.
Unconvincing & far-fetched elements of the idea of his release would be things like why was Superman's word so pivotal in his release? Surely there was actual evidence that convicted him in the first place? As well as other witnesses. What happened to whatever crimes Lex Luthor was wanted for in STM before Superman had even shown up? Meaning the ones Superman wouldn't have been a witness to. It's things along those lines ie questioning the trial in deep detail, which would lead things into areas that are unconvincing & far-fetched, however ironically for my own argument, I could let some of the more 'deeper' details of it go.
Key witnesses. They do exist.
It doesn't contradict the previous movies, as it's stated that Lex was in jail for his crimes.
Well no I wouldn't because his release is explained in greater terms & actually makes some logical sense. In BB Chill kills Bruce's parents when he is roughly 10, we then fast forward about 15 years & we see Chill's parole hearing in which he is being granted conditional early release from whatever the duration of his sentence was for his cooperation with the police & testifying against one of the biggest crime bosses in the city. Something that does actually happen.
Making sense is one thing, being contradictory is another. You don't quite grasp the difference, or decided to ignore it.
Lex Luthor being released after such a short period would be like Bin Laden being caught, then released without charge.
Yeah, weird. But doesn't contradict anything from the previous movies.
If Luthor was sent to jail in SII and SR addresses that, there's no contradiction there whatsoever. If anything Luthor's release is a nonsense within SR.
I don't know what would give you that impression given that I'm saying that 'it doesn't make sense' & your argument is that 'it does make sense.'
Your argument is "this doesn't make sense in the movie, ergo it's not a sequel." Quite a non sequitur.
The sole reason(s) though it doesn't make sense is simply because Jason has powers & Lois knows that Superman could potentially be the father.
So, Jason being conceived in the Fortress doesn't make any more sense. Exactly what I told you.
However don't you think it would make a similar level of little sense if Superman did go back to Lois in whatever the time period is between the 2 films given that all he & Lois had went through in Superman II in order to try to be together? Given his time away from Earth & the age/appearance of cast, the timeframe you are talking about after SII for Superman to have went back to Lois, you are talking about weeks/months as opposed to years.
I've known plenty of people who know they can't be together and yet they fall into temptation.
That said, I have stated multiple times now that the premises in SR (such as what happened exactly between Lois and Superman and when) should have been much better explained.
It doesn't contradict what happened in the previous movies in any case though.
Well no, he regained his powers because the only potion of the console left standing was the piece that controlled the molecule chamber as evidence from when Lex activates it at the end. The only reason he was able to access the console was because he'd give Lois the crystal which she'd accidentally dropped/misplaced. The 2 elements combined are how he managed to get his powers back in SII.
That's one of SII incoherences: the first time Superman goes into the chamber, no crystal is needed to make it work (in fact, as you said, the crystal was somewhere else at the time). Then Lara clearly states:
"But consider, once it is done there is no return.
The only reason why he re-gained his powers was because the story needed it.
And also, you saw the console being destroyed during Superman's de-powering. And yet at the end of the movie, it still works. I guess if earth technology can repair consoles, Kryptonian can too.
The console being okay in SR doesn't contradict the previous movies.
The knowledge crystals though & their access points on the console though were destroyed as they were in the console. Now if you fast forward to SR, he seemed pretty upset that they were missing. Why would he be so upset if something like that were easily repaired or replaced? I mean at that point in the film it's not like he knew who had taken them or why?
If you had seen SR you would know what the crystals can do, like growing entire continents. I'd say I'd be upset too if someone stole them, considering how much damage they could make, wouldn't you say?
Batman's suit though is something that he is shown to have "mass produced", the same I imagine would be the case for the X-Men's jet, while it's custom, it does seem like something that can be repaired if you've got the money. Fair enough, I'll go along with Superman being able to rebuild the Fortress's control console somehow, but the crystals that contain all Jor-El's knowledge & whatnot.. I mean those surely can't be replicated once destroyed.
Batman costume was only mass produced AFTER his only suit (in B89) was destroyed.
Now, you think a simple crystal can grow a continent just being exposed to water, but that very technology is unable to replicate itself?
Actually the link I sent you is Superman Returns "goof list". They aren't talking about things like Superman has a different suit or glasses, or different actors/actresses are playing roles.
Actually that list doesn't refer to ANY inconsistencies between SR and the previous movies. They just mention there are some, but none is named.
What I did by talking to you about the suit and such was only to provide some real inconsistencies between SR and STM/SII, so you could see the difference between them and your conjectures.
Go look at Batman Forever then Batman & Robin, I'd almost be willing to bet my house that they won't list the fact that Bruce Wayne/Batman is played by actors that look completely different to Michael Keaton as goofs, nor would they list things like the Bat Cave of Gotham looks different or the Bat suit looks different.
There are many inconsistencies between Burton's and Schumacher's movies. The latter ones are considered sequels to the former ones though. What does that tell you?
Chronology & story alterations are serious differences & it's that reason IMDB treats it as a separate film, otherwise you'd have a long list of inconsistencies between the chronology & story alterations listed as goofs.
Rotton Tomatoes synopsis is hardly official or any more credible than IMDB.
And the fact that everything is based on the previous movies, that Luthor still has the same goals, that Superman and Lois behave the same, that Luthor suggests to have been at the FoS before, that Lois wrote the "I spent the night with Superman" article, all that tells you it's a sequel.
Precisely. Look I may not be the biggest fan of the film, but Superman is my favourite comic book character & if I treat this film as a sequel to SII as opposed to a standalone film, then my own opinion of the film would become even lower & I'd probably have to consider it alongside some of the worst superhero films I've seen as opposed to hovering somewhere in the middle.
You can treat the movie as you want. The fact that it's a vague sequel won't change.
It's not that it means nothing, it's just that the concept itself is a loose, vague & in my opinion silly description for the very example I mentioned to you previously.
The only problem here is what I mentioned: SR should have stated clearly what its premises were.
Batman Begins wasn't a prequel to Batman 89, not even close... however you could describe it as a loose prequel at a push because chronology & story wise it has about as many inconsistencies between BB & Batman 89, as you do between SII & SR.. well maybe a few more between the 2 Batman films, but there's not much in it.
WB didn't do that. It is officially a reboot.
Once again trying to tell me what I did & why.
When you keep changing your argument, this is in order. Otherwise you could keep doing it forever.
Here's the end to this portion of the discussion: Read the previous post I made regarding this to avoid further confusion.
I have, and in fact I have quoted them. You refer to the plot, then to the goals.
Actually if you go back & read, you'll notice that the word I used to describe how Lex actually gained control of the missile(s) was - irrelevant - to the point I was making.
Well, since you mentioned it, I'd assume it was relevant to you. But it had to be mentioned as suddenly "plausibility" was such an important element to you, even when no Superman movie has been plausible.
It doesn't have to include him, but it did. No doubt because Zod & Lex Luthor are 2 of Superman's most well known villians.
Exactly. It did include Zod (even when Zod wasn't as popular as Luthor, at least not before SII). Which is why if you take the basic MOS plot, "it was STM and SII in one movie more updated."
You've got me, you've siphoned through my post & found a crumb to base your entire phantom argument. Any - some**. The some being every single one of them except Thor & Hulk.
And Iron Man, and Captain America.
I didn't claim it was completely 100% realistic at all, which is what I feel you think I did say. I grouped it with a bunch of films that all walked a fine line between reality & fantasy, meaning that the films try to keep the majority of characters that are all fantasy, as close to reality as possible.
Talking about the Avengers' origins you said: "all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy." That's simply not true. And in their respective movies nothing was done to make their origins realistic.
