Superman Returns Superman Returns Mistakes

[NewYorkSpider]

Looks like Mr.Singer made a few Boo-Boo's in his latest film. If Superman was on a 5 year quest to his home planet and came back, the year should be 1984 or somewhere around there. I heard the events follow after Superman II. So, How are cell phones being used in the film? If i'm missing something here, please tell me.

When superman takes the island into space his cape is moving. That can't happen in space.

Sorry if there was a thread about this.

 

[bunk]

Why can't his cape move in space? Once his body moves, the cape moves, and it won't come to rest untill something makes it. Even then its impossible to remain still in space, so really the opposite of what you said is true.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Exactly. It's a fantasy film, the cape moving in space is no big deal. If we can believe that Superman can breathe in space and be still in space, then his cape moving is no biggy.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Very True. I'm still confused about his 5 year trip to Krypton. Does this movie leave off with Superman II? Cell Phones???

 

[The Guard]

SUPERMAN RETURNS takes place in "modern times". But the filmmakers expect you to understand that the events of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE as referenced in SUPERMAN RETURNS actually, in this continuity took place about five years ago compared to our perception of modern times. Not that they were actually "set" in 1978 (even though they were).

Sort of the way we're meant to accept that CASINO ROYALE happened before DR. NO (even though DR. NO was made decades ago, and CASINO ROYALE is clearly more modern in setting).

Come on, people...

 

[Robin91939]

Very True. I'm still confused about his 5 year trip to Krypton. Does this movie leave off with Superman II? Cell Phones???

The year in the film is 2006. I don't think that in any film SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, SUPERMAN II, or SUPERMAN RETURNS they specified a year.

-R

 

[NewYorkSpider]

But when Lex Luthor steals the kryptonite from the museum. The year said 1978 under the rock. This is where i'm confused. So this stuff came 28 years ago and no one has aged a bit.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Much like James Bond, these are timeless characters. They never age.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Superan Returns is not a direct sequel. It's a sequel to your hazy childhood memory of Superman.

 

[Morg]

But when Lex Luthor steals the kryptonite from the museum. The year said 1978 under the rock. This is where i'm confused. So this stuff came 28 years ago and no one has aged a bit.

sure it didn't mean the year the rock was found?

 

[Hugh'sMrs]

A specific year was never established in the first film and just like SR it seemed to be set in modern times yet had a 1940ish vibe.

1978 is supposed to be the year the meteorite was found (when Kal-el came to earth) He was about 2 then, which would make him about 30 now. That's in continuity with Superman: The Movie which had Clark going up north at 18, creating the FOS and returning to civilization 12 (earth) years later.

The bigger question would be: How could he be gone 5 years and come home to find Lois has a 5 year old son?

 

[bunk]

Yeah, that'd make her pretty pregnant when he left. Must be 5 years and 9 months.

 

[dark_b]

Looks like Mr.Singer made a few Boo-Boo's in his latest film. If Superman was on a 5 year quest to his home planet and came back, the year should be 1984 or somewhere around there. I heard the events follow after Superman II. So, How are cell phones being used in the film? If i'm missing something here, please tell me.

When superman takes the island into space his cape is moving. That can't happen in space.

Sorry if there was a thread about this.

let me see if i understand you right. because h made a sequel to a 20 YR old movie SR should be in the 80's?
what is wrong with you?

 

[Fried Gold]

Looks like Mr.Singer made a few Boo-Boo's in his latest film. If Superman was on a 5 year quest to his home planet and came back, the year should be 1984 or somewhere around there. I heard the events follow after Superman II. So, How are cell phones being used in the film? If i'm missing something here, please tell me.

When superman takes the island into space his cape is moving. That can't happen in space.

Sorry if there was a thread about this.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

let me see if i understand you right. because h made a sequel to a 20 YR old movie SR should be in the 80's?
what is wrong with you?

I got things confused on that. I'm sorry.

