Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Superman Returns: The Novel (spoiler warning)

Ok, I geeked out. I ordered the Superman Returns book on Amazon.com and as soon as it came, I devoured the entire thing in about 1 hour (i'm not kidding).

spoiler warnings!!!
p
o
i
l
e
r

w
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
!
!
!

Superman goes to Krypton because it had been reported that scientists had spotted the supposedly destroyed planet in its orbit....hoping that he really wasn't alone, he has the FOS created a crystal ship for him to travel in- it takes 2.5 years for him to get there. Well suffice to say, some of the planet is still there...he sees some very interesting artifacts and monuments - but the planet is irradiated with Kryptonite and there are shards floating around that hit the ship and he almost doesn't get out of there in time...but of course he does.

When he arrives back in Smallville his mother informs him that she's sellng the farm and moving to Montana with her now-boyfriend - the neighbor next door who was supposed to help out around the farm when Clark left home at age 18. Clark doesn't know what to do with himself, so he goes back to Metropolis. While he was gone, his mother sent postcards to Lois supposedly from various parts of the world (I'm not sure how she did that) to indicate that he was travelng around to explain his absence. He never said good-bye to Lois because he was afraid if he saw her face, he wouldn't be able to leave and he felt it was something he had to do.

Lois is being awarded a Pulitzer Prize for the article she wrote regarding Superman's unexplained 5-year absence: "the world doesn't need a savior and neither do I!" Clark is very hurt when he reads the article. His mother saved 5 years of DP's for him to read when he finally returned.

When Clark gets back to the DP, Jimmy informs him that Lois and some other reporters are on some type of airplane-piggypacking a space shuttle thing - and that Lois is a "mommy" now. Well it turns out that the plane goes in a nose dive and Clark must put the suit on again.Lois finds out that Superman is back because he saves the day!

Clark meets the "munchkin", Jason - who is rather frail and sickly - needs an inhaler constantly.
He is 5 years old (??). Lois introduces Clark to Richard White, Perry's nephew, who came back to the states after being an overseas journalist, right after Superman left. He is a hero type himself and they have a home on the river - he has his pilot's license and his seaplane is docked in the back of their house on the river.

They have been engaged for a long time, but Jimmy indicates to Clark that he knows she's still in love with "you know you". While it's clear that the three of them are a family, it's never explicitly said in the book that Richard is the father. Since Clark was gone 5 years and Jason is five years old - it seems as if he must be Clark's son from when he gave up his powers in S-man II and slept with Lois. But the book never says who Jason's father is. I imagine that there are some things that won't be revealed unless you see the movie - at least, that's my hope.

Clark sees Lois going to the DP rooftop to sneak a smoke so he quickly switches to Superman and drops in on her to give her an interview. He takes her flying....she is having a hard time forgiving him...he explains where he went and why. They part on speaking terms...Lois is clearly conflicted with her emotions.

Lex Luthor steals the crystals from the fortress and decides to blend some Kryptonite in the crystals and form his own crystal continent (New Krypton). The crystals are deadly to Clark. And, it is revealed that Lex was responsible for the article that said Krypton was still in orbit - he figured that it would make Superman leave earth - and it did.

Jason, Richard, and Lois save Superman ....in the book, there is no real closure of their relationship...she's still with Richard and it's not revealed who Jason's father is. I imagine that information will be revealed in the sequel, unless, as I suggested, Marv Wolfman, the books' author, was told not to reveal any major surprises in the novel.

Anyway, there's plenty of action and Superman goes thru a lot of emotional turmoil, especially when he realizes that Richard is every bit the hero that he (Superman) is....he's a great guy and they're a family.....

I didn't read your post, because I didn't want to be that spoiled. I just wanted to chime in that Singer is doing this movie. He also did X-Men 2. And, for that movie, the ending of the book was different than the ending of the movie (in the book Jean was blinded, in the movie she died) and I believe the comic book adaptation of the movie had a third ending. Singer likes to keep things under wraps, so the movie may not end the same as the book.

Well that makes sense because the novel ending left me wanting a LOT more!

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

W
A
R
N
I
N
G

Well, Chabreez, if you say that the novel ends ambiguously, I guess it is possible that the movie does so, too. Did any of you see the first two Superman movies with Christopher Reeve? The first of these movies left us wondering what would happen to Superman and Lois, so that we would be more or less forced to come back for the sequel. It worked, too. The first two Superman movies were successful. Unfortunately, "Superman II" apparently destroyed the relationship between Superman and Lois, and even though there were two more Christopher Reeve movies, people weren't that interested.

