Talk:Superman Returns/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foreign Release Dates

I'm thinking of deleting a lot of the foreign release date stuff as it is erroneous and does not take a very important event into mind: the World Cup. Not only was the release of POTC delayed in foreign territories (at least Europe and the Middle East) in contrast to the simultaneous release date claim in the article, but the reason both POTC and SR were delayed was because of the World Cup. In the US, few people watch it, but seeing as many people do in the rest of the world, if a film was released on the 28th of June few people would turn up. The idea that there would be a larger box office gross for SR if it was released then is ludicrous.

I'll wait for comment on this discussion before I deleted anything.

Release date

What is the point of having like eight different release dates? I think since it is an American film, that date should be listed. By the way I'm not from the US, but I don't see the value of having numerous international releases. The infobox is already very long, and cuts straight through the plot. The IMDb has a listing of all releases, a link to that should be enough. Not to mention, (estimating) it will be released in over 60 countries, so then, why do the ones currently listed have more important than the other 50 that are not currently listed. Its just not practical, it should be the *main* release date, which, what I would think, is North Amercia...Blahs34 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper AlistairMcMillan 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That does not contribute much Alistair. My point is the article must be reasonable, and having every release date is absurd to say the least, and having your selection is just pov, so it is either the main release, or all 70 of them, as a handpicked selection of releases by one user is pov, thus, lets just keep it to the main release date. Blahs34 00:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Did anybody recognize who drew the flashes of Superman inside the DC logo at the very beginning of the film? Was one of the Jim Lee, or was there maybe a panel from Birthright? CmdrClow 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft in Plane Scene

The fighters escorting the shuttle was the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, since it was a USAF mission. The appearance and design of the planes made it look like the F-35A model. The current official designation of the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter. The A model is for the Air Force, the B model for the USN, and the C model for the USMC. As the film mentions in the dialogue, the airliner that the shuttle is on is a Boeing 777.--TrevelyanL85A2 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It should also be noted that for all Supermans experience with flying, his attempt to pull the 777 out of a flat spin shows a lack of knowledge concerning lift and stalls! --68.0.147.116 06:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

.............and? I have great experience with walking, yet the logic of the "Moonwalk" mystifies me. Simply because I am able to walk does not give me mastery over all methods of "walking". Apply basic logic, friend. Thanks, Aaron 5 July 2006

Costume changes

67.160.147.28 apparently wants to say the following about costume changes:

** It should be noted that these changes are in comparison to the 1980's films. Superman's costume, as with all superhero's costumes, has had many changes through out the years.

I feel it's much more appropriate to say this on the discussion page rather than in the article body. By all means, 67.160.147.28, edit the article, but don't just post something like that at the bottom of a section. Thanks! --HughL [talk?]/[contribs] •  09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Kryptonite "inconsistency" in triva

Since a couple people have an issue with the inconsistency portion of the trivia section, this is where they should talk about it. Bignole 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Kryptonite in this movie seems to work much differently than it does in other films and media. Here, Superman seems unaware of its presence, where it would normally cause him recognizable physical pain. Secondly, it seems to drain his powers at a much slower rate, since he manages to lift the kryptonite-laced crystal mass even though he has a small shard embedded in his back and a much larger one in front of his face.
    • This leads to one of the biggest inconsistencies in the movie. While standing on the Kryptonite island, Superman was unable to face Luthor and his gang. However, with a piece of krytonite embedded in his skin, and the island in his hands, Superman was able to lift the mass and fly it into space.
Here is why it is inconsistent. Kryptonite, whether synthetic or natural is equally potent to Superman. People argue that this "kryptonite island" was not pure. But, the piece that was surrounding the crystal was pure, and since Kryptonite is nothing more than radiated pieces of Krypton, and the crystal is meant to create a synthetic Krypton with whatever minerals are around it, then the island is inherently completely synthetic kryptonite. The minerals around the crystal would have been that of Krypton itself, only in a radiated form. So, the crystal would have been able to create a perfect replica of Krypton, yet in a deadly form. So, Superman lands on the island and doesn't feel a change. That right there is inconstent with every other time he has come into contact with Kryptonite. It doesn't matter if it is a small amount of a large amount, if he is near it then he becomes sick and loses his powers. Next, some would argue that it was Lex's "pure" shard in his pocket that weakened Superman, but, Superman was not near Lex when Lex's henchmen were beating him up. Lex came over to Superman after they had worked him over to the cliff's edge. So, he didn't have his powers the entire time that the henchmen were beating him up, and yet Lex didn't walk over till the end. Remember, when he fell from the steps and saw his hands bleeding he also saw the ground glittering green, followed by Lex's "Kryyyptoonite!". Later, Superman swam under the island and removed it from the Earth. Sorry, but LEAD is the only thing that can block the effects of Kryptonite, unless it's buried really really deep. And, since the Kryptonite was pushing it's way through the bedrock he would have begun to feel the effects quite soon, and his ascent should have been slowed. Then the kryptonite broke free completely and appeared right in front of him, well before he ever let go of the island. With a big piece right in front of him, well before he let go, he should have lost his powers and fell back to Earth. Now, let's look at the last bit of evidence. After he throws the island into space, he falls to Earth and hits the ground. In the hospital we see that there were shreds of kryptonite in his body (the doctors removed them) and only after their removal did his body become indestructible again, as seen when the needle broke on his arm. So, if he had kryptonite in his body when he landed, then he had it when he fell, and if he had it then he didn't have any powers, so the real question is how did his body even survive the fall? That is the inconsistency in the kryptonite effects in this movie. Bignole 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the small shard embedded in his back the one that Lois removed just before Superman flew up above the clouds and regenerated himself, or is it referring to a different shard that entered his back?--71.112.0.150 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Make sure to use colons when adding a response, the "*" were meant to distinguish the actual text from the article. Anyway, to answer your question it wouldn't really matter. If it was just a sliver that broke off of what Lois removed, then he should not have been able to fly away. The Sun's rays do not remove the effects of Kryptonite, nor block them; the rays simply help to energize him faster, the closer to them he is. If it was from the pieces breaking through the bedrock then it simply adds to what I already said. Either way, it was in him when he fell, and so his body should not have been indestructible. Bignole 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the problem I have with the "inconsistency" paragraph in the Trivia section:
  • The writing is not up to Wikipedia standards.
  • It does not seem to be an inconsistency. At the very least, this is obviously up for debate - a debate which does not belong on Wikipedia. It would belong on a Superman fan board or an IMDB message board, but not here.
  • As to why this is not a clear "inconsistency" — First of all, it doesn't seem to be an inconsistency with anything else in the same film. The rock was clearly falling away to gradually reveal the kryptonite. This is why he was fine at first, but by the time he was done, he was weakend beyond ability to fly and collapsed to the ground. Other Superman movies, TV shows, and/or comics may show Kryptonite to behave differently, but in this movie it obviously does not have an instantaneous effect, and the amount of Kryptonite also seems to matter (thus why the sliver in his back may have weakened him a little but not entirely).
  • Second, it may be "inconsistent" with the behavior of Kryptonite in some of the comics or other movies, but the films intentions were never to be totally consistent with all other Superman stories. If someone wants to explain why this movie is different from other Superman stories, this point could go in there, but it does not belong in the "Trivia" section. It could be its own article and I would be fine with that (although that may or may not be inappropriate for Wikipedia, that would be a different discussion).
I do not feel that it is clear one way or another - I just do not feel it should be in the trivia section because I think it is consistent enough with the movie to fall under "creative license", and I feel that it is too small of a point to be useful to the article. -- Renesis13 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This was "talked" about before, I just wanted everybody to see what was talked about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_Returns/Archive_1#Trivia:_Effects_of_Kryptonite -- Derenberg 6 July 2006

  • Kryptonite in this movie seems to work much differently than it does in other films and media. Here, Superman seems unaware of its presence, where it would normally cause him recognizable physical pain. Secondly, it seems to drain his powers at a much slower rate, since he manages to lift the kryptonite-laced crystal mass even though he has a small shard embedded in his back and a much larger one in front of his face.
    • This leads to one of the biggest perceived inconsistencies in the movie. While standing on the Kryptonite island, Superman was unable to face Luthor and his gang. However, with a piece of krytonite embedded in his skin, and the island in his hands, Superman was able to lift the mass and fly it into space. This is explained in the growing of the crystals, being that the kryptonite was diluted by its growth it was not as potent as true kryptonite. It was the same for the kryptonite embedded in Superman's flesh, that it grew from traces in a mine versus being true Kryptonite. The effect Kryptonite has on Superman depends on the amount he is exposed to. Since it was not pure kryptonite he was exposed to, it is therefore perfectly acceptable that Superman was able to lift the island into space. It was also shown quite clearly that Superman had surrounded himself with bedrock for protection long enough to get the island core away from earth. The length of time he rested in the sunlight is not clearly stated, as movies do not happen in real-time he could have theoretically been there for ten minutes charging up.
This is way too much information, they should be simple bullets. Plus there is more speculation in the "answers" then there is in the "inconsistency". This all needs to be rewritten to be more NPOV.

Suggested:

  • The effects of Kryptonite, in this film, appear to work differently then in any other established continuity. Superman seems unaware of its presence, where it would normally immediately debilitate him, when first coming in contact with it.
  • A perceived inconsistency in the movie takes place with Superman and his reaction to kryptonite. Superman appears completely immobilized on his first contact with Lex's island, but later his body appears to be able to withstand more concentrated forms of Kryptonite while lifting it into space. Also, after his fall to Earth, the doctors remove a kryptonite splinter from his body. From the nurse's attempt to insert a needle, and his suit being ripped off by the doctors, it appears that his body was not indestructible. These could merely be the fault of short and long edits that give a false illusion as to what is really occurring.
I suggest something to this extent, or similar. We cannot assume one way or the other if the Kryptonite was pure, and if this film attempts to suggest that synthetic kryptonite isn't as potent. Also, we cannot assume that the Sun prevented the effects of Kryptonite. These are personal explainations. On the other hand, we cannot assume that it was continuity issues, or anything more than just an illusion created by the time displaced in the edits. Bignole 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for broke Bignole, but may I add, if the problem is that this "inconsistency" is in the trivia section, you could make an error section all on its own (because that whole scene was littered with them), I didn't do such when I added it because I thought such would tick off the fanb... nevermind, did so anyway.Zero X Marquis 18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that if there are legitimate, numerous errors, then it could benefit a section. But, if they all revolve around this instance then it doesn't need a section of its own. It tried to make this one as ambiguous as possible. But, I need more than just one person to respond on here, so people please pay attention to the Talk Page. Bignole

I think it's important to note that there are no established rules about the exact effects of Kryptonite brought up in the film. It's anybody's guess exactly why Superman was able to lift the landmass despite having Kryptonite right in his face. But that he might've spent a fair amount of time being recharged in the sun and only had tiny shards of Kryptonite still in him can be plausible explanation for why he was able to do it. It is certainly a possibility that that is the explanation for it. Dominicus Cerberus 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That is noted, in the part that says "The effects of Kryptonite appear to work differently in this film". The issue is that that conclusion is being drawn from outside the film, making it more POV. That is why I worded it as such to say that it could very well have been the edits and cuts that made it appear as though it was an inconsistency. Going into detail about what Superman himself may or may not have done is not NPOV, because you are expressing what you think he did. With the new way it states the events as they occur, and then goes on to say that it could just be a false illusion because of the way it was edited. You can't tell time frames in cut scenes. There is no need to mention the Sun, because that would fall under 'changing the effects of Kryptonite'. Because normally the Sun does not prevent the effects. Bignole 02:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. My mistake. But if we're going to explain it as that kryptonite must work differently in this film than in the other films and media, then I don't see why there has to be any inconsistency. Dominicus Cerberus 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The inconsistency is in reference to their own portrayal of Kryptonite effects. He loses his powers on the island but continues to lift it in the air once the kryptonite breaks free of the bedrock. The inconsistency can be seen in the amount of time elapsing from when it first breaks free and when he lets it go, which is longer than when he was hit by Luthor when he first landed on the island. That is why I suggest that it could be a false illusion created by an edit that was just longer than intended. Also, he had kryptonite in his body, but he survived the fall. But, at the hospital they ripped his suit from his body like it was shredded cloth (but we know it can't be torn so long as he is indestructible, because it is in essence apart of him...also it would have a bunch of bullet holes in it from earlier if that wasn't the case). Anyway, after they ripp it off they remove the sliver of kryptonite from his body, and then the nurse attempts to stick him with a needle which breaks. This signifies that when they removed the kryptonite and moved it away from him that his body became indestructible again. So, that could merely be a misarrangement of frames by the editor, where the needles should have been the first thing. Then again, you can't put a needle in when there is a suit in the way. Either way, if the suit rips away then he doesn't have his powers to protect his body, yet survived the fall. Again, I'm leaving it as a possible fault in the edit and cuts. Bignole 03:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


I sort of interpreted it as a way of continuing the movie series` tradition of Supes pulling a totally unexpected (ie non-conformant) trick out of his hat. Why bother with the fancruft somersaults?24.33.28.52 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

International Superman?

