Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Superman Returns WOW! My review! SPOILERS!!

Genine, I'm sorry. Yes, it's true that I addressed you directly in my post, but that was in response to the generalization you made. I certainly didn't mean to imply that everything I put in my post - eg. about making potentially hurtful comments - was directed specifically at you. It wasn't at all, and I'm sorry that I made you feel that way.

I haven't been around in FoLCdom as long as you have, but I think you can see by the postings that I've made in the past that I don't feel the need to pick or choose sides. But if a person has a strong opinion about something, and feels that someone has spoken out against them, they will usually speak out in their defence. And that's where I was last night. The truth is, I felt a bit insulted by your generalization. Since I am one of those who posted comments about the movie that weren't exactly glowing, I felt that you were including me in your comments, even though I couldn't see anything that I said that was disrespectful or nasty. And as I said, I looked through the other posts here and felt that Arawn's were the only questionable ones, and that even those perhaps weren't meant exactly as they came out on the screen.

I wasn't defending his (her? - sorry, I don't know...) comments, and I did refer to them in my original post as possible exceptions. I'm also aware that you apologized in advance for making your generalization, but I'm afraid that didn't make it any easier to read when I felt it could be aimed at me. And I certainly am aware that there are many places online where Superman fans voice their opinions. As I said, I've mostly only been reading here and at Zoom's, but I have been to a few other sites and have seen some people lash out about the movie, with all the colorful language that such posts usually entail on uncensored message boards. It should have occurred to me that you could be referring to other sites and other voiced opinions. But it didn't, and so obviously I took your comment more personally than it was intended.

Genine, once again I apologize that I hurt you with my comments. I didn't intend that; perhaps my own disturbed feelings about the matter caused me to lash out more than I should have. That's why I rarely post when I'm upset - I'll have to continue enforcing that rule.

Kathy

I'm adressing mainly Ann and Carol. You two have pointed out my bone to pick with the movie. Memory wipe is a gross violation of trust. Let's see how Singer resolves THAT little speedbump.

What strikes me about the situation is that I can see it happening. The characterization isn't off to me. I'm thinking back to one of my favorite fanfic's Gorn's Going, Going, Gone where a lovely quote sums it all up:

"Quickly, Lois was beginning to acquire Martha's lifetime apprehension that the man they both loved was going to self destruct in a moment of relentlessly good, and therefore two dimensional, thinking. "

And I believe this goes rather well with Singer's representation of Superman as savior. After all, what's the line between helping and playing God? In this view, it's interesting that the conclusion (well my conclusion anyway) is that Superman isn't perfect the memory wipe is another example of "two dimensional" thinking. Naivete at its best. My only problem is the really implausible turn at the end, not the hospital scene because the situation did seem dire, but rather Lois' simple acceptance afterward. As if she would be ok with the situation. That's not how I see her at all.

You are right, I never intended to offend. I am sorry if my words came across that way, honestly. When I am wrong, I will apologize and admit to my mistake - and most importantly try not to make it again.

On the other hand, I sometimes believe that YOU do intend to offend people.

I appreciate your apology, and I hope that you will accept my apologies as well. Yet, I still find your newest post offensive - and here is why:

I didn't ask you how old you thought I was? I was rebutting at your offensive comment that only a 10 year old would find suspense in this film. My age is none of your business, but I am a 26 year old woman if you must know! I happen to be quite mature for my age, as a matter of fact. Life will do that to people. So how old are *you?* And are you male or female, for that matter - I'm obviously not the only one who wonders. Since you brought up my age - and assumed how *young* I seemed??? I don't make assumptions on people's age - so I won't stoop to your level there - but I have my own ideas as to how old you may be. :rolleyes:

Maybe you and I need to simply sit back and not converse with each other any longer - I have asked you if we could agree to disagree, yet you keep coming at me. :rolleyes: I don't like myself much when I respond to your posts - some people here who have known me for years know that there isn't a spiteful or hateful bone in my body. I just have an opinion, and I don't take well to offensive people. At this rate, I am going to shut my mouth on these boards - and simply come here to read fanfic. After 11 years in FoLCdom, I have never felt the desire to leave the community because of offensive people. Thanks to you, I actually feel like I don't want to be here right now.

