![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I'm thinking of deleting a lot of the foreign release date stuff as it is erroneous and does not take a very important event into mind: the World Cup. Not only was the release of POTC delayed in foreign territories (at least Europe and the Middle East) in contrast to the simultaneous release date claim in the article, but the reason both POTC and SR were delayed was because of the World Cup. In the US, few people watch it, but seeing as many people do in the rest of the world, if a film was released on the 28th of June few people would turn up. The idea that there would be a larger box office gross for SR if it was released then is ludicrous.
I'll wait for comment on this discussion before I deleted anything.
What is the point of having like eight different release dates? I think since it is an American film, that date should be listed. By the way I'm not from the US, but I don't see the value of having numerous international releases. The infobox is already very long, and cuts straight through the plot. The IMDb has a listing of all releases, a link to that should be enough. Not to mention, (estimating) it will be released in over 60 countries, so then, why do the ones currently listed have more important than the other 50 that are not currently listed. Its just not practical, it should be the *main* release date, which, what I would think, is North Amercia... Blahs34 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Did anybody recognize who drew the flashes of Superman inside the DC logo at the very beginning of the film? Was one of the Jim Lee, or was there maybe a panel from Birthright? CmdrClow 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The fighters escorting the shuttle was the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, since it was a USAF mission. The appearance and design of the planes made it look like the F-35A model. The current official designation of the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter. The A model is for the Air Force, the B model for the USN, and the C model for the USMC. As the film mentions in the dialogue, the airliner that the shuttle is on is a Boeing 777.-- TrevelyanL85A2 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
.............and? I have great experience with walking, yet the logic of the "Moonwalk" mystifies me. Simply because I am able to walk does not give me mastery over all methods of "walking". Apply basic logic, friend. Thanks, Aaron 5 July 2006
67.160.147.28 apparently wants to say the following about costume changes:
I feel it's much more appropriate to say this on the discussion page rather than in the article body. By all means, 67.160.147.28, edit the article, but don't just post something like that at the bottom of a section. Thanks! -- HughL talk?/ contribs • 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Since a couple people have an issue with the inconsistency portion of the trivia section, this is where they should talk about it. Bignole 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This was "talked" about before, I just wanted everybody to see what was talked about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_Returns/Archive_1#Trivia:_Effects_of_Kryptonite -- Derenberg 6 July 2006
Suggested:
Go for broke Bignole, but may I add, if the problem is that this "inconsistency" is in the trivia section, you could make an error section all on its own (because that whole scene was littered with them), I didn't do such when I added it because I thought such would tick off the fanb... nevermind, did so anyway. Zero X Marquis 18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that there are no established rules about the exact effects of Kryptonite brought up in the film. It's anybody's guess exactly why Superman was able to lift the landmass despite having Kryptonite right in his face. But that he might've spent a fair amount of time being recharged in the sun and only had tiny shards of Kryptonite still in him can be plausible explanation for why he was able to do it. It is certainly a possibility that that is the explanation for it. Dominicus Cerberus 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you're saying. My mistake. But if we're going to explain it as that kryptonite must work differently in this film than in the other films and media, then I don't see why there has to be any inconsistency. Dominicus Cerberus 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I was told by friends that apparently instead of saying "...truth, justice, and the American way..." Superman now says "...truth, justice, and all that stuff...", presumably so that the movie would appeal more to international audiences. I have yet to see the movie, but this seems like something worth noting in the trivia or something like that.
Nope, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" was never mentioned in the movie. It wasn't Superman that said it, it was Perry White during a briefing of his reporters asking if Superman still stood for "truth, justice..all that stuff." Odin's Beard 01:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
First message was mine. Sorry for not timestamping it. Anyways, should this be mentioned? I havn't seen the movie so I'm not sure how much an impact it has had on people, if any. Vjasper 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the plot summary once again being relentlessly expanded with needless detail? At one point, it was down to a concise few paragraphs (see X-Men: The Last Stand for arguably the ideal length). I don't wish to spoil the film for myself, as I haven't yet seen it, and therefore don't want to edit this at the moment. Perhaps somebody could begin some pruning? Chris 42 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Vast improvement. :-) Chris 42 22:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I added parts in both the Superman 2 and Superman Returns relation part as well as an explanation in the Trivia section. I'm surprised that people didn't include (as spoken of by Lois Lane early on in the film), that Superman gets his powers from the Sun. In Superman 2, he used red sun radiation in order to be purged of his powers. In Superman Returns he uses the Earth's yellow sun to give him a power boost. The solar aspect of Superman is commonly missed by people who don't read the comic books, but it was talked about by Lois in the film, so I felt it important. ( Rob Brandon 07:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC))
Sure the yellow sun can prevent the effects of kryptonite. Not only can the effects of a certain kryptonite rock on a certain superpowered kryptonian decrease over time, but exposure to the sun's rays did make Superman immune to kryptonite in an elseworld storyline.
This has been bothering me...
When Lex and Kitty return to the deceased old lady's house, Kitty says, "Weren't there two of those?" and it shows one of the two dogs, with fur around it, chewing on something that looks like a bone. Is there any explaination for this? I have three thoughts on how this played out...
-- Gaming King 07:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are over-intellectualizing what was just a crass joke: the remaining dog appeared to chewing on the now-deceased dog's bone. It seems as if the joke is that the surviving dog cannibalized the other one.
Not really sure how that joke had a place in the movie; to be honest, I am surprised it wasn't forgotten on the editing-room floor. It wasn't particularly funny or clever. Just weird. Thanks, Aaron. 12, July 2005.
A sentence in the plot section of this article (as of 18:10, 24 July 2006) says, "It is implied that they might eat Kitty's pekingese." If I'm not mistaken, the dog breed is Pomeranian, not Pekingese. Check Wikipedia for pictures and you'll see.
--
Trevz
21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The exact effects of kryptonite on Superman have never been set in stone. Just like the exact extent of his powers, the exact effect of kryptonite changes with every writer that creates a story for Superman. When Superman was first created, he had limited power and durability and couldn't even fly. His powers evolved over the years in order to make the character and his exploits more spectacular. The same holds true to the effects of kryptonite. Kryptonite was first introduced in a story by Jerry Siegel in 1940. It was called K-Metal, and was able to drain Superman's powers and give humans superhuman abilities. However, the story was never published and K-Metal didn't become part of the Superman universe. It was reintroduced in 1943 as "Kryptonite" for the Superman radio show, for the sole purpose of allowing the voice actor for Superman to take time off from the show. After that, kryptonite became part of the Superman universe, yet its exact effects were never really established. Its main effect was the depowering of Superman and death by prolonged exposure. The fact that it never had any other specific effects besides this one allowed future writes to make their own rules to create their own stories. At one point during the Superboy comic series, Superboy even became immune to certain pieces of kryptonite due to repeated, non-lethal exposure. After years of being completely safe to humans, it was revealed not too long ago that it caused cancer in humans exposed to it for long periods of time. Now, we all know that one of the main sources of Superman's powers is the yellow sun. Many storyline's describe this as a sort of photosynthesis-like absorbsion, granting Superman's advanced alien body great strength. It has also been stated that the radiation emitted from pieces of kryptonite halt and even reverse this process, obviously in a very painful way. So, in theory, since evidence has never been presented otherwise, the effects of a very small piece of kryptonite could be somewhat negated by enough exposure to the sun. Now think for a minute. Superman has been exposed to pieces of kryptonite that all came from the same meteor, the meteor that landed in Addis Ababa. So in keeping with the continuity established in the Superboy comic, Superman could be becoming immune to that certain rock's effects. That would explain why the effects of kryptonite on Superman are different in Superman Returns than the other movies. Now, why would Superman be susceptible to the kryptonite to the point of not being able to fight off Luthor and his henchmen at one point, yet later able to carry an entire island of kryptonite with a small piece in his back just a little later? Take this into consideration. Examine what has been stated about the effects of the sun and the effects of kryptonite on Superman's body. Sources have stated the sun grants him power while kryptonite drains that power given by the sun. So in theory, the extent of the kryptonite's effect on Superman would be directly related to Superman's exposure to the sun. When Superman first arrives on the island, the clouds are blocking out the sun. Since Superman isn't able to absorb the sun's rays, the kryptonite has a much more debilitating effect on him. Also take into consideration. If you watched the special "The Science of Superman", you would have seen modern day science applied to many aspects of Superman's abilities. There was a segment on the effects of kryptonite, and it was stated that kryptonite to Superman would be like uranium or plutonium to us. A little bit of radiation isn't harmful, yet alot is deadly. Applying this logic, we can say that a small piece of kryptonite wouldn't have as much of an effect on Superman as a much greater amount. So if Superman was exposed to a very small piece of kryptonite, as in the one embedded in his back, it wouldn't have much of an effect on him. This would allow him to fly off above the clouds and into the sunlight. The sun could then over power the effect of the kryptonite, since nowhere has it been established that it couldn't, in the movie's continuity or otherwise, allowing Superman to "recharge" while still exposed to a small concentration of kryptonite. Now, it has already been established in the story's continuity that the island isn't that harmful to Superman unless the veins of true kryptonite are exposed. By the time he is exposed to the true kryptonite, he is already exposed to the sunlight, which wouldn't make the feat nearly as difficult. With the island off of the earth, the clouds disappear, allowing Superman to be exposed to direct sunlight all the way down until he hits the ground. Now, you can find as many arguments to this as you like, however, there is still one piece of evidence that overwhelms any argument that you or I can make. This is the fact that several aspects of the Superman universe have been left open to interpretation, and therefore, revision. Since the exact effects of kryptonite have never truly been established, they will always be subject to change, just like the Man of Steel himself. Writers have been recreating the Superman universe since before World War II. No matter how concrete we think the "rules" of Superman are, they can be changed in the blink of an eye without any second thought, we just need to learn to roll with the punches. -Freddie1988 3:19 9 July 2006