I was told by friends that apparently instead of saying "...truth, justice, and the American way..." Superman now says "...truth, justice, and all that stuff...", presumably so that the movie would appeal more to international audiences. I have yet to see the movie, but this seems like something worth noting in the trivia or something like that.

I can't remember for sure, but I am pretty sure when I saw it on Tuesday (in America), it did say "the American way". However, I would not be at all surprised if they changed that line in the versions released internationally. Someone should look into it. -- Renesis13 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" was never mentioned in the movie. It wasn't Superman that said it, it was Perry White during a briefing of his reporters asking if Superman still stood for "truth, justice..all that stuff." Odin's Beard 01:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First message was mine. Sorry for not timestamping it. Anyways, should this be mentioned? I havn't seen the movie so I'm not sure how much an impact it has had on people, if any. Vjasper 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Singer already mentioned that they didn't "change" what Superman stands for, just that they don't say "American Way" in the film. The only person that talks about what Superman stands for is Perry, and he says "all that stuff". Singer expressed that they did this because society and the world has changed since Superman first came around and stated his slogan of "truth, justice and the American way", and they felt it would be more appropriate to leave out the "American Way" part. Superman himself never even speaks of his motto in the film. Bignole
It's got to do with marketing. "Truth, justice and the American way" made sense as a slogan in the 1950s. It already sounded kind of silly in 1978 when Chris Reeve said it, post-Vietnam and post-Watergate. And they don't want to get hooted overseas when they distribute the film. It's all about money (and they need plenty of it, to get this thing paid for). Wahkeenah 02:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot: summary or scene breakdown?

Is it just me, or is the plot summary once again being relentlessly expanded with needless detail? At one point, it was down to a concise few paragraphs (see X-Men: The Last Stand for arguably the ideal length). I don't wish to spoil the film for myself, as I haven't yet seen it, and therefore don't want to edit this at the moment. Perhaps somebody could begin some pruning? Chris 42 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Returned it to the simplified form that was agreed upon originally. Bignole 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Vast improvement. :-) Chris 42 22:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Red Sun VS Yellow Sun

I added parts in both the Superman 2 and Superman Returns relation part as well as an explanation in the Trivia section. I'm surprised that people didn't include (as spoken of by Lois Lane early on in the film), that Superman gets his powers from the Sun. In Superman 2, he used red sun radiation in order to be purged of his powers. In Superman Returns he uses the Earth's yellow sun to give him a power boost. The solar aspect of Superman is commonly missed by people who don't read the comic books, but it was talked about by Lois in the film, so I felt it important. (Rob Brandon 07:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC))

It's already known that he gets his powers from the Sun. Now, I don't know if Superman Returns was trying to change some details, but the Sun's solar radiation cannot prevent the effects of Kryptonite. So, by placing that in the trivia you are placing your own personal explaination to the events that occured. Bignole

Sure the yellow sun can prevent the effects of kryptonite. Not only can the effects of a certain kryptonite rock on a certain superpowered kryptonian decrease over time, but exposure to the sun's rays did make Superman immune to kryptonite in an elseworld storyline.

The Two Dogs

This has been bothering me...

When Lex and Kitty return to the deceased old lady's house, Kitty says, "Weren't there two of those?" and it shows one of the two dogs, with fur around it, chewing on something that looks like a bone. Is there any explaination for this? I have three thoughts on how this played out...

  • The other dog ran away, and the fur was shed from the dog in the house?
  • The remaining dog is some sort of evil demon-dog thing, but nobody knows? :P
  • It's unlikely that the two dogs fought and the missing one was eaten, because the remaining dog didn't have a scratch on it, and they were almost identical physically. Same breed, same size, same everything.

--Gaming King 07:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are over-intellectualizing what was just a crass joke: the remaining dog appeared to chewing on the now-deceased dog's bone. It seems as if the joke is that the surviving dog cannibalized the other one.

Not really sure how that joke had a place in the movie; to be honest, I am surprised it wasn't forgotten on the editing-room floor. It wasn't particularly funny or clever. Just weird. Thanks, Aaron. 12, July 2005.

  • Yes, it was a lame joke. It's obvious that the one dog was supposed to have eaten the other, regardless of how improbable that is, realistically... and it's referred to near the end, when Lex and Kitty find themselves stranded on a small island, and wondering where they'll find something to eat... and then look at the remaining dog. Wahkeenah 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


A sentence in the plot section of this article (as of 18:10, 24 July 2006) says, "It is implied that they might eat Kitty's pekingese." If I'm not mistaken, the dog breed is Pomeranian, not Pekingese. Check Wikipedia for pictures and you'll see. --Trevz 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your'e worrying about realism in a film about a dude who wears a red cape and is taken seriously. On top of that, he can fly, and is an alien. Sad. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 02:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A New Look At The Kryptonite Inconsistencies

The exact effects of kryptonite on Superman have never been set in stone. Just like the exact extent of his powers, the exact effect of kryptonite changes with every writer that creates a story for Superman. When Superman was first created, he had limited power and durability and couldn't even fly. His powers evolved over the years in order to make the character and his exploits more spectacular. The same holds true to the effects of kryptonite. Kryptonite was first introduced in a story by Jerry Siegel in 1940. It was called K-Metal, and was able to drain Superman's powers and give humans superhuman abilities. However, the story was never published and K-Metal didn't become part of the Superman universe. It was reintroduced in 1943 as "Kryptonite" for the Superman radio show, for the sole purpose of allowing the voice actor for Superman to take time off from the show. After that, kryptonite became part of the Superman universe, yet its exact effects were never really established. Its main effect was the depowering of Superman and death by prolonged exposure. The fact that it never had any other specific effects besides this one allowed future writes to make their own rules to create their own stories. At one point during the Superboy comic series, Superboy even became immune to certain pieces of kryptonite due to repeated, non-lethal exposure. After years of being completely safe to humans, it was revealed not too long ago that it caused cancer in humans exposed to it for long periods of time. Now, we all know that one of the main sources of Superman's powers is the yellow sun. Many storyline's describe this as a sort of photosynthesis-like absorbsion, granting Superman's advanced alien body great strength. It has also been stated that the radiation emitted from pieces of kryptonite halt and even reverse this process, obviously in a very painful way. So, in theory, since evidence has never been presented otherwise, the effects of a very small piece of kryptonite could be somewhat negated by enough exposure to the sun. Now think for a minute. Superman has been exposed to pieces of kryptonite that all came from the same meteor, the meteor that landed in Addis Ababa. So in keeping with the continuity established in the Superboy comic, Superman could be becoming immune to that certain rock's effects. That would explain why the effects of kryptonite on Superman are different in Superman Returns than the other movies. Now, why would Superman be susceptible to the kryptonite to the point of not being able to fight off Luthor and his henchmen at one point, yet later able to carry an entire island of kryptonite with a small piece in his back just a little later? Take this into consideration. Examine what has been stated about the effects of the sun and the effects of kryptonite on Superman's body. Sources have stated the sun grants him power while kryptonite drains that power given by the sun. So in theory, the extent of the kryptonite's effect on Superman would be directly related to Superman's exposure to the sun. When Superman first arrives on the island, the clouds are blocking out the sun. Since Superman isn't able to absorb the sun's rays, the kryptonite has a much more debilitating effect on him. Also take into consideration. If you watched the special "The Science of Superman", you would have seen modern day science applied to many aspects of Superman's abilities. There was a segment on the effects of kryptonite, and it was stated that kryptonite to Superman would be like uranium or plutonium to us. A little bit of radiation isn't harmful, yet alot is deadly. Applying this logic, we can say that a small piece of kryptonite wouldn't have as much of an effect on Superman as a much greater amount. So if Superman was exposed to a very small piece of kryptonite, as in the one embedded in his back, it wouldn't have much of an effect on him. This would allow him to fly off above the clouds and into the sunlight. The sun could then over power the effect of the kryptonite, since nowhere has it been established that it couldn't, in the movie's continuity or otherwise, allowing Superman to "recharge" while still exposed to a small concentration of kryptonite. Now, it has already been established in the story's continuity that the island isn't that harmful to Superman unless the veins of true kryptonite are exposed. By the time he is exposed to the true kryptonite, he is already exposed to the sunlight, which wouldn't make the feat nearly as difficult. With the island off of the earth, the clouds disappear, allowing Superman to be exposed to direct sunlight all the way down until he hits the ground. Now, you can find as many arguments to this as you like, however, there is still one piece of evidence that overwhelms any argument that you or I can make. This is the fact that several aspects of the Superman universe have been left open to interpretation, and therefore, revision. Since the exact effects of kryptonite have never truly been established, they will always be subject to change, just like the Man of Steel himself. Writers have been recreating the Superman universe since before World War II. No matter how concrete we think the "rules" of Superman are, they can be changed in the blink of an eye without any second thought, we just need to learn to roll with the punches. -Freddie1988 3:19 9 July 2006

Here is the problem with that, Superboy established it's own continuity, and Superman Returns supposedly follows Superman and Superman II. Now, even if he forget all that and look at Superman Returns as it's own entity then your theory still isn't sound. If, as you say he becomes immune to the same pieces of Kryptonite after non lethal exposure to them, why would he lose his powers at the very end of letting the island go? Your theory would suggest that he would be immune to the whole island because he's already landed on it once and lost his powers, yet that doesn't occur. Since you can't have it both ways, he is either immune after non lethal exposure or he isn't, and since he fell to Earth in a comatose state it would suggest that he isn't. Second, kryptonite, no matter how large or small has always created the same effect in the same amount of time. Even your little novel above says that, "Its main effect was the depowering of Superman and death by prolonged exposure. The fact that it never had any other specific effects besides this one allowed future writes to make their own rules to create their own stories.", and nothing about the size of it. Simply put, it always depowers him and eventually kills him. Your theory would suggest that he could walk around with that shard of kryptonite in his body forever, as long as he stayed in the Sun. That would rather defeat the purpose of a weakness, wouldn't it? That is your personal theory that sunlight would reverse or negate kryptonite effects, but he's been around kryptonite before in the sunlight and it wasn't negated then. Anyway, again to point out, the inconsistency lies in the the events in the movie and how they relate to each other, not to how they relate to the other mediums. If he was immune the second go round then he wouldn't have fell to Earth. Since he fell to Earth it means the it drained all his energy and powers. Since his costume was ripped off (and we know it can't be ripped when he has his powers) then we know he didn't have his powers in the hospital intially. Since he didn't have them until after they removed the kryptonite then it begs to ask how he even survived the fall. Sorry, it's still an inconsistency, whether by error in editing or error in writing. Bignole

