Superman Returns when does superman returns take place?

[Super Flight]

i didnt see 3 or 4 so does it take place after the 4th one?

so at the end of 4, was that when he left or somthing? so is this really the 5th one?

 

[Comic Book Boy]

It takes place after SUPERMAN II, about 5 years after to be exact. It pretends that SUPERMAN III & IV never happened.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

It takes place after SUPERMAN II, about 5 years after to be exact. It pretends that SUPERMAN III & IV never happened.

What he's said.

 

[Super Flight]

It takes place after SUPERMAN II, about 5 years after to be exact. It pretends that SUPERMAN III & IV never happened.

are you serious?? wow....isnt that punch in the balls for the people who worked on 3 and 4...

 

[Comic Book Boy]

are you serious?? wow....isnt that punch in the balls for the people who worked on 3 and 4...

Lol, true, but they deserve it. They were just trying to bank on the name, instead of trying to make a meaningful film. (Though Reeve did write number IV with good intentions I believe)

 

[nogster]

but even then thats not correct.
its supposed to take place 5 years after supes 2 but u will do your head in with the inconsistencies. ie. lois having a child from supes and being fine with that realization when in supes 2 clark gave her the infamous amnesia kiss.
superman returns is just riddled with plot holes, contradictions and inconsistencies.
the best way to look at it is,...
its a re=imagining of the 1st film set somewhere in singers head and bizzaro world.

 

[Spare-Flair]

It takes place after SUPERMAN II, about 5 years after to be exact. It pretends that SUPERMAN III & IV never happened.

Ironically, Superman III was filmed 5 years after Superman II.

 

[Spare-Flair]

Lol, true, but they deserve it. They were just trying to bank on the name, instead of trying to make a meaningful film. (Though Reeve did write number IV with good intentions I believe)

And Superman III was Dick Lester's way of injecting his British-raised sense of comic book comedy into the franchise much like he did in Superman II. People just have different visions but I can honestly say that Superman III and IV had wholesome intentions (except for the evil Salkinds and Cannon Films).

But as we see with Singer's SR, the best of intentions can still result in a shoddy movie.

 

[buggs0268]

Ironically, Superman III was filmed 5 years after Superman II.

Superman 3 came out in 1983, so it was filmed 5 years after Donner shot his stuff for his version Superman 2 in 1977/1978, but only 2 years after the Lester reshoots, which were done in 1980. Superman III was filmed in 1982/early 1983.

 

[The Kid]

htrae

 

[X Knight]

see....that's why the vague sequel/history nonsense is sooo......confusing!

And....it's even somewhat unclear if Returns follows Superman II, or just Superman I..........and if it does follow SII.....it seems Singer ignores certain aspects of SII........

 

[Spare-Flair]

see....that's why the vague sequel/history nonsense is sooo......confusing!

And....it's even somewhat unclear if Returns follows Superman II, or just Superman I..........and if it does follow SII.....it seems Singer ignores certain aspects of SII........

Yeah, when asked about the ending of Superman II, Singer just said "I ignored that part".

Good job on the continuity Mr. Director. So Superman I and II vaguely happened. Lex did try to nuke California into the ocean so he "could have beachfront property" and then he also tried to convince Zod to give him Australia because he "had a thing for beachfront property"...and then Lois did sleep with Superman and does remember doing it.

Except she doesn't know Clark is Superman.

 

[The Kid]

We can probably figure it out if we look into it deeply enough and create excuses for the film like Prequel Star Wars Trilogy fans do.

Here's what I understand now: He basically uses the first two films as a big pallette from which to take this or that in order to paint his movie. The problem for the General public is that they don't know this like we do. Kids escpecially were probably more confused than their parents about why clark's wearing glasses as a boy, why teschmacher is called Kitty, why supes cant detect kryptonite, why superman leaves after saying he would never let the president down again, and of course why lois can remember sleeping with supes but not that he's clark, or even more why she doesn't think the boy's superman's at all for most of the movie. Some probably think and will remember this as Superman 5 no matter what is said in print or wherever about its intended place in continuity. People won't buy it since it's not seeming to fit in anywhere but as an odd cousin to the originals.

