The Superman Returns spoiler thread.

[DonTadow]

Sounded interesting until you got to the part about Superman's psychic powers changing the images on film.

It would make complete sense, but i'd love to see the comics do a big blow up about it to gear superman in line with common sense.

 

[Archetype]

Heh. Yes, sounds pretty hokey that way. I wish I still had that comic, so I could confirm my memories. Anyway it's a comic-book logic explaination after all, but still better than "oh, you never really look twice at the people you see everyday" rationale, don't you think?

It does however cover a lot of the objections raised here about many plot holes in Superman Returns. Why did no one question how coincidental it was that Clark Kent made a reappearance the exact time that Superman did? Because he didn't want them to make that connection, so his "defensive aura" included that blank-out into the tailored emanation he projects around himself.

"Hey, there's Clark. Wait a minute. Wasn't he gone for five...{ZAP}...Boy I'm hungry, we having sushi for lunch or what?"

It also makes that embarrasingly written scene where Lois and her default boyfriend are comparing Superman's vital stats to Clark's actually work. As they start to make a connection, he looks up at them, adjusts his glasses (reinforcing the hypnotic command to make "no connections") and all of a sudden they are both...Nah! Fagettabowdit.

Now I'm not saying that Superman should have conscious control of this kind of "psychic inflluence," but merely that it is his own personal manifestation of his "Kryptonian Aura" while on Earth. I'm sure General Zod would project an overwhelming aura of fear and superiority, since his base desires are to be worshipped and obeyed. Superman just wants to be left alone enough to have some downtime interactions with the mortals he is spending so much effort on protecting and serving.

 

[Someone]

Wasn´t Luthor supposed to be intelligent? At this point the idea I get of him is that he´s obsessed with real state and repeats the same mistake once and again. I think he had time to read the Overlord list when he was jailed.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Heh. Yes, sounds pretty hokey that way. I wish I still had that comic, so I could confirm my memories. Anyway it's a comic-book logic explaination after all, but still better than "oh, you never really look twice at the people you see everyday" rationale, don't you think?

Actually, no. I am far more comfortable with the creators saying, "no, this wouldn't work in the real world, but just let it go for the movie/comic/etc." than I am with them attempting to create some kind of logic to explain the absurdity, which is itself equally absurd. The idea of psionic powers that alter hard photographic imaging is exactly that kind of ridiculous justification.

It does however cover a lot of the objections raised here about many plot holes in Superman Returns. Why did no one question how coincidental it was that Clark Kent made a reappearance the exact time that Superman did? Because he didn't want them to make that connection, so his "defensive aura" included that blank-out into the tailored emanation he projects around himself.

Sure, but to be honest, I'm more pleased without that explanation than I would be with it. Superman already has a boatload of super-powers. The last thing I want to do is add worldwide irresistable psionics to the pile. Psionics that don't make a lick of sense, to boot.

 

[Someone]

I don´t have a (big) problem with nobody realizing that Clark Kent is Superman. We, as audience with privileged information, have no problem connecting the dots, but otherwise:

- Why assume that Superman has a secret identity? What need would superman have of it, in the first place? He´s seen as almost a god, so it would seem somewhat idiotic that he needs to disguise as a reproter and look for a house like a normal guy, instead of living elsewhere: his spacecraft, the north pole, or the Moon.

- At least in the films, the costumed Superman appears the first time as a full adult. I don´t remember the details, but while it´s known that he comes from Kripton, there´s no reason to assume he did that as an infant and was raised here; the logical thing was to suppose he arrived in spacecraft, already fully grown. Clark, on the other hand, has a researchable life as a nomal (if maybe a bit too much healthy) human infant.

- He looks like Superman. ¿So what? Looking like someone isn´t so uncommon, and surely Clark isn´t the only one that looks like him.

Of course, those things aren´t foolproof. He´d be discovered, sooner or later. But if I´m going to accept that he´s able to lift a kriptonite rock the size of a big city (that won´t split in half), that little fact doesn´t bother me so much.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Brandon Routh was the same age during filming as Christopher Reeve was when he filmed the first Superman.

Older, actually.

Christopher Reeve was born in September 1952; this means he was actually all of 24 years old when filming began in March 1977.

Brandon Routh was born in October 1979; filming on Superman Returns began in February 2005, making him 25.

 

[Archetype]

Sure, but to be honest, I'm more pleased without that explanation than I would be with it. Superman already has a boatload of super-powers. The last thing I want to do is add worldwide irresistable psionics to the pile.

