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

Hey, don't worry about it, SuperGem. I was just kidding with you.

Yvonne

No problem. I just didn't want you to think I was insulting people in general, which is why I jumped so quickly to try and clear that up! I am sorry I wasn't more clear about the MEDIA being ignorant IMHO - not the general public.

You expect a cable news channel presenter to know what he's talking about these days? Frankly, half the time, ours act as though they've just ingested something wild and wacky five minutes before coming on. We have one female on SKY news who I call Valium Val because she always looks as though she's half asleep and can barely work up the energy to read the autocue right. :rolleyes:

And the rest seem to think that we'll all enjoy our news much better if they break into inane commentary during reports and gales of babbling laughter.

And, yes, our persenter friend thought it was pronounced Ruth. Being from the UK , like Yvonne I didn't know it wasn't since that was the first time I'd ever heard it spoken. But even then I didn't see what was so unusual or odd about a surname being Ruth. Or why it would be the cause of great hilarity or pondering.

Must have been a slow news day.

LabRat

YAY, minority!

Here in the U.S. there's been enough hype about the movie that most of the reporting media seems to have learned that Routh in this case rhymes with "south". But this hasn't always been known: I was cleaning up some older programming off of my hard disk yesterday and ran into a Superman segment on something called "Hollywood's Best 10". (They ranked Superman 2nd in comic book heroes after Spider-Man, so I'm not talking to them. ) Anyway, they made mention of the movie coming out in 2006, and several times pronounced it "Ruth". It takes a while for word to get out...

Kathy

LOL! This reminds me of an argument I used to have with my dad about the pronunciation of the word "rewound" (as the past tense of "rewind.") I'd said I "re-wownd" the tape, and he'd insist that it was "re-woond", and I'd say, "No, Dad, 're-woond' is if you stab the tape with a knife, and then stick it again!"

Seriously, I think that no one should be expected to automatically know the pronunciation of "Routh," and the only reason we know it is because it has been specifically told to us. In any case, wasn't there some famous baseball player or someone whose surname was Ruth? I agree with Labby -- what difference does it make?

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

I also wanted to say -- I take back what I said before about Lois having broken up with Richard by the end of the movie. After watching the movie 5 times, I now think she's still with him -- she's also still wearing a ring on her left 4th finger in the final scenes, which I believe is her engagement ring.

I love that her engagement ring is not your usual diamond solitaire. I love that Lois Lane would be different and unique, and would wear a black stone (looked like onyx to me.)

And I love that Richard would know her well enough to realise that

I just noticed that in scene when Supes takes Lois flying, he flies them past her house and she looks at the seaplane, and thinks of Richard (after all, he doesn't take her flying "like this") and then looks at the ring on her left hand -- at which point, Supes, who is holding her left hand, moves it so that she can't see it anymore! (I love how there is so much in the movie that is actually NOT said.)

But still, by the end of SR, Richard has realised that Lois is in love with Supes, so the seeds of discord have been sown -- I'm looking forward to see how they explore the situation in the next movie!

-Jude

You are right that she didn't break up with Richard. In the novel - he is asleep while she is in the library trying to write her article. I believe it is the same in the shooting script as well, but I'd have to look again to be sure.

OK can I just say that although Ive not posted here in ages I have to put in my 2 pennies worth about "Superman Returns". Went to see it last week when it opened and absolutely loved it. Turned into a four year old when the credits began and the tune played and pretty much sat with a cheesey grin on my face the whole way through.

Effects: fabby

Luthor: could have been more evil but Spacey was way better than Hackman and to date no one has gotten Lex up to the comic book standard.

Lois: Too young but decent though I agree that she was not edgy enough

Clark Kent: Non-existent but who care did you see Superman

If there's one question this film does answer it's why the hell is lois interested in supes (essentially a fantasy) over the delectable clark and I reitterate did you see supes!!

Alrighty now that I've exercised my inner twelve year old girl...I just have to say that I am a superman fan, not strictly L&C. That is I watch the tv show (including JL), read the