Jump to content

Talk:Superman Returns/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Cleaning the Page

Cleaned up the page a little, personally, I think specifically with regards to referencing such production tidbits, there needs to be links back to web-pages to back the info up. - Gerard Shannon

The link to Chiangethesuit.com still leads nowhere. I think that this link should be made static (as opposed to a hyperlink), until such time as the site it back up and running.

Budget

$250 million?!!!!! That is an entire mega-blockbuster's receipts down the drain. I think the movie will have a big budget, but $250 million is a lot of muller. In fact, studios consider the record-breaking Waterworld's $175-million budget to be too risky. I find the budget costs questionable (even though I know the movie is going to be blockbuster).

Actually, he budget was confirmed in a couple of recent articles on the movie. -ultimatebatman

That is far too much. Way way way too much. It's not going to do THAT well.--Occono 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this movie would be a mild success. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

According to boxofficemojo.com the production Budget is $260 million. As far as I know boxofficemojo.com is a reliable source. I like to add that a movie like Superman Returns needs about $20 millions for converting to 3-D version. Also [1]and [2]

Can this be verified by any other website, or source? Please provide links to other sources if you find them. Bignole 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That is the same article, only on two different websites. Read it, it is almost word for word what the other says. You don't count the cost of the movie before Singer took over, because when he took over it became a completely different movie. Granted that with all the writing changes and director changes the cost is probably up there, but Singer's movie is not 250 mill. plus. I think the safe estimate to go with is what your own sources say Warner Brother's stated they paid, which is 204 million. Bignole 21:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I posted it twice is that some times New York Post asks to sign in so you could see the article on the other site knowing that it’s from Post. I agree with you for now we go with $204 millions instead of previous $185 millions.

MSNBC claims a budget of $280 million.

Okay, this clears everything up. Bryan Singer states specifically in this video that the budget for the film was $184,500,000. The Filmaker 01:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why would the director downplay the budget of his movie to make the ultimate box office look better? It's obvious we can take Singer at his word.
Actually, Warner Brothers released his budget. It was 184 million, and since it was filmed in Australia they received a tax break. The budget was going to be around 209 million, but because of the tax break they didn't have to page about 12%. Bignole 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just browsing, and you guys are crazy to trust Singer. The budget for this film is inflated so much because of the years the movie spent in Development hell that most of the general public knows nothing about. Singer would never admitt to those costs, because it makes him look bad. 190 million is a gigantic budget already, but the studi payed hundreds of millions over the past 8-9 years for the movie. They paid multiple writers, had to pay to keep the rights, etc etc. They continued to try and develop the movie, and failed, each time, it cost them additional money. The budget with that included, as it almost always is, was reported at over 300m.
You're mistaken. First, when it comes to this picture we only include what it cost to make this picture, not the others. Second, it didn't cost hundreds of millions to pay the writers and others for the other movies that didn't get paid. Please learn how the business really works and what people actually get paid. WB only spent about 50 to 60 million in the 17 years it took to get a new Superman movie off the ground. Bignole 13:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Louis

How could Louis win a pulitzer prize yet not know how many 'f's are in catastrophe? And it seems that whenever Superman is around she will die if he doesn't save her. Yet she managed to survive 5 whole years without his help.

Continuity

As I understand it, Superman returns is supposed to be a sequel to the first two Reeve films. This raises a few questions as to continuity. For example, neither Lex Luthor nor Lois Lane seem to have aged, given casting. The latter has gotten younger, if anything. (Superman's alien biology could account for his own continued youth.) Also, in the first Superman, both of Clark Kent's parents died. Now his mother seems to be alive again.

Has any explanation been floated?Bjones 14:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a producer on Superman homepage seemed to imply that the continuity is a mixture of Smallville and the movies. The producer said "We won't be dealing with Superman's origin, because if you're under 30, Smallville is your origin story, and if your over 30, the Christopher Reeve movies are your origin story." Plus, this version of Lex seems to be closer to Mike Rosenbaum than Gene Hackman.Simon Beavis

MARTHA KENT DIED IN BETWEEN SUPERMAN 3 & 4, ONLY PA KENT DIED IN THE 1ST ONE User:192.91.172.42 13:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As for why've they've not aged, the amount of time that has passed between the events of superman II and superman returns doesn't have to be the amount of time between their releases. For all we know, this could take place a mere five or six years after superman II.

Any other inconsistencies? Supposedly Lois is pregnant/bears a child in this movie (?) Does this make sense from 'future' movies like Superman 3? Piepants 09:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Piepants

Only the first two Superman movies are considered canon when it comes to the film franchise. The 3rd and 4th movies have been ignored for this movie entirely, and even though Returns is set after 2, and before 3, the 3rd and 4th movies are not 'the future' of this series. 210.84.42.240 08:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. Is Superman Returns connected to Smallville?.Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, SR is not connected to Smallville. But, there was a rumor that Gough, Miller and Singer did converse on a few subjects to make sure that neither would step on the other's toes. Also, I believe they designed several set pieces off of each other's designs (Kent Farm (SV) and FOS (SR)). I say based, they aren't exact replicas. Bignole 21:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, because if the movie is connected to Smallville, then Superman Returns would be a sequel to Smallville, not a sequel to the Christopher Reeve films.Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Since Smallville occurs before the Superman films (continuity wise [excluding precise dates]) then it could pass as both connected to Smallville and the Superman Films, but it isn't so the only thing you will get is homages and inside jokes through dialogue about Smallville and the Superman Films. SR is not going to literally say "back in 1978" because the film takes place in present time, atleast from the look of the vehicles it does. So, I think what they are doing is just taking the events of the first two films, not the dates of the first two films, and then simply hinting at the rest of the stuff. But, one can only see when the film finally comes out. Bignole 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If it were a Smallville sequel as well, SR is still a sequel to Superman I & 2. Based on the films and show's continuity (more or less, till now) the order would be: Beginning of Superman I, up to Pa's death; then Smallville; back to Superman I with Pa's death; then Superman II, then SR. Or something. rootology 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

From Singer's point of view, as a storyteller, the Superman story is timeless. The X-Men movies are designed to be merely set in a 'near future' for one. It's a lot like Marvel's floating timeline, as well as the erasing of III and IV.

That's exactly how much time has passed. They've said this is set 5 years after Superman II.
Please don't interrupt the order of the text. Anyway, they didn't say it was 5 years after Superman II, they said it was 5 years since the time he leaves to the moment that he returns, and it isn't a set 5 years it was a "give-or-take" a bit, 5 years.Bignole 20:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys are confused. The movie takes Superman I and II as a vague history. It's not a sequel to Superman II in any true sense of the word. Rather, it takes some elements from the first two films and incorporates them into the plot as a sort of backstory (Luthor having been to the Fortress of Solitude before, Superman and Lois getting together and having sex, etc.) But because it's not a straight sequel, things like the time lapsed (five years instead of almost twenty) don't need to make sense... unless we take things way too seriously :-Daniel Villalobos 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just browsing, and you guys are crazy to trust Singer. The budget for this film is inflated so much because of the years the movie spent in Development hell that most of the general public knows nothing about. Singer would never admitt to those costs, because it makes him look bad. 190 million is a gigantic budget already, but the studi payed hundreds of millions over the past 8-9 years for the movie. They paid multiple writers, had to pay to keep the rights, etc etc. They continued to try and develop the movie, and failed, each time, it cost them additional money. The budget with that included, as it almost always is, was reported at over 300m.

Re: Superman's Costume

I think it would have been interesting to take the more realistic approach of Batman Begins for this film and give Superman a costume that reflects his Kryptonian heritage, much like the costume an older Superman wore in the episode "The Call" from the animated show Batman Beyond. The Question 11:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, I heard a rumour that SR will address some elements of his costume. But I actually think that the costume that they're going with in the movie does have a more "alien" feel than the others: more texturing, darker colours, raised S-shield, and large, prominent seams. --Marcg106 01:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Talking of Superman's costume, I read this (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005570419,,00.html) in the paper this morning. Would it be wrong to include it somewhere, somehow? Sweetie Petie 12:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I would consider an aricle from The Sun to be worth mentioning, especially since fitting superhero actors with codpieces isn't anything especially new: they joke about Reeves' codpiece on the DVD features for the 78 film. Boxclocke - "!" 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, just a bit of worthless trivia really, I guess. Sweetie Petie 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rating

The opening paragraph states that they're aiming for a PG rating, as opposed to PG-13 which most comic book movies are getting these days, but in the "Trivia" section, it says it's expected to be PG-13. Neither of these statements seem to be verified. So what's the truth? - Ugliness Man 14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, really. I'm going to do some research.
- Bob 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Back. It's PG-13 in the US. IMDB Review
- Bob 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This first part of the article has too many links.

Please refer to WP:MOS-L for more information about having too much links in an article.

Internal links

The use of links to other Wikipedia articles, for example, Ant, is encouraged. Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to the article.

The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere — for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.

On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

  • more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
  • it has more links than lines;
  • a link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence);
  • more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
  • low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.

This also applies to tables, considered by themselves.

As a general rule, do not put links in the title; however, this may be acceptable with complex titles or verbose leads, such as those concerning multiple concepts.

Thanks

Just to say, echo that. I've now reverted this article several times for overlinking: specifically within the cast info table. All the principal actors are linked already in the opening paragraph. One link is all that is needed. Chris 42 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Metallo?

According to Superman Returns (video game), Metallo is "one of the Man of Steel's main adversaries from the movie." I'd heard nothing to that effect. What is the veracity of that claim?--Filby 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sequel?

Does anybody knows the name of the sequel for this film? It is stated that the sequel would be released in the Summer of 2009 but no title had been mentioned for this film. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is never a publicly available title so early in development unless in a case similar to Harry Potter, where the movies follow an extensive series of books.

Rumored Actors

There have been reports of rumored actors that have acted for certain roles in the movie. There are some of them.

Is this true? Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least. We already know that Jor-El is still being played by Brando, in CGI footage and audio from the original movies. As faw at the other characters are concerned they aren't even in this film. Bignole 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Budget

IMDb lists the budget for this movie as $250 million. What's the basis of the $185m figure? Should it be changed? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Because IMDb has been wrong a many occassion when they post info before the movie is released. Bryan Singer has said himself that the budget is less that 200 million. Chances are they are including the marketing costs along with the production costs in the budget. Wiki usually lists the production cost. Bignole 21:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Now the budget is stating 260 million? Has this been confirmed on any other site besides Boxofficemojo?? Singer has said the production budget is less that 200 million. Are we incorporating the marketing costs as well now, because that is the only way I can see the budget being more than what Singer has stated. Bignole 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

According to boxofficemojo.com the production Budget is $260 million. As far as I know boxofficemojo.com is a reliable source.

And Warner Brothers claims that Singer's budget was just 204 million. When Singer took over, it means that we only report his budget. If you want to do the research and find out how much was spent overall, with every director, writer, etc..then that will be fine. It could be included as trivia, but only if you have the references to back it up. Bignole 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Release date pushed up

ComingSoon.net is saying that the movie will get released on the 28th instead of the 30th. Reference noted here rather than in the article (rather insignificant detail for a full reference). EVula 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

...and thank you Mclay19 for catching the date elsewhere on the page and adding a paragraph about it. EVula 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are they saying that the release date is June 28, if theaters will officially be showing it at 10PM on June 27? Why not just say that it is being released on June 27? --Keeves 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because only select theaters are showing it at 10pm, and when the movie ends it will be officially the 28th anyway. Just because select theaters decide to show it a bit early (which, so long as it ends after midnight, they can do that) doesn't mean that the official release is the 27th. Bignole 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

New Page

I think that a good portion of this page eventually needs to be moved to it's own page, maybe something titled "Bringing Superman Back To The Silver Screen: 10 Years of Work", or something to that affect. It should incorporate the costs from the beginning to the end, in there entirety, all actors considered for the role and how long they stay on board. The same for directors and writers and other crew members. A brief description of the previous stories accepted (i.e. Superman Lives and Batman vs. Superman). Only brief, because they already have their own detail pages. This page should contain information soley for this movie. Does anyone else agree? Bignole 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Other" casting

I'm pretty savvy when it comes to hype and following film production, and I know none of the stuff present in the casting section for "other" roles are true. And if any of it is, we should see some facts. I didn't go ahead and remove it because I don't feel like getting into a debate over it, I think it needs to go through a discussion. I'm fairly certain the stuff was just lifted from IMDB, where people can post whatever wild things they want.

Johnny Depp, Shawn Ashmore, Anthony Hopkins, Patrick Stewert, Kurt Angle and Keira Knightly were NEVER in consideration for casting for this film. This is unfounded speculation warrenting proof, and none is presented, not to mention the fact that Bryan Singer never considered anyone for Jor-El but re-using Marlon Brando, and no one in their right mind would even audition Kurt Angle for someone like Lex Luthor. This is misinformation from IMDB and must NOT be posted again without solid references.

As for Jude Law and General Zod, Bryan Singer recently confirmed that General Zod was never even in any of his scripts, it was just fan rumors that went wild.

Preceeded by

In the infobox, it says "preceeded by Superman II". Since this isn't a true sequel I don't think that we should put preceeded by either Superman I or Superman II, especially since Singer has stated it more follows the events of the first movie, with a couple plot points from the second one used. Preceeded by is usually reserved for actual sequels, not sequel/remakes which is what Superman Returns more closely falls. Superman Returns is supposed to be a stand alone movie, that just uses homages and allusions to the previous Donner films (and I say films because Superman II was originally his). I think we should remove that "preceeded by" altogether. Bignole

Oh, please don't! It took me forever to copy and paste all those preceded bys and followed bys, and, according to Singer himself, it sequentially follows Superman II by five years. Besides, the timeframe would form a sort of irony: at the end of Superman II, the Man of Steel tells the President he'll never be late for a rescue again; then he's gone for five years. Also, it gets rid of the trenchant crap that is Superman III and IV, and Lord knows that's a godsend. So please, Mr. (or Ms. or Mrs.) Bignole, for the love of all that is Superman: please, keep the "preceeded by". It'll all do us good.

