OldBoy

I have always wondered whether the continuity of when Superman travels back and reverses the tragic events as a result of the missle hitting the San Andreas fits.

So when he goes back in time does he go back and allow himself more time to catch up to both missles, first the NJ one and then CA? and thus the hit never happens.

Or what exactly happens off screen that we are just led to assume happened as a result of his actions before we find him catching up to the very alive Lois?

Are there any definitive answers? Maybe I am looking to much into this and missing the obvious, but I am just not sure.

What do you think...

The Infidel

I think this is exactly the type of movie that asks...no, demands your suspension of disbelief for nearly every aspect of the story. I mean, it's a superhero movie. To be honest, and not to demean your wanting to know, but I personally never even considered wondering about how far he went back in time. He did it, he saved the day, it's a classic movie, the end.

But maybe that's just me.

Patman

I always hated the ending of this film, otherwise, loved the rest of it.

Eplicon

This is one of those plotholes from the film that I never fully figured out. It would seem that Superman reverses time back to the point before Lois is engulfed into the earth. If she comes back to life, why doesn't the earthquake or aftershocks start again? Wouldn't reversing time also undo him repairing the San Andreas Fault and getting rid of the NJ missile? Yet since his present self is reversing time, his past self is not part of the timeline. So maybe as a result, his fixes weren't undone.

Cameron

Patman

Haha!

Mr. Salty

tom cruisE

I saw in the theatre maybe in 1984,
I am in China, DVD fans' heaven!

The Infidel

Does that answer your question, scott?

UAIOE

Maybe Superman's flux capacitor overloaded, therefore......
.....
uh....
.....
hmmm.....
......
1.21 JIGAWATTS!!!!!


I honestly don't know the answer...i'm not even sure Doc Brown could answer that.

DieselsDen

This ending for SUPERMAN is indeed one of the most confusing and poorly executed for a major motion picture. The grand final was actually borrowed from the original ending to Richard Donner's planned SUPERMAN II. It was appropriated for SUPERMAN because the director and Christopher Reeve felt that after all that post-earthquake action, the story needed some kind of human element. (Lois dying, Superman breaking one of his father's "rules" to save the woman he loves.) Her death is actually a powerful moment, but the movie never explains just what he did or how he did it.

Anyhow, as to the original poster's questions, I just assumed he went far back enough in time to prevent the majority of the damage caused by the missle that hit California, including repairing the fissure which would have swallowed her car up whole. You notice that Jimmy Olsen makes mention of Superman leaving him alone out in the desert, and that Lois had felt the majority of the original quake. I assume that after spinning the world back to it's original revolution, he did all his repairs before returning to Lois.

What also confused me is the fact that when we see first see Superman going back to Lois after turning back the clock, he appears phantom-like (because the director shot him through the glass of the car window). I originally assumed he looked that way because his presence created a time paradox and he was appearing in wraith form. But no, those logic problems aren't even addressed.

I know I've devoted far too many written words to this subject that it probably deserves, but it's late, SUPERMAN is one of my favorite flicks, and no one else has explained the logic of the ending to my satisfaction, either.

FinkPish

So the fact that he reversed time just by somehow reversing the rotation of the earth isn't what troubles you; it's the fact that they don't give logical answers for everything else? If they stopped to logically explain everything while it is happening, or just after, it would completely ruin the film. This is one of the many cases in films where you have to suspend your disbelief and just go with the logic of the movie, instead of trying to relate it to real life somehow.

Cameron

where does he keep Clark's suit while he is in his Superman gear.

FinkPish

You don't want to know.

OldBoy

has it really never been explained anywhere truthfully? by any producer, Donner, etc...

NYSoprano

mikehunt

obviously superhero movies require more suspension of disbelief than most movies, but that spining the planet thing was pushing the limits

chess

This is why Superman doesn't even crack the top 5 superhero movies for me, and I LOVED Superman growing up. Even at 6 years old when I first saw it, I remember thinking "what the hell". And the movie is so damn good up to that point.

Superman 2, however....

wmansir

That always bothered me too, though I have heard people say that he didn't reverse the rotation of the earth, it's just that from the POV of Superman time started to reverse, and so the earth appeared to reverse it's rotation.

But did he stop and go in the other direction to get the earth rotating correctly again? I don't recall, but if so that blows that attempted explanation.

Kal-El

QuiGonJosh

It's a movie with a guy who flies around and who's major downfall is a block of green rock. It's a superhero movie, to bring logic to it would be foolish.

rennervision

I don't mind these types of questions. For those who love to give the stock answer of "It's a movie that defies logic and requires suspension of disbelief to enjoy," I would like to point out that the original poster did not ask:

How can Superman fly?

How does kryptonite kill him?

How did kryptonite travel thousands of light years across space to reach Earth as meteorites in Superman's lifetime?

What he asked was more plot-centered. A "What the heck just happened?" type of question. If there's a chance one of us missed an important clue explaining "what the heck just happened," then it's a fair question to ask even if the central character does happen to wear tights.

I would like to think time traveler Superman stopped the San Andreas missile while his counterpart stopped the one headed to Hackensack, NJ. But as others mentioned, then Lois and Jimmy shouldn't have any memories of what happened before this alternate time was created. It's interesting that despite the fact this is completely unexplainable, a lot of people say it's the best superhero movie ever made. I think that's a testament to how great this film is, because very few movies can get away with a complete nonsensical scene like that and still earn that kind of praise!

Giantrobo

Being able to travel in time at will is lazy writing IMHO. Just look at the Star trek series. To me it works best if the time traveler has no choice in the matter. i.e. getting caught in some kind of wormhole or something.

Superman being able to change time was one of the silliest powers given to him in that movie.

fumanstan

I agree, and one of the big reasons that i didn't think the first Superman was as great as it was made out to be. I have no problems with suspending my belief, but it seems like that's just a cop out in this particular situation, and i'm someone that probably has enjoyed a lot more big dumb action movies then others. I'm not the biggest Superman fan, but i grew up watching the cartoons and reading a few of the comics, and having the ability to seemingly turn back time is just glaringly absurd to me.

Eplicon

Superman did time travel in the comics, too. I didn't have much problem with it in the movie. He did it out of desperation, out of love, out of agony when he remembered how he couldn't save another loved one when he was younger. I would take that power over the ridiculous ones shown in Superman IV (lowering levitated people to the ground or fixing the Great Wall of China by simply staring at it?! )

Superman doing the time reversal was supposed to be in defiance to his father's orders; the original payoff was also supposed to be causing the second missile to meet up with the Phantom Zone prisoners. I wish the Salkinds had more faith in Richard Donner; it would've tied up the first two films more closely.