Kathy, I apologize. Like you pointed out, it isn't good to post when you are upset - and that is just what I did. You have a good rule there, and I think I'm going to borrow it if you don't mind. At any rate, I am sorry.

I was not referring to you in that generalization, honest. In fact, I wasn't even referring to anyone on this board. It is other people I find that to be true with, and Arawn just happens to fit in that category, IMHO. Otherwise I never would have even thought to mention that here.

If you didn't enjoy the movie - that is your opinion. I respect that 100%! The movie wasn't perfect, and it was never going to be able to please everyone. I enjoyed it enough to see it seven times, other people might not find it entertaining. It is true, if we all liked the same movies the world would be a boring place! I certainly never meant to imply that you, or anyone else here specifically was being nasty. I suppose I was just "thinking out loud" in that comment - perhaps I should have kept my thoughts to myself.

This whole thing has gotten way out of hand, hasn't it? I am sorry for my part in stirring the pot - most people here know I am not a pot-stirrer by nature. I usually try to avoid it, if anything.

Still, this is a film I, and most of us - have waited for 19 years to see. It is easy to get very emotional about something we are that passionate about. No matter which side we fall on, we are all here because we enjoy Superman (in one form or another). It isn't very "Super" of us to go at each other's throats - so I am going to shut up now altogether.

LOL everyone here knows that I loved this film - so I think I have beaten that horse to death! I'm going to stick to reading fanfic and that's it. I usually post more on Zoom's boards anyway. No big deal - I just need to back away from this thread for a while.

In the meantime, Kathy I am sorry if you feel I was offending you - believe me that was *never* my intention. And to anyone else here who found anything I said offensive, I apologize. It was never what I planned or wanted to do.

Obviously I have issues with Arawn - but I hope backing away for a while will clear that up. Reasoning doesn't seem to help, it just breeds more trouble. I've said my peace - all I can do is apologize. I hate feeling I need to defend myself against a complete stranger, but that is beside the point.

In answer to ccmalo,

s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e

Lois is with Richard in the beginning of the movie. It seems that after Superman disappeared 5 years ago, she got together with him, and she truly believes that he's Jason's father (at least, until it is conclusively proven otherwise.) She's engaged to him out of some sense of responsibility to Jason, I believe, but doesn't marry him because she hasn't given up on Superman altogether (again, my interpretation.)

By the end of the movie, Lois has broken up with Richard, and Superman tells her he'll "be around," which leaves it open-ended as far as their relationship is concerned. I think the sequel will probably deal with this issue. So, in answer to your question, no, that door is not closed -- it is, in fact, opened.

As for the memory wipe at the end of Superman II, I agree with alcyonearia that it was really Clark's naivete that drove him to do it -- he really thought he was acting in her best interests. Remember that since he had got his powers back, he could no longer be with her, and he had chosen his responsibility to humanity over his love for her -- and the pain of knowing that was driving her crazy. She says as much in that final scene, which is what drives him to do the mind wipe thing in the first place.

It could even be argued that he thought he was doing her a favour, because forgetting her experience with him sort of helped her to move on; otherwise she would have been pining for him constantly. By causing her to forget, he was sparing her that pain, and at the same time condemning himself to bear the burden of that pain alone.

I'm not saying what he did was right, but that, in our dear lunkhead's two-dimensional head, he would have rationalised it that way.

-- Jude

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Wait, she broke up with Richard at the end? I totally didn't see that. I mean I guess you could see the hint when he dropped her off at the hospital (that kiss did have the subtle eu de good bye) and yet, I don't know. I never thought she'd do that, especially aftet he saved Superman.

Oh man, that's just too easy!

Jude, what pain was Superman condemning himself to bear in Superman II? To me, the most painful thing about the entire movie was how extremely pleased Superman seemed to be at having wiped Lois's mind after having sex with her. That smirk on Christopher Reeve's face at the end of that movie told me that his Superman was as happy as could be that he had gotten away with sleeping with her without ever letting her know about it. Talk about using a woman! Talk about pulling the wool over her eyes! Talk about lying about yourself to her! I found him utterly disgusting.

