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

NOTE: I don't think there are any TRUE SPOILERS here - but be warned just in case!!!


OMG!!!!

I have to say that there was a fair bit of "violence," nothing too intense but some of it might be a bit harsh for younger kids. The PG-13 rating is very appropriate, so be warned of that.

And the special effects, OMG! I certainly believe a man can fly, even more than I did 20 years ago!!!!!! The sound, the picture, the cinematography - all of it was just gorgeous! Such a beautiful film, in every conceivable way!!!

OH, I was so bouncing up and down on the way home last night LOL. You said it perfectly for me: Kate Bosworth grew on me. I mean, my whole crowd and I, we were just sort of like, errrr it's Kate BOSWORTH?! But she really grew into the part for me. I totally misted up at the end. And then there were a few parts throughout the movie where my whole theatre just cracked up! The almost 3 hours just flew by for me. We only had 1 showing in town at 10, so my group and I booked it over to the theatre around 9, and it sold out by the time it started.

Jen

Really? I got to my theatre at 8:30, there were 3 showings at 10pm (1 IMAX and 2 regular). They were all already sold out! The line was already WRAPPED AROUND THE MALL by 8:30! There were at least 150 people in line AHEAD of me, and by the time the doors opened to the theatre - well I couldn't even FIND the end of the line LOL! It was *great!* Just amazing! In the whole 2 1/2 hours, out of over 200 people, only ONE girl ever got out of her seat!!! Amazing!

Can't wait to go see it *again!*

Oh, you must live in one of those real cities. I didn't even know we were even having the 10pm viewing until one of my friends called me. I just assumed we were seeing it Wednesday night, as usual. The only real thing that kept my expectations low was Bosworth...I'm still talking about how she surprised me LOL. Other than that, I'm just a general fan of Superman. I grew up watching the movies, I've seen the original tv show, and of course our Lois & Clark. So from the start, I was completely ok with this movie not exactly being like any of the above. I'm just happy we're going to have another couple of movies! I looked around the theatre a couple of times, and I don't think anyone moved, except to seriously be on the edge of their seats haha.

Jen

hey! just got home from it myself, got off work at 9:30 and caught the 10:00 showing down the street (used the ticket in my lois and clark 3rd season for a freebie!)
ok all I can say is OMG! WAS THIS A GREAT MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------
I'm not a geek. I'm a level 75 dragoon!

Just got back from seeing it today and I loved it. I still can't picture Kate as Lois Lane not because she's young but because her Lois Lane still isn't that modern day woman in a man's world kind of person. Brandon was terrific as Clark Kent/Superman and you can really see the more personal side of Superman in this film especially when it comes to Lois.

i'm going to go see it today guys and did u find out about the kid yet ( i need spoiler moment ) lol

I'm going to be the dissenting voice here. While I thought it was good, it wasn't OMGTHATWASFREAKINGAWESEOME! The effects were good, the acting was good. But at one point, I'm sitting there thinking "I could probably fall asleep right now." I did like the nods to the original movie and the original series. But overall, nothing really got me excited, except for the jokes.

I really enjoyed the movie. I think most of the people who really strongly disliked it either had sky-high expectations (and some of them liked the movie, too) or are too set on one version of Supes.

Lois wasn't enough like LnC's Lois or Lex wasn't enough like Smallville's Lex or Superman wasn't a clone of Christopher Reeeve with all his memories up to 1978 artificially implanted. Some people were never going to be happy.

Of course, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for not liking the movie, too. Some stuff was cut out of the beginning that I was looking forward too, and I worry that left some things unexplained. And some people thought it was too long (I'm not one of them). But some people latch on to one aspect they don't like and can't like any of the movie for it. And, of course, some people just wanted a post-Crisis Supes and nothing else would do.

I admit it had it it's flaws, but a lot of people decided before it ever came out that it since it wasn't exactly what they envisioned, they weren't going to like it.

I don't blame anyone who's watched it and doesn't like it. I don't care if people don't want to see it. Just don't bash it without seeing it.

Saw it for the second time yesterday, and I'm going for a third either today or tomorrow! He just blows me away!

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

W
A
R
N
I
N
G

You *will* walk out of this film believing that Jason is Superman's son. You'll also believe a man can fly! The last scenes are without a doubt, the best and most emotional parts of the whole film! The biggest revelation of all though, is Jason himself.

E
N
D

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

Uh yeah saw it twice and plan to see it again at least 2 more times and once in IMAX because I am only 40 min from NYC.

Go see it, make your own judgments, and get ready for the ride of your life

PS: It grows on you the second time around...

~Lois Lane Wanna Be

Yep, I saw it for the second time tonight. I was actually supposed to see the Devil Wears Prada with some people, but it was sold out. So I said to myself, hmmm... :p It really was great the second time around. I was worried that the...newness of it would wear off, not that that's a word, but it was just as funny and the special effects were still great! And I'm used to Kate Bosworth now.

JD

WOW P H A T indeed the best movie i seen all year.
And yes like Lucy said he is a yumm factor indeed. and the ending WOW. i was crying and my husband was about to tear up to.

They have to make another part. love it need to go again.

Lex got him island that he wanted. lol lol

Supergem thank you cause at first i was worried that he wasn't with all the drugs he had. lol

I finally saw the movie (1st time) last night. I went into it pretty skeptical. I didn't know that I would like Lois Lane being a mommy and I wasn't sure I'd like Kate as Lois.

But, having said that, I loved it. It was very emotionally moving and it was very visually stimulating. I was on the edge of my seat from start to finish.

I will have to see it a couple more times. I'm sure I'll like it even better the 2nd time around because I'll catch more things that I missed the 1st time through.

So if you haven't seen it yet, go. You might enjoy it more than you thought. I know I did. And yes, as much as I love Dean as Superman and he's still by far my favorite Clark, Brandon did an awesome job.

I saw it just yesterday. I laughed, I cried, I squeed, and I melted when he said a certain name... *SWOON!!*

There will likely to be spoilers in this so be warned.


Well, I finally was able to go see Superman Returns tonight and I thought it was all right. I would probably say it was okay to good.

Those parts that I expected to like for the most part I did, and those that I expected to dislike, I generally disliked.

First off, Bryan Singer's story started out with a major flaw. Superman would have never left without saying goodbye to Lois... never.

Also, as expected, I hated the inclusion of a child. It nearly ruined the entire movie for me. Unless the movie is for 4 to 8 year olds, nothing positive is ever gained by having a child as part of the storyline. I fear, if they decide to do sequels, that the kid will have a larger and larger role, which will be very unfortunate.

The special effects were good and provided many fun moments in the movie.

The characters:
Superman; Routh did a comendable job in the role. He seemed to be mimicing Chris Reeve quite a bit (some of which I think was intentional from Singer). He was properly earnest and had the necessary comanding presence while in the suit. He could have used a little more bulk in the upper body, but looked good for the most part. As for the suit; the colors didn't bother me as much as the stupid diamond texture they seemed determined to show close ups of.

Clark Kent; What Clark Kent? It's been said that Brandon didn't play him quite as geeky as he was written in the original movies, but how could he? He was hardly in the movie. Even in the minimal screen time he had, he was such a non factor as to be inconsequential. That may have been Singer's purpose, but I didn't have to like it. I like it when Clark Kent is a real person with a real personality of his own.

Lois Lane; Kate was better than I expected, but still not up to true Lois Lane standards for me. Physically she was, and looked, too young to justify the storyline. Also, I would have thought that a big budget movie could have afforded a better looking wig. The inclusion of the kid really blunted Lois' personality. Gone was much of the independance and fire that one would usually associate with a Lois Lane. Maybe, as a mother, they felt they had to write her as a softer and gentler Lois.

Lex Luthor; I expected more out of Kevin Spacey than I got. While he played the part well, it was written too much like the role in the earlier movies. At times, Spacey seemed to be channeling Gene Hackman. Lex Luthor is not the place to put your comic relief. Lex Luthor doesn't suffer fools, nor would he keep them around as associates. Hurmor coming from Lex Luthor should be of an ironic nature, not buffonery.

Perry White; Frank Langella did a credible job in a small role.

Jimmy Olsen; Who really cares? The only purpose for this character was for story exposition.

Martha Kent; another non-character and could have been played by nearly any elderly actress.

Richard White; I swear James Marsden has pictures of Bryan Singer with a goat or something. How else can you explain that this terrible actor keeps getting roles in Singer's movies.

Overall, the movie had many exceptional visuals, and better performances than the original movies. It was a pleasant experience, but hardly earth shaking.

Tank (who wonders if they have already pre-shot a lot of basic material for a sequel)

Wow, I have to agree. As much as I bounce up and down about the movie, I'll always have a laundry list of things I'd fix. Granted, I didn't expect Clark Kent to take over the whole show, but seriously, the guy did like nothing! Although, weirdly enough, it did give me a better appreciation for Superman. I used to get caught up in the Clark Kent side of things to the point where I was like, Superman, who? But Clark still was kind of a useless role in this movie.

Yeah, there was something about James Marsden that was just...off. I liked his character's involvement in the movie; I just wanted to see somebody different in that role.

Not that IMDB is the news god, but they're already rumoring a sequel for 2009...

Jen

Congratulations to all you lucky Americans who've been able to see the movie already! It opens here in Sweden on July 28. <grumble> I was in London last week but just my luck; it opens there on July 14.

Anyway, hugely, seriously thanks to you guys who discuss the movie here. Personally I can't be too spoiled, so the more you give away, the better I like it. But I really, really like to hear your personal opinions, too.

All Superman fans have different things that they like or dislike about the Superman mythos, so we will obviously like or dislike different things about the new movie. I know already that I'm going to squirm and be uncomfortable during the Lex Luthor sequences, wishing I could just fast forward the film through these parts. On the other hand, I honestly think I'm going to love the Jason parts. Not because I generally get any sort of huge kick out of the presence of kids in movies, but because of what I know about this particular child. Uhh, I really wish we could do this without spoiler warnings, but....
S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

Okay, even though I haven't seen the movie, it appears certain that Jason is definitely Clark and Lois's child. I love that. I love the idea that they should have children. At the same time, weirdly enough, I'm totally uninterested in nextgen stories, where the focus is on the kid(s). (Okay, there is the odd gem of a story, such as Snave's Cherub and a lovely story from about last Christmas about a man falling in love with Superman's grown daughter.) Generally, though, I'm adamant that the focus should be on Lois and Clark themselves, but I love the idea that they should have children.

I have to admit to you that what I like best about the movie so far, now that I still haven't seen it, it that it does indeed give Lois and Clark a child. Honestly, people, I didn't dare hope that that would ever "officially" happen. Interestingly, it was another movie, "Superman II" that made it clear that Lois and Clark had made love at least once. At that time, I hadn't dared hope that that would ever "officially" happen. But to me, "Superman II" was also a terrible heartbreaker because it said that Superman and Lois could never make love again, unless Superman gave up his powers.

