Superman Returns as a sequel to the others? Probable spoiliers
06-29-06, 10:48 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superman Returns as a sequel to the others? Probable spoiliers
I know it's only supposed to be a "loose" sequel/ "vauge history" or whatever, to only the first two films, but I'd like to pretend myself that it's an actual sequel to all of the old Superman movies and even Supergirl, so everyone who wants to use the "loose sequel" arguement about this, just don't OK? I don't care. This is Superman V to me!
For example, the music, looks of most actors/ actresses, opening and closing scenes as well as more, makes me believe that this movie was a real part of the same series as the older Christopher Reeve movies. Plus even the re-using of some lines, besides Marlon Brando. (The airplane rescue)
EDIT: I recently rewatched all of the original films as well as Supergirl and I now feel that the movies work almost perfectly this way:
I think it could be easy to pretend that Superman IV took place in 2001. Nothing in this movie really seems dated (unlike the computers in III) and you can't really see the date on the newspapers without the "zoom" button. The only thing that would need to change would be mentioning Martha Kent's death. Lana Lang says something to Clark in III, like, "You haven't been back to Smallville since your mother's funeral", which could easily be re-dubbed "father's". In Superman IV, Clark is selling the farm, but that could probably be explained somehow other than because his parents are dead. But other than those, it makes pretty good sence to me.
Superman (1978) Superman is introduced and fights Lex Luthor. Lex goes to jail.
Superman II (1980) Lex escapes jail and Superman fights Zod, Non and Ursa and kills them? and Lex goes back to jail.
Superman III (1983) Lex stays in jail the whole movie and Superman fights some others. Gus Gorman helps figure out where Krypton was.
Superman IV (2001 -c'mon, we can pretend). Lex excapes (again!) and makes Nuclear Man. Nuclear Man is killed and Lex goes back to jail (again!) Clark, upset that he can't/ shouldn't help the little boy with the whole "world peace" thing, again reveals to Lois he is Superman and gives her another super memory erasing kiss. Superman tries to destroy every "weapon of mass destruction" and decides he can't. Movie ends. This is where some more stuff could happen. Clark decides to reveal his identity one last time, has sex with Lois again and then decides it was a bad mistake and super kisses her for the last time. A few months pass and September 11th comes along. Superman is upset that he couldn't do anything about it and combined with Gus's discovery in part III, decides to take a trip back "home". Why not?
Supergirl (2002- after Superman IV, again stretch your minds) Nothing really dates or contradicts this movie badly, except possibly a brief scene in the Linda Lee's classroom where they show some old computers. So what? They are slow updating the class computers. Superman/ Clark's cousin is introduced and we actually see what goes on inside the phantom zone. It could easily take place directly before Superman Returns and after Superman IV as it is explained in this movie that Superman is out on a mission (you know, looking for Krypton remains and stuff)., which on the way there, he stops by Argo City, meets Kara/ Linda/ Supergirl and explains all about his adventures on Earth, which explains why Supergirl knows these things in the movie. He also gave her his old costume, which she modified into a skirt. This also explains why Superman's costume is a bit different in the new movie.
Superman Returns (2006) Superman returns from space and all kinds of other stuff, like Lex being set free from prison because Superman wasn't there for the court date.
I guess these things can be assumed: Mrs. Teschmacher and Otis: either Lex doesn't care about them anymore or they are doing something else/ still in prison. Lex's nephew Lenny reformed and is doing his own thing again. Lana Lang quit or got fired from her job at the Daily Planet between Superman III and IV. Jimmy Olsen and Lucy Lane (Lois's sister in Supergirl) broke up between Supergirl and Superman Returns. Clark was gone five years, so maybe he doesn't want to act like so much of an idiot anymore, maybe because the whole Lois thing upset him too.
Anbody have any comments, besides the fact it really wasn't a sequel? If that's all you wanna say, go away and shut-up. I wasn't asking you. To me, it IS a sequel. And yes, this goes for Star Wars as well. I can totally see the 2004 DVD versions as if they were totally filmed after Episode III.
The only inconsistency I can see in this order is Martha Kent. What are some creative (but not too stupid) ways to explain why Clark wanted to sell the farm in Superman IV, if his mother was still living? Maybe she went on vacation or moved somewhere else, but after the movie and before "Returns", she moved back into her old house, since Clark couldn't bear selling it in IV.
