Superman Returns Why Don't Some Superman Fans Like Superman Returns?

[SuperMike335!!]

I'm a sci-fi geek.

Science Fiction is not exactly a genre I would call free from plot holes..

You can enjoy it all you want.

For me, the scientific plot holes are not what bothered me.

I did not like the massive characterization flaws.

I also found the feminizing Superman suit to be visually distracting.

 

[Super Kal]

it bothered me... it made the story more unbelievable.

 

[El Payaso]

No it isn't. The missle had a proximity evading guidance system in it called the "b-28 low level detection avoidance system". That is from a line of dialog in the movie. So it wasn't jsut going in a straightline, but able to evade anything getting in close proximity. So it wasn't just going in a straight line, but moving around to evade him.

I think I should save my replies so I copy and paste them instead of having to repeat myself:

If the rocket isn't fast enough to surround the planet several times per second - and Superman is - Superman is able to catch it no matter what avoiding system we're talking about.

When he flew back in time, he was pissed and so he used all the power he had, probably the first time he had done it, so obviously he was going faster.

I agree. Now if he's the Earth hero we think he is, he should have been pissed off and worried enough for all those million people who were going to die.

But, and this is the first time I say it, it seems that only losing Lois - a personal loss that is - is the only thing that makes Superman to give his best shot.

god, this is getting rediculous. You guys will argue anything to defend SR.

On the contrary, the argument of exposing a minor plothole - no worse than STM por Spiderman 3 plotholes - to try to prove the movie is bad is going too far in desperation.

Your arguing about one being him pushing his powers as far as they could go. The other is something that he can't change. He is stuck with the technology he is givien. And if they had light speed capability, then his dad would have put it on his baby ship too. So the ship he made can only go as fast as the one that brought him to earth. And it is established, established via dialog that it took him thousands of years to reach earth. It is called "theory of relativity".

It is called plothole and you can find them on Superman the movie and Spiderman 3 amongst other movies. Thing is you're unable to admit them in those movies, just in those you try constantly to bash.

 

[buggs0268]

I think I should save my replies so I copy and paste them instead of having to repeat myself:

If the rocket isn't fast enough to surround the planet several times per second - and Superman is - Superman is able to catch it no matter what avoiding system we're talking about.



I agree. Now if he's the Earth hero we think he is, he should have been pissed off and worried enough for all those million people who were going to die.

But, and this is the first time I say it, it seems that only losing Lois - a personal loss that is - is the only thing that makes Superman to give his best shot.



On the contrary, the argument of exposing a minor plothole - no worse than STM por Spiderman 3 plotholes - to try to prove the movie is bad is going too far in desperation.



It is called plothole and you can find them on Superman the movie and Spiderman 3 amongst other movies. Thing is you're unable to admit them in those movies, just in those you try constantly to bash.

It was the human raising that caused him to do that. His father had warned him not to interfere with human history. He had given his life to saving strangers and because of that, he lost the ONE PERSON that mattered most to him. So he was so furious that he disobeyed his father and flew faster than light to turn back time. No the missle could not go that fast but he was flying as fast as he thought he could at that time to chase the missle that was itself sensing him and evading him. But when she died, it changed everything and he went all for broke. It isn't a plot hole.

Going against a set of rules already established in the previous films is. A lot of film makers have said you can make people believe a lot of things in a film if you set up a set of rules and don't violate them. Singer took a previous set of rules as the current set of rules and then violated them wherever he felt he wanted to. The fact is, there have been a few threads on this, and even C. Lee explained it in detail before. The fact is, with the established rules of the previous films that it is taking on, when he went there and came back it would have been thousands of years and Lois and everyone else he know would have been dead. The rules were stated by two characters in the first film. Maybe I should just copy and paste my replies.

 

[buggs0268]

no... it just makes the movie more confusing and more riddled with plot holes.

Exactly what I am trying to say.

 

[buggs0268]

You are right, buggs.

