Superman Returns Superman Returns is in continuity with the Donner Cut of Superman II! (Spoilers)

[Brainiac 2009]

Thats not turning back time, that is altering someone's memory. Turning back time would be going back and preventing something. He couldn't go back in time and have sex with Lois while preventing her from remembering. Hell, to do that WOULD be date rape.

Which again means Superman and Lois obviously had a relationship After Superman II with Lois not knowing that Clark = Superman (a fact that would have complicated things as it did in Superman II).

This would lead perfectly into SR.

 

[Matt]

Which again means Superman and Lois obviously had a relationship After Superman II with Lois not knowing that Clark = Superman (a fact that would have complicated things as it did in Superman II).

This would lead perfectly into SR.

Why the hell would Clark leave her for his responsibility and then just decide "Well, I can still shag her on the side as Superman".

Besides, like Guard has been kind enough to point out, no matter how apologetic you are for this film, it wasn't described in the movie, therefore it did not happen. According to Bryan Singer, it is a vague history, and whether you like it or not Singer's "vague history" makes no sense, especially as he said "I just pick and choose what I want to keep."

 

[Brainiac 2009]

Why the hell would Clark leave her for his responsibility and then just decide "Well, I can still shag her on the side as Superman".

If Superman never found a way to be with Lois and still manage his responsibilties, they never would have got together and got married in the Superman lore.

Superman simply didnt want her to know that he and Clark Kent were the same person. Superman managed his relations with Lois fine in STM but when Lois shot the gun at Clark in Superman II and his identity was revealed, everything changed.

When she knew the truth, he realized he had to become Clark Kent (a human) to be with her.

 

[Brainiac 2009]

Besides, like Guard has been kind enough to point out, no matter how apologetic you are for this film, it wasn't described in the movie, therefore it did not happen. According to Bryan Singer, it is a vague history, and whether you like it or not Singer's "vague history" makes no sense, especially as he said "I just pick and choose what I want to keep."

I'm not being apologetic, just pointing out these observations. I'm not trying to justify Singer's decisions, they dont require it.

But Singer's history for SR lines up with Donner's Cut alot better than the original Lester Superman II.

 

[buggs0268]

I don't think it does. For one thing, he turned back time, and everything went back. So Lois' fetus would now be gone. Everything on earth goes back in time, but outside of earth it is still the same thing. So the astronauts on the moon would still be dead, and NASA would be wondering what the hell happened. But everyone else went back in time. So, Kryptonian DNA or not, everything on the planet went back in time, so Lois was not pregnant at all at the end of the movie as the fetus would just disapear. Since they decided not to have a realationship for the worlds sake, they do not have sex.

 

[charl_huntress]

Just because Singer chose to base this ONE film on Donner's doesnt make him a hack. Hes written, directed original stuff before and Brandon said publically that Singer is planning to make the sequel his own.

So funny how all the "Singer Lovers" have new names, and are ready to knot it up again. Yet, your argument now is he just stole from ONE of Donner's ideas. It wasn't a big thing that he didn't come up with his own idea (an idea many of us were expecting to be great) after a twenty year wait for Superman! Yeah, that's cool I can so totally dig that!

I dont see the need to get your panties in a twist.

You know what ****er! Don't be worried about my panties. That is none of your concern.

And technically it still IS in "Vague History" with Lester's Superman II. It simply appears to be in a closer, more direct continuity with the Donner cut.

Yeah, that vague history is as vague as Singer and his "hack" crew's story-telling abilities. I am sooooo yearning to see a vague history for his next sequel...I mean requel. Maybe he will try to discover the his hidden feeling for his adoptive mother in context of her relationship with Ben Hubbard. Hmmm...you think socia-phobe Singer will do that.


I wonder

 

[X Knight]

yes, so if Supes turns back time at the end of S2 because he realizes the mess he's created, I'd think it would still be creepy and odd that he would want to sleep with Lois again, this time without telling her he's clark.

That's not really learning from your mistake. That's trying to have it both ways.

Plus, from SR, i think they are implying that they slept together on the night of their "Flight" from S1. I think that's what Lois' article "I spent the night with Superman" was about, meaning....she literally "spent the night" with Superman.

and as for whether Supes went looking for survivors.......as far as I remember, THAT WAS NOT OUTLINED in the film. Rather, that is speculation and conjecture, for Singer did not include any evidence to suggest that Supes was going for a rescue mission.

I know the novel had the angle where Lex was behind the whole plot......BUT THEY TOOK THAT OUT OF THE MOVIE??? WHY??? That would have been a perfect second plot twist, where the villian reveals that he was behind the whole lie. That would've made Lex even more cunning and EVIL!!!

And, if Singer meant to include other points about the return to krypton, well, HE SHOULD HAVE LEFT THAT IN!!!!