You say that he loses his powers while the shard was in his back, and didn't get them back until it was taken out. This is not so. Kryptonite doesn't strip him of his powers, the fact he has trouble using his powers is due to the radiation's debilitating effect. It is never said that he loses the powers. He loses consciousness because he overexerted himself and doing so while being exposed to kryptonite, which brings me to another point. I never said that the sun negates the effects of kryptonite. I merely stated that due to the size of the shard in his back, the sun was able to overcome the effects for a short while. The kryptonite has an overall draining effect on Superman's powers, and the sun was able to regenerate enough power to allow him to lift the island. Also, the fact that kryptonite's main effect is weakening Superman doesn't prove at all that any size piece of kryptonite will have the same effect as another of a different size. Logically, a smaller concentration would a lesser effect, considering that kryptonite's effect is caused by radioactivity. If you notice, all exposure to kryptonite he experiences in the comics and movies involve pieces of kryptonite that are much larger than the tiny piece that remained lodged in his back. I also made the point that Superboy became immune to illustrate the fact that it has been established in an offical Superman continuity that he can overcome the effects of kryptonite, and I never said that he was immune in the movie, I said that due to previous exposure to pieces of the same rock, he could have developed a tolerance to a certain degree, yet the overall prolonged exposure he suffered from in the movie(since the last chunk of the movie has him exposed for a very long time) still caused him to lose his powers, since he isn't totally immune. Now, to address the issue of Superman Returns' continuity, the fact is that it uses Superman I and II as a backstory, meaning that the events of I and II set the stage for Returns, yet isn't a strict history. In the first movie, Jor-El was able to actively interact with Kal-El, yet he is just the equivelant of a talking encyclopedia to Luthor. Also, just because I and II serve as a backdrop for Returns, that doesn't mean that Returns can't incorporate ideas from other continuities. The series Smallville has created its own distinct continuity, yet uses elements from numerous other versions of Superman stories, such as Lex and Clark knowing each other before adulthood. Even the movies I and II used elements from different stories. The "Super Kiss" was an abandoned superpower that Superman once possessed yet eventually fell out of the general continuity. Also, Returns makes its own very bold continuity in the fact that Superman and Lois had a son. It has never ever been established that Superman could reproduce with a human due to his alien physiology. It has always remained in speculation. And nobody ever said that the suit can't come off with his powers fully intact. So, not only have you taken most of what I have theorized out of context, you have also missed my main point. Writers can change whatever they want about Superman. If they want to make him all-powerful and immune to kryptonite tomorrow, they can. Just read the article on the character Superman.The section on character history will put it as bluntly as it can be put.
So, let's recap:
1) He isn't immune in the movie, yet a SLIGHTLY developed resistance is a very strong possiblity 2) It has never been stated that kryptonite has the same effect no matter what the size, and it stands to reason that a smaller piece would have less of an effect. 3) The sun can't negate kryptonite's effects, yet it could possibly overcome them to a certain degree and there isn't anything that says otherwise 4) I and II's relationship to Returns set the tone for Returns, they don't dictate the story 5) The writers can make whatever changes they want 6) Prove the suit thing -Freddie1988 4:47 9 July 2006
When he was on the island, he was weakened by the Kryptonite. But before he lifted the island, he supercharged his cells with solar energy, which allowed him to lift it and probably make his powers drain slower.
I like this guy. -Freddie1988 7:06 9 July 2006
You've just help prove my point. An inconsistency isn't born out of lack of evidence. It occurs when something happens that doesn't agree with the evidence shown. The fact that there is no explanation for what happens and the fact all of the events present fall in line with each other and the story proves that there isn't any inconsistency, and if there is, you can't prove it until you recieve an explanation for what you've seen. The fact that you claim these events are left ambiguous means that you can't possibly claim there are inconsistencies of any kind. The only inconsistencies you have uncovered don't lie solely within the movie, they are between the movie and the whole Superman franchise. Superman Returns takes a classic history of the character and creates its own continuity. Also, In Look! Up in the Sky!, Singer is described as not being a big fan of comic books, yet as having a vision and compassion for the characters and stories that stem from them. It was the parallels between Superman and Singer that drew him towards the character, yet he still wasn't a fan of comics. He didn't become familiar with other comic book characters until he signed on to film X-Men. He initially turned down the role because he didn't care for comic book characters and didn't even know anything about the X-Men. Check Singer's entry on wikipedia if you don't believe me. -Freddie1988 9:30 9 July 2006
This is the most important thing Freddie said:
Also, I have never understood why anyone would get so picky and scientific about "continuity" errors or anyt other type of errors in fictional movies... especially in the case of a movie like this, where we are talking about a man that can fly, shoot laser beams out of his eyes, take unlimited bullets, and turn the world backwards. -- Renesis13 02:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You're completely right. This whole thing is stupid. I just want to have my thoughts heard. - Freddie1988 9:36 9 July 2006
The kryptonite island has the same effects both visits. At first, he seems relatively unaffected, yet he is obviously losing power. Then the kryptonite veins are exposed, and coupled with prolonged exposure to the island, he suffers a massive drop in power. His ability to lift the island while having been beaten, stabbed with kryptonite and still having a piece in him, and prolonged exposure to kryptonite is "explained" by his little trip above the clouds. It is obvious by the scene that he is recieving a solar supercharge. Whether or not the Superman of the comics or t.v. show can do this doesn't matter, the director is showing that his Superman can and it is working to great effect. According to the director, that energy boost was enough to enable him to lift the island and throw it into space before passing out from the strain. That is his continuity. He seems fine when he first lands, yet as demonstrated by Luthor, has obviously been depowered. He hits the ground, breaks the rock, and exposes green veins of kryptonite. He loses more power. He then suffers a beating from Luthor, yet has strength enough to resist. Then the thugs step in, and by now he has suffered from massive kryptonite exposure, but also a massive beating. He recieves an even bigger thumping, then is stabbed with a jagged piece of pure green kryptonite. The whole ordeal has left him weak and he collapses. On the plane, he is able to recover from exposure to the island and has most of the shard removed. This gives him enough energy to fly into the sky and recieves a major solar recharge. With his powers restored, he flies down to earth and lifts the island, and the power degeneration begins once again, at the same rate as the first visit, just instead of a beating, he is lifting an island. He gets it into space, and loses consciousness from the effort spent and the power lost. He falls to earth not completely drained of power, and the suit thing is a major inconsistency that had to be made in order to make the hospital scene work. The effects of the kryptonite are degenerative. They are not instantaneous. If they were, he would have realized it when he landed on the island. -Freddie1988 10:42 9 July 2006
If I am saying something contradictory, that is not my intent. My last comment is they way I am meaning what I am saying. Now, the beatings aren't in there to show he is losing power, because they aren't causing him to lose his superpowers any faster or slower. They are, however, causing him a great deal of pain and are weakening his body and sapping his energy, to what extent is unknown. Also, the fact that he doesn't seem to be losing any power on the way up with the island could just be a mistake on the actor's part. I mean, when he was trying to straighten the plane's fall earlier in the movie, he didn't look like he was working hard, but you could tell he was by rest of the scene that it was pretty difficult (i.e. accidentally breaking the wing). The way the scene is shot shows how hard it is for Superman. First, we all recieve a sense of how monumental the task is when we see Superman emerge out of the water with the island on top of him. Coupled with the fact that we know the island is deadly to him and the fact that it is really big, we are suddenly hit with the feeling, "Wow. Just how is he able to do that?" Then, as his ascent is a little more than halfway done, the green kryptonite vein is exposed right in his face, and no matter what his reaction is, we know that things just got alot harder for him. Then he releases it into space. Now, we have seen in previous shots that when the kryptonite exposure has ended he starts to regain his powers. We also know that the little shard in his back doesn't hinder this much, since he was able to recover and then fly away before, although, how much it actually hinders it is unknown. This helps explain why he was able to survive re-entry and the impact. The hospital scene where they remove the shard and then try to give him the shot can be considered an inconsistency, but you must also think that it could have just been percieved that way. -Freddie1988 11:19 9 July 2006
The reference to the hospital scene was merely to relate the fact that inconsistencies, unless completely obvious to everyone, can occur due to the viewer's point-of-view. You state that the shard was removed and then he regained his powers due to the events that take place in the scene, yet another person can view these events as purely conicidental, and therefore giving credit to the possibility of him having his powers beforehand. I wasn't admitting an incosistency, just the possibility of one existing. Also, the mention of the actor's error portraying Superman's difficulty performing certain feats wasn't to insinuate errors in the writing or directing, but in the abilities of the actor himself. Routh has recieved a few negative reviews of his portrayal, most notably Roger Ebert, who stated that he lacked charisma as Superman and his performance was sub-par. Routh did act like he was actually carrying something heavy, yet when the time came to act like he was trying even harder came, he could have just fallen short performance-wise. The errors don't neccesarily lie in the movie, just the way we percieve the events that take place therein. - Freddie1988 12:36 10 July 2006
Oy, what a megillah! Let me just say that I found the effects vs. non-effects of Kryptonite in this film rather confusing. I don't pretend to be an expert on Kryptonite, but there was some 'splainin' to do that wasn't done. However, the bit in 1978 about turning back time still baffles people, so what's new? And as others have said before, if you accept the absurd notion that a man can fly, forget about any other kind of logic. Wahkeenah 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Superman's suit wasn't ripped off by the doctors, it was pulled down. So the fact that Superman lost his powers outright due to kryptonite exposure is discredited by this, and also due to the fact that kryptonite doesn't strip him of his powers.
