Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Superman Returns WOW! My review! SPOILERS!!

Wow. Looks like I missed some excitment here. Glad to see it's settling down. Apologies tendered, etc.

The thing to keep in mind in all this is that it's just a movie.

Personally, I thought it was a pretty good one. Not perfect, by any means, but well worth seeing.

I do wish they'd cleared up continuity, though.

What was clear to me was that Lois and Superman had a relationship. That Lois remembered having a relationship with him.

The exact circumstances of their physical relationship, however, are beyond me. Was it pre-revelation? Is the Kiss-Off of Doom in continuity?

My thought on Lois's relationship was that she was (to some degree) using Richard as a cover. It goes something like this:

1. Superman leaves.
2. Lois throws herself into a rebound relationship.
3. Lois discovers that she's pregnant.
4. Lois realizes that Superman must be the father.
5. She realizes that there are all sorts of problems with having Superman's love child, especially if he's gone.
6. Finding herself in a tight situation, she allows the relationship to accellerate. Partly as a cover, and partly because she wants to convince herself(as the article says) that she can have a good life without Superman.
7. When the pregnancy starts to show, she convinces everyone that Richard is the father, perhaps fudging the due date by a month or so to make it more plausible.

Five years later:

She's with Richard. She's trying to make it work. She's convinced herself that their relationship is working and will work. But she can't force herself to take the final step.

I don't really like the idea of her using him like that, but I just got the feeling that she knew Superman was really the father, and if that's the case, I don't see how else things could have happened during his absence.

Of course, there's no clear indication that she did know. It's just how her attitude struck me.

Their relationship at the end of the movie... The way I saw it, Lois and Richard were still together. He is a good guy. Lois has some tough decisions ahead. I'm hoping/guessing that'll be the b-plot of the next movie. If not (if there somehow isn't a sequel or something), it's easy enough to imagine things for yourself.

As for the Kryptonite... I wondered about that, too. The only thing I could think of was that it wasn't really Kryptonite. It was Kryptonian crystal, some of which had grown to "take on the properties of" Kryptonite. A lot of it was still blue, and I'm not sure that what was green would affect him in exactly the same way as the real thing.

Addressing the questions about Superman II and their lovemaking...

It all started because of a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article by Larry Niven entitled "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex." I don't want to link to it directly, since it isn't exactly PG-13, but if you're interested, I'm sure you can find it easily enough.

The basic idea is that, for a variety of reasons, Superman's powers make it impossible for him to be intimate with a woman without killing her.

Many choose to ignore the problem, or to explain things away with Clark's aura of invulnerability.

In the movie, what happened was (as I vaguely recall):

1. Clark allows Lois to find out that he's Superman. It's not fully a conscious decision, but he's glad of it.

2. Clark takes Lois to the Fortress of Solitude, where they have a nice long talk followed by a romantic dinner.

3. Clark proposes.

4. Lois accepts.

5. Clark, using his amazing power of super-lunkheadedness, sneaks off (i.e. without consulting Lois) to a secret chamber in the fortress where he will be stripped of his powers. Lois sneaks up in time to see him do it, but not (if she was so inclined) to stop him.

6. L&C spend the night together in a giant feather bed which somehow materialized inside the fortress. They feel that they are married in their hearts, and promise to make it official ASAP.

7. L&C wake up to realize that they're stranded in the arctic with no means of transportation.

8. L&C begin walking (and, later, hitchhiking) across Canada.

9. General Zod takes over the U.S., forcing Clark to find a way to regain his powers.

10. Clark realizes that he can't afford to give up his powers. The world needs him too much. But with his powers, he cannot have a physical relationship with Lois. This is hard on both of them. Clark, once again activating his super-lunkheadedness (it's amazing the side effects invulnerability can have...) , makes the unilateral decision to wipe Lois's memory of the whole thing.