You say that he loses his powers while the shard was in his back, and didn't get them back until it was taken out. This is not so. Kryptonite doesn't strip him of his powers, the fact he has trouble using his powers is due to the radiation's debilitating effect. It is never said that he loses the powers. He loses consciousness because he overexerted himself and doing so while being exposed to kryptonite, which brings me to another point. I never said that the sun negates the effects of kryptonite. I merely stated that due to the size of the shard in his back, the sun was able to overcome the effects for a short while. The kryptonite has an overall draining effect on Superman's powers, and the sun was able to regenerate enough power to allow him to lift the island. Also, the fact that kryptonite's main effect is weakening Superman doesn't prove at all that any size piece of kryptonite will have the same effect as another of a different size. Logically, a smaller concentration would a lesser effect, considering that kryptonite's effect is caused by radioactivity. If you notice, all exposure to kryptonite he experiences in the comics and movies involve pieces of kryptonite that are much larger than the tiny piece that remained lodged in his back. I also made the point that Superboy became immune to illustrate the fact that it has been established in an offical Superman continuity that he can overcome the effects of kryptonite, and I never said that he was immune in the movie, I said that due to previous exposure to pieces of the same rock, he could have developed a tolerance to a certain degree, yet the overall prolonged exposure he suffered from in the movie(since the last chunk of the movie has him exposed for a very long time) still caused him to lose his powers, since he isn't totally immune. Now, to address the issue of Superman Returns' continuity, the fact is that it uses Superman I and II as a backstory, meaning that the events of I and II set the stage for Returns, yet isn't a strict history. In the first movie, Jor-El was able to actively interact with Kal-El, yet he is just the equivelant of a talking encyclopedia to Luthor. Also, just because I and II serve as a backdrop for Returns, that doesn't mean that Returns can't incorporate ideas from other continuities. The series Smallville has created its own distinct continuity, yet uses elements from numerous other versions of Superman stories, such as Lex and Clark knowing each other before adulthood. Even the movies I and II used elements from different stories. The "Super Kiss" was an abandoned superpower that Superman once possessed yet eventually fell out of the general continuity. Also, Returns makes its own very bold continuity in the fact that Superman and Lois had a son. It has never ever been established that Superman could reproduce with a human due to his alien physiology. It has always remained in speculation. And nobody ever said that the suit can't come off with his powers fully intact. So, not only have you taken most of what I have theorized out of context, you have also missed my main point. Writers can change whatever they want about Superman. If they want to make him all-powerful and immune to kryptonite tomorrow, they can. Just read the article on the character Superman.The section on character history will put it as bluntly as it can be put.

So, let's recap:

1) He isn't immune in the movie, yet a SLIGHTLY developed resistance is a very strong possiblity 2) It has never been stated that kryptonite has the same effect no matter what the size, and it stands to reason that a smaller piece would have less of an effect. 3) The sun can't negate kryptonite's effects, yet it could possibly overcome them to a certain degree and there isn't anything that says otherwise 4) I and II's relationship to Returns set the tone for Returns, they don't dictate the story 5) The writers can make whatever changes they want 6) Prove the suit thing -Freddie1988 4:47 9 July 2006

1. Well, since you are bringing other mediums into your theory then I bring others into mine. Smallville has already experimented with different sizes of Kryptonite, so has Lois and Clark. Both shows had Clark being shot by a bullet, which isn't really that big when you look at them. Smallville has already done liquid kryptonite, that was filter a bit by other chemicals, yet still had the same effect. It didn't kill him but he immediately lost his powers and became sick as it passed through his body. They've also put it in a dust form, which is rather small. That too made him lose his powers, though didn't kill him, just made him extremely sick to the point of almost death. The size of it depends on if it will kill him and how fast, not on whether or not he loses his powers. Also, pay attention to this now, Superman loses his powers when in contact with Kryptonite. It isn't perminant but they are gone. No matter how you look at it, he has no powers when near it.
2. See my response above about the size of it.
3. What says otherwise is the fact that he's had exposure to it while in the Sun, yet couldn't overcome it. It doesn't matter where he is, because it isn't the "rays" it is the "radiation" from the Sun which only changes depending on where you are in the world, not where you stand in your front lawn. The radiation from Kryptonite would be stronger, because the radiation from their Red Sun, which is several times larger than our Yellow Sun, after it went Supernova would be more than any radiation emmited by our Sun.
4. I was just merely citing examples of how depowered Superman is when in contact with kryptonite. Like, if your theory about the same piece is true, then the piece he had in the first movie was from that same rock.
5. Of course the writers can make changes, but when you make them in the middle of your movie, after you've already set the tone earlier, it's called continuity error.
6. I don't know what you want me to prove. What, that it ripped in the movie..well go back and watch it the doctors rip it clean off. Oh, that it doesn't rip when he's wearing it? Let's see (only using Superman Returns as a reference), it would have ripped to shreds when he was being unloaded on by the artillery machine gun on the roof. Or, while saving the plane it would have burned some as he was flying through flames. Flying through windows and underground rocks would cut it to shreds. So yeah, it wouldn't rip if he has his powers. I'm sorry but doctors aren't as powerful as bullets. Bignole
The writers never changed anything in the middle of the movie. The characteristics that I am stating hold true for Superman Returns, not Superman in general. Kryptonite in the comics and other shows have an instant effect because it is used there as an obstacle to Superman (since little else is) that he must in some way overcome to solve some problem. The effects that you are stating hold true for the comics and other shows. Kryptonite doesn't have as much of an effect on Superman in this movie because the kryptonite is the problem in this movie. He has to be somewhat resistant to it in order to overcome it. The kryptonite in this movie slowly drains his powers. He lands on the island and is exposed to kryptonite that isn't pure, so the effect isn't as profound. As he walks around the island he is slowly being drained of his powers at a fairly good rate, yet one that is initially undetectable to him. He can't fight back because he was caught by suprise and because he was outnumbered. He tried to fight back against Lex, and succeeded to some extent, until he was attacked by the three thugs. He was able to fly the island away later because he had an opportunity to recharge and instead of being beaten by three men while exposed to the island he was trying to lift it. The writers never showed the kryptonite to have an instantaneous effect on Superman. They showed this by his ignorance of it when he first landed that it didn't have an instataneous effect like other versions. It doesn't fall into continuity with these other versions, true, but it follows the movie's version just fine. If you want an inconsistency, look at the suit thing again. It isn't indestructible if his powers are intact. They made it unable to tear in the movies so he would be changing every five minutes. They later made a continuity where Jonathon and Martha Kent used Superman's blankets from Krypton to make an indestructible suit. So it doesn't tear no matter what is going on. Yet in the hospital the doctors can tear it right off? There's your inconsistency. Go for it. -Freddie1988 6:00 9 July 2006
You're merely trying to use your own opinion to find a solution. If he doesn't fall down immediately then the kryptonite isn't pure. Guess what, it was pure because that is the only form. You can't pick and choose what you want to support your theory. First you cite Superboy as an example of how he could overcome the kryptonite, then you disclaim mine when I cite examples of other mediums. Face it it's an inconsistency. Just because you choose to pick theories that you like, or create, to answer an issue that wasn't explained in the movie does not mean that it is any less of an issue. It was indestructible because his body emits an auror a few millimeters from this skin that in essence protects his suit and anyone he wraps himself around. This is why he can take people around in flight and superspeeds, cause otherwise the g-force would be a little much. You say the movies created this "suite of indestructibility" so that they wouldn't have to repair and change it all the time, yet they abandon this concept at the last moment? Again that is an error. You can't institute a new "law" and then break it whenever you feel like it. Bignole
There is nothing wrong with your sources and examnples. The only problem is that they are true for different versions. This film takes a few steps away from the normal Superman continuity. Green kryptonite is the version of kryptonite that is harmful to Superman. there have been several versions of kryptonite that hve been created by the use of the green kryptonite and yet they don't the same effect. By combining the green kryptonite with the completely harmless crystals, are new substance was created. Although it contained geen kryptonite in its makeup, it wasn't pure. Also, Singer has admitted not being a comic book fan, so it would stand to reason that he would have an extensive knowledge about the Superman universe, and why his version of Superman would be different from that of a true comic book fan. Furthermore, I state whether or not something I say is speculation or not, and the suit thing is pure and simple fact. If you have seen the Look! Up in the Sky! special about the history of Superman, then you have seen the segment about The Donner version of Superman, Superman: The Movie. In the comics, the suit tears all of the time, yet in the movie it not only doesn't tear once, it also just appears in place of his street clothes. No continuity explanation has been offered, except that they didn't have time to have him change in the shot. Also, his suit would have been in pieces several times during the movies, so they made it unable to tear to avoid having him have to change all of the time. this was explained in the comics by Superman's adoptive parnets making his suit using his kryptonian blankets and his heat vision, or just him making it himself, depending on the source. Singer's movie don't just differ from Donner's here, either. In Returns, he is seen drinking in the bar, yet in Donner's film, he says he doesn't drink before he flies, and it is established that he is always needed, so he is always flying around. And the field that you refer to is so close to his body that not even his cape is protected by it. -Freddie1988 6:57 9 July 2006

When he was on the island, he was weakened by the Kryptonite. But before he lifted the island, he supercharged his cells with solar energy, which allowed him to lift it and probably make his powers drain slower.

I like this guy. -Freddie1988 7:06 9 July 2006

What are you talking about Singer isn't a comicbook fan. He has stated that the only reason he chose to do XMen is because he believed it would lead to Superman. He is a huge Superman fan. He's admitted that his love for Superman stems from his own life as an adopted child. Do you just make up your information? Here is the problem: The movie doesn't explain if it is pure kryptonite or not; it doesn't explain if pure kryptonite or non-pure have the same effect; it doesn't explain if the Sun's radiation can over power the radiation of kryptonite; it doesn't explain if Superman can build a resistance to kryptonite. That is why it is an inconsistency, because there is no explaination. Just because you feel you can pick and choose explainations based in instances in other mediums and personal opinions don't make them right. Here's the rub, since the movie doesn't give an explaination it leaves it as ambiguous; since it's ambiguous you have to merely look at what is shown. What is shown is inconsistent with itself. If you want to explain away what occurred that's fine, but that's your personal opinion and wiki doesn't deal in POV. [[User:Bignole|Bignole]

You've just help prove my point. An inconsistency isn't born out of lack of evidence. It occurs when something happens that doesn't agree with the evidence shown. The fact that there is no explanation for what happens and the fact all of the events present fall in line with each other and the story proves that there isn't any inconsistency, and if there is, you can't prove it until you recieve an explanation for what you've seen. The fact that you claim these events are left ambiguous means that you can't possibly claim there are inconsistencies of any kind. The only inconsistencies you have uncovered don't lie solely within the movie, they are between the movie and the whole Superman franchise. Superman Returns takes a classic history of the character and creates its own continuity. Also, In Look! Up in the Sky!, Singer is described as not being a big fan of comic books, yet as having a vision and compassion for the characters and stories that stem from them. It was the parallels between Superman and Singer that drew him towards the character, yet he still wasn't a fan of comics. He didn't become familiar with other comic book characters until he signed on to film X-Men. He initially turned down the role because he didn't care for comic book characters and didn't even know anything about the X-Men. Check Singer's entry on wikipedia if you don't believe me. -Freddie1988 9:30 9 July 2006

This is the most important thing Freddie said:

  • "The exact effects of kryptonite on Superman have never been set in stone. Just like the exact extent of his powers, the exact effect of kryptonite changes with every writer that creates a story for Superman. ... Now, you can find as many arguments to this as you like, however, there is still one piece of evidence that overwhelms any argument that you or I can make. This is the fact that several aspects of the Superman universe have been left open to interpretation, and therefore, revision."