For example, the music, looks of most actors/ actresses, opening and closing scenes as well as more, makes me believe that this movie was a real part of the same series as the older Christopher Reeve movies. Plus even the re-using of some lines, besides Marlon Brando. (The airplane rescue)
EDIT: I recently rewatched all of the original films as well as Supergirl and I now feel that the movies work almost perfectly this way:
I think it could be easy to pretend that Superman IV took place in 2001. Nothing in this movie really seems dated (unlike the computers in III) and you can't really see the date on the newspapers without the "zoom" button. The only thing that would need to change would be mentioning Martha Kent's death. Lana Lang says something to Clark in III, like, "You haven't been back to Smallville since your mother's funeral", which could easily be re-dubbed "father's". In Superman IV, Clark is selling the farm, but that could probably be explained somehow other than because his parents are dead. But other than those, it makes pretty good sence to me.
Superman (1978) Superman is introduced and fights Lex Luthor. Lex goes to jail.
Superman II (1980) Lex escapes jail and Superman fights Zod, Non and Ursa and kills them? and Lex goes back to jail.
Superman III (1983) Lex stays in jail the whole movie and Superman fights some others. Gus Gorman helps figure out where Krypton was.
Superman IV (2001 -c'mon, we can pretend). Lex excapes (again!) and makes Nuclear Man. Nuclear Man is killed and Lex goes back to jail (again!) Clark, upset that he can't/ shouldn't help the little boy with the whole "world peace" thing, again reveals to Lois he is Superman and gives her another super memory erasing kiss. Superman tries to destroy every "weapon of mass destruction" and decides he can't. Movie ends. This is where some more stuff could happen. Clark decides to reveal his identity one last time, has sex with Lois again and then decides it was a bad mistake and super kisses her for the last time. A few months pass and September 11th comes along. Superman is upset that he couldn't do anything about it and combined with Gus's discovery in part III, decides to take a trip back "home". Why not?
Supergirl (2002- after Superman IV, again stretch your minds) Nothing really dates or contradicts this movie badly, except possibly a brief scene in the Linda Lee's classroom where they show some old computers. So what? They are slow updating the class computers. Superman/ Clark's cousin is introduced and we actually see what goes on inside the phantom zone. It could easily take place directly before Superman Returns and after Superman IV as it is explained in this movie that Superman is out on a mission (you know, looking for Krypton remains and stuff)., which on the way there, he stops by Argo City, meets Kara/ Linda/ Supergirl and explains all about his adventures on Earth, which explains why Supergirl knows these things in the movie. He also gave her his old costume, which she modified into a skirt. This also explains why Superman's costume is a bit different in the new movie.
Superman Returns (2006) Superman returns from space and all kinds of other stuff, like Lex being set free from prison because Superman wasn't there for the court date.
I guess these things can be assumed: Mrs. Teschmacher and Otis: either Lex doesn't care about them anymore or they are doing something else/ still in prison. Lex's nephew Lenny reformed and is doing his own thing again. Lana Lang quit or got fired from her job at the Daily Planet between Superman III and IV. Jimmy Olsen and Lucy Lane (Lois's sister in Supergirl) broke up between Supergirl and Superman Returns. Clark was gone five years, so maybe he doesn't want to act like so much of an idiot anymore, maybe because the whole Lois thing upset him too.
Anbody have any comments, besides the fact it really wasn't a sequel? If that's all you wanna say, go away and shut-up. I wasn't asking you. To me, it IS a sequel. And yes, this goes for Star Wars as well. I can totally see the 2004 DVD versions as if they were totally filmed after Episode III.
The only inconsistency I can see in this order is Martha Kent. What are some creative (but not too stupid) ways to explain why Clark wanted to sell the farm in Superman IV, if his mother was still living? Maybe she went on vacation or moved somewhere else, but after the movie and before "Returns", she moved back into her old house, since Clark couldn't bear selling it in IV.
Last edited by marioxb; 07-10-06 at 08:17 AM.