Now I expected singer to say the memory kiss happened, but then superman simply slept with lois later some time without revealing his identity, but instead he claims she possibly was impregnated in the fortress... ok and that he just ignored the memory kiss. Fine for you, but millions of people will not know this since the film does not make that clear. You're asking too much of the audience here and its story should not require the millions to go online and search for an interview where the writers discuss what's in continuity and what's out. even if they did they'd still be confused though.

I've read the interviews and can see some disagreement between the writers and singer about whethe it completely replaces 3 and 4 or is a parallel universe sort of thing...

 

[Spare-Flair]

We can probably figure it out if we look into it deeply enough and create excuses for the film like Prequel Star Wars Trilogy fans do.

Here's what I understand now: He basically uses the first two films as a big pallette from which to take this or that in order to paint his movie. The problem for the General public is that they don't know this like we do. Kids escpecially were probably more confused than their parents about why clark's wearing glasses as a boy, why teschmacher is called Kitty, why supes can detect kryptonite, why superman leaves after saying he would never let the president down again, and of course why lois can remember sleeping with supes but not that he's clark, or even more why she doesn't think the boy's superman's at all for most of the movie. Some probably think and will remember this as Superman 5 no matter what is said in print or wherever about its intended place in continuity. People won't buy it since it's not seeming to fit in anywhere but as an odd cousin to the originals.

Now I expected singer to say the memory kiss happened, but then superman simply slept with lois later some time without revealing his identity, but instead he claims she possibly was impregnated in the fortress... ok and that he just ignored the memory kiss. Fine for you, but millions of people will not know this since the film does not make that clear. You're asking too much of the audience here and its story should not require the millions to go online and search for an interview where the writers discuss what's in continuity and what's out. even if they did they'd still be confused though.

I've read the interviews and can see some disagreement between the writers and singer about whethe it completely replaces 3 and 4 or is a parallel universe sort of thing...

Even more ironic is that the upcoming Donner cut of Superman II will restore Donner's original vision, that Superman never turned back time in Superman I and that he caught up to the nuke and flung it into space which freed Zod & Co. Zod destroys a lot of earth and kills a lot of people. Lois does sleep with Clark but at the end, Superman now turns back time at the end of II (instead of I) to restore the damage and people killed by Zod and to erase Lois' memory and relationship with him which makes way more sense that a Super-Amnesia kiss (or Super-teleporting and Super-cellophane sticky shields for that matter).

So according to Donner, Superman II never actually happened and Superman never actually slept with Lois.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Even more ironic is that the upcoming Donner cut of Superman II will restore Donner's original vision, that Superman never turned back time in Superman I and that he caught up to the nuke and flung it into space which freed Zod & Co. Zod destroys a lot of earth and kills a lot of people. Lois does sleep with Clark but at the end, Superman now turns back time at the end of II (instead of I) to restore the damage and people killed by Zod and to erase Lois' memory and relationship with him which makes way more sense that a Super-Amnesia kiss (or Super-teleporting and Super-cellophane sticky shields for that matter).

So according to Donner, Superman II never actually happened and Superman never actually slept with Lois.

This all has me superconfused.

 

[buggs0268]

Even more ironic is that the upcoming Donner cut of Superman II will restore Donner's original vision, that Superman never turned back time in Superman I and that he caught up to the nuke and flung it into space which freed Zod & Co. Zod destroys a lot of earth and kills a lot of people. Lois does sleep with Clark but at the end, Superman now turns back time at the end of II (instead of I) to restore the damage and people killed by Zod and to erase Lois' memory and relationship with him which makes way more sense that a Super-Amnesia kiss (or Super-teleporting and Super-cellophane sticky shields for that matter).

So according to Donner, Superman II never actually happened and Superman never actually slept with Lois.

They aren't taking out him turning back time in STM.

 

[Harlekin]

We can probably figure it out if we look into it deeply enough and create excuses for the film like Prequel Star Wars Trilogy fans do.