Also, I have never understood why anyone would get so picky and scientific about "continuity" errors or anyt other type of errors in fictional movies... especially in the case of a movie like this, where we are talking about a man that can fly, shoot laser beams out of his eyes, take unlimited bullets, and turn the world backwards. -- Renesis13 02:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're completely right. This whole thing is stupid. I just want to have my thoughts heard. - Freddie1988 9:36 9 July 2006

No, you follow what is shown. What is shown is that Superman loses his powers when he lands on the island, but doesn't lose them while lifting the island into space or while he is falling to Earth with a piece in his back. From what is shown there is a clear inconsistency in it's effects on him. The reason I say they are "ambiguous" is because you don't actually know what was going through the writers/director's head at the time, so you have to rely on what is shown. What is shown is clear and cut inconsistent with itself. Also, what you said was that since he isn't a comicbook fan that his version of Superman wouldn't coincide with a true comic fans. Sorry, but since he is an avid Superman fan his version, you would assume, would tend to be more accurate when traced to the comics. I don't care about other comics, what you did was apply a generality about him to one specific area; an area which he is avid about. Also, are you aware, Renesis13, of what a continuity error is? What I have said is an error has nothing to do with the connection to the previous mediums, but with events that take place in the movie itself. It has nothing to do with whether you believe a man can fly, but whether if when watching him fly the Sun appears on both sides of him at the two different moments in the same scene. It's about an errors made, in the film, where they should follow each other. Continuity errors are actual trivia if they are big enough, and the effect of kryptonite changing in the climax of the movie is rather big. Since there is no explaination for the change it is left as an error on their part. Now, if they had explained it somehow then that would be different. Bignole
The fact that Superman was getting his ass kicked the first time on the island and then able to fly the second time around doesn't mean that he didn't have powers the first time. I would like to see you fly while three guys are beating you to death. He was able to stop Luthor's attack on him, yet he couldn't keep three grown men off of him, not only because this would be difficult no matter how much kryptonite he was exposed to, but because as Luthor was kicking him around, more and more of the kryptonite veins were revealed. Before they were revealed, he wasn't hardly affected. So he wouldn't hardly be affected by the island a second time around until the veins were exposed again, especially after he gets a nice little supercharge from the sun before hand. The fact that he isn't affected nearly as much by just the island compared to the exposed kryptonite veins is consistent with both visits and therefore there is no inconsistency. In addition, Singer was familiar with Superman from Donner's movies, so his knowledge wouldn't be complete unless he began reading comics. The reason I and II serve as a vague history is because that is the most complete history he knows. -Freddie1988 9:53 9 July 2006
Ok, let's get this straight. He can lift a friggin' island, but can't move 3 guys from on top of him? LOL! It is inconsistent. Superman, the man that can lift an island of kryponite, stop a plane from crashing to the ground, but can't fend off 3 loley humans? I'm not even going to take you halfway seriously about that comment. Let's look at it straight, no preconceptions or opinions about what MIGHT be going on: Superman lands on the island and loses his powers, as seen when he gets his ass handed to him. Almost drowns with a kryptonite shard in his back, and almost dies from the radiation poison from it. Removes the shard and glides through the clouds to return to full strength. Dives down into the sea and lifts the island into the air toward space. Bedrock breaks away revealing Kryptonite before he lets go, but he still has his powers. Kryptonite penetrates his skin, still has powers, throws island into space. He passes out and falls to Earth. Hits Earth at terminal velocity, with kryptonite in his body, but survives. Doctors rip off suit, which has already been seen to be indestructible thanks to the artillery fire it sustained earlier, as if it was nothing and removes the kryptonite from his body. Nurse attempts to use a needle which immediately breaks. HHmmm..I don't know Doc, but it seems that the effects are changing through each scene. First it affects him immediately, then almost not at all. An island top, that does nothing more than glitter kryptonite strips his powers, but an actual solid mass in his blood and in front of his face can't remove his powers to the same degree as some speckles? This is the inconsistency.Bignole

The kryptonite island has the same effects both visits. At first, he seems relatively unaffected, yet he is obviously losing power. Then the kryptonite veins are exposed, and coupled with prolonged exposure to the island, he suffers a massive drop in power. His ability to lift the island while having been beaten, stabbed with kryptonite and still having a piece in him, and prolonged exposure to kryptonite is "explained" by his little trip above the clouds. It is obvious by the scene that he is recieving a solar supercharge. Whether or not the Superman of the comics or t.v. show can do this doesn't matter, the director is showing that his Superman can and it is working to great effect. According to the director, that energy boost was enough to enable him to lift the island and throw it into space before passing out from the strain. That is his continuity. He seems fine when he first lands, yet as demonstrated by Luthor, has obviously been depowered. He hits the ground, breaks the rock, and exposes green veins of kryptonite. He loses more power. He then suffers a beating from Luthor, yet has strength enough to resist. Then the thugs step in, and by now he has suffered from massive kryptonite exposure, but also a massive beating. He recieves an even bigger thumping, then is stabbed with a jagged piece of pure green kryptonite. The whole ordeal has left him weak and he collapses. On the plane, he is able to recover from exposure to the island and has most of the shard removed. This gives him enough energy to fly into the sky and recieves a major solar recharge. With his powers restored, he flies down to earth and lifts the island, and the power degeneration begins once again, at the same rate as the first visit, just instead of a beating, he is lifting an island. He gets it into space, and loses consciousness from the effort spent and the power lost. He falls to earth not completely drained of power, and the suit thing is a major inconsistency that had to be made in order to make the hospital scene work. The effects of the kryptonite are degenerative. They are not instantaneous. If they were, he would have realized it when he landed on the island. -Freddie1988 10:42 9 July 2006

They aren't the same affects, you said so yourself earlier. He lands on the island and loses his powers and gets beat up. Yet, it takes him longer to lift the island into space and doesn't seem to lose an ounce of power until after he lets it go. Why didn't it become more difficult as time went by? There wasn't a change in his demeanor until after he let it go. He didn't struggle more as he got higher, nor did his powers weaken when the kryptonite showed itself. Getting beaten up doesn't force the super powers out faster, he isn't a rag that needs to be rung after soaking up water. It may become more difficult for him to defend himself but his beating has nothing to do with how fast his powers get depleated. Then you have the added bonus of the free fall back to Earth, with definite amount of time for power loss, and yet his body survives when it shouldn't have had any powers by then. Bignole

If I am saying something contradictory, that is not my intent. My last comment is they way I am meaning what I am saying. Now, the beatings aren't in there to show he is losing power, because they aren't causing him to lose his superpowers any faster or slower. They are, however, causing him a great deal of pain and are weakening his body and sapping his energy, to what extent is unknown. Also, the fact that he doesn't seem to be losing any power on the way up with the island could just be a mistake on the actor's part. I mean, when he was trying to straighten the plane's fall earlier in the movie, he didn't look like he was working hard, but you could tell he was by rest of the scene that it was pretty difficult (i.e. accidentally breaking the wing). The way the scene is shot shows how hard it is for Superman. First, we all recieve a sense of how monumental the task is when we see Superman emerge out of the water with the island on top of him. Coupled with the fact that we know the island is deadly to him and the fact that it is really big, we are suddenly hit with the feeling, "Wow. Just how is he able to do that?" Then, as his ascent is a little more than halfway done, the green kryptonite vein is exposed right in his face, and no matter what his reaction is, we know that things just got alot harder for him. Then he releases it into space. Now, we have seen in previous shots that when the kryptonite exposure has ended he starts to regain his powers. We also know that the little shard in his back doesn't hinder this much, since he was able to recover and then fly away before, although, how much it actually hinders it is unknown. This helps explain why he was able to survive re-entry and the impact. The hospital scene where they remove the shard and then try to give him the shot can be considered an inconsistency, but you must also think that it could have just been percieved that way. -Freddie1988 11:19 9 July 2006

Of course it's momentous for him to lift the island, it would be without the kryptonite. But, if the actor didn't show a change in demeanor when the kryptonite started to show (as you said it would be his fault) that is still an inconsistency as a whole for the film. If the actor didn't do something it's because either he wasn't directed to do it or because that was how it was written. Secondly, people are saying the shard removed at the hospital was from his neck, so that would be a different piece, one from the island. You just said "The hospital scene where they remove the shard and then try to give him the shot can be considered an inconsistency, but you must also think that it could have just been percieved that way," which, if there is any inconsistency there it's still inconsistent. Now, had his suit not been ripped right off by the doctor, and maybe the needle scene come before they removed the kryptonite, then yes there would probably be less of an issue to note, but that was pretty much the solidifier. He fell to Earth, and only after the piece was removed did he gain his powers back. So, it begs to say that the inconsistency is there, you even admitted it. Whether it is an inconsistency in the plot or in the editing it is there. That was why I rewrote it in the above section, so as to appear more NPOV and less of trying to say there is some huge plot hole. Bignole 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the hospital scene was merely to relate the fact that inconsistencies, unless completely obvious to everyone, can occur due to the viewer's point-of-view. You state that the shard was removed and then he regained his powers due to the events that take place in the scene, yet another person can view these events as purely conicidental, and therefore giving credit to the possibility of him having his powers beforehand. I wasn't admitting an incosistency, just the possibility of one existing. Also, the mention of the actor's error portraying Superman's difficulty performing certain feats wasn't to insinuate errors in the writing or directing, but in the abilities of the actor himself. Routh has recieved a few negative reviews of his portrayal, most notably Roger Ebert, who stated that he lacked charisma as Superman and his performance was sub-par. Routh did act like he was actually carrying something heavy, yet when the time came to act like he was trying even harder came, he could have just fallen short performance-wise. The errors don't neccesarily lie in the movie, just the way we percieve the events that take place therein. - Freddie1988 12:36 10 July 2006

Well, I'm not going to argue this with you anymore. You can believe and tell yourself whatever you like, the fact remains that they are inconsistencies in the film. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them any less inconsistent. The reason being, is that even though the evidence says so, and you even admitted so (though now you are taking it back), you are simply going to call it "perception" so that you don't have to actually go on record as admitting that the film had inconsistencies. I don't know what your personal bias for this film is, but it is obviously retarding your viewpoint. Bignole

Oy, what a megillah! Let me just say that I found the effects vs. non-effects of Kryptonite in this film rather confusing. I don't pretend to be an expert on Kryptonite, but there was some 'splainin' to do that wasn't done. However, the bit in 1978 about turning back time still baffles people, so what's new? And as others have said before, if you accept the absurd notion that a man can fly, forget about any other kind of logic. Wahkeenah 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was more addressed at how they weren't following their own rules and if that was part of their own rules (for the effects) then they didn't explain that. Bignole

Superman's suit wasn't ripped off by the doctors, it was pulled down. So the fact that Superman lost his powers outright due to kryptonite exposure is discredited by this, and also due to the fact that kryptonite doesn't strip him of his powers.

Executive Decision on Inconsistencies

I have been thinking about the controversial "inconsistency" section in the trivia, and have decided to remove it on the grounds that no matter how much any of us can argue it, it is not verifiable. Wikipedia:Verfiability / Verifiability, not truth explains quite clearly that even if something might be completely true, it needs to be verifiable through a third party.