The point is this, however. When the first Superman movie was made, it was already decided that this was pretty much half a story and that there would have to be a sequel. In fact, "Superman: The Movie" should perhaps have been called "Superman, part one of two"!

So maybe the situation is the same here? I just read someplace that even before "Superman Returns" has opened, it has already been decided that there will be a sequel. Perhaps because "Superman Returns" only tells half the story, too? If so, let's just hope that "Superman Returns - The Sequel" won't destroy the idea that Jason is Superman's son, the way "Superman II" did its best to destroy the idea that Lois and Clark should be together!

Ann

Lois smokes???

Well, obviously the Margot Kidder version won out over the Teri Hatcher one. I think I'll give this film a miss.


Wendy

Actually Wendy in the novel she starts sneaking a smoke again because she's so conflicted with her feelings for Richard vs Superman....does that help? And in Smallville, ED's Lois was quitting smoking...I guess she is so hyper that writers just always picture her as a smoker... as politically incorrect as that is..LOL

No, it doesn't help - in Lois and Clark, Lois didn't smoke and, in fact, was very anti-smoking. I don't watch Smallville, but I'm astounded that they have the character smoking in that. In the Chris Reeve movies it was partly a sign of the times - in the 1970s smoking was more common than it is now.

Anyway, not that it matters all that much - this is just the tip of the iceberg.Everything I've heard about this film tells me that it's not the version of Superman I've come to know and love. It sounds as if they're retconning it back to about the 1970s in terms of treatment of the characters, and that would just destroy it for me.


Wendy

I'm with Wendy. This has just confirmed everything that I feared about this movie. Not going to see it, and I hope it tanks horribly.

The Smellville anti-hero legacy lives on. How long do you think it'll be before DC either kills Lois or has them divorce?

A disgusted Phil

I'm incredibly surprised that there are folcs who are so against seeing the movie when it seems like the movie was *written* by a folc. Angst between our favorite couple. Clark has returned from a long journey regaurding his kryptonian heritage. When he comes back, he finds out that Lois has a child (who I'm assuming is his). This stuff is practically straight out of LnC fanfic.

The fact that Lois is dating/living with another man has certainly been done in other incarnations, even on Lois & Clark. Lex and Dan are prime examples. Yes, they are soul mates and I wouldn't watch a version where they don't end up together, but there's nothing inherent that says Lois can never try to love another man. And if Clark has been gone for five years? And if Lois has a child who needs a father figure? I'd worry about the characterization if she *didn't* get serious with someone else.

Sure, I'm not too keen on the idea that Lois smokes, but is that one little vice enough to make me not go see the movie when the rest of it sounds like it's straight out of Lois & Clark fanfic? No, definitely not.

I'm not saying that every folc will love this movie. I'm just saying that I'm surprised people are so unwilling to give it a chance before they even know what the ending will bring.

~Anna

Hey, Anna, I find it refreshing that someone here is enthusiastic about the movie! And I think you are right about many of the points you make, about this being in many ways a Lois and Clark story. At the same time, I also think that, as Wendy says, the people behind the movie are definitely "retconning it back to the 70s". "Superman Returns" is basically a continuation of the Christopher Reeve movies, "Superman the Movie" and "Superman II". I'd say that Lois smokes in "Superman Returns" for the simple reason that she smoked in the Christopher Reeve movies. I'm passionately anti-smoking myself, so obviously I don't like her smoking. But to me, it's just as bad that Lois looks painfully young in SR, so young that she could hardly have been more than eighteen years old when she got pregnant. To me, that's just not how I can think of Lois. Also, the actress playing Lois (can't remember her name) doesn't look like Lois, if you ask me. Teri Hatcher, on the other hand, had the perfect Lois looks.

Still worse, however, is the new Superman. I'm not too fond of his looks, but the real problem is his character, his personality. The single best thing that ever happened to Superman - apart from his getting married to Lois - was when first the comics and then the Lois and Clark show said that Clark is the real person and Superman is the disguise. In the movie, I think they are going to undo that. Clark is going to be a stuttering, stumbling parody of a man, whereas Superman will be the real person. I'm very, very much against that idea. After all, if Lois and Clark are ever going to be married, she will have to marry Clark, not Superman. But how can she ever be married to a man who doesn't exist, who is only a skin-deep disguise without substance? And who is designed to be deliberately pathetic?

I'm going to see the movie anyway, unless I can find out so many things about it that I won't have to see it. Basically, though, I have to see what these movie people are going to do to my favorite couple.

Ann

Ann,

I also don't like the idea that Superman is the person and Clark is the phony, bumbling identity. This is one reason why I've never really gotten attached to the Chris Reeve version like I have the Dean Cain and Tim Daly versions, and even somewhat the Tom Welling version. I'm hoping that the new movie at least smooths out Clark Kent a little, but I know that it directly follows the events of Superman II, so I'll understand if Brandon's version is much more closely related to Chris's.