I have been thinking about the controversial "inconsistency" section in the trivia, and have decided to remove it on the grounds that no matter how much any of us can argue it, it is not verifiable. Wikipedia:Verfiability / Verifiability, not truth explains quite clearly that even if something might be completely true, it needs to be verifiable through a third party.
I also think that the section has problems with pretty much every other Wikipedia Policy, such as Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in this quote by Jimbo Wales under the section "Undue weight":
If anyone has any further problems with this "inconsistency" not being mentioned, then we need to take a poll to see if there is consensus that the section is in conformity with these policies—not whether or not it is "right" according to anyone's opinion. -- Renesis13 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles aren't too subjective, they are almost entirely subjective. The first article was created stating that an inconsistency existed. Then, as the article gained new posts from other users that had different opinions over the matter, it became less fact and more speculation. In order to defend your claim, you must present evidence that relies not only on fact, but also your personal bias. Didn't anyone notice the second article was initially two people arguing a point with their own view on the matter? The fact is that no matter how anyone of us thinks we are right, we are never really going to know until someone who was actually ivolved with the making of the movie comes forward and sets us straight. Now, I haven't got any problems with these articles being on this page, even though they do violate some of wikipedia's rules. However, I also see them as somewhat neccesary. Since this is an encyclopedia where people with all sorts of different opinions and ideas are putting their work together to create one unified thing, then we should be able to lay out our opinions in an effort to sort through them and reach a general consensus. However, it seems that this issue is never going to be resolved, so I say that the vote goes through and what ever happens happens. -Freddie1988 9:22 10 July 2006
Section under dispute:
Don't bother. Binole, you're fighting a lost cause. I'm going to say this: This right here is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. The fact is, not everything is verifiable in how Wikipedia asks. If I wanted to, I could go remove practically 3/4 of the Superman article as its based on what people saw while watching the film, and not what is explictly stated in some respectable form. Fanboys, yes, fanboys need to look at things objectibly, see that while the movie was good, that sequence was horribly done (whether by editting or whatever) and created an inconsistency, using logic alone and you can figure that out. Whether you realize it or not, those of you lobbying for its removal are the ones trying to get a POV in; this movie is perfect. As I was the one who originally posted the "inconsistency" I move to have it removed because well, its really sad how some of you are acting. Bignole, my respect is given to you fighting the good fight.
Zero X Marquis
23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/06/30/superman-returns-plot-holes-puzzles-and-inconsistencies/ But, I'll put your name where you asked. Bignole
The first part says enough. It shouldn't be further explained/debated in the trivia section, but instead maybe in its own section/article, if at all. Dominicus Cerberus 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sooner or later more of these are going to pop up, and when and if this section gets created, make sure to add Wtatour's: "Newspaper dates indicate that Superman Returns takes place in 2006. This would mean that Superman II takes place in 2001." If this movie does take place in 2006, and it occurs five years after Superman II, then it entails that Superman II took place in 2001. Obviously it doesn't though, so this is another inconsistency. Zero X Marquis 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The "goal" is simple: to have a better understanding of the movie. Their is an error, and it should be documented just as the movie's successes are. A non-biased point of view, so to speak. I'm not saying that people should go looking for them, but if blatent issues pop up, they should be noted. It makes a difference, in this point, it gives an example to why this is not a direct sequel. Zero X Marquis 22:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need all the posters? In total there are three film posters, and then the cover of the X-Box game. I think the allocation of fair-use could be put to better use, rather than four posters/covers...
This section needs to be cleaned up a little. A lot of these are actual connections, but some are similarities based on the Superman mythos. Lois Lane's pulitzer has more to do with the fact that she's a journalist than a connection between the movies. Ben Hubbard's appearance is hardly a connection between the movies. Especially if he also appeared in the comics. And that last item "This is a clear reference to a bird i.e. a Lark." (aside from being completely rediculous) doesn't even mention the previous movies.-- CPitt76 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Superman leaving for 5 years" storyline, while intended to have followed the events in Superman II, actually exists entirely in Superman Returns. He didn't actually leave until after Superman II, correct? -- Renesis13 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I made some edits regarding this section but didn't realize I was anonymous until hitting submit. Found out today they've been reverted with the comment that it's not obvious who Jason's father is. How could this movie have made it more obvious? Is there anyone out there that doubts that Superman is the father? Care to explain the (il)logic? What is the point of keeping this ambiguous in the article? Jeff schiller 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In the Sub-plot section, I'm not sure it's correct to say that there was an implied sexual encounter between Lois and Clark in Superman II. Afer all, they're laying naked in bed together. True, there is no explicit lovemaking shown, but what would you expect of a PG-rated film? - Loadmaster 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It would not be an NOR violation to say that Superman is the kid's father, because mainstream reviews also say this. There was one review I read which based its entire review around the issue of how this film shows Superman as a father. I would suspect that we could find remarks from the filmmakers talking about this as well - perhaps we'll have to wait for the DVD. This is silliness. Just because you have to infer something doesn't mean it's "ambiguous." john k 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not fully spelled out that Lois and Kal-El had a sexual encounter, and it's not fully spelled out that they had a love-child, but it's still as plain as the daylight reflecting off Lex Luthor's scalp. 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It has only made 164,000,000 million domestically, is this considered a flop?
I don't really know if the film can be called an overall flop because the studio has made back the money it cost to make the film and has some profit to boot. However, what profit the film has made has been from combining the domestic and international sales. I don't believe the movie will gross $200 million in domestic sales. It'll get close, maybe 185 or 190, but it's going to be considerably less than what the studio hoped for. The film will probably do well when released on DVD, it might make half, maybe a little more than half, of what it's ultimate domestic box office total will be, but I wouldn't expect record setting DVD sales. It might not be a total flop, but it brings to question about doing a sequel. With the numbers this film has generated, there's a good chance studio execs would be afraid to be a bit more ambitious with a sequel. Odin's Beard 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole question of Jason's father also leads to an inconsistency with
Superman II. In the previous film, Lois figures out that Clark is Superman and they become romantically involved, where she presumably gets pregnant (or not). At the end of II, though, Clark kisses her and she forgets everything. In the new film, we find out that she then meets Richard White and Jason is born (presumably timed close enough so that Richard might not know he is not Jason's biological father). Then Superman returns and Lois is mad at him for leaving, obviously remembering their romantic involvement. So how could she remember her involvement with Superman, and possibly the fact that Superman/Clark fathered her child, but not remember that Clark is Superman?
-
Loadmaster
21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
After getting thrown and bashed around quite a bit in the airplane disaster, why does Lois not have a few bruises and walk with a limp for a while? Probably because it's a comic book movie, right? Anyone remember Otis's black eye in Superman I? - Loadmaster
What about Louis winning a Pulitzer Prize, yet not knowing how many 'f's in catastrophic? pretty inconsistant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.49.125 ( talk • contribs) .
Then there is the question of what happened to the six remaining crystals. Are they still on the artificial island that Superman pushed into space? Will we see him use those crystals in the next film? - Loadmaster 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And speaking of crystals, what ever happened to the special green one? The first two films appeared to establish that the clear crystals were only for data storage, while the green crystal was the generating crystal. What gives? - Loadmaster 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm, sorry to say guys but why are you argueing so much, its just a movie. It doesnt need to absolutely need to make true factual sense, thats why they make movies,for us to be released from everyday reality.