The question is how should this affect my enjoyment of SR, at all? And does this really make SR a bad movie if it doesn't follow every aspect of a 30 year old movie?

No. If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother you. But it did bother a lot of people since this is using the first and second film as canon, and then just saying "vague history" for convenience. If it bothers people, then yes, because going per the rules established, the film would never have happened at all. But if it doesn't bother you, then it doesn't. I am just stating that it is there is all.

 

[buggs0268]

I also found the feminizing Superman suit to be visually distracting.

I know exactly what you mean. When I first saw it, it bugged me but I was trying to ignore it to see if the story would make me forget. But once he landed on the balcony of the Daily Planet, and I could see the low panty cut, It totally took me out of it.

 

[Angeloz]

Okay. Again for those not paying attention. His ship in SR is based on the same technology that the ship his father built to bring him to earth is based on. So you can confidently assume they are going the same speed. Since it took the ship that brought him here thousands of our years (though through the theory of relativity he only aged three years) then the ship he made to go back there and come back here goes the same speed. Same technology. Again, straight from the movie-

Jor-El (in the fortress, to 18 year old Clark): By now you have reached your 18th year, as it is measured on earth. By that reckoning, I will have been dead for many thousands of your years.

So it would have taken him double what it took him to get here as a kid (double the distance=go there and come back here) So it would have taken him double the thousands of years stated by Jor El in the fortress in STM to go there and come here. What is so damn hard for you guys to understand on this. It is stated in the movie it took him thousands of years to get here. It is the laws of physics. If they had lightspeed capability, then his Jor el would have put it in the baby ship to for him to get here faster. I really don't understand what is so hard about this for you guys to understand. Following the established rules set up in the films, it takes him thousdands of years to go there and come back. Now you are just arguing to argue now.

Which made no sense in the first film. Because Jor-El talks about Einstein before Kal-El's ship gets there (Earth). So I use the Star Trek/Star Wars/Sci Fi logic instead. Which is what happened in the film. That it takes 6 years to get to Krypton (and back) probably both the traveller's and Earth's time. Much simpler logic and no need to use what would be on Krypton ancient and probably out of date science i.e. Relativity. It also probably takes 3 years to get to Earth from Krypton. Though I'll admit it was silly not to have the ship put him in suspended animation when a baby. But it was the seventies. Oh well.

Angeloz

 

[Angeloz]

I know exactly what you mean. When I first saw it, it bugged me but I was trying to ignore it to see if the story would make me forget. But once he landed on the balcony of the Daily Planet, and I could see the low panty cut, It totally took me out of it.

I didn't know men were that interested. 'Cos I wasn't looking there (mainly his face if you're wondering). I thought they looked good and sorry you didn't. But bugger. Really? You must be obsessed (about the costume). Is that your main problem with the film - that you can't get past your ideal version of him and enjoy this version? I'm sorry you couldn't.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

I didn't know men were that interested. 'Cos I wasn't looking there (mainly his face if you're wondering). I thought they looked good and sorry you didn't. But bugger. Really? You must be obsessed (about the costume). Is that your main problem with the film - that you can't get past your ideal version of him and enjoy this version? I'm sorry you couldn't.

Angeloz

Well yeah. A feminized Superman with a costume with female and banned word elements did take me out of it. Sorry. But I also thought the story ws weak, and plot holes abound in the film. And I still don't know where 240 mill went (budget before australian tax breaks)

 

[Angeloz]

Burritos?

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

Which made no sense in the first film. Because Jor-El talks about Einstein before Kal-El's ship gets there (Earth). So I use the Star Trek/Star Wars/Sci Fi logic instead. Which is what happened in the film. That it takes 6 years to get to Krypton (and back) probably both the traveller's and Earth's time. Much simpler logic and no need to use what would be on Krypton ancient and probably out of date science i.e. Relativity. It also probably takes 3 years to get to Earth from Krypton. Though I'll admit it was silly not to have the ship put him in suspended animation when a baby. But it was the seventies. Oh well.

Angeloz

No. Obviously you don't understand the theory.