He never said that it follows Superman II by five years. What he said was that Superman has been gone for about 5 years. It couldn't possibly follow Superman II by five years, because all the cars in Metropolis are late model cars. That puts the time frame into today's present, not the present of the 1980s. What he said was that it was a loose sequel to Donner's films, but it would contain more homage shots and references to the previous films, but in no way was it a sequel. He has stated explicitly that it is not a sequel. Bignole 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I've read that the film is set 5 years after the second one. If I can dig up some evidence, I'll provide it. Also, the model of the cars is a pretty weak argument; if we were to follow that logic, Lois and Lex should be a lot older than they are. EVula 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, the writers of the film, have repeatedly said in interviews that this film follows the first two films in canon. In the film it's implied that one of the reasons Superman leaves for the remains of Krypton is because he had just fought three Kryptonian criminals: Zod, Non, and Ursa. Singer has repeatedly said that he uses the first two films as a history for this one. Keep it in, it's right. III and IV are retconned by this film. CmdrClow 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As promised, here is an article that mentions he has been gone for five years.[3] Put "five years" into your browser's Find function to jump straight to it. EVula 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
What he said was that they were loose history, only mentioned by in-jokes and homages. He never said that they were outright predecessors to this film. They couldn't possibly be, because this film is set in the present and not in the 80s. This film stands alone as a movie, but uses the past movies as an invisible backstory to help keep the allusion that it's the same person. Show me where he says "Superman Returns is a sequel to Superman II". Bignole 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, I did not say he wasn't gone for 5 years, what I said was that Singer did not say it was 5 years after the events of Superman II. What the infobox is stating is that Superman II comes directly before Superman Returns, when in fact Singer has stated that Superman Returns is not a sequel, nor a remake. It just uses the first two films as a "vague history" referenced by "in jokes". Show me where he has stated "this is a sequel to Superman II". That link will provide the right information for the infobox to be correct. Otherwise, Superman Returns is a stand alone movie with no predecessor. BTW, just to point out, there is a section in the article that says "Connections to Superman I and Superman II" and it specifically says "vague history" and then lists the references to the two movies. Bignole 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
SPOILER!!!!!!!!! Jason is Superman's son. He is four years old, concieved during the events of Superman II when Lois and Clark slept together. If that's not proof, I'm not sure what is.
First, even is Jason is Superman's, he still wouldn't be Superman's, he would be Clarks. Still doesn't prove that Superman II is the outright predecessor to Superman Returns, just because they use certain aspects of the story. That is what is meant by a "vague history". They choose what they want, and it's referenced in some way, but the movie itself is not a prequel to Superman Returns. Bignole 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Since no one has provided a source that debunks this, and consistenly provides information in the article that says "this is a vague history" and not a sequel, then it needs to be corrected. Most films use the "preceeded by" to list the movie that came last, in film making. The Nightmare on Elm Street series lists "New Nightmare" as following "Freddy's Dead", yet 'New Nightmare' holds no connection to that movie, or any other of those movies, except by characters alone. 'New Nightmare' was not a sequel to any of the Nightmare movies, thus it followed 'Freddy's Dead', and preceeded Freddy vs Jason. So, If you want to keep the "preceeded by" then the proper film to go there should be "Superman IV: Quest for Peace", even though those events are retconned, they still came before this film. Bignole 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Reindent here. Preceeded by should mention the previous film, not the supposed prequal of the film. Supes IV would be the correct entry for that field. A simple "(unrelated)" could be added for clarification. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
He would still be Superman's son. The chamber that took away his powers in the second film "harnessed the rays of the red Krypton sun". It said nothing about changing his genetic makeup or his physiology. Just because his powers were taken, he was still Kryptonian. Now, take a child with half the genetic makeup of a Kryptonian. He would still develop powers through natural life. His father having no powers would have no effect on the growth of the child. CmdrClow 12L18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
First, please do not interrupt conversations chronology, place your message at the end. Second, see the bottom discussion about Lois' child for answers to your statement. Bignole 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't interrupting, I was attempting a direct response to your statement. No need to sass back since your two cents have already been debunked by Superman's physiology. CmdrClow 02:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Bignole, but, going by your earlier argument in reference to other film series, that means that Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace would be directly preceded by Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Also, I'd like to mention that the concept of retconned chronologies has happened before in other film series; the Halloween series, for example. In one chronology, the character Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) has been killed in a car accident; while, in another, she is alive, well, and in hiding. Please, check your information for accuracy before posting on Wikipedia. As always, have a nice day!
P.S. Don't threaten me with the three-revision rule. Recheck your information, please. I'm sorry I have to tell you this, but, paraphrasing Spock, you are operating on "faulty logic". I don't like haggling, but, please, don't make me argue with you again. Can't we all just...get along?
First, if the consensus of this article is that it should be Supe IV, and you keep reverting it, then you would violate that 3RR. Second, Episode I should follow Episode VI (i.e. it should read IV, V, VI, I, II, III), just because they don't doesn't mean they are right. You can't monitor every page. "Halloween" doens't go: Hall, Hall2, H20, HRes, Hall3, Hall4, Hall5 and Hall6. It goes Hall 1-6, H20 and HallRes. That is the order they were released that is how they should be listed. The titles are "preceeded by" not "prequel/sequel". That states what movie came before it, not in continuity, but in production. Also, please always sign your comments, even if you are an unregistered user.Bignole 05:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
George Lucas himself stated that the Star Wars saga is intended to be watched I-VI. The general consensus with most other Wikipedians and Superman fans is that this film follows Superman II. Also in another scene in this film, Richard White directly mentions the article "I Spent the Night With Superman" which she wrote in the first film. There seems to be a canon trend, doesn't there? Oh and by the way, you may want to pop over to Lex Luthor's article on the Returns section. I know your faulty logic radar will go off of the deep end after reading that. CmdrClow 05:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me slow this down so it is easier. I have not said that Superman II does not preceed Superman Returns in history, or that Superman III and IV were retconned, because they were. What I said was "preceeded by" and "followed by" are used to establish which movies came where in production, NOT in continuity. Other wise you say "sequel/prequel". Now, if you want to add "prequel" to the list and in there say "Superman II" (even though it isn't a true prequel to this film) that would be more correct than saying Superman II preceeded Superman Returns when Superman IV came out in 1987, well after Superman II. It has nothing to do with continuity, it has to do with production. Bignole 05:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with continuity, it has to do with production. Is that so, huh? I'm sorry, but tell that to most Star Wars fans! You are posting information on the basis of faulty logic, and you know it. Please. Cut it out. 05:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, CmdrClow! I was hoping to deal the fatal blow myself, but... you spaketh better than I. A worthy user! Also, Bignole, I didn't seem to notice any concensus on the Talk page around the time you posted your info. As a matter of fact, a discussion is still procceding! So, please. Stop beating a dead Superman. Let the info stand until the 28th. After that, we'll see. (P.S. Can't get ID number up - computer's gone funky. Ciao!) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't interrupt the order of the conversation, even to make direct comments to other users. Thank you. To answer you most recent statement first, I am not saying that to watch the movies you should watch them by when they were made. But, for enyclopedic purposes, when you are listing which ones come first and which ones come last you list them (LIST THEM) by when they were made, not by which ones follow which ones in continuity. The only argument those first users carried was that they believed I was saying that Superman II didn't come before Superman Returns continuity wise. You and Clow are aware of what continuity is, right? Because you two both seem to dwell on the fact that the 28th is going to help you prove what Superman Returns retcons Superman III and IV and thus Superman II preceeds it. Unfortunately, what you both are failing to grasp, and I can't for the life of me understand why, maybe it's because you know you aren't even arguing the same thing, is that PRECEEDED BY is refering to when the movies were made not what happens in them. I'll say it again, WHEN THE MOVIES WERE MADE, NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN THEM. I capitalized it so hopefully you will see it. Superman I and Superman II are vague histories, not true prequels to Superman Returns. If that was the case then the movie would take place in the 1980s, not 2006. Now, I'm not saying that it isn't important to note that they establish a vague history for Superman Returns, just that labeling the preceeding movie Superman II is incorrect when you are referring to when the movie was made, which is what Followed By and Preceeded By are meant to do. Bignole 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this needs to stop. Bignole is right on this. Preceeded by is not based on continuity, it is based on time. Unless I missed some warp in the space-time continuum, Superman 2 sure as hell didn't come out right before this movie, Superman 4 did. You two are wrong on this, plain and simple. You do not mark movies by continuity. You mark them by production order. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, let me help you all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Film/Syntax_Guide
And if you don't wish to click the link, or can't find it on the page, I will post what it says here.

Preceded by (Variable: preceded_by) What film in a specific film series chronologically preceded this film? Use: a link to the related franchise film that came out before this one, for example, if part of a trilogy or series. Leave blank if nothing preceded it or it's a remake or a update. Use italics. Year is optional. Wiki: Back to the Future (1985)
Followed by (Variable: followed_by) What film in a specific film series chronologically followed this film? Use: a link to the related franchise film that came out after this one, for example, if part of a trilogy or series. Leave blank if nothing followed it or if it was a remake or an update. Use italics. Year is optional. Wiki: Back to the Future Part III (1990)

It says right there, in Wiki guidelines that you follow chronological order, as in when it was released, not what occurs in it. Bignole 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Bignole, but please, I can't understand, for the life of me, why you can't grasp simple logic. Please, for the love of Superman, check the Star Wars article. For, there, you will find, to paraphrase the Firesign Theatre, that everything you know is wrong. Production does not go before chronology. Technically, what you've just posted is fatally flawed; it has not adapted. At least, not yet. Oh, and Someguy0830? In all seriousness, you are wrong. Even if a movie comes out after another, but details events that happened before the other, the second movie would, technically, be classified as first. Like Cube:Zero and Cube. The next time you decide to type, think super. 06:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because some articles do not follow the guidelines set forth by Wiki doesn't mean that every article should disobey them. Bignole 06:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't all articles follow the same guidelines? 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey! I...I...I didn't get my edits up before they protected it! "It's a trap!" 06:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't bother responding to that last little bit. Read what Bignole pasted for you. Preceeded by is chronologically based. It is not based on continuty or any of that nonsense. If other articles have done so, they're wrong. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Here, this is so you can understand Chronological.

English

Adjective

chronological

  1. In order of time from the earliest to the latest

Related terms

That means that the movies are listed from earliest to latest, not by who retcons who. Regardless of the fact that it retcons the events of Superman III and IV, it still falls under the same continuity of all 4 films, thus making it the latest film of the series and not the 3rd film of the series. Events can be retconned by movies cannot be. Superman Returns isn't destroying all copies of Supe III and IV, it's simply retconning the events that took place, making it fall after Superman IV in chronological order. Chronological order means it is the LATEST film, not the 3rd film. Bignole 06:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. First came Superman I, then II, then III, then IV, then Returns. I believe that definition works perfectly. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You know what? I don't want to waste any more time telling you, so I'll just post it, straight from the Star Wars article, a set precedent:
Episode Release date
I. The Phantom Menace May 19, 1999
II. Attack of the Clones May 16, 2002
III. Revenge of the Sith May 19, 2005
IV. A New Hope May 25, 1977
V. The Empire Strikes Back May 21, 1980
VI. Return of the Jedi May 25, 1983

Here! An instance where your faulty logic falls through. Enjoy! 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That list is not based on chronological order, since your dates are mixed up. Since when is 1977 after 2005? That list is based on the story's timeline, which is a separate literary device and not part of a real timeline. Just because they do it wrong doesn't mean we will too. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
First, that's hardly consensus. Second, let me point out your "faulty logic", since you seem to love that phrase. STAR WARS was written as one long series, and none of those movies retcon any of those events for one thing. Those movies (even though it should still be IV, V, VI, I, II, III) were still all written together, and not later (only filmed later). Superman on the other hand was not some 10 episode series that was just filmed out of order. It is a series that later created a film that would retcon certain events that took place, but it does not remove the films from the series. Superman III and Superman IV are still part of the series. You cannot simply deny their existence because you choose to believe something that you aren't even comprehending yourself. Bignole 06:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The simple truth is that retconing doesn't change time. This movie was produced chronologically last. It did not get made directly after II, and just because III and IV sucked does not mean they don't exist. Time to sleep. I'll argue some more tommorow. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, anonymous user (and Clow), but I've already provided enough information to support the edit that any Administrator would accept. Why? Because these are the rules set forth by this website. It is an encyclopedia, not some fanbase where you can do whatever you want. Just because you find articles that are wrong doesn't mean that it should follow them. It just means they should be corrected as well. I've provided guidelines, and definitions for those words so you know what it all means. Your argument is moot, I'm sorry. Bignole 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it is perfectly acceptable to have redundant links in the infoboxes:

So... yeah. EVula 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If, by your own admission, they are "redundant", then by definition there can be no need for them. The cast members are already linked in their own table to the left. Wiki's own MoS on links states that if a link is duplicated on a page, then that article is considered to be overlinked. However, the guidance on Template talk:Infobox Film/Syntax Guide says they should be linked. Obviously this is conflicting advice, and I've left a message on Template talk:Infobox Film to try and get some clarification. Chris 42 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was using "redundant" for lack of a better term. I consider the infobox content to be both supplemental and separate from the article (for example, movie infoboxes tend to have IMDB links, even though they are usually in the "External links" section, and will cite release dates, regardless of whether they are already mentioned in the article). EVula 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lois' child

Did they actually say the child was his? If it was born shortly after he left, then it means she was probably showing signs of pregnancy already, and I doubt he would have left her in that state. Also, it wouldn't be Superman's child, it would be Clark Kent's child, because he gave up his powers when they had sex. Bignole 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He may have given up his powers, but his genetic structure would likely remain the same, meaning his kid would probably have similar powers. Of course, this goes into the realm of Larry Niven's Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex essay. I love that essay. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, that was the point of the machine, do alter his genetic structure so that he wouldn't have his powers, so that he could foster a child. The basis for his powers is his genetic structure. The point of him being sent to Earth was that they were so similar, not only in looks but genetics. It was only specific genetic traits that allowed him to be who he was, and the machine turned those genes off. The child wouldn't grow up with his powers, though, it could be assumed that he would grow up with those dormant genes that maybe could be turned on by the FOS. The point is, his powers lie in his genetics, no powers = no genetics = not Kal-El's child, but Clark Kent's child. Bignole 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm, maybe. To be honest, I forget the exact details of his power loss in that movie. Did they actually mention his genes being repressed? From the visuals, I assumed it was just designed to oversaturate his cells with red sunlight and prevent any yellow sunlight from making him super again. In any case, it would simply be a question of which set of genes would be more dominant: human or kryptponian. Regardless of his genes being turned off, they'd still be there, so he would pass them on. I doubt the machine was so powerful as to completely humanize Kal-El, since he had the option of becoming super again. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If it was just a case of oversaturation of Red Sun, then he would have eventually gotten his powers back, because the saturation would begin to wear and the Yellow sun would revert the changes. It has to be on a genetic level. I said that they would have been passed on, but even being passed on they would be second generation, dormant, and only half of what he is seeing as Lois is 100% human. Regardless, they aren't active genes. The son would be a carrier. Regardless, it says "Superman's son", and it should be Clark's son. Even if say the genes were active, Superman is the name Lois gave him and it would be more accurate to be either Kal-El, or Clark. Seeing as Clark is his birth certificate name (granted it's forged) it would still be Clark's son. Bignole 16:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Can't argue with that logic. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The same concept was explored in the conclusion of Infinite Crisis, and the subseuqent One Year Later Superman story Up up and Away. Superman's cells were oversaturated with red sun rays when he and the Earth-2 Superman drove Superboy-Prime through Krypton's red sun. It took him over a year to get his powers back. Who's to say the effects wouldn't be the same in the film universe? The oversaturation case would still stand and he wouldn't get his powers immediately back. The machine only oversaturated. It's in the dialogue. It did not change his genetic structure in any way. CmdrClow 02:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
First, learn was sass means. I didn't sass, I was informing you that it isn't proper etiquette to place your response in the middle of conversations past, even if it's direct responses. If that's the case you quote the person. Second, why would he only give up his powers for a short amount of time? He wanted to live with Lois forever, marry her and have children. He couldn't do that if his powers where to start leaking back. Remember, we are referring to the movie, not the comics. The reason it has to be on a genetic level is because those genes would need to be turned off in order for his DNA to be able to attach to ours, when creating a child. You can't just mix and match any species you want, just because cells are oversaturated. Oversaturated wouldn't have done anything but make him weaker, not human which is what he was going for to have a child. Bignole 11:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The film's dialogue said that the machine "harnessed the rays of the red Krypton sun." Not, "Will alter your genetic structure to make you human." It's in the DIALOGUE. If the dialogue said anything different, you'd have a point. Since all it did was kick the red rays into overdrive. There is also precedent in the comics that human and Kryptonian DNA have spliced. There was an Elseworlds tale involving Superman's direct son. Nobody has said that the movie-verse doen't allow Kryptonian/Human splicing. But either way, let's just shut up and wait for the 27th to get here and we can continue this then. CmdrClow 12:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
But the Red Sun didn't just saturate his cells, other wise how could his DNA mix with ours? That's simple science. If you read the plot correctly what it says is that the child is Clark's, not Kal-El's. I say Kal-El's because Kal is who he was born, that is his Kryptonian name, not his human name. I don't say Superman because that is a title, still not his name. It's like Jesus Christ. Jesus is his name, not Christ. Christ is a title. The point of this section was to correct the plot from calling it Superman's son, when, regardless of whether he had his powers or not, wouldn't be 'Superman's' son, because technically that is just a name that Lois gave him because she didn't know his real name. We never denied the son was his, just that the name "superman" is inaccurate when it comes to naming the child's father. Also, if he had his father's powers he probably would have killed Lois while she was pregnant with him. We already know the book about Superman having kids, thus, the change would have had to be on a genetic level. Why would his mother tell him that if he made this decision he would be human, forever and that there was no going back (the only reason he was able to go back was because he found the original crystal that created the FOS, it wasn't the machine that did it). Saturation would reverse itself, so it wouldn't be forever. Now, turning genes on and off could be forever if you didn't go back and change them. Now, it would have to be more than just turning on and off, because his molecule structure is different than ours, and his DNA wouldn't match. The only way it could match would be if Kryptonians were once Humans (or vice versa), again simply science. The change would have to alter his DNA so that it would match ours, making it possible for him to have children. Since it can't be known what a harnessed amount of Red Sun radiation would do, you can't simply assume it's a saturation affect. It was harnessed radiation at close range, not to mention there was probably another step in there that helped change his DNA. Simply stripping him of his powers wouldn't make him human, his genetics would still be different. But, I digress. The point was that we are saying 'Superman' is a title and thus it can never truly be 'Superman's son', only Clark's or Kal-El's son. That is the accurate description. Bignole 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Clark is Superman, so if you say "Superman's son", you're basically saying it is Clark's son. If you want to get technical, Clark isn't his true given birth name. It would be Kal-El's son. But everybody just knock this off til the 27th. We'll know soon enough.
Please always sign your comments. Why do you keep saying knock off till the 27th? First the movie isn't released till the 28th and even the ones that are released on the 27th won't end till after midnight, thus it will still be the 28th. Second, read this carefully now, we have not said it wasn't his son. What we said was Superman is a title and not his name. Clark is his Earth name, Kal-El is his Kryptonian name, Superman is nothing more than a title given to him by a newspaper, describing what he was when they first saw him. What you are having trouble grasping is the fact that because everyone calls him Superman that it must be his name. Sorry, but his name is Clark/Kal-El, not Superman. It can best be described by a nice little quote from L&C, "Superman is what I do, Clark is who I am." Society calls him Superman because that is what he is to them, a Super Man. Thus, it isn't accurate to say Superman's son, unless you are speaking from Metropolis' communities stand point, which you aren't because you know his real name. Bignole 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't realize you were reaching for such an analytical perspective. That quote from L&C was from a different representation of the character, more approaching the John Byrne cmics, in which the focus was placed more on the alter ego rather than the hero. Bottom line the movie is released to the public on the 27th at 10 pm. That's established. Clark Kent isn't his real name either. By saying Superman you know who I'm talking about so you don't need to throw an anal fit over it because if I say it's Superman's son, you know who Superman really is. You don't need to be so extremely retentive. So, let's just wait til the 27th, or the 28th however you want to look at it, because this is getting tiresome and I just want to wait and see the movie. So just stop. CmdrClow 16:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you get all your personal attacks out of your system? Guess what, this is a different representation of Superman as well. This isn't Christopher Reeve, this isn't Donner's film. Just because it's on the silver screen doesn't mean it's the same representation. Regardless of your representation, he didn't come to this planet as 'Superman', his adoptive parents did not name him 'Superman'. Metropolis named him that, so when you refer to the person you are refering to Clark/Kal, but when you refer to the superhero you are referring to Superman, the title. It's a title no matter what representation you are reading/watching. Hence the reason why it's not Superman's child, it's Clark's/Kal's. If you were to pay attention to what I said, I never said that they are different people. What I said was that when you are describing certain things you have to use certain names. It isn't Superman's mother, Martha Kent, it's Clark's mother. It isn't Superman's child, it's Clark's child, because he wasn't Superman when he fathered him. Lois didn't go to bed with Superman, she went to bed with Clark Kent, birth name Kal-El. The quote by Dean Cain works for every incarnation of the character, because no matter how you look at it his name is not Superman, his monicker is Superman. Bignole 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
stop ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stp)

v. stopped, stop·ping, stops v. tr.