"In one of the film's final scenes, Superman recovers and visits the sleeping Jason in his bedroom. Superman then recites the words his own father said to him when he was an infant leaving Krypton. Although Superman's words indicate that he believes Jason to be his son, the film does not explicitly confirm that he is Superman's son." Why do you all have such a problem with this? What part of it is untrue? Were you watching a different film than I was, or what? Wahkeenah 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There you go. While you're in a deleting mood...
*"...though Jason is presented initially as Richard and Lois' son..." - I've only seen it once, so my memory might be faulty, but did they explicitly say, anytime, that Lois' financee was Jason's father? *"...during the period of the film when Clark was deprived of his super powers due to over-exposure to artificial red sunlight. It is surmised that although he was essentially human at this time, his Kryptonian physiology would remain unchanged, allowing him to pass these traits to his offspring." - I don't recall any of this being actually said in any of the films.
Wahkeenah 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the novelization by Marv Woflman hoping it would expand on certain plot points (and since it was in the bargain bin). It includes quite a lot of exposition about how his parents sent him away as a child and the possibility that they could have been wrong about the destruction of Krypton or perhaps that some may have survived. It talks about the history and architecture/landscape of Krypton which is then reiterated when superman sees Krypton, particular not is made of a place called "the Valley of the Elders". Skipping ahead for a moment a lot of this detail comes up again as the crystal continent Luthor creates is said to look just like the Fortress of Solitude and the Valley of Elders. It is made clear that Luthor and a scientist in his group planted information about Krypton in the newspapers to trick Superman into leaving, hoping/believing it would kill him (they somehow knew planet having turned to poisonous Kryptonite I think, but it was a bit vague).
The robbery with the huge machine gun was planned anonymously by Lex Luthor and given to a gang of criminals, who stuck around and fired the gun rather than escaping immediately in the helicopter because they had followed the plan and it had worked so well up to that point. It was also scheduled at the same time as Kitty losing control of her car to provide further distraction from the museum robbery. I'm not sure the film made the Luthor connection to this robbery or that all three happened at the same time all that clear. A brief mention is made about Lex's grandfather Alex building up Lexcorp grabbing the best scientists of the Third Reich only to have his father who was ambitious enough but not smart enough (like Luthor) bring the company to bankruptcy leaving only a few million to get Lex started.
The novelization has both Richard and Jason note that Clark "looks a bit like" ... before they are cut off but I think that happens in the film too. Clark notes that Richard looks a bit like Superman, which I don't think was mentioned in the film, it isn't spoken dialog in the book either. The parentage of Jason is left much more vague and no mention is made about Jason reacting to the Kryptonite and I think the scene where he plays piano on the yacht is different but I'd have to watch the film again. When he is in hospital Lois does tell superman she has something she needs to tell him but I don't think she actually whispers anything in his ear. When Superman throws the Kryptonite continent into space it is said to stop between Mars and Jupiter and keep growing to form a new planet, which (in a scene before she goes to the hospital) the daily planet dubs "New Krypton" at the suggestion of Lois. I'm pretty sure this wasn't mentioned in the film. (I see New Krypton is mentioned in relation to the mooted sequel.)
If someone is interested in incorporating some or any of this into a short Novelization section in the article and would like me to double check anything and provide specific page references please let me know. (This isn't an indefinite offer, but for the month of November at least.) -- Horkana ( talk) 18:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Having just seen the movie, I spotted a possible inaccuracy in the plot, where it states: "With Superman distracted by a bank robbery, Luthor steals Kryptonite from the Metropolis Museum of Natural History"
At least in the Italian version I have seen, Superman is distracted by Kitty, Lutor's henchwoman, driving an out-of-control car in the middle of Metropolis, not by a bank robbery. After being rescued, Kitty even lures Superman into bringing her to the hospital and tries to seduce him in order to give more time to Lutor to steal the Kryptonite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmos1972 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's the scene when the robbers go to the roof of the bank and turn on the chain gun and Superman gets shot in the eye. He was distracted by a few things that night. 129.139.1.68 ( talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, "Seeing the effect of a Kryptonite sample on Jason..." What effects? The Kryptonite didn't affect Jason. ~~ —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.139.1.68 (
talk)
15:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Any comments on this? If not, I say remove it. 129.139.1.68 ( talk) 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Think this new article which Bryan Singer tell his theory as to why the film wasn't a success will help out some. Sarujo ( talk) 06:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a baseball in the portrait of the two dogs that has a vague conection to the scene where Clark throws a basesball for his own dog. Clark throws the ball too far most likely due to being away from the yellow sun of the Solar System for five years and crashing at night. The sun has not risen and is still below the horizon, yet Clark underestimates his recovery time due to the yellow sun's energy, even on the night-time side.
Another connection is during Luther's reference to Prometheus, when he mentions the value of sharp objects in prison. Later, when the kryptonite is being shaped in to an implosion tamper for the crystal, there is a left over sharp shard of kryptonite which Luther pockets, much in the fashion of shop workers inside a prison. Ncsr11 ( talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1.) How did Superman know Jason was his son? 2.) How did Luthor grow so much landmass from such few crystals? 3.) How did Lois Lane, getting directions from the energy company(or some other source about the blackout) end up getting into Luthor's yacht? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 ( talk) 06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If someone is capable of pinpointing the exact location of the Daily Planet Building, it might be helpful. My own calculations veiwing towards the downtown in a south-southwest direction is somewhere near West Broadway and Duane. Or, it could be the Empire Building just north of the Tweed Building. Ncsr11 ( talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Re "glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman, and was probably cast in the role only because he physically resembles Christopher Reeve. Proof of this is the fact that Routh hardly speaks when donning the costume." This statement is attributed to Roger Ebert, but the reference cited does not have this statement, nor anything remotely close. In fact, the statement, "Proof of this is the fact that Routh hardly speaks when donning the costume," doesn't even make sense. Googling the statement yields only a few sites with duplicates of this article.
Please delete that statement, or find proof that Ebert wrote this. 184.147.123.32 ( talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
In regards to my edit today removing the quote "a neglected gem in the comic book movie genre", that was a quote that i believe was originally in the Indiawire article's picture caption, but was removed in a later edit of said article. Evidence of this can be seen here: www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/comicscontinuum/news/?a=52871
The additional changes were made for grammatical reasons and mostly use the language spoken in the video essay or the accompanying review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.171.116 ( talk) 05:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that Tristan Lake Leabu is credited in the film as "Jason White", not "Jason Kent". The actor should be credited with the name he has in the film. His biological father in the film has no bearing on his credited name, and Wikipedia should respect that. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
There have been a recent spate of unsourced changes to the budget as in this edit. The budget section clearly explains the source of these figures and provides references, and explains that the larger figure $263 million) incorporates development costs from earlier aborted projects; as such these are are not actual part of the production cost of this film. If any editors have further information in relation to these figures then please discuss it here rather than just changing the figures to unsourced amounts. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a Turkish knock off of Superman called Superman Returns. There should be mention of that. 161.185.160.23 ( talk) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://m.cinemascore.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1226171983819When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@ AlistairMcMillan: I notice you have tagged the marketing figures in the article. Hopefully I can clear this up for you. The $100 million figure given for global marketing is given in the accompanying source (Jeff Jensen (2006-06-23). "Greatest American Hero?"). The Jensen source is a five-page article and the figure in question is given on page 5.
As for the $45.5 million figure, this is almost certainly the "domestic" marketing figure i.e. the figure for the US marketing. According to the MPAA the average cost of marketing a film in the US in 2006 was $34.5 million (see 2007 Market Statistics.pdf, page 7). Unfortunately, the Guardian source does not clarify this, but there is no way this figure is for global marketing. For example, according to George Lucas's Blockbusting (Alex Ben Block) the domestic marketing costs for Shrek, Gladiator, Spiderman 2, War of the Worlds and The Perfect Storm (all big summer releases between 2000 and 2005) were $68.1 million, $52.5 million, $57.5 million, $58.2 million and $50.7 million respectively (page 840). Even though The Guardian does not clarify the nature of the marketing figure it is almost certainly not a global figure going by the costs of the time. Global marketing is roughly twice that of domestic marketing so the figures are consistent IMO. Betty Logan ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
ChristianJosephAllbee, regarding this and this, what accuracy are you referring to? There has been back and forth at this article before regarding "homage" and "sequel." That is why someone added references for that.