There are two twins. One is an astronaut, and one stays on earth. The astronaut goes into space. If the twin aboard the spaceship went to the nearest star, which is 4.45 light years away at 86 percent of the speed of light, when he returned, he would have aged 5 years. But the earthbound twin would have aged more than 10 years!”

Go here to read up on the twin paradox of Einstein's theory of Relativity:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~gmarts/timewarp.htm

So even though only three years passed to him in his ship, in the universe, thousands of years are pasing. So Krypton blew up while dinosaurs were still roaming the earth. That is the easiest way I can explain it. As for him knowing about Einstein, maybe he had technology where he could see through time and he knew exactly what point in time on earth his son would arrive there, and he was educating him on all things of knowledge in the universe. Maybe he saw everything that happens to his son on earth, his time as Superman, etc, and it is why he predicted what his son would do in his life. However, at the speed he was traveling in his ship, he only aged three years.

The fact is, this theory is established in STM as fact. When Kal El left krypton, Dinosaurs were either roaming the earth, or cavemen had just shown up.

 

[Angeloz]

No. Obviously you don't understand the theory.

There are two twins. One is an astronaut, and one stays on earth. The astronaut goes into space. If the twin aboard the spaceship went to the nearest star, which is 4.45 light years away at 86 percent of the speed of light, when he returned, he would have aged 5 years. But the earthbound twin would have aged more than 10 years!”

Go here to read up on the twin paradox of Einstein's theory of Relativity:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~gmarts/timewarp.htm

But he would be travelling faster-than-light and as I said the science would be superceded or an alternative would be found. 'Cos next maybe I should apply Aristotlian astrophysics to the solar system which means the Sun travels round the Earth with the rest of the Universe. Yep that's just so up to date. Basically I'm saying apply Star Trek/Star Wars/Sci Fi logic. It took six years because that's what the film said. Applying today's physics means Superman can't fly either. So stuff it. And as stated science adds and changes all the time. But really it's fiction.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

But he would be travelling faster-than-light and as I said the science would be superceded or an alternative would be found. 'Cos next maybe I should apply Aristotlian astrophysics to the solar system which means the Sun travels round the Earth with the rest of the Universe. Yep that's just so up to date. Basically I'm saying apply Star Trek/Star Wars/Sci Fi logic. It took six years because that's what the film said. Applying today's physics means Superman can't fly either. So stuff it. And as stated science adds and changes all the time. But really it's fiction.

Angeloz

We can't apply Star Wars/Star Trek logig to Superman Returns. Superman Returns uses Superman The Movie and Superman 2 as it's background history. Superman The Movie states, per Jor-El's dialog in the film, that when Krypton exploded, and Baby Kal left Krypton, he left many thousands of years ago.

"By now, you will have reached your 18th year as it is measured on earth. By that reckoning, I will have been dead for many thousands of your years."

The Crystal was set up to call to him around the time he turned 18 on earth, but it doesn't mean that time went by real fast were Krypton is and so 1000 years on Krypton equals 1 year on earth. It was just set up to call to him when he physically turned 18 years. And the same actor plays his dad in this film, delivering many of the same lines. So that line said in STM is established history in Superman Returns. So weather you want to accept it or not, the reality as stated in the film is that, per Jor El's dialog in the film, this occurred. So, again, when he left krypton, dinosaurs were roaming the earth. Even though three years had passed in his ship, thousands of years passed in the universe. So, the same rules apply in returns. His ship is the same technology as the ship that sent him to earth in the first place. So when he left earth to go to krypton and came back, double that time would pass. So, probably 20,000 or 30,000 years would pass on earth before he got back here, but only 5 years would pass to him in the ship. That is the films established logic, established in STM. So no Lois. No Jason. They are all thousands of years dead. This is logic that is establish in the film based on Einstein's theory of relativity. You can't apply another set of films logic to a film who uses a previous film as it's established backstory. Why is this so hard for you to get?