06-29-06, 11:32 PM
#2
Banned by request
You know, there's been a huge debate going on in the reviews thread about the problems with this one following II. Suppose this one doesn't take place immediately after II? What if, sometime after II, Superman and Lois get together again (even if for a one-night stand) and she gets pregnant. Then, astrologists start talking about Krypton. Since Supes and Lois just consummated their relationship, Superman doesn't know how to say goodbye to her, but he has to find out about Krypton for himself. So he goes. Lois feels hurt and rejected. Perry's nephew comforts her and they end up getting it on before she realizes she is pregnant. All of this could happen within a few weeks, I don't think that's out of the bounds of reality. Then the whole plot point of her forgetting about Superman and Clark being the same would go away.
Of course, it's not stated that this happened in the movie, but it's a scenario that fits about all of the requirements, including Lois not knowing if the baby was Superman's or Richard's.
Of course, it's not stated that this happened in the movie, but it's a scenario that fits about all of the requirements, including Lois not knowing if the baby was Superman's or Richard's.
06-29-06, 11:48 PM
#4
This movie is supposed to take place in 1983 or 1984.
Here's my reasoning (SPOILERS):
The Kryptonite that is found by Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor in the Metropolis Museum of Natural History is labeled as having fallen and discovered in Addis Abiba (as it says on the plaque) in 1978.
Therefore SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, according to the SUPERMAN RETURNS clock, does indeed take place in 1978, BECAUSE Gene Hackman's Miss Tessmacher reads an article in that movie that reports that that rock had just fallen in Adis Abiba at that timie.
SUPERMAN II takes place a few months after SUPERMAN I, as having been established in scripts and novels and such, I believe. Lois and Clark have intercourse in the Fortress of Solitude and she is impregnated.
Offscreen right after SUPERMAN II, Lois gives birth and in SUPERMAN RETURNS, her munchkin is five (or at most six years old).
Therefore, SUPERMAN RETURNS should take place during 1983 or 1984.
I know Singer doesn't really INTEND this movie to be 1984, with all the Samsung flat-screens and technology and such, but I'm having fun with this.
Here's my reasoning (SPOILERS):
The Kryptonite that is found by Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor in the Metropolis Museum of Natural History is labeled as having fallen and discovered in Addis Abiba (as it says on the plaque) in 1978.
Therefore SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, according to the SUPERMAN RETURNS clock, does indeed take place in 1978, BECAUSE Gene Hackman's Miss Tessmacher reads an article in that movie that reports that that rock had just fallen in Adis Abiba at that timie.
SUPERMAN II takes place a few months after SUPERMAN I, as having been established in scripts and novels and such, I believe. Lois and Clark have intercourse in the Fortress of Solitude and she is impregnated.
Offscreen right after SUPERMAN II, Lois gives birth and in SUPERMAN RETURNS, her munchkin is five (or at most six years old).
Therefore, SUPERMAN RETURNS should take place during 1983 or 1984.
I know Singer doesn't really INTEND this movie to be 1984, with all the Samsung flat-screens and technology and such, but I'm having fun with this.
Last edited by jeffkjoe; 06-29-06 at 11:51 PM.
06-30-06, 07:39 AM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it takes place after Superman II. What about my question about if it could take place after Superman IV? Could it? Why or why not? That way all of the future sequels will still probably work too. I really need to watch 3, 4 and Supergirl again.
Hey, maybe when Superman messed with the earth in part 1, it changed the way time flows and stuff. So 5 years is more like 20 years. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Hey, maybe when Superman messed with the earth in part 1, it changed the way time flows and stuff. So 5 years is more like 20 years. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Last edited by marioxb; 06-30-06 at 07:41 AM.
06-30-06, 08:41 AM
#11
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by jeffkjoe
This movie is supposed to take place in 1983 or 1984.
Here's my reasoning (SPOILERS):
The Kryptonite that is found by Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor in the Metropolis Museum of Natural History is labeled as having fallen and discovered in Addis Abiba (as it says on the plaque) in 1978.
Therefore SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, according to the SUPERMAN RETURNS clock, does indeed take place in 1978, BECAUSE Gene Hackman's Miss Tessmacher reads an article in that movie that reports that that rock had just fallen in Adis Abiba at that timie.
Here's my reasoning (SPOILERS):
The Kryptonite that is found by Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor in the Metropolis Museum of Natural History is labeled as having fallen and discovered in Addis Abiba (as it says on the plaque) in 1978.