 

[JamalYIgle]

yes, so if Supes turns back time at the end of S2 because he realizes the mess he's created, I'd think it would still be creepy and odd that he would want to sleep with Lois again, this time without telling her he's clark.

That's not really learning from your mistake. That's trying to have it both ways.

Plus, from SR, i think they are implying that they slept together on the night of their "Flight" from S1. I think that's what Lois' article "I spent the night with Superman" was about, meaning....she literally "spent the night" with Superman.

and as for whether Supes went looking for survivors.......as far as I remember, THAT WAS NOT OUTLINED in the film. Rather, that is speculation and conjecture, for Singer did not include any evidence to suggest that Supes was going for a rescue mission.

I know the novel had the angle where Lex was behind the whole plot......BUT THEY TOOK THAT OUT OF THE MOVIE??? WHY??? That would have been a perfect second plot twist, where the villian reveals that he was behind the whole lie. That would've made Lex even more cunning and EVIL!!!

And, if Singer meant to include other points about the return to krypton, well, HE SHOULD HAVE LEFT THAT IN!!!!

It was never in the shooting script. it was something Wolfman added.

 

[Spade]

Lex didnt have to be out of jail to have the information planted. He has got enough connections on the outside as prequel comic #3 pointed out.


Lex supposedely only had the information planted after he was jailed. The motivation was to have Superman (the only witness whos testimony could incriminate him for the double life sentence) leave and not be able to testify.

Thus, Superman left and Lex only served 5 years.

It still works perfectly, though its uncertain whether the element of Lex being responsible for the false information is in SR canon. It was removed from the shooting script for some reason.

Umm...you basically said what I said. The only thing that wasn't addressed was my questioning of the validity of Superman conceiving Jason mere days after he made Lois forget the events of Superman II.

 

[X Knight]

how can one get ahold of this shooting script? is it something you buy at a bookstore?

 

[Agentdemon]

^amazon.com

 

[SentinelMind]

So the best explanation that ties everything together is that Superman goes back in time to make sure sex with Lois never happened, and then has sex with her again, except this time not telling her he's Superman? So he's living a double life with the one he has a sexual relationship with.

Why can't you guys concede that Singer screwed up? Even if you like the movie, for crying out loud, just admit Singer wrote himself into a hole.

 

[X Knight]

I personally think SR ignores S2 ( Lester's or Donner's ) and is more in tune with the events in S1. That is, Supes and Lois slept together the night of their Flight Scene ( which kind of tarnishes the original concept ), Lex was in Jail because of the events in S1......

However, even so, SR is inconsistent with S1's Superman, in that Superman was so distraught with Lois dying that he went against his father's orders ( not to interfere with nature ) and turned back time to save Lois.

True, it was a Selfish act, but Supes did it to SAVE the woman he loves ( Much like Neo chooses to save Trinity instead of Zion in Matrix Reloaded ).

Yet, this same Superman is then going to LEAVE the woman he loves for 5+ years to seek out the remains of Krypton........

so, any way you look at it, SR is in a continuity of its own........

who knows.....maybe 10, 15 years from now, another director will come along and pretend that SR didn't happen, much like Singer did with Supes 3 and 4.......

 

[Morgoth]

Man, I can't wait to see Superman II: The Richard
Donner cut, so I can see if Superman Returns links up with it. I hate having to wait until I get paid this week to get it.

 

[Spade]

Man, I can't wait to see Superman II: The Richard
Donner cut, so I can see if Superman Returns links up with it. I hate having to wait until I get paid this week to get it.

I remember looking in a search engine and finding the original working script Donner had written (not that he wrote, but had put into print) rather easily. There's a website I can't remember offhand that has it. It's not in typical format, but it shows the basic concepts of what it's about. If you want to whet your desire for finding out about it beforehand that may be a good venue.

 

[The Kid]

It's like one of those dragonball z movies that has no place in the show's continuity.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

Don't know if it was brought up:

If there's anything Singer shouldn't take from Donner, it's the whole turn-back-time thing! Why? It's not just cheesy, it also creates a huge plothole in this and all upcoming movies.
In SR, Superman could just turn back time to catch Luthor before he steals the crystals.
In all the next movies, Supes could do the same thing and just reverse time to redo a certain event. Doesn't even matter if he can only turn back the time for like 1 day or so. The possibility alone is stupid and just takes away all the danger coming from any kind of villain. Superman could just change the outcoming of every fight, unless he dies of course.

Not talking about how creepy it is to impregnate Lois and just make her forget.

 

[dark_b]

you watch donners movie to understand teh character in SR. you watch donners movies to understandt superman oriigin. but SR and donners movie are not connected.

he used all (to much) homages to remeber all people of the donner movie.

do no try to connect S:Tm,S" with SR because it is not possible.