I also think that the section has problems with pretty much every other Wikipedia Policy, such as Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in this quote by Jimbo Wales under the section "Undue weight":

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

If anyone has any further problems with this "inconsistency" not being mentioned, then we need to take a poll to see if there is consensus that the section is in conformity with these policies—not whether or not it is "right" according to anyone's opinion. -- Renesis13 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you should start a poll before you remove it. It has been there since the opening of the film, and thus supercedes your opinion until a poll can be concluded. I would understand if it was controversial and new, but it has been there since the movie aired. Start the poll. Bignole
Read the policy pages I posted. It doesn't matter if it has been there "since the beginning of the film." See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. -- Renesis13 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
But that doesn't give you the right to just go an in and remove something because you see fit. There is no POV in those bullets any longer, I removed it. It simply states the events that occur and a "perceived" inconsistency. That isn't opinion, that is a perception that is shared by many. You said earlier that no one else is reverting it, but I beg you to look at the history recently and see that there are others lately that have been. Start your poll. Bignole
Also, I really wish you would take the time to understand what I am saying before you get all worked up. I don't want to "remove it because it is controversial", but because it has no place on Wikipedia. If you want to start a site that lists all of the problems with Superman Returns, go ahead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and certain things just don't belong here. You also have some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter how long any editor has been editing any page, because no editor has any ownership rights over any page. Just because the film came out before I started editing the page, doesn't give me any less control over the content than you. Please take some time to think about where I'm coming from instead of approaching this with bitter feelings. -- Renesis13 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I only get worked up because you are trying to play headmaster and do what you like. You propose democracy but perform dictatorship. It's "let's vote" but after I make the changes I want". Bignole
No, not at all. It's "if you want it to be included, you need support from other Wikipedia editors AND from third-party sources". I am not making the changes "that I want" but that are supported by Wikipedia's policies. -- Renesis13 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The former of those two notes should stay, as it is a verifable and notable difference in the mythos of the character. One need only glance at the kryptonite article to verify it. The second can be removed, as it's mostly an opinion of inconsistency rather than an obvious difference. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the Kryptonite article verifiable though? As Freddie stated above, the "rules" for Kryptonite have never been set in stone. -- Renesis13 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point. In general, Kryptonite, though a quite versatile substance (to say the least), has always caused Superman pain, though certain exceptions always apply. His seeming ignorance of such a large mass of it seems worth mention. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The way you are stating it Renesis13, if the creator doesn't come out and explain everything then it can't be verified and must be removed. We might as well remove everything. It isn't an opinion of inconsistency, it's an opinion that it isn't. All I have done is list the events and from merely reading them you can see that there is a difference in what occurs. It was when you try and explain it that you have your opinion. Bignole
This doesn't make sense at all: "It isn't an opinion of inconsistency, it's an opinion that it isn't." Of course it is an opinion. Your opinion is that you are interpreting the events correctly. The problem bigger than just not citing a source is that the interpretation of the events in the movie isn't even verifiable, unless you get a quote from the director himself! The fact that some people think it happened one way and some think it happened another way shows this. Please stop being so defensive because you think I am trying to fight your opinion -- you and I disagree, and I'm fine with that. What I'm trying to say is that something that is so unencyclopedic does not belong here. It is way too subjective. -- Renesis13 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The articles aren't too subjective, they are almost entirely subjective. The first article was created stating that an inconsistency existed. Then, as the article gained new posts from other users that had different opinions over the matter, it became less fact and more speculation. In order to defend your claim, you must present evidence that relies not only on fact, but also your personal bias. Didn't anyone notice the second article was initially two people arguing a point with their own view on the matter? The fact is that no matter how anyone of us thinks we are right, we are never really going to know until someone who was actually ivolved with the making of the movie comes forward and sets us straight. Now, I haven't got any problems with these articles being on this page, even though they do violate some of wikipedia's rules. However, I also see them as somewhat neccesary. Since this is an encyclopedia where people with all sorts of different opinions and ideas are putting their work together to create one unified thing, then we should be able to lay out our opinions in an effort to sort through them and reach a general consensus. However, it seems that this issue is never going to be resolved, so I say that the vote goes through and what ever happens happens. -Freddie1988 9:22 10 July 2006

Straw Poll

Section under dispute:

The effects of Kryptonite, in this film, appear to work differently then in any other established continuity. Superman seems unaware of its presence, where it would normally immediately debilitate him, when first coming in contact with it.
A perceived inconsistency in the movie takes place with Superman and his reaction to kryptonite. Superman appears completely immobilized on his first contact with Lex's island, but later his body appears to be able to withstand more concentrated forms of Kryptonite while lifting it into space.


  • The first one needs to be removed


  • The both should stay


  • The both should stay but need a rewrite


Don't bother. Binole, you're fighting a lost cause. I'm going to say this: This right here is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. The fact is, not everything is verifiable in how Wikipedia asks. If I wanted to, I could go remove practically 3/4 of the Superman article as its based on what people saw while watching the film, and not what is explictly stated in some respectable form. Fanboys, yes, fanboys need to look at things objectibly, see that while the movie was good, that sequence was horribly done (whether by editting or whatever) and created an inconsistency, using logic alone and you can figure that out. Whether you realize it or not, those of you lobbying for its removal are the ones trying to get a POV in; this movie is perfect. As I was the one who originally posted the "inconsistency" I move to have it removed because well, its really sad how some of you are acting. Bignole, my respect is given to you fighting the good fight. Zero X Marquis 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't take offense that I am "lobbying for its removal". I actually think the whole thing is interesting, and wouldn't argue with you if you want to tell me the sequence was horribly done. I just feel it does not belong on Wikipedia. And I am certainly not arguing for its removal because I want people to think the movie is perfect. I don't care if anyone thinks that it's perfect or not. I think that the Superman Returns article should read like an encyclopedia article and not a blog or a fansite or even a movie review. -- Renesis13 23:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well here is a link to two places that also agree there are plot holes and inconsistencies. http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/06/superman_returns.html

http://www.cinematical.com/2006/06/30/superman-returns-plot-holes-puzzles-and-inconsistencies/ But, I'll put your name where you asked. Bignole

The first part says enough. It shouldn't be further explained/debated in the trivia section, but instead maybe in its own section/article, if at all. Dominicus Cerberus 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies Section

Sooner or later more of these are going to pop up, and when and if this section gets created, make sure to add Wtatour's: "Newspaper dates indicate that Superman Returns takes place in 2006. This would mean that Superman II takes place in 2001." If this movie does take place in 2006, and it occurs five years after Superman II, then it entails that Superman II took place in 2001. Obviously it doesn't though, so this is another inconsistency.Zero X Marquis 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One of those links, that I provided above, lists a bunch of inconsistencies. Bignole
What is the goal of finding and describing these inconsistencies, especially that "Superman II should have taken place in 2001"? Do you think that the director should have had newspapers that listed the year as 1982 and for cars, planes, and general technology to be no more advanced than they were back then? Or should Lois Lane have been 55 years old, and Perry White be dead? -- Renesis13 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't interrupt the order of comments, that's not proper etiquette. Anyway, I don't know about that particular one. I never considered this a true sequel anyway. I believe it's still the beginning of it's own stuff (i.e. Batman Begins), except that it begins in the middle of his life instead of at the beginning. The fill in the gaps of why certain things are what they just require you to look to the first two movies for the answer. That to me is what a "loose sequel" is. It's something that is it's own entity, just whenever you need a history lesson you look to the previous films. And if the rumor that Singer wants to retcon the Kryptonian criminal events from the second film are true, then it proves it even further. That particular example would have been stating that the assumption that this is a direct sequel is true, because only then would Superman II's timeline need to be bumped up. Even if you did that, you couldn't assume that it was 2001. Nothing said he left right after Superman II, the only reason that is assumed is because of Jason's birth, which he wouldn't have known about so would have had to left. Again, that's stating that this is a direct sequel. Bignole 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the etiquette lesson, but that was a mistake. Actually, it was meant as a reply to the original, not to your comment. Anyway, I just don't get why everyone is treating all these "inconsistencies" that are arising from this not being a direct sequel as "faults" of the movie, that need to be presented in order to give an "unbiased" point of view. I completely agree that it is not a direct sequel, and therefore, I think some of these things aren't even worth mentioning. It's stating the obvious to even mention the fact that there is a discrepancy between the "five years" absence in the film, and the 25 year absence in timeline. -- Renesis13 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The "goal" is simple: to have a better understanding of the movie. Their is an error, and it should be documented just as the movie's successes are. A non-biased point of view, so to speak. I'm not saying that people should go looking for them, but if blatent issues pop up, they should be noted. It makes a difference, in this point, it gives an example to why this is not a direct sequel. Zero X Marquis 22:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see from that point, if you were using it to prove that it couldn't be a direct sequel. Bignole
If you surf the web you will see that it has become a widespread misconception that this is a direct sequel. Many websites, even sources that we use have incorrectly listed this as a direct sequel. I think that it would be good to clear it up in small detail, and also list any other inconsistency (ones that don't have to do with it being a sequel, but just things in the movie) also. If you want to be NPOV then you should list all the bad with the all the good. There is one link above that lists several plot holes and inconsistencies throughout the film that have nothing to do with whether or not it is a direct sequel. Bignole
My concern is not that this film be portrayed as perfect, but rather that we only list what is necessary. Remember, NPOV doesn't mean "equal parts bad and good", it just means to make sure any information is reported from a neutral perspective. My overall question is: Are plot holes and minor continuity problems worthwhile Wikipedia material for any article on any movie -- whether or not it won an Oscar or flopped at the Box Office? -- Renesis13 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that if there aren't many, then no. But, if there are a lot, then at least the important ones are worth mentioning. It shows that there may have been so much of a rush to put this together that they neglected certain things. And yes, even when it takes 19 years to get a movie made, you can still rush it. For example, here is an important one. It is establish that Singer is using the Metropolis that Donner created, the one that is basically New York. But, when Clark/Superman arrives at the hospital, Ma Kent is standing outside. How did she manage to get from Kansas to New York so fast? Bignole
Maybe it wouldn't hurt to put together a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (movies) page. -- Renesis13 01:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite following. What exactly do you mean? Bignole
Like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). So that we and other editors could hash out just what a movie page can/should contain. -- Renesis13 02:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I've seen that page. I used it when we discussed that the "preceeded by" should be Superman IV, or nothing at all. People wanted it to be Superman II, but guidelines say that it should follow chronological order not continuity order. I actually tried to find it earlier today but I can't remember the name of the article. Then again, I think I found what I was looking at, and it may have just been for the infobox. If they don't have one then I agree that there should be one. Bignole 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The only real problem with putting it after Superman III or IV would have been that his mother died in one of those episodes. Along with the fact that the films sucked. Wahkeenah 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

Do we really need all the posters? In total there are three film posters, and then the cover of the X-Box game. I think the allocation of fair-use could be put to better use, rather than four posters/covers...

  • We need more posters. You can't have too many big red S's. Wahkeenah 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Connections to Superman and Superman II

This section needs to be cleaned up a little. A lot of these are actual connections, but some are similarities based on the Superman mythos. Lois Lane's pulitzer has more to do with the fact that she's a journalist than a connection between the movies. Ben Hubbard's appearance is hardly a connection between the movies. Especially if he also appeared in the comics. And that last item "This is a clear reference to a bird i.e. a Lark." (aside from being completely rediculous) doesn't even mention the previous movies.--CPitt76 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That had been just recently added by an anonymous user, and has been removed. I also removed the Ben Hubbard section, seeing as it isn't restricted solely to the two movies. The Pulitzer prize is iffy. It could have been added because she wins it based on an article about Superman leaving. I don't know...I think that should be discussed. I have no problem if it is removed, but I think it should be consulted by other editors first. Bignole
Maybe it just needs to be reworded then. The way it reads now, the connection is that she was trying to win a pulitzer for one article in the previous movie, and won it for a different one in the new movie. That doesn't really seem like a connection to me; writers try to win pulitzers, that's not dependent on the previous storyline. I say take out the first sentence of that entry and make the addition you suggested.--CPitt76 19:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a connection. If it was the only "connection", I might argue against it. But there are so many other backreferences that require having seen the previous films in order to "get" the reference, this one fits in with the others. Wahkeenah 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wahk, I'm not arguing that her winning the prize for an article she wrote about Superman leaving isn't a connection, I'm arguing that her trying to win a pulitzer for a different article that has nothing to do with superman in a previous movie isn't part of it. Just my opinion, though. I think the first part needs to be removed, but if you guys want to leave it, that's cool too.--CPitt76 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's only a "connection" in that she was trying to win the Pulitzer Prize, while still being unable to spell any better than a first-grader. Maybe calling it a "connection" is a little too strong; maybe it's just kind of an "in-joke". Wahkeenah 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Superman leaving for 5 years" storyline, while intended to have followed the events in Superman II, actually exists entirely in Superman Returns. He didn't actually leave until after Superman II, correct? -- Renesis13 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ironically, at the end of Superman II, in which he had disappeared for awhile, his closing line is something like, "I'm sorry I've been away, and I won't let you down again." Now, are we to believe that this new film takes place before that final scene? Wahkeenah 02:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
A lie refers to telling the truth about a past or present event, whereas a promise is a commitment about some possible future event. Besides, finding out about his home planet, and possibly finding some answers to questions he still has, might be more important to Kal-El for a short time than fighting crime. After all, he thought super-criminal Lex was safely in jail, right? And as Jor-El said (DVD deleted scene), some things are better left for humans to solve for themselves. - Loadmaster 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Including, presumably, the plot details of this movie. Also, before he took off for Krypton, maybe he went back to the Prez and said, "I have to go away for awhile again. Never mind!" Apparently he forgot to ask him to keep Luthor at Gitmo, and Baldy got out of jail free. Wahkeenah 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason's Obvious Parentage

