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

[Batman the 6th]

She does remeber the sex. She didn't realize he was the father of her child. Donners version. They can take things in and out if they want 2. Certain things didn't happen, and some things did.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

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.

Well I have a feeling this upcoming DVD release is going to unearth even more questions than what we have now.

She does remeber the sex. She didn't realize he was the father of her child. Donners version.

Sorry, but...what?

In II, Lois had sex with Clark--not just his alter-ego. But from that mind-wipe all the way to S:IV, there is no indication that she even recalled that romantic situation--she was back to a platonic friendship with BOTH of his identities.

They can take things in and out if they want 2. Certain things didn't happen, and some things did.

Of course they can do whatever they want...provided that what they choose to do makes some sort of common sense.

 

[Showtime]

Wasn't there a scene in 4 where you think that Lois might know about the Clark/Superman situation. When Superman gets the beat down from Nuclear man and is feeling it something fearce at Clark's apartment. Lois comes in with the cape and the dialogue is somewhat vague.

 

[Batman the 6th]

What I'm saying is, Lois and Supes had a physical relationship, and he didn't tell her he was Clark. Its Donners version of what Singer is following. She is also in love with Richard, and she may not trust Supes yet. People do change in 5 years, and she is pissed that he left without saying bye basically right after they did it.

 

[C. Lee]

In II, Lois had sex with Clark--not just his alter-ego. But from that mind-wipe all the way to S:IV, there is no indication that she even recalled that romantic situation--she was back to a platonic friendship with BOTH of his identities.

Hate to do this again big guy.....in Superman IV, as he is deciding what to do about the nuclear weapons...Lois comes to Clark's apartment to go to the "press awards" dinner......he walks her out on his balcony (dressed as Clark) and jumps off of it with her....he then changes to Superman, and they fly around the world looking at things....they come back to his apartment....he says "You don't even know my name"...she says "Kal-El....I remember everything.".......he smiles and says "never put one above the rest" (or something like that)....he kisses her again....and once again she loses her memory.

They used the memory erasing kiss in 2 of the movies.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

She does remeber the sex. She didn't realize he was the father of her child. Donners version. They can take things in and out if they want 2. Certain things didn't happen, and some things did.

In Donner's shooting script for II, Lois found out Clark was Superman and she also forgot everything at the end of the film. Things just played out differently. Lois found out Clark was Superman by firing a gun with blanks at him and tricking him into revealing his secret. The film also ended with Lois forgetting the truth, but with Superman turning back time instead of the amnesia kiss (the turning back time ending was originally supposed to happen in II, not STM).

Both Donner's and Lester's version of II essiantially tell the same story, but the events in the film play out much, much differently. If anything, Donner's II contradicts SR even more because not only did Superman destroy the Fortress at the end of the film, but in Donner's script for II, Clark and Lois never slept together in the FOS (If that was indeed when Jason was conceived).

 

[Batman the 6th]

Who knows anymore? But I don't remember Clark and Lois jumping off his apartment and whatever.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Hate to do this again big guy.....in Superman IV, as he is deciding what to do about the nuclear weapons...Lois comes to Clark's apartment to go to the "press awards" dinner......he walks her out on his balcony (dressed as Clark) and jumps off of it with her....he then changes to Superman, and they fly around the world looking at things....they come back to his apartment....he says "You don't even know my name"...she says "Kal-El....I remember everything.".......he smiles and says "never put one above the rest" (or something like that)....he kisses her again....and once again she loses her memory.

They used the memory erasing kiss in 2 of the movies.

Doh! That's true. I haven't seen IV in a long time, and I forgot that detail. I'll have to rewatch it.

But even if she learned his identity twice in the original film series (albeit extremely briefly in IV, correct?), that doesn't mean there was a sexual relationship between them past the event in S:II. In other words, that boy could have only been concieved in II--and Superman wiped her memory of that event--and that included memory of his identity.

Which brings me back to one of my original questions: How did SR's Lois "know" that the kid was his? Surely the Piano-throwing deal wasn't the sole factor.

Unless she's just assuming she's taken on a new Mother Mary role--complete with an immaculate conception of her own.

