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

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