  1. To close (an opening or hole) by covering, filling in, or plugging up: The tea leaves stopped the drain.
  2. To constrict (an opening or orifice): My nose is stopped up.
  3. To obstruct or block passage on (a road, for example).
  4. To prevent the flow or passage of: stop supplies from getting through.
    1. To halt the motion or progress of: stopped me and asked directions.
    2. To block or deflect (a blow, for example); parry or ward off.
    3. To be or get in the way of (a bullet or other missile); be killed or wounded by.
    1. To cause to desist or to change a course of action: stopped us from continuing the argument.
    2. To prevent or restrain: stopped him from going.

I'm done talking to you, I don't care what you're saying anymore. Just knock it off. CmdrClow 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost track of where the continuing conversations were in this thread, so I'll just add a little entry here - the Superman Returns novelization seemingly implies that the child's father is Richard White, not Clark/Superman. Granted the novelization was released a month before the movie and written God knows how long before production finished, so it could deviate from the movie on this point.

That's an excellent point on the novelization (I haven't read it yet, so I won't comment on interpretations of the "who's the daddy" plot), but it's also very possible that the book could have been deliberately written that way in order to not spoil what happens in the movie. This exact same thing was done with X2; as we all know, in the movie, Jean Grey dies. In the novelization, she lives, but is blind. Singer's already done it once, I wouldn't put it past him to do it again in order to keep us all guessing.

Saw the movie last night. Granted that the kid kept referring to Richard as "Dad", but that proves only the social relationships, not the biological. The movie leaves no doubt that Supes is the biological daddy. The kid was noticably bothered by the green crystal that Lex waved in his face, and then at the end, Brandon quotes to the kid much of what Brando had said to Chris in '78; very touchy-feely father-son stuff. --Keeves 16:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the child is his, but he only leaned back once when the Kryp was first pulled out, and after that I think Lex was merely looking at the boy's resemblence to Clark. My question is how did the boy inheret the powers. He's obviously allergic to food and has Asyma(sp). Don't tell me he really didn't have it, because they run tests to prove that you do, and I know the boy's had shots for vaccinations. So, the first question should be how did any powers transfer when Kal gave up his powers to be with Lois, and how did she even have a child, because his DNA is fundamentally different from ours. That's what keeps those sickos that have sex with animals from getting pregnant. Though, I did think it was funny to watch him weezing when he first saw Clark. Bignole 16:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell with you people you're taking this too damn literally! The CHILD THREW A PIANO AT THE GUY! Lois even admits to Superman (not to CLARK!) that it is his child! Do you think they put that father-son monologue at the end just for kicks? Is it so hard to believe that Superman like most people would feel the urge to "procreate biologically" especially with the biological Lana Lane. He may be almoast invincible, but he's probably not celibate. And yes he doesn't know Superman is his father because no one has told him, so obviously he would call Richard his father. And who really cares if he can't do all the things superman can do. He's 5 years old, figuring out his powers! here is no implication, no strong hints. It is most blatantly obvious that Superman is his father. Even a 5 year old could figure that out. So how about we get rid of the sentence with implication. Because what it all comes down to is, that its obvious. Mr Wednesday 13:32 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why no one's mentioned a rather glaring plot hole in Superman Returns. If Superman Returns follows in continuity from Superman II, how can Lois know that Jason White is Superman's son? I mean, Superman (as Clark Kent) erased her memory at the end of Superman II with a "super-kiss". She wouldn't remember having sex with Supes in the Fortress Of Solitude, and therefore she wouldn't know that Jason was Superman's son, so there's no way she could tell Superman himself. -Scion
She never actually told him in the movie. She was going to, she wispered and looked at Jason, but it wasn't definitive. Also, she didn't know before the piano incident, she couldn't have. I don't know what she assumed, maybe that it was an immaculate conception.... Bignole 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In which episode did superman/clark kent and lois actually have sex.Muntuwandi 00:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You serious? Superman gave up his powers in Superman II, and he and Lois had sex afterward. Bignole
After 20/30 (?) years of abstinence, you know he got busy as quickly as possible. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That kiss at the end of II certainly does seem to pose a continuity problem, but it is easily solved by remembering Singer's comment that I and II were vague history, nothing more. This is not a sequel in the strict sense, and you have now identified a very specific point from II that this movie chooses to ignore. --Keeves 16:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems as if you people that keep asking "how did she know" didn't pay attention to the movie. She didn't know, not until the piano incident, and even then I'm sure in her head she was like "ok, how did my son do that, I don't remember having sex with anyone of the ability". Bignole 16:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she didn't know at the beginning that Superman her child's father, and later she could have found out after seeing the signs. ONCE AGAIN THERE ARE OBVIOUS SIGNS. Like Jason's discomfort from the Kryptonite. And Oh I don't know, the fact that he (small boy) THREW A PIANO AT THE GUY. Now lets see what does that add up, a super power child. Now wait now Lois, is pretty smart, so I guess she can figure out that the child is Supermans, thereby finding out that she must have had sex with him. Is that so impossible? This is not rocket science, the director makes obvious (which is an understatetment) indicators, nothing in this movie is subtle.

It's pretty obvious from the way Lois spoke to Luthor that she ALWAYS knew that Jason was Superman's child. 69.137.100.108 13:32 29 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL Lois is smart, she's an idiot in this flick. She never questions Clark and Superman having a corresponding 5 year absences and still cant figure out he's Superman. This movie is not an homage. This is cinematic plagarism.

You guys are talking like the kid basically spasmed when the Kryptonite was around him. He pulled back once, and that was when Luthor pulled it out, all so dramatically. Then when it was next to him, Luthor was also in his face, so I think him slightly drawing back there was more of a scared child than a sick child. Not saying he isn't Clark's kid, just that your only argument seems to be about his aversion to K, which was minimal at best. Second, she couldn't know from the start, unless they decided to retcon the "superkiss" as well. Otherwise, the first time she sees him her first words should be "ok, explain why my kid can lift the couch all by himself". Bignole 02:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome is, it was the creator's intent to have us think that Jason is Superman's son. Apparently conception may have happened around the time of Lois' story,"One Night With Superman", as Richard questioned this night. (When Lois may have lied about being in love with Supes, I wonder why Supes couldn't tell if she was lying or not). Anyways, if it was his, it is superman's. Even if you consider Superman II to be the time of conception Clark was still technically Kal El. Whether the Chamber exposed him to Red Sun or changed his genetics, the Clark after the change had physical continuity with the Clark/Supes before the chamber, because not all 100% of his body was changed. He definately had mental continuity with his former self, so his was still the same person. Kal El was sent to earth as earthlings and kryptonians had "close" makeup as well as lifestyles. So this mating is not far fetched.
Actually, if you remember Jor-El's and Lara's words: Jor-el -"their atmosphere will sustain him", "he will look like one of them".. Lara - "but he won't be one of them". Nothing said that his genetic make up was close, just that he looked like one of them and could survive on Earth. The point is, Superman is a name for Clark/Kal-El in the public's eye. In the reality of comics, he is merely Clark Kent/Kal-El. Superman is an alias. His birth name and his adoptive name are his only TRUE names. Just because we always refer to him as Superman, doesn't mean that is his name. Anyone that knows him personally doesn't refer to him as such, unless around people that do not know his secret. Batman often refers to him as Clark, when in private. He hardly ever goes by Kal-El. I think the movie likes to play with ambiguities, and not really say who is Jason's father. There are points where you are like "ok, he is definitely Clark's son", but then they never really tackle the answer and leave it open to interpretation. But, when you refer to him as someone's son, it's either Clark's or Richard's, not Superman's or Richard's. Green Lantern wouldn't have a kid, but Hal Jordan would. You are confusing titles with name. Bignole 20:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say that I haven't read everything above in this section, but I did a quick search/find for "hair" and nothing came back. Second, I'd like to point out to you all that what I'm going to say here I put in the actual article at the end of the "plot" section, but then an anon came along and removed it (without, might I add, any reason given for doing so). So here it goes: "Jason's hair is long, possibly because it cannot be cut because he is Superman's son." Do you guys understand? Is there anywhere this can be mentioned? Please help. Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 13:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for wild speculation. Besides, his hair was long because that's his style; if a five-year-old never got his hair cut before, it would be much longer than as shown. --Keeves 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! On a side note though, what does "reinsert my comment after reverting vandalism" mean? Thank you for your help. --Eric Jack Nash 14:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, wait a second... I just thought of something else... So if he has his hair that long for style, and that it would be longer due to normal growth, then that means that he isn't Superman's son, right? You see, that means that Lois does get his hair cut, and therefore if his hair can be cut, then he doesn't have super powers. Your thoughts? Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Protected to determine whether "preceeded by" should be determined by continuity or production order. Please discuss in an attempt to achieve consensus. -- Samir धर्म 06:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already supplied the Wikipedia guidelines for Film Infobox, for the sections of "Preceeded" and "Followed", in the above section labeled "Preceeded By". Bignole 06:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is that consensus? I don't think so.

Now, this:

Episode Release date
I. The Phantom Menace May 19, 1999
II. Attack of the Clones May 16, 2002
III. Revenge of the Sith May 19, 2005
IV. A New Hope May 25, 1977
V. The Empire Strikes Back May 21, 1980
VI. Return of the Jedi May 25, 1983

Here's consensus! 06:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at the Batman film series. The preceded and followed by are set up differently. Batman Begins shows that it was preceded by Batman & Robin, but it says in perenthesis "(out of contiinuity)". Could we create two preceded boxes, one for chronological and one for continuity? 24.17.55.158 07:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I still also think the format of the Star Wars articles brings up an excellent point in that department though. As works of serial fiction, the progression of the full story is the one that should be taken into account as the priority. But if the other works are to be acknowledged, perhaps two "preceded by" boxes wouldn't be a bad idea. CmdrClow 08:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
First question, Batman Begins should not even be listed with Batman and Robin, because that movie is not part of that series. Batman Begins is the beginning of its own series and thus not even part of that continuity, let alone that production. You guys keep bringing up Star Wars. It's wrong. I know you want to view it as being in order of how the story takes place, but, it should be in the order it was released, because that is what "preceeded by" is used for. You can't have two preceeded bys, that doesn't make sense, and you can't make the "sequel" "preceeded by" box a priority over what Wiki says it should be. What part of a guideline do you not understand? Wiki sets a rule, that rule should be followed because it was placed there to make this the most beneficial encyclopedia. Also, Star Wars is all one series that was filmed at different times, all meant to follow the other. Superman Returns, even when it retcons events, is not meant to follow Superman II. Singer didn't create this movie as an attempt to say "ok, the movies should be Superman, Superman II, then Superman Returns". He's simply using events that took place from those two movies to act as a vague history to his movie so that he can have a tie-in to the series. Superman Returns is its own series, just like Batman Begins is its own series. The difference is that Singer wanted SR to be tied to the original two Superman Movies, because he stated that they are his favorite. True sequels would follow the same continuity, SR does not follow Supe II continuity. Just because there are references to the films doesn't mean that it is a sequel to them. The references are meant to give you a sense of connection to the other films, not say this one follows them. He has never stated that SR is a sequel, so why you persist on making it one is beyond me. Having connections to previous movies through inside jokes, re-edited flashbacks, and "nods" does not make it a sequel. Hell, even Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are not true sequels, they are franchise movies. The difference is that a sequel picks up where one leaves off, a franchise movie just creates a new story for the same characters. So, in that respect Batman Begins should follow B&R, because it's establishing a new story for those characters. Superman Returns is a sequel to no movie, it's simply another story for those characters that (because of the time span of the last films) uses in-jokes and nods to the previous ones to establish that it isn't a retelling of Superman (as Batman Begins was for Batman) but still part of that same series that Chris Reeve started. Now, that explains why, even if that was how "preceeded by" worked, you still couldn't put Superman Returns after Superman II. Unfortunately, that isn't how preceeded by works, at least not when you are in an encyclopedia. It is meant to show when movies were made, from the earliest time to the latest time, in a particular series, and not where they "might" fall in the series in continuity. I'm sorry, but the rules are on my side and just because there are pages that are incorrect does not mean this should be one of them. Remember, there can be exceptions to the rules, and Star Wars might be one because it is part of something that was already written but just filmed out of order, that doesn't mean that exception applies to Superman. I'm a big Superman fan myself, but that doesn't mean that I am going to corrupt the integrity of this encyclopedia by providing misinformation, which is what it would be if you said Superman II comes before Superman Returns. Bignole 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Bignole, in my edit to the Superman II page, if you had looked very closely (which I doubt), you would have found, in the followed by section, two film titles: Superman Returns and Superman III. Further, if you had checked in either article, you would find both films preceded by Superman II and with a bolded statement saying (new continuity) and (old continuity), respectively. Why? To clarify that Superman III and Superman Returns are on different roads branching off from the same continuity fork. Also, if you would have checked my edit of the Superman IV: The Quest For Peace article, you would have found the followed by section to contain this: Superman Lives (failed sequel production). If you had thereafter gone to that page (the Superman Lives page, that is) you would have noticed, in its own followed by column, the words none (series retconned). Oh, and just one more thing (in the words of my favorite TV detective): my idea for placing all the preceded bys and followed bys came directly from the Star Wars articles you criticized above! In response to your last remark, Bignole; you already have. 13:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Really? I only see Superman III. Ha! Just kidding. What you still fail to understand is that movie time does not equal real world time. Here in the real world, Superman 4 came out before Superman Returns. In the movie world, it never existed. Now, which should we lend more weight to: the real world or the movie one? Should be fairly obvious. In case all the information hasn't sunk in yet, I'll reiterate. Preceeded by is based on chronological order, meaning that the movie that was made (and shown) last belongs in that field. Last I checked, that would be Superman 4. Until the movie world takes over the real world, we stick to the actual timeline, not the movie's. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw the edits, and here is your mistake: First you keep assuming that "preceeded by" and "followed by" are used to say which one follows in continuity. I'm sorry but please look above in this Talk page as see the guidelines that I have posted from wikipedia. Second. Superman Returns is not a sequel so why you insist on saying it's a different branch from Superman II is just rediculously unnecessary. Hell, read this article, tell me where in this article it says Superman Returns is a sequel..show me. I do believe we have countless information where Singer says it isn't a sequel, just that he uses those first movies to establish a "VAGUE HISTORY". What part of that isn't getting in? Vague history does not say sequel, and even if it did it still doesn't mean that you place it after Superman II, because even though it may retcon events it still follows the FILMS of Superman III and IV, regardless of the fact that it doesn't follow their events. Third, Superman Lives was never finished, it wasn't even filmed, so you don't even have the right to call it a sequel to anything. IT'S NONE EXISTENT. Just because all the preproduction work was done doesn't mean that it's a movie. Superman Lives is nothing more than a "never was" and why you would even call it a sequel to Superman IV is just, well I'm afraid only you can actually answer that question. Anyway, to the point. Please realize that you are wrong in this situation. Not only are the guidelines in my favor, but Superman Returns is not a sequel, it's been stated by Warner Brothers, Singer and even the writers. It's not a remake or a re-boot either. It's a continuum of the series that Reeves started, with references to the first two movies. The only reason people think this is a sequel to Superman II is because there are no references to Superman III and IV. So, in essence it would retcon those, but since it isn't a sequel it does nothing of the sort. Provide me a link to where Warner Brothers or Singer has said "Superman Returns is a sequel to Superman II", only then will you even make sense with your 'logic', but that still doesn't change the fact that guidelines state that the preceeding film be Superman IV. I'm sorry, deal with it. Bignole 19:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, our method (which is supported by guidelines) is a simple and easy to use method of chronologically identifying movies. Your method relies on bolded sub-text and multiple lines in a field which confuses readers. You're putting way too much effort into such a simple matter. Things like your ideas belong (and incidentally, are) in the article content, not in the infobox. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, you may want to pop over to Lex Luthor's article on the Returns section. I know your faulty logic radar will go off of the deep end after reading that.
-CmdrClow 05:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Bignole, Bignole, Bignole. I doubt you did as Cmdr Clow told you to do above, so I'll just post the info from the Superman Returns section of the Lex Luthor article:

In the film Superman Returns, due for release in June 2006, Luthor will be played by two-time Academy Award winner Kevin Spacey. The movie will be set after Superman II, and according to most accounts, is a somewhat loosely-based sequel to that film (and by extension, Superman: The Movie). Spacey's characterization will be a Lex Luthor looking for revenge on Superman for putting him in jail as well as trying to pull off another 'real estate swindle'. Spacey described his Luthor as a very dark and bitter man, and while trailer footage shows Luthor's harder and more violent edge, it also shows Spacey engaging in some Hackman-style comedy (it could be said that some elements of Hackman's portrayal had to be maintained in order to keep continuity between Superman II and Superman Returns).

