I don't expect the movies to adhere to reality. I expentd them the adhere to the reality that the movie and the comics created. The things brought up in this thread are the film makers not having things make sense in the universe that they created.

Exactly, and beyond that some things are just stupid no matter how realistic or unrealistic they are.

I have some respect for the Superman movies for what they accomplished in their time but I don't think they hold up especially well in the way an older action movie like Raiders Of th Lost Ark still holds up.

How anyone can still say they are still the best comic book movies ever just blows my mind. Comic movies like Batman Begins and Spider-man 2 have FAR surpassed them IMO.

Admittedly Part 2 has suffered a bit over the years (though not greatly so), but I maintain that SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE is still the bar by which all other comic book movies are measured and come up short, even the admittedly A+ BATMAN BEGINS and SPIDER-MAN 2. It's epic in that old-school LAWRENCE OF ARABIA kind of way and, as a result, just feels so much more important and colossal than anything made since.

In the Silver Age comics, Superman was always getting stupid new powers, or pulling some unexplained power out of his S. It could be the moments in Superman II are just a nod to that, in which case they are ahering to the bizarre reality that Superman comics had.

The fact that both Superman I & II were able to pull off far-fetched plot endings proves how good those movies are.

When Superman turns around the earth in the original, despite it not making much sense, it was the most powerful moment of the film when Lois Lane is lying there dead and Christopher Reeve screams at the top of his lungs.

When he kisses Lois Lane at the end of Superman II, that really didn't bother me too much, cause it wasn't too sappy, and the scene ended up being very funny as Clark played his usual innocent self to make her believe he is just a regular guy.

The great thing about those type of movies from that time is they were still able to have a good sense of drama and not talk down to the viewer, and that is why they hold up well today. These type of movies today are all about action, CG, action, and more CG.

If I'd only seen the first half of Superman, I'd agree but after an epic build up, it really fell apart spectacularly at the end.

Spider-man 1 + 2, Batman Begins, and X-2 are all > Superman: The Movie

Agreed.

Spider-man 2, while enjoyable, basically steals half its plot from Superman II.

As for the original question, in the comic books wasn't Superman a super-genius as well and didn't he have an extensive laboratory in the Fortress of Solitude? Should be pretty simple for him to whip up an "amnesia drug" and slip it to Lois during the kiss.

Hmm - I thought it got the idea entirely from a specific comic book.

Yes, Superman I and II are both overrated and for most people are still seen through the lens of nostalgia. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor? What?

One of the powers that Supes always had in the comics (at least in the mid-to-late 60's) was the ability to invoke "Super-Hypnosis". That's what Supes did to Lois at the end of Superman II. He looked into her eyes and *hypnotized* her into forgetting that he was Superman, and then further disoriented her with the kiss. (He probably wanted to kiss her one more time anyway!)

As to the "time travel" sequence at the end of the original Superman movie:
1. Again, in the comics in the mid-to-late 60's, whenever there was a time travel story involving Supes, what was depicted in the movie was *exactly* the way it was depicted in the comics: It appears-from his perspective-that the earth is spinning backwards. Once he enters that mode, he can go back a year by flying around the earth for 365 revolutions. If he needs to go back 40 years, he can do that as well. (Just fly around the earth 40*365 revolutions!)
2. As you recall in the movie, when he starts to go back in time he remembers Jor-El warning him that he shouldn't interfere with humans on earth in that fashion. That's due to the fact that it *does* create a new time line. Although it's not explicitly shown in the movie, we can assume that when he went back in time he diverted the second missile as soon as it was launched, leaving him plenty of time to undo more of the damage of the first missile and then be in the right place this time to rescue Lois. He didn't want the new time line to deviate too much from the original, so he had to let the missile hit the California fault line as it did originally.


Actually, we're all thinking about this much too much! It's just a popcorn movie for cripes sake!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Breakfast with Girls

Yes, Superman I and II are both overrated and for most people are still seen through the lens of nostalgia. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor? What?