Betty Logan didn't you have disagreement over this before? Or do you have any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Superman Returns has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under [CAST] Section: Please add: "Brandon also had to wear blue-coloured contact lenses, as his natural eye color is brown." Thyon ( talk) 09:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I'm thinking of deleting a lot of the foreign release date stuff as it is erroneous and does not take a very important event into mind: the World Cup. Not only was the release of POTC delayed in foreign territories (at least Europe and the Middle East) in contrast to the simultaneous release date claim in the article, but the reason both POTC and SR were delayed was because of the World Cup. In the US, few people watch it, but seeing as many people do in the rest of the world, if a film was released on the 28th of June few people would turn up. The idea that there would be a larger box office gross for SR if it was released then is ludicrous.
I'll wait for comment on this discussion before I deleted anything.
What is the point of having like eight different release dates? I think since it is an American film, that date should be listed. By the way I'm not from the US, but I don't see the value of having numerous international releases. The infobox is already very long, and cuts straight through the plot. The IMDb has a listing of all releases, a link to that should be enough. Not to mention, (estimating) it will be released in over 60 countries, so then, why do the ones currently listed have more important than the other 50 that are not currently listed. Its just not practical, it should be the *main* release date, which, what I would think, is North Amercia... Blahs34 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Did anybody recognize who drew the flashes of Superman inside the DC logo at the very beginning of the film? Was one of the Jim Lee, or was there maybe a panel from Birthright? CmdrClow 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The fighters escorting the shuttle was the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, since it was a USAF mission. The appearance and design of the planes made it look like the F-35A model. The current official designation of the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter. The A model is for the Air Force, the B model for the USN, and the C model for the USMC. As the film mentions in the dialogue, the airliner that the shuttle is on is a Boeing 777.-- TrevelyanL85A2 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
.............and? I have great experience with walking, yet the logic of the "Moonwalk" mystifies me. Simply because I am able to walk does not give me mastery over all methods of "walking". Apply basic logic, friend. Thanks, Aaron 5 July 2006
67.160.147.28 apparently wants to say the following about costume changes:
I feel it's much more appropriate to say this on the discussion page rather than in the article body. By all means, 67.160.147.28, edit the article, but don't just post something like that at the bottom of a section. Thanks! -- HughL talk?/ contribs • 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Since a couple people have an issue with the inconsistency portion of the trivia section, this is where they should talk about it. Bignole 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This was "talked" about before, I just wanted everybody to see what was talked about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_Returns/Archive_1#Trivia:_Effects_of_Kryptonite -- Derenberg 6 July 2006
Suggested:
Go for broke Bignole, but may I add, if the problem is that this "inconsistency" is in the trivia section, you could make an error section all on its own (because that whole scene was littered with them), I didn't do such when I added it because I thought such would tick off the fanb... nevermind, did so anyway. Zero X Marquis 18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that there are no established rules about the exact effects of Kryptonite brought up in the film. It's anybody's guess exactly why Superman was able to lift the landmass despite having Kryptonite right in his face. But that he might've spent a fair amount of time being recharged in the sun and only had tiny shards of Kryptonite still in him can be plausible explanation for why he was able to do it. It is certainly a possibility that that is the explanation for it. Dominicus Cerberus 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you're saying. My mistake. But if we're going to explain it as that kryptonite must work differently in this film than in the other films and media, then I don't see why there has to be any inconsistency. Dominicus Cerberus 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I was told by friends that apparently instead of saying "...truth, justice, and the American way..." Superman now says "...truth, justice, and all that stuff...", presumably so that the movie would appeal more to international audiences. I have yet to see the movie, but this seems like something worth noting in the trivia or something like that.
Nope, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" was never mentioned in the movie. It wasn't Superman that said it, it was Perry White during a briefing of his reporters asking if Superman still stood for "truth, justice..all that stuff." Odin's Beard 01:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
First message was mine. Sorry for not timestamping it. Anyways, should this be mentioned? I havn't seen the movie so I'm not sure how much an impact it has had on people, if any. Vjasper 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the plot summary once again being relentlessly expanded with needless detail? At one point, it was down to a concise few paragraphs (see X-Men: The Last Stand for arguably the ideal length). I don't wish to spoil the film for myself, as I haven't yet seen it, and therefore don't want to edit this at the moment. Perhaps somebody could begin some pruning? Chris 42 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Vast improvement. :-) Chris 42 22:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I added parts in both the Superman 2 and Superman Returns relation part as well as an explanation in the Trivia section. I'm surprised that people didn't include (as spoken of by Lois Lane early on in the film), that Superman gets his powers from the Sun. In Superman 2, he used red sun radiation in order to be purged of his powers. In Superman Returns he uses the Earth's yellow sun to give him a power boost. The solar aspect of Superman is commonly missed by people who don't read the comic books, but it was talked about by Lois in the film, so I felt it important. ( Rob Brandon 07:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC))
Sure the yellow sun can prevent the effects of kryptonite. Not only can the effects of a certain kryptonite rock on a certain superpowered kryptonian decrease over time, but exposure to the sun's rays did make Superman immune to kryptonite in an elseworld storyline.
This has been bothering me...
When Lex and Kitty return to the deceased old lady's house, Kitty says, "Weren't there two of those?" and it shows one of the two dogs, with fur around it, chewing on something that looks like a bone. Is there any explaination for this? I have three thoughts on how this played out...
-- Gaming King 07:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are over-intellectualizing what was just a crass joke: the remaining dog appeared to chewing on the now-deceased dog's bone. It seems as if the joke is that the surviving dog cannibalized the other one.
Not really sure how that joke had a place in the movie; to be honest, I am surprised it wasn't forgotten on the editing-room floor. It wasn't particularly funny or clever. Just weird. Thanks, Aaron. 12, July 2005.
A sentence in the plot section of this article (as of 18:10, 24 July 2006) says, "It is implied that they might eat Kitty's pekingese." If I'm not mistaken, the dog breed is Pomeranian, not Pekingese. Check Wikipedia for pictures and you'll see.
--
Trevz
21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The exact effects of kryptonite on Superman have never been set in stone. Just like the exact extent of his powers, the exact effect of kryptonite changes with every writer that creates a story for Superman. When Superman was first created, he had limited power and durability and couldn't even fly. His powers evolved over the years in order to make the character and his exploits more spectacular. The same holds true to the effects of kryptonite. Kryptonite was first introduced in a story by Jerry Siegel in 1940. It was called K-Metal, and was able to drain Superman's powers and give humans superhuman abilities. However, the story was never published and K-Metal didn't become part of the Superman universe. It was reintroduced in 1943 as "Kryptonite" for the Superman radio show, for the sole purpose of allowing the voice actor for Superman to take time off from the show. After that, kryptonite became part of the Superman universe, yet its exact effects were never really established. Its main effect was the depowering of Superman and death by prolonged exposure. The fact that it never had any other specific effects besides this one allowed future writes to make their own rules to create their own stories. At one point during the Superboy comic series, Superboy even became immune to certain pieces of kryptonite due to repeated, non-lethal exposure. After years of being completely safe to humans, it was revealed not too long ago that it caused cancer in humans exposed to it for long periods of time. Now, we all know that one of the main sources of Superman's powers is the yellow sun. Many storyline's describe this as a sort of photosynthesis-like absorbsion, granting Superman's advanced alien body great strength. It has also been stated that the radiation emitted from pieces of kryptonite halt and even reverse this process, obviously in a very painful way. So, in theory, since evidence has never been presented otherwise, the effects of a very small piece of kryptonite could be somewhat negated by enough exposure to the sun. Now think for a minute. Superman has been exposed to pieces of kryptonite that all came from the same meteor, the meteor that landed in Addis Ababa. So in keeping with the continuity established in the Superboy comic, Superman could be becoming immune to that certain rock's effects. That would explain why the effects of kryptonite on Superman are different in Superman Returns than the other movies. Now, why would Superman be susceptible to the kryptonite to the point of not being able to fight off Luthor and his henchmen at one point, yet later able to carry an entire island of kryptonite with a small piece in his back just a little later? Take this into consideration. Examine what has been stated about the effects of the sun and the effects of kryptonite on Superman's body. Sources have stated the sun grants him power while kryptonite drains that power given by the sun. So in theory, the extent of the kryptonite's effect on Superman would be directly related to Superman's exposure to the sun. When Superman first arrives on the island, the clouds are blocking out the sun. Since Superman isn't able to absorb the sun's rays, the kryptonite has a much more debilitating effect on him. Also take into consideration. If you watched the special "The Science of Superman", you would have seen modern day science applied to many aspects of Superman's abilities. There was a segment on the effects of kryptonite, and it was stated that kryptonite to Superman would be like uranium or plutonium to us. A little bit of radiation isn't harmful, yet alot is deadly. Applying this logic, we can say that a small piece of kryptonite wouldn't have as much of an effect on Superman as a much greater amount. So if Superman was exposed to a very small piece of kryptonite, as in the one embedded in his back, it wouldn't have much of an effect on him. This would allow him to fly off above the clouds and into the sunlight. The sun could then over power the effect of the kryptonite, since nowhere has it been established that it couldn't, in the movie's continuity or otherwise, allowing Superman to "recharge" while still exposed to a small concentration of kryptonite. Now, it has already been established in the story's continuity that the island isn't that harmful to Superman unless the veins of true kryptonite are exposed. By the time he is exposed to the true kryptonite, he is already exposed to the sunlight, which wouldn't make the feat nearly as difficult. With the island off of the earth, the clouds disappear, allowing Superman to be exposed to direct sunlight all the way down until he hits the ground. Now, you can find as many arguments to this as you like, however, there is still one piece of evidence that overwhelms any argument that you or I can make. This is the fact that several aspects of the Superman universe have been left open to interpretation, and therefore, revision. Since the exact effects of kryptonite have never truly been established, they will always be subject to change, just like the Man of Steel himself. Writers have been recreating the Superman universe since before World War II. No matter how concrete we think the "rules" of Superman are, they can be changed in the blink of an eye without any second thought, we just need to learn to roll with the punches. -Freddie1988 3:19 9 July 2006