There. How you like them bananas?
Sigh. Bignole, we hardly knew thee. 20;21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You should probably learn to read an entire comment before projecting an undeserved aura of self-superiority: "it could be said that some elements of Hackman's portrayal had to be maintained in order to keep continuity between Superman II and Superman Returns". What's this? "It could be said?" Why, I believe that means they're just guessing and don't really know. Bring whatever comments you like. We'll take them apart and throw their proper meaning back at you. You must understand that you're just grasping at straws now. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking place after Superman II doesn't mean it's a sequel to Superman II. Guess what, if it takes place after Superman IV, that is still taking place after Superman II. Now, essentially it retcons Superman III and IV, but since it isn't a sequel to any of them, it really doesn't matter. Again, I don't believe you have provided my anything that has said "THIS IS A SEQUEL". So please, stop acting immature and leave it be. You're wrong. End of discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bignole (talk • contribs) .
What are you talking about? I can't touch the article! No one can; it's protected. And who is talking here; Someguy0830 or Bignole? Don't confuse an honest contributor. 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
He means when it's unprotected. It's not that confusing. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous user, please refrain yourself from reverting edits of mine so that you can make it appear that I did not sign my post. Just because you cannot admit that you are wrong does not mean you should act like a child and remove things from the Discussion Page. Bignole 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Done with your mudslinging? You said in an earlier post, "Batman Begins should not even be listed with Batman and Robin, because that movie is not part of that series." You could say the same thing that due to retcon, Superman III and IV are not part of this film series, or that Superman Returns is a basic restart and doesn't belong with I-IV. But, as works of serial fiction, the progression of the STORY is what should get priority, so it would be more appropriate to discount III and IV in the preceded box as they have no relevance to the story of I, II, and Returns. CmdrClow 20:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Batman doesn't belong with them. 1. It isn't a Burton or Shumacher film. 2. It isn't a continuation of that film series, there is nothing connecting it to those other movies. 3. It's been stated that it is a "re-boot". Now, let's look at Superman Returns. 1. It is not a sequel to anything, Singer has said so and the article says so. 2. Retconning events does not retcon entire movies. Halloween H20 retcons everything after Halloween II, but that doesn't mean that those movie do not still exist. 3. Please try and grasp the fact that the section in the infobox is meant to imply which movie came next in real life timelines. 4. In works of fiction, when you are discussion the fiction then the "Story" gets precedence, but, when you are discusses the series, their order gets it. 5. Superman Returns is only part of the film series because Singer decided to use references to the past films to establish a history for his movie. If you remove the reference then his movie is a reboot of the franchise, not a sequel, that just picks up in the middle of Superman's life. It doesn't provide backstory, it isn't his first mission, it's nothing but a blip in his personal history. Usually, making a movie that just picks up in the middle, especially when you are re-booting a franchise kind of makes for dissapointing entertainment, you feel like you missed something. So, to save time he chose to use references from the first Superman movie, and the majority of the references are from Superman: The Movie, not from Superman II. By doing this it allows him to create a history for HIS character that is linked to Reeve's character. There is nothing between those movies and this movie by "nods", no true connection. 5. Even if you retcon the events of Superman III and IV, they are still part of the series, it wasn't like someone else played those roles. Those are Reeve's movies, and you cannot deny their existence just because they aren't mentioned. So, let's play this again, shall we? "Preceeded by" means what movie came before the current when in FILM HISTORY, not FICTIONAL UNIVERSES. If you cannot agree on this we will simply have to get an administrative mediator, and I promise you they will see it our way. Bignole 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You're beating it to death. If the Star Wars films are allowed to show story progression, why should this series be any different? You could say that this is the start of a new series, since it's back story is, according to what you say, an amalgamation of I and II. If it's not a sequel to anything, than why not remove the preceded box altogether? That seems to be the point you're trying to make. Get a mediator, you're in a majority of one, maybe two. CmdrClow 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, CmdrClow! However, I think it's been established that I and II come before Returns. I believe it's sort of a narrative branch-off, which is why, in my edit of the protected articles, I chose to distinguish which continuities were which. You make a good point about Batman, though. 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, I don't monitor every page, and I'm not going to go to every single film article that is part of a series and make sure that it is within the guidelines of Wiki, sorry but I have more of a life than that. Right now, I am focused on Superman. I don't care what Star Wars is doing, does this article look like Star Wars to you? It isn't a sequel, the only reason it even deserves to get the "Preceeded by" section is because of the references to the other films, which automatically puts it in that series. Now, if it make jokes about the other films, and not legitimate references, then it would be in it's own series, because it wouldn't be trying to establish a connection to the others. The only reason those are being used is because Singer finds those to be his favorites, and to connect to a series which he thinks was best incarnation of the character is what he was going for. That is why it is a vague history and not a definitive history. That is why there isn't a full on recap at the beginning of the film like in Superman II. Because he isn't trying to establish this film as a sequel to Superman II, just use SOME events from Superman I and II to provide a history for his personal story. I'm all for removing it altogether, not every series in Wiki actually contains a preceeded by section. If you cannot agree on it's proper usage then I say remove it altogether. It states in the article that Superman I and II are used as a vague history, and that the EVENTS of Superman III and IV will not be mentioned. In my opinion, if you remove the "references to the previous movies" this is a reboot of the franchise and stands alone by itself. Either we use the proper form for the "preceeded by" or we remove it altogether. Bignole 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Does what we say simply not get through to you? Are you incapable of reading? It does not matter what Star Wars does because, as we've explained, it is not the same situation. Get that straight. Star Wars was written as an entire series that progressed in the logical order then produced in the sequel/prequal format for several reasons, the least of which being better sales and lack of appropriate visual technology. Despite that fact, it's still wrong. Superman Returns was written and produced after Superman 4. Superman 2 was written and produced before Superman 3 (gasp!), not Superman Returns. Continuity doesn't matter. All you've been suggesting is cluttering the infobox with needless sub-text to explain your flawed reasoning. Read this explanation about the use of the infobox and just stop trying to validate your clearly flawed view of how it works. Template talk:Infobox Film/Syntax Guide – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be clearly production order instead of continuity order....plain and simple. This film is clearly the fifth produced film in the franchise but is not set much in the continuity of the first two films. There has been nothing in the later Superman movies to indicate that they were ever meant to be in any true continuity order and listing them in production order clearly rectifies the situation. --67.54.238.37 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...I mean, why, then, can't all articles follow the same guidelines? Wikipedia is an authority unto itself; it should be regulated, and every article should be based on the same standards. Yet, how then, do you explain away this?
Episode Release date
I. The Phantom Menace May 19, 1999
II. Attack of the Clones May 16, 2002
III. Revenge of the Sith May 19, 2005
IV. A New Hope May 25, 1977
V. The Empire Strikes Back May 21, 1980
VI. Return of the Jedi May 25, 1983