Anyway, if we agree that he was justified in taking away her memory of their lovemaking, I also think we must accept that he can never make love to her again:
FoLCs, how will you feel about Superman if this is what the sequel to SR is going to tell us? Superman really has to make a choice between loving Lois and helping humanity? Forget the thoughts of Superman ever marrying Lois, forget the thoughts of a super romance, because Superman can't make love to a mere mortal without hurting or killing her. Forget about the marriage in the comics, and, not least, forget about LNC:TNAOS. If Superman can't make love to Lois, he can never be more than a simple crime fighter or an aloof guardian of society. Perhaps, at best, he can be a distant, Jor-El sort of father to his son.

In my opinion, Superman II is the worst thing that ever happened to Superman, because it did its very, very best to ruin every future possibility of a relationship between Lois and Clark. I'm so glad that this new movie tells us that Superman was entirely wrong to think that he could just mindwipe away the consequences of his making love to Lois. But if the next movie tells us that he really can't ever be with Lois any more, well... then I'm going to wish that "Superman Returns" does so badly at the box office that there will never be a sequel to it!


Ann

This whole memory wipe/Superman's kid/Richard's kid thing is why I'm having such a hard time accepting that SMR is simply the continuation of the story set up in the SMI and SMII films. The timing just doesn't jive for me at all.

Because if SM wiped Lois's memory after their fling, this would mean a couple of possible things:

1 - She found herself pregnant and thinking it was some kind of immaculate conception because she had no memory of her night with SM

OR

2 - she got involved with Richard almost immediately after having her mind wiped, in which case SM would have had to have known about Richard before he left Earth. I don't recall the details at the end of SMII, but I never got the impression that SM took off for the possible remains of Krypton immediately after wiping Lois's memory

AND/OR

3 - If Lois really believed Jason had been Richard's kid, her discovering that he is probably SM's kid should have registered much more profoundly in the new movie. And Lois should have confronted SM with it when she sees him in that last scene. Where was the "How did I manage to give birth to your son when I have no recollection of us having done the deed?" that Lois would certainly have asked? Plus not a little bit of anger that she had slept with SM but couldn't remember it.

Actually, the more I think about all of this, the more annoyed it makes me. I'd rather just enjoy the new movie as an entity in itself, because otherwise the plot holes become too large for me to fanwank shut.

Lynn

Hah! Labby, I about fell out of my chair when I read this! Well put! I have the same problem...probably why I don't have any kids of my own yet.

And I agree with the whole Clark issue as well. Dean's Clark will always be the best (at least in my own eyes, my opinion of course). He was so handsome, romantic, GQ, suave...okay, I'd better stop myself

I was happy though that Brandon's Clark didn't seem (again, at least to me) to be nearly as geeky as Christopher Reeve's Clark.

Why? Even if the movies go that route, which would suck, it wouldn't undo what's taken place in the comics and it would certainly not undo the four seasons of LNC. Those are still going to be around for people to enjoy.

Of course you're right, C_A. I apologize. Please understand that I'm still so angry at Superman II - after, what, 26 years? - that I still lash out when I'm talking about it. But luckily, just as you say, nothing can undo Lois and Clark!!!

Ann

I hated the mind wipe thing as much as anyone else, but I never interpreted the "smirk" on Christopher's face that way at all. To me it wasn't a case of him being secretly overjoyed that he'd gotten away with "a night in the sack" and wouldn't have to face any possible consequences. To me he was simply relieved that he had taken away Lois' severe emotional pain, and taken her back to the happy woman of just a few days ago.

Even though he didn't display it as overtly as she, I felt that both of them were suffering. They were in love, yet couldn't be together because he felt that his obligations as Superman had to take a higher priority. She acknowledged that, but that knowledge obviously didn't make her feel any better. And there was the truth that she might never meet anyone else who would live up to the standards of her "lost great love".