 

[Angeloz]

Allright look. We can't apply Star Wars/Star Trek logig to Superman Returns. Superman Returns uses Superman The Movie and Superman 2 as it's background history. Superman The Movie states, per Jor-El's dialog in the film, that when Krypton exploded, and Baby Kal left Krypton, he left many thousands of years ago.

"You will have reached your 18th year as it is measured on earth. By that reckoning, I will have been dead for many thousands of your years."

And the same actor plays his dad in this film, delivering many of the same lines. So that line said in STM is established history in Superman Returns. So weather you want to accept it or not, the reality as stated in the film is that, per Jor El's dialog in the film, this occurred. So, again, when he left krypton, dinosaurs were roaming the earth. Even though three years had passed in his ship, thousands of years passed in the universe. So, the same rules apply in returns. So when he left earth to go to krypton and came back, double that would pass. So, probably 20,000 or 30,000 years would pass on earth before he got back here, but only 5 years would pass to him in the ship. This is logic that is establish in the film based on Einstein's theory of relativity. You can't apply another set of films logic to a film who uses a previous film as it's established backstory. Why is this so hard for you to get?

And yet Einstein was known on Krypton though there were dinosaurs (despite dying 65 million years ago not thousands unless you believe in the stupid Intelligent Design theory). I'm saying ignore that line (the thousands of years one) because it makes no sense. Never has.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

And yet Einstein was known on Krypton though there were dinosaurs (despite dying 65 million years ago not thousands unless you believe in the stupid Intelligent Design theory). I'm saying ignore that line (the thousands of years one) because it makes no sense. Never has.

Angeloz

You can't ignore it. It is in the movie. They specifically put it in there for a reason. To establish that Eisntein's theory of relativity exists in the film's established logic. Jor El probably had some way of seing into time to get his son up to speed on the trip to earth and to acclimate into it's timeline. But he definately died many thousands of years ago in earth's history. You apparently have blinders on and refuse to see the major plot hole that Singer used when establishing STM and S2 into his films backstory. You should go write for the guy and come up with all sorts of plot holes for his next films and call it "vague history".

Best way I can state it is Superman Returns is like Batman Forever. Even though there is a different actor playing him, and a cimpletely different city, there is still some actors that are the same. The event's of Batman 89 and Batman Returns happened. Batman killed the joker, and he had an affair with returns catwoman, as stated by the dialog in that film. Same damn thing. So the rules that were set up and applied in Batman 89 apply to Forever, even though it is technically vague history too. Those lines delivered by Chase Meridian and Kilmer's lines to Robin are meant to tie the movies in, and the rules.

Even James Bond films up to the last one acknowledges everything that happened in previous films as the backstory of each new film. So you can say that Pierce Brosnan's Bond wife died, it just happend to be in an almost 30 year old film with another actor playing him. But the character shares the same past. His James Bond was the Bond on the space station in Moonraker. Any injury from any of the back films is an injury he still has effecting him, even if it happened to another actor in another film playing him.

Let's watch the man say it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB6fjVpAyM8&mode=related&search=

When I figure out how to embed the you tube function here works, I will embed the video here.

 

[Angeloz]

You can't ignore it. It is in the movie. They specifically put it in there for a reason. To establish that Eisntein's theory of relativity exists in the film's established logic. Jor El probably had some way of seing into time to get his son up to speed on the trip to earth and to acclimate into it's timeline. But he definately died many thousands of years ago in earth's history. You apparently have blinders on and refuse to see the major plot hole that Singer used when establishing STM and S2 into his films backstory. You should go write for the guy and come up with all sorts of plot holes for his next films and call it "vague history".

Best way I can state it is Superman Returns is like Batman Forever. Even though there is a different actor playing him, and a cimpletely different city, there is still some actors that are the same. The event's of Batman 89 and Batman Returns happened. Batman killed the joker, and he had an affair with returns catwoman, as stated by the dialog in that film. Same damn thing. So the rules that were set up and applied in Batman 89 apply to Forever, even though it is technically vague history too. Those lines delivered by Chase Meridian and Kilmer's lines to Robin are meant to tie the movies in, and the rules.