Now, it seems clear that "Superman Returns" is a continuation of "Superman the Movie" and "Superman II", and that Jason is the love child that was born out of Clark and Lois's lovemaking in the second movie. This, of course, leaves us with a host of questions. Has Lois really, truly forgotten about making love to Clark in "Superman II"? (Yes, she might well have, seeing that Clark gave her amnesia in that movie.) But when it becomes clear to her that Jason is indeed Superman's son, what is she going to say to him? And what it he going to say to her? And is there a chance for them as a couple, or is it still going to be impossible for him to make love to her as Superman? And what about Richard, who is the man that Jason considers his Dad? And what is Luthor going to do, now that he has apparently figured out who Jason is?

So many of these questions can only be answered by the sequel to "Superman Returns", of course. But, people, what do you think? Any thoughts?

Something else occurred to me. FoLCs, suppose you were allowed to write the script for the sequel. What would happen in it? Care to share? I'd really, really like to hear your thoughts on that one!!!!

Ann

LOVED it. Love. Love, love, love, love, lovvvve. So many thoughts, so many reasons, so few fingers, so little time... but here goes...

The little things, first of all, that just make me want to mow Brian Singer’s lawn every weekend, no charge: When Clark’s glasses fell off as he and Lois are picking up her stuff. The look he had, fleeting, when his face was bare and he really wanted her to look up, to notice, to see. Gah! That was just... thank you for that.

The great, great, great wink to Action Comics cover #1 with Supes holding the car overhead. For that, I’d mow the lawn and pull the weeds. Really.

Cheesy 1970s opening credits just like the original movie. See? I was happy before it started.

Clark and Jimmy in the bar. The look that crosses CK’s face when he hears about the shuttle and he knows he’s going to have to go, to make his first appearance since his return. Again, small, subtle, but telling.

Jason looking at Supes on the television screen, then back at CK right next to him, back to Supes, back to CK, and reaching for his inhaler. Lawn, weeds, hedges.

Jimmy telling CK how/why Lex Luthor got out of prison. “How pissed off do you think that makes Superman?” And Clark’s quiet, deadpan, “A lot.”

Incidentally, I do know there are some people in the world who aren’t madly in love with Superman and his universe. I’m talking about the weird ones who live oblivious-- or worse still, not especially caring-- about the comics, television, novels, movies, and fanfic. I met one the day the movie opened, in fact. She looked at my Supes t-shirt, (I was geeked up and ready) and said, “Hey, I think maybe they’re making a movie about Superman.”

Um. Yes.

The big things. Ones that even those who don’t adore Superman would find worth seeing:

The flying! So much. So great. So zoomy. Especially love all the Superman hanging in space images. (I want that poster!) Looking down on the earth, separate and “not of it,” as Jor-el keeps reminding him. But watching over it-- listening to and filtering through for cries for help. Summed up his essential loneliness and his goodness. And I like that he took Lois up, telling her what he hears-- people wanting to be saved, even if the world doesn’t need a savior.

The whole Savior/Does the world need Superman? theme. Just dark and thoughtful enough to give the movie emotional weight. My favorite scene is the plummet back to earth after he’s pushed ‘Krypton’ back into space. The not-at-all subtle Christ-imagery, and then the long, soundless fall—people below helpless to do anything but watch. The hero fallen, literally. Just... love.

Lex Luthor: Yes, yes, yes to Kevin Spacey. The right amount of dark and funny with pure crazy simmering underneath.

Lois Lane: Hmmm. The age thing was a bit distracting. I would have liked to have seen her fight back against Bruno, too. But, on the whole, I found her appealing and believable, and especially liked her windblown look when she comes down from her flight with Supes. “Have you been smoking?” Also, I thought their chemistry was just right.

Superman/Clark Kent/Brandon Routh: Dead on the money!! More than I ever hoped for. Not a false note from him. I want to... marry him, actually. And, you know, he is so perfectly Superman to me, that now... Dean Cain in the suit... looks kind of like... Dean Cain in the suit. Not like Superman.

I know. (But it’s true!) And in that regard, I am over Tom Welling. We will no longer be seeing each other.

At the risk of this turning into a rhapsody on Superman, I’ll just toss in a few things that bugged. I didn’t like that Jason killed, however accidentally, the thug holding them. Since that’s anathema to Supes, it bothered me that his child had done what the father never would.

I get Lois figuring out paternity at that very moment, but... I would just expect her mind to be blown. She doesn’t remember their lovemaking, right? That was erased by the magic kiss of amnesia. So, how does she realize this and not just... demand a million billion explanations??

I found the scene where Superman was being beaten-up riveting/excruciating. It hurt to watch. But then, I guess that goes in the plus column.

I wish the beginning of the book had been included in the movie. I see why it wasn’t, but I missed it. I thought the Smallville scene was too choppy without it.

Last Thing. The father-son speech. Superman in Jason’s room, choked with emotion, ‘you’re not alone, the father becomes the son and the son the father, etc.’ That? Just killed.

We’ve certainly entered uncharted territory-- and there isn’t much of that since Superman is 70 years old. Superman is a Dad. And I have mixed feelings about it. The reason I adore Nan’s Home series is because she surrounds Clark with this huge, extended family. He is no longer the Only; and the idea of him having a real biological tie to the planet feels right. However, I don’t know that I’m ready for the Super Adventures of Jason, you know? And all the would go with that...

Where is an amnesia kiss when you need one?

CC

I also appreciate that Richard was a great guy. I loved him. He's great. Too often they go the route of having the third party be evil or a jerk or weak or unattractive. I love that they didn't do that here.

CC - you said it *perfectly*! I agree with your every single word!

I'm still dubious about the whole thing. Movies coming out in mid-August over here, so there is still some time to gather some enthusiams (the laughing fit I had over the German trailers didn't help any).

I don't mind the idea of the child so much, but rather Richard.
I think if Superman suddenly disappeared, Lois would have held out for him for some time (and as a reporter, didn't she ever try to find out what happened to him).
Since Jason is considered pre-mature, she must have taken up with Richard not too soon after Superman left. Could she have fallen for that guy so fast and could a relationship work that started on a rebound?

Currently the whole Richard-idea sounds more like the clichued fanfiction-plot of getting another guy in to get some artificial relationship-tension out of the couple that obviously belongs together.

I haven't seen the movie, but from the on-set I think they could have done without Richard.

FTR, the premature thing is only in the novel. The timeframe of her relationship with Richard is not established in the movie. I'm not sure when they became involved - the prequel comic timeline doesn't make sense to me, and I think it's one of Singer's attempts to throw us off. Personally, right now I'm going with both Richard and Lois knowing Jason isn't Richard's (as well as the DP folks knowing that) and that they became involved later in her pregnancy or when Jason was very, very young (fans are debating this). But he's still the only father Jason has ever known.

But hey, the sequel could prove me wrong.

I have large issues with the timeframe anyway, just on Jason's age and how long Superman has been gone for.

Just got back from my FOURTH viewing of SR! Gets better every time! For a Monday night, even Monday before the 4th - the theatre was packed - and even though I heard a few women say they were seeing/had seen "Devil Wears Prada" - almost EVERYONE seemed to be seeing Superman!!

I gotta slow down soon - never seen a movie 4 times in a theatre before, let alone 4 times in ONE week hehe! I do hope to see it again sometime in the next week, maybe Friday or Saturday - if nothing else just to check out the POTC crowd.

Oh I couldn't possibly love this film more if I tried!

Chaos, I haven't had the opportunity to see the movie yet (it hasn't opened here in Sweden), but I have skimmed through the novel, read the prequel comic and seen the two Christopher Reeve Superman movies that are being used as prequels to this one. Also, I've read some interviews with Bryan Singer.

The impression I get from the Christopher Reeve movie Superman II, as well as from the novel and the prequel comic, is that Lois in all probability only made love to Superman once, and she doesn't remember that time, because Clark took away her memory of their night together. (At the same time, he took away her memory of his own double identity.)

If you've got the comic, I'd like to call attention to a page spread where Lois remembers five times when Superman rescued her. The first rescue, where Lois is half buried in her car (and where she's actually been killed - Superman turned back time to bring her back) is taken straight out of the first Christopher Reeve movie. I don't remember anything about the following three rescues, and I suppose they are used as generic examples of Superman saving Lois's life.

But the last one, where Superman saves Lois from drowning in the Niagara Falls by flying her away in a boat, is hugely interesting. In Superman II, Lois really did jump into the Niagara Falls to force Clark to change into Superman right in front of her and reveal his secret identity. Lois's attempt failed, however, since she was swept to one side and brought ashore by the current, and Clark never did have to be Superman to save her.

However, straight after this Niagara Falls incident, Clark accidentally revealed his Superman identity to Lois, and he flew her to his Fortress of Solitude where he gave up his powers so that he could make love to her. Later, however, he had to get his powers back, and he gave Lois amnesia so that she forgot about their lovemaking and about Superman's double identity.

Now consider that picture of Superman rescuing Lois from the Niagara Falls by flying her away in a boat. That's a false memory, a planted memory. It's also the last memory Lois has of Superman saving her before he disappears. To me, this strongly suggests that the comic book acknowledges the fact that Superman tampered with Lois's memory (apparently to make her forget about their lovemaking and about Superman's Clark Kent identity). It also strongly suggests that Superman left the Earth almost immediately after this lovemaking/amnesia business, since Lois has no memories of Superman rescuing her after the Niagara Falls incident.

So we have a situation where Lois presumably had sex with Superman only once and where Superman took away her memory of that night and disappeared almost immediately afterwards. We have, at least, a situation where Lois doesn't know that she and Superman were ever lovers. She does remember that they had a special relationship, but both the novel and the comic make it clear that Superman left the Earth without saying good-bye to her. (Presumably he made some sort of announcement before leaving, so that people knew he hadn't just been killed.) Lois must have felt jilted that he would disappear without speaking to her. She may have felt that this was his way of saying that he didn't want her any more.

Bryan Singer has said, in some interviews, that he wanted this movie to say something about the way that families have changed and marriages and relationships aren't so cemented any more. There can be no doubt that this is the reason why he brought Richard White into the picture (remember that Lois's relationship with Richard was Singer's idea). Also, it was perhaps necessary to bring in a man who could at least theoretically be Jason's father.

Of course... there is one thing here that does not make sense. Apparently, in the movie, Lois sees Jason using super-strength. She must have realized that Jason is Superman's son, and yet she doesn't seem to react!!! Why not???? Did she already know about Jason's paternity after all? If so, why hasn't she spoken to Superman about it?

I guess only the sequel can answer these questions.

Ann

Right... I was excited to see Superman being made into a movie, I loved the whole idea of it, but if I'm honest, I expected to hate the film itself. I expected to be disappointed. I mean, Brandon Routh? What was this pretty boy doing in a cape and suit? Kate Bosworth? And a *kid*? C'mon!

So... maybe it was because my expectations were so low going in that I was so completely blown away.

I loved it. Absolutely. Loved. It. Loved it so much I think I made my girlfriend jealous.

I've seen it twice in three days, and I'm contemplating my third trip tonight.

I'm sold on Routh. I'm sold on Bosworth. I loved the way they handled the situation with Jason, and I even loved Richard's character. Wasn't entirely sold on the back story, but I think it served it's purpose well. The only real nitpick I had was that they let slide the perfect opportunity to build up Clark's character. If he'd been out "finding himself" for years he's bound to come back with something close to a personality... But I knew going in that Superman was the real character, so I wasn't too disappointed.