Now, since it had all just happened there was no denying that the emotional distress would be at its greatest point here, and certainly her pain would have lessened over time. So in that sense it would have been better for him to have waited before doing something, but that obviously wouldn't work for plot purposes.

Now if Clark could have implanted something in her brain to make her not forget, but to realize that she "never really loved" him in the first place, that would have been nicer, of course... But since Superman is the "real" person in the movies, that claim wouldn't go too far. Or she could have just realized that one night together was enough for her...

Anyway, probably this implanting stuff is beyond Superman's powers, and not the way that the movie people wanted to go.

The notion of choosing between Lois and "a greater good", although it cuts to the core of all the romantics out there, is hardly new or unheard of. And our own Clark did (misguidedly) choose to help NK and leave Lois behind, knowing that there was at least a possibility that he might never return.

Kathy

I'm weighing in, because I actually went to see it. I wasn't sure I wanted to, but I allowed myself to be roped into it. That being said, considering how much I thought I would despise the film, I was shocked that I liked it. I went in with such low expectations that I ended up being pleasantly surprised.

While I was a little bored by the beginning, because it seemed too prolonged to me, I liked it. So, I will begin with the positives. Please note that these are only my impressions.


Spoiler space


I liked the soundtrack and the fact that it was a really long movie so more film for my money--I'm cheap like that. The storyline, especially when you didn't think too hard, was entertaining.

I thought Kevin Spacey made a good Lex Luthor, although he didn't seem nearly as evil as Gene Hackman, and I liked Routh's interpretation of Superman. Routh, to me, made Superman seem less machine-like, more humourous and human.

I found the ending in the hospital touching, because we'd just been through something like that with a grandparent's death so it was very real in a way it might not have been otherwise. I also liked the realism of the Kent farm when we saw it (and the dog).

I won't mention some of the other things other people did, except to say that there were a few plot holes that confused me. I'd really like a run-down on time delay in Kryptonite's effects on Superman.

Also, I don't think anyone mentioned the religious symbolism and allusions in the film. That was unanticipated.

Kate Bosworth was cute and had her moments, but I felt like her character was just too...nice. Not that nice is bad, but where's the hard-bitten newswoman? I found it really hard to believe that she could have won a Pulitzer. Just because she has a child doesn't mean she has to be soft in her job. The only time I felt she was really tough, reporter-wise, was at the beginning on the airplane with the questions.

But my main issue with it was the addition of another male character that stripped Lois Lane of yet more power. I'm sure not everyone would agree with me on this, but one of the things I liked about L&C was how Lois was--how being with Clark didn't make her less tenacious or stubborn even if a bit more thoughtful. She could make it on her own, but she wanted him to be there with her. He only added to her abilities, not detracting. And I always felt Margot Kidder was even MORE of a toughie.

I realise they wanted to make a statement about the different family situations we have in this day and age, but by adding Richard, I felt like they took away from Lois, making her seem less capable. Richard flew that plane back into the fray; he pulled Lois out of the water along with Superman. Sure, she jumped in first, but HE ultimately was needed to save the day. Even Lois, the single, working woman, had Richard there helping the whole time. It seemed like they felt that they had to choose between a tough, career-woman and a feminine mom, but my question is why couldn't she have been both?

Still, it was a pleasant period of time overall, despite my misgivings on a few things. I'm looking forward to the sequels.

SuperGEM,

No you didn’t. You said: And I answered that you did come across rather young. I never asked for your age, sex or phonenumber. So I don’t know why you put that on me.

No your were spoiling for a fight by choosing to make it personal. You have still not addressed the point how anyone over an indeterminate age (lets say adult) could fear for Superman’s life in a Hollywood franchise, much less rebutted it.

Since you still find me offensive it doesn’t sound like you appreciate it that much. As I said you didn’t offend me, so don’t worry about me. A word of advice though; attributing feelings to people you don’t know or questioning their experiences, is a good way to get into heated exchanges.


Sure if you feel our exchange onerous just drop me. I’m just a random guy on a internet message board. When did you ask me if we could agree to disagree?, I can’t see it. And apart from the ten year old thing when do you perceive that I been coming at you?