You say that he loses his powers while the shard was in his back, and didn't get them back until it was taken out. This is not so. Kryptonite doesn't strip him of his powers, the fact he has trouble using his powers is due to the radiation's debilitating effect. It is never said that he loses the powers. He loses consciousness because he overexerted himself and doing so while being exposed to kryptonite, which brings me to another point. I never said that the sun negates the effects of kryptonite. I merely stated that due to the size of the shard in his back, the sun was able to overcome the effects for a short while. The kryptonite has an overall draining effect on Superman's powers, and the sun was able to regenerate enough power to allow him to lift the island. Also, the fact that kryptonite's main effect is weakening Superman doesn't prove at all that any size piece of kryptonite will have the same effect as another of a different size. Logically, a smaller concentration would a lesser effect, considering that kryptonite's effect is caused by radioactivity. If you notice, all exposure to kryptonite he experiences in the comics and movies involve pieces of kryptonite that are much larger than the tiny piece that remained lodged in his back. I also made the point that Superboy became immune to illustrate the fact that it has been established in an offical Superman continuity that he can overcome the effects of kryptonite, and I never said that he was immune in the movie, I said that due to previous exposure to pieces of the same rock, he could have developed a tolerance to a certain degree, yet the overall prolonged exposure he suffered from in the movie(since the last chunk of the movie has him exposed for a very long time) still caused him to lose his powers, since he isn't totally immune. Now, to address the issue of Superman Returns' continuity, the fact is that it uses Superman I and II as a backstory, meaning that the events of I and II set the stage for Returns, yet isn't a strict history. In the first movie, Jor-El was able to actively interact with Kal-El, yet he is just the equivelant of a talking encyclopedia to Luthor. Also, just because I and II serve as a backdrop for Returns, that doesn't mean that Returns can't incorporate ideas from other continuities. The series Smallville has created its own distinct continuity, yet uses elements from numerous other versions of Superman stories, such as Lex and Clark knowing each other before adulthood. Even the movies I and II used elements from different stories. The "Super Kiss" was an abandoned superpower that Superman once possessed yet eventually fell out of the general continuity. Also, Returns makes its own very bold continuity in the fact that Superman and Lois had a son. It has never ever been established that Superman could reproduce with a human due to his alien physiology. It has always remained in speculation. And nobody ever said that the suit can't come off with his powers fully intact. So, not only have you taken most of what I have theorized out of context, you have also missed my main point. Writers can change whatever they want about Superman. If they want to make him all-powerful and immune to kryptonite tomorrow, they can. Just read the article on the character Superman.The section on character history will put it as bluntly as it can be put.
So, let's recap:
1) He isn't immune in the movie, yet a SLIGHTLY developed resistance is a very strong possiblity 2) It has never been stated that kryptonite has the same effect no matter what the size, and it stands to reason that a smaller piece would have less of an effect. 3) The sun can't negate kryptonite's effects, yet it could possibly overcome them to a certain degree and there isn't anything that says otherwise 4) I and II's relationship to Returns set the tone for Returns, they don't dictate the story 5) The writers can make whatever changes they want 6) Prove the suit thing -Freddie1988 4:47 9 July 2006
When he was on the island, he was weakened by the Kryptonite. But before he lifted the island, he supercharged his cells with solar energy, which allowed him to lift it and probably make his powers drain slower.
I like this guy. -Freddie1988 7:06 9 July 2006
You've just help prove my point. An inconsistency isn't born out of lack of evidence. It occurs when something happens that doesn't agree with the evidence shown. The fact that there is no explanation for what happens and the fact all of the events present fall in line with each other and the story proves that there isn't any inconsistency, and if there is, you can't prove it until you recieve an explanation for what you've seen. The fact that you claim these events are left ambiguous means that you can't possibly claim there are inconsistencies of any kind. The only inconsistencies you have uncovered don't lie solely within the movie, they are between the movie and the whole Superman franchise. Superman Returns takes a classic history of the character and creates its own continuity. Also, In Look! Up in the Sky!, Singer is described as not being a big fan of comic books, yet as having a vision and compassion for the characters and stories that stem from them. It was the parallels between Superman and Singer that drew him towards the character, yet he still wasn't a fan of comics. He didn't become familiar with other comic book characters until he signed on to film X-Men. He initially turned down the role because he didn't care for comic book characters and didn't even know anything about the X-Men. Check Singer's entry on wikipedia if you don't believe me. -Freddie1988 9:30 9 July 2006
This is the most important thing Freddie said:
Also, I have never understood why anyone would get so picky and scientific about "continuity" errors or anyt other type of errors in fictional movies... especially in the case of a movie like this, where we are talking about a man that can fly, shoot laser beams out of his eyes, take unlimited bullets, and turn the world backwards. -- Renesis13 02:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You're completely right. This whole thing is stupid. I just want to have my thoughts heard. - Freddie1988 9:36 9 July 2006
The kryptonite island has the same effects both visits. At first, he seems relatively unaffected, yet he is obviously losing power. Then the kryptonite veins are exposed, and coupled with prolonged exposure to the island, he suffers a massive drop in power. His ability to lift the island while having been beaten, stabbed with kryptonite and still having a piece in him, and prolonged exposure to kryptonite is "explained" by his little trip above the clouds. It is obvious by the scene that he is recieving a solar supercharge. Whether or not the Superman of the comics or t.v. show can do this doesn't matter, the director is showing that his Superman can and it is working to great effect. According to the director, that energy boost was enough to enable him to lift the island and throw it into space before passing out from the strain. That is his continuity. He seems fine when he first lands, yet as demonstrated by Luthor, has obviously been depowered. He hits the ground, breaks the rock, and exposes green veins of kryptonite. He loses more power. He then suffers a beating from Luthor, yet has strength enough to resist. Then the thugs step in, and by now he has suffered from massive kryptonite exposure, but also a massive beating. He recieves an even bigger thumping, then is stabbed with a jagged piece of pure green kryptonite. The whole ordeal has left him weak and he collapses. On the plane, he is able to recover from exposure to the island and has most of the shard removed. This gives him enough energy to fly into the sky and recieves a major solar recharge. With his powers restored, he flies down to earth and lifts the island, and the power degeneration begins once again, at the same rate as the first visit, just instead of a beating, he is lifting an island. He gets it into space, and loses consciousness from the effort spent and the power lost. He falls to earth not completely drained of power, and the suit thing is a major inconsistency that had to be made in order to make the hospital scene work. The effects of the kryptonite are degenerative. They are not instantaneous. If they were, he would have realized it when he landed on the island. -Freddie1988 10:42 9 July 2006
If I am saying something contradictory, that is not my intent. My last comment is they way I am meaning what I am saying. Now, the beatings aren't in there to show he is losing power, because they aren't causing him to lose his superpowers any faster or slower. They are, however, causing him a great deal of pain and are weakening his body and sapping his energy, to what extent is unknown. Also, the fact that he doesn't seem to be losing any power on the way up with the island could just be a mistake on the actor's part. I mean, when he was trying to straighten the plane's fall earlier in the movie, he didn't look like he was working hard, but you could tell he was by rest of the scene that it was pretty difficult (i.e. accidentally breaking the wing). The way the scene is shot shows how hard it is for Superman. First, we all recieve a sense of how monumental the task is when we see Superman emerge out of the water with the island on top of him. Coupled with the fact that we know the island is deadly to him and the fact that it is really big, we are suddenly hit with the feeling, "Wow. Just how is he able to do that?" Then, as his ascent is a little more than halfway done, the green kryptonite vein is exposed right in his face, and no matter what his reaction is, we know that things just got alot harder for him. Then he releases it into space. Now, we have seen in previous shots that when the kryptonite exposure has ended he starts to regain his powers. We also know that the little shard in his back doesn't hinder this much, since he was able to recover and then fly away before, although, how much it actually hinders it is unknown. This helps explain why he was able to survive re-entry and the impact. The hospital scene where they remove the shard and then try to give him the shot can be considered an inconsistency, but you must also think that it could have just been percieved that way. -Freddie1988 11:19 9 July 2006
The reference to the hospital scene was merely to relate the fact that inconsistencies, unless completely obvious to everyone, can occur due to the viewer's point-of-view. You state that the shard was removed and then he regained his powers due to the events that take place in the scene, yet another person can view these events as purely conicidental, and therefore giving credit to the possibility of him having his powers beforehand. I wasn't admitting an incosistency, just the possibility of one existing. Also, the mention of the actor's error portraying Superman's difficulty performing certain feats wasn't to insinuate errors in the writing or directing, but in the abilities of the actor himself. Routh has recieved a few negative reviews of his portrayal, most notably Roger Ebert, who stated that he lacked charisma as Superman and his performance was sub-par. Routh did act like he was actually carrying something heavy, yet when the time came to act like he was trying even harder came, he could have just fallen short performance-wise. The errors don't neccesarily lie in the movie, just the way we percieve the events that take place therein. - Freddie1988 12:36 10 July 2006
Oy, what a megillah! Let me just say that I found the effects vs. non-effects of Kryptonite in this film rather confusing. I don't pretend to be an expert on Kryptonite, but there was some 'splainin' to do that wasn't done. However, the bit in 1978 about turning back time still baffles people, so what's new? And as others have said before, if you accept the absurd notion that a man can fly, forget about any other kind of logic. Wahkeenah 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Superman's suit wasn't ripped off by the doctors, it was pulled down. So the fact that Superman lost his powers outright due to kryptonite exposure is discredited by this, and also due to the fact that kryptonite doesn't strip him of his powers.
