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

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?


Ummm, not sure what your scientific understanding of Dinosaurs is, but last I read they went extinct around 65,000,000 years ago. Either way as for how your point stands for SR and STM, going back and forth from Krypton, with the way physics works in the established film history, the Roman empire was around AFTER krypton exploded.

Just wanted to point out the Dinosaur stuff. Millions, not thousands, for them.
 
He was exaggerating 'cos I already pointed it out but nice back-up about that (the dinosaurs). Though why apply Einsteinian physics anyway? 'Cos it makes no sense. And from Kryptons point of view like applying to Aristotlean astronomy i.e. out of date and maybe inaccurate.

Angeloz
 
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.

I remember I said that if that was the case it's not plothole but Superman's selfishness (that would match SR) because he didn't do his best effort when it was about Californians. He "couldn't" do it for ordinary people, but touch Lois and then he suddenly can. What a hero.

That means that if Lois wasn't on California at the time, Superman would have let the earthquake to happen, as in fact he did.

Now you'll excuse me if I don't believe that you know what Superman was thinking, so I'll take that "he was flying as fast as he thought he could at that time" with a grain of salt. I mean, no scene - deleted or in the movie explained that.

Nevertheless I thought Superman always do his best to save people. Now I see in STM Superman does an effort but his BEST is just for his girl. At least in SR, Superman decided to save Metropolis instead of Lois and Jason.

Going against a set of rules already established in the previous films is.

Yes, I already have admitted more than once that it IS a plothole. Read again.

But then again, to have Jor-El in STM saying that Kal-El's trip will last millions of years and having him talking about Einstein himself, is pretty much the same kind of plothole. A "going against a set of rules already established in the very film" kind of plothole.

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.

Richard Donner is not one of those apparently. Sam Raimi isn't either. But for the sake of inconsistency you can stick to SR ponly.

Singer took a previous set of rules as the current set of rules and then violated them wherever he felt he wanted to.

Just like Donner did with his own film. Giving us either a Superman that's only heroic when it's about Lois, or a plothole when Superman's abilities changes according to the scene's expected spectacularity. And then the millions of years before Einstein was even born mention.

The fact is, there have been a few threads on this, and even C. Lee explained it in detail before.

Then may I ask, why do you bother?

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.

And Jor-El talking about the theories of relativity of a man who was going to be born millions of years later. D'oh.
 
Ummm, not sure what your scientific understanding of Dinosaurs is, but last I read they went extinct around 65,000,000 years ago. Either way as for how your point stands for SR and STM, going back and forth from Krypton, with the way physics works in the established film history, the Roman empire was around AFTER krypton exploded.

Just wanted to point out the Dinosaur stuff. Millions, not thousands, for them.
I was tired when I was typing and all I could think of to make my point is dinosaurs. but you are right. The roman empire was around. And the fact is, when he went there and came back, no one around when he left would be alive, so SR could never happen. But thanks for pointing that out.
 
There is another time problem. How in the heck did Jor-El and the Phantom Zone villains speak English? There WAS no such language thousands of years ago, and they sure wouldn't speak it halfway across the universe.
 
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
It doesn't matter. The fact is that it is in the film, and the fact is it is established that his trip took thousands of our years. So, for him to go there and back would take double the amount of our time it took for him to just come here, so it nuliffies SR from ever happening at all in the elstablished set of rules for the film.
 
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.

Then STM bothers a lot of people too.
 
Maybe Jor El did look into the future.

Maybe Superman used information in the crystals and built a much faster spaceship to return to Krypton and broke the theory of relativity. :yay:

The Jor-El looking into the future thing is not even in those never-happened cut out scenes right?
 
There is another time problem. How in the heck did Jor-El and the Phantom Zone villains speak English? There WAS no such language thousands of years ago, and they shure wouldn't speak it halfway across the universe.
Well that is one thing that has been violated for years in film. Star Trek does it all the time. It has been something that has been the bane of science fiction films, but a lot of directors feel that you can't have a movie if you dont udnerstand everyone. Sometimes writers conveniences have been done, such as in ear translators, or dollying into the mouths of the aliens speaking their language, then while in tight on the mouths, the aliens switch to english, showing that we are now translating their language to english to conquer the language barrier. And remember, STM was made with kids being a large part of the audience in mind, and what kid goes to a movie to read subtitles.
 
