Superman Returns New details on S2's fit in SR...

[DocLathropBrown]

http://thecinemaforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1998

Bryan Singer: The 2nd film is not in my history. It's not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again.

That comes from the latest SFX article.

So at the very beginning, he counted it... now he doesn't?

That settles it, if so. The kid can't be Clark's, as Lois and he never had sex.

 

[Excel]

dude lois and clark were a couplke for several years before he left. he obviously did her at least once, hes superman.

 

[dark_b]

already a thread about this.

but thanks.

 

[Superman \S/]

Odd....I wonder why he would say that when he cleary said in the start of filming SR took elements from S2. I'm still sticking to what he said not by this article.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

dude lois and clark were a couplke for several years before he left. he obviously did her at least once, hes superman.

Without an on-screen catalyst, I doubt the kid is his, I don't think Singer'd make reference to something we hadn't seen, at least, not of that magnitude.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

already a thread about this.

but thanks.

I apoligize, I hadn't seen a thread with a title making it obvious this topic was contained therein.

 

[dark_b]

Odd....I wonder why he would say that when he cleary said in the start of filming SR took elements from S2. I'm still sticking to what he said not by this article.

he said both many times.

 

[Superman \S/]

he said both many times.

I knew that.

 

[dark_b]

I apoligize, I hadn't seen a thread with a title making it obvious this topic was contained therein.

the other thread is about the vague sequel.

 

[Cinemaman]

Sometimes Singer's words sounds strange for me.

 

[Superman \S/]

Lol ^

 

[Kane]

Odd....I wonder why he would say that when he cleary said in the start of filming SR took elements from S2. I'm still sticking to what he said not by this article.

Because the script obviously changed alot since those early days.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Anyway, I'm now confident that the kid ain't his. Not that I think Singer'd be dumb enough to do something that terrible in the first place. He treats Superman better than he does X-Men.

 

[Captain Villa]

I really doubt this news. It contradicts many interviews.

 

[Superman \S/]

Because the script obviously changed alot since those early days.

I guess so.

 

[The Guard]

I love how he recognizes that SUPERMAN II wasn't that good.

"Vague history" just means this:

Clark Kent grew up in Smallville
His father died, and he left home
He learned who he was via Jor-El
He worked at the Daily Planet
He became Superman
He fell in love with Lois Lane
He battled Lex Luthor

It could even be applied to the comic book mythos.

 

[ultimatefan]

That had been posted here before. Which means the whole sex between Clark and Lois thing is left in the open.

 

[THE MR. TERRIFIC]

It was cool!

 

[Captain Villa]

You do realise that the "evidence" is on a forum with one reply ?

I simply do not believe it. singer has said all along and it is well documented that 1&2 are in this film's history and to disregard 3 & 4.

I can't believe that after all this time, you are actually believing this BS ?!

 

[The Kid]

wtf singer. Just Scrap this vague history stuff and Do everything from a new continuity like Smallville. It worked pretty well for that show, people like it, so I don't see why this has to be in any way linked to the old movies except some design choices.... ****

....it'll probably be a great memorable movie anyway that people will love and all that, but this is confusing me now how it stands in the continuity with the old flicks partially. I've never heard of this ever being done before.

 

[Superman \S/]

You do realise that the "evidence" is on a forum with one reply ?

I simply do not believe it. singer has said all along and it is well documented that 1&2 are in this film's history and to disregard 3 & 4.

I can't believe that after all this time, you are actually believing this BS ?!

Never said i believed it.

 

[dark_b]

You do realise that the "evidence" is on a forum with one reply ?

I simply do not believe it. singer has said all along and it is well documented that 1&2 are in this film's history and to disregard 3 & 4.

I can't believe that after all this time, you are actually believing this BS ?!

but i remember that he once said that superman 2 has nothing to do with this movie.

 

[Superman \S/]

but i remember that he once said that superman 2 has nothing to do with this movie.

So did I.

 

[Kane]

You do realise that the "evidence" is on a forum with one reply ?

SFX wouldnt print it if it was 'BS'. All those quotes were from Singer and the writers.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231131

Even check out blog 17#, the 2 writers mentioned only the first movie as SR's history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiUnw4RiZWE

 

[hoopy3]

Singer just needed a version of superman (there are many many versions) to use as his foundation. He proabably figured usisng the movie version was the best since that is how superman is most widely known. Even smallville had their fortress of solitude look like the one form superman the movie.
It doesn't mean he needs to directly reference individual events of the original movies. The more intereviews i read the more i think this isn't really a sequel, just an original story that already has superman existing. It is probably why there is no reference to the supervillians in the movie.

This doesn't necessarily mean the kid is not supermans...Singer can allude to the fact that they slept togehter before he left since they were in love....i really have no idea on that point. Kinda like how you accept star wars (in 1977) without seeing the pre-quels becasue lucas alluded to the events......(which 30 years later we did finally see).