Still, this is the story of my favorite couple, and I'm ecstatic that the movie is focusing a lot on their relationship. If the trailer is any indication, I'll need a whole box of tissues for this one.

~Anna

Anna and Ann,

I'm afraid that I must respectfully, but very firmly, disagree with you. This film is not an L&C-style film. It is, if anything, the antithesis of everything that made Lois & Clark the unique, refreshing take on the Superman mythos that it was, and that made it so good. Not that our beloved series was perfect, and it is ironic that the only resemblance between the show and the new film is the stuff that I hated about the show.

What do I mean? Well:

• Clark is back to the pre-Crisis version -- the fake, clumsy, timid, nerdish mask that Kal-El of Krypton used to disguise himself so that he could interact with humans, which he most definitely was not. Superman did not spring from the combined efforts of Lois and Clark in the same way, nor did he need her in the same way that "our" Clark did. Lois does not regard Clark in the same way -- in the movie continuity, he is not and never was her best friend -- and her focus is fully on Superman, which makes a certain amount of sense since he's the real person!
• From everything I've seen, heard or read about the film, it's going to be like watching a filmed version of the Friedman and Cherryh novels: there will be scenes with Superman, and scenes with Lois -- even some with both of them together, with Clark in or out of the suit -- but there will be no scenes with Lois and Clark. No teamwork, no banter, none of the camaraderie and friendship, even the arguments -- in short, no spark -- that made "Lane and Kent" what they were. The focus on the relationship is going to be angst, angst, angst, all the way -- and then they don't end up together at the end! Grrr....
• And then there's what the film people put in that was like something from the series -- Lois with another man. Don't expect me to appreciate that: I didn't enjoy it in L&C and I'm sure as blazes not going to enjoy it here, especially when it gets dragged out to another film -- if there is one. I loathed the Sardine and I'm not the Official FoLC Luthor Barbeque Chef because I liked "Lexy-boy"; I've said before that the post-Crisis Luthor, however ably played by John Shea, was a pitiful shadow of the real Lex Luthor (of the 70s-mid 80s), and the Luthor-Lois sub-plot was the blight of the first season of L&C. Whatisname in this film is not going to win any kudos from me, either. In passing, I might suggest that, rather than taking up with another man after Superman/Clark vanishes, "our" Lois would swear off men forever. Mad Dog Lane would return with a vengenance, with the added characteristic of her now having a child to raise. Males approach her at their peril.

There are other problems that I can see. The whole kid sub-plot just screams "contrivance" and "hokey plot device" (see below). Movie-Luthor is still the egotistical comedian he was in the earlier films, and Superman looks to be the same sucker for his tricks that he was. The whole movie continuity is not one I like much -- no Jonathan, and Martha is somehow back from the dead, and there's that pesky Fortress giving the bad guys the means to hurt Kal-El after it preaches dubious morality (including the impossibility of his ever having a relationship with Lois). The smoking issue, to my mind, is a red herring -- so what if Lois smokes? Maybe we'll get lucky and she'll set fire to the entire film. And there's one final insane continuity problem: if the mysterious child is Kal-El's, just where does Lois think he came from; at the end of Superman II, Clark uses his Magic Amnesia Kiss to erase Lois' memory of his dual identity, which must include their time together at the Fortress -- so who does she think is the boy's father, because she can't remember sleeping with Clark/Kal!

So, no, I do not think that this film has any pretentions (or wish, given DC's attitude to the series) to emulating L&C -- quite the opposite. The characters are too different, and that's the heart of it all. I might have enjoyed it as a Superman film, but not with all the angst and the botched relationships -- and the likelihood of Superman being portrayed as stupid and helpless again. Nope, I'll go see X-Men III and watch Phoenix use some real super-powers. Oh, and Angel fly.

Phil, long-time Superman fan -- but not of this movie.

Phil, I agree with practically everything you say here!

I, too, hate the idea of seeing a bumbling, empty shell of a Clark Kent. I, too, want to see Lois and Clark together. I, too, am completely against the idea that Jonathan should be dead, so that he can't be a part of Clark's life. I, too, absolutely hated Lois's romance with Luthor in the TV show - that was the one thing I hated most in the entire LNCTNAOS series!

There is, however, one - one - thing about the movie that might make it worth it for me. And that is quite simply if it is confirmed that Jason, Lois's son in the movie, is Superman's child as well. And why would that redeem the movie for me?

