Superman Returns Superman Returns doesn't actually contradict III and IV, does it?

[Kevin Roegele]

I don't Returns actually contradicts anything from Supes III and IV.....not that it matters, and not that Singer and co care, because Returns is a sequel to the first (primarily) and second movies. But you could call this Superman 5 or Superman 2.5 and it still works.

 

[Galactical]

yes absolutely. It's what one of the writers said. It's not completely replacing III or IV, just that it's vague enough so it's up to the viewer to decide where it stands in continuity. I think that's what they were saying.

The big issue seems to be when lois and supes made love. I think SM2 isn't the only time they've done it.

 

[Dr.Dude]

Yeah.... the first movie and probably the second are a definite background, but basically 3 and 4 can exist or not exist in your mind, its completely up to the viewer.... why someone even want them to exist is the only question.

....Though despite how much the rest of Superman 3 sucked, I'll still say the junkyard scene did kick ass.

 

[Lord Blackbolt]

Superman 3 could have been good....it seemed to have....crappy versions of Bizarro and Brainic in that movie...with a little rewriting...that movie could have been cool.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

yes absolutely. It's what one of the writers said. It's not completely replacing III or IV, just that it's vague enough so it's up to the viewer to decide where it stands in continuity. I think that's what they were saying.

The big issue seems to be when lois and supes made love. I think SM2 isn't the only time they've done it.

Returns is very well balanced in that case. You can slot it into the existing series anywhere you want - or not even have seen any of the previous films.

 

[lujho]

It does contradict 4 doesn't it? Because Ma Kent died (is is mentioned as being dead) in that one, IIRC.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It does contradict 4 doesn't it? Because Ma Kent died (is is mentioned as being dead) in that one, IIRC.

Good call. So it can't be Superman 5, it has to be Superman 2.5

 

[Galactical]

oh poo.

I forgot about that. I guess IV's out then.

 

[The Guard]

I just watched both films two days ago. In both SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV, Ma Kent dying is mentioned. When he goes back to Smallville in SUPERMAN III Lana says "This is the first time you've been back since your mother passed away", and she's still dead in THE QUEST FOR PEACE. So yes, SUPERMAN RETURNS contradicts both histories, especially in terms of Superman's relationship with Lois Lane in III and IV, which was almost nonexistent.

But...since it's a "vague history"...it could kinda fit both III and IV, I guess. To me it really just felt like a new Superman film with constant annoying references to SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.

 

[Raiden]

Good call. So it can't be Superman 5, it has to be Superman 2.5

Since Superman didn't have a kid in either Superman 3 nor 4, I don't think SR can be Superman 2.5. Singer made SR with the sole intention to replace 3 & 4, and pretend these two movies never existed.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

As far as i am concerned,Superman Returns reconns Suprman III and IV.Not that i am angry with that,refrences to Superman I and II are made.So only those movies are accepted.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Since Superman didn't have a kid in either Superman 3 nor 4, I don't think SR can be Superman 2.5. Singer made SR with the sole intention to replace 3 & 4, and pretend these two movies never existed.

You're absolutely right, although Superman clealry intends to let Lois and Cyclops look after Jason until his superpowers manifest themselves to a greater extent, so it makes theoretical sense he wouldn't appear in the storylines of III or IV.

I don't think Singer wanted to replace III and IV as much as he didn't care about them - he wanted to make a sequel to the original Superman movie first and foremost.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

It doesn't contradict III or IV.

But it definitely retcons everything from II.

 

[Batman the 6th]

Except Zod and co never came, Supes didn't give up his powers, and Supes didn't do the memory wipe or throwing his S shield, so SII, Lesters version, never happened. SII, Richard Donners version, which comes to DVD around the same time as SR, it the actual movie I think SR follows. The only reference to SII is Lex being in the FOS b4. Other than that, nothing else.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Except Zod and co never came, Supes didn't give up his powers, and Supes didn't do the memory wipe or throwing his S shield, so SII, Lesters version, never happened. SII, Richard Donners version, which comes to DVD around the same time as SR, it the actual movie I think SR follows. The only reference to SII is Lex being in the FOS b4. Other than that, nothing else.

When does it say Zod, Non and Ursa never came to earth?

 

[The Guard]

Just because certain things that happened in SUPERMAN II, III and IV aren't mentioned doesn't mean they never happened. "Vague history". What you want to have happened...happened. It's kind of clever, and kind of not, because then they insist on tying it to SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE in so many ways...

 

[Batman the 6th]

The book mentioned Zod, but that was it.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I think it blows a lot of what II did out of the water. There are several contradictions that I noticed, such as these:

1.) When he consumated his relationship with Lois in II, he did so after he'd given up his powers. He was a normal human.

Query: So how is it that his son--apparently concieved during the II tryst with Lois--can throw fricking pianos???

2.) At the end of II, Clark kisses Lois, erasing her memory of his identity and everything they'd ever done romantically. Neither III nor IV show her having any kind of romantic ties with him fueled off of what happened in the Fortress of Solitude.