Ok, sure. That doesn't fit with your image of the "Classic Superman power," but that definition depends heavily on what generation of Superman fan you started out in. Remember part of his original motto was "...able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!..." which meant that initially he couldn't even fly! (which is now taken for granted as a "Classic Superman" power). He also didn't have the whole golfbag of powers such as "super cooling breath," "x-ray vision," (which I'm guessing aren't even supposed to be x-rays anymore, considering the radiation damage he would be doing to the people regulary exposed to it... ) etc.

The point is that this character has evolved steadily, gaining a deeper definition of the powers he is supposed to have at his disposal. (And getting many more cheesy powers thrown into the "Super Pile" along the way, of course...circling the Earth fast enough to "turn back time"? Huh?) Each new generation's re-interpretations tend to logically expand on what he can do, and I don't mind a better, more logical reasoning being provided. We've heard a bunch of negative comments about him being able to pick up an entire island without it breaking up. I believe it was in the John Byrne relaunch that it was postulated that Superman doesn't actually just "grab" something large that he has to move. It was postulated that he actually is extending his "Kryptonian Aura" around it in order to encompass such a huge mass, thus allowing him to manipulate it....telekinetically! (Although his own personal mental image limitations doesn't just allow him to just look at something with his mind and "tk-lift" it. He hasn't reached that point of realization about himself...yet.)

I actually really like this kind of "re-imagining" when it is done well. It also opens up new vistas for the character to explore, making him worth reading about/viewing in the future. After all, how many more movies/comics do we really want to spend the time on where Superman just "super-punches" the same lame "super-villain" over and over? This was one of the worst disappointments about Bryan Singer's Superman Returns effort: the lame recyling of plot elements which explore Superman's efforts to use his powers "for good," the exact same way they were used in the 70's! Stopping a bank robber (just sooped up with more firepower)? His main adversary in planning a real-estate scam? Come on! Isn't there any creative juice left in Hollywood at all?

When the Brandon Routh Superman is hovering in orbit over the Earth, listening in on all the chaos, destruction and simple messiness of human life I kept thinking: "Yes! They are going to have a Superman that can make a difference in today's world, one who comprehends how to apply his vast powers in order to guide and lead his adopted planet towards a better future. This is going to be an important message about HOPE at last! What? He hears...not the cries of war and starvation, flood and famine, injustice and prejudice...but that a corporate bank is about to lose money and have it's profit margin slightly lowered! " Lame. Lame. Lame.

 

[Archetype]

Brandon Routh was the same age during filming as Christopher Reeve was when he filmed the first Superman.

It wasn't the actor's physical age that was our objection. Yes, Christopher Reeve was around the same age as Routh, but he obviously had much more acting experience by that time in his life, which made a huge difference. If Routh could have pulled off the actual character he was supposed to have been portraying, Superman, then he would have been fine. Instead, we got "SuperDude," and angsty, brooding whining teenager, who has not yet found his place in the world, has "girlfriend troubles," and is acting much more like an "X-Men"/Marvel Universe character than the role model he should be. He is just too young-looking for who he is supposed to be, and this carries over into his performance.

Superman should be the "confident, powerful man of action," able and willing to stand up for what he believes is right. He is basically DC's ultimate "Paladin" character. He has great power, but it is limited by his ethical code. Even so, he is not hesitant in doing what has to be done, seeking out injustice and tyranny, fighting the good fight, yadda yadda yadda. If we want self-absorbed brooding and moral impasses, we have Spider-man. If we want someone who is willing to use criminal behavior to fight crime, we have Batman. Superman should stand for something different, and he should be set apart from other characters in that he is experienced and capable in his relationship with the universe, knowing how to balance his desires and responsibilities.

In other words, he is supposed to be written as a man.

Not a boy, searching for a path, but a man who is already walking the path he knows to be righteous.

That's what was missing from this "re-imagining" attempt (if you can even call it that..."recycled for profit" is more what it turned out to be).

 

[DonTadow]

Actually, no. I am far more comfortable with the creators saying, "no, this wouldn't work in the real world, but just let it go for the movie/comic/etc." than I am with them attempting to create some kind of logic to explain the absurdity, which is itself equally absurd. The idea of psionic powers that alter hard photographic imaging is exactly that kind of ridiculous justification.

Sure, but to be honest, I'm more pleased without that explanation than I would be with it. Superman already has a boatload of super-powers. The last thing I want to do is add worldwide irresistable psionics to the pile. Psionics that don't make a lick of sense, to boot.