The thing is Superman II was released in 1980. The events followed and we get Superman Returns, where he was on his 5 year abscence.. So Bryan Singer has made us believe that Superman II takes place in 2001.

 

[Immortalfire]

Damn Singer and his "vague history"

 

[superdupersuper]

the cape flowing in space makes superman 4's breathing in space look a masterpiece in comparison

 

[bsquad]

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Guys, this debate has probably been done on a million different forums and counting. So, to clraify things a bit, here's my two cents:

1) "Superman: the Movie" and "Superman II" were shot between 1977 and 1979. The resulting films themselves, as others have said, was set in the "present day"; that is, the filmmakers never felt the need to specify a year. They wanted the movies to be truly timeless, as much as possible.

2) Their relation to "Superman Returns" is what Singer referred to as a "vague history", being that certain elements of the new film resonate with the prior installments, but the continuity was not strictly adhered to, mostly for creative reasons. Singer (in my opinion) basically wanted to keep the themes of what made the first two films so cool, and break into new territory as well. He never intended for them to line up perfectly.

3) Lois' pregnancy with Jason is another matter. First, we don't know how long Kryptonian pregnancies last (much less for a hybrid child), because Kal-El is presumably the first to attempt such a union with a Earthling. As a result, we are left to assume it's the classic 9-month staple. Taking that into account, we face yet another angle: time passes differently on Krypton than it does on Earth. Superman could have just been gone for a month, and returns to find that five years have passed back home. From what we know so far, Clark and Lois slept together in the Fortress, and as a result, Jason was born. Given the aforementioned "vague history", we don't really know when that happened; it could have been days or weeks before he left. Lois may not have even found out until after he was gone.

In the end it all chalks up to the "suspension of disbelief". I personally look forward to "The Man of Steel", and I have very little doubt it'll be just as good as "Returns", if not better.

 

[Smegger56]

Looks like Mr.Singer made a few Boo-Boo's in his latest film. If Superman was on a 5 year quest to his home planet and came back, the year should be 1984 or somewhere around there. I heard the events follow after Superman II. So, How are cell phones being used in the film? If i'm missing something here, please tell me.

When superman takes the island into space his cape is moving. That can't happen in space.

Sorry if there was a thread about this.

Styop me if i'm wrong, but did they even mention the year in Superman the movie and Superman 2?? Well, i don't think so. So Singer didn't get anything wrong there.

If his body is moving, his cape will move. So, these boo hoos aren't boo hoos.

I got things confused on that. I'm sorry.

The thing is Superman II was released in 1980. The events followed and we get Superman Returns, where he was on his 5 year abscence.. So Bryan Singer has made us believe that Superman II takes place in 2001.

Well, he didn't make me believe that. By saying that SR takes place 5 years after SII it's obvious he's talking about the movie timeline, not the real world timeline. And, not in one of the films has there been given a difinitive year. Not one ever said 1978, 1980 or 2006.

 

[buggs0268]

3)time passes differently on Krypton than it does on Earth. Superman could have just been gone for a month, and returns to find that five years have passed back home.

Actually he would have been gone for a lot longer than that. Per Einsteins theory of relativity, which was actually used and stated on 1 because of that, Superman ship as a baby took 3 years to get to earth, but his ship left Krypton many thousands of out earth years. So Baby Kal_El grew 3 years in age in the thousands of years it took to get to earth. So basically, even Superman is about 27 or 28 years old in STM, he is actually a few thousand years old by our calendar. So, Superman would have aged 6 years of his time on his voyage, and would have been 6 years older than when he left. But the time he left and came back would have been thousands of years from now, or even then. So, when he returned, Lois and the kid and his mom would have been dead for thousands of years. Another plot hole established in this "vague history" crap that Singer chose to ignore. Only that vague history that was establish in STM is based on Einstein's theory, so it is stupid to ignore it. So the movie never would have happened at all in the first place.

 

[buggs0268]

Styop me if i'm wrong, but did they even mention the year in Superman the movie and Superman 2?? Well, i don't think so. So Singer didn't get anything wrong there.