You seem to insist that I bear you malice. I assure you that is not the case. I wouldn’t come to this suger-sweet board if I did. And I’m truly sorry if I have made you feel bad.
I’m pretty low key around here so I’m sure I won’t be much of a bother.

Well I was curious why so many people appreciated the film when it lacked so many of the qualities that I appreciate in L&C series but I only seem to cause discord so I leave you ladies to this thread. Have a nice day.

I got to see Superman Returns with one of those nice, free passes that came with the Season 3 DVD of Lois and Clark. Always nice to see a movie for free, especially now that they've gone up to almost $10 a ticket. Even if we did have to try two theatres and several showtimes before we found one open.

I enjoyed the movie, but not for the reasons I usually enjoy movies. I found the action sequences the best part, especially the plane in the beginning. Although I did have to wonder--why exactly are they taking this special spaceship-launching plane out on its maiden voyage with a planeload of journalists on board? Could have told them something was going to happen. Oh, I'm sure they tested it plenty before then, but maiden voyages still have a way of going wrong unexpectedly. Nonetheless--landing it in the baseball stadium was just *cool*. Although, why couldn't he let the passengers out, then take the plane to the landpad for them? Not hard to figure out that he's just killed the baseball game, and that they're going to have a tough time getting it out of the stadium.

Brandon Routh did well as Superman. He was not unlike I'd imagine the comic book hero coming out on-screen. He did look a lot like Christopher Reeve, but I didn't remember the movies enough to really notice or care about similar gestures and such. As Superman, he was fine. As Clark Kent... well, he was cute. But boring. I suppose that this storyline was more about Superman than Clark, but it still seems to lose something when you don't use the secret identity aspect. Though, when he's rushing off to change into his costume to rescue the plane--that was fun.

I thought Kate Bosworth did a pretty lousy job, honestly. She's certainly pretty, but she was too young to make sense as Lois Lane, at least to me. Partly because of the "gone five years" thing, as I'd thought that Superman had been in Metropolis for a while, maybe several years, before he left. And hadn't she been an established reporter before then? I would have expected her to be around 30 at the youngest. It wasn't just her youth, though. She was far too bland, too passive. There was no *reason* for Superman to be as enthralled with her, as far as I could see. Sure, she was dogged in arguing with her editor about that power outage story, but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of her behavior. And the smoking!

I had a real problem with her smoking--when she has an asthmatic kid! Sure, she does seem to go outside to smoke, and she seems to do it rarely (times of stress?), but she's still got a kid who suffers from asthma, enough that he takes his medication quite a few times over the course of the movie. It made me worry that she might have *contributed* to his asthma by smoking during pregnancy (at least, it made sense to me that she would have taken up the habit after Superman left--unless she already had the habit, which I don't remember, but in which case she still would have continued smoking during pregnancy).

The little boy was cute (although, is it just me, or was he *way* too big and mature for a 4- or 5-year-old?). I liked his parts, and I thought he acted fairly well. I'd thought that perhaps he was Superman's son before then, but when he pushed the piano--wow. That was really great. In fact, I think that was my absolute favorite scene in the movie.

Like a lot of previous commentors, though, I didn't like the plot that caused the little boy. Somehow I must have missed the fact that Superman slept with Lois during Superman II (I remember the movie quite well, but I don't remember realizing *that*--but then, I was a pretty innocent kid). When he'd sucked out her memory, I thought he was just making her forget what they *could* have had together, not what they *did*, which seemed forgiveable and perhaps kind, in my opinion. But not so anymore.

For one thing, I dislike the idea of Superman sleeping with Lois before they're married. Both because I think it's wrong in general, but I think it's particularly difficult in their situation, and the little boy that resulted is exactly why. If they sleep together without being married and Lois gets pregnant, but later decides she doesn't want to marry Superman (or Clark), then how does he make sure that his child is raised with an understanding of how his powers work and the responsibility that he incurs? Superman *has* to be involved with his child, and marrying Lois is the only sure way to make that happen.