 

[dark_b]

Don't know if it was brought up:

If there's anything Singer shouldn't take from Donner, it's the whole turn-back-time thing! Why? It's not just cheesy, it also creates a huge plothole in this and all upcoming movies.
In SR, Superman could just turn back time to catch Luthor before he steals the crystals.
In all the next movies, Supes could do the same thing and just reverse time to redo a certain event. Doesn't even matter if he can only turn back the time for like 1 day or so. The possibility alone is stupid and just takes away all the danger coming from any kind of villain. Superman could just change the outcoming of every fight, unless he dies of course.

Not talking about how creepy it is to impregnate Lois and just make her forget.

and he didnt and he will not.

 

[bsquad]

I thought only the 1978 Superman film was completly in SR continuity with SM2 as vague history--basically Singer taking the parts that he liked and felt worked in SM2 and ignoring the rest (Luthor knowing where the Fortress is and Lois and Superman getting intimate).

I mean, Singer even said, after the film was released and when during an interview he was asked about Superman getting her pregnant and her not remembering, that he had just assumed that Lois and Superman knowingly slept with each other and that she remembers it. I remember reading it here on the board a little bit after the film was first released.

 

[bsquad]

So the best explanation that ties everything together is that Superman goes back in time to make sure sex with Lois never happened, and then has sex with her again, except this time not telling her he's Superman? So he's living a double life with the one he has a sexual relationship with.

Why can't you guys concede that Singer screwed up? Even if you like the movie, for crying out loud, just admit Singer wrote himself into a hole.

I think its more people making holes based on assumptions or trying to make everything fit. I mean I know I have read that the film takes off from the 78 Superman film, and uses parts of SM2, not all of it as pieces of the backstory.

 

[charl_huntress]

I mean, Singer even said, after the film was released and when during an interview he was asked about Superman getting her pregnant and her not remembering, that he had just assumed that Lois and Superman knowingly slept with each other and that she remembers it. I remember reading it here on the board a little bit after the film was first released.

Which is why the Donner cut doesn't really explain anything in relation to SR...IMO, and the fact that Singer's ardent supporters are looking for ways to justify his ridiculous plot holes using this movie makes that argument really funny.

 

[bsquad]

Which is why the Donner cut doesn't really explain anything in relation to SR...IMO, and the fact that Singer's ardent supporters are looking for ways to justify his ridiculous plot holes using this movie makes that argument really funny.

Well I am a Singer supporter and I loved the film but I think that the only direct connection Singer wanted to make was with SM1. The other film is not 100% in continuity and when Singer kept using the words 'vague history, and 'to a lesser extent', he meant just that. 2 ideas were lifted from SM2 and just used as part of their established history. Nevermind what Donner wanted to do in SM2 or what Lester did do in SM2, because they are'nt supposed to matter. The only part of those films that hold any relevance to SR continuity is the idea of Luthor being to the Fortress and the idea of Superman and Lois having a relationship.

 

[Bad Superman]

After watching the surprise ending to the Donner Cut, I realized SR fits directly into this timeline.

Perhaps Singer (in contact with Donner) was aware of the storyline for the Donner Cut when planning how the SR story would flow.


Basically Superman turns back time on Earth in the end (retconning the Zod Crisis from ever happening...which is why it is avoided in the history presented in the prequel comics).

This also explains why Lois doesnt know that Clark and Superman are the same person.


This allows for Superman to have a relationship with Lois (referenced in the vague history of SR) after the events of Superman II without knowing him and Clark are the same man. After everything that went wrong in Superman II, its understandable why Superman wouldnt want her to know about him being Clark just yet, and probably has devoted himself to doing a better job with the masquerade of Clark (which may explain why Routh's Clark is alot more subdued).


So, I guess it all makes sense now.... or does it?

Continuity Problem: Lex still knows the FOS's location from Superman II when Kitty notices that Lex "has been here before" in SR.

 

[charl_huntress]

Well I am a Singer supporter and I loved the film but I think that the only direct connection Singer wanted to make was with SM1. The other film is not 100% in continuity and when Singer kept using the words 'vague history, and 'to a lesser extent', he meant just that. 2 ideas were lifted from SM2 and just used as part of their established history. Nevermind what Donner wanted to do in SM2 or what Lester did do in SM2, because they are'nt supposed to matter. The only part of those films that hold any relevance to SR continuity is the idea of Luthor being to the Fortress and the idea of Superman and Lois having a relationship.

I can buy that, and that in fact makes the most sense to me. Still, the story elements Singer decided to leave out should have been left in to better explain Superman's actions. The simple fact he didn't leave those elements (the ones listed earlier in this thread) in speaks clearly of him and his writers not understanding Superman.

I know you liked the movie and dont' see it this way, but from my point of view that's how it turned out. Regardless of how I look it at, Superman is either a mind raping stalker, or depressesd whiny dead beat dad. Both images shouldn't be in my mind when thinking about Superman, the greatest hero of them all!