Maybe Superman used information in the crystals and built a much faster spaceship to return to Krypton and broke the theory of relativity. :yay:

The Jor-El looking into the future thing is not even in those never-happened cut out scenes right?
I know. I theorized. But he did know a lot of furture earth. And he second guessed his son a lot. And the faster engine wouldn't make a difference.
 
I know. I theorized.

I know. Me too. But that doesn't prove ****. Or it does and we're both right. That's my point.

But he did know a lot of furture earth.

No, he theorized. It was most about wha<t he hoped was the fate for his son since he'll never be able to see by himself. And clearly he was also calming down Lara's fears.

And the faster engine wouldn't make a difference.

Neither your or my theorizations man. Jor-El didn't look into the future and yet he mentioned Einstein.

In both cases:
ace000.png
 
I know. Me too. But that doesn't prove ****. Or it does and we're both right. That's my point.



No, he theorized. It was most about wha<t he hoped was the fate for his son since he'll never be able to see by himself. And clearly he was also calming down Lara's fears.



Neither your or my theorizations man. Jor-El didn't look into the future and yet he mentioned Einstein.

In both cases:
ace000.png
Nope. That part was not covered in the movie. All we saw were the scenes of them putting him into the ship and talking about the people of earth being primitive. So they had to have seen them to know that they look like us, and who we are. It just wasn't shown.

The theory or relativity still goes on in the film no matter what. It is stated as fact in the film.
 
It doesn't matter. The fact is that it is in the film, and the fact is it is established that his trip took thousands of our years. So, for him to go there and back would take double the amount of our time it took for him to just come here, so it nuliffies SR from ever happening at all in the elstablished set of rules for the film.

So you can't explain anything. My thought is use sci-fi logic when it comes to space travel in that it takes as long as it takes. If it takes 6 years there and back then that's what it takes. 'Cos Einsteinian physics would be like Aristotle's - very old (to Kryptonians). And faster-than-light is meant to be impossible. I know you still won't accept it. ;)

Angeloz
 
Nope. That part was not covered in the movie. All we saw were the scenes of them putting him into the ship and talking about the people of earth being primitive. So they had to have seen them to know that they look like us, and who we are. It just wasn't shown.

And that includes looking into the future how?

Because if not....
 
I only first saw the movie a few days along on TV, so, I don't want to get into a whole thing here, listing the same things that everyone else said when it first came out, but, I will say, as I suspected, it was a bit of a disappointing movie,(IMO) I really just couldn't get into it
 
Last edited:
Buggs, the language problem could have been overcome with a simple plot device. Would not have taken long at all. But to just ignore it is an insult. In II, the Kryptonians can't understand the Russian cosmonaut because he speaks Russian, yet they magically understand English? By having them not understand the Russian, the film makers actually called attention to that gaping hole in the logic.
 
Buggs, the language problem could have been overcome with a simple plot device. Would not have taken long at all. But to just ignore it is an insult. In II, the Kryptonians can't understand the Russian cosmonaut because he speaks Russian, yet they magically understand English? By having them not understand the Russian, the film makers actually called attention to that gaping hole in the logic.

Superman I and II were fun movies, but these days film makers try to be a little more consistent.

Turning back time, is not something that superman can do in the comics.

Maybe he could in the silver age, and that is what STM take for its source, but the modern comics have grown in a different direction, almost opposite to what SR was.
 
I didn't like it when i saw it in theaters. it just let me down after so much anticipation. but i decided to buy it for less than 10 bucks at blockbuster and i realized it was actually pretty good.

unlike the first time i saw it, i wasn't bored once. and i finally viewed it as singer's vision to donnor's universe, or maybe just singer's vision of STM.

people's expectations were too high. it just overshadowed the movie itself, which really is not bad. once u accept that, u can clearly see it.

i still hate that damned suit and crappy s-curl, tho.
 
You don't like Kenny (the curl)?!? How could you?!? That's disappointing. Tut-tut {shakes head}. ;)

Angeloz
 
SR is not liked by Superman fans because like you, Singer doesn't know anything about Superman, there should be no kid, Superman wouldn't leave to see if Krypton's there 'cause Jor-El told him what happened to it, he knows it is gone!!!, there could have been a better villian than just Lex AGAIN, it's a freakin' rehash of part 1 bassically, it's unimaginative, lazy b.s., by Singer who doesn't care or get comics, and does not respect the fans whatsoever, he's an ass hole!
 
I'm a Superman fan, and I liked Superman Returns. Some fans just expected something different I guess.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"