I made some edits regarding this section but didn't realize I was anonymous until hitting submit. Found out today they've been reverted with the comment that it's not obvious who Jason's father is. How could this movie have made it more obvious? Is there anyone out there that doubts that Superman is the father? Care to explain the (il)logic? What is the point of keeping this ambiguous in the article? Jeff schiller 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason it is being left as ambiguous is because that is how the movie leaves it. They never come right out and say it. They imply that he threw the piano (yes we know he really did); they imply that there was an aversion to kryptonite, but it didn't show itself when Luthor came closer to him; Lois makes allusions to his dad being big and strong; then there is the final scene where Superman is talking to the boy while he sleeps. But, the boy also has asythma (sp), allergies, never shown strength before that day (seen from Lois' reaction), and his age is yet indeterminable (but understood to be around 5 or so years). They don't allow you actually hear what Lois whispers in Superman's ear. They purposefully leave it ambiguous that is why it is so in the article. Bignole
This is called the art of film/cinema. Things are left unviewed/unsaid but an intelligent mind is supposed to be able to fill in these holes and draw conclusions without the need for the director/writer to bash you over the head with the unspoken conclusion. I hate films that spoonfeed the audience like most of the twists at the end of M. Shyamalan's movies (how he insists on showing previous scenes to enforce the conclusion just to make sure every last member of the audience knows how clever a writer he is).
Does anyone doubt in this film? That's what I'd like to know.
The fact that you write "yes we know he really did" means that you were able to derive the obvious implications of those scenes, so why do you say it is ambiguous? Did you want Lois to stare right at the camera, point at Superman with both hands and say "he is the father of my son. he did it!" ? The piano is obvious enough, but Superman's speech to Jason at the end should be enough to quell any last dimwits out there. Jeff schiller 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I wrote "yes" because it's general consensus that it is, but that doesn't make it fact. Just because I derived that information doesn't mean that I have a right to call it fact, now does it? But there are opposite facts that create their own questions. The real fact is that it is never explained, as with a lot of parts in the movie. You can derive any explaination you want, but nothing is concrete. Did anyone see Jason push the piano? Lois surely didn't, she was being thrown around by Brutus, and we know he didn't. Did Jason fall over sick when Lex got closer with the kryptonite? Why does he have allergies? Why didn't Lois address the situation with Superman when he was awake? The point is that it is left ambiguous because the movie leaves it ambiguous. Superman gives his father's speech, but no where in that speech did he say "you are my son". Obviously it is implied because of who original said the speech to him, but a lot of stuff is implied and that doesn't make it factual, at least not of an encyclopedia. Bignole 16:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no question that Jason is Kal-El's child. The speech at the end makes that clear. Everything up to then is just "hints", a typical cinematic technique. Wahkeenah 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Just because I derived that information doesn't mean that I have a right to call it fact, now does it?" Can you conceive of ANY other rational explanation for the piano? There is NO OTHER EXPLANATION! Jeff schiller 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Did he say in the speech that Jason was his son? No, it was just more jabs and hints at things they didn't want to go through the trouble of explaining. Bignole 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Would Superman make that speech to a boy he didn't KNOW was his son? Jeff schiller 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, deducing Jason's father's identity from evidence in the film is not permitted by WP:NOR. If a published interview with the director or writers can be found which clearly states that Jason is Superman's son, then that information would be appropriate for Wikipedia; unless and until then, the most this article can state is that scenes in the film point to Jason being Superman's son, but that the film never explicitly answers the paternity question. Ubernostrum 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Gimme a break. The only other possibility is that he thinks the kid is his son but he isn't. Wahkeenah 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That is the point I'm trying to make. Wiki doesn't deal in deductive logic. Just because you can deduce something doesn't make it true, especially when it comes to films and their ambiguities. The reason they make them ambiguous is so they can gadge reactions and determine the fate of said event. If it turns out that many fans hate the idea what Jason is Clark's son, they can easily write it out as a misperception on Lois' part. Other than the piano the kid didn't do anything else to clue you in. The only reason Superman speaks the boy (as you can only assume these are his motives) is because Lois whispers in his ear (as you can only assume it is about Jason) that he might be his son. Why does she do this? She does it because of friggin' piano went flying across the room. Did the boy do anything else to prove who he was? That is why it is ambiguos, because you can easily explain it's opposite without having to retcon anything. Bignole 20:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I assumed that Lois whispered "I love you", to contrast with her saying earlier to Richard that she did not love Superman. But we don't know what she whispered, do we? -Loadmaster

In the Sub-plot section, I'm not sure it's correct to say that there was an implied sexual encounter between Lois and Clark in Superman II. Afer all, they're laying naked in bed together. True, there is no explicit lovemaking shown, but what would you expect of a PG-rated film? - Loadmaster 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, apparently you can't use deductive logic for insanely obvious things on wikipedia, so unless you can find a published interview from the director/writer for that scene that says Lois and Superman had a sexual encounter, all you can state is that they laid together naked (from the waist-up!) in a bed and that they baked a cake... Even though as an eight-year old I had figured this out, we can't put such obvious facts into the article. Bye, now. Jeff schiller 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It would not be an NOR violation to say that Superman is the kid's father, because mainstream reviews also say this. There was one review I read which based its entire review around the issue of how this film shows Superman as a father. I would suspect that we could find remarks from the filmmakers talking about this as well - perhaps we'll have to wait for the DVD. This is silliness. Just because you have to infer something doesn't mean it's "ambiguous." john k 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly agree with you John, but I've given up on this article... Jeff schiller 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Main stream reviews are nothing more than opinions. Since when did opinion decide what occurs in a film? The fact remains that his father is left in the open and never conclusively stated. Assumption is not fact. No matter how logical it may be. Bignole 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Ambiguous" - 1) Open to multiple interpretations 2) Vague and unclear
This is what ambiguous means. You cannot say that Jason's parentage isn't ambiguous, because by the very definition of the term it is. It's not meant to be obvious. If it were, they'd have said "He's your son, Supes" (with better dialogue, obviously). – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you said "you cannot say it is ambiguous, because by definition of the term it is." Did you mean you cannot say that his parentage is obvious, because by the definition of ambiguous it isn't? I'm not quite clear which you are trying to convey. Bignole
Really? My bad. Fixed it. In short, I'm supporting your point of view. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not fully spelled out that Lois and Kal-El had a sexual encounter, and it's not fully spelled out that they had a love-child, but it's still as plain as the daylight reflecting off Lex Luthor's scalp. 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You infer that, but you cannot be 100% sure that is the case. You merely draw a conclusion from the facts given. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Someguy, lol I wasn't sure what you were saying, it seemed to contradict itself. What people don't seem to grasp is that just because you infer something doesn't mean that it is true. We had this problem before with other parts of the article, before the movie was released, and in Spider-Man 3 (still do in that one). Bignole 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Technically speaking, all we know for sure from Superman II is that they were lying in bed with their eyes closed, motionless. For all we know, they could have simply been taking a little nap after having had a little too much of that Kryptonian Ale. It's cold there in the Fortress, due to the fact that Kal-El was away a lot and forgot to pay the utility bill, so he had to snuggle up to her to keep her hot... er, warm. Wahkeenah 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so I guess it's clear now that you have no true argument. Because you are just making inane statements (though somewhat funny, mainly the way you are blending Star Trek and Superman). Bignole
It has been a long day, and I have just about lost the will to be argumentive, so I'm opting for lame humour instead. Wahkeenah 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it very ambiguous, and that's why I like it. It would be just so...typical of them to make the aforementioned offspring Superman's. And the piano? A roiling sea, glass floor, and grand pianos often have castors, or at least my auntie's does. One push and whee!! Smash.Lady BlahDeBlah 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Superman Returns a Box-Office Flop?

It has only made 164,000,000 million domestically, is this considered a flop?

  • It's not doing the kind of business they had hoped, but it's been out less than 3 weeks, so it's too early to judge. Wahkeenah 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure there are dozens of producers in Hollywood who would like to have a $290 million-and-counting "flop". I think its obvious that the film has not been the uber-success the studio would have liked, but it has earned and continues to earn a lot of money (the film hasn't even opened in some big foreign markets as of the date I write this) and it is the engine that is driving a merchandising bonanza for Warner Brothers, and will continue to do so through its DVD release toward the end of the year. Ultimately, I think the film will be seen as something of a financial disappointment compared to Warners' investment and expectation, along the lines of its companion film, Batman Begins, which also "made-a-lot-of-money-just-not-as-much-as-we'd-hoped" for the studio. But otherwise it will be seen a moderately successful from the standpoint of the actual film, and very successful when factoring in the merchandising, DVD, video game, et cetera, revenue. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out, in time, that the film brought in a billion dollars worth of revenue to Warners from all sources. 12.162.189.80 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know if the film can be called an overall flop because the studio has made back the money it cost to make the film and has some profit to boot. However, what profit the film has made has been from combining the domestic and international sales. I don't believe the movie will gross $200 million in domestic sales. It'll get close, maybe 185 or 190, but it's going to be considerably less than what the studio hoped for. The film will probably do well when released on DVD, it might make half, maybe a little more than half, of what it's ultimate domestic box office total will be, but I wouldn't expect record setting DVD sales. It might not be a total flop, but it brings to question about doing a sequel. With the numbers this film has generated, there's a good chance studio execs would be afraid to be a bit more ambitious with a sequel. Odin's Beard 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's made 180 million as of July 25th, it will break 200 million. It's only been out for about 4 weeks, and it will be out for at least another 4 weeks. It will make over 200 million, but probably not too much over 200. It's made enough to warrant a sequel. But, it should be noted as a box office disappointment. Bignole 00:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More Inconsistencies

The whole question of Jason's father also leads to an inconsistency with Superman II. In the previous film, Lois figures out that Clark is Superman and they become romantically involved, where she presumably gets pregnant (or not). At the end of II, though, Clark kisses her and she forgets everything. In the new film, we find out that she then meets Richard White and Jason is born (presumably timed close enough so that Richard might not know he is not Jason's biological father). Then Superman returns and Lois is mad at him for leaving, obviously remembering their romantic involvement. So how could she remember her involvement with Superman, and possibly the fact that Superman/Clark fathered her child, but not remember that Clark is Superman?
- Loadmaster 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't why she was mad at him. She was mad because he didn't say goodbye. She even said that. But it does lead to the question of how should could casually just say "you're his father" and not that "how the hell did I get pregnant with your child?". Bignole 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is technically known as a continuity problem. Maybe she got some of her memory back, and had a vague notion that she got it on with the Man of Steel, but she had been drunk on Kryptionian Ale, and it was all so fuzzy... plus she wonders why she used to look like Margot Kidder. Another issue is that at the end of Superman II, Superman apologized to the President for "being away for awhile", and said it wouldn't happen again. Superman never lies, so it must be the scriptwriters. Maybe they'll explain all of this in Superman Returns II: The Wrath of Kal. Wahkeenah 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just being asinine. lol. Bignole
Hee-Haw! OK, the straight dope is that there is no question that Jason is intended to be assumed to be Kal-El's kid. To say that he actually is is not necessarily true. But it is perfectly clear that the writers are presenting that Superman thinks so. Anything beyond that will have to wait for the next one, if there is one. Wahkeenah 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Superman not lying is a myth. He lies all the time, but no one's willing to call him on it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And there's a difference between a lie and a promise. - Loadmaster
'Course there is, but my statement was in jest. Superman says the world's flat? Then the world just became flat. You don't contradict tthe man of steel. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
He told Lois in Superman that he never lies, so it must be true. Arguably, though, every time he dons his disguise he's deceiving everyone, which is kinda like lying. I recall from the 1950s TV series, most of the time when Lois would suspect him of being Superman, Clark would use weasel words like "don't be ridiculous", but one time he actually said I'm not. (Gasp!) Also, more recently, I seem to recall that he deceived Lex Luthor into leading the 3 Kryptonian criminals into a trap that would drain their powers. I guess when he said he never lies he was lying. I'm crushed. And if I called him a liar to his face, I might be really crushed. He hates being shown up, don'cha know. Wahkeenah 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

After getting thrown and bashed around quite a bit in the airplane disaster, why does Lois not have a few bruises and walk with a limp for a while? Probably because it's a comic book movie, right? Anyone remember Otis's black eye in Superman I? - Loadmaster

  • Luckily she assumed the crash position. Oh, wait, that was Airplane!. And, yes, I remember Otis' black eye. However, we never actually saw Luthor punch him, so we can't say for sure that he did. Maybe he got it from banging into something when Luthor abandoned the steering wheel to try to punch him out and the car swerved. Wahkeenah 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Louis winning a Pulitzer Prize, yet not knowing how many 'f's in catastrophic? pretty inconsistant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.49.125 (talk • contribs) .

