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

[charl_huntress]

I guess I do. I liked the movie. Never read a Superman comic ever and I enjoyed it. It definitely was flawed from a script stand point, but it was still good. But I see you will obviously disagree with me and I don't feel like talking to you. Back to the misc. film forums. It's better there.

Take care.

 

[SeriousDuke]

Again, the reversing back time ending was supposed to be for S2. What happened was that originally at the end of 1 supes pulls Lois in the car out of the crevace just in time before she is crushed. Mank talks about how Supes says some line to Lois about flipping the car. At this point, the Salkinds had no more money, and the whole movie was about to be evicted from Pinewood. Donner went to Warner's directly, sick of having to deal with the Salkind's, and got a commitment for more money so they could finish it and not get kicked off of the pinewood lot. Warner's saw how good the movie was. They also realized the B/S that the Salkind's was doing to Donner and put Mr. Greenlaw, a Warner's guy, as associate producer to make sure that Donner got what he needed. It was at this time that Warner's also suggested to stop shooting Superman 2 and just concentrate on finishing one as they had already missed the intended summer 1978 release date and it looked like they were going to miss the Christmasss 1978 release date too. Donner, Mank and Warner's realized that STM didn't have a powerfull ending, and it just went into a preivew of S2. Warner's suggested putting their best effect, reversing time back, into the conclusion of 1 because they wanted the film to really be good, and who knows if 2 would get done if 1 bombed. So , and so Mank wrote that Lois dies and supes find her dead and then gets so upset he defies his dad and changes human history. This was a great climax to 1. They only had about 25 percent more to film on the now abandoned Superman 2, and intended to go back and finish it after 1's release. Since they used the turn back time effect in 1, Donner and Mank had every intention to come up with a new, no reverse time ending for 2 when they started back on it. Since the first movie was a hit, the Salkinds felt they didn't need to bring back Donner, so they fired him, and the only donner made ending was the turn back time ending. Since the film is 30 years old, and it's main stars are old or deceased, they could not go and reshoot a newer ending.

WOW! Thank you so much, I have a new found respect for the film as I did not know that. THANK YOU!

~SD

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

Doesn't matter if it fits the continuity. SR is still total garbage.

 

[Superman4ever]

Ugh, if Superman turned back time and everything was normal again, then how did Lois end up pregnant with Superman's baby?

Unless they explain (in the sequel) that they did it (y'know sexy-time) again, at another time or something.

BTW, at the end of the Donner cut, which I LOVED, and it made SR more emotional for me, did the guy at the diner (Rocky) remember kicking Clark's ass. Do the Diner owner's remember the fight? Cause the owner, just before Clark pwns Rocky says something along the lines of "just fixed the joint up" and if "cost a fortune".

 

[buggs0268]

Ugh, if Superman turned back time and everything was normal again, then how did Lois end up pregnant with Superman's baby?

Unless they explain (in the sequel) that they did it (y'know sexy-time) again, at another time or something.

BTW, at the end of the Donner cut, which I LOVED, and it made SR more emotional for me, did the guy at the diner (Rocky) remember kicking Clark's ass. Do the Diner owner's remember the fight? Cause the owner, just before Clark pwns Rocky says something along the lines of "just fixed the joint up" and if "cost a fortune".

You know, watching the Jimmy and Clark deleted scene, Jimmy is showing off his brand new camera (to replace the one destroyed by Non), so it looks like he goes to the diner before turning back time. So that is why the restarurant people remember him. Because he hasn't turned back time yet. Since Donner elected to not use that scene in his cut, which he shot, it makes the scene look iffy. Compounded by the fact that he puts the turning back time first. I can see why he did it that way. It is to show that he did it in a fit of passion. Donner said that they wrote the turning back time scene originally as Lois and Clark would have never made it nto doing so, and she would have been constantly grabbing him into the closet as Clark to kiss him.

 

[mego joe]

I never said that it did make it right. But it happens. And just because Superman is a role model of sorts doesn't mean that he doesn't make mistakes. He's made mistakes in the comics, he's made mistakes in the movies. Just because he's Superman doesn't mean he should be infallible and perfect.