The special effects, as expected, were amazing. Not much more needs to be said about that, except that they always got good capage.

I have so many unanswered questions, but I love the way the movie ended. As far as I'm concerned, it was perfect. I'll definitely see the sequels (I've heard that two are contracted), but I'm almost content to let the story end there. To leave the questions unanswered. To let the little tells give me the rest of it. There were so many scenes in this movie that said so much more...

My favourite scene had to be the scene when Martha was outside the hospital, unable to get inside, just a face in the crowd. Crushed me. Closely followed by the plane scene, and the scene at the end when he repeats the words he was told, and then there's the scene where Lex is in the Artic, and... I'd go on, but I'll spoil the whole lot. I loved, loved, loved spotting the landmarks from Sydney! And the taxi that Lois caught - I've seen it up close. <g>

I think I'm going to have to go hunt down this novel.

The novel leaves out the entire Jason-is-Superman's-son thing. It does include some of the stuff that ended up cut from the movie, though. I'd check it out from the library, but not buy it.

Well I have now seen the movie three times....first time, my companion, who loved the first two Superman movies, walked out saying "that sucked"! So then I went to see it again by myself without the pressure of the person sitting next to you enjoying it (which is what happens when you drag someone to see a movie that you're really into and the other person isn't!)

Then, since I had two more Superman free passes from the DVD's, I asked this person if he would go with me to the IMAX 3-D version...he said yes.

This time, he said, "that was MUCH better! you have to see a movie like that that way!" and I was so relieved.

WATCH THIS MOVIE IN IMAX if you can. There are things you just don't notice until it's bigger than life. And the 3-D scenes were really cool.

I have to say that Bryan Singer was right when he said that Brandon Routh "embodies the characteristics of the collective mindset of who we think Superman is"...(or words to that effect). He has this likeable, warm quality to him (midwest upbringing?)...like he has no clue how good looking he really is...

Kate Bosworth...clearly the most beautiful Lois Lane that ever played the part. I like her better as a brunette and I think they did make her look older than 23, her actual age.

Kevin Spacey....of course he's not MR, and in the "sequel", LL is much older than Superman, so technically MR would be way too young to play LL in this version....but he did a great job. I loved the scene in the boat where Lois is "interviewing" him and they are verbally sparring back and forth. That was fun, and that was a glimpse of "feisty Lois"....she has a son to worry about now so she can't be as crazy as she used to be.

All in all, I have to say there are endless possibilities for a sequel...

1) how does S-Man get his crystals back? I think they are on "New Krypton", floating in space...
2) since Jason clearly knows that Clark is Superman, what will happen? Perhaps since the crystals are no longer available, Clark will just decide to come clean with Lois. Richard can go back overseas and just step out of the picture...
3) Does Lex get off the island?Superman could spot him quite easiliy if he wanted to find him....
4) I suspect that they will have to recast Jason if they want to start from where they left off...the kid will look too old

Anyway, Bryan Singer took on a massive undertakng....he'll only get better the next time around....with all of the details and special effects, that was an amazing movie!

Ah. Well I figured they probably wouldn't give that away in a novel released before the movie. I really want to read up on the Smallville part though, I think Martha was undercut in the movie, and I really want to read the Ben Hubbard (sp) part.

Okay, CC, get back here....

Warning - SPOILERS, although if you've been reading you've either seen the movie or are already spoiled.

So, CC, you are going on the premise that this movie follows the Christopher Reeve SM Movie II, right? That this movie picks up after Lois and SM spend the night in the FOS and SM gives up his powers for her but then gets them back to fight Zod and does some mumbo jumbo so that Lois forgets it all. But why do you assume that? I'm just not getting that although it seems like a lot of people are because I've heard others say as much.

My thought/belief was that this movie is its own entity, with its own backstory that didn't necessarily include Lois forgetting about any affair she and Supes might have had. My interpretation is that perhaps she never learned that SM = Clark, fell in love with SM and the two of them had at least a one-night affair if not more. Then he left and she was broken hearted...yada yada yada.

And I guess I don't see anything in this new movie that leads me to believe that Lois's memory had been altered or that she didn't remember she had slept with SM. In fact, I've been waiting for the outcry that our Lois would never go so far as to sleep with SM, possibly be pregnant with his child then sleep with another man and pawn the baby off as his. That's pretty devious behaviour, so I'm not really sure how to explain it away. If Lois had any true uncertainty about the parentage of her son, it would have meant her carrying on with both SM and Richard White within a short span of time, again, not so much behaviour we all expect of Lois.

So, I'm back at thinking that Lois knew all along that Jason is/could be SM's son and figured since SM had left, it would be better for Jason just to believe that Richard is his father and raise him normally. I'm not sure what this means about Richard knowing the truth or not.

All this aside, I did like the movie. A lot. And I think both Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth really nailed the roles - I liked Kate's Lois very much, in fact.

My only beef is that I feel like I was dropped in too far after the fact as far as Lois and SM's romance. Again, I went in under the assumption that this is a 100% new incarnation of SM, having no ties to the previous movies. As such, I missed seeing Lois and SM meet for the first time and all that would ensue between then and the moment this movie begins. Although I do like that they didn't just rehash the old movies but started with something different.

I do agree that Clark as a character was given really short shrift. I liked Routh's portrayal of him, sort of a hybrid between Reeve's bumbling goofus and Dean Cain's more controlled nice-guy. He was klutzy but not in a cartoonish way that made me roll my eyes. In fact, he acted as if maybe his klutziness as Clark wasn't perhaps a show but real, based on his awkwardness around Lois.

And, CC, don't worry. I'll be consoling Tom since you've abandoned him. I imagine you're giving up Michael as well? Cause he called...

Lynn

EDIT - okay, I've found some places where it is stated that this movie is based in the same universe as the one established in the first two Reeve-as-SM movies, thus Lois forgetting about her night with SM. And...I don't like this!! I hated that they pulled the old memory-wipe trick to put Lois back at square one. I think I might continue to believe my original assumptions, that Lois did remember her night with Supes. Denial is not a bad option...

The bit where Superman revealed that Lex was his long lost half brother really freaked me out...

Helga

Not established. Singer first said it used the first two movies as a vague sequel. Then as an alternate Supes III. Then that only the first movie counted as a history - and the writers weren't even completely discounting III and IV (though how that works with Martha alive, I don't know). I really don't think the amnesia kiss is being used as a history here. But I guess we'll have to wait for the sequel to know definitively.

I loved it just as much as CC did, but only when I think of it in terms of a series because if Superman II hadn't happened, I would never have forgiven the movie for letting Clark/Superman sleep with Lois without telling her he was Clark. (Perhaps I've been hanging around the L&C universe too long. ) The end also would have disappointed me because there were just so many loose ends, but as part of a series, it works because there are more movies coming to tie up those loose ends.

But.

I hear Superman Returns is not doing nearly so well at the box office as expected, so much so that Entertainment Weekly has it listed as a loser in its midterm report card ... which normally I'd ignore because really, who cares, except that it makes me worry the studio won't actually make the two sequels.

And that? Would just be incredibly sad.

Lynn, to me "Superman II" was the awful shock that I thought would put me off Superman for the rest of my life. After I had seen that movie, I spent months thinking about what could possibly be done to at least slightly rectify the situation. I could see that the number one thing that would have to happen was that Lois had to become pregnant from her lovemaking with Clark.

So I imagined what would happen in a movie that would bring Superman and Lois back together after "Superman II". I knew this much about such a movie:

1) Lois would have to be pregnant with Superman's child.

2) Lois wouldn't know that CK=S, at least not initially, as Clark took away her memory of that with his Super-kiss in SII.

3) Jonathan would be dead, since he died in the first Christopher Reeve movie. Martha was alive in Superman II and would presumably be alive in the new movie, too.

This is pretty much what we see in SR. Of course, I didn't imagine that Superman would leave the Earth before finding out that Lois was pregnant and return home years later to find that she - and he - had a five-year-old son.

But there are also other similarities between the first two Christopher Reeve movies and this new one, such as Lex Luthor having a slightly parody-funny moll and Lex Luthor being interested in land.

To me, there can be no doubt that SR is meant to be a sequel to the first two Christopher Reeve movies. And, as Noelle said, that is the only way I can appreciate the new movie. As a stand-alone, it would be disappointing in its portrayal of Lois, Clark and Superman. As a sequel, though, it does at least somewhat remedy Superman's heartless rejection of Lois in Superman II.

Ann

Blah

blah

blah

For that active topics thing.

---------

I'm debating if that memory wipe kiss did happen, in relation to SR. Sure, Lois and Richard act like Jason is Richard's son. But I'll buy that Jason is one of the few who doesn't know, and Richard came into the picture late in the pregnancy or soon after the birth. As I recall, Lois didn't seem all that surprised about the piano thing, and I'm fairly sure that Jason's parentage is what Lois was whispering to Superman as he lay in the hospital bed. So either she's known all along, or the piano trick reversed the memory wipe.

And yeah, Richard was a bit too bland. James Marsden is way too stoic of an actor. I thought it was just the Cyclops role, but now it doesn't seem that way. I'd love to see him cut loose.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

I just came back from it and its worth its movie ticket price, but I have a few bones to pick along Ann's line of thought. I thought as a movie it worked excellently and had a provocative storyline but I felt the impact of it was cushioned a bit much for my tastes. Thus, what follows is a tad nitpicky.

Clearly SR seems to take for granted the events of Superman II where Lois and Clark have the briefest of affairs. Successively he leaves and that's the end of that. Or so we think.

I personally feel that once you stop and think about SR-- the whole thing is just dark and ugly. Tragic in the full sense (fate and everything). Since what happens is hard hitting I can't help but feel that the way it was presented was a bit of a cop out. To summarize: One, you have Clark denying her the knowledge of what has happened between them, but Lois being stuck literally with the consequences. Second you have Lois lashing out in rage under the pretense of "moving on" and being in a relationship with a nice dude who she obviously does not love (thank god she isn't married, but its not much of a consolation). Third you have Clark being relegated to a position where he has no claim on the family that he is a part of. The worst one is the first given that Clark honestly he thought he was doing what was best for her in erasing her memory. BIG mistake. The worst.

As for specific instances--I think Lois' reaction to a gifted child would probably be a lot more complicated than "I think this is your kid." Especially if she has no clue HOW she came to have his kid in the first place. I buy that in the moment she'd mention it (in the efforts of saving his life), but I hardly think it would go as smooth as it did. It's very possible Superman left and she began seeing Richard immediately and thought he was the kid's biological father. That would make the whole thing even more baffling, since the kid being Superman's would come completely out of nowhere.

Likewise, methinks that Superman is ecstatic to have a kid and while that is certainly plausible (it keeps him in Lois' life) it seems a little too altruistic for him to be content with another man taking his place as father. There is also that pesky little issue of 'hey-you-got pregnant-because-we-slept-together-but-nobody knows-it-but-me. I can feel the guilt attack coming on. And it would be appropriate.