I have been thinking about the controversial "inconsistency" section in the trivia, and have decided to remove it on the grounds that no matter how much any of us can argue it, it is not verifiable. Wikipedia:Verfiability / Verifiability, not truth explains quite clearly that even if something might be completely true, it needs to be verifiable through a third party.
I also think that the section has problems with pretty much every other Wikipedia Policy, such as Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in this quote by Jimbo Wales under the section "Undue weight":
If anyone has any further problems with this "inconsistency" not being mentioned, then we need to take a poll to see if there is consensus that the section is in conformity with these policies—not whether or not it is "right" according to anyone's opinion. -- Renesis13 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles aren't too subjective, they are almost entirely subjective. The first article was created stating that an inconsistency existed. Then, as the article gained new posts from other users that had different opinions over the matter, it became less fact and more speculation. In order to defend your claim, you must present evidence that relies not only on fact, but also your personal bias. Didn't anyone notice the second article was initially two people arguing a point with their own view on the matter? The fact is that no matter how anyone of us thinks we are right, we are never really going to know until someone who was actually ivolved with the making of the movie comes forward and sets us straight. Now, I haven't got any problems with these articles being on this page, even though they do violate some of wikipedia's rules. However, I also see them as somewhat neccesary. Since this is an encyclopedia where people with all sorts of different opinions and ideas are putting their work together to create one unified thing, then we should be able to lay out our opinions in an effort to sort through them and reach a general consensus. However, it seems that this issue is never going to be resolved, so I say that the vote goes through and what ever happens happens. -Freddie1988 9:22 10 July 2006
Section under dispute:
Don't bother. Binole, you're fighting a lost cause. I'm going to say this: This right here is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. The fact is, not everything is verifiable in how Wikipedia asks. If I wanted to, I could go remove practically 3/4 of the Superman article as its based on what people saw while watching the film, and not what is explictly stated in some respectable form. Fanboys, yes, fanboys need to look at things objectibly, see that while the movie was good, that sequence was horribly done (whether by editting or whatever) and created an inconsistency, using logic alone and you can figure that out. Whether you realize it or not, those of you lobbying for its removal are the ones trying to get a POV in; this movie is perfect. As I was the one who originally posted the "inconsistency" I move to have it removed because well, its really sad how some of you are acting. Bignole, my respect is given to you fighting the good fight.
Zero X Marquis
23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/06/30/superman-returns-plot-holes-puzzles-and-inconsistencies/ But, I'll put your name where you asked. Bignole
The first part says enough. It shouldn't be further explained/debated in the trivia section, but instead maybe in its own section/article, if at all. Dominicus Cerberus 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sooner or later more of these are going to pop up, and when and if this section gets created, make sure to add Wtatour's: "Newspaper dates indicate that Superman Returns takes place in 2006. This would mean that Superman II takes place in 2001." If this movie does take place in 2006, and it occurs five years after Superman II, then it entails that Superman II took place in 2001. Obviously it doesn't though, so this is another inconsistency. Zero X Marquis 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The "goal" is simple: to have a better understanding of the movie. Their is an error, and it should be documented just as the movie's successes are. A non-biased point of view, so to speak. I'm not saying that people should go looking for them, but if blatent issues pop up, they should be noted. It makes a difference, in this point, it gives an example to why this is not a direct sequel. Zero X Marquis 22:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need all the posters? In total there are three film posters, and then the cover of the X-Box game. I think the allocation of fair-use could be put to better use, rather than four posters/covers...
This section needs to be cleaned up a little. A lot of these are actual connections, but some are similarities based on the Superman mythos. Lois Lane's pulitzer has more to do with the fact that she's a journalist than a connection between the movies. Ben Hubbard's appearance is hardly a connection between the movies. Especially if he also appeared in the comics. And that last item "This is a clear reference to a bird i.e. a Lark." (aside from being completely rediculous) doesn't even mention the previous movies.-- CPitt76 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Superman leaving for 5 years" storyline, while intended to have followed the events in Superman II, actually exists entirely in Superman Returns. He didn't actually leave until after Superman II, correct? -- Renesis13 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I made some edits regarding this section but didn't realize I was anonymous until hitting submit. Found out today they've been reverted with the comment that it's not obvious who Jason's father is. How could this movie have made it more obvious? Is there anyone out there that doubts that Superman is the father? Care to explain the (il)logic? What is the point of keeping this ambiguous in the article? Jeff schiller 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In the Sub-plot section, I'm not sure it's correct to say that there was an implied sexual encounter between Lois and Clark in Superman II. Afer all, they're laying naked in bed together. True, there is no explicit lovemaking shown, but what would you expect of a PG-rated film? - Loadmaster 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It would not be an NOR violation to say that Superman is the kid's father, because mainstream reviews also say this. There was one review I read which based its entire review around the issue of how this film shows Superman as a father. I would suspect that we could find remarks from the filmmakers talking about this as well - perhaps we'll have to wait for the DVD. This is silliness. Just because you have to infer something doesn't mean it's "ambiguous." john k 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not fully spelled out that Lois and Kal-El had a sexual encounter, and it's not fully spelled out that they had a love-child, but it's still as plain as the daylight reflecting off Lex Luthor's scalp. 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It has only made 164,000,000 million domestically, is this considered a flop?
I don't really know if the film can be called an overall flop because the studio has made back the money it cost to make the film and has some profit to boot. However, what profit the film has made has been from combining the domestic and international sales. I don't believe the movie will gross $200 million in domestic sales. It'll get close, maybe 185 or 190, but it's going to be considerably less than what the studio hoped for. The film will probably do well when released on DVD, it might make half, maybe a little more than half, of what it's ultimate domestic box office total will be, but I wouldn't expect record setting DVD sales. It might not be a total flop, but it brings to question about doing a sequel. With the numbers this film has generated, there's a good chance studio execs would be afraid to be a bit more ambitious with a sequel. Odin's Beard 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole question of Jason's father also leads to an inconsistency with
Superman II. In the previous film, Lois figures out that Clark is Superman and they become romantically involved, where she presumably gets pregnant (or not). At the end of II, though, Clark kisses her and she forgets everything. In the new film, we find out that she then meets Richard White and Jason is born (presumably timed close enough so that Richard might not know he is not Jason's biological father). Then Superman returns and Lois is mad at him for leaving, obviously remembering their romantic involvement. So how could she remember her involvement with Superman, and possibly the fact that Superman/Clark fathered her child, but not remember that Clark is Superman?
-
Loadmaster
21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
After getting thrown and bashed around quite a bit in the airplane disaster, why does Lois not have a few bruises and walk with a limp for a while? Probably because it's a comic book movie, right? Anyone remember Otis's black eye in Superman I? - Loadmaster
What about Louis winning a Pulitzer Prize, yet not knowing how many 'f's in catastrophic? pretty inconsistant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.49.125 ( talk • contribs) .
Then there is the question of what happened to the six remaining crystals. Are they still on the artificial island that Superman pushed into space? Will we see him use those crystals in the next film? - Loadmaster 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And speaking of crystals, what ever happened to the special green one? The first two films appeared to establish that the clear crystals were only for data storage, while the green crystal was the generating crystal. What gives? - Loadmaster 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm, sorry to say guys but why are you argueing so much, its just a movie. It doesnt need to absolutely need to make true factual sense, thats why they make movies,for us to be released from everyday reality.