If his body is moving, his cape will move. So, these boo hoos aren't boo hoos.



Well, he didn't make me believe that. By saying that SR takes place 5 years after SII it's obvious he's talking about the movie timeline, not the real world timeline. And, not in one of the films has there been given a difinitive year. Not one ever said 1978, 1980 or 2006.

In STM, Lex mentioned that the rocket left and took 3 years to get to earth (meaning that Kal_El was 3 years old when he landed) If you take that, It would place Kal landing on Earth about the same time that Chris Reeve was born. Chris was 24 or 25 at that time, so you add on 3 years and you get 27 years old in 1978. So STM firmly establishes itself in 1978. Also, Since a song is playing on the car radio from the 50's when Clark runs home to beat Lana and gang, that establishes 1978. However, Clark would have been 6 when that song was released and playing on the radio. Superman is supposed to be about 27 or 28 in the movie. Originally he was written as 30, but they settled on the date he landed on earth + 3 years. So technically it is dated as SII was to originally be released the year following STM because of Donner's vision. Actually, I think if he had been able to get both films in the can during the whole shoot, I believe S2 was supposed to come out Summer of 1979, or 6 mos after STM. Only due to the Salkind's B.S. was the movie not reshot and re-leased in the summer of 1981 (or December of 1980 for those living in Australia and the southern hemisphere market's, where the film was released 6 mos earlier) So STM and Donner's S2 are firmly locked into a year.

Another thing is a deleted scene in Air force 1 where the pilots reference the President and peanuts, so they are definately talking about Carter. Also, I believe it is during Carter's time that Air Force 1 switched from a 707 to a 747, so that dates it too. It could have been later, but I do believe as a kid I saw Carter's Air Force One being a 707, and Reagan's being the 747. It was definately before the Beaver attack incident as that would have been mentioned instead of the peanuts as the peanut's ribbing was pretty much used secondly after the supposed beaver attack that no one saw happen. So it takes place during Carter's term (1976-1980) However, there is E.G. Marshall playing president in the movie, but no name is given, just "Mr. President". Had it been taking place during the Reagan years, we would have heard references to his movie with the horse.

So in any case, the film happens in the 70's while Carter is in office, but before the beaver attack.

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

Can of worms.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I think the biggest mistake of the film is just bad writing.

Lex Luthor gets out of prison, which was HUGE news, and marries an old lady who happens to be rich and live in a mansion, which I am sure was also big news. She dies, Lex gets everything and I am sure that in itself caused quite the big stink. Yet Lois doesn't realise this when she figures out where the blackout originated from.

So she drives there, leaves her cellphone in her car, takes her son onto some huge boat docked outside the mansion, and gets captured.

First she shouldn't endanger her son like that. Second she should have called in to report on the blackout story update since she was working on it. Maybe gotten a camera crew out there for a followup and also updated her editor-in-chief. Third, had she had her cellphone, she might have been able to call for help, but they probably would have searched her beforehand and taken it away.

 

[<(o_o)>]

I think the biggest mistake of the film is just bad writing.

Lex Luthor gets out of prison, which was HUGE news, and marries an old lady who happens to be rich and live in a mansion, which I am sure was also big news. She dies, Lex gets everything and I am sure that in itself caused quite the big stink. Yet Lois doesn't realise this when she figures out where the blackout originated from.

So she drives there, leaves her cellphone in her car, takes her son onto some huge boat docked outside the mansion, and gets captured.

First she shouldn't endanger her son like that. Second she should have called in to report on the blackout story update since she was working on it. Maybe gotten a camera crew out there for a followup and also updated her editor-in-chief. Third, had she had her cellphone, she might have been able to call for help, but they probably would have searched her beforehand and taken it away.

We as viewers question the not so wise decisions the characters in movies make but that is the purpose of those scenes. If they played out any differently then they probably wouldn't have been as interesting. Lois shouldn't have endangered herself or her son like that but that was the whole point of the scene.