Even James Bond films up to the last one acknowledges everything that happened in previous films as the backstory of each new film. So you can say that Pierce Brosnan's Bond wife died, it just happend to be in an almost 30 year old film with another actor playing him. But the character shares the same past. His James Bond was the Bond on the space station in Moonraker. Any injury from any of the back films is an injury he still has effecting him, even if it happened to another actor in another film playing him.

Let's watch the man say it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB6fjVpAyM8&mode=related&search=

The video didn't show up for me. But I assume it's Jor-El in the Fortress? Or something else? The plot hole comes from the first film; they couldn't edit out that part of the dialogue without it being awkward. But as I said it takes six years to travel from Earth to Krypton and back so Relativity doesn't apply. As I said it's Sci Fi logic. You can be pedantic over it or not. I choose not; particularly as it's stupid to apply ancient physics (from a certain point of view) to the space travel in the film. You differ - I do get that and doubt we'll agree. Especially because I don't use current science to hate things or reasons to hate things. Believe me I find the time travel to be more ridiculous in the first film because it isn't logical (there should be two of him, however, I can accept he travelled back because he had the ability - like the ability to fly). I ignore it anyway.

Edited: now the video has shown up but I've yet to see it.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

The video didn't show up for me. But I assume it's Jor-El in the Fortress? Or something else? The plot hole comes from the first film; they couldn't edit out that part of the dialogue without it being awkward. But as I said it takes six years to travel from Earth to Krypton and back so Relativity doesn't apply. As I said it's Sci Fi logic. You can be pedantic over it or not. I choose not; particularly as it's stupid to apply ancient physics (from a certain point of view) to the space travel in the film. You differ - I do get that and doubt we'll agree. Especially because I don't use current science to hate things or reasons to hate things. Believe me I find the time travel to be more ridiculous in the first film because it isn't logical (there should be two of him, however, I can accept he travelled back because he had the ability - like the ability to fly). I ignore it anyway.

Edited: now the video has shown up but I've yet to see it.

Angeloz

No it doesn't take 6 years. It takes thousands of years, but he only ages 6 at the speed he is traveling. But to us on earth, he would return in the in the 40th century. And again, they specifically put it into the film to establish the theory of relativity exists in that films logic. If they didn't want to, they could have easily edited it out, but they didn't. It is in there for a reason, and it is the back history for SR, so SR had to follow those rules but Singer and the writers chose to ignore it and claim "vague history"

 

[Angeloz]

No it doesn't take 6 years. It takes thousands of years, but he only ages 6 at the speed he is traveling. But to us on earth, he would return in the in the 40th century. And again, they specifically put it into the film to establish the theory of relativity exists in that films logic. If they didn't want to, they could have easily edited it out, but they didn't. It is in there for a reason, and it is the back history for SR, so SR had to follow those rules but Singer and the writers chose to ignore it and claim "vague history"

As I've reapetedly stated it was a plot hole in the first film. That I also ignore. But it never made sense anyway. They couldn't edit it out without it being awkward. I still find it dumb to apply Einsteinian physics when according to it faster-than-light travel is impossible anyway. But that's ignorable? Like flying aliens that look human is too? Never mind I can guess the answer.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

As I've reapetedly stated it was a plot hole in the first film. That I also ignore. But it never made sense anyway. They couldn't edit it out without it being awkward. I still find it dumb to apply Einsteinian physics when according to it faster-than-light travel is impossible anyway. But that's ignorable? Like flying aliens that look human is too? Never mind I can guess the answer.