I feel bad for Richard, but, really, he and Lois are not married and he's not even her kid's father...tragedy indeed. I hope to see where Hollywood is eventually going to stuff him.

So. The question remaining for me is: who is writing the fanfic and where can I find it? I'm desperate enough to take it on myself or to work with someone to hash it out...

Overall, I think the movie's strength was its weakness. It's cliche, but true. The movie is about Superman the hero and how larger than life he is-- the problem is that while I enjoy hero Superman as much as the next guy or girl, erasing someone's memory of an encounter that resulted in a pregnancy is a HUUUUGE faux pas. Thus, while part of me is moved by Superman reciting what his father told him, another part of me is thinking 'wow, he never really knew his own father and now his own kid is probably not going to really know him.' Son becomes the father indeed. Then I thought Lois "Will we see you around" and his reply "I'm always around" was just awful bordering on audience cruelty. I can't help but have tragictragictragic echoing in my head.

I don't know when Hollywood will roll out with another one, or if they will. The posting that the movie hasn't met expectations should scare us. If it doesn't become profitable there's a chance it might end here. Even if there is a sequel, I'm too jaded that they'll put the characters where they belong and make them face up to the consequences of what has happened in a non two dimensional manner, but I'll keep some hope on the stove just in case.

Well, I haven't been that much interested in this movie coming along, I have to say. I'm one of those people who, once they have a certain incarnation of something stuck in their heads, have trouble getting past that to accept any other variations in the future. No matter how unjustified. I used to adore the first two CR movies. After LNC though...just couldn't take them at all.

And mostly that's because I just cannot accept a geeky Clark Kent after Dean's wonderfully sauve GQ version of him.

But I have been reading this thread on and off and that sparked my interest enough that when I saw there was a 'behind the scenes' on the movie on cable at the weekend, I decided to take a look. Unfortunately, ten seconds in...there was geeky Clark Kent and, boom, that killed it stone dead for me right there.

So I was interested in Tank's comments on this aspect:

Well, maybe I don't have to suffer him much then. Maybe I can just close my eyes during that bit and pretend he doesn't exist.

I also found this interesting:

I noticed that, too, in the small amount of time I watched and that, too, put me off. It may just have been an unfortunate choice of clips they showed, but it just seemed to me that they were recreating the old CR movies, rather than giving us a new one. This was a scene where Lois and Superman were talking at night on what looked to me at least to be a rooftop - and whatsisname playing Superman seemed to be aping every gesture and mannerism of CR possible. Deja vu. Big time.

Also...not keen on the whole kid angle, either. <g> I like watching the romance. Not so interested in what it produces.

But, having said that, I will probably watch this one at some point once it's out on DVD. And, who knows, at that point I might love it to bits and be embarrassed I ever wrote this. Not been unknown to happen. After all, I teased my best friend unmercifully for a whole year about her watching 'that silly kid's Superman thing on Saturdays' before realising Clark Kent was pretty hot in that one. Sheeesh...what do I know?

LabRat

Well, I have no problem with different versions. I watch the first two movies, SR, Smallville, LnC, Justice League, and just caught Superboy by renting from Netflix. Each is separate to me, and I can like any of them (and dislike aspects of each of them) without connecting one to the other.

I loved Richard. I really did. I found nothing ugly about the movie, but it's all up to one's own opinion. I really don't think the amnesia kiss stands, but I could be wrong. I do think both Richard and Lois knew Richard wasn't the father, but I could be wrong about that too. I would have liked to have seen more Clark (can't wait to see the farm scenes), but he wasn't bad at all to me. Definitely not copying CR, IMO. Far more "normal", abeit a bit clumsy/geeky.

Loved Lois' pursuit of the story. So Lois - changing in the supply room and chasing down a story even on the day she was being awarded a Pulitzer.

My turn! My turn!

Had a date with my husband last night and went to see SR. We both enjoyed it, were completely entertained, and had fun discussing it afterwards, but of course, it's the things that bugged that are fun to discuss.

The biggie is that we both hated Kate Bosworth as Lois. She just did NOT work for me. In the first place, she's way too young. I'd read that they tried to make her look older for this role, but sorry - she looked about 20 to me, which means that kid was conceived when she was about 15. And she didn't look old enough to be out of college yet, let alone winning a Pulitzer. She also didn't have a shred of maternal instinct - which was probably OK, since the kid playing her son wasn't given much of an opportunity to be a real kid. Her entire maternal repertoire seemed to consist of shoving the kid's hair out of his eyes (which, granted, really needed to be done - I wanted to cut that kid's hair so bad that my hand was twitching...) and clutching him protectively during the boat scenes.

The only time the kid seemed like a kid was when he was careening around the newsroom with the trashcan on his head. The rest of the time, he was either staring into space or plinking out Heart and Soul on the piano. Where do you get kids like that? Lois says, "Why don't you go play the piano?" and the kid slides out of her lap and trots obediently to the piano to play a heartwarming duet with ScaryTattoo!Man.

In real life, Lois would say, "Why don't you go play the piano?" and the kid would say, "My music teacher said I didn't have to practice during kidnappings." Or "I want my GameBoy instead." Or "I'm hungry! I want a Happy Meal first." But maybe that's just my kids.

Anyway, I'm off track. The biggest problem with Kate Bosworth as Lois was that she just didn't have that spark, that sass, that energy that Lois Lane is supposed to have. Maybe she was supposed to seem beaten down by life in the five years since Superman left, but she just came off as blah to me.

Routh, on the other hand, I thought did a fine job. He makes a lovely Superman, and I didn't mind his Clark Kent either, what little we saw of him. I liked his quiet pain when he realized that Lois had not only moved on with her life but had turned against Superman. I liked everything about him, really.

Some other random thoughts:

1. Time: At first, I thought this movie was going to be set back in time some years because of the ancient truck and radio at the Kent farmhouse, and then Jimmy's bowtie ensemble seemed to clinch it. It wasn't until the kid pulled out the cell phone to take a picture that I realized that wasn't the case. Then the radio and the truck seemed a little over the top. The bowtie thing was just plain silly.

2. Superkid: The only way this movie works is if there's some other scenario for the kid's conception besides the one given to us in Superman II. There has to be. It's reallly squicky otherwise.

3. Loose ends: I hope Superman rounded up Luthor and Kitty before they ate the Pomeranian. I also hope he went to see his mother.

4. Music: Loved.

5. My husband was annoyed by the plot holes and all the loose ends - the obvious setting-up-of-the-sequel. The plot holes didn't bother me in the slightest because I don't look for the A-plot to make much sense anyway. Spacey was a wonderful villain, and that was kind of all that mattered to me.

6. The dark red cape was a little distracting at first, but it grew on me. It certainly flared dramatically at all the right times. The flying scenes were just gorgeous.

OK, I'll shut up now. My daughter is clamoring for attention. I tried to suggest that she go play the piano, but she just gave me a strange look and said (I swear), "I never practice on Sunday." I had a feeling that would only work in the movies

Caroline

I wasn't impressed. Most of the things that makes me like L&C was lacking in this movie. Routh is an excellent cast for Superman, the CGI is state of the art and the picture is beautiful.

But it takes more to make a good movie.

It has no humor, no warmth, no plot or suspense. This Superman is like terminator II(why do humans cry?), Reeves at least put in a couple of puns.
Singer's Superman isn't uncomfortable about his powers. He saves people but he doesn't seem to care for them.

And for Bosworth, a lot of hair and not much else.
I hate token female love interests.

No humor? What film did you see? I've seen it SIX times and every time I saw it there was a theatre FULL of people cracking up and laughing their a$$es off!!! There are so many funny parts in this film, I just don't understand how you found no humor in it?

To me it is a near perfect balance of humor, drama, action, and romance. People laugh, cry and clap *every* time I see it - a true range of emotions. The action is beyond amazing as well!

Most people are on the edge of their seats, especially during the last half hour of the film - so there is your suspense!

As for warmth, did you not *see* the last 20-30 minutes of the film? I got WAFF all over!!!

You got *plenty* of romance if you paid attention, I think some here are just disappointed because this *isn't* "Lois & Clark," far from it. As a lifelong Superman fan though, personally I loved every minute of this experience - SIX times so far LOL!

Brandon is spectacular and nothing less than *SUPER*, Kevin is diaboloical, and Bryan Singer made one heck of a darn good film that stays true to the Superman legend - with a few nice new twists thrown in for modernization!

I won't debate anyone on their opinion - but not finding any humor in it, that one I simply can't understand?

Well if you and other people enjoy it. More power to you. I’m obviously in the minority here.

What was supposed to be funny? Lois having already “done Superman”. Or Luthor on the desert Island? The sonic boom thing? I can recall little else.

Truly?.. they are really that worried that Superman wont save the day?

I see no spark between them, to me that is necessary to get a waffy feeling. A woman crying over an unconscious man doesn’t automatically make me bring out my handkerchief.

But we saw the computers and such at the DP much earlier in the movie. And there was the entire thing with the spaceplane. I don't have a problem with the bowtie - it's just something frequently associated with Jimmy.

Yeah, I wish they'd been clearer on the "vague history" thing so I knew exactly what counted.

Same here.

I thought there was tons of love, if not romance. It just permeated the movie to me. Their feelings were strong and intense and it was wonderful to me.

SOME BIG SPOILERS IN THIS POST!!!!!

Obviously. But it is still your opinion and I thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Wow, well I won't even rehash *all* of the funny scenes for you - because that could take a while LOL. I'm just observing here, but it seems to me like you went into this movie with disdain from the beginning, rather than an open mind? A few scenes that got huge laughs pretty much everytime, besides the few you mentioned, were:

1. Clark throwing the ball and the dog starting to chase after it
2. Kitty saying "Weren't there two of those?" (granted this is a little more disturbing than funny, but the way she delivered the line was great!)
3. Kitty again "Wow, that's really something Lex... it's freakin' Gone With The Wind!" - then the henchman (sorry can't remember which one) turned off the camera and everything going black - "I think I did something wrong!"
4. Jimmy and Clark both, during the burrito scene - and Lois was funny there too, standing with the stunned look on her face - her hair all frumpy!
5. Jimmy "Don't ask Ms. Lane when they're tying the knot, because ... SHE ... HATES that question!"
6. Jimmy "My camera's not working, and my phone's not working ... OK I'm good!" - and him saying proudly to Perry "I think they're coordinates Chief!"
7. Just about any line that referred to the Reeve films got people to chuckle or laugh! Especially the "hope this little incident hasn't put any of you off flying" scene - and him blowing out her cigarette lighter, to name a few.
8. Kitty's response to Lex - "You're losing your hair." "Get out."
9. Heck just about any line from Kitty and/or Jimmy - and several of Lex's lines too!
10. Perry saying Lois can't write worth a damn about sex!
11. Jason to Lex "You bald!"
12. Jason "Are we tresspassing?"
13. Do I need to go on - because believe me I can?

What movie did you see again?? Most people were worried that Superman would not even *survive!* The fact that he literally was willing to *kill himself* to save the world was what made the whole movie so powerful, as far as I'm concerned!! That and the relationships between the characters.