The thing in all this is that (in this universe) Superman is the real person and Clark is a bumbling disguise (with, as others have pointed out, no real logical reason for existing).

Lois (rightfully) doesn't think much of Clark (he's cute and silly). She loves Superman. And yet, Superman, by giving up his powers, has forced himself to become merely Clark. Somehow, Lois doesn't have a problem with this. She's awed and humbled by the sacrifice he made for her.

I'm not sure how much of that Brian Singer considered to be in continuity. It's possible that he'll choose to ignore the physical issues, for example. Or find another way around them. (I once started a fic in which he used red sun lamps to depower himself when needed, but was able to recharge in the yellow sun the following morning. It was part of a huge crazy thing combining a dozen different ideas/plots. But my coauthor left the fandom while we were still in the brainstorming stages and I'm not sure it would ever have come together anyway.)

Anyway, I had some more random thoughts on the movie, but don't feel like reposting them (and really, this is long and rambly enough as it is). If anyone is interested (for whatever unfathomable reason), you can find them here .

Paul

I don't remember having seen this before - if someone mentioned it earlier, I apologize for having missed it. I had thought of it as an direct sequel, therefore the mind-wipe had to be there.

Without the mind-wipe, that clears up several inconsistencies for me. And I could easily see Lois going through the scenario that Paul has suggested.

However, if indeed there was no mind-wipe, I would have problems accepting Superman's behavior of five years ago, when he left Earth. He and Lois would have shared a physical and emotional relationship that both admitted to and both remembered, yet he just took off for an indefinite period of time without even bothering to say goodbye? Even if they had both accepted that they could not be lovers because he now had his powers back, and that in the future they could only be "friends", because of the bond that they had shared/still share it would be inexcusable of him to just leave without a word of farewell. I don't care how difficult it would have been for him. They would have already accepted that their not being together was for "the greater good"; she could have accepted that his search for Kryptonians was part of a higher cause/personal quest as well. Superman or not, he owed her that.

And Paul, re this comment you made about SII:

Huge inconsistency, absolutely. That's always bothered me. Granted, Superman is no longer acting like a nerdy person once he's lost his powers and is "just" Clark. And perhaps he would have given up the mannerisms completely since there would have been no need to hide behind a secret identity. But certainly everyone back at the Planet would have been stunned by the changes in both him and Lois' feelings towards him. It would have been interesting to watch them try to explain it...

Kathy

Paul, if Superman ever proposed to Lois in Superman II, I most certainly can't remember it! How about the rest of you FoLCs? Does anyone remember a proposal in Superman II? If so, can you describe it to me? What did Superman say to Lois?

And Paul, I very much hope you are wrong about this, too:

I hate the idea that Lois would be so devious that she would use Richard as cruelly as that. I really, really hope that she does not know that Superman is the father of her child, at least not straight away. I'd much, much prefer that she has had her memory wiped away by Superman, so that she honestly doesn't know that they have ever been lovers. (Remember that in Superman II, they were lovers only for a single night.) She might still remember their extremely romantic "flying date" in the first Superman movie, and if so, she might still feel extremely let down that Superman left her without a word. However, she would feel really betrayed only if Superman made some sort of public announcement to the effect that he was truly leaving, so that she knew that he planned to be gone for a long time, possibly forever. In a situation like that, I can certainly imagine her throwing herself into the welcoming embrace of Richard's almost right after Superman's departure.

If Lois actually knew from the beginning that she was pregnant with Superman's child, then I can accept her behavior towards Richard only if she was honest with him right away. She would have had to tell him not only that she was pregnant, but that Superman was the father of her child. She would have had to ask Richard if he was willing to pretend that the baby was his and if he could love the child and raise it as his own. If he agreed to all of that, then Lois's behaviour becomes at least acceptable.