It's because I found the movie Superman II so devastating. I had been an ardent fan of Superman since 1968 and an ardent fan of Lois and Superman since 1969. Superman II destroyed everything that I had hoped for. It said that Superman had to choose between his powers and Lois, he couldn't have both. It said that Clark made love with Lois and then, cowardly and treacherously, took away her memory of it. It said that Superman was feeling very happy and satisfied with himself at the end of the movie, which had to mean that he was very happy to have used Lois and then dumped her forever.

I was devastated, almost shell-shocked, after I had seen this movie. I wouldn't have anything to do with Superman for ten years, not until I read in my local newspaper that Lois and Clark had become engaged in the comics in 1990.

However, before I gave up on Superman completely after seeing the movie, I kept asking myself if there was anything, anything at all, that could save Clark and Lois's relationship after the heartbreaking events of this movie. And the only thing I could think of was if Lois had become pregnant after her lovemaking with Clark, and if she gave birth to a superpowered child. Because if that happened, Superman would have to confess to her, sooner or later, that he was the father of her child.

So you can say that ever since 1980, I have wanted Lois and Clark's lovemaking in Superman II to result in a child. If that has happened now, in Superman Returns, I want to see it for myself.

Ann

I agree with both sides here. I too was sorely disappointed when Clark mind-wiped Lois at the end of the movie. I hate it when the movies give Superman powers just to move the plot along, when he's never had those powers in the comics or anywhere else (the thing with the finger, the holographics in the fortress....what was up with all that?)

Since Bryan Singer and his writers are fanboys, I'm hoping that they stick to the standard stuff. You can't erase Superman 1 and 11 completely from the public minds unless you do another origin story. There is obviously a back story here in regards to when Lois got pregnant, who did she think the father was if she hadn't slept with Richard right off the bat? And with Superman gone and her memory erased, did she think that it was the immaculate conception or something??

Anyway, I am excited to see a big-budget, full effects Superman movie again. I've been frustrated with Smallville since Clark doesn't fly - yet, at least, and that's my favorite power of his. I agree that Kate Bosworth doesn't look like a 30 year old Lois Lane but after reading her various interviews, she is both respectful and appreciative with regards to her landing the role of the iconic Lois Lane. And if the movie does have two additional sequels, she will be about 30 when the third movie comes out (she's 23 now). I guess when it's a franchise, they don't want the actors to look long in the tooth by the third sequel (or fourth, if they're really successful).

Let's hope that in the future, Bryan Singer steers the franchise to more closely resemble the comics - Lois and Clark are a reporting team, they're at least engaged if not married....I guess marriage spells death for romance when it comes to TV and movies but if they have a child together...and Superman is the iconic figure that he is...then they really should get married....

Well, first off, the big problem is that Brian Singer can't bring the movies in line more with the comic books, because he doesn't know the comic books. His only reference points for the Superman legend is the Chris Reeves movies. So that's how he envisions Superman to be.

Even setting aside my pathological hatred of children, and the fact that I can't see anything positive in their inclusion in any storyline, I have to agree with Phil that it really smacks of convenient contrivance. It sounds like the kid's naceisent powers are going to continually be used for convenient plot progressions. Also, his being Superman's (remember there is no real Clark Kent)love child with Lois makes for a convenient way to push Richard out of the picture whenever it it decides to make the paternity known.

I think it's funny how much the series Lois and Clark is looked down upon by many who claim to be Superman fans. Even when the series (which did last four years and was strong enough for a fifth had not Michael Eisner wanted the time slot for Disney)was only middle of the pack ratings-wise, it still drew millions of more viewers than watch Smallville on it's best day, or read the comic books.

As far as the movie goes, I'll check it out and will enjoy the new generation of special effects, but... for there to be sequels, the first movie has to not suck.

Tank (who blames Warner Bros, for their inept handling of the whole affair)

If you ask me, I am so going to miss this movie. I'd go for Lex though. Kevin Spacey is the only thing that really makes sense out of this whole story.

I know the discussion has come and gone, so I’m probably talking to the wall, but...

I finally caved and bought the book last night. After telling myself repeatedly I wouldn’t be spoiled for the movie. (And knowing that was pretty much a lie.) Anyway, I liked it. I didn’t love it. To me, there’s nothing that rivals The Death and Life of Superman. But I thought, on the whole, it was a good read, and no character was ripped asunder.

Also, I’m going to agree with someone way up thread-- I think it was Anna – because I found elements of fanfic which were more thoughtful than most other Superman novels offer.

First, the feeling of ‘homelessness.’ Being the Last Son and going back on a mission that only brings pain and sorrow to find there really is nothing left, save him. And, augh, how I hated/loved that it was Luthor who set that up. A truly horrible, dastardly deed worthy of a criminal mastermind. Wrenching, too.