Guess that says more about you than the film itself? I'm sorry that you didn't feel anything for the characters, truly. There were so many emotional scenes in the last part of the film - and I wasn't just referring to the scenes with Lois and Superman. This movie was about a lot more than just THEIR relationship. Some of the scenes near the end that I believe were touching and emotional:

1. Superman lifting New Krypton and facing his own death - then people having to watch their hero fall, literally
2. The enormous crowd surrounding the hospital, supporting Superman
3. Lois & Jason in the hospital - mainly the end of that scene, when Jason goes back and kisses Superman!
4. Martha standing outside the hospital, waiting, and not even able to see her own son
5. The bedroom scene with Superman and Jason, probably the most poignant scene in the whole film!!
6. Heck, even the final fly-by which was an obvious dedication to Chris Reeve at the end was dripping with emotion - if not only for Chris' memory!

I can understand if you didn't see any chemistry between Brandon and Kate - because the chemistry was fleeting IMO. Still, the story and the performances alone (especially Brandon, personally Kate could've been better IMHO) was enough to touch most people.

Well, let's all remember that humour is a very subjective thing. What one person finds amusing another won't twitch a chuckle at. The same, of course, goes for what we like and dislike.

Let's not let our enthusiasm for this movie lead us into implying without perhaps meaning to that there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't agree that it's the bestest movie ever. It's got little to do with 'paying attention' or being against it because it's just not LNC or that not finding some part of the movie hilarious says more about the person watching than the movie...it's just a simple difference of opinion and taste.

And it is opinion, not fact, whether this movie is good or whether it was amusing. So let's respect those varying opinions and tastes - no matter which of them is in the minority.


LabRat

Well the 1,000 or so people I have seen the film with since I've gone 6 times already all seemed to find plenty of humor in the film. That's all I was saying.

Also, note that I did point out at the beginning of my post that I respected the opinion of others. It goes without saying that anything I post is *my* own opinion - so I would expect the same respect.

Just like it is my *opinion* to say that you are missing out, Lab, on not wanting to see this film.

SuperGEM,
I was quite possible prejudiced, disdain is far to strong a word. The L & C series have given me rather particular views of what the characters entails.
I expected good CGI, a sucky Lois, and a plot with some twists(maybe even without kryptonite). Got two out of three.

No, I think you have demonstrated the amount of humor or lack there of adequately.

Sorry, but was the theatre filled with ten year olds? How anyone above that age could imagine that Superman wouldn’t come through in a Hollywood movie is simply beyond me.

Well perhaps I’m just jaded but what would you do with a injured hero? Frantic hospital ride, Lot of interested bystanders, grieving women, and now the little boy will kiss him good by. Yep there he goes.

Don’t worry about it. I have seen what I perceive as mediocre character interaction and scripting before without it adversely affecting my well being, but thank you for your concern.

Since you seem to find my negative view disturbing you should perhaps know that very few films get me jumping in my seat.

Ok, I'm sorry, but I found that really offensive. I respect your opinion greatly; there's no law that says we all have to like the same movies. If we all did, the world would be a snore. But to imply that only a bunch of 10 year olds would find suspense in a movie is actually kind of insulting, even if you didn't intend it that way. Please, share your opinions all you want; just don't generalize like that.

Thanks,
Jen

Yes, humour is indeed a very subjective thing, just as our own personal opinions on many other topics that hit this message board. Lois' hair, Clark's hair, Lois' clothes...on these and many other topics we all hold strong personal opinions. Sometimes those opinions are split pretty evenly down the middle, sometimes the "vote" is markedly leaning towards one side. But everyone's opinions are, of course, valid.

I went to see Superman Returns on July 4. It was a large theatre in San Jose, so even though it wasn't packed, the audience size was respectable. I had read most of the spoilers going in, I had read FoLCs' reviews both for and against the movie. I personally didn't find very much humour, but I did chuckle a little at Kitty. The only audience response that I recall were a few laughs at the two references to the dogs (which I didn't find funny).

As a matter of fact, the audience response to the entire movie was almost non-existent. Just a few scattered chuckles. No claps and cheers at the title screen, no collective gasps of fear/horror when Superman was getting the tar beaten out of him, no sighs of delight during Superman and Lois' flight, no murmurs during the flyby at the end - nothing. Was it just a dead audience, full of people just killing time before heading off to a 4th of July barbecue? Perhaps, but we've seen other "big" releases here - X-Men III, Star Wars ep.III, Harry Potter - that garnered a lot more audience response than that.

For me there were a number of things I liked about the movie, and a lot that I didn't. Did I go in expecting it to be another L&C? No. I was expecting it to be closer to the first two Superman movies, which I've loved (with the exception of the amnesia kiss) from their first release and which I still love, despite the fact that I prefer Dean's Clark to Christopher's. But this movie didn't bring that feeling to me. The special effects were dazzling, of course, and were incredibly effective in so many places. But sometimes I felt it was overkill, and too much emphasis placed on the effects (which was what happened with the first Star Trek movie so many years ago).

I don't plan to go to the theatre again to see it, but will certainly buy it when it comes out on DVD, and I do plan to see whatever sequels are produced.

Kathy

Why not? A great lack of experience with Hollywood productions is the only explanation to suspense at Superman’s fate that I can think of. The presence of children being a reasonable extrapolation IMO. If my assumption is wrong, I’m happy to be shown the error of my ways.

I'm on a Superman high. Just got back from the theater. Got to use my free movie pass, AND also got a free popcorn. Just perfect.

I LOVED the movie! Especially the soundtrack. Kept singing along (good thing the theater was almost empty; went to a matinée )

malu

I think she was only commenting on the fact that your statement was offensive, which I agree. So I suppose I have the mindset of a 10-year-old if I enjoyed the film? That is a little rude and crass of you to assume. I don't agree with your opinions either, but of course they are your opinions. I have my own. There is no need to get nasty about it!

On a side note - I have noticed that people who *didn't* enjoy the film tend to get rather nasty toward the people who *did,* almost as if we have a lot of nerve for enjoying ourselves and the film. Not sure why, that is just something I have noticed. So since I'm on a big Superman high again tonight, your somewhat rude comments will just bounce off of me like a bullet! Thanks for seeing the film and for sharing your thoughts on it, but I think it is safe to say that we had better just agree to disagree!

Genine, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but since you and Jen objected to the "generalization" that you felt that Arawn made, I'm surprised that you would offer up one of your own immediately after. And one that those who weren't wild about the movie (such as myself) could take equal offense to.

I've read all the reviews both here and at Zoom's. After reading your latest post, I just skimmed through the ones here again, and I personally saw nowhere where those who weren't particularly keen on the film (the very definite minority of posters, btw) had any kind of "nasty attitude" towards those who loved it. With the possible exception of Arawn, whose comments might not have been meant exactly as they were posted, everyone with a minority dissenting view has appeared to be very polite and upfront with their opinion. If you'd like to point out specific examples, I'd be curious to see them and see if others interpreted them the same way that as you do.

This topic can obviously become as much a hot potato as discussion of politics or religion. We have people jumping up and down with excitement about the movie, and there are others who have enough negative feelings that they're left feeling ambivalent or even critical. But as we've all said 100 times or more, we're all entitled to our own opinions. And we all need to be careful about making general statements and risking making hurtful/insulting comments to/about others.

Kathy

I will never understand why people seem to pick and choose who they side with? Why do there need to even be sides??? I've been a very respective member of these boards for years - and of online FoLCdom for *more than 11 years,* and yet my comments are criticized while Arawn's are not? :rolleyes: Why is that? The comments that Arawn made were the initially insulting ones. I made a point to include my respect of the opinions of others, Arawn made no such statement. Arawn also kept the insults coming after another person pointed out how insulting the comments were.

For the record, I wasn't just referring to the reaction on these boards specifically. Believe it or not, there are a *lot* of Superman fans out there! I was referring to them in general. Yes, I made a generalization - but I acknowledged that and even apologized in advance for it. I should have been more clear about the fact that I was referring to thousands of fans all over the net, not just fans here - I realize - but sheesh!

Kathy I am honestly hurt that you feel the need to single me out like this? Guess I'm not surprised though.

People can choose to take offence over almost anything.
For instance in your posts so far you have suggested that I lacked an open mind, that I haven’t seen the film, that my different opinion stemmed from inattention. That I approached the film with disdain. Implied that my inability to perceive the romance stemmed from something weird in my psychological make-up. Pitied me for my inability grasp the greatness of the film.

Some people might find that offensive, I didn’t, because I never thought it was your intention to offend.

I have no idea how old you are, but since you asked, you do come across rather young(and I don’t find youth offensive.)
Now if my reference to ten year old came a cross as condescending,(and I can see that it would.) I’m sorry.

I saw the movie twice in two days and *loved* it. I grew up on the original Chris Reeve movies and loved them, but never became a real fan of Superman until Lois and Clark came along. I thought I could never love any other incarnation of Superman after LnC, but this movie just made it happen.

Loved it to pieces. Brandon Routh was *perfect* as Superman/Clark, and made me fall in love with the hero all over again. Before this movie came out, I thought that he was too young for the part, blah, blah, but he managed to fill some pretty big shoes pretty darn well. I take back everything bad I ever said about him -- he *is* Superman to me now, and I totally get what CC means by "Dean in the suit". Dean's still the best Clark Kent, but Routh *is* Superman!

Loved the poignancy of the love triangle -- Superman's pain when he thinks that Lois never loved him, and realises that she has moved on with her life in his absence. Richard's pain when he realises that Lois was always in love with Superman -- that scene where he drives her to the hospital and says that he'll wait for her just broke my heart! He would have stayed with her, even knowing that she didn't love him. *sob!*

Loved how the movie leaves you in doubt about Jason's paternity at the beginning -- when he comes in and has asthma and all, I'm thinking, oh well, he has to be human -- but then, as Lois says, "he's gonna grow up to be big and strong like his daddy," and the camera pans up to Clark standing there -- Wow!

Loved the way Lois and Richard actually consider the idea that Clark is Superman -- then laugh it off!

Loved the way Supes stops halfway out to sea when he sees the earthquake coming, and the decision he makes to go back to Metropolis before going to rescue Lois. This, to me, is quintessential Superman -- the hero for our *world*, who would die to save us all, if he had to. Of course, his decision is also influenced by his recent experience in Superman II, when he chose being with Lois over his responsibilities to the world, and Metropolis suffered for it.

(The "father-son" talk was actually filmed for SM II but got edited out due to legal problems with Marlon Brando. When Clark goes back to the FOS to ask for his superpowers back, he apologises to his father for "giving up his birthright" out of selfishness. His loneliness is painful, and reminiscent of the end of Spiderman I.)

Loved how Richard rescues Lois -- if you look carefully, in the scene where Jimmy shows them the fax, *both* Clark and Richard run out of the newsroom tugging at their neckties! And when Lois asks Richard how he got to her, and he answers, "I flew." As if it's the most obvious thing in the world. Loved it.