If production order comes before continuity, why is this list still allowed to exist? 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you insist on being ignorant of what we've told you several times now, I'll type it in caps: PEOPLE CAN'T MONITOR EVERY ARTICLE. If the Star Wars movie articles are screwed up, that doesn't mean this should be. Can you not read the dates in your own table? While you're at it, why don't you argue: "Well that article is full of cuss words, original research, and doesn't even relate to the title. Why can't this one be like that?" It's a very poor argument, and only serves to show the weakness of your own position. It goes by production order. The box was designed specifically as such. It even says so in the guide. It's just you two who insist on making it overly complicated to suit your own whims. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot go around and correct every single problem with every page, that is why it allows anyone to edit it's pages. It sets the rules and it relies on the honor of others to look them up and then follow them. The problem comes that most people just see something and start editing it, and then others see what they did and start editing in a similar manner. The next thing you know you have 500, 000 articles that are all edited the same way, but are done so in an unencyclopedic manner. Wiki sets these rules up to provide internet users with an online encyclopedia, and encycl. have rules of structure. This site is not intended to be some fandome where people can just put what they want because that is how they feel it should go. Unfortunately, when you rely on your members to correct pages you undoubtably create the potential for a lot of human error. The Star Wars pages are technically wrong. We have provided you with the guidelines that say so. If you monitor these pages frequently then please go correct them. In the "summary" box list the reason as "per Wikipedia guidelines for 'preceeded by'/'followed by'". Bignole 02:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I know I'm kind of just jumping in here, but I've been reading this for a little while. I have to ask, are the Godfather films not sequels? They pick up at different times, continuing stories about characters, with the previous movies as vague backstories. I don't see why Superman can't do the same. Technically, the second superman film doesn't follow directly from the first one. It just tells a blip of Superman's story. - Xtreme680 03:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a true sequel does not have to pick up directly where the last one left. A true sequel picks up telling the same story as before, just extended. Superman and Superman II are true sequels, because Superman II picks up with the ending story of the criminal Kryptonians. Superman III and IV are just franchise pictures. The Godfathers (which I haven't seen) but from what I understand are still sequels because they are continuing stories of the family and things that happen to them. Superman Returns is not continuing a story set forth by any Superman movie, it's its own story. Regardless, that still wouldn't put it in the followed by box on the Superman II page. Spiderman and Spiderman 2 would be a sequel. Spiderman 2 continues with the development of Peter and his struggle with his new powers and his true love, MJ. It expands on his relationship with his best friend, his aunt, his struggle to tell her the truth about Uncle Ben's death. Batman and Batman Returns, not sequels. Every Batman movie, since the original, has been a simple franchise picture. This is being technical. In society they are all considered "sequels" by mainstream society because to everyone else there isn't a difference, it's just another movie about the same guy. But, when you are attempting to classify where a movie falls in a series, you have to ask yourself questions about that movie to determine if it is a true sequel or just a franchise sequel. Superman Returns is neither, because in reality it is the beginning of its own series, but it creates a link to the previos series by adding homages and in-jokes about the previous films. Bignole 03:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense to me. But could we have a cease fire until after the film comes out? It might help to see the film, and then we could pick up the discussion from there if it was a sequel or not. I suggest this because we might want to add box office numbers, plot, and other things that are going to come about from the film's release in the next few days. I do not care wish side would which to yield for a few days, but I don't think it's the most important thing about the article. The article already mentions it as a loose sequel, and that may be best left to the interpretation of the reader/viewer anyway, about how much of that history they want to incorporate or not incorporate. - Xtreme680 03:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, this discussion pertains to the Infobox, and the "preceeded by" and "followed by" sections of that box. No matter how much is incorporated into the movie, because it is incorporated into the movie (making it part of the Reeve series, by default) the "preceeded by" section must be filled with Superman IV, because chronologically that movie preceeded this one. In my opinion, no matter what the references, unless it is an outright sequel I think that this movie should stand alone and not have a preceeded by section, period. Bignole 04:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I would tend to agree. If this is how the films are to be shown in the box, why was Batman Begins' article ridiculed for showing Batman & Robin as it's imediate predecessor, even though it was outside of coninuity? Since it is the Batman film series, shouldn't the preceding film be shown in that article as well? If this film is the establishment of a new film series, then the preceded box should simply be eliminated, just as was done with the Batman films on this site. CmdrClow 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So you are finally agreeing that Superman Returns is not in the same film series? That was what I have been saying all along. I removed B&R from the Batman Begins Infobox a little while ago, because it does not belong, hell the article specifically says so. I'll reiterate what I said above, in my opinion Superman Returns is the beginning of a new series and the only connection is shares to Reeve's films are going to be the homages that were placed throughout the movie. Now, if you want to use that as a reason for it to stay in the Reeve series, then Superman IV must be what is in the Infobox. But, if you agree that Superman Returns is the beginning of a new series then there should not be a preceeded by section at all. Bignole 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand what the discussion pertains to, what I am suggesting is that perhaps time will tell best and that we need to be able to edit this page. We should put the issue on hold, specifically because none of us have seen the movie yet. For all we know, it's not just homages, and is much more than that. I don't know, but I do know that we will all know more after seeing the movie, not just reading interviews and citing parts of this article. I can only hope that we have reached some sort of agreement and that we can get back to editing the page. If not, I say we put the issue on hold. - Xtreme680 05:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point, and Bignole I am not agreeing with you. I am compromising. You wanted to place Superman IV in the Preceded box, even though this is techichally a different series. As a work of serial fiction, I believe Superman I and II are the immediate predecessors to this film. On a day I'm not doing anything, I would watch Superman I, II, and then Returns to get the story presented. But since I don't believe Superman IV belongs in that spot, I would rather that the series of films, then and now by this website, be established by the actors playing the title role. The Chris Reeve series was I-IV. This is the Brandon Routh series, beginning here. It's more tolerable to me that the preceded box be removed, with a mention in the article that this is a "loose sequel" to Superman II. So hopefully, Xtreme, that's something everybody could agree upon because you may be absolutely right. I vote to just rid the article of the Preceded box. CmdrClow 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As a work of serial fiction, Superman Returns would still come after Superman IV. Just like Halloween 4-6 come after Halloween II. They pick up exactly where Halloween II leaves off, yet the events are retconned. Just because you don't like the movies, and their events are removed with the proceeding movie, doesn't mean that you can just ignore their existence. But, alas, the agreement is on the fact that this is a new series and no 'preceeded by' box will be listed. Bignole 11:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I can ignore their existence because Returns is a retcon. I don't really think that a horror franchise has any precedent on the world's greatest hero. I like III and IV for different reasons, but it's not an integral part of the story being presented anymore. Serial fiction implies one story throughout, and since Returns picks up with I and II, the latter two franchise pictures of the old series are not part of this larger story. So I would watch I, II, and then Returns. At the same time, this film is the beginning of a new series with a completely different creative team, so the Preceded box should be removed. CmdrClow 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
First, you can't play games with the rules. Film is film and because you don't watch one thing and are fanatical about another doesn't mean that what you like is any less responsible for following the rules than any other genre. Second, Returns doesn't pick up where Superman II leaves off, and it is not a retcon. You keep thinking that Returns is a sequel, when it is not. What part of "vague history" do you not understand? The makers simply wanted to create a connection to the Reeve films, that's all. And just because YOU can ignore something about a series does not mean that an ENCYCLOPEDIA should ignore it. I'm all for being a fan of something but you are allowing your prejudices for this character blind you from what is truly happeneing. Do you think that if a movie mentions a previous film that it automatically makes its sequel? I guess Lois and Clark was a sequel to the Superman franchise cause they made tons of references to Superman, and I guess Smallville is a prequel to the franchise because they made references to his future status. You can't pick and choose what you like to follow. Returns is not a sequel, even if it mentions events from any of the Superman movies. Singer has said it is not a sequel. The only way it could even be a sequel would be if it was continuing a story set forth by a previous Superman movie, which it does not. It simply uses information to establish it's own existence in that franchise. Bignole 19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing importance. No one film is more important than another. It doesn't matter if it was an unmitigated disaster or the best film in history, here they are given the same weight. Supes III and IV existed. This will not change. You do not ignore them simply because a director decides to. He may not acknowledge their existence, but we do. I'm for blanking the box, but so far it's three to two in favor of correctly ordering the films, not ordering them based on your viewing preference. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that so, Someguy0830? Sorry, but I think it's established that things that come after other things in production but take place before them are classified as having come before the others. I don't know who has put out the rediculous idea that Superman Returns is not a true sequel to Superman II, because it is! I think it's been well established at this point in the public eye that Bryan Singer simply has no love for Superman III and IV, which is why he's put out Returns to supercede those films. Basically, if any normal person watches the films (I, II, Returns) in chronological order, they will find that many things carry over from the first two into Returns. Richard White mentions the article "I Spent The Night With Superman" seen in the first film. Marlon Brando (Jor-El, if you'll remember) reprises his role for Returns. But the worst, I think is this: that Jason, Lois Lane's child in the new film, is Superman's son, conceived the night Lois and Clark slept together in the Fortress of Solitude in Superman II. If that's not damning evidence (and it most certainly is) then I don't know what else I can say. _72.200.147.16 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Vague history! Read these words and cut the sequel nonsense. They're not the same. Plus, you still fail to grasp the concept of real world time verses movie world time. It does not matter when a movie supposedly takes place or what the director may think of it predecessors. What matters is what came first. Prove to me that in some way, shape, or form that Superman Returns was somehow produced before Superman III, and I'll consider your point to be valid. Until that point, all you've got is your personal preference. The guidleines are on our side here. Production trumps preference. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your information but it is entirely your opinion. Singer did not put this out because he hated Superman III and IV, he put it out because he's a huge fan of Superman and because Warner Brothers asked him to direct. Second, no matter what film retcons what other film it still comes after in chronological order. You cannot changed the definition of chronological order, sorry can't be done. Third, Singer has said this isn't a sequel and it doesn't pick up after Superman II. Brando reprises the role of Jor-El because the person that Singer wanted to play Jor-El turned it down. Brando was not his original choice. Making reference to an article written by Lois in the original movie is exactly what he was trying to do, create a connection, an inside joke that true fans would recognize. It's like when Smallville makes references to Clark in later life, as Superman, nothing more nothing less. And the novelization has already said the child is Richard's, not Clarks. Even if she could carry the child, for her to even create a child would mean that his DNA would have to change to be able to support her DNA when the egg was fertilized. So, let's review this "evidence" you claim of. 1. Singer has said this is not a sequel, nor a remake (his words, sorry). 2. Brando was only used because the original choice refused. 3. All references to past films are meant as an inside joke, homages if you will (i.e. Like Smallville does) and 4. Wikipedia states that film production supercedes continuity, even when there is not continuity change here. Just because there isn't a reference to Superman III and IV does not mean that this film has interrupted a series and branched off in a new direction. Singer's version is a new series, that pays tribute to the original series, because he a well known fan of Christopher Reeve's work as Superman. Bignole 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say the encyclopedia should follow how I see things, I said that's how I view the story. Douh=gherty and Harris pick and chose from the first two films to establish this backstory, therefore as far as I'm concerned, III and IV are Elseworlds tales. I'm not ignoring their existence completely, I heavily enjoy both movies, but as far as I'm concerened, and as far as many other Super fans are concerned, III and IV have no basis on this film. Unless there's a vague or direct mention of Gus Gorman or Nuclear Man than my opinion remains. Try all you want Bignole, my opinion remains, so stop the useless banter and just leave it alone. Quit while you might be a little bit ahead. Oh by the way, Brando was only used because the original choice refused. Do you have any proof of that? Singer's interviews never implied any other choice than the re use of old Brando footage. At one point Anthony Hopkins was attached to the role, but that was before Singer came aboard. Also, All references to past films are meant as an inside joke, homages if you will (i.e. Like Smallville does) That statement is an existential definition of the references to the past films. The only people who can define that are Dougherty, Harris, and Singer. In the official prequel comics to the film, the origin from the first film is simply re-hashed. In the most recent book, Lex Luthor's real estate swindle and attempted destruction of the California coast from the first film are directly mentioned which makes that official. In the Ma Kent book, the scene following Jonathon's funeral is re-hashed, as well as the scene where an 18 year old Clark tells Martha that he must go north. These are the OFFICIAL origins from Singer, Harris, Dougherty, and DC. Coupled with the direct mention of Lois Lane's article, I think that pretty much makes at least the first film directly related to this one. The only differences between the prequel comics and the films are a few panels of simplified dialogue to make the scene move faster.CmdrClow 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put words in your mouth, I am simply trying to decypher you incomplete thoughts. You say one thing then you say another. Oh, and please don't speak for "the many other" fans, because you are only one person. They understand that only the first two films are referenced, but you can't speak for what else they believe. Well, since Singer has said the words "in-jokes" I'm pretty sure that they were "defining what they meant" at that moment. The majority of the references are going to come from the original film anyway, because he said "Donner's Superman", and unfortunately we won't see Donner's Superman II unless/until they release it on DVD. This movie does not pick up 5 years after Superman II, as people have been trying to say, that would be impossible. It would be retconning events from Superman I and II if that was the case, because it would have to push timelines. By mentioning an article that Lois wrote that doesn't secure it as a sequel to anything, again, making a reference has less to do with how specific you are. If that was the case then I guess when Chloe asked Clark if he "turned the Earth reverse on it's axis" that it makes Smallville a prequel to Superman: The Movie. I don't think so. You can keep your opinion of how the movies should fall, but this article will state the facts. The fact is that this is not a sequel. The fact is that it contains references to the previous films, and uses them as a "loose history" (if it was a sequel then it wouldn't be a loose history, it would be the backbone). The fact is that you cannot take information from the novels and apply them to the film, even the part of Richard being the boy's father (and that supports my theory). The film is stand alone. Other than references to Superman: The Movie, it has not affiliation with that series. Bignole 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for writing that, because you just proved our point. The encyclopedia does not cater to you, and since this is all your opinion, it has no merit. What we have been suggesting thus far is guideline-supported and factually accurate, where as you wish to have your opinion dicate the progression of the series as you prefer to see it. I will say this once more. Your opinion, which is all it is no matter how you may try to hide it, is not the determining factor in how the infobox works. The guideline for the infobox is how the infobox works. That guideline supports the production (and only the production) order for the preceeded by and followed by fields. You need to understand this instead of rambling on about "oh but this isn't in continuity, it's Elseworlds now." Production trumps preference. End of story. Should you respond, do not go on about continuity again. You've made your opinion clear on that. Show us why we should ignore the guideline to suit your whims. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys are missing a couple important points concerning the guidelines. The guideline is incredibly vague. What does it mean by chronologically? The person defining it as "When it was released" is Bignole, earlier up in the page. Why can't chronologically mean in order of canon? Because those are the guidelines? Well, maybe those guidelines are silly and should be changed. It's not policy, and the only people I've ever seen fighting for this is the people that are convinced it should be done in this way have been arguing it on this way. Seriously, it's a style guideline. It's not image copyright violation, its not violating NPOV, its not a controversial remark without a source, it's a little box at the bottom of the screen. The movie comes out soon. We should unprotect this page. I could care less about it, but I just want to point out that the arguments that Routh has stated it's a sequel and the prequel comics mentioning all the events of the previous movies are strong indicators that its a sequel. - Xtreme680 00:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because canon isn't a matter of actual chronology. Read the entire guideline: "Use: a link to the related franchise film that came out before this one, for example, if part of a trilogy or series. Leave blank if nothing preceded it or it's a remake or a update. Use italics. Year is optional." This is simple logic. By marking it as Superman II, the article is incorrectly stating the order of events. Retconned, crap, or otherwise, Superman III and IV exist. Not mentioning them is misinformation. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out one little fact about what you said Xtreme, Routh did not write the story. Routh did not direct the movie, and Routh is by far not a definitive on the series of Superman. It's like when Kirsten Dunst tried to claim that The Lizard was in Spiderman 2, when in fact it was simply Dr. Conners. Most actors don't know their assholes from their elbows. And the guideline isn't vague, it provides an example for you. Bignole 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hearing you insult actors makes me laugh out loud, Bignole. It's like watching Max Bialystock from The Producers:
LEO BLOOM: You can't kill the actors! They're human beings!
MAX BIALYSTOCK: They are? Have you ever eaten with one?
Besides, actors are held in great esteem in the movie world. And, to téte à téte, Ms. Dunst correctly reported that Thomas Haden Church would be playing Flint Marco (The Sandman, to all you comicphiles) in Spider-Man 3. Most actors, such as the venerable Ian McDiarmid and Alec Guiness, I'm so sorry to tell you, do know their assholes from their elbows (though I doubt if you do). Most actors get directly involved in their respective film productions, such as Lon Chaney did in The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, or Marlon Brando in The Godfather. So, queen takes out king, and checkmate. _72.200.147.16 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, what happens is that she read the script and someone told her who the character was in the comics and from that point she made the assumption that The lizard was a villain. The same goes for Routh. He read the script and was told about the references to the previous film and made the assumption that it was a sequel. Let's see, who's word counts more: Singer's or Routh's? Hmm...I wonder. One says it is a sequel, the other says it isn't. I think you were making your "move" a little too soon there Queeny. But I did enjoy the quote from The Producers, thanks, it made me laugh. I'm not saying all actors don't know what they are talking about, just actors that are part of something that they are not familar with. Singer says it is NOT a sequel, I think he knows better than Routh. Bignole 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome Bignole; I'm glad I was able to make you laugh. Humor does not come lightly on these pages. Now, to the point. Personally, I believe (and it's a belief, not a fact) that actors are meant to be spokespersons for their films during the publicity stage, and, oftentimes, they can be remarkably correct; Sam Jackson himself said that Attack of the Clones would be a "love story". Not to say that they can't get their heads stuck way up their buttholes sometimes; David Prowse bragged so much about his unmasking scene during the publicity stage of Return of the Jedi that George Lucas had to reshoot the scene with Sebastian Shaw. Actually, I never did hear Singer say it wasn't a sequel; he just said the first two films formed some sort of a history. I actually like the idea of getting rid of the two overly-Salkind productions, but it's your choice. I never meant for any antagonism between us; I was just playing the devil's advocate (which is actually a very fun role, if you know what I mean). Do you mind if I keep playing it? Thanks. Oh, and, to lighten you up, here's another fun little quote from The Producers, between Roger DeBris and the drugged-out hippie L.S.D.:
ROGER DEBRIS: What have you done, L.S.D.?
LORENZO SAINT-DUBOIS: Five years, but I'm out for good behavior, baby.
ROGER DEBRIS: Well, show us what you do best.
LORENZO SAINT-DUBOIS: Oh, no, baby; they'd put me away again...
Peace out, baby. _72.200.147.16 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the film quotes. I thought I remember him saying that it "wasn't a sequel, but it wasn't a remake either". I definitely do remember that he has never gone on record, or off record as saying this is a sequel to Superman II, especially when more of the "in-jokes" are from Superman: The Movie. Regardless, the listing should be either Superman IV, or no listing at all. I can deal with no listing, because not every page has a listing for the preceeding films. Bignole 03:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Really? If it's not a sequel, and it's not a remake, then what are we having this argument for? Personally, if Singer's never been on or off the record about legitimate sequality, then this issue really should be undecided. However, I'm sorry to say that I can't deal with no listing; every page should have a listing for the preceeding films. It's just that simple! Unless you want me to concede defeat, which, in that case...
LEO BLOOM: No way out. No way out. No way out. No way out. No way out...
Smile! _72.200.147.16 03:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not every film needs one, and this is technically a new series with a new Superman and all that jazz, just like Batman Begins is separate. Basically, it's nothing or IV, because with II you're adding misinformation, and that's not an acceptable option. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Someguy0830? I hate to tell you this, but continuities can be split off at one point. It's called Infinities. Check into it. 72.200.147.16 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, comic book, not film, can't you tell? That's series is not even considered canon, so you're supporting removing the field altogether. Obviously, you didn't get my meaning. Superman Returns is in a different series than I through IV. New Superman, new director, or as Singer put it, paraphrased, "a new Superman for a new generation" (HBO First Look). You still have yet to show why adding II to the field is acceptable. Try doing that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)
O, ye of little faith. I don't like have to get this argument through your thick skull again, so I'll just repost my comments from above:
Basically, if any normal person watches the films (I, II, Returns) in chronological order, they will find that many things carry over from the first two into Returns. Richard White mentions the article "I Spent The Night With Superman" seen in the first film. Marlon Brando (Jor-El, if you'll remember) reprises his role for Returns. But the worst, I think is this: that Jason, Lois Lane's child in the new film, is Superman's son, conceived the night Lois and Clark slept together in the Fortress of Solitude in Superman II. If that's not damning evidence (and it most certainly is) then I don't know what else I can say.
Basically...
MAX BIALYSTOCK: ...where did I go right?

Ciao! _72.200.147.16 04:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet you ignore mine. How odd. Production trumps viewing preference. You've been told this several times now. Superman II does not come before this film. IV does. This is a fact. You cannot change it. I do not care how you see the other films. Those others exist, and take priority over those films before them because (gasp!) they were produced later. You need to understand this. It is not a matter of "oh but this happens before this does." It is a matter of chronological progression. The series is ordered I, II, III, IV, and finally Returns. III and IV do not just disappear because Singer wants to ignore them, just like the Halloween flicks don't reorganize due to the rampant continuity problems evident in their various incarnations. Currently, you are the only one not willing to let go of this. Everyone else is perfectly willing to blank the field and be done with it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bignole, please don't post unsubstantiated speculations in your argument, as you did with the Brando/Jor-El statement. Thank you. And Someguy, I already stated that I'm not having this wiki bend to my will. I simply offered my personal view, not an official dogma. Read comments more carefully in the future. CmdrClow 05:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this. I'm not even going to bother quoting that whole post about your point of view. You're in agreement that removing the field would be acceptable. I say we do that and stop this pointless argument. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry? Pointless?! Are you cuckoo? It's not pointless; it's viable! It's a viable argument, with substantial reasoning behind it. As for you, I have yet to see you produce any evidence other than you are a namby-pamby. Can't you see that, sometimes, rules must be relaxed? You know, this same argument has gone on with The Chronicles of Narnia; but it just goes on! It doesn't have to end! It can be a worthy intellectual discussion, continuing until civilization ends! As long as the author does not weigh in on the argument, neither one of us has no right to just simply proclaim ourselves as "right"; it just doesn't work that way! In the words of the immortal Franz Liebkind:
FRANZ LIEBKIND:You are the audience, I am the author; I outrank you!
Ciao, mien Führer Someguy0830! _72.200.147.16 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha, man I never thought I'd get a laugh out of this, but that did it. CmdrClow 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, humor does not come lightly on these pages.
And, now, here's some more!
(chant)
Gotta Sing Sing
Sing Sing
(piano cue)
(singing)
Prisoners of Love
Blue skies above
Can't keep our hearts in jail
Prisoners of Love
Our turtle doves
Soon coming 'round with bail
Coz you can lock us up and lose the key
But hearts in love will always be
Prisoners of Love
Blue skies above
Coz we're still Prisoners of Love
Oh, you can lock us up and lose the key
But hearts in love will always be
Prisoners of Love
Blue skies above
Coz we're still prisoners
We're still prisoners
We're still Prisoners of Love
In the end, we're all prisoners of our love for Superman. Ciao! 72.200.147.16 07:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, this page is getting unprotected tomorrow, right? I'm going off to bed. G'night, folks. 72.200.147.16 08:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the movie's out tomorrow, let's just celebrate. I love ya Bignole! I love ya Someguy! (It's completely straight though) I'm happier than a pig in s*it that this movie's close to release, so let's just get rid of the damned preceded box and get our asses to the theaters! CmdrClow 09:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait, so Superman Returns actually replaces Superman III in continuity, right? Well, just have the two continuities. And as for production date, the way that Star Wars is listed is absoulutely correct, it should be continuity based, not date based. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse the personal comment, but, I'll see you all there tonight at 10pm. I just watched Superman: The Movie with my friend last night, they have never really seen it. We have to watch Superman II today, to make sure that they can pick up on any references to this film as well. Ok, just to make sure there is topic discussion in this post. Star Wars is wrong per wiki guidelines of the infobox. Sorry person above me that did not sign comment. It may be "correct" to be in continuity purposes, but when you are in an encyclopedia, the encyclopedia doesn't care about continuity, it cares about production. If you want continuity go to a Star Wars convention. Oh, and if you watch all the first two films, and then this film, you won't feel like you are watching some trilogy, unless you lie to yourself. You will fell like you watched one sequel, and then a completely new movie that makes references to older movies past. If Michael Keaton made a reference that he did something a long time ago, as Batman, but was actually done by the Adam West Batman, that wouldn't make Keaton's a sequel to West's. Bignole 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, have you seen Superman Returns? It does not just make a few references, it is now the oficial replacement for Superman III. It is the official sequel to Superman II. The West comparison you just made was innapropriate, due to the fact that West's Batman was done by Fox, Keaton's by Warner, and that the 89 Batman does not claim to be an official sequel to the 60's series. It's like saying that The Four Feathers is a sequel to Khartoum; it's not, and it's not trying to be. Superman Returns is now the official sequel to Superman II, wether you like it or not. I don't see what the problem is with, on the Superman II page, putting in the Succeded by Box:

Succeded By : Superman III/Superman Returns[1]

And then putting a little note down in the references area explaining the difference. Star Wars is utterly correct, Preceded by does not neccarsarily mean what was made before it, it can mean what is set before it. Bignole, I wouldn't make the mistake of believeing that your opinon is canon, because it's not. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, also, that your statement that Batman Begins is preceded by Batman and Robin, is actually something that you did yourself, and it has been rightfully reverted. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

History and Kevin Smith

Director Kevin Smith wrote a draft for a Superman film, but this script delved greatly from the comics. Superman would not fly, he would not wear the blue and red tights, and he would fight Doomsday in a black Supersuit while riding a giant mechanical spider! Horrified by the "mockery of the Superman mythology," the board at Warner Brothers quickly cancelled the project.