So in this movie, we get exactly that situation. It's a little uncertain about whether Lois really knew that Superman was the father--she'd have to have started sleeping with Richard really soon, within a month, and unless she was on the rebound because Superman had abandoned her, I don't see that happening. But, then, there's always the possibility that it was sort of out of spite. "Fine, Superman, you wanna leave, I'm going to get involved with the next cute guy I see. Oh, *hi*, Richard." Or maybe they started dating much later, and Richard knew it wasn't his son--but then did Lois think it was a miracle?

But now that she knows her son is not only Superman's child but has also inherited his superpowers, she's got some choices to make. She could stay with Richard, who the boy knows as his father, a man who loves her. But she's gotta let Superman share Jason's upbringing, at least a little. That was the implication that I got at the end of the movie; she was going to stay with Richard and raise Jason with him, and Superman would sort of watch from above and impart useful advice at crucial times, as Jor-El did for Kal-El while the Kents raised him as a human. Or, Lois could leave Richard and end up with Superman, which makes sense in some ways. It might explain why she's lived with Richard for five years without marrying him--she hadn't given up hope for Superman. Of course, plenty of people live together for years anyway, so that might not be the reason.

I think my main overall impression was that I enjoyed it while I watched it, but I probably wouldn't go to see it again. But, I might enjoy seeing it on DVD. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if for buying Superman Returns on DVD, you got a free coupon for Lois and Clark Season 4? *happy thoughts*

Her accpetance does seem suprising, especially given her independent character - hopefully the sequel will address that point. Perhaps it was the stress of the moment sort of thing - she wasn't really procesing the information.

But I'm really curious about how she's explained that pregnancy to herself. I just don't see her character as one who would have entered into a sexual relationship so soon after S leaves, especially given she's been up on the roof waiting for him.

Jude, thanks for answering my questions!!
I'd forgotten his rationale for the memory wipe. Although it sounds alturistic, it really wasn't his decision to make - very patriarchal, etc.
Kathy sums this up well:
"Now, since it had all just happened there was no denying that the emotional distress would be at its greatest point here, and certainly her pain would have lessened over time. So in that sense it would have been better for him to have waited before doing something, but that obviously wouldn't work for plot purposes."

Ann raises a huge point about Superman's loss of powers if he makes love to a human. That was a big deal in S 11 - so how is the SR -the sequel going to 'unspool' that one? or do they intend to, I wonder ? Just leave him as a sort of asexual god figure?

LOL See, that's the problem - i can only buy so many plot holes/unbelievebale things per movie.

True, but Lois was very much a part of that decision.

Sigh - it doesn't change does it?

So not sure about seeing this movie. It's the relationship that interests me, but it sounds like it's not really dealt with in any depth. Plus, I want to see a strong Lois Lane (the New Yorker review said this Lois lacked the feistiness of either Margot Kidder's or Teri Hatcher's).

Also the religious subtext makes me a tad squirmy.

Still, I'm thinking Spacey could make a fine Luthor. And I'm not totally writing off the appeal of those special effects...

c.

Guys, first of all, remember that this movie is based on the original Superman movies, which show a pre-crisis Superman -- where Superman is the real person, Clark Kent is a secret identity in which he *acts* clumsy and dorky, and Jonathan Kent is dead. I wouldn't want to condemn Superman Returns because it shows a different interpretation of the myth -- I'm happy to accept its differences and appreciate it for what it is.

Also, Bryan Singer did say that this movie was "loosely based" on the first two movies, but was not intended to be a direct sequel. So the mind-wipe etc may not have happened in this universe. I think the aspects of this movie which can be linked with SMII are:

1. Lois and Superman having a romantic relationship, and

2. Superman's choices -- he chose Lois over the rest of the world in SMII, ended up regretting it, and in this movie he chooses the other way around (heading back to Metropolis during the earthquake.)

Also, the issue of him not being able to be with Lois unless he gave up his superpowers was from SMII. I'm glad that it's not the case in LnC and in the current version of the comics And it may not be the case in this current movie series (because, we know, there *will* be sequels )

I want to write more but this computer is painfully slow -- will be back later when I can find a faster one (at work!)