 

[C. Lee]

Since Supes had to "re-memoryerase-kiss" her in Superman IV.....it can theorized that her memory has come back before...we have no way of knowing how many times he has done this to her....kinda like the Men in Black "flashy thingy".

 

[danoyse]

You can also interpret that the "kiss" in Superman II just made her forget that Clark was Superman, not everything that happened when they were together. I don't think Superman wanted her to forget she was in love with him.

I believe the SR Lois knew that Jason was his before the piano got tossed. I think that's why she was so mad at him for leaving...she even said "How could you leave us like that?" Everyone (Superman as well, at the time) just assumes she meant Metropolis.

Whatever Jason's abilities are, maybe his birth cracked whatever memory loss that Superman gave her.

 

[Batman the 6th]

She didn't know the kid was Supes', until the paino moment. I think in SR, they had sex but not in the way of SII. I think Supes and her hooked up, but he never told her his secret.There was also no Richard White in SIII or IV. There would have been a mention to Clark if she had a kid or not. Jimmy would know as well.

 

[Batman the 6th]

There ya go, Supes erased her memory, and Jason gave it back, somewhat. She still doesn't know about Supes/Clark.

 

[danoyse]

Exactly...she's still completely oblivious that Clark is Superman in SR.

But Jason (sort of) figured it out.

 

[Cannibal Feast]

Maybe her memory has partially returned over the years in bits and pieces.
She simply put two and two together once she saw Jason throw the piano.
It happens all the time when people have blocked memories of trauma.
Bits and pieces come back to them over time.
They don't necessarily ever remember the whole thing, but they get enough pieced of the puzzle to figure out what happened.

 

[Batman the 6th]

Everyone but Perry, Jimmy and Perry figured it out. Richard asked how tall Clark was, and they both laughed. I'm watching HBO on demand right now. I'm at the scene where the kryppys meet the officers.

 

[bweurk]

i don't think SR is a sequel to the Donner's film...
the vague history concept just means "if you want to know superman's origins, watch STM"
In SR it's pretty clear that Superman slept with Lois without telling her that he is Clark, it seems impossible with Reeve's Superman, but Routh's Superman is more human, less perfect, sleeping with a girl as Superman is something he could do, just look at the way he tries to seduce Lois.

 

[Batman the 6th]

I agree with bweurk. Just that some things could have happened, and some things may not have.

 

[Retroman]

Wow, a nice civilized discussion about Supes i'm impressed.

 

[Batman the 6th]

You should see the Jason appreciation thread, it was merged. Actually kinda funny.

 

[Octoberist]

Honestly, I've alway viewed this 'vague history' and possible/impossible contradictions as this: Burton's Batman is a vague history to the animated series.

THe Joker's name in the cartoon was Jack Napier justlike in the movie, but did he actually kill Bruce's parents in the Dini/Timm universe? We don't know enough to know. That's how I view Superman Returns.

If I was in Singer's position, would I do the 'vague history' route. No. Was a bold move on Singer's part. Yes.

 

[Syncos]

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.

Just as a point of interest, how do we know they didn't hook up in some point off screen, What if that was a plot detail that was a nuance to something that had happened say, right before Supes left. That wasn't shown in one of the movies. Not every plot detail is seen on screen.

Just sayin.
-Syn

 

[Batman the 6th]

Thats what I've been saying for awhile. Just like the krypton scene, we didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. We didn't see Jason throw the piano, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[The Guard]

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.

If The Fortress is destroyed at the end of SUPERMAN II, then why is it shown again (albeit a much cheaper version) in SUPERMAN IV?

Regarding the previous franchise and its ties to SUPERMAN RETURNS: VAGUE HISTORY, people. VAGUE HISTORY. Here's a crazy, outlandish idea, but stay with me: Perhaps the whole point of the story not wrapping up in SUPERMAN RETURNS and nothing being neatly explained...is that they will reveal more of what happened in sequels? Maybe? Just a thought.

 

[The Batman]

Except Singer and his writers clearly state they're only taking supes one into consideration for vague history. if they wanted the rest in, they would have said so.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Except Singer and his writers clearly state they're only taking supes one into consideration for vague history. if they wanted the rest in, they would have said so.

They've also said I and II comprise the vague history. There are refrences to Superman II. For instance, Lex knowing about the Fortress of Solitude and where it is.