Therefore SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, according to the SUPERMAN RETURNS clock, does indeed take place in 1978, BECAUSE Gene Hackman's Miss Tessmacher reads an article in that movie that reports that that rock had just fallen in Adis Abiba at that timie.
Besides, all the camera phones, Internet, personal computers, plasma screens, etc. kind of make this entire point (and thread) moot.
06-30-06, 09:11 AM
#12
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Here are some things to consider, even though "Returns" supposedly pretends III & IV never happened:
In Superman III, Gus Gorman uses a weather satellite to analyze the remains of Krypton. How did he know where Krypton was? This could coincide with the revelation at the beginning of "Returns" that mentions how Superman left Earth shortly after astronomers discovered Krypton.
In Supergirl, there is a brief mention that Superman travelled into space. Again, this conincides with the opening text in "Returns."
It actually does make more sense that Superman had a brief fling with Lois before leaving Earth. Otherwise, it makes no sense how Lois can figure out
And of course, as others have mentioned,
So, if they had another fling, it could take place shortly after Superman IV. Lex Luthor was returned to prison at the end of IV, and that's when the five-year time span for Superman's disappearance could have started. It also requires less suspension of disbelief that five years have passed since IV was released in 1987 rather than II which was released in 1980. The only problem with fitting IV in the timeline, that I can think of, is that Clark Kent's mother has (supposedly) passed away and Clark is contemplating selling the farm.
In Superman III, Gus Gorman uses a weather satellite to analyze the remains of Krypton. How did he know where Krypton was? This could coincide with the revelation at the beginning of "Returns" that mentions how Superman left Earth shortly after astronomers discovered Krypton.
In Supergirl, there is a brief mention that Superman travelled into space. Again, this conincides with the opening text in "Returns."
It actually does make more sense that Superman had a brief fling with Lois before leaving Earth. Otherwise, it makes no sense how Lois can figure out
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
So, if they had another fling, it could take place shortly after Superman IV. Lex Luthor was returned to prison at the end of IV, and that's when the five-year time span for Superman's disappearance could have started. It also requires less suspension of disbelief that five years have passed since IV was released in 1987 rather than II which was released in 1980. The only problem with fitting IV in the timeline, that I can think of, is that Clark Kent's mother has (supposedly) passed away and Clark is contemplating selling the farm.
06-30-06, 09:22 AM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rennervision
Here are some things to consider, even though "Returns" supposedly pretends III & IV never happened:
In Superman III, Gus Gorman uses a weather satellite to analyze the remains of Krypton. How did he know where Krypton was? This could coincide with the revelation at the beginning of "Returns" that mentions how Superman left Earth shortly after astronomers discovered Krypton.
In Supergirl, there is a brief mention that Superman travelled into space. Again, this conincides with the opening text in "Returns."
It actually does make more sense that Superman had a brief fling with Lois before leaving Earth. Otherwise, it makes no sense how Lois can figure out
And of course, as others have mentioned,
So, if they had another fling, it could take place shortly after Superman IV. Lex Luthor was returned to prison at the end of IV, and that's when the five-year time span for Superman's disappearance could have started. It also requires less suspension of disbelief that five years have passed since IV was released in 1987 rather than II which was released in 1980. The only problem with fitting IV in the timeline, that I can think of, is that Clark Kent's mother has (supposedly) passed away and Clark is contemplating selling the farm.
In Superman III, Gus Gorman uses a weather satellite to analyze the remains of Krypton. How did he know where Krypton was? This could coincide with the revelation at the beginning of "Returns" that mentions how Superman left Earth shortly after astronomers discovered Krypton.
In Supergirl, there is a brief mention that Superman travelled into space. Again, this conincides with the opening text in "Returns."
It actually does make more sense that Superman had a brief fling with Lois before leaving Earth. Otherwise, it makes no sense how Lois can figure out
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
So, if they had another fling, it could take place shortly after Superman IV. Lex Luthor was returned to prison at the end of IV, and that's when the five-year time span for Superman's disappearance could have started. It also requires less suspension of disbelief that five years have passed since IV was released in 1987 rather than II which was released in 1980. The only problem with fitting IV in the timeline, that I can think of, is that Clark Kent's mother has (supposedly) passed away and Clark is contemplating selling the farm.
