Superman Returns Vague History - merged

[buggs0268]

Yeah, I think I kinda do know something about physics. Check this out. When a planet exploded, it will lose it's gravitational pole to revolves around the sun. Plus there would be bits and pieces of the planet spreading around that solar system. Therefore the perfect horizon made no sense. Get it now?

They have been telling us that they made this to ignore Superman 3 & 4. Maybe I should be ignoring Superman 1 too because from what I have read some if not most of the movie is about flashback to Clark's childhood in Smallville. Didn't we already seen that in Superman 1 and Smallville TV series? How original they are trying to make this one to be. I think Kevin Smith would have made the new Superman movie more awsome than Bryan and his monkey team was able to do.

And remember that the planet exploding is canon. Where does Kryptonite come from? From an exploded Krypton. That is where. So the whole Krypton exploding isn't just from Donner's movie. It is Canon. I swear to god I see more "Oh that was Donner's idea" when it is canon. Krypton has always exploded.

 

[SingItWithMeNow]

 

[DvilDog]

Venom you make me laugh

 

[lazur]

You guys are actually debating about whether or not the planet Krypton actually exploded in STM? Are you serious?

YES, the planet exploded. And in that explosion, as depicted ON SCREEN, there was nothing left afterward. That part can't really be debated.

The OP has a good point, but so does everyone else in stating that Singer has made SI and SII a *vague* history.

I'd hardly call that a reason to completely discount the new movie, but it is something that Singer could have (perhaps) paid closer attention to when making SR.

It still won't affect how I feel about the movie. If it's a kick ass movie, it's a kick ass movie, with or without an "exploding Krypton".

 

[The Caped Knight]

Taken from Wizard magazines Mega movie issue:

Wizard: There's been some confusion on how this film relates to the first two films. Theres a vague continuity, right?

Bryan Singer: Yes. This essentially, for lack of a better term, a sequal to the second movie without any mention of the outlaws from krypton or any of that. We know he came to Earth. He was known as Superman. He was responsible for putting Lex Luthor in prison and then he left. Lois Lane's theory is he took off in a futile effort to find his home.

See I knew SR was a sequel to The first two movies. Now this just confirmed my theory .

 

[capnmerica]

I always prefer the villains to live at the end, that way they can still co-exist in the comic book world.

Villains' deaths are one of the serious flaws with the Spider-Man movies.

Yeah, this picking and choosing which elements you're going to use from the original movies is kinda...unsettling.

actually, in the Spiderman's comic book, that scene happened exactly the way we saw it, with the Green Goblin, in the comic book, and no one ever said Doctor Octopus was dead, so in the comic book world he could easily be resurrected...
by the way, this is the one thing I don't mind from Singer, that they don't mention the other villains...would be nice, but it is a non issue

 

[Steelsheen]

one of the things i'd like to know is isit possible for an asteroid of a dead planet to regain some atmosphere? because as shown the
photo, it looks like that part of Krypton has an atmosphere.

edit: wow, they merged the planet krypton thread into the vague history thread

 

[Matt Simmons]

This is my first go at a thread wow so I try and be clear and to the point fingers crossed.


This whole question of how Superman Returns relates to the four other movies and statements that Brian Singer has made that seems to contradict himself.

I think myself that the makers of Superman Returns have done a very clever job, they have kept the same music and the same feel of the other Superman movies but moved onto a new story.

An example of movies that have done this before is the James Bond movies I mean how does Moonraker fit into DR No?

I think it works like this Superman the movie happened in the sense that Superman arrived on earth and done battle with Lex.

At some point Superman leaves Earth and many years later he returns Singer is not saying the first two movies did not happen but he is not being bound by the finer details either.

Superman The Movie and Superman 2 do not fit together in a perfect way and I think it’s a really good move not being bound into the details but at the same time keeping in the same universe.

A much more simple way to put it is Brian Singer has kept the good bits and got rid of the bad.

This leaves us with five movies that don’t fully fit together, does that remind you of another series of movies that is still going strong to this day?

So when people try and ask questions Singer will tell people what the want to hear like sure whatever.

Who knows if Brandon Routh really does well we may be looking for a new actor in a few years to carry on the torch ala 007.

 

[spencer6891]

We...already know all this though. Yes, it's a semi-sequel with a vague history.