Another possibility is that Lois doesn't know that she is pregnant when she meets Richard, and that she becomes intimate with him so soon that she believes that her baby is his. I would be okay with her behaviour if she gradually begins to wonder about Jason. I can imagine that she might start to remember enough to know, or guess, that she once made love to Superman. For all of that, she might not be sure of Jason's paternity until right before Superman returns. This would put her in a very difficult situation. She would have unwittingly led Richard to believe that Jason was his son, and Richard and Jason have a very strong relationship. How can she break up this family of hers?

All I can say is that I hope that Lois didn't deliberately deceive and use Richard. I don't like to think of Lois that way at all!

Ann

Oh, P.S. Paul, you said Larry Niven had written something about Superman and Lois? Larry Niven? Could he be that Larry Niven who wrote two scifi books about a Ringworld? Never mind the details about the world, but this is what I think I remember about those books:

The hero is 200 years old. In the beginning of the book he has a 20-year-old girlfriend.

The hero and his girlfriend get separated when they land on the Ringworld.

The hero learns that there's a custom on the Ringworld which requires that you greet everyone you meet of the opposite sex by having sex with them. The hero eagerly participates in this custom.

The hero meets a 3000-year-old geisha, who has spent most of her very long life perfecting her technique at pleasing men. She becomes the hero's new girlfriend.

The geisha girlfriend dies, leaving the hero devastated. To comfort himself, he has some electrodes inserted into his brain, which constantly stimulate the part of his brain regulating his feeling of lust. As a result, he lives in a state of constant sexual ecstasy.

The hero gets tired of his electrodes and goes looking for some live action. He meets his first girlfriend, the 20-year-old, who unfortunately has been transformed into a horrible monster. The hero and the monster fight. Gradually, the hero gains the upper hand, slowly maiming and dismembering the girlfriend/monster until she/it dies.

The hero discovers that the entire Ringworld has become unstable. To stop it from wobbling, the hero has to direct a powerful laser beam onto a part of the Ringworld, killing everyone who lives in those parts. It turns out that all those women that he "greeted" by having sex with them lived where the beam hit, so they were all killed. (You may note that all the (thousands?) of women that the hero had sex with on or on his way to the Ringworld have been killed, all but one of them by him, at this point!)


Okay.... And all I've got to say is if the Larry Niven who wrote about the Ringworld is the same Larry Niven who said something about Superman and Lois, then I, at least, couldn't care less about what he had to say!

Ann

I don't remember any proposal in SII. I remember him losing his powers in the chamber and scenes with the phantom zone baddies doing their thing. The world wonders where Superman is, cue scene with them sleeping in bed.

Also that Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex thing is kind of obnoxious. Maybe I just don't have a sense of humor when someone messes with the right of sympathetic characters to get it on without excess squick. I hereby wave the "suspension of disbelief" banner. <g>

But back to movie ranting: I honestly think its a huge faux pas for Lois to get the revelation out of that one scene when Jason pushes the piano. I concede that she should be suspisious, but to go and tell Superman explicitly that he's Jason's father because he pushed the piano...that's a big leap. I tend then to think that she's remembering SII's events. Some people wrote about this "deja vu" thing in the novel. That makes sense to me although I would think she'd be a bit more resistant (Lois: wow I slept with Superman and wound up pregnant. He must have erased my memory. Awesome!)

I don't think she'd use poor Richard. Probably, she thought the kid was his when they got together. Unlike someone who posted earlier I totally see her as the rebound type (especially considering that it's not like there was much of a relationship between her and Superman to begin with sans memories, if anything his departure seals for her how little he cared or something). Now she has quite a life for herself with a kid and a nice guy who'd be her husband in a heartbeat. It strikes me as least probable that she'd just shrug off Richard.

If Singer is really into unconventional families, I wouldn't hold my breath for an ending with our favorite couple. It would be keeping with the larger-than-life hero thing for things to continue as they are with Superman making frequent appearances in Jason's life as the kindly uncle from Krypton. Putting all that savior, you-are-not-part-of-them jazz is akin to shooting oneself in the foot when it comes to the very human complications we see.