Here's what I understand now: He basically uses the first two films as a big pallette from which to take this or that in order to paint his movie. The problem for the General public is that they don't know this like we do. Kids escpecially were probably more confused than their parents about why clark's wearing glasses as a boy, why teschmacher is called Kitty, why supes cant detect kryptonite, why superman leaves after saying he would never let the president down again, and of course why lois can remember sleeping with supes but not that he's clark, or even more why she doesn't think the boy's superman's at all for most of the movie. Some probably think and will remember this as Superman 5 no matter what is said in print or wherever about its intended place in continuity. People won't buy it since it's not seeming to fit in anywhere but as an odd cousin to the originals.

Now I expected singer to say the memory kiss happened, but then superman simply slept with lois later some time without revealing his identity, but instead he claims she possibly was impregnated in the fortress... ok and that he just ignored the memory kiss. Fine for you, but millions of people will not know this since the film does not make that clear. You're asking too much of the audience here and its story should not require the millions to go online and search for an interview where the writers discuss what's in continuity and what's out. even if they did they'd still be confused though.

I've read the interviews and can see some disagreement between the writers and singer about whethe it completely replaces 3 and 4 or is a parallel universe sort of thing...

I completely disagree. I'm pretty sure either the general public doesn't care, or this is their first Superman movie. Either way, it doesn't matter all that much. I'm a continuity nitpick as much as the next guy, but I just plain shut that off when watching this movie. You need to have a little faith in people. Most people will either come up with two conclusions:

- "Oh, this is like Batman Begins. It's a revamp and ignores the previous films."
- "Oh, he ignored some stuff. Oh, well, it works."

The first option is very viable, because as Singer himself says: vague history. Really, it is in quite a few ways a re-imagining. Superman Returns isn't really so much a sequel. To many this'll be the first Superman movie. The start of, not a sequel.

 

[The Kid]

I completely disagree. I'm pretty sure either the general public doesn't care, or this is their first Superman movie. Either way, it doesn't matter all that much. I'm a continuity nitpick as much as the next guy, but I just plain shut that off when watching this movie. You need to have a little faith in people. Most people will either come up with two conclusions:

- "Oh, this is like Batman Begins. It's a revamp and ignores the previous films."
- "Oh, he ignored some stuff. Oh, well, it works."

The first option is very viable, because as Singer himself says: vague history. Really, it is in quite a few ways a re-imagining. Superman Returns isn't really so much a sequel. To many this'll be the first Superman movie. The start of, not a sequel.

I completely disagree with your disagreement. Singer said this replaces 3, his words. Here's my view however: The General Pub has seen and knows what singer's using from the originals in his film: the opening credits, brando, I've spent the night with superman, john williams score, fly by at the end, even the lines and such. It's going to be seen as being in continuity with that series since it ties itself down so closely to it. Even batman begins, as it is obviously a restart, is seen by some in the general pub as a prequel to the burton franchise despite its story being different with the joker not killing wayne's parents. If I take that into consideration, there's not a doubt in my mind that some will see this a superman V because it unlike batman begins is practically begging the GP to view it as a sequel to the old films. I'm very surprised you can honestly say someone will think it has nothing at all to do with the reeve movies.... it's kinda shocking. I'm saying Joe average may not fully understand vague history, and will not be cruising through forums and such looking for scraps of info about the intended continuity and it'll either be viewed as a sequel or some odd parallel cousin version thingy...

 

[Weadazoid]

A long time ao.... in distant glalaxy.... called Desinger

 

[Harlekin]

I completely disagree with your disagreement. Singer said this replaces 3, his words. Here's my view however: The General Pub has seen and knows what singer's using from the originals in his film: the opening credits, brando, I've spent the night with superman, john williams score, fly by at the end, even the lines and such. It's going to be seen as being in continuity with that series since it ties itself down so closely to it. Even batman begins, as it is obviously a restart, is seen by some in the general pub as a prequel to the burton franchise despite its story being different with the joker not killing wayne's parents. If I take that into consideration, there's not a doubt in my mind that some will see this a superman V because it unlike batman begins is practically begging the GP to view it as a sequel to the old films. I'm very surprised you can honestly say someone will think it has nothing at all to do with the reeve movies.... it's kinda shocking. I'm saying Joe average may not fully understand vague history, and will not be cruising through forums and such looking for scraps of info about the intended continuity and it'll either be viewed as a sequel or some odd parallel cousin version thingy...