Angeloz

And as I repeatedly stated, it is not a plot hole in the first film. What, do you just temporarily black out for a few seconds when that line is delivered? It was intentionally put into the film to make his trip from Krypton to earth in in line with the scientific theory of relativity. It is not a plot hole, and never meant to be one. Itr is there for a reason. God, I swear, every one of you guys I argue with about the film who like it have a convenient way of ignoring logic and the scientific theory that was put into those films to make Superman Returns skewed lack of logic apply. I guess you consider it a plothole as it completely nullifies Superman Returns plot moot, and you guys can't have that. But, like Singer, you guys want to pick and chose only pieces of what is stated to be the chosen backstory for this movie. And for some reason you act like the theory of relativity is like the theory people had of the earth being flat. There is a difference. They don't teach that the earth is flat in colleges, but they still do teach the theory of relativity in physics classes all over the world.

And stay away from any physics classes. Appearantly to you all they teach is plot holes. Yeah. They give degrees in plot holes too. See this guy:

http://www.mkaku.org/

He is a doctor of physics, but according to you he is a Dr, of plotholes.

 

[Angeloz]

And as I repeatedly stated, it is not a plot hole in the first film. What, do you just temporarily black out for a few seconds when that line is delivered? It was intentionally put into the film to make his trip from Krypton to earth in in line with the theory of relativity. It is not a plot hole, and never meant to be one. God, I swear, every one of you guys I argue with about the film who like it have a convenient way of ignoring logic and the scientific theory that was put into those films to make Superman Returns skewed lack of logic apply. I guess you consider it a plothole as it completely nullifies Superman Returns plot moot, and you guys can't have that. But, like Singer, you guys want to pick and chose only pieces of what is stated to be the chosen backstory for this movie. And for some reason you act like the theory of relativity is like the theory people had of the earth being flat. There is a difference. They don't teach that the earth is flat in colleges, but they still do teach the theory of relativity in physics classes all over the world.

And stay away from any physics classes. Appearantly to you all they teach is plot holes. Yeah. They give degrees in plot holes too. See this guy:

http://www.mkaku.org/

He is a doctor of physics, but according to you he is a Dr, of plotholes.

First explain the knowing about Einstein plot hole if it's thousands of years before. Can't. Then as I said travelling faster-than-light is impossible according to today's physics as far as I know. But even if not it's not practical at the moment either. Now maybe one day it will be possible. It wouldn't shock me: though it probably won't be in my lifetime. But then again "Star Wars" mentioned cloning and moisture vaporators. Both possible now. Though I doubt we'll see a Millenium Falcon flying around. And I hope never to see a Death Star either. I'm just saying let go of current scientific theories to explain space travel because it's impossible anyway (according to the science). I say if the story says it took 1 hour to get anywhere then it did. And if it says 3 or 6 years then it did. No need to get bent out of shape about it and whether it's practical or scientifically possible. Because current primitive conditions say it's not. Just like those flying human looking aliens that are cute and helpful (sad now).

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

First explain the knowing about Einstein plot hole if it's thousands of years before. Can't. Then as I said travelling faster-than-light is impossible according to today's physics as far as I know. But even if not it's not practical at the moment either. Now maybe one day it will be possible. It wouldn't shock me: though it probably won't be in my lifetime. But then again "Star Wars" mentioned cloning and moisture vaporators. Both possible now. Though I doubt we'll see a Millenium Falcon flying around. And I hope never to see a Death Star either. I'm just saying let go of current scientific theories to explain space travel because it's impossible anyway (according to the science). I say if the story says it took 1 hour to get anywhere then it did. And if it says 3 or 6 years then it did. No need to get bent out of shape about it and whether it's practical or scientifically possible. Because current primitive conditions say it's not. Just like those flying human looking aliens that are cute and helpful (sad now).

Angeloz

You are missing the point. SR uses STM as it's historical background. STM clearly states that it took him many thousands of our years to get from Krypton to earth. It also implies that the only reason he aged 3 years during that many thousand year flight is because of Einstein's theory of relativity. Since SR uses STM as it's accepted history, then it acknowledges that it must follow the same rules. Since it must follow the same rules, it would take him double the many thousand's of years to go from here to there and back. Since it has to acknowledge that, SR could never happen within it's set of rules. End of story. It is a major f'up on Singer's part as he chose to use STM as SR's back story.