That, or it's deliciously ironic. But that might be just me.

I don't like the idea of her using Richard, either. I'm just not sure what else to think. We don't know the timescale, but we do know that:

1. Lois became pregnant before Superman left.

2. Richard and Clark/Superman did not meet before Superman's return. (It is therefore very likely, though not absolutely certain, that Lois knew him only in passing, if at all, before Superman left.)

3. There is a very short window of time during which Lois could have slept with Richard and been able to plausibly claim him as the father. A month, maybe. Two if you push it.

So...

Lois and Superman were in a relationship. He left. In the month after that time, Lois met Richard, started going out with him, slept with him, and discovered she was pregnant. Not necessarily in that order.

Rebound relationship. Makes sense. But I can only see it going one of two ways.

1. She slept with him immediately, during that first emotional mess after Superman left, and then got to know him later.

2. She got to know him first, they started dating, and then she slept with him. By which point she probably should have known that she was pregnant. (Although it is possible to go quite some time without realizing it. I know one person who didn't know until well into her second trimester.) I'm not saying using him was her only purpose. I'm just saying that if this is the case, protecting her child might well have been a factor.

I don't really like any of the options, but I don't see any others. To me, 2 seems more likely than 1, but... *shrug* Who can say for sure?

As for the proposal... Like I said, I haven't seen the movie in a while. I thought I remembered him proposing after dinner. I was fairly sure I remembered some pillow talk in which he promised he'd marry her properly when they got back to civilization. I could be wrong about either or both.

Larry Niven. Yes, same Larry. Yes, Ringworld has issues. Especially when it comes to sex. Even more issues in the later books (and there was more than just one). The thing about the later books is that they weren't originally planned. What happened was that readers (particularly the ones at MIT, where he reports that he was greeted by a mob of students chanting "Ringworld is unstable!" and similar slogans) started to write in about all sorts of logical problems with the first book. Some of them even wrote in with possible solutions. So he wrote the second book to try to fix those problems. IMO, he ended up highlighting them more than fixing them. Patching them, but with patches that were worse than the original problems. I'm not a big fan, really.

But... That's all irrelevant. I was giving the history of the issue. Which is that Larry Niven wrote a joke essay pointing out a bunch of problems that come up when someone with the strength to move planets around has sex with an ordinary mortal.

Some people laughed them off. Some ignored them. You're certainly welcome to do either. What I was saying was that some people, including the ones in charge of Superman II, took them seriously.

Paul

I can feel this veering off topic now, but thank you for the information about Larry Niven, Paul.

Those two Ringworld books - or rather, the second one - is definitely one of the books that has shocked me the most, ever. I'm not talking about Niven's attitude to sex, I'm talking about his attitude to women. Just consider: The hero of his book has sex with dozens, maybe hundreds and possibly thousands of women on Ringworld. By the end of the second book, these women are all dead, all but one killed by him!

To me, Larry Niven seemed to suggest that it would be fun to have casual sex with as many women as possible, and afterwards you should kill them all so that you don't risk wasting time with someone you have already "sampled" when there is a world of women still out there just waiting to have sex with you! I can forgive Niven for dreaming about casual sex with thousands of women, but what about dreaming about killing them all afterwards?

Okay, I can see that there is a much "nicer" way to interpret the hero's actions - he had to respect the customs of Ringworld so he had no choice about having sex with innumerable women, it was not his fault that his first girlfriend became a monster so that he had to kill her slowly and painfully, and it was not his fault that he had to stabilize Ringworld in a way that unfortunately killed all the women that he had had sex with on this world - but really, to me it all smacked of wishful thinking from a man who had a wet dream about having sex with thousands of women and then killing them all afterwards. People, just imagine what the Earth would be like if all men here were like Niven's hero. I think it's safe to say that humanity would become extinct within decades, since all women here would soon be killed by men!