I agree that SUperman should not be infallible or perfect, but I don't think that the flaws portrayed in SR are accurate to his character. SR portrays SUperman making the mistakes of an immature, irresponsible teenager. SUperman's flaws should be related to his caring and sense of responsibility of his powers. I don't think one of his flaws is that he's willing to cause pain and hurt to Lois in order to save his own pain which is implied by the stated reason in the movie for leaving w/o saying goodbye, "It would hurt too much."

Ummm...sorry. Once again, Superman Returns is a continuation of the first two Superman films. It doesn't need to state that he needed to end the relationship in this film simply because he ended it in Superman II. Whether or not you like that the Donner films state that Superman can't live as a mortal and still be Superman is moot, dems the rules in the movieverse.

But from LOis' reaction it doesn't depict how he ended it. IT just appears he left without ending it. My impression is that one day they are in a relationship that includes sex and the next day he is just gone, poof, no goodbye, no nothing. That is why Lois is so upset at him. The problem here is that SR is unclear as to what is in continuity from SUperman I and II. If you read the thread on the History of SR in the Sperman Returns forum, then it becomes more and more clear that you just don't know what's in continuity with this film and what is not. The thing is, we don't really know how he "ended it." But from Lois' reaction, she seems to be upset that he left w/o saying goodbye b/c they were STILL in a relationship. Otherwise, her level of anger towards him doesn't make sense in SR. If he actually ended the relationship before he left then it would MAYBE be more understandable that he didn't say goodbye. But if this is true, there wasn't a whole lot of time that passed between him ending the realationship and him leaving and her having sex with Richard. Knowing the context and timeline of all these events would certainly make this aspect of the story make more sense and more believable.

There is no indication in SR that the whole "Can't live as a mortal and be SUperman is in continuity in SR." The vague history from the first two films is so unclear that it is confusing. This is not a part of 'basic SUperman lore.' It is something specific to the Donner films and therefore, not basic to one's knowledge of SUperman. If it is supposed to be in continuity in SR, then Singer obviously doesn't understand that it is not at all like this when it comes to basic SUperman lore. If you take this as part of basic Superman lore, then it fundamentallly changes the character.

So, no, he didn't disappear like a coward. He simply couldn't be with her. There was no abandonment.

Then why is Lois so upset 5 years later?

So why doesn't the film indicate that they had ended the relationship before he left. All indications from the movie are that he left on the spur of the moment while they were still in the relationship. I chalk this up to a poor script and bad filmmaking/ storytelling.

That smile on her face at the end pretty much shows happiness. And trust. It's not like she was scowling at him at the end wondering where her child support money was.

It may have been enough for Lois, but I don't think it's enough for the viewer to really believe that he's made amends. At least not for me. He's screwed up so badly in this situation, a " I'm always around," is just not enough to make me believe it. An actual conversatio between the two would have been more effective, believable and dramatic.

For a non-forgiving person maybe. And, once again, had he known he was having a child he never would have left. The whole purpose of his leaving was to find others like him, but the tragedy of it was that there was someone born that was literally a part of him.

That irony is not a part of the SUperman mythos or lore. That is something brand new that is injected to the story that fundamentally changes who SUperman is.

People have this mistaken take on Superman that he's supposed to be perfect and infallible. That's just not the case. Hey, Superman admits in the film that he screwed up and was sorry for leaving Lois. He even promises her that he'll always be around for her and Jason. I don't know what more you'd want from a fictional character.

I don't think he's supposed to be pefect, but he should not make the kinds of mistakes that you would expect immature and irresponsible people to make. The mistakes he makes in SR are based to much in his own selfishness and inability to see how they affect the people he loves. No where in any Superman story does he take the easy way b/c it protects him from feeling pain. No where does he think of his feelings before considering the feeling of someone he loves. SUperman is always thinking of the other person before himself. That is the point of altruism. This movie portrays a character that has no sense of resonsibility or maturity in his personal life, while in his public life he is hailed as the world's greatest hero. That dichotomy is not part of the SUperman character in any medium. He treats his friends and loved one's properly. He may worry them in the risks he takes, but he never chooses to act in a manner which will cause them pain if he can avoid it. Plus, if you accept that SUperman is supposed to be a role model, should he really be portrayed as someone who would be so irresponsible as to father a child and leave town w/o saying anything to the woman he loves who he's unknowingly gotten pregnant? This is one of the biggest social problems we have in our world today. Is SUperman really the kind of character that would act that irresonsibly?