I was thinking this too, but I forgot about his mom. I really need to watch these again now.
Oh and as people on imdb have pointed out, the kid could have powers just because his dad is from Krypton. It's still in his DNA or whatever, even if the "switch was turned off".
06-30-06, 09:58 AM
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Again, Singer has said repeatedly that the first two (and ONLY the first two) movies form a "vague history". That's it. Any further speculation is really kind of pointless.
06-30-06, 11:15 AM
#15
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by marioxb
Oh and as people on imdb have pointed out, the kid could have powers just because his dad is from Krypton. It's still in his DNA or whatever, even if the "switch was turned off".
06-30-06, 11:34 AM
#16
Originally Posted by Matt Millheiser
Your theory falls apart pretty quickly. Today, in 2006, I could read an article about the discovery of the Australopithecus afarensis skeleton in 1974. That doesn't mean it was discovered in 2006. The article Lex (not Miss Tessmacher) cited never said that the "rock had just fallen".
Besides, all the camera phones, Internet, personal computers, plasma screens, etc. kind of make this entire point (and thread) moot.
Besides, all the camera phones, Internet, personal computers, plasma screens, etc. kind of make this entire point (and thread) moot.
OK, Matt, I'm gonna drive you crazy here:
Why is it, in the James Bond series, that Bond grows younger and younger, yet people like Q age with time?
Hee hee hee hee
06-30-06, 01:35 PM
#18
Moderator
Originally Posted by jeffkjoe
Why is it, in the James Bond series, that Bond grows younger and younger, yet people like Q age with time?
06-30-06, 01:38 PM
#19
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Building attractions one theme park at a time.
Posts: 10,800
Received 82 Likes
on
49 Posts
Originally Posted by SuicycoDave
Because Bond is not one person but several agents, they are just assigned the 007 James Bond "personality" as a ready made cover and background... erm, honest...
Pretty much true.
06-30-06, 01:40 PM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because Bond is not one person but several agents, they are just assigned the 007 James Bond "personality" as a ready made cover and background... erm, honest...
Moneypenny.
If you believe that Bond is a secret agent implanted with a personality that includes a memory of his slain wife then you also must accept that MI6 hires women to be a secretary named Moneypenny and implants them with the desire to flirt with Bond.
It's such a stupid theory. Prior to "Casino Royale", EON went to great lengths to remind the audience that you were always watching the same character. Lazenby's Bond's wife died, yet it's Connery's Bond who's after Blofeld (also played by a different actor) immediately afterwards, it's Moore's Bond who finally gets revenge, and the marriage is also referred to in Dalton & Brosnan films.
07-01-06, 08:04 AM
#22
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad someone started this thread. I have not seen the film yet. But I have been extremely confused as to how this film ties into Superman I and II.
I really wish Singer had just tossed away the thought of connecting the films and done a complete reboot.
Now here is an idea of maybe what I think Singer is suggesting. Maybe Singer is saying that the similiar things from Superman I kinda/sorta occured in 1998 (as opposed to 1978) and that similiar things from Superman II kinda/sorta occcured in ... lets say in the year 2000 or 2001. Superman then bolted from Earth in 2001 and came back in 2006.
There! Think of the tie ins to I and II in those terms.
I really wish Singer had just tossed away the thought of connecting the films and done a complete reboot.
Now here is an idea of maybe what I think Singer is suggesting. Maybe Singer is saying that the similiar things from Superman I kinda/sorta occured in 1998 (as opposed to 1978) and that similiar things from Superman II kinda/sorta occcured in ... lets say in the year 2000 or 2001. Superman then bolted from Earth in 2001 and came back in 2006.
There! Think of the tie ins to I and II in those terms.
07-01-06, 09:01 AM
#23
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Here's my theory: Superman actually lives in a Bizzaro World where the difference in time from 1978 to 2005 is just 5 years, during which 25-years-worth of technological advances occurred.
07-01-06, 12:27 PM
#25
Emeritus Reviewer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seantn
Kate Bosworth picks up a newspaper that has the date as being in 2005.
Of course, this means all the events between Superman saving the airplane and Superman almost dying take place in one day, which is obviously not the case. Nonetheless, the papers show the film being set in September 2006.