Like I said, I reacted with absolute horror at Niven's book. And, as I've also said before, I reacted with absolute horror at Superman's behaviour in "Superman II". How interesting it is to be told that "Superman II" was inspired by Niven's views on men and women! No wonder I felt like giving up on Superman forever when I had seen that Niven-inspired movie.

As for "Superman Returns", I haven't even had the opportunity to see it yet. Paul, you and I and several others have speculated about what Lois knew or didn't know about Jason's paternity, when she knew she was pregnant etc. All we can do is speculate and state our own preferences, of course!

Ann

Well, I agree with some of what you said about Niven's books, particularly the casual sex. Other stuff I saw differently, but you're right... OT. And not really worth its own thread.

I feel that I should, however, correct this:

It's not like the whole movie was inspired by his writings, or even that his thoughts on men and women influenced things (AFAIK).

His relevant idea was that Superman, while he has his powers, cannot have sex with an earthwoman without killing her.

That idea is what's behind Superman's decision to give up his powers in Superman II.

I don't know of a direct corellation between Niven and Superman II, but my understanding is that Niven was the one who introduced the concept.

So that one idea of his, directly or otherwise, influenced that one scene in the movie. That, to the best of my knowledge, is the extent of the interaction there.

As for Superman Returns...

It was a good movie. Flawed, but good.

When you have the opportunity, I hope you'll see it yourself.

Sorry about all the spoilers here. I would have marked my post with a spoiler space, but I assumed that anyone this far into the thread would have seen the movie by now.

Paul

As I pointed out in one of the threads (I think it was on Zoom's site), I have read the 'Official' prequel comic "Superman Returns, Lois Lane". In that comic there is no ambiquity about Lois' preception. She believes that Richard got her pregnant.

I think it's possible that Singer is counting on using the fact that Superman is not human, and is in fact, an alien to explain away the time discrepancies in Lois' pregnancy and Jason's birth. After all, must we assume that a mating between members of different species (who actually shouldn't be able to procreate at all) should take the normal nine months?

I'm not even sure that Singer will bother to explain the 'problem' at all. His purpose was to create this situation that said Lois has moved on (without her actually having done it)and what better way than to introduce a child that nobody really wants to create this false impression of a 'family'.

Tank (who wonders why all these young wunderkind directors can't actually do a little research into the full history of their subject material before deciding on what is the right version to present to the masses)

Just wanted to mention that the shooting script points out that Jason was born PREMATURE! I think that explains it all, too bad they didn't put it in the movie so everyone could be enlightened right away.

Genine, didn't they actually make mention of a premature birth in the movie? I definitely remember hearing it somewhere, I thought it was in the movie itself.

In any case, assuming that a human-Kryptonian pregnancy would last for nine months (and Tank is of course right - who knows how long the gestation period would actually be), even if Jason were as much as two months premature, that would still assume that Lois' and Richard's relationship progressed very swiftly. I could see things happening this way if the mind-wipe is there. But if it's not, she would have definitely rebounded into a relationship with Richard, and I would think that she would have at least considered the possibility that this baby could be Superman's.

Kathy

But I think that was written specifically to throw us off, much like the X2 novelization and comics.

Right, I agree that it was written to throw us off. More specifically, it was written to make us believe, at least those of us who haven't seen the movie, that Jason is Richard's child. For that matter, I remember reading an interview with Bryan Singer many months ago, perhaps in March or so, when he got the question of whose child Lois Lane's son would be. I clearly remember Singer answering: "It will be Richard's."

So I agree that we can't trust those comic book prequels and adaptations and novelizations. However, just because all that stuff was written to fool us, we can't automatically assume that Lois Lane played along with this game of deceit and that she knew right away that the child she was carrying was Superman's. We can't take for granted that those comic books etc lie about her initial ignorance about Jason's paternity.