Lastly, "I'm always around," doesn't sound like he's hammered out the details with Lois on how he will be supportive and involved in his son's life. It sounds vague and non-comital. It doesn't sound like he's taking any initiative in his responsibility towards his son, but rather that he will be around somewhere, so if anything comes up, she can contact him. It doesn't feel like it has any impact considering that he's just been gone for the past 5 years, because it directly contradicts the fact the he HAS been gone for 5 years. Actions speak louder than words. His actions indicate he could leave at any moment for an extended space mission. The move doesn't even bother to give us a good, " I was wrong, I learned my lesson, I won't dessert my son, like I desserted you" speech, which would seem appropriate in this situation. "I'm always around" is just not convincing.

Then again, maybe I'm just a forgiving person.

Forgiveness and making amends are two different things. Lois may forgive SUperman, but nothing he will ever do will change the fact that he missed those first 4 years of Jason's life and Lois's pregnancy. As father of two, I can tell you first hand how critical those times are in a childs life as well as the mother's life. I just don't think SUperman is the kind of character that makes mistakes that will haunt him his whole life, especially when they involve hurting the woman you love and your own child. That is not SUperman, that is directly opposed to the essence of the character.

SUperman is not a character about opposing apects. His goodness is genuine and true. He treats ALL people honestly and fairly. That is the beauty of the character. He acts resposibly, even when it means carrying the burden of pain in lieu of another. He is responsible to a fault, not not that sometimes he acts irresponsibly. His flaws come from caring too much, not from being selfish. He constantly sacrifices his own personal image as Clark Kent to make an appearance as SUperman to help someone else. It is inconcievable that he would think of himself before someone he loves when he constantly sacrifices his image as Clark for the sake of strangers around the globe.

The essence of the SUperman character is that he learned tough lessons from his own mistakes, the essence of the SUperman chacter is that he learned right from wrong by his upbrining from the Kents and worked out his insecurities as a boy growing up. When you have SUperman struggling to act responsibly, you are no longer talking about SUperman. He is a paragon of resopbsibility and ethics. THAT is the essence of Superman. The essence of Superman is that he really is as goody-goody as he seems, not that in SUperman's personal life there are skeletons burried in his closet which is what SR attempts to show.

 

[mego joe]

Doesn't matter if it fits the continuity. SR is still total garbage.

Never were truer words written.

 

[patrickbateman]

Never were truer words written.

t: t: t:

 

[buggs0268]

Ugh, if Superman turned back time and everything was normal again, then how did Lois end up pregnant with Superman's baby?

Unless they explain (in the sequel) that they did it (y'know sexy-time) again, at another time or something.

BTW, at the end of the Donner cut, which I LOVED, and it made SR more emotional for me, did the guy at the diner (Rocky) remember kicking Clark's ass. Do the Diner owner's remember the fight? Cause the owner, just before Clark pwns Rocky says something along the lines of "just fixed the joint up" and if "cost a fortune".

Again, I believe that scene was actually supposed to happen before he turned back time. If you look at the deleted scenes, Jimmy is showing Clark his new camera (the one that got destroyed by Non) and then Clark goes to the elevator and bumps into the bald rude guy. That is when he gets the idea to go to the diner and visit Rocky again. I believe originally, it was after that that he was to turn back time. If he already had, Jimmy's camera would have been perfectly fine and he would not be talking about a new camera. And not he is not talking about his new camera from Superman 1 as it never broke in California as you see it on him at the end when he runs up the road. Also, if it had broke, he would not have had the pics of california destruction he did in the begining of 2 that he was hitting White up for the raise for.