And then flying over to Lois’s new home. Watching her interact with her family, and repeatedly telling himself that Richard is good for her, she has moved on, it’s not his place to interfere. And yet, as soon as opportunity presents, he meets Lois on the roof of the Daily Planet. I liked their awkward exchange. I liked that he was uncomfortable and fumbling as Superman, and she knew and recognized that.

I’m also glad there was no big ‘the child is yours!’ reveal. But rather how subtly it was implied. That he (see, I’ve forgotten his name already) could see Superman in the water from the helicopter when no one else could. That he’s this sickly, timid-seeming child who is likely to grow into something else all together. And while I’m not as sternly anti-child as Tank, I have to say I’m Not Ready to read that comic yet.

Last thing... since now I’m just rambling on to the wall... the whole Why the World Doesn’t Need a Superman/I’m not a savior/god theme. Loved that.

I love that while he knows and embraces his destiny to save, he doesn’t want to be different, certainly not worshipped. I liked the bit where he sees the statue of himself in Centennial Park with the word ‘savior’ on it, and he’s chagrined. I liked that during the shuttle rescue, he acknowledges that he’s not the one putting his life on the line. He’s super-powered. The astronauts aren’t. Why should he get all the accolades? Also, the worry that it’s bad for the world to grow too dependent on him. All of that, to me, is the juicy/fun stuff of Superman. It fills him in, makes him less two-dimensional. Still good, always good, but not without struggling with his role in the world, where and how he fits.

Really, truly the last thing: Lois smoking. Remember, she has been around since Superman was beating up Nazis. Well before the Surgeon General told us those things would kill us. I wouldn’t want her white-washed, her edges are what make her so endlessly interesting.

I believe this concludes this little chat with myself. Now that I’m properly spoiled, I cannot wait for the movie!

CC

Well... the absolutely, positively last thing. Lex Luthor. I’ll be interested to see how Kevin Spacey plays him. He was certainly diabolical, all that is pure evil in the book, but since I’m one of those who adores MR’s more shaded LL to bits and pieces, I was having trouble picturing Spacey's.

All done now.

** leaves whistling Superman theme **

CC, I was one of those who voiced my disapproval of movie Lois's smoking habits. Guess I've seen enough young girls smoke that I don't want another smoker among their possible role models. (Then again: I guess most of those teenaged girls who smoke vastly prefer Britney Spears, or whoever they've seen on Big Brother, over Lois Lane.)

But I love it that you appreciate movie Lois's smoking, if only because that proves that she has her little foibles and weaknesses like the rest of us. I love it that you like Lois not only for her strengths, but also for her quirks and shortcomings.

Annndd... if you say the book was good, that definitely gets my hopes up for the movie.

Ann

We have also to consider that the Lois Lane in the film with Christopher Reeves smokes too...
Old habits never change!

Spoilers below


Spoilers will follow


LAST WARNING!!!!


For me, the deal breaker to the book and the movie, aside from numerous plot problems I'll mention in a moment, was the decision to have Lois take her SON to snoop on a boat. NO! I cannot accept she'd be that reckless with her son. Especially since it is established in the book that she is very attentive and loving and on top of his asthma medication. It would have been more realistic to have her, en route to the Pulitzer Prize ceremony with Jason in tow, to have Lex kidnap her. After all, the award was for her article on why we don't needs Superman. And she was there for all the events of SI and II. So kidnapping puts her in danger, with her son, and I'd accept it. Lex wants her to be there to see this. He wants to show her his trimphant mastery of this new technology. Fine. But to have her take her 5 year old boy to snoop? Nope. It's too dangerous and she'd never endanger Jason that way.

Plot hole that bothers me: the Fortress of Solitude was destroyed at the end of SSII. Clark destroyed it and spent a few moments talking with Lois. So how was it intact for Lex to plunder?

Contrived: the flight with Lois. There was no reason for it, it felt forced.

Bad science alert: Exactly what are the crystals made of? Basic laws of physics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where is the matter coming from? Seawater????? And when the New Krypton "island" is in space, the novel says it continued to grow. Huh?????

Cause of concern: the lack of warmth in the book. Without Clark's inner thoughts to help, I worry this movie is going to be filled with long, soulful stares. I love angst, but it feels more like "poor me." Sigh. Soulful longing look. Sigh.

Gimme a break.

I WANT to like this movie. I do. But between the vinyl tablecloth costume and a plot that feels forced and contrived at key junctures, I'm worried. At least it will be better than SIII & SIV.... but that isn't saying much!

Jackie