I'm surprised you're both over and underestimating the general public. I sincerely doubt most people care whether or not it is a sequel. I know my friends sure didn't. It doesn't actually need the previous films. It stands on its own. This'll either be some of the people's first Superman movie, or they'll just figure it's a renewal, not such an odd thought, considering it has an all-new cast and was made 20-30 years after the first Supes movie. People really aren't that confused.

 

[MasterOgami]

We can probably figure it out if we look into it deeply enough and create excuses for the film like Prequel Star Wars Trilogy fans do.

Being a SW Prequel fan, I'll help out with some "excuses"...

It seems that Singer didn't completely ignore the amnesia kiss, he just maybe played around with its effects. As far as Singer and SR seem to be concerned, Lois remembered sleeping with Superman, just not that Superman was Clark. I don't understand why so many are upset about that. Its -maybe- a retcon, yeah, but its not "Immortals are from planet Zeist" bad.

I say its -maybe- a retcon because Superman II doesn't really go into what Lois remembers, it only illustrates that she again believes that Clark and Superman are two different people. Maybe the scene was intended to erase her entire memory of the events, but in a way its up for grabs. All that's clear is that she's forgotten Supes is Clark and Clark is Supes.

So if we accept the "selective amnesia kiss", Superman Returns fits in with Superman and Superman II decently enough, though perhaps in the way Dawn of the Dead fits with Night of the Living Dead.

 

[CGHulk]

Singer said that Lois remembers having relations with Superman, unlike in Superman II, Superman wipes her memory with an amnesia kiss, silly Singer!! *sarcastic*

 

[Harlekin]

Yeah, the "selective amnesia kiss" was the first thing I thought of too, and it's not that much of a stretch, since we're never actually shown in Supes II what she remembers, beyond the Supes/Clark identity.

 

[The Kid]

I'm surprised you're both over and underestimating the general public. I sincerely doubt most people care whether or not it is a sequel. I know my friends sure didn't. It doesn't actually need the previous films. It stands on its own. This'll either be some of the people's first Superman movie, or they'll just figure it's a renewal, not such an odd thought, considering it has an all-new cast and was made 20-30 years after the first Supes movie. People really aren't that confused.

You are telling me people will watch this movie that plays like some kind of sequel to a previous superman film, and uses not only dialogue, but makes audio, visual and verbal referrences to the reeve films, and without a hint of doubt, they'll think it's a fresh completely new franchise on its own, like spider-man not having anything to do with the tv movies or the japanese spider-man. Frankly that's really just unbelievable... That's like saying people went to episode 1 and thought, "HEY THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STAR WARS DURR.." come on... agree to disagree then?

 

[The Kid]

Being a SW Prequel fan, I'll help out with some "excuses"...

It seems that Singer didn't completely ignore the amnesia kiss, he just maybe played around with its effects. As far as Singer and SR seem to be concerned, Lois remembered sleeping with Superman, just not that Superman was Clark. I don't understand why so many are upset about that. Its -maybe- a retcon, yeah, but its not "Immortals are from planet Zeist" bad.

I say its -maybe- a retcon because Superman II doesn't really go into what Lois remembers, it only illustrates that she again believes that Clark and Superman are two different people. Maybe the scene was intended to erase her entire memory of the events, but in a way its up for grabs. All that's clear is that she's forgotten Supes is Clark and Clark is Supes.

So if we accept the "selective amnesia kiss", Superman Returns fits in with Superman and Superman II decently enough, though perhaps in the way Dawn of the Dead fits with Night of the Living Dead.

"I ignored that part" is what he says about the amnesia kiss. We're just to assume some events happened in a parallel universe similar but not exactly like the events in SMII I guess.

Fit?, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo There are too many inconsistencies for them to fit.