The mindwipe was very much a factor in Superman II, and if this new movie is even loosely based on SII, who's to say that Lois in SR wasn't in fact mindwiped and sufficiently affected by it to start a relationship with Richard in good faith? Wasn't that the explicit purpose of the mindwipe, that Lois should be able to move on? Perhaps she had really forgotten almost everything about herself and Superman at the time when she met Richard! Perhaps at first she wasn't even really angry at Superman for leaving the Earth without saying goodbye to her! But perhaps the effects of the mindwipe wore off in time, so that she had Jason's paternity figured out by the time of Superman's return to the Earth. That would give her a good reason to be angry at him for just deserting her, even leaving without a word. Of course, she should have been furious about the mindwipe thing too. The fact that she doesn't confront Superman about that does suggest that she had not been mindwiped. But I don't think Singer worries that much about consistency here, so I'm still going to believe in the mindwipe.

Ann

Well, I went to see it yesterday. I'm writing this without reading everyone else's comments in detail, because I want to preserve my first impressions and get them down on paper first, so to speak. Then I'll track back and see how my views compare with others.

So, I enjoyed it. I hadn't known that the old Superman music was going to begin the film, so that was a lovely surprise that put a huge grin on my face. It was all I could do to stop singing along - in fact, I probably did hum a bit and boogie up and down in my seat just a little. Anyway, that music really put me in a good mood and got me excited and reassured me that this was going to be A Good Film.

Things I liked:

Kevin Spacey was an excellent Lex Luthor, as I'd expected. Martha was well-cast, too, and I loved the whole sequence where he crashes to earth and she finds him amongst the wreckage and flames. Perry was good, although I missed our Perry's larger-than-life characterisation.

Lois Lane was fine, too, although some of her clothes were a bit...off. They seemed to be trying to link her back to the previous LL by putting her in similar clothes, but that didn't really work for me. In fact, the entire Planet seemed to be a weird mix of the new - copious TV screens and computers - and the old - 1930s-style signage and Jimmy in a bow tie. I mean, a kid in a bow tie? Pul-leeese. I know that's a left-over from the original films and the cartoons, but can't we move on?

Now, the biggie. Clark Kent, aka Superman, aka Brandon Routh. Yeah, he was okay. He was a Christopher Reeve clone, which was fine, if not exactly ground-breaking. As Clark, his hair was lank and too long, and they put him in horrible dorkish clothes, all of which left you wondering what Lois Lane could possibly have seen in the guy. The original love of her life? Well, I know love is blind, and that personality is more important than good looks, but don't you need that initial attraction to get things going? Anyway, I wouldn't want to have his babies, and I doubt I'd even want to mow his lawn. But he was okay.

He was much better as Superman, whereas DC was always much better as Clark Kent. There are obvious reasons for that, of course - the series made CK the centre of the story, and the films make Superman the centre. Alas.

I enjoyed the challenges that Clark had to face, and the love story thread was fine, so far as it went.

Things I didn't like or found frustrating:

The kid's hair was too long.
Superman looked the epitome of health when he was lying in the hospital apparently only just alive. Couldn't they have at least made his complexion a little pasty?

General stuff:

Ultimately, I found the film emotionally unsatisfying. Everything was pretty superficial and I think you could tell that it was written by fanboys. For example, after Lois and partner have rescued Superman and Lois has yanked out the sliver of kryptonite, Superman is up and away without even a thank you. Just "I have to go back," and then he's out of the plane. Argh! Martha stuck outside the hospital - yes, nice touch, but couldn't she have had just a tad more script in which to develop her character and her relationship with Clark?

And then, he visits the kid he now knows is his son (his son!!!), mumbles a few words his Dad once said, smiles happily, has a shallow, too-happy conversation with Lois ("I'll be around" smile, smile) and leaves. Smiling. I mean, he has no idea when he might see his son again. Will he get to play a part in the son's upbringing? Get visiting rights? Be kept informed if his son falls ill - the little guy didn't seem particularly healthy, after all. But no. Just "Hey, I've got a son." Smile. Leave. ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Also, I thought it was crying out for someone to say "Hang on, Clark's back, and so is Superman..." I mean...duh!