Loved the fact that when Supes flew back to the island after being rescued by Lois and co, he *knew* that he was going to his death. And this time he does say goodbye, and I love the way he looks at the people in the plane -- Lois, Richard and Jason -- before he flies off, sort of coming to terms with the fact that Lois has a family now, as he leaves to do his duty.

Loved the bullet bouncing off his eye. Loved the airplane rescue. Loved the private little "You okay?" to Lois after that rescue. Loved how he watches her through walls.

Loved that he subconsciously wanted her to find out that CK=S. I agree with CC, about the part when his glasses fall off and he just pauses, and you can tell that he *wants* Lois to look up and see his face. And again on the roof, when Superman tells her that her tape recorder is in her pocket, which is something only Clark would have known -- he seems to do it on purpose, and seems a bit disappointed when Lois doesn't guess it.

Loved the way Brandon Routh manages to convey those subtle emotions with his expressions -- the hurt and disappointment when he realises Lois has moved on, the decision-making set of his jaw when he realises that it's time for Superman to reappear; the secret smile he has when he's watching Lois from afar. The way his eyes just shine with love for her -- when he first returns to the newsroom and asks where Lois is, and then sees her on the TV screen.

Sigh! I want to marry Brandon Routh. And, CC, we take turns to mow Bryan Singer's lawn, ok?

Something I found interesting while watching the movie was that, in many scenes, Brandon Routh actually *looked* like Christopher Reeve (depending on the angle the camera was in). It was like seeing Christopher Reeve as Superman again. I thought that was so cool!

And I loved the references to the original Superman movies (opening credits, flying with Lois, ending scene, THE SOUNDTRACK) and the comic books (scene of Superman holding car above his head).

Yes, it's next morning here and I still am on a Superman high.

malu

Interesting review, Jude. And all the others in this thread, too.

Guess I'm going to ask for a spoiler here, because I'm confused on one very crucial point. (from my POV. that is ) At the end of the film, is the implication, then, that Lois and Superman will *not* end up together? Is the film setting us up for a sequel in which the Superman - Lois relationship is permanently ended?

I haven't seen the movie yet, and am not sure I will - two big things are bothering me, and it doesn't sound like they've been explained or that explanations are even hinted at in the film. Because of these two points, I'm not sure I can do the "willing suspension of disbelief" thing. I can do it for a guy flying but...

1. Superman's memory wipe of Lois is a pretty villanous thing to have done (am thinking of fanfics where bad guys do memory wipes on either Superman or Lois) I mean isn't it a violation of the Geneva Conventions or something? like, that action speaks to his character and it's not saying good things. Mind control, etc!
Not to mention his taking off on his little Odyssey without telling her.
Some fuss has been made about the missing "American Way", but I'm thinking Supes has played games with "Truth" in all this.

2. Just how long did Lois wait for Superman before hopping into bed with Richard??
The implication seems to be it's like a week, tops. How is that action consistent with a woman in love waiting for her disappeared lover to return? (okay, I know, I know: if I were truly post-modern liberated I'd been okay with her having sex with Tom, Dick (Richard) and Harry while still madly in love with someone else with whom she believes she has a relationship. But Hollywood mainstream is not post modern liberated either, and the rule there is "The. Woman. Must. Pay." - So I have some misgivings about what the sequel will do to Lois and how it will treat Superman's love for her. I really hope I'm wrong about this, but..... )

However, it does sound like the movie has amazing special effects and Routh does a great Chris Reeves impersonation. I'm disappointed about there not being much Clark Kent in the film, but that I can wait for in the sequel.

c. (who usually reads the end of long fanfics before commiting to a story. )

Good to hear from you, Carol!

I haven't seen the movie either - it doesn't open here until July 28 - but I have to comment on some things you said:
It was AWFUL!!!! Which is why I thought I would have to give up on Superman forever after seeing Superman II.

It was bad, horrible, through and through. But actually I have wanted this topic addressed ever since I watched Superman II. As some of you people on these boards may have noticed, I tend to be more suspicious of Clark and more forgiving of Lois than most of you. I think, bottom line, that a number of bad and devious things I have seen Superman do to Lois in the comics, and above all what he did to her in Superman II, means I don't fully, totally trust him. I didn't want that old Christopher Reeve movie to be completely buried - I wanted Superman's behaviour in that one to be brought to light again, and I wanted him to have to answer for his actions.



The point is, I think, that Lois didn't know that Superman had been her lover. He had taken away her memory of it. Even so, admittedly, her new romance with Richard must have happened very fast.

This is depressingly, depressingly true.

I just wish I could feel completely confident that the Clark/Lois relationship is here to stay in the sequel to this movie, but unfortunately I'm not sure. Let's just hope those movie moguls decide that it may reflect badly on their all-American icon if he dumps his long-time girlfriend whom he even knocked up, as well.

(Of course... they might get rid of Lois by simply killing her. That way Clark could lose Lois and look blameless about it, and it would leave him free to, say, court Lana or something. Or, you know, they could kill both Lois and Jason, thus taking away the kid if they have changed their minds about this addition to the Superman mythos. If they kill both Lois and Jason, they would, so to speak, kill two birds with one stone. You think those movie people would do that? And am I a worrier or am I a worrier?)

Speaking again about Superman as the defender of Truth: So why couldn't he tell Lois he is Clark Kent, then? Why not tell her instead of sort of hope she might notice? Clark Kent is the father of Lois's child, shouldn't she be told about that? Particularly since it is Clark who has made sure that Lois can't know this, by taking away her knowledge of his double identity?

Finally:
Me, too!

Ann

Genine, I'm sorry. Yes, it's true that I addressed you directly in my post, but that was in response to the generalization you made. I certainly didn't mean to imply that everything I put in my post - eg. about making potentially hurtful comments - was directed specifically at you. It wasn't at all, and I'm sorry that I made you feel that way.

I haven't been around in FoLCdom as long as you have, but I think you can see by the postings that I've made in the past that I don't feel the need to pick or choose sides. But if a person has a strong opinion about something, and feels that someone has spoken out against them, they will usually speak out in their defence. And that's where I was last night. The truth is, I felt a bit insulted by your generalization. Since I am one of those who posted comments about the movie that weren't exactly glowing, I felt that you were including me in your comments, even though I couldn't see anything that I said that was disrespectful or nasty. And as I said, I looked through the other posts here and felt that Arawn's were the only questionable ones, and that even those perhaps weren't meant exactly as they came out on the screen.

I wasn't defending his (her? - sorry, I don't know...) comments, and I did refer to them in my original post as possible exceptions. I'm also aware that you apologized in advance for making your generalization, but I'm afraid that didn't make it any easier to read when I felt it could be aimed at me. And I certainly am aware that there are many places online where Superman fans voice their opinions. As I said, I've mostly only been reading here and at Zoom's, but I have been to a few other sites and have seen some people lash out about the movie, with all the colorful language that such posts usually entail on uncensored message boards. It should have occurred to me that you could be referring to other sites and other voiced opinions. But it didn't, and so obviously I took your comment more personally than it was intended.

Genine, once again I apologize that I hurt you with my comments. I didn't intend that; perhaps my own disturbed feelings about the matter caused me to lash out more than I should have. That's why I rarely post when I'm upset - I'll have to continue enforcing that rule.

Kathy

I'm adressing mainly Ann and Carol. You two have pointed out my bone to pick with the movie. Memory wipe is a gross violation of trust. Let's see how Singer resolves THAT little speedbump.

What strikes me about the situation is that I can see it happening. The characterization isn't off to me. I'm thinking back to one of my favorite fanfic's Gorn's Going, Going, Gone where a lovely quote sums it all up:

"Quickly, Lois was beginning to acquire Martha's lifetime apprehension that the man they both loved was going to self destruct in a moment of relentlessly good, and therefore two dimensional, thinking. "

And I believe this goes rather well with Singer's representation of Superman as savior. After all, what's the line between helping and playing God? In this view, it's interesting that the conclusion (well my conclusion anyway) is that Superman isn't perfect the memory wipe is another example of "two dimensional" thinking. Naivete at its best. My only problem is the really implausible turn at the end, not the hospital scene because the situation did seem dire, but rather Lois' simple acceptance afterward. As if she would be ok with the situation. That's not how I see her at all.

You are right, I never intended to offend. I am sorry if my words came across that way, honestly. When I am wrong, I will apologize and admit to my mistake - and most importantly try not to make it again.

On the other hand, I sometimes believe that YOU do intend to offend people.

I appreciate your apology, and I hope that you will accept my apologies as well. Yet, I still find your newest post offensive - and here is why:

I didn't ask you how old you thought I was? I was rebutting at your offensive comment that only a 10 year old would find suspense in this film. My age is none of your business, but I am a 26 year old woman if you must know! I happen to be quite mature for my age, as a matter of fact. Life will do that to people. So how old are *you?* And are you male or female, for that matter - I'm obviously not the only one who wonders. Since you brought up my age - and assumed how *young* I seemed??? I don't make assumptions on people's age - so I won't stoop to your level there - but I have my own ideas as to how old you may be. :rolleyes:

Maybe you and I need to simply sit back and not converse with each other any longer - I have asked you if we could agree to disagree, yet you keep coming at me. :rolleyes: I don't like myself much when I respond to your posts - some people here who have known me for years know that there isn't a spiteful or hateful bone in my body. I just have an opinion, and I don't take well to offensive people. At this rate, I am going to shut my mouth on these boards - and simply come here to read fanfic. After 11 years in FoLCdom, I have never felt the desire to leave the community because of offensive people. Thanks to you, I actually feel like I don't want to be here right now.

Kathy, I apologize. Like you pointed out, it isn't good to post when you are upset - and that is just what I did. You have a good rule there, and I think I'm going to borrow it if you don't mind. At any rate, I am sorry.

I was not referring to you in that generalization, honest. In fact, I wasn't even referring to anyone on this board. It is other people I find that to be true with, and Arawn just happens to fit in that category, IMHO. Otherwise I never would have even thought to mention that here.

If you didn't enjoy the movie - that is your opinion. I respect that 100%! The movie wasn't perfect, and it was never going to be able to please everyone. I enjoyed it enough to see it seven times, other people might not find it entertaining. It is true, if we all liked the same movies the world would be a boring place! I certainly never meant to imply that you, or anyone else here specifically was being nasty. I suppose I was just "thinking out loud" in that comment - perhaps I should have kept my thoughts to myself.

This whole thing has gotten way out of hand, hasn't it? I am sorry for my part in stirring the pot - most people here know I am not a pot-stirrer by nature. I usually try to avoid it, if anything.

Still, this is a film I, and most of us - have waited for 19 years to see. It is easy to get very emotional about something we are that passionate about. No matter which side we fall on, we are all here because we enjoy Superman (in one form or another). It isn't very "Super" of us to go at each other's throats - so I am going to shut up now altogether.

LOL everyone here knows that I loved this film - so I think I have beaten that horse to death! I'm going to stick to reading fanfic and that's it. I usually post more on Zoom's boards anyway. No big deal - I just need to back away from this thread for a while.

In the meantime, Kathy I am sorry if you feel I was offending you - believe me that was *never* my intention. And to anyone else here who found anything I said offensive, I apologize. It was never what I planned or wanted to do.