What I don't get is that STM states it took him many thousands of years to get from there to here. You say above:

"I say if the story says it took 1 hour to get anywhere then it did."

Well, STM does. And STM is SR's backstory. So, by your own applied logic, then you have to accept that it would take him many thousands of our years to get there and get back. The story says it does. The dialog says it does. But for some reason you seem to think you can ignore your own words.

 

[Angeloz]

You are missing the point. SR uses STM as it's historical background. STM clearly states that it took him many thousands of our years to get from Krypton to earth. It also implies that the only reason he aged 3 years during that many thousand year flight is because of Einstein's theory of relativity. Since SR uses STM as it's accepted history, then it acknowledges that it must follow the same rules. Since it must follow the same rules, it would take him double the many thousand's of years to go from here to there and back. Since it has to acknowledge that, SR could never happen within it's set of rules. End of story. It is a major f'up on Singer's part as he chose to use STM as SR's back story.

What I don't get is that STM states it took him many thousands of years to get from there to here. You say above:

"I say if the story says it took 1 hour to get anywhere then it did."

Well, STM does. And STM is SR's backstory. So, by your own applied logic, then you have to accept that it would take him many thousands of our years to get there and get back. The story says it does. The dialog says it does. But for some reason you seem to think you can ignore your own words.

Yet he knew of Einstein. Unless you're suggesting he did the forbidden-to-change-human-history thing and time travelled into the future then back in the past. Bit convoluted. So I say accept it took 6 years there and back even though we don't know the science of it. Nor of the Millenium Falcon nor Death Star nor Enterprise. I don't think we're changing each others minds on this. Though do you like "Superman: The Movie"?

By the way I've watched half of that clip and will watch the rest later.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

Yet he knew of Einstein. Unless you're suggesting he did the forbidden-to-change-human-history thing and time travelled into the future then back in the past. Bit convoluted. So I say accept it took 6 years there and back even though we don't know the science of it. Nor of the Millenium Falcon nor Death Star nor Enterprise. I don't think we're changing each others minds on this. Though do you like "Superman: The Movie"?

By the way I've watched half of that clip and will watch the rest later.

Angeloz

ha. Jor El even says "Einstein's theory of relativity is embeded in the crystal's before you" in one of the shots on his trip from Krypton to Earth. So "fact" it is a part of canon and cements that it took many thousands of our years to get to earth based on it. You accept that in the acknowledged back story to SR that the theory of relativity exists, and therefore there is no way he could go from Earth to Krypton and back in 6 years. Say what you want but it is moot and nullified.

Maybe Jor El did look into the future. He knew his son wasn't going to get to whatever planet for thousands of years. He wanted to make sure that his son would arrive on the best possible planet. Looked into the future to see exactly when his son would land there. Then tailored the crystals to incorporate Earth previous historical significances up to that point. Obviously he is not going to send his son to a planet that could possibly explode, or be inhabitable when his son arrived. So maybe he did. But the fact is, that the theory of relativity is fact in the rules.

 

[Angeloz]

ha. Jor El even says "Einstein's theory of relativity is embeded in the crystal's before you" in one of the shots on his trip from Krypton to Earth. So "fact" it is a part of canon and cements that it took many thousands of our years to get to earth based on it. You accept that in the acknowledged back story to SR that the theory of relativity exists, and therefore there is no way he could go from Earth to Krypton and back in 6 years. Say what you want but it is moot and nullified.

Maybe Jor El did look into the future. He knew his son wasn't going to get to whatever planet for thousands of years. He wanted to make sure that his son would arrive on the best possible planet. Looked into the future to see exactly when his son would land there. Then tailored the crystals to incorporate Earth previous historical significances up to that point. Obviously he is not going to send his son to a planet that could possibly explode, or be inhabitable when his son arrived. So maybe he did. But the fact is, that the theory of relativity is fact in the rules.

Is it? How did he travel faster than light? How did time travel even occur? 'Cos isn't it impossible from today's science based on Einstein's theories? So how?

Angeloz