Stop with the nostalgia stuff, if a movie is great 25 years later, that means it held up very well. Nostalgia is something like the Karate Kid, where you kind of wince at certain things you thought were cool as a kid.

Superman I & II, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, The Terminator, and Back to the Future all are classics that have held up well over the years for their genres. I don't compare them to The Godfather, cause they are not dramas per say, but they are much more dramatic then alot of the comic book & fantasy movies out today.

oh u're sooo wrong - those r classics... and why the hell u think they re overrated, nah? Once again - whats wrong with Gene Hackman...?

OK, for the very last time:

SUPERMAN DID NOT MAKE THE EARTH SPIN BACKWARDS.

He was flying backwards through time, using the Earth's gravity as a springboard. The Earth spinning backwards was just a visual representation of time going in reverse.

That's it!

They didn't do a very good job of making that representation clear, then, because I've been under the impression since first seeing the movie in theaters until this thread that Superman made the Earth spin backwards, therefore, reversing time.

It never occurred to me that he had a time travelling power (and one that required flying counter-rotationally around the world really fast).

Exactly. Plus he went back around the earth to get it started up again. Spinning the earth backards was definately a representation of time going backward, not just him time travelling. If he saved Lois in the second attempt that would have to mean New Jersey is toast in the new reality.

You would think the big tip-off would be Jor-El's stern warning, right before he travels back in time, that he is "forbidden to interfere in human history".

Nope. He went back in time, period. The Superman from a few hours ago (let's call him Superman-1) was out saving New Jersey. The Superman who flew back in time (Superman-2) saved Lois.

The "starting the Earth up again" bit, I always assumed that he went too far backwards and had to scoot forward a bit. You know, like a cosmic version of the three point turn?

I agree. The whole "losing powers" issue, the romance and disclosure of his identity, the giving up of his superhero status, and so many other elements remind of SUPERMAN II.

Likewise, the rescue of Mary Jane off the building looks and feels like the helicopter rescue of SUPERMAN. Even the comments made after the rescue are similar ("who are you?"). As well-received as SPIDER-MAN is, the films owe a debt to SUPERMAN. (Even Sam Raimi admits his influence in several interviews.)

Even though I know most people hate Superman IV with a passion, one of my favorite moments of that one is when, after Lois and Supes go around flying again, she tells him, "I remember everything." Which I always took as her making the personal decision to just pretend not to remember all this time just so Kal won't have to think about her jealousy of the world. So there was actually no "SuperKiss".

I prefer to think of it as there was actually no SUPERMAN IV.

SUPERMAN IV is just a work in progress. The final cut will be better.

That wouldn't be a tip-off. We're talking about the method in which he travels back in time. Does he reverse the rotation of the Earth in order to go back in time, or does the reverse rotation of the Earth merely represent his going back in time? That's the question. Either way, he's travelling back in time. I don't know how Jor-El's stern warning would tip off what method Superman's is using to turn back time from his perspective.

Sure, if you have to get it to fit your theory, that would have to be what happens.

But the majority of people who see that scene as it is in the movie is probably going to think he turned back time by reversing the rotation of the Earth and had to get time going back forward by turning the rotation back the right way.

At the very least, the way it is presented in the movie is poorly executed if so many people can misunderstand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Millheiser

OK, for the very last time:

SUPERMAN DID NOT MAKE THE EARTH SPIN BACKWARDS.

He was flying backwards through time, using the Earth's gravity as a springboard. The Earth spinning backwards was just a visual representation of time going in reverse.

That's it!

I think Back to the Future is the most consistent of travelling back in time, cause Marty actually sees himself who was already there in 1955 in Part 2.

So if Superman travels back in time, and even though he can save Lois Lane, why doesn't the destruction continue like time was starting again? Does Superman now have the power to stop the whole destruction or just go back in time to save Lois Lane?