Obviously I have issues with Arawn - but I hope backing away for a while will clear that up. Reasoning doesn't seem to help, it just breeds more trouble. I've said my peace - all I can do is apologize. I hate feeling I need to defend myself against a complete stranger, but that is beside the point.

In answer to ccmalo,

s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e

Lois is with Richard in the beginning of the movie. It seems that after Superman disappeared 5 years ago, she got together with him, and she truly believes that he's Jason's father (at least, until it is conclusively proven otherwise.) She's engaged to him out of some sense of responsibility to Jason, I believe, but doesn't marry him because she hasn't given up on Superman altogether (again, my interpretation.)

By the end of the movie, Lois has broken up with Richard, and Superman tells her he'll "be around," which leaves it open-ended as far as their relationship is concerned. I think the sequel will probably deal with this issue. So, in answer to your question, no, that door is not closed -- it is, in fact, opened.

As for the memory wipe at the end of Superman II, I agree with alcyonearia that it was really Clark's naivete that drove him to do it -- he really thought he was acting in her best interests. Remember that since he had got his powers back, he could no longer be with her, and he had chosen his responsibility to humanity over his love for her -- and the pain of knowing that was driving her crazy. She says as much in that final scene, which is what drives him to do the mind wipe thing in the first place.

It could even be argued that he thought he was doing her a favour, because forgetting her experience with him sort of helped her to move on; otherwise she would have been pining for him constantly. By causing her to forget, he was sparing her that pain, and at the same time condemning himself to bear the burden of that pain alone.

I'm not saying what he did was right, but that, in our dear lunkhead's two-dimensional head, he would have rationalised it that way.

-- Jude

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Wait, she broke up with Richard at the end? I totally didn't see that. I mean I guess you could see the hint when he dropped her off at the hospital (that kiss did have the subtle eu de good bye) and yet, I don't know. I never thought she'd do that, especially aftet he saved Superman.

Oh man, that's just too easy!

Jude, what pain was Superman condemning himself to bear in Superman II? To me, the most painful thing about the entire movie was how extremely pleased Superman seemed to be at having wiped Lois's mind after having sex with her. That smirk on Christopher Reeve's face at the end of that movie told me that his Superman was as happy as could be that he had gotten away with sleeping with her without ever letting her know about it. Talk about using a woman! Talk about pulling the wool over her eyes! Talk about lying about yourself to her! I found him utterly disgusting.

Anyway, if we agree that he was justified in taking away her memory of their lovemaking, I also think we must accept that he can never make love to her again:
FoLCs, how will you feel about Superman if this is what the sequel to SR is going to tell us? Superman really has to make a choice between loving Lois and helping humanity? Forget the thoughts of Superman ever marrying Lois, forget the thoughts of a super romance, because Superman can't make love to a mere mortal without hurting or killing her. Forget about the marriage in the comics, and, not least, forget about LNC:TNAOS. If Superman can't make love to Lois, he can never be more than a simple crime fighter or an aloof guardian of society. Perhaps, at best, he can be a distant, Jor-El sort of father to his son.

In my opinion, Superman II is the worst thing that ever happened to Superman, because it did its very, very best to ruin every future possibility of a relationship between Lois and Clark. I'm so glad that this new movie tells us that Superman was entirely wrong to think that he could just mindwipe away the consequences of his making love to Lois. But if the next movie tells us that he really can't ever be with Lois any more, well... then I'm going to wish that "Superman Returns" does so badly at the box office that there will never be a sequel to it!


Ann

This whole memory wipe/Superman's kid/Richard's kid thing is why I'm having such a hard time accepting that SMR is simply the continuation of the story set up in the SMI and SMII films. The timing just doesn't jive for me at all.

Because if SM wiped Lois's memory after their fling, this would mean a couple of possible things:

1 - She found herself pregnant and thinking it was some kind of immaculate conception because she had no memory of her night with SM

OR

2 - she got involved with Richard almost immediately after having her mind wiped, in which case SM would have had to have known about Richard before he left Earth. I don't recall the details at the end of SMII, but I never got the impression that SM took off for the possible remains of Krypton immediately after wiping Lois's memory

AND/OR

3 - If Lois really believed Jason had been Richard's kid, her discovering that he is probably SM's kid should have registered much more profoundly in the new movie. And Lois should have confronted SM with it when she sees him in that last scene. Where was the "How did I manage to give birth to your son when I have no recollection of us having done the deed?" that Lois would certainly have asked? Plus not a little bit of anger that she had slept with SM but couldn't remember it.

Actually, the more I think about all of this, the more annoyed it makes me. I'd rather just enjoy the new movie as an entity in itself, because otherwise the plot holes become too large for me to fanwank shut.

Lynn

Hah! Labby, I about fell out of my chair when I read this! Well put! I have the same problem...probably why I don't have any kids of my own yet.

And I agree with the whole Clark issue as well. Dean's Clark will always be the best (at least in my own eyes, my opinion of course). He was so handsome, romantic, GQ, suave...okay, I'd better stop myself

I was happy though that Brandon's Clark didn't seem (again, at least to me) to be nearly as geeky as Christopher Reeve's Clark.

Why? Even if the movies go that route, which would suck, it wouldn't undo what's taken place in the comics and it would certainly not undo the four seasons of LNC. Those are still going to be around for people to enjoy.

Of course you're right, C_A. I apologize. Please understand that I'm still so angry at Superman II - after, what, 26 years? - that I still lash out when I'm talking about it. But luckily, just as you say, nothing can undo Lois and Clark!!!

Ann

I hated the mind wipe thing as much as anyone else, but I never interpreted the "smirk" on Christopher's face that way at all. To me it wasn't a case of him being secretly overjoyed that he'd gotten away with "a night in the sack" and wouldn't have to face any possible consequences. To me he was simply relieved that he had taken away Lois' severe emotional pain, and taken her back to the happy woman of just a few days ago.

Even though he didn't display it as overtly as she, I felt that both of them were suffering. They were in love, yet couldn't be together because he felt that his obligations as Superman had to take a higher priority. She acknowledged that, but that knowledge obviously didn't make her feel any better. And there was the truth that she might never meet anyone else who would live up to the standards of her "lost great love".

Now, since it had all just happened there was no denying that the emotional distress would be at its greatest point here, and certainly her pain would have lessened over time. So in that sense it would have been better for him to have waited before doing something, but that obviously wouldn't work for plot purposes.

Now if Clark could have implanted something in her brain to make her not forget, but to realize that she "never really loved" him in the first place, that would have been nicer, of course... But since Superman is the "real" person in the movies, that claim wouldn't go too far. Or she could have just realized that one night together was enough for her...

Anyway, probably this implanting stuff is beyond Superman's powers, and not the way that the movie people wanted to go.

The notion of choosing between Lois and "a greater good", although it cuts to the core of all the romantics out there, is hardly new or unheard of. And our own Clark did (misguidedly) choose to help NK and leave Lois behind, knowing that there was at least a possibility that he might never return.

Kathy

I'm weighing in, because I actually went to see it. I wasn't sure I wanted to, but I allowed myself to be roped into it. That being said, considering how much I thought I would despise the film, I was shocked that I liked it. I went in with such low expectations that I ended up being pleasantly surprised.

While I was a little bored by the beginning, because it seemed too prolonged to me, I liked it. So, I will begin with the positives. Please note that these are only my impressions.


Spoiler space


I liked the soundtrack and the fact that it was a really long movie so more film for my money--I'm cheap like that. The storyline, especially when you didn't think too hard, was entertaining.

I thought Kevin Spacey made a good Lex Luthor, although he didn't seem nearly as evil as Gene Hackman, and I liked Routh's interpretation of Superman. Routh, to me, made Superman seem less machine-like, more humourous and human.

I found the ending in the hospital touching, because we'd just been through something like that with a grandparent's death so it was very real in a way it might not have been otherwise. I also liked the realism of the Kent farm when we saw it (and the dog).

I won't mention some of the other things other people did, except to say that there were a few plot holes that confused me. I'd really like a run-down on time delay in Kryptonite's effects on Superman.

Also, I don't think anyone mentioned the religious symbolism and allusions in the film. That was unanticipated.

Kate Bosworth was cute and had her moments, but I felt like her character was just too...nice. Not that nice is bad, but where's the hard-bitten newswoman? I found it really hard to believe that she could have won a Pulitzer. Just because she has a child doesn't mean she has to be soft in her job. The only time I felt she was really tough, reporter-wise, was at the beginning on the airplane with the questions.

But my main issue with it was the addition of another male character that stripped Lois Lane of yet more power. I'm sure not everyone would agree with me on this, but one of the things I liked about L&C was how Lois was--how being with Clark didn't make her less tenacious or stubborn even if a bit more thoughtful. She could make it on her own, but she wanted him to be there with her. He only added to her abilities, not detracting. And I always felt Margot Kidder was even MORE of a toughie.

I realise they wanted to make a statement about the different family situations we have in this day and age, but by adding Richard, I felt like they took away from Lois, making her seem less capable. Richard flew that plane back into the fray; he pulled Lois out of the water along with Superman. Sure, she jumped in first, but HE ultimately was needed to save the day. Even Lois, the single, working woman, had Richard there helping the whole time. It seemed like they felt that they had to choose between a tough, career-woman and a feminine mom, but my question is why couldn't she have been both?

Still, it was a pleasant period of time overall, despite my misgivings on a few things. I'm looking forward to the sequels.

SuperGEM,

No you didn’t. You said: And I answered that you did come across rather young. I never asked for your age, sex or phonenumber. So I don’t know why you put that on me.

No your were spoiling for a fight by choosing to make it personal. You have still not addressed the point how anyone over an indeterminate age (lets say adult) could fear for Superman’s life in a Hollywood franchise, much less rebutted it.

Since you still find me offensive it doesn’t sound like you appreciate it that much. As I said you didn’t offend me, so don’t worry about me. A word of advice though; attributing feelings to people you don’t know or questioning their experiences, is a good way to get into heated exchanges.


Sure if you feel our exchange onerous just drop me. I’m just a random guy on a internet message board. When did you ask me if we could agree to disagree?, I can’t see it. And apart from the ten year old thing when do you perceive that I been coming at you?

You seem to insist that I bear you malice. I assure you that is not the case. I wouldn’t come to this suger-sweet board if I did. And I’m truly sorry if I have made you feel bad.
I’m pretty low key around here so I’m sure I won’t be much of a bother.

Well I was curious why so many people appreciated the film when it lacked so many of the qualities that I appreciate in L&C series but I only seem to cause discord so I leave you ladies to this thread. Have a nice day.

I got to see Superman Returns with one of those nice, free passes that came with the Season 3 DVD of Lois and Clark. Always nice to see a movie for free, especially now that they've gone up to almost $10 a ticket. Even if we did have to try two theatres and several showtimes before we found one open.