Two words: spell check. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Including, presumably, on her own name. Also, it's not inconsistent within the artificial Superman movie universe. Wahkeenah 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Then there is the question of what happened to the six remaining crystals. Are they still on the artificial island that Superman pushed into space? Will we see him use those crystals in the next film? - Loadmaster 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And speaking of crystals, what ever happened to the special green one? The first two films appeared to establish that the clear crystals were only for data storage, while the green crystal was the generating crystal. What gives? - Loadmaster 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, sorry to say guys but why are you argueing so much, its just a movie. It doesnt need to absolutely need to make true factual sense, thats why they make movies,for us to be released from everyday reality.

Superman and Jason

"In one of the film's final scenes, Superman recovers and visits the sleeping Jason in his bedroom. Superman then recites the words his own father said to him when he was an infant leaving Krypton. Although Superman's words indicate that he believes Jason to be his son, the film does not explicitly confirm that he is Superman's son." Why do you all have such a problem with this? What part of it is untrue? Were you watching a different film than I was, or what? Wahkeenah 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Because unless it's explicitly stated, you are only speculating as to what Supes was thinking. CovenantD 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Gimme a break. They've been hinting at it through the movie, and this is the "payoff" to all that. If it's not his son, there's no reason for him to say it. Weren't you paying attention? Wahkeenah 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You are providing your opinion for that scene. Did Superman actually say anything to the effect? No. He didn't say "my son". Maybe it's more mental. Maybe he feels like it is his son because he loves Lois' and Jason is the son he should have had with her. You don't know, because you aren't in his head. Please stop trying to put in your POV in the article. Bignole
It's as plain as day, and it's not POV, that's just your POV. Stop reverting it. Wahkeenah 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't plain as day, just because you have your opinion doesn't mean it's "plain as day". How can it be POV if it's ambiguous? Does Superman say Jason is his son? No. Did Lois tell Superman that Jason is his son? No one knows. So how can you derive such a conclusion from something he says. I've told people plenty of things that my father has told me, that doesn't make me their father. Also, you have reached your limit of reverts for the next 24 hours. Please be kind and rewind. Bignole 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So have you. So you (and your sockpuppet) need to leave it alone for 24 hours. Wahkeenah 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because more than one editor disagees with you doesn't make them sockpuppets. You better get some damn good proof before you level an accusation like that. CovenantD 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, check the log Wah. You have reverted a total of 4 times, a clear violation of the 3RR. I made an edit and you reverted it. From there I reverted you twice, you reverted me and CovenantD 4 times. That is a violation. No POV about that. Bignole 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You have no special privilege to revert any more than I do, and whether it's POV is your opinion. Maybe you'd like to take a vote on it? Your sockpuppet doesn't get a vote, though. Wahkeenah 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The privilage is to refrain from reverting more than 3 times. I have done so, you have not. Even your latest edit is a clear revert disguised as an edit. You are still incorporating POV. Please look that up in wikipedia if you do not fully comprehend it. Also, please stop personally attacking CovenantD. If you continue I will have to report you for that. Bignole 17:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Who are you, and your doppelganger, to be threatening someone else? And why are you so hung up on this one issue? You've been fighting over it, with everyone, for days now. Anyway, if you leave out the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face payoff, you may as well delete the entire section, because it then becomes pointless. Wahkeenah 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You used your buddies to get around the 3-revert rule, and I have reported you for that. Also, you have come nowhere close to excising all the POV in the article, or even in that section, so I have to assume you're hung up on that one specific issue for reasons known only to yourselves. Wahkeenah 23:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you still hung over all this? Yes, you are right, there are plenty of areas in the article that are full of POV and need be to removed. Why did we jump on this and not others? Well, for one reason most people don't go around reading the entire article over and over and over again to check for POV. Most watch it and when someone makes a chance they note the change and make sure that it is appropriate. During that time, you usually look at the surrounding information and check that as well, because it's in view (depending on if you edit a section or the whole page). I didn't tell anyone to revert anything. I told one person, another frequent editor of this page, that someone was constantly adding POV to a section and I had reached 2 reverts myself and didn't want to go to three, incase I needed to do something later. Secondly, I have no "buddies" on here. That would imply that I know these other editors, which I don't. I know certain editors from other pages that we work on together, but I don't control their actions, nor do they control mine. Many editors that I know I have had disputes with over other sections, and that is how I know them. Trust me, everyone that edits these articles has a free thinking mind of their own and make their own choices. They wouldn't do something that wasn't right just because someone else told them to. Bignole 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Your actions say otherwise. Wahkeenah 23:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
How is "(Though this may in fact be a result of Jason being half-human, inheriting his mother's immunity to kryptonite.)" any less POV than what I wrote? Wahkeenah 23:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
How do "MY" actions say otherwise? As for that quote, that is the first I have seen it. I told you, I don't read the article over and over again, and I don't sit on here watching every single edit that is made. Get over it. You're obviously upset and feel that we singled you out for nothing. I made an edit when I saw it, and you reverted it. I explained that it was POV and you reverted it again. Blah blah blah, here were are now where you are still talking about it. Let it go, and go edit the this article constructively instead of hanging on to some futile argument. If you see other places where you feel there is POV, please reword them so that they are more neutral. You're right, there shouldn't be someone's explaination for how Jason could possibly be immune to kryptonite. That's clear cut POV, thanks for finding it. I don't see a way to word it, so I would just remove it. Bignole
I just checked that edit, and it's been removed. Also, note when edits are made. What you quoted had just been added, and has since been removed. If it is something that has been here for awhile and no one has said anything then that's different, but please don't use examples that have just occurred as if we are allowing others and not you. Bignole 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go. While you're in a deleting mood...

*"...though Jason is presented initially as Richard and Lois' son..." - I've only seen it once, so my memory might be faulty, but did they explicitly say, anytime, that Lois' financee was Jason's father? *"...during the period of the film when Clark was deprived of his super powers due to over-exposure to artificial red sunlight. It is surmised that although he was essentially human at this time, his Kryptonian physiology would remain unchanged, allowing him to pass these traits to his offspring." - I don't recall any of this being actually said in any of the films.

  • "...Jason appears to show an aversion to a kryptonite crystal..." - They are reading things into his body language. It's speculation.
  • "...Jason is about to take a breath from his inhaler but realizes he no longer needs it." - Maybe he doesn't need it at that moment, but where does it say he will never need it again? Superman was wheezing pretty badly while he was being beaten up by Keyser Soze, er, Lex Luthor, so maybe the kid inherited asthma from his father and is stuck with it forever, with just occasional remissions.
  • "During Superman's convalescense, Lois ... whispers something into Superman's ear." - I saw her lean over to the side of his head that was away from the camera. I did not see or hear her actually saying anything. For all we know, she could have said "I love you", or "Die, creep!" or she could have been giving him a super-hickey.

Wahkeenah 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I bolded two things that should probably be deleted. The first is pure assumption, because they in fact never said he was his father. I think Jason may call him dad, but that's because he has never known anyone else. Lois certainly didn't refer to Richard as the father. The second is someone's explaintion, which is POV. It was never stated explicitly. Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the first could probably be reworded, because it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted. It isn't presented as Jason's father, but he kind of ... I don't know the right word, but he's presented as at least a make shift father. I don't know, I think that may just be ok...I'm going to bold and italicize. The italicized ones just need a bit of rewording. Jason's aversion is fine. It says "appears" which implies that he could or could not have shown an aversion. It doesn't say "Jason shows an aversion". The second definitely needs a bit of rewording, it is implying that we know what he is thinking, which we don't. The last is fine, because it simply says that she whispers something inaudibly into his ear, which was clear that was what she was doing, you could see her jaw moving (and no, it wasn't for a hicky). Someone originally had that saying that she says he is the father, but we removed that to make it more neutral, because you can't tell what she is saying. Bignole 00:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can say this-or-that "appear", then it is equally valid to say that it "appears" that Superman considers Jason to be his son. Wahkeenah 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The best way to go is to say exactly what Jason did. Jason flinched, or whatever. Don't try to explain it, just describe it. CovenantD 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Jason could just as easily have been instinctively backing off because this spooky character Luthor was coming at him with an object. I would back off from Luthor, at any age, even if all he had in hand was a banana. Of course, maybe the audience is supposed to think that it's got something to do with an aversion to Kryptonite. But that's POV. Wahkeenah 00:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
So, shall I work on this a bit, or are you going to try to trick me into another 3-revert violation? Wahkeenah 00:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, just say exactly what he did. Also, saying that "this or that appear" and that this "appears" aren't the same thing. Make one little change and it changes the whole meaning. I think the real word that needs a change is "aversion", it sounds like he is afraid of it, and tries to avoid it altogether. I think "Jason flinches when Lex initially brings out the kryptonite." is just fine. As for the "it appears that Superman considers.." part, now you are getting into what you assume he believes, when he hasn't said so. Bignole 00:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. He's repeating what his father said to him as an infant, just because he likes to randomly quote his father for no a-parent reason. Wahkeenah 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I have quoted my father when the time was right, as I'm sure you have done the same. Just because he did doesn't mean anything other than he loves the boy like his own (not discounting the possibility that Jason is his). Also, We didn't try and trick you into anything. What should have happened, and we are all at fault here, is that it should have stopped after the first revert and gone straight to this page, or a personal talk page. It should have been sorted out before it got out of hand. You are an editor, and have free reign to edit any article you want, we aren't going to stop you, especially if you are doing constructive editing. If you wish to go through and reword things to be more NPOV, then great. If someone finds something to be a bit off, I'm sure they will inform you. If you get reverted on something, then please go straight to them instead of starting an edit war over it. The same goes for us. This edit warring is just going to make it harder for us to improve this article. Just becareful what you edit, and use good sense. Some things may be fact, and so don't need to be made ambiguous. Bignole 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty, then; truce, OK? Now, check how I changed that section and see if it's better than it was. Wahkeenah 01:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I did, and they were good changes, in my opinion. I made a couple modifications, one grammer (there was a "no" that didn't need to be there) and some rewording. No need to say "slightly flinched", flinched is just fine. Also, I corrected the events that took place, because the flinch occurred when he first pulled it out, not when he walked over. Bignole 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Kudos. I only saw it once, on a regular screen. Is the IMAX version worth seeing? Wahkeenah 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I only saw it once myself. I didn't go see it at IMAX, the one in Tallahassee isn't equiped with 3-D, so I didn't bother. I was dissappointed with the movie anyway. But, this isn't the place for this type of discussion. We'll get branded for getting off topic. But anyway, the edits were good. Just make sure to proof what you edit afterward. Sometimes when you reword things you can miss other words and then it just sounds odd. Bignole 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I missed the stray "no" from the previous edit, and I wasn't remembering the totality of that scene right. I thought Luthor was in his face with it. Minneapolis has the film in 3-D IMAX, so I might fork over the money to see it once more before it hits the DVD racks this fall... or I might just sit up close to my TV and watch my DVD of "Panic in the Sky" in beautiful black and white. Wahkeenah 01:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm not going to get involved in all of this, but Bignole above (on the 22nd) said that "Lois certainly didn't refer to Richard as the father." However, there is a scene with Lex where Lex asks Lois who Jason's father is, and she says "Richard." Now, what you want to do with the fact that he says, "Are you sure?" at that point is part of this whole contention, but she does claim at least to Lex that Richard is the father, so she does "say that" at some point. Whether she's just "telling" Lex that or she was thinking it was actually true at the time would be supposition, though.
On a bit of an editorial note, I can understand ambiguity and speculation, but movies by nature may make things clear that not EVERYONE gets at that moment and then maybe they realize it later or they misinterpret it. I mean, are we REALLY going to say, for example, that Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor were only "making out" in "The Terminator" because it's not explicit on the fact that they slept together? Sure, sure, she's pregnant near the end, and she says "If you don't send Kyle back you'll never be born" but based on the burden of proof you want to impose she could simply be referring to her survival instead of his conception. Actual scholarly papers that are about media are able to state what HAPPENS in that media with the media itself as a source... further interpretation or extra information not directly in the media is what you get from other sources, but there has to be some basis for getting something said about a movie FROM the movie. 72.192.237.134 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Ismail