This does not jive entirely with the information in An Evening with Kevin Smith and the info in Superman Lives. If the page ever gets unprotected, I'd suggest a rewrite. Or just refer to the Superman Lives for the history leading up to the current film production. Blade 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As soon as it's unprotected, we'll get right on it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do. _72.200.147.16 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 00:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the word is "deviated", not "delved". "Delved" means to go into, which is kinda the opposite of deviated. Second, it was producer Jon Peters (who had produced Tim Burton's Batman) who wanted all the changes from what the core of Superman was, like not flying, not wearing the tighst, etc. It's ridiculous to assert that these changes were suggested by Kevin Smith, who is a hardcore comic book fan, purist, and writer. An article by Edward Gross in Cinescape magazine details the absurd suggestions that Smith relates that Peters made to him, like having Braniac give Lex Luthor an extraterrestrial dog from his menagerie, fighting polar bears in the Antarctic, and even, after seeing the gay black guy in Smith's own Chasing Amy, a gay robot assistant for Braniac, saying, "Can't El-Ron be gay? I want a gay R2-D2." While the article does mention that Warner Bros. wanted some dialogue scenes cut from Smith's script, and emphasized the corporate, toy-selling aspect of the film, the truly ridiculous suggestions that were irrelevant or antithetical to the source material were by Peters. Not Smith. Although the pages of the article do not have the issue date on them, contextual clues mentioned in the article (and the next one) indicate that it was published in between the original Star Wars re-release, and the release of The Phantom Menace. Hope that helps. Nightscream 04:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just copy-edited this section, but feel free to remove any dubious content. You may have to reinstate some links though, since I deleted any duplicates that appear further down the article. Chris 42 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that any of it needs to be on this page, except maybe as a link to another page. I think that a new article, one that describes the decade of trying to bring Superman to the silver screen again, needs to be created. There shouldn't be sole articles for "Superman Lives" and "Batman vs. Superman". They're movies that do not exist, yet we have entire articles devoted to them, like a fan website. I think they should all be consolidated into one article title something along the lines of "The History of Superman Returns" (or something like that, not exactly that). There is no need to go into detail on this article's page about the history of bringing Superman back to the silver screen. Because there is so much history involved, and most of it has nothing to do with what is being released later tonight, it should be in one article, instead of 3 separate ones. Bignole 16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I just found this Q & A interview with Kevin Smith, where he relates the Jon Peters anecdote. It's EXACTLY what was in the Cinescape article.

Casting

The entire casting section is unsourced. I'll wait a day or two before I remove the bits that don't have citations. CovenantD 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. There was only one item that actually has a reference, so I moved that to the Trivia section. CovenantD 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Do the credits list Kitty as Koslowski, or Kowolski? There was a character in the animated series that was Kitty Koslowski, and she was Lex's henchwoman/bodyguard. Did any even stay to see what her last name was? Because she is only refered to as Kitty in the film, except when she requests Superman to call her Katherine. Bignole 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary

See X-Men: The Last Stand in regards to excessive summary length and how to deal with it. I would trim it myself, but I haven't seen the film so I don't want to dedicate more than a cursory glance to the summary. WesleyDodds 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that this 'summary' is longer than it needs to be by about two-thirds. As above, I don't wish to spoil the film for myself so I won't attempt any sort of copy edit until I've seen it. If anyone can pare it to the bone before then it would be much appreciated. Chris 42 11:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it, and did my best to get the plot summary into a clearer format as a first step. If no-one else takes a stab at it today while I'm at work, I'll see what I can do. Ubernostrum 12:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Just put in a first attempt at it. Ubernostrum 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
...and someone just deleted the entire section. Whomever you are, could you pop in here and explain what's going on? Ubernostrum 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuity Errors

{{spoilers}} Does anyone think that there should be a section detailing (in minimal amount) the problems with the film? In other words: Why didn't Superman feel the affects of Kryptonite when he first landed on the mass of land, or in the air when he was flying over for that matter? Why is that when he lost his powers while fighting Lex, and couldn't defend himself, that he could all of a sudden left the entire mass of kryptonite land out of the water and hurle it into space? The Sun may recharge him but it doesn't prevent the effects of Kryptonite. The original film just a single rock was enough to incapacitate him, yet he can lift an entire land mass the size of Texas (not accurate) that is filled with Kryptonite and only then feel the effects after it has been launched into space?

Kitty makes reference to Lex acting as if he's been to the FOS before (Superman II), he kind of nods at the thought, but then when Jor-El starts to talk he acts as if it is the first time he's heard him explain everything. They went throught that spiel in Superman II. Which is it, an inside joke or a reference to his past before prison? There are others, but I wanted to know if anyone else that has seen the film also felt these were a bit of an error on the writers part. Bignole 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see this, so I'm more than likely wrong, but doesn't kryptonite need to be irradiated in order to be deadly? I would think that simply producing Kryptonian-based land masses wouldn't produce actual kryptonite. Of course, I'm likely missing some plot detail. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 16:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's already irradiated. It was irradiated when Krypton exploded. None the less, Lex (and please see the movie cause this is really spoilerific) used the kryptonian crystals to create a kryptonite land mass (like the FOS, but made of Kryptonite). It weakens him, but he doesn't know it has until Lex hits him. Why not, Superman usually feels those effects the moment he comes around Kryptonite that isn't hidden by lead. Bignole 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added a new section to the page. But I called it "Continuity Problems" rather than "Errors", to allow for the idea that some problems might not really be errors. --Keeves 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's cool. I thought about that myself. That it may seem a bit restrictive because they are issues that have yet to be acknowledged by the filmakers. But, more importantly I was curious if anyone else had the same thoughts as me? My friend and I went and saw the movie and she knows very little about Superman and even that was something that crossed her mind. Bignole 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I plan to see it today. From how you describe it, that does seem wrong. It my be that its effects were not as potent per square inch, leaving a less-nticeable, but equally powerful, background radiation effect. Damn, even I don't believe that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I collapsed the section. One isn't enough for it to matter. Make it again is four or so big ones can be found. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that. I figured we could dicuss them here and the ones we can agree on should be listed. Has anyone thought about the issue with the "inside jokes compared to the references". The scene where Lex in insinuated to have been at the FOS before yet reacts as if it is his first time there, yet later we learn that Jason is Clark's son. Are they picking and choosing which bits they are going to use as concrete backstory and which are simply allusions to the previous movies. Bignole 18:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion plot flaws should not be discused in the trivia section. If it is essential, it should be in a seperate section all its own.

Please sign your comments. Also, don't delete information just because your opinion differs. It would be in a section of it's own, but we are waiting for more people to see the movie so that we can create a section for "continuity problems". There is no point to have one item in a section, so it falls under trivia, which is what it still is no matter how you look at it, just a different form of trivia. Also, if you had read this whole section you would understand why it is there. Bignole 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
After seeing this movie, I can explain the confusion (partially). There was a good deal of bedrock between Superman and the landmass originally. It only begins to reveal itself as he reaches the atmosphere. As for the shard in him, one can assume that kryptonite in this "universe" simply drains his powers without causing as much physical harm (initially). The shard in his side is still an issue. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That makes it still an error. There is a shard n him, that should drain him completely. It doesn't matter the amount, as seen when Lex would wear his K-ring in the comics. Even a little would drain him of his strength. Second, the kryptonite revealed itself before he made it to space. When Lex first saw him in the air, the bedrock was already falling off and the kryptonite was extending out, and was rather large (larger than he had experienced when he first landed on the mass in the beginning) and it was right next to his body. That coupled with the peice leaking into his bloodstream should have at the least drain him of his strength and prevented him from lifting it to space. Bignole 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, it's a partial explanation. One can only assume that the effects of kryptonite in this continuity take longer to fully suppress his powers, despite the fact that the effect should be immediate. Also of note is his non-awareness of the effect, meaning it must be painless here. That'd be a good thing to note. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It's one thing to be unaware, and even to get a recharge from the Sun, but that recharge would have been left almost moot with that shard of Kryptonite still inside of him. Last time I checked, kryptonite inside him (in any universe) was deadly and didn't have waining effects. If it was there then it was there, it was in his blood. He was on the verge of death, and with kryptonite still inside him, he gets juiced up from the Sun, and then moves an entire Kryptonite island into space? Come on! You know that's worth noting, if not as an error than as a detachment of what Kryptonite usually does to Superman in all other incarnations. Especially when you have these people claiming that this is a "true" sequel. Well, last time I checked a little rock kept Reeve almost at the bottom of a swimming pool, yet this "same" character of the series (if you follow this as a 'true' sequel as some claim) has no problem with the kryptonite island, even moving it?Bignole 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I noted that in my description. It really is quite a departure from the traditional kryptonite. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to make note that you cannot use/draw exmaples from the Comics - the two universes are totally and completely different. Seriously, doing so would be crazy talk. Carry on. TheUncleBob 04:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
People who say that the Kryptonite island had no effect on him obviously left after he launched it into space. It nearly killed the poor fellow. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, sorry there are no latent effects when it comes to kryptonite. Maybe he can throw a little stone away from him, but he was never able to use his superstrength or fly. He was grounded. Yet, while surrounded by it he was able to fly and throw a mountain of kryptonite, that is an issue. Bignole 11:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What I think everyone is missing here is the point of the scene. Superman was weakened and in horrible pain. Yet, he hefted the land mass (thus causing him more pain) and hurled it into space with the last ounce of strength he had left. The point is, despite all odds, he did it. It's like the stories of a man who can't lift a 24 pack case of soda lifting a bus off of a kid. It's not the powers that make Superman super, it's his determination to do what's right - at whatever the cost to himself. TheUncleBob 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't the same determination fly him from the land mass while they were kicking his ass? Why didn't the same determination keep Lex from stabbing his with the shard of kryptonite? Why hasn't the same determination ever prevented him from removing kryptonite himself in any other situation? I could see if it was the determination to pull a chain of kryptonite from his neck, or something simple like that. But, when you have a shard stuck INSIDE you, a huge chunk right in your face, when every other time you come in contact with it it leachs all your powers, you should not be able to lift a huge mountain of kryptonite. Sorry, isn't enough determination in the world for him to must all his abilities back, when in every other case he loses them. You're simply trying to give an explaination to something that in every other incarnation doesn't happen. Bignole 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Every other incarnation" doesn't matter. Only this incarnation. He did not get "all his abilities back" - in fact, he pretty much only used two of them, strength and flight. The shard stuck inside of him was a very tiny small shard vs. the huge baby-head sized rock that was around his neck - which is going to drain his strentgh faster? Also, the stakes were much higher. In Superman I, it was pretty much California and Hacenksack, NJ. Here, it was over half of US (not to mention Lex's plans to use his power to take over the world). Plus, the missiles wern't caused by anything Superman did - the Crystals were "his fault", I'm sure he felt kinda bad about that - thus giving him more determination. As far as the mountain of Kryptonite, I was under the belief (perhaps falsly) that Supes went far, far deep into the earth - perhaps deeper than the Kryptonite went, thus putting a decent layer of earth between him and the Kryptonite. That was just my interpertation of what happened there... TheUncleBob 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
He can't ignore the effects of Kryptonite just because his determination says so. The effects are physical. They have always been to remove his abilities and then slowly drain his lifeforce, thus killing him. He can have all the determination he wants, but the fact remains that the first thing it does it remove his abilities. When he first landed on the mass, that is what happened to him. His abilities were removed (when the kryptonite wasn't even as prevalent as it was when he moved the land) and Lex took him out in one shot. When he moved the mass of land, there was a huge peice directly infront of him, why did he still have his powers? His powers are not mental, they are genetic. He was hidden by the land mass from the sun, so that theory is out; there was a shard stuck inside him (doesn't matter the size, kryptonite inside him means that even a smaller amount can be deadly when next to his blood), and there was a huge peice in front of him. Face it, either the screwed up and leave it as (movie/superhero magic, which is the answer when there is no explaination) or they changed the effects of kryptonite on him. I vote for the later, because normally he can sense when Kryptonite is around, unless it's in lead and it wasn't, yet he landed on the mass and didn't even notice a change in his own body. Bignole 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see a shard still left into him, only that she removed a huge piece. I thought the shards the doctors removed were from New Krypton and not from Lex's stabbing. --Sketchee 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they pulled a slither of kryptonite from his stab wound, and as soon as they removed it from inside him and set it inside a bowl away from him his body became invulnerable again. Bignole 19:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, Lois removed the entire shard that was in Superman's back. The doctors removed shards from Supermans neck and what that appeared to look like it was in his face (the close up and editiing was too hectic to tell. And also, he obviously feels physical pain when around the kryptonite. Don't forget that the landmass created by the crystal wasn't all pure kryptonite crystal. And when he picked up from below, he was holding it from underneath the crust of the earth. He didn't start having problems until the obviously green kyrptonite crystals pushed their way from beneath the landmass.