But, like I said, I enjoyed it. If they make another, I'll go and see it. Will I rent it on DVD? Maybe, maybe not.

Yvonne

Well, as I say, my jury is still out on this one and will be until I finally rent it on DVD at some point.

But, even so, I took serious umbrage the other day when during a news report on it (let's get past my persistent grumbles that entertainment news has no place on a hard news program. :p I've been whining about that for over a decade now and they don't seem to be paying attention any. ) heard the reporter call this version of Superman a 'mincing metrosexual'. Apparently, the 'touchy feely' bits didn't impress him. :rolleyes:

Another odd thing I've encountered recently is that over the past week, in three separate news reports, I've heard the reporters musing over how odd a name Brandon Routh is. One presenter even mused thoughtfully, "A man's name, followed by a girl's name. Odd."

Now, I don't find anything at all odd about the name. Or even unusual. Anyone else? I was just struck by how silly these guys were being finding it strange at all! But it was curious that it came up three times on separate programmes. Rather than it being just one idiot.

Oh and saw part of an interview with Singer in which he admitted that part of BR's appeal and why he got the job was because of his resemblance to CR - which would seem to lend weight to the suspicion that any copying of CR's mannerisms, inflections in this movie were more as a result of direction than actor's choice. I think, personally, that was a mistake. But, you never know, might change my mind when I see it.


LabRat

How is ROUTH a girl's name? Are they not pronouncing it correctly? It rhymes with "SOUTH." What, do they think his last name is "RUTH?" Good Lord! :rolleyes: Sometimes it amazes me how ignorant people can be!

I've seen the movie 8 times so far, and Brandon is without a doubt the one near perfect thing in the film! JMHO of course, but he is the best on screen Superman we have EVER had! Chris will always be my Superman, I grew up with him - and NO ONE will ever be more of a *real life* Superman than he was. But Brandon nailed the role - as Clark, as Kal El, and as Superman!

While a few people may seem to be underwhelmed with his performance, most people you talk to *rave* about him! I've seen people that didn't even enjoy the film all that much still praise Brandon's performance to high heaven! That guy is destined for BIG things, bigger than Superman even! Oh yeah, and on top of his incredible acting skills (one little raise of his eyebrow or narrowing of the eyes, every little gesture or expression MEANT something) - he is HOT!!!

Yep, I'm ignorant. Or perhaps just not American? Whichever, if you don't hear the name spoken anywhere (like me), then how are you to know which way to pronounce it? It might help you to know that, in the UK, 'route' rhymes with 'Ruth'.

Yvonne

I heard one reviewer say that Brandon Routh was given lessons on how to act like Chris Reeve. They probably did hire him on resemblance, and his interview, where he accidentally spilled a cup of coffee.

BR hot? Sorry, he does nothing for me. He's about to be typecast, though. *insert ominous music*

Hmm. Although I think Routh was picked in a way because of his "resemblance" to CR. At least good ol' Wikipedia says that's the reason his agent took him on or something.

Personally I think he looks more like a younger version of Big from Sex in the City than like CR.

No no no I wasn't calling YOU ignorant! Wow you really have to watch what you say around here lately I guess. :rolleyes: But someone who REPORTS on TV or radio, or even in print, about something such as this - should get their FACTS straight! That's all I meant! I wasn't referring to the general public. The media, however, should know better than to make fun of something before even knowing what they are talking about!!!

Your opinion of course, but most women I have talked to (online and in real life) are swooning over him! So I dare say you are in the minority there.

For the record, I thought he was somewhat good looking before seeing the film. To be honest I didn't think he was anything special at first. After seeing the film, however ... yep ... he is HOT!!!