After he turns back time, everything goes back to the way it was before Zod, Ursa, and Non escaped. So anythign that she and Clark did are now undone. In Lester's 2, he was human when they had sex, so the baby would be normal.

 

[mathhater]

Okay, here's my version of the continuity. And keep in mind, this is how the movies work for me personally, so feel free to disagree with this:
(and we shouldn't ever have to decipher a storyline to make a movie coherent, sensible, or enjoyable...but alas, here we are...)

First, NONE of Superman II happened...none of it. This eliminates (Lester version) Superman's broken promise of "I'll never let you down again..." (cause then what happens in SR? He leaves the planet for years...) and it eliminates the amnesia kiss/planet reversal and the contradiction of Lois remembering sleeping with Superman (and not being confused when her son exhibits superpowers) and not remembering that Clark is Superman.

So basically, I feel SR follows only Superman: The Movie, and these events happened in between...

Lois and Superman form a relationship
Richard White begins working at the Planet
Superman leaves Earth in the search for Krypton
Lois then falls for Richard shortly thereafter
Lex is freed from prison
Lois Lane gives birth to Jason

There's still the question of Lex's knowledge of the fortress...but I consider this an inbetween moment as well, and not something carrying over from Superman II. First, why would he need to REvisit the fortress if he's done it once? He should've got all the knowledge he needed the first time. Second, in SR he says to Kitty "While you were blah, blah (forgot the line) I was busy unlocking the secrets of a long dead civilization." I think this implies he learned some Kryptonian/Superman secrets in Superman's absence after he was released from prison.

Then we're ready for Superman Returns. Like I said, this is just my opinion of how the continuity works best...because following Superman II just doesn't work for me at all. So I hope this makes sense...but it definitely works for me...

 

[FlawlessVictory]

mathhater, I totally agree with you. Even in the Official Prequel Books, I'm pretty sure there are no references to Superman 2, only to the first movie. So I see it as the viewer having the choice to follow Superman: The Movie with Superman 2(Lester cut), Superman 2(Donner cut) or Superman Returns(with some events ocurring in between).

 

[mathhater]

^ Thanks!
Once you solidify the conitinuity for yourself, (like in my example) it actually really increases the SR enjoyment factor. It's a shame we have to resort to these things...

 

[bsquad]

Okay, here's my version of the continuity. And keep in mind, this is how the movies work for me personally, so feel free to disagree with this:
(and we shouldn't ever have to decipher a storyline to make a movie coherent, sensible, or enjoyable...but alas, here we are...)

First, NONE of Superman II happened...none of it. This eliminates (Lester version) Superman's broken promise of "I'll never let you down again..." (cause then what happens in SR? He leaves the planet for years...) and it eliminates the amnesia kiss/planet reversal and the contradiction of Lois remembering sleeping with Superman (and not being confused when her son exhibits superpowers) and not remembering that Clark is Superman.

So basically, I feel SR follows only Superman: The Movie, and these events happened in between...

Lois and Superman form a relationship
Richard White begins working at the Planet
Superman leaves Earth in the search for Krypton
Lois then falls for Richard shortly thereafter
Lex is freed from prison
Lois Lane gives birth to Jason

There's still the question of Lex's knowledge of the fortress...but I consider this an inbetween moment as well, and not something carrying over from Superman II. First, why would he need to REvisit the fortress if he's done it once? He should've got all the knowledge he needed the first time. Second, in SR he says to Kitty "While you were blah, blah (forgot the line) I was busy unlocking the secrets of a long dead civilization." I think this implies he learned some Kryptonian/Superman secrets in Superman's absence after he was released from prison.

Then we're ready for Superman Returns. Like I said, this is just my opinion of how the continuity works best...because following Superman II just doesn't work for me at all. So I hope this makes sense...but it definitely works for me...

agreed. I think when Singer said vague history and to a lesser extent he meant just that. He took 2 ideas/concepts he liked from SM2 and left the rest. SR follows SM1 only (I guess IMO only as well because obviously people disagree). It remids me of a comic book. For example there are a bunch of different Superman comics and in some of them the backstory is similar but not exactly the same.