--Watemon

First, don't delete things that you may feel are disputed. Second, if the landmass wasn't pure then why did he lose all his powers when Lex's henchmen were beating him up? Since that huge chunk in front of his face was pretty damn pure, why did he still have his powers during that little escapade? Face it, it's a problem in the movie. It's noted because either they made a mistake when they were written or they changed it's effects on him. Kryptonite does not very when in green form. It always drains his powers immediately, and then starts to drain his lifeforce. Why is it that he had no powers on top, but underneath, once all the bedrock fell off, he continued to have powers? Even if the piece was in his neck, or in his back, it was still inside him and when it's next to his blood the effects are amplified. Bignole 18:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, perhaps the island of Kryptonite wasn't pure - and that's why the entire flying the island into space scene could have happened.71.124.16.202 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
To the original poster, the Jor-El image is probably a holographic message that can respond to questions, using a knowledge database, similar to the hologram in the movie I, Robot. Luthor even confirms that the real Jor-El is dead. My only gripe is that kryptonite does not mildly affect humans like it usually does, or emit enough radiation to be hazardous to live on as a continent.
Kryptonite (in the comics, at least) wasn't found to be hazardous to humans until Lex's long-term exposure to the Kryptonite ring. Perhaps had Superman failed and the Kryptonite island been 100% Kryptonite, Lex would have wiped out the majority of North America simply to create a large island who's center is completely inhabitable. Heh. Poor Lex. 71.124.16.202 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
If it wasn't pure then why did he lose all his powers when he landed on it the first time? Bignole 15:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite Simply, my friend, he didn't lose his powers when he landed on it the first time. In fact, he didn't show the slightest sign of being weakened until he approached Lex. And what did Lex have in his pocket? 71.124.16.202 03:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
My friend, Lex wasn't anywhere near him when the henchmen were kicking Superman's ass. He was still at the top of the steps. At the end he walked up on Superman. The distance alone would have allowed Superman to defend himself, yet when he fell from the steps he scraped his hands on the ground. When he lifted his hands they were bloody, and you could see the remains of kryptonite glittering the ground. Bignole 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact remains that Superman showed absolutly no signs of being weakened until he approached Lex who was holding some Kryptonite (that was known to be pure). While Lex "wasn't anywhere near" when the goons were kicking him about (although, from what I saw, Lex was just a few feet away) - perhaps the initial exposure to the Kryptonite (along with the shock of Lex knocking him to the ground) was enough to weaken him - allowing the exposure to the un-pure Kryptonite created by the crystal to weaken him more. Think of it this way, a cold, typically, isn't enough to kill you. But, if you were to be exposed to HIV/AIDS, you'd be weak enough that a cold could very much do you in. 71.124.16.202 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
And the piece stuck inside him while he was lifting the entire kryptonite landmass? And the piece stuck inside him while he fell to Earth, that the doctors removed in the hospital? Why didn't they drain all his powers, they were right next to his blood. Yet, he lifted the whole mass into space, and survived the plummet to Earth. Bignole 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Those were both the same piece, correct? I dunno. Perhaps it was small enough that, combined with the recharge, he had just enough strength and determination to do what he needed to do? 71.124.16.202 15:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was inside him, on his blood, so it doesn't matter it was small or large. I bullet stuck inside him would be tiny, but the poison leaking into his blood would do the trick. Plus, you have the large, pure piece of kryptonite that was in his face as he lifted the mass into space. Face it, there's an inconsistency in the effects. Bignole 15:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that a little bit of poison would have the same effect as a large bit of poison? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Botulin toxin. Different amounts of a poison act differently. A small piece of Kryptonite could, in the movie universe, have a slower effect on the drain of Superman's powers/life. And, you've yet to provide proof that the "large, pure piece of kryptonite that was in his face" is pure. That is an assumption you've made - that the crystal replicates the minerals around it exactly... which, if the landmass was pure, it seems to me that Superman would have started feeling the effects as he approached it - perhaps losing his ability to fly up to it and land on it. 71.124.16.202 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my point, He SHOULD have felt the effects. It was pure Kryptonite that went in with the crystal. Since the crystal was Kryptonian, it would have been able to created synethic Kryptonite (which, if you look it up, has the same potency as regular Kryptonite). He landed on the mass, lost his powers, got his ass kicked, then was able to lift it into space with a piece inside him (sorry, in any continuity, a piece that was larger than a bullet would have depowered him, since bullets seem to do just that) and one large piece right in his face that wasn't covered by bedrock. It's a goof, it should not have occured. The writers created something that could be correct by any other way in their minds then by Superman removing it himself. If someone else had done that it would been pointless. Face it, it's a problem in the movie. The kryptonite, in the least would have been synthetic, which is just as potent as normal kryptonite. Also, he's been gone for 5 or more years, away from the Sun's rays. The effects of kryptonite should be even stronger on him than normally, because he's had less exposure not only to it but to the Sun's rays which give him his power. Remember, he had to grow into his powers, they weren't all there from birth. So, if he left the rays of the sun he would have to build up his strength again, and that would take more than just a couple days. Bignole 16:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • First, who says that movie-synethic Kryptonite has the same potency as regular Kryptonite? I don't remember that being discussed in the movie. Second, the piece was hardly larger than a bullet, judging by the size of it compaired to the tweezers that pulled it out. Third, in general, Superman gets his powers from exposure to rays from a Yellow Sun (or Star). Since there are estimated to be about 24,000,000,000 yellow stars in our galaxy alone, I'd say there's a decent chance that he ran across another yellow star or two. Fourth, if constant expsoure to the Yellow Sun is required to "grow" powers, why did General Zod and Co. have their powers the moment they were released from the Phantom Zone? Anyway, there's no reason that we can't just explain the entire "lifting the Kryptonite landmass" scene with the idea that the Kryptonite created by the crystal wasn't pure Kryptonite. 71.124.16.202 03:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the movie is using Kryptonite, that's one thing you cannot change. You can create your own forms, and maybe change the effects of Red Kryptonite, because that one is unpredictable, but when it comes to Green it is always the same. The movie didn't discuss a lot of things. First, if he was in a ship that would protect him from an left over radiation from his home planet you can be sure that it would prevent radiation from any yellow sun. As for the Kryptonian in the second film, that is just a continuity error. Even in the movie Superman couldn't fly until after a teenager. Why they had full use of their powers can only be explained by the fact that they are fully grown and so their bodies were capable of rapid development, even so they were much older than Superman. Just because you think you can explain away him lifting the landmass because it wasn't "pure" doesn't mean that it still isn't a problem in the movie. Your theory is fine if you need it to be able to watch the movie and not ask yourself how he did that, but for the purposes of the movie it doesn't work. As you said yourself just above, "I don't remember that being discussed in the movie". The landmass not being pure wasn't discussed either. Bignole 11:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Images, image sizes

I added another pic of Superman, plus one of Spacey Luthor, being that they're both major characters. I also increased the sizes slightly, to 300px/250px for Luthor respectively, to fill in some of the dead space and gave me the page more visual weight. Plus, they look better. rootology 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, but that one image is not of the FOS, that is of the land that Luthor creates. Bignole 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch. Going to add one of Lois a bit further down, probably above Lex. And thanks for the move of the pic moving up. Looks better up there. rootology 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
We need to find a better place, or at least make it so that the text wraps, because right not it is sitting under the infobox, creating a large gap in text. Bignole 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
check now. Move the Lex Suprise pic down to the dead area under the budget/external links section. Works better there. Smaller pics now too? You guys don't think the 300px wide for Superman/210px wide for secondary characters is better? rootology 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that they should all be equal, and that they should be respectable size. We can't have the pictures overrunning the page. The largest should always be what is in the Infobox. 250px is usually standard for most 'thumb' pics, atleast it is over on all the Smallville pages. Bignole 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
250px at the most. 300 is too much. Images of actors are large enough to be simple-thumbed for auto-sizing. One can see Spacey clearly at 150 (my setting) as easily as 210. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Forget sometimes I'm at 1280 wide here... rootology 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have an actual pic of Brando's face as it appears in this one, for the Brando section? Just a small one perhaps, to show it? That'd pretty much cover every section with graphics of all the core things for a pretty rich looking page. rootology 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Found and added one to Brando's section. rootology 19:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Crystals grow buildings and vehicles?

The entry says "such crystals were routinely used to 'grow' useful objects such as buildings and vehicles". I don't remember anything like this in the movie. Is my memory just bad? f(x)=ax2+bx+c 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Lex asked Jor-El, "Tell me everything. Starting with the crystals." and the scene ended there. Lex later explained that the crystals grow landmasses, but I don't remember anything else. If a third person can corroborate us, let's fix it. --Keeves 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Lex says "think of it, continents, vehicles, weapons....all grown". There is no mention of how this can take place for weapons and vehicles, but he does state that they can be grown as well. Bignole 14:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd heard rumors (can't source, but...) that Singer's original cut was about 22 minutes longer than what we have live in theaters now. There was a mention to this in the novel adaptation that I read. And the amount missing from the book > film easily can add up to 22 minutes. Blame the Warner Bros. Editing Gods on this one. rootology 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly check out the Current "Up, Up and Away" story line and you will see that it in fact is now in continuity. The crystal were used to grow entire battle fleets by General Zod also.iquadri 12:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Baseball teams

It's the LA Dodgers... but who are they playing? We tried to figure this out last night during the film but couldn't. rootology 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn that I saw an "A" on the hot of the opposing team, that looked like an 'A' on the hats of the Atlanta Braves, but I'm not 100% positive. Bignole 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman's Weight?

Am I nuts or did Lois Lane state that Superman's weight was 125lbs. I am almost sure that is what she says at some point during the movie when someone is asking him about his vital stats. --Frenkmelk 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

225. rootology 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I heard 125 also, but I think she just didn't speak the line clearly, since right after that the characters refer to him as 200-225. Roffler
Same here, I heard 125 and thought 'no way!'. Definitely a mis-spoken line that must have slipped past the continuity editors. Patriarch 03:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

CGI of Brando -- why?

My understanding was that they needed the CGI of Brando in order to get his face and his voice to say new words. That didn't happen. It was just repeats of old speeches, and his face was seen only through a crystal. So why did they need to go through all that fancy work? Couldn't they have simply used old footage without such high-tech manipulation? My apologies if anyone thinks this question is fit more for a fansite than an encyclopedia, but I think the question of why they did it is as important as mentioning that they did do so. Thanks --Keeves 19:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You might not of noticed this, but in the film, we see multiple angles of Brando's face, all througout the Fortress of Solitude. Since only one angle of him would have been shot, they needed to create a digital Brando, so as to see the other angles. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I just went to the film for my third time and kept this in mind during that Fortress scene, and it really didn't look like multiple angles to me. I understand that this is part of the movie official promotional information, but it might be worth questioning. --Boradis 08:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I saw this movie yesterday, and I could immediately tell why they needed to do CGI. Here's the thing. The various things Jor-El says in this movie... some of those things were said in the original movie with Jor-El facing forward but here are said from a side view... MANY were said while Marlon Brando wasn't even "on" the screen... voiceover while you see various stellar bodies and so forth... and some were from scenes where he's looking down at the baby pod and his eyes are lidded. Also, a FEW familiar lines from the movie didn't sound like they were paced (the talking speed or the same pauses) as they had been in the movie, suggesting alternate takes that weren't used or cut or eventually redone bits of footage from either of the first two movies. Considering you don't actually have a visual of him for some of the things being said, or the same visual in other cases, it's rather obvious that Brando's face/lipsyncing needed to be generated. 72.192.237.134 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Ismail

Please stop referencing Rotten Tomatoes

Look at this review [4] and tell me that is a rave (which RT classifies it as). The site is completely unreliable and many of the reviewers it quotes are complete nobodies. Might as well include web site polls and Usenet posts in the tally.

thumb

Action Comics ref

Added in the image of Action #1 along side the Kitty trivia bit. I think it's appropriate to put into context the longevity of the character, the fact the film shot is a reproduction of that legendary image, and it's a nice juxtaposition to show the history of the story (especially as the Xbox 360 image is next, below the 1938 comic cover). rootology 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what would be cool would be to get a still of that same scene in the film and have them side by side. Maybe photoshop them into one image to save space. I know that when I saw it in the film I saw the obvious reference, but not everyone might. Bignole 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Friend of mine found one overnight, and I added it in. Yay! It's not a PERFECT matching shot--I *know* it was in the film, a moment after the one in place, but it's damn close. I asked him where he got this, and I assume it's from some trailer, maybe a foreign one. Once I get my hands on source material I'll retweak the image. rootology 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese Poster

Why does the Taiwanese Poster I inserted keep getting removed when it's vastly superior to the American one?? Glossing over the gay aspect of the US poster, what about the pose Superman is in? Moody, dark, dramatic, solemn? None of those words equate Superman to me. Why is the camera angle positioned above? Why is he in Messiah pose? (I know there have always been obvious Messiah-like aspects to Superman's legend but why is that being used to sell the movie?) Why obscure his face? What is he doing, is he descending to Earth? Hovering? Cutting one in deep space? Compares that to the Taiwanese one: he's in classic Superman pose, looking as only Superman could look, flying towards us in bright, colorful clear view. Superman looks bad ass. He's either on his way to save people in danger, smack around some super villains, or both. He means business. Behind him is the skyline of Metropolis, not the Florida penis. This is how Superman should look. And since most people here aren't in Taiwan, I think they'd very much enjoy seeing this far superior one. Just a thought from the back of my head. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheTruthiness (talk • contribs) .

The one reason, beyond anything else, is that we are not on a Taiwanese Wikipedia. Call me oldfashined, but I like to know what the words in an image are saying most of the time (there's exceptions, but not for an American film). Second, the current poster is fine. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you think it was a poster for The DaVinci Code? The poster showcases Superman much better than the dark, brooding emo Supe. It also says "Superman Returns" in English for those who are a little slow, not that it matters because it's a POSTER not a SYNOPSIS. --TheTruthiness 07:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
We still aren't the Taiwanese Wikipedia. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 07:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Last time, i checked, there wasn't any rule in wikipedia about not utilizing foreign language images. Why can't we put both images. ? iquadri 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps once the article physically fills in more, and there's more room. We're about to burst at the seems already as far as graphical space goes, and each image in place already is fairly unique. Two posters until there's more room is redundant. rootology 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The difference between the IMAX and teaser poster is insignificant. Why not replace the teaser with the Taiwanese one?
The difference is that one poster is what was released to fans before the film was completed, and one poster is what was used at the IMAX theater for the 3-D version of the film. Do you see anything in this article talking about the Taiwanese debut? Bignole 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
you cant just add the taiwanese poster for the sake of adding it, all those images come under fair use, and im sure the taiwanese poster is not a priority. Seinfan3
Because, as has been said, we have quite a few images already, and adding the Taiwanese poster doesn't add anything. It's just a different poster. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: Effects of Kryptonite

These comments seem misguided. I have seen plenty of times, even in the original Superman movie, where he is in the vicinity of kryptonite but does not know it... he doesn't have a "spider-sense" for kryptonite, after all. It only begins affecting him when it is revealed and/or he becomes aware of it, which seems to be more of a dramatic device than anything else. And even though it weakens him more and more the longer he is exposed to it, he also seems able to withstand its effects in a very limited way, by drawing on his super-strength and stamina. Specifically in regards to this movie: Didn't Lois pull the kryptonite shiv from his side before he lifted the crystal landmass into space? Also, he was able to somewhat withstand the effects of the kryptonite while standing on the crystal landmass and when lifting it into space only because the landmass shielded him a bit from the effects of kryptonite, but obviously even this latter act drained him to the point of near-death. Discuss. --Daniel Villalobos 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing non-awareness of the K with it being hidden behind lead. For example, in the first movie, yes, he was quite close to the K necklace before Lex sprung it on him, but the reason Superman didn't notice is because it was in the lead box, not because no one told him about it. --Keeves 16:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, Lois may have pulled the Kryp. out but there was still a sliver in him. The doctors in the hospital removed that when he was unconscious. Kryptonite has never "not affected him" because he wasn't paying attention to it. You're saying that if he ignores that it's in the room then it can't affect him? Riiight. He couldn't pull the necklace from off him in the original. He couldn't fend off the goons in this movie, and that was when he was merely on top of the mountain, with only fragments of kryptonite around him. He didn't notice the change when he landed, which he usually does if it isn't incased in lead. Yet he lifted the landmass with a huge piece in his face. That right there says he notices it, it is large and pure, and yet he's still managing his abilities. Problem anyone? Bignole 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I shouldn't have posted this as a separate topic; I didn't realize it was being discussed quite in depth in a post above. But since you've already responded... If Harris, Dougherty and Singer wanted to do it this way for the sake of drama and their story, I don't have a problem with that. If others do, it's their prerrogative to dislike something b/c they disagree with it. As for my previous statements -- lead doesn't let Superman see the kryptonite behind it, but what about feeling its effects? Does lead shield him from kryptonite radiation? If so, then the crystal landmass could as well. What I am trying to say is that the way kryptonite's effects have been portrayed in the various films seems to depend more on dramatic tension and creative license than any sort of scientific basis. I personally don't have a problem with creative license as long as it doesn't cross my personal threshold of what's believable within the context of a story. Within the context of SR, lifting a kryptonite-laced landmass into space at (almost) the expense of his life doesn't cross that threshold. :-Daniel Villalobos 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Where have you been? Lead has always shielded the effects of kryptonite from him. You see that in the comics, Superman: The Movie, Lois and Clark, and even Smallville. Why lead? Who knows. Maybe it's just because he can't see through lead. Since lead seems to impare his extra sight ability it would seem that it would impare his receptors as well. Who knows, but that has been the case for awhile. If it isn't behind lead then it would need to be far away from him. The landmass was made of kryptonite. Sorry, but you don't have dramatic tension when every other time he has no powers. He landed on the mass and didn't even notice a change in his own body, yet Lex did and kicked his ass off the steps. Up, I guess that meant he had no powers, because he wasn't able to fight back. Yet, he doesn't even realize what is going on till after he falls and all his powers are gone. Maybe they just made the affects latent (which is not something that usually occurs in the other mediums, thus it is a change and thus trivia). So, if they make the effects latent then it was obvious that it wasn't that latent because once down the steps he lost all abilities. They beat him up and he fell over the side. Next, we have him with a piece inside his body, an even larger one in front of his face, and an only partially blocked (by the other minerals of the ocean when it was built, but still enough when he landed on it to drain his powers) mountain of kryptonite that he is lifting into space, from below the sea no less, and yet he doesn't have any problems till after he releases it? That's a huge change from what he's been able to do in any other medium. That is why it is noted as trivia. We go from "Ms. Techmacher, help me help me", to "screw it I can do it all myself, I'll just ignore the effects". Riight. Don't kid yourself. I'm a huge fan of Superman, but I try not to allow that bias blind me from things that don't make sense even in a fictional world. Bignole 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You are a huge Superman fan and you know a lot more about the Superman universe than me. That is a fact I can't deny. Therefore, you take all this more seriously than I do and these inconsistencies bother you, whereas they don't bother me. However, for the intents and purposes of my posting, you are completely right. P.S. Thanx, Keeves. :-Daniel Villalobos 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Though it is a change in the movies, Superman being more durable to the effects of kryptonite does fall within certain aspects of the Superman mythos. Kingdom Come, while not canon, clearly states that as Superman absorbs more and more sunlight and his powers evolve, kryptonite doesn't effect thim the same way as it did in the past.