I enjoyed the movie, but not for the reasons I usually enjoy movies. I found the action sequences the best part, especially the plane in the beginning. Although I did have to wonder--why exactly are they taking this special spaceship-launching plane out on its maiden voyage with a planeload of journalists on board? Could have told them something was going to happen. Oh, I'm sure they tested it plenty before then, but maiden voyages still have a way of going wrong unexpectedly. Nonetheless--landing it in the baseball stadium was just *cool*. Although, why couldn't he let the passengers out, then take the plane to the landpad for them? Not hard to figure out that he's just killed the baseball game, and that they're going to have a tough time getting it out of the stadium.

Brandon Routh did well as Superman. He was not unlike I'd imagine the comic book hero coming out on-screen. He did look a lot like Christopher Reeve, but I didn't remember the movies enough to really notice or care about similar gestures and such. As Superman, he was fine. As Clark Kent... well, he was cute. But boring. I suppose that this storyline was more about Superman than Clark, but it still seems to lose something when you don't use the secret identity aspect. Though, when he's rushing off to change into his costume to rescue the plane--that was fun.

I thought Kate Bosworth did a pretty lousy job, honestly. She's certainly pretty, but she was too young to make sense as Lois Lane, at least to me. Partly because of the "gone five years" thing, as I'd thought that Superman had been in Metropolis for a while, maybe several years, before he left. And hadn't she been an established reporter before then? I would have expected her to be around 30 at the youngest. It wasn't just her youth, though. She was far too bland, too passive. There was no *reason* for Superman to be as enthralled with her, as far as I could see. Sure, she was dogged in arguing with her editor about that power outage story, but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of her behavior. And the smoking!

I had a real problem with her smoking--when she has an asthmatic kid! Sure, she does seem to go outside to smoke, and she seems to do it rarely (times of stress?), but she's still got a kid who suffers from asthma, enough that he takes his medication quite a few times over the course of the movie. It made me worry that she might have *contributed* to his asthma by smoking during pregnancy (at least, it made sense to me that she would have taken up the habit after Superman left--unless she already had the habit, which I don't remember, but in which case she still would have continued smoking during pregnancy).

The little boy was cute (although, is it just me, or was he *way* too big and mature for a 4- or 5-year-old?). I liked his parts, and I thought he acted fairly well. I'd thought that perhaps he was Superman's son before then, but when he pushed the piano--wow. That was really great. In fact, I think that was my absolute favorite scene in the movie.

Like a lot of previous commentors, though, I didn't like the plot that caused the little boy. Somehow I must have missed the fact that Superman slept with Lois during Superman II (I remember the movie quite well, but I don't remember realizing *that*--but then, I was a pretty innocent kid). When he'd sucked out her memory, I thought he was just making her forget what they *could* have had together, not what they *did*, which seemed forgiveable and perhaps kind, in my opinion. But not so anymore.

For one thing, I dislike the idea of Superman sleeping with Lois before they're married. Both because I think it's wrong in general, but I think it's particularly difficult in their situation, and the little boy that resulted is exactly why. If they sleep together without being married and Lois gets pregnant, but later decides she doesn't want to marry Superman (or Clark), then how does he make sure that his child is raised with an understanding of how his powers work and the responsibility that he incurs? Superman *has* to be involved with his child, and marrying Lois is the only sure way to make that happen.

So in this movie, we get exactly that situation. It's a little uncertain about whether Lois really knew that Superman was the father--she'd have to have started sleeping with Richard really soon, within a month, and unless she was on the rebound because Superman had abandoned her, I don't see that happening. But, then, there's always the possibility that it was sort of out of spite. "Fine, Superman, you wanna leave, I'm going to get involved with the next cute guy I see. Oh, *hi*, Richard." Or maybe they started dating much later, and Richard knew it wasn't his son--but then did Lois think it was a miracle?

But now that she knows her son is not only Superman's child but has also inherited his superpowers, she's got some choices to make. She could stay with Richard, who the boy knows as his father, a man who loves her. But she's gotta let Superman share Jason's upbringing, at least a little. That was the implication that I got at the end of the movie; she was going to stay with Richard and raise Jason with him, and Superman would sort of watch from above and impart useful advice at crucial times, as Jor-El did for Kal-El while the Kents raised him as a human. Or, Lois could leave Richard and end up with Superman, which makes sense in some ways. It might explain why she's lived with Richard for five years without marrying him--she hadn't given up hope for Superman. Of course, plenty of people live together for years anyway, so that might not be the reason.

I think my main overall impression was that I enjoyed it while I watched it, but I probably wouldn't go to see it again. But, I might enjoy seeing it on DVD. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if for buying Superman Returns on DVD, you got a free coupon for Lois and Clark Season 4? *happy thoughts*

Her accpetance does seem suprising, especially given her independent character - hopefully the sequel will address that point. Perhaps it was the stress of the moment sort of thing - she wasn't really procesing the information.

But I'm really curious about how she's explained that pregnancy to herself. I just don't see her character as one who would have entered into a sexual relationship so soon after S leaves, especially given she's been up on the roof waiting for him.

Jude, thanks for answering my questions!!
I'd forgotten his rationale for the memory wipe. Although it sounds alturistic, it really wasn't his decision to make - very patriarchal, etc.
Kathy sums this up well:
"Now, since it had all just happened there was no denying that the emotional distress would be at its greatest point here, and certainly her pain would have lessened over time. So in that sense it would have been better for him to have waited before doing something, but that obviously wouldn't work for plot purposes."

Ann raises a huge point about Superman's loss of powers if he makes love to a human. That was a big deal in S 11 - so how is the SR -the sequel going to 'unspool' that one? or do they intend to, I wonder ? Just leave him as a sort of asexual god figure?

LOL See, that's the problem - i can only buy so many plot holes/unbelievebale things per movie.

True, but Lois was very much a part of that decision.

Sigh - it doesn't change does it?

So not sure about seeing this movie. It's the relationship that interests me, but it sounds like it's not really dealt with in any depth. Plus, I want to see a strong Lois Lane (the New Yorker review said this Lois lacked the feistiness of either Margot Kidder's or Teri Hatcher's).

Also the religious subtext makes me a tad squirmy.

Still, I'm thinking Spacey could make a fine Luthor. And I'm not totally writing off the appeal of those special effects...

c.

Guys, first of all, remember that this movie is based on the original Superman movies, which show a pre-crisis Superman -- where Superman is the real person, Clark Kent is a secret identity in which he *acts* clumsy and dorky, and Jonathan Kent is dead. I wouldn't want to condemn Superman Returns because it shows a different interpretation of the myth -- I'm happy to accept its differences and appreciate it for what it is.

Also, Bryan Singer did say that this movie was "loosely based" on the first two movies, but was not intended to be a direct sequel. So the mind-wipe etc may not have happened in this universe. I think the aspects of this movie which can be linked with SMII are:

1. Lois and Superman having a romantic relationship, and

2. Superman's choices -- he chose Lois over the rest of the world in SMII, ended up regretting it, and in this movie he chooses the other way around (heading back to Metropolis during the earthquake.)

Also, the issue of him not being able to be with Lois unless he gave up his superpowers was from SMII. I'm glad that it's not the case in LnC and in the current version of the comics And it may not be the case in this current movie series (because, we know, there *will* be sequels )

I want to write more but this computer is painfully slow -- will be back later when I can find a faster one (at work!)

Wait a second. Superman loses his power if he sleeps with a human? Is this true? It always seemed to be a decision on Superman's behalf that being with Lois was an all-or-nothing deal (once again pointing to his two dimensionality and/or the superhero cardboard image). But if its like that and sex with Lois takes away his superpowers, why that's so Freudian it makes my spine crawl.

Well if the novelization of the movie is tied to the actual movie, when

s
p
o
i
l
e
r


Lois is on the boat with Lex and he brings out the crystal, he says to her "this is like a reunion" and "does this look familiar?"(showing her the crystal).

In the book, she starts to have a vague recollection of being at the FOS....crystal images start to form in her mind.

My theory is that when Jason threw the piano at Brutus, the shock may have brought back the memory of their lovemaking.

I understand that in Superman IV which I saw 1x in the theatre and never purchased on DVD or Video, that Superman takes Lois flying and somehow negated the mind wipe long enough for them to enjoy some time together....

does anyone else remember that??

anyway....one of the things that Lois may have whispered to Superman at the hospital is that she remembered everything....and that Jason was their son. That would explain why, at the end of the movie, Lois doesn't have to confront him...I believe it all came back to her...which would mean she knows that CK=S.

I didn't get the impression that she had broken up with Richard. In the novel, which admittedly left out the part about Jason being Clark's son, it says that Lois was trying to write her story about "Why the World Needs Superman" and that Richard was in bed. She goes to the balcony to have a cigarrette and then on her own, she opts not to smoke, then Clark appears and she asks him "Will we see you around?" and he says "I'm always around. Good nite, Lois".

I am hoping that the sequel (if the movie makes $200 mill domestically they say there WILL be a sequel....so $54 mill to go....) will address the entire "how much does Lois remember" scenario.

Since Richard originally lived overseas, running the DP's international division, it would be easy enough for Perry to transfer him back there, since he would know now that Lois loves Superman and that Jason is not biologically his father. But Richard and Jason have an emotional attachment, he's the only father that Jason has ever known, so somehow I think he might stay around. Superman and Richard have a mutual admiration thing going, even though they might be competing for Lois' affections. Richard is really a human version of Clark.

In the novel, Lois reflects on her first date with Richard - they went to a country fair together. Richard transferred to Metropolis just weeks after Superman disappeared and she repeatedly told him she didn't want a relationship but over time, they fell in love.

It's also stated in the novel that Jimmy tells Clark that Jason a preemie and almost didn't make it....this would lead you to believe that for the first several months, Lois didn't know she was pregnant, probably starting having sex with Richard a month or two after they started dating, and just assumed that Jason was premature because of it. And since he's half-human, and we don't know the gestation time for Kryptonians (their super-dense molecular structure may warrant a longer than human gestation period)....perhaps it seemed like Jason was premature when in fact it was actually a normal pregnancy for a Kryptonian....

Well I must have the babble gene in me tonite...

I just hope that the whole mind-wife in SII is explained...we just had a whole mini-series about the JLA and mind-wiping {"Identity Crisis")...and how wrong it was deemed to be....

They say you can't get over something unless you feel the pain...Clark didn't give Lois a chance to get over him....

OK, rambling done!

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

I didn't realise that the novel had Richard sleeping while Lois was writing that article at the end. From the movie, it didn't seem apparent that Richard was still around, and I thought that Lois had broken up with him because of one scene -- when Richard drops Lois and Jason off at the hospital, he tells Lois that he'll wait for her, and she gives him a really sad smile and *very* subtly shakes her head at him, as if to say "No, don't wait for me," or "No, you won't wait." (I prefer to think it's the former.)

So, it's in the novel that Richard was still around at the end... then again, the novel did have some differences from the movie -- Jason's paternity was never established, for one, because the movie makers didn't want to give it away before the actual movie was out.

But whether Richard was around or not, Lois seemed to be coming to terms with the fact that *she* needed Superman -- we know that her articles are based on her own feelings, right? It's actually "Why I don't need Superman," because she's angry at him for leaving, and then "Why I need Superman," when she realises that she loves him after all. She may stay together with Richard for Jason's sake, but she knows her true feelings aren't for him.

Poor Richard!

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.