Novelization

I read the novelization by Marv Woflman hoping it would expand on certain plot points (and since it was in the bargain bin). It includes quite a lot of exposition about how his parents sent him away as a child and the possibility that they could have been wrong about the destruction of Krypton or perhaps that some may have survived. It talks about the history and architecture/landscape of Krypton which is then reiterated when superman sees Krypton, particular not is made of a place called "the Valley of the Elders". Skipping ahead for a moment a lot of this detail comes up again as the crystal continent Luthor creates is said to look just like the Fortress of Solitude and the Valley of Elders. It is made clear that Luthor and a scientist in his group planted information about Krypton in the newspapers to trick Superman into leaving, hoping/believing it would kill him (they somehow knew planet having turned to poisonous Kryptonite I think, but it was a bit vague).

The robbery with the huge machine gun was planned anonymously by Lex Luthor and given to a gang of criminals, who stuck around and fired the gun rather than escaping immediately in the helicopter because they had followed the plan and it had worked so well up to that point. It was also scheduled at the same time as Kitty losing control of her car to provide further distraction from the museum robbery. I'm not sure the film made the Luthor connection to this robbery or that all three happened at the same time all that clear. A brief mention is made about Lex's grandfather Alex building up Lexcorp grabbing the best scientists of the Third Reich only to have his father who was ambitious enough but not smart enough (like Luthor) bring the company to bankruptcy leaving only a few million to get Lex started.

The novelization has both Richard and Jason note that Clark "looks a bit like" ... before they are cut off but I think that happens in the film too. Clark notes that Richard looks a bit like Superman, which I don't think was mentioned in the film, it isn't spoken dialog in the book either. The parentage of Jason is left much more vague and no mention is made about Jason reacting to the Kryptonite and I think the scene where he plays piano on the yacht is different but I'd have to watch the film again. When he is in hospital Lois does tell superman she has something she needs to tell him but I don't think she actually whispers anything in his ear. When Superman throws the Kryptonite continent into space it is said to stop between Mars and Jupiter and keep growing to form a new planet, which (in a scene before she goes to the hospital) the daily planet dubs "New Krypton" at the suggestion of Lois. I'm pretty sure this wasn't mentioned in the film. (I see New Krypton is mentioned in relation to the mooted sequel.)

If someone is interested in incorporating some or any of this into a short Novelization section in the article and would like me to double check anything and provide specific page references please let me know. (This isn't an indefinite offer, but for the month of November at least.) -- Horkana (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, that's the novelization of the movie, not the movie itself. In the novelization of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, it mentions that upon surfacing from the water in the bongo, the Jedi have to quickly get to shore before the bongo is swept down a waterfall. Yet that's not in the movie itself. So the article for that movie doesn't include that that happened (although it was a deleted scene that is on the DVD). Furthermore, movie articles, per WP:FILM, are not to have a section with the novelization of the movie, and frankly, I don't see the novelization as being notable enough to have its own article. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILM guidelines mentions films based on books but says nothing about novelisations one way or the other. Certainly it doesn't exclude an article from having a short section mentioning the novel, anymore than it excludes video games which are not yet mentioned, they're just guidelines.
I realise of course novelizations are different from the film, and the rush to have them ready at the same time as the film will result in differences which aren't generally notable. They can still be useful to confirm ideas that might otherwise seem weak or like speculation (e.g. New Krypton), and larger fundamental differences could potentially be notable and perhaps prompt an editor to write about alternative endings or different versions of the scripts even if they don't directly talk about the novelisation.
It would seem as if no one is interested in the novelisation - no surprise there, I got it from the bargain bin - but I may still go back and try to add a very short paragraph on it myself or simply use it to strengthen the references of existing parts of the article. -- Horkana (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the plot?

Having just seen the movie, I spotted a possible inaccuracy in the plot, where it states: "With Superman distracted by a bank robbery, Luthor steals Kryptonite from the Metropolis Museum of Natural History"

At least in the Italian version I have seen, Superman is distracted by Kitty, Lutor's henchwoman, driving an out-of-control car in the middle of Metropolis, not by a bank robbery. After being rescued, Kitty even lures Superman into bringing her to the hospital and tries to seduce him in order to give more time to Lutor to steal the Kryptonite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmos1972 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the scene when the robbers go to the roof of the bank and turn on the chain gun and Superman gets shot in the eye. He was distracted by a few things that night. 129.139.1.68 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Also, "Seeing the effect of a Kryptonite sample on Jason..." What effects? The Kryptonite didn't affect Jason. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.1.68 (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Any comments on this? If not, I say remove it.129.139.1.68 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Singer's current thoughts on the film

Think this new article which Bryan Singer tell his theory as to why the film wasn't a success will help out some. Sarujo (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Random notations

There is a baseball in the portrait of the two dogs that has a vague conection to the scene where Clark throws a basesball for his own dog. Clark throws the ball too far most likely due to being away from the yellow sun of the Solar System for five years and crashing at night. The sun has not risen and is still below the horizon, yet Clark underestimates his recovery time due to the yellow sun's energy, even on the night-time side.

Another connection is during Luther's reference to Prometheus, when he mentions the value of sharp objects in prison. Later, when the kryptonite is being shaped in to an implosion tamper for the crystal, there is a left over sharp shard of kryptonite which Luther pockets, much in the fashion of shop workers inside a prison. Ncsr11 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Loopholes?

1.) How did Superman know Jason was his son? 2.) How did Luthor grow so much landmass from such few crystals? 3.) How did Lois Lane, getting directions from the energy company(or some other source about the blackout) end up getting into Luthor's yacht? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum, but...
1) Lois visits him in the hospital and whispers something in his ear.
2) The crystals manipulate the minerals around them.
3) The yacht was docked next to the mansion that she went to.
So, not really plot holes and not really relevant to this article even if they were. DonQuixote (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It grows from reaction with water, not minerals. Also, a minute shaving was tested in the pool on the railroad model in the basement. Ncsr11 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Location of Daily Planet

If someone is capable of pinpointing the exact location of the Daily Planet Building, it might be helpful. My own calculations veiwing towards the downtown in a south-southwest direction is somewhere near West Broadway and Duane. Or, it could be the Empire Building just north of the Tweed Building. Ncsr11 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bogus citation

Re "glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman, and was probably cast in the role only because he physically resembles Christopher Reeve. Proof of this is the fact that Routh hardly speaks when donning the costume." This statement is attributed to Roger Ebert, but the reference cited does not have this statement, nor anything remotely close. In fact, the statement, "Proof of this is the fact that Routh hardly speaks when donning the costume," doesn't even make sense. Googling the statement yields only a few sites with duplicates of this article.

Please delete that statement, or find proof that Ebert wrote this.184.147.123.32 (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ebert was being paraphrased in the first quote so I have replaced it with direct quotes. I have removed the second quote "Proof of this..." since no version of this appears at all in the review, and seems to have been an interjection by another editor. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Old Quote Clarification

In regards to my edit today removing the quote "a neglected gem in the comic book movie genre", that was a quote that i believe was originally in the Indiawire article's picture caption, but was removed in a later edit of said article. Evidence of this can be seen here: www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/comicscontinuum/news/?a=52871

The additional changes were made for grammatical reasons and mostly use the language spoken in the video essay or the accompanying review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.171.116 (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Tristan Lake Leabu

Please note that Tristan Lake Leabu is credited in the film as "Jason White", not "Jason Kent". The actor should be credited with the name he has in the film. His biological father in the film has no bearing on his credited name, and Wikipedia should respect that. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Budget changes

There have been a recent spate of unsourced changes to the budget as in this edit. The budget section clearly explains the source of these figures and provides references, and explains that the larger figure $263 million) incorporates development costs from earlier aborted projects; as such these are are not actual part of the production cost of this film. If any editors have further information in relation to these figures then please discuss it here rather than just changing the figures to unsourced amounts. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Superman Returns

There was a Turkish knock off of Superman called Superman Returns. There should be mention of that. 161.185.160.23 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Marketing cost

@AlistairMcMillan: I notice you have tagged the marketing figures in the article. Hopefully I can clear this up for you. The $100 million figure given for global marketing is given in the accompanying source (Jeff Jensen (2006-06-23). "Greatest American Hero?"). The Jensen source is a five-page article and the figure in question is given on page 5.

As for the $45.5 million figure, this is almost certainly the "domestic" marketing figure i.e. the figure for the US marketing. According to the MPAA the average cost of marketing a film in the US in 2006 was $34.5 million (see 2007 Market Statistics.pdf, page 7). Unfortunately, the Guardian source does not clarify this, but there is no way this figure is for global marketing. For example, according to George Lucas's Blockbusting (Alex Ben Block) the domestic marketing costs for Shrek, Gladiator, Spiderman 2, War of the Worlds and The Perfect Storm (all big summer releases between 2000 and 2005) were $68.1 million, $52.5 million, $57.5 million, $58.2 million and $50.7 million respectively (page 840). Even though The Guardian does not clarify the nature of the marketing figure it is almost certainly not a global figure going by the costs of the time. Global marketing is roughly twice that of domestic marketing so the figures are consistent IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead

ChristianJosephAllbee, regarding this and this, what accuracy are you referring to? There has been back and forth at this article before regarding "homage" and "sequel." That is why someone added references for that.

Betty Logan didn't you have disagreement over this before? Or do you have any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously any claims have to be backed up by sources. Has it been factually established that Superman Returns is an entry in the original series? I appreciate it took some story elements but there were many inconsistencies too. Obviously I don't mind the lead saying that if it is established through sourcing. Also, the article discusses the film in terms of box-office success but not profitability, which are different concepts so the change in terminology makes the claim unsubstantiated. Warner wracked up substantial development costs on earlier Superman projects since the 90s which were costed against this film (see the budget section) which harmed the film's profit margin. Cleopatra is the most famous example of this, where the film was the biggest film of the year (and 5th biggest film of all-time) but still lost money due to the massive budget over-run. So the issue for me with Christianr's revisions isn't so much the claims themselves but they need to be backed up by sourcing. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty Logan. I haven't looked into any of this. I just remember the disagreement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superman_Returns/Archive_2&oldid=1165265611"