That's only as he gets older, and has constant contact with the radiation from the Yellow Sun. This couldn't occur when he's been gone for 5+ years, and hasn't had that contact. Bignole 14:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, when he landed, the shards were probably too scattered for him to experience pain immediate pain. Consider this, I haven't read the novel this is only a theory. He just got back from "Krypton", we don't know what he experienced up there. Apparently Krypton has exploded and reformed. We see this in the opening credits of the film. Apparently it's in form of a half planet with rings around it. This "planet" made of kryptonite should have killed Kal El quickly, but it didn't. Perhaps his body gained more tolerance to kryptonite. The land mass (being made of basalt and other ocean floor rocks) was probably close enough to lead to sheild him partially. Lex probably punched him with kryptonite in hand. It would not be to hard to believe that he added extra mass to the bottom of the land mass before lifting it, but somehow the kryptonite sunk through. Just a theory. But look, this is just a story, Supes' powers have been retconned so many times from "Jumping high building, and stronger than trains" to near onipotence (time travel and moving planets). This is not much different. Will

"Superman was able to carry the mass into space by digging under it and carrying it and part of the sea bed underneath." To whoever added that: I thought about that before I added it, but it wouldn't account for the piece of Kryptonite in him (and that's even forgiving the large mass that he was in close proximatey with). By all accounts, he should have been dead. Zero X Marquis 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The kryptonite was in Lex's pocket when he hit Superman, and his powers were gone before Lex hit him. He wouldn't have broken out in a sweat within half a second of being next to Lex. Your body takes a little bit to heat up. There was no "new Krypton", what we saw at the beginning was a flashback/remake of the original movie. Even so, Kal was in a ship the whole time, which would have prevented him from being affected by any remains of Krypton in the area. But, with no Yellow Sun to energize him for 5 years, his body would have weakened a bit. The whole landmass was made of kryponite. How can you assume this? Well, the crystal takes any surrounding minerals and uses them to synthesize a new Krypton (i.e. the FOS). Well, Lex surround it with kryptonite (which as we know is actually remains of Krypton itself). So, the crystal would have minerals of Krypton to synthesize and thus would create a landmass that was entire synthisized radiated kryptonite, which is just as potent to Superman as regular Kryptonite. Bignole 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The crystal also seemed to have the minerals of the seabed to synthisize, otherwise the entire island would be glowing green kryptonite, would it not? Furthermore, the effects of kryptonite are radiative correct? That is why lead blocks the effects of kryptonite in the first movie, and also why having a bunch of seabed basaltic rock between himself and the crystals would make sense in allowing him to avoid its affects. At least until much of the seafloor material had broken off and the crystal kryptonite had grown through to his location on the bottom. As for the sliver in his side, if its supposed to be a radiative effect, then obviously small ammounts of kryptonite will have lesser effects on him than large chunks. "A little radiation never hurt anyone". In any event, he does take the time to recharge in the sun before lifting the landmass, and it nearly kills him besides. --68.0.147.116 06:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Synthesized Kryptonite has always been just as potent, just because that isn't explained in the movie doesn't mean it isn't so. The crystal couldn't make the entire land out of Kryptonite, there wouldn't have been as much. The Kryptonite was merely spread out, but still as powerful. A single stone dibilitated Superman in the first movie, then he lands on an entire island. The size doesn't matter when it is in his system. This has been explored in every medium. When it is in his system he still loses his powers, because his insides are more vulnerable to it than his outsides. It normally kills him faster if it is in his blood. The bedrock fell off well before he let go of the land mass. Bignole 11:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The "bed rock" was falling off the island as superman was lifting it into space because the crystal was still growing. Additionally since crystals grow in all directions the crystal was growing towards Superman, as noted by the piece of crystal about to pierce his face. He only lets go of the island when his skin is finally pierced this is what the doctors remove from his body in the hospital. LL removed all the kryptonite from superman in the air plan. --Dserenberg 5 July 2006

Superman's age

In Superman I and II, Clark Kent's age is always given as 30. I live in the UK so I haven't seen this yet, but does that mean Superman is 36? Or is the absence of years caused by physics in Superman travelling to Krypton or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 June 2006

I don't remember them actually saying Clark's age in either film. You infer that he is 30, because he was 18 when he was at the FOS, and 12 years passed Earth time. But, what Jor-El says is that 12 years passed will have passed in Earth's time, but it doesn't state that he has aged 12 years. He has aged some, but it's vague as to hold old he really is. I think for the purposes of these films he is always (no matter the amount of time) around 28-30. Bignole 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I thank Daniel Villalobos for reminding us above that this movie treats I and II as vague history. This is not a sequel in the strict sense of the term. Remembering this will solve a lot of other problems too. --Keeves 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

lol, the film bombed.

lol - G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.230.215 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 July 2006

Thanks for the useful contribution. And how does being on track for $81.3 million US from Wednesday to Sunday count as a bomb? It'll easily make back all it's money over it's initial release domestically at this rate unless it absolutely tanks out next week. Add in foreign and DVD? We can theoretically easily get a sequel to this. rootology 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a troll. Remember not to feed them. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For all intensive purposes, the film is on track to be a bomb. It needs to make close to 400 million domestically and right now it is safe to say it won't make 300 million. There was a rumor that the studio opened early because they knew it would not do well and wanted the extra space before Pirates came out. When I saw it people laughed at all the wrong moments, i.e. I forgot how warm you are. Also, with all the religious overtones I heard someone say, "What is this, Passion of the Clark?" Sorry, but I was extremely disappointed Singer blew it. Clark Kent was unimaginative and Superman seemed more like J'onn on the Justice League an alien trying to connect with Earth. The story went nowhere and truth to tell the only scene that was edge of your seat was the Airplane.


At this rate, it's too early to tell. Friday's domestic estimates were about $16.2 million. Estimates right now are for Superman Returns, from Friday through Sunday, to do about $50 million, which would put it's total at roughly $100 million. Next weekend, however, will really decide whether or not the movie is a bomb. If the movie keeps with the usual trend, as most movies of it's type do, the take for next weekend will be at at least 50% less than this weekend. That's what usually happens, not always, but the majority of the time. The numbers are pretty solid, but it's still early. If what I think is going to happen happen, then the film won't be the box office juggernaut fans and movie executives were hoping for. Odin's Beard 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not too early to tell. It won't do any better than it does this week. Sure it may spike on July 4, but with Pirates coming out the film will take a serious tumble. The studio definitely had higher hopes than this. It is not the worse film of the summer, but so far it is the biggest disappointment. It is getting average reviews, for the most part. Even the critics are not enjoying the ride, and many fans are echoing that, It is a critical and financial disappointment.

That estimate is a bit off. It took in 21 mill for all day wednesday and a late night showing tuesday. Then Thursday it only took in 12 mill. Friday it was 16 mill. Friday and Saturday are the biggest days, yet as of June 30 (yesturday-Friday) it's only estimated at about 50 million. That leaves Sat. and Sun. for it to take in another 50 million, to reach your estimate of 100 million? It seems a bit far feached, especially since it hasn't had a 20mill day since it opened. Some sites aren't predicting it to take in more than 60 or 70 mill by the end of this weekend. Considering that it's been out since late Tuesday, and has yet to actually break 100 mill, in a total of 4 days (5 when Sunday is over) says that it is going to flop, atleast domestically. For it not to flop it should double it's costs domestically, as is the usual consensus when it comes to big budget films (not saying that if worldwide it doubles it's costs it won't get a sequel, just that it usually needs to do that domestically to be considered a success financially). Look at all the other profit holders. Most make 100 mill in 3 days, the ones that make the most money, at least. Even X3 made 100 million in 3 days, and that had mixed reviews. Bignole 01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, it's a bit much to ask for a film that cost roughly 200 million dollars to produce to gross at least 400 million domestically. There have only been about 5 or 6 films in history to gross 400 million or more domestically. It's like lightning striking twice in the same spot. It happens, just not very often. The estimates for Friday-Sunday have just been put up on Box Office Mojo and the estimates were 16.3 million for Friday, 18.4 million for Saturday, and 17.45 million for Sunday which comes to about 52.15 million total. Add that on to the totals of Wednesday and Thursday and the film has taken in about 75.15 million dollars. It does look as if it's bombsville for Superman because it'll be lucky to do half of that 52 million dollar weekend take, next weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.28.60.96 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 July 2006

Talk pages are for discussing article content. Please find a forum somewhere else to discuss whether you personally think the film is a success or not. AlistairMcMillan 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a legitimate discussion if it turns out to be true. If so, it should be noted on the page that is was a financial failure, and 84 million dollars, when it cost 204 mill, that isn't looking too good. You at least want to make half back in the first weekend, and it only made 50 million it's first weekend. It's only going to make less and less as the weeks go on, especially when Pirates comes out. That thing has more anticipation that Superman. Bignole 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it isn't a legitimate discussion. Once verifiable sources turn up saying the film succeeded or failed, then it can be added to the article. Until then it doesn't belong in the article or the Talk page. Particularly when our dear anonymous friend is only here to troll. AlistairMcMillan 21:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree discussing VERIFIABLE box office numbers is a legit discussion, but obviously because someone disagrees with you he is a troll. Yeah riggggggggggggght --63.201.188.178 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Excelsior

Jason Lane or Jason White

In the Cast section, the name keeps switching between "Jason Lane" and "Jason White". Most recently (about 9.5 hours ago) Someguy0830 changed it from White to Lane. According to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/ the cast credits on screen show the character's name to be Jason White, and there should be a way to insure that it stays that way on Wikipedia. Someone tried to say that White would be the wrong name if he's not Richard's kid and/or if Lois is unmarried. Both objections are wrong, because the parents can put either family name on the birth certificate, whichever they want. --Keeves 04:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What's curious is that Lois hasn't been dating Richard for the entire length of Superman's absence. So, she would have been well pregant before she met Richard, and couldn't possibly pass the boy off as his son. I doubt, that she gave birth to Jason and had enough time to think "oh, Richard is going to propose to me so I'll name him Jason White". Didn't Jimmy say their engagment has lasted like 3 or 4 years? I'm not doubting IMDb completely, but they have been wrong about things before, and I didn't wait to find out if his name is listed as White or Lane at the end of the movie (I kinda had to pee). So, I'm not sure what it should say on the cast list. I would think that it would be more appropriate to say Lane, seeing as it may mislead people into think that he is truly Richard's son, which is never completely established in the film. There are allusions to him being Superman, the piano incident for one, but a lot of it is left ambiguous, like the rest of the allusions to the previous films are. Bignole 04:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I remember the movie credits listing his name as "Jason White", not "Jason Lane". I think it is better if we follow what is said in the credits, since that is the official name. :) DivineLady 16:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Budget 3

I know this has been discussed a couple of times before but does anyone have a source for the final production budget? In the Koverage video Bryan says "the movie was budgeted at 184.5 million dollars and we'll probably climb with visual effects and variables that occur in a movie of this magnitude with 1400 visual effects etc to somewhere still south of 200 million". So has the final figure been published somewhere? AlistairMcMillan 15:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Our source is "The-numbers.com" because they use what Warner Brothers said. WB stated that the budget was 184.5 million, because they filmed in Australia and received a tax break. Had there been no such tax break then the budget would have been around 209 million (factoring in about 12% for taxes). But, since we don't count what they didn't pay, or what they got back from taxes, the budget remains at 184.5 million. These people saying 260 million are most likely including the costs of the previous directors and writers and such that were attached and had immediate salaries. I think that tallied to about 50 or 60 million, give or take. Bignole 15:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I get all that. Do we have a source for the final production budget though? The Variety article, which lists Warner's "unofficial" budget, is from January. The WonderCon footage, where Bryan says the budget is still expected to rise, is from February. Do we have a source for the final production budget? AlistairMcMillan 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I know, they haven't released a "final production budget". There are sites that try and claim a budget, but they are usually those standard '260, 209, and 184.5 million' figures that you see everwhere else. Bignole

According to Box Office Mojo, the budget is listed as being 260 million. Seems a little high to me but the site does have a good reputation for getting the facts straight, so I dunno. Estimates are in on the site and the estimates show a Friday-Sunday take of about 52.15 million. If the budget really is 260 million, then the film is almost certainly gonna bomb domestically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.28.60.96 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 July 2006

boxofficemojo.com doesn't seem to tell us where they get their figure for the budget, so they come under the heading of "unreliable sources". Other people like Variety do list their sources, so they are considered "reliable". AlistairMcMillan 17:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, how could they have Sunday's numbers? It's 1:50 pm here on the east coast, so how can they say that Sunday's numbers are what they are, we're only halfway through the day. Bignole 17:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Weekend Estimates are released around noon Eastern Time every Sunday. Weekend final figures are released Monday afternoon. And Boxofficemjo and Showbizdata are the only two websites online that have paid access to numbers from Exhibitor Relations, the company that tabulates the North American box office receipts. Numbers from other sites are based on internal projections or taken from either of these two sites. --Madchester 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at it right now, go see for yourselves.

These are merely estimates based one what it did the days before and how it has done so far that day. These can very quite a bit, especially if there is a huge buyout in the evening. I don't think it would be accurate to label any information as "july 2" until Monday when the official numbers are released. Bignole 21:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


I just find it odd that Warner Bros. is already spinning the figures. i.e., Supes' 84.2 million estimate over 5 days.

"Still, executives at Warner Bros., which distributed Superman, were effusive. The movie enjoyed the highest five-day gross in studio history, beating 2003's The Matrix Revolutions, which did $83.7 million in its first five days."

Why is the WB contradicting themselves? Matrix Reloaded easily outgrossed that in May 2003 (139.3 M in 5 days). Not to mention the fact that all of Warner Bros. Potter films grossed over $90 million in their first 5 days respectively.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Madchester (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 July 2006

could you refrain from boasting numbers that aren't accurate. I'm sure it did close to that, but those aren't the exact numbers, and you're flaunting them as though they are. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but I've seen movies jump and drop a few million dollars when the real figures came in.
WB isn't spinning the figures, but when you have people including the costs from all the others involved it makes it seem as though these movie's budget is higher than it is. All that money for the previous pictures is lost money. Bignole 01:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The figures will change 5 million dollars at most, either up or down. Most likely it will go down, since a 5% Saturday-Sunday drop is rather unlikely. Most films go down at least 15% over that span; as a comparison, War of the Worlds dropped 14.7% on the same weekend last yr, between Saturday and Sunday. [5]
And the WB's PR dept. is definitely making the picture seem rosier than it is. They're calling Superman Returns their best 5 day gross ever, when the studio has at least 5 other films that bettered Superman Return's figures in the past. I understand that advertising and promotion is all about hyping a product or service, but not at the cost of mispresentation. --Madchester 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a point behind this speculation? AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
We kind of got off topic. It was really about the budget, then turned into the correct film grossings. Bignole 01:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In an interview with Newsweek, Bryan Singer said that the "true" budget after predetermined expenditures was $204 million. CmdrClow 09:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. AlistairMcMillan 17:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive and my last question

So with this archive having just occurred, will my last question be answered? Do I need to ask it again? Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wait a second... I just thought of something else... So if he has his hair that long for style, and that it would be longer due to normal growth, then that means that he isn't Superman's son, right? You see, that means that Lois does get his hair cut, and therefore if his hair can be cut, then he doesn't have super powers. Your thoughts? Thanks. --User: Eric Jack Nash 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It could mean he really isn't Superman's son, but it could also mean that his he needs to grow into his powers. Hair properties is one of those things that is usually only dealt with in the comics and even then it's rare. But, if he is Clark's son then chances are he is just growing into his powers, seeing as he has a lot of allergies to food and (sp) asyma. Bignole 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Thanks Bignole. Without some kind of explanation like that, I really had to think that I had something, one way or the other... I really didn't care which way, but would just like to know for sure. However, it seems like all the other stuff does point towards Supe's son. Again, thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 19:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I'm going to go ahead and insert this into the archive section, seeing as it was originally part of that section. Bignole 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Superman Returns/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is substantive information and moderately well referenced, but needs copy-editing, bettering writing and definitely more references.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superman_Returns/Archive_1&oldid=1222205118"