???

And the yelllow sun bit is great science? The psionic thing is in line with what DC has introduced with other characters powers. It would make complete since given the histor they've previous mentioned. How can you take someone as intelligent as lex luther seriously if he can't figure out what someone looks like with their glasses off.

 

[Chain Lightning]

Movie Clark isn't a dependable guy. He is basically never there when Lois needs him, so that Superman can be. He's also not sweet, at least not from what I saw in the movie. Unless Lois just happens to find clutzes sweet, in which case she's going to be disappointed when she discovers that his clutziness is an act.

I see where you're coming from. But just to clarify, are we talking about all movie Clarks? Or just the latest "Returns" Clark?

If we're just talking about the latest Clark, Routh's Clark hasn't had a chance to prove whether he's dependable or not dependable because his Clark and Bosworth's Lois don't have any type of relationship. Donnor's Lois and Clark were closer friends than what we see in "Returns". Here, Lois sees Clark as just another person in the bullpen along with the other reporters (the dorky one at that). He's just a friendly co-worker. There's never been an instance where he let down Lois because of something he failed to do for her because she never asked or was in a position to be "needed" from Clark. So we can't really judge the dependability of "Returns" Clark. We just assume he'd be a dependable guy once Lois picks him. Plus....the whole leaving her to be Superman thing is possibly invalid because most version of Clark and Lois "getting together" involve Clark revealing his true identity.

Also, the "Returns" Clark isn't a klutz. Sure, he accidently bumps Jimmy's desk causing his camera to fall. But he also caught it. That's the only klutz thing he did in the whole movie.

It's the difference between Ray Barone from Everybody Loves Raymond and Doug Heffernan from King of Queens. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities about Ray Barone in Raymond. He's not a good father. He's not a good husband. He's not romantic, or smart, or anything. It is inconceivable to me why his wife or indeed any woman, would love him.

I like your analogy here. But Clark is a sweet guy. He's always saying nice things to her. But from her point of view....its just the dorky guy in the office clumsily trying to hit on her. So she ignores it all.

To pull this long tangent back on track, I see movie Clark Kent as another Ray Barone. He has no redeeming qualities, and I'm supposed to accept that Lois will prefer him to Superman, who has a lot of redeeming qualities, even if they're superficial ones.

Of course its more realistic to pick Superman over Clark. But that's assuming that both Clark and Superman are offering themselves to Lois. You gotta remember, most pre-sexual relationship Lois courting is only coming from Clark.

The reason why I like the idea of Lois picking Clark over Superman is because it would show that Lois has given up her pie-in-the-sky dream of hooking up with a god to something more down-to-earth. Clark. I like the idea or the message that shows the audience that you can be rewarded for not going after Mr. or Ms. Perfect.

True, once Lois picks Clark she gets the real Superman. But if a real world girl picks a dork, he won't turn out to be Superman. That's true....it's the real world after all. But if we look at it as a metaphor, then we see how that meaning can translate to real life.

Even in "Can't Buy Me Love" the protagonist had a lot of redeeming qualities. We see none of that in Routh's Clark Kent.

Well, quite frankly....he never got a chance. In this movie, Lois has two men in her life already. Richard and Superman. Clark has no meaningful relationship (other than co-worker) with Lois and not much screen time.

And Lisa was hot.

But...that completely invalidates Chain Lightning's entire point in the reference.

I think Ankh is thinking the same way I'm thinking with Lisa. She's hot not because she's flashy. She's hot because she's not. Her being homely, understated, intelligent, etc, is the source of her hotness. Not the things most dim guys would go for: big boobs, great hair, great fashion, subservient personality......

I'm just saying that without a pure faith suspension of disbelief, it'd be patently obvious that they were the same person, affecting different mannerisms. At least, for people who are familiar with their features through daily exposure.

I totally agree. It does need the full suspension of disbelief to work. Even with changing body language and other mannerisms .....it still wouldn't work. But the reason why I brought it up was .....not really to say it would work in real life and not to say it would excuse the leap in logic, but as a factor to "aid" those on the fence to stepping over to the zone of suspension. Many people have different criteria for suspending disbelief. I was just saying that for those who simply won't suspend by reason of "its a Superman movie" alone....perhaps the change in mannerism and personality helps them do that.

I thought the Bruce Wayne secret ID was more "arrogant drunken eccentric prick" than "cool guy," personally.

To some girls...that's the same thing.