Query: So why is Kate Bosworth's Lois getting up on the medical bed whispering to a comatose Superman that he owes her child support? Huh?


Either they had sex in II or they didn't.

Either he impregnated Lois with normal, human semen in II or he didn't.

Either he wiped her mind clean in II or he didn't.


These are glaring plotholes...and a large part of the reason the film doesn't make sense for a lot of fans.

 

[The Batman]

Actually....it does.

For one thing, in Superman 4, ma kent is clearly dead, and when clark returns to the farm, the men hes talking to talk about selling the farm.

And if we go by donners films alone, the fortress of solitude is destroyed at the end of superman 2. Thats why you dont see it in 3 and 4.

And how about lex luthor? How does he escape a prison sentence if he's already in prison for a time after the first one, in prison again after two, probably in prison during the third, and in prison one more time after 4. After hes been in prison all those times for crimes he commited, and then hes let free only when supermans gone? That makes no sense.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Actually....it does.

For one thing, in Superman 4, ma kent is clearly dead, and when clark returns to the farm, the men hes talking to talk about selling the farm.

And if we go by donners films alone, the fortress of solitude is destroyed at the end of superman 2. Thats why you dont see it in 3 and 4.

*smacks forehead*

Excellent points--I forgot that they did destroy the Fortress with the three criminals still buried in its depths.

These are the reasons why Singer would've been smarter to start this new rebirth with his own vision, instead of a hybrid of his and another director's. Donner's films closed entire arcs cleanly. This film reopened those arcs without acknowleging the status of certain details...and it comes across messy and confusing.

 

[Batman the 6th]

Also, like its been said over and over and over and over again, Supes didn't become human when he lost his powers. His DNA didn't change. Thats how the kid has powers. The memory kiss, the S shield, etc was Lesters stupid @$$ idea, and Donner is coming out with his own idea, putiing in his own scenes in SII. He also never told Lois about his secret, all of that Lester stuff didn't happen. Maybe I'll make a thread so every user sees that shows that Lester's version and Donners version are 2 different ideas, and Singer is staying true to the Donner vision. Oh yeah, Lois whispered that Jason is his son, but you knew that by the speech he gave to Jason Lightning Strikez.

 

[C. Lee]

*smacks forehead*

Excellent points--I forgot that they did destroy the Fortress with the three criminals still buried in its depths.

Hate to contradict LS...but the original version of SII (the deleted scenes were shown on network TV at least once) showed Superman handing Zod and his crew over to some "Arctic Policemen".....that's one of the things that may be restored in the new Donner Cut coming to DVD.

 

[Batman the 6th]

It is. Because people are wondering if they were killed, or died down in the Abyss. Also, Donner said that his version didn't have the kiss thing at the end, and Supes didn't trip on a pink rug, the whole telekinesis thing, splitting himself somewhat, teleporting, throwing your emblems, didn't happen.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Also, like its been said over and over and over and over again, Supes didn't become human when he lost his powers. His DNA didn't change. Thats how the kid has powers. The memory kiss, the S shield, etc was Lesters stupid @$$ idea, and Donner is coming out with his own idea, putiing in his own scenes in SII. He also never told Lois about his secret, all of that Lester stuff didn't happen. Maybe I'll make a thread so every user sees that shows that Lester's version and Donners version are 2 different ideas, and Singer is staying true to the Donner vision.

But that's the crux of my point: You can't play "hopscotch" with movie timelines. Either you do it all the way, or you don't do it at all. You can't ignore certain details and build off of others.

You're saying that he's staying true to Donner's version, yet a large part of SR's subplots are taking into account Lester's work?

Well, which is it then?

Oh yeah, Lois whispered that Jason is his son, but you knew that by the speech he gave to Jason Lightning Strikez.

Yes, I realise that.

But how does she know that if her memory was wiped in Superman II? She only slept with him once--in the second film. Where and when was the child conceived? In the second film. When did he wipe her mind with that kiss? In the second film.

So why is she acting like an angry baby mama when he returns if she doesn't remember their tryst? It's a contradiction.

Hate to contradict LS...but the original version of SII (the deleted scenes were shown on network TV at least once) showed Superman handing Zod and his crew over to some "Arctic Policemen".....

Hmmm, very interesting.

What version was shown in theatres? I could be mistaken (I was small when it was released), but over the last 30 years or so I can only recall one disastrous outcome for those criminals--and it involved perishing at the Fortress, just before its destruction.

 

[C. Lee]

Hmmm, very interesting.

What version was shown in theatres? I could be mistaken (I was small when it was released), but over the last 30 years or so I can only recall one disastrous outcome for those criminals--and it involved perishing at the Fortress, just before its destruction.

The version shown in theaters left you not knowing what happened to Zod and the others...they just disappeared into the mists that Supes and Lois threw them into in the Fortress. Then when it premiered on ABC the first time....they had extra scenes (the one with Supes handing them over to the cops is the only one that comes to mind right now)...but years later when they put it out on VHS tape it was back to the original theatrical version. In the extended version shown on tv....the Fortress was seen still standing in the background as the cops hauled them off.