"In one of the film's final scenes, Superman recovers and visits the sleeping Jason in his bedroom. Superman then recites the words his own father said to him when he was an infant leaving Krypton. Although Superman's words indicate that he believes Jason to be his son, the film does not explicitly confirm that he is Superman's son." Why do you all have such a problem with this? What part of it is untrue? Were you watching a different film than I was, or what? Wahkeenah 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There you go. While you're in a deleting mood...
*"...though Jason is presented initially as Richard and Lois' son..." - I've only seen it once, so my memory might be faulty, but did they explicitly say, anytime, that Lois' financee was Jason's father? *"...during the period of the film when Clark was deprived of his super powers due to over-exposure to artificial red sunlight. It is surmised that although he was essentially human at this time, his Kryptonian physiology would remain unchanged, allowing him to pass these traits to his offspring." - I don't recall any of this being actually said in any of the films.
Wahkeenah 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the novelization by Marv Woflman hoping it would expand on certain plot points (and since it was in the bargain bin). It includes quite a lot of exposition about how his parents sent him away as a child and the possibility that they could have been wrong about the destruction of Krypton or perhaps that some may have survived. It talks about the history and architecture/landscape of Krypton which is then reiterated when superman sees Krypton, particular not is made of a place called "the Valley of the Elders". Skipping ahead for a moment a lot of this detail comes up again as the crystal continent Luthor creates is said to look just like the Fortress of Solitude and the Valley of Elders. It is made clear that Luthor and a scientist in his group planted information about Krypton in the newspapers to trick Superman into leaving, hoping/believing it would kill him (they somehow knew planet having turned to poisonous Kryptonite I think, but it was a bit vague).
The robbery with the huge machine gun was planned anonymously by Lex Luthor and given to a gang of criminals, who stuck around and fired the gun rather than escaping immediately in the helicopter because they had followed the plan and it had worked so well up to that point. It was also scheduled at the same time as Kitty losing control of her car to provide further distraction from the museum robbery. I'm not sure the film made the Luthor connection to this robbery or that all three happened at the same time all that clear. A brief mention is made about Lex's grandfather Alex building up Lexcorp grabbing the best scientists of the Third Reich only to have his father who was ambitious enough but not smart enough (like Luthor) bring the company to bankruptcy leaving only a few million to get Lex started.
The novelization has both Richard and Jason note that Clark "looks a bit like" ... before they are cut off but I think that happens in the film too. Clark notes that Richard looks a bit like Superman, which I don't think was mentioned in the film, it isn't spoken dialog in the book either. The parentage of Jason is left much more vague and no mention is made about Jason reacting to the Kryptonite and I think the scene where he plays piano on the yacht is different but I'd have to watch the film again. When he is in hospital Lois does tell superman she has something she needs to tell him but I don't think she actually whispers anything in his ear. When Superman throws the Kryptonite continent into space it is said to stop between Mars and Jupiter and keep growing to form a new planet, which (in a scene before she goes to the hospital) the daily planet dubs "New Krypton" at the suggestion of Lois. I'm pretty sure this wasn't mentioned in the film. (I see New Krypton is mentioned in relation to the mooted sequel.)
If someone is interested in incorporating some or any of this into a short Novelization section in the article and would like me to double check anything and provide specific page references please let me know. (This isn't an indefinite offer, but for the month of November at least.) -- Horkana ( talk) 18:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Having just seen the movie, I spotted a possible inaccuracy in the plot, where it states: "With Superman distracted by a bank robbery, Luthor steals Kryptonite from the Metropolis Museum of Natural History"
At least in the Italian version I have seen, Superman is distracted by Kitty, Lutor's henchwoman, driving an out-of-control car in the middle of Metropolis, not by a bank robbery. After being rescued, Kitty even lures Superman into bringing her to the hospital and tries to seduce him in order to give more time to Lutor to steal the Kryptonite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmos1972 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's the scene when the robbers go to the roof of the bank and turn on the chain gun and Superman gets shot in the eye. He was distracted by a few things that night. 129.139.1.68 ( talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, "Seeing the effect of a Kryptonite sample on Jason..." What effects? The Kryptonite didn't affect Jason. ~~ —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.139.1.68 (
talk)
15:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Any comments on this? If not, I say remove it. 129.139.1.68 ( talk) 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Think this new article which Bryan Singer tell his theory as to why the film wasn't a success will help out some. Sarujo ( talk) 06:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a baseball in the portrait of the two dogs that has a vague conection to the scene where Clark throws a basesball for his own dog. Clark throws the ball too far most likely due to being away from the yellow sun of the Solar System for five years and crashing at night. The sun has not risen and is still below the horizon, yet Clark underestimates his recovery time due to the yellow sun's energy, even on the night-time side.
Another connection is during Luther's reference to Prometheus, when he mentions the value of sharp objects in prison. Later, when the kryptonite is being shaped in to an implosion tamper for the crystal, there is a left over sharp shard of kryptonite which Luther pockets, much in the fashion of shop workers inside a prison. Ncsr11 ( talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1.) How did Superman know Jason was his son? 2.) How did Luthor grow so much landmass from such few crystals? 3.) How did Lois Lane, getting directions from the energy company(or some other source about the blackout) end up getting into Luthor's yacht? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 ( talk) 06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If someone is capable of pinpointing the exact location of the Daily Planet Building, it might be helpful. My own calculations veiwing towards the downtown in a south-southwest direction is somewhere near West Broadway and Duane. Or, it could be the Empire Building just north of the Tweed Building. Ncsr11 ( talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Re "glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman, and was probably cast in the role only because he physically resembles Christopher Reeve. Proof of this is the fact that Routh hardly speaks when donning the costume." This statement is attributed to Roger Ebert, but the reference cited does not have this statement, nor anything remotely close. In fact, the statement, "Proof of this is the fact that Routh hardly speaks when donning the costume," doesn't even make sense. Googling the statement yields only a few sites with duplicates of this article.
Please delete that statement, or find proof that Ebert wrote this. 184.147.123.32 ( talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
In regards to my edit today removing the quote "a neglected gem in the comic book movie genre", that was a quote that i believe was originally in the Indiawire article's picture caption, but was removed in a later edit of said article. Evidence of this can be seen here: www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/comicscontinuum/news/?a=52871
The additional changes were made for grammatical reasons and mostly use the language spoken in the video essay or the accompanying review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.171.116 ( talk) 05:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that Tristan Lake Leabu is credited in the film as "Jason White", not "Jason Kent". The actor should be credited with the name he has in the film. His biological father in the film has no bearing on his credited name, and Wikipedia should respect that. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
There have been a recent spate of unsourced changes to the budget as in this edit. The budget section clearly explains the source of these figures and provides references, and explains that the larger figure $263 million) incorporates development costs from earlier aborted projects; as such these are are not actual part of the production cost of this film. If any editors have further information in relation to these figures then please discuss it here rather than just changing the figures to unsourced amounts. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a Turkish knock off of Superman called Superman Returns. There should be mention of that. 161.185.160.23 ( talk) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://m.cinemascore.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1226171983819When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@ AlistairMcMillan: I notice you have tagged the marketing figures in the article. Hopefully I can clear this up for you. The $100 million figure given for global marketing is given in the accompanying source (Jeff Jensen (2006-06-23). "Greatest American Hero?"). The Jensen source is a five-page article and the figure in question is given on page 5.
As for the $45.5 million figure, this is almost certainly the "domestic" marketing figure i.e. the figure for the US marketing. According to the MPAA the average cost of marketing a film in the US in 2006 was $34.5 million (see 2007 Market Statistics.pdf, page 7). Unfortunately, the Guardian source does not clarify this, but there is no way this figure is for global marketing. For example, according to George Lucas's Blockbusting (Alex Ben Block) the domestic marketing costs for Shrek, Gladiator, Spiderman 2, War of the Worlds and The Perfect Storm (all big summer releases between 2000 and 2005) were $68.1 million, $52.5 million, $57.5 million, $58.2 million and $50.7 million respectively (page 840). Even though The Guardian does not clarify the nature of the marketing figure it is almost certainly not a global figure going by the costs of the time. Global marketing is roughly twice that of domestic marketing so the figures are consistent IMO. Betty Logan ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
ChristianJosephAllbee, regarding this and this, what accuracy are you referring to? There has been back and forth at this article before regarding "homage" and "sequel." That is why someone added references for that.
Betty Logan didn't you have disagreement over this before? Or do you have any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Superman Returns has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under [CAST] Section: Please add: "Brandon also had to wear blue-coloured contact lenses, as his natural eye color is brown." Thyon ( talk) 09:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)