Wait a second. Superman loses his power if he sleeps with a human? Is this true? It always seemed to be a decision on Superman's behalf that being with Lois was an all-or-nothing deal (once again pointing to his two dimensionality and/or the superhero cardboard image). But if its like that and sex with Lois takes away his superpowers, why that's so Freudian it makes my spine crawl.

Well if the novelization of the movie is tied to the actual movie, when

s
p
o
i
l
e
r


Lois is on the boat with Lex and he brings out the crystal, he says to her "this is like a reunion" and "does this look familiar?"(showing her the crystal).

In the book, she starts to have a vague recollection of being at the FOS....crystal images start to form in her mind.

My theory is that when Jason threw the piano at Brutus, the shock may have brought back the memory of their lovemaking.

I understand that in Superman IV which I saw 1x in the theatre and never purchased on DVD or Video, that Superman takes Lois flying and somehow negated the mind wipe long enough for them to enjoy some time together....

does anyone else remember that??

anyway....one of the things that Lois may have whispered to Superman at the hospital is that she remembered everything....and that Jason was their son. That would explain why, at the end of the movie, Lois doesn't have to confront him...I believe it all came back to her...which would mean she knows that CK=S.

I didn't get the impression that she had broken up with Richard. In the novel, which admittedly left out the part about Jason being Clark's son, it says that Lois was trying to write her story about "Why the World Needs Superman" and that Richard was in bed. She goes to the balcony to have a cigarrette and then on her own, she opts not to smoke, then Clark appears and she asks him "Will we see you around?" and he says "I'm always around. Good nite, Lois".

I am hoping that the sequel (if the movie makes $200 mill domestically they say there WILL be a sequel....so $54 mill to go....) will address the entire "how much does Lois remember" scenario.

Since Richard originally lived overseas, running the DP's international division, it would be easy enough for Perry to transfer him back there, since he would know now that Lois loves Superman and that Jason is not biologically his father. But Richard and Jason have an emotional attachment, he's the only father that Jason has ever known, so somehow I think he might stay around. Superman and Richard have a mutual admiration thing going, even though they might be competing for Lois' affections. Richard is really a human version of Clark.

In the novel, Lois reflects on her first date with Richard - they went to a country fair together. Richard transferred to Metropolis just weeks after Superman disappeared and she repeatedly told him she didn't want a relationship but over time, they fell in love.

It's also stated in the novel that Jimmy tells Clark that Jason a preemie and almost didn't make it....this would lead you to believe that for the first several months, Lois didn't know she was pregnant, probably starting having sex with Richard a month or two after they started dating, and just assumed that Jason was premature because of it. And since he's half-human, and we don't know the gestation time for Kryptonians (their super-dense molecular structure may warrant a longer than human gestation period)....perhaps it seemed like Jason was premature when in fact it was actually a normal pregnancy for a Kryptonian....

Well I must have the babble gene in me tonite...

I just hope that the whole mind-wife in SII is explained...we just had a whole mini-series about the JLA and mind-wiping {"Identity Crisis")...and how wrong it was deemed to be....

They say you can't get over something unless you feel the pain...Clark didn't give Lois a chance to get over him....

OK, rambling done!

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

I didn't realise that the novel had Richard sleeping while Lois was writing that article at the end. From the movie, it didn't seem apparent that Richard was still around, and I thought that Lois had broken up with him because of one scene -- when Richard drops Lois and Jason off at the hospital, he tells Lois that he'll wait for her, and she gives him a really sad smile and *very* subtly shakes her head at him, as if to say "No, don't wait for me," or "No, you won't wait." (I prefer to think it's the former.)

So, it's in the novel that Richard was still around at the end... then again, the novel did have some differences from the movie -- Jason's paternity was never established, for one, because the movie makers didn't want to give it away before the actual movie was out.

But whether Richard was around or not, Lois seemed to be coming to terms with the fact that *she* needed Superman -- we know that her articles are based on her own feelings, right? It's actually "Why I don't need Superman," because she's angry at him for leaving, and then "Why I need Superman," when she realises that she loves him after all. She may stay together with Richard for Jason's sake, but she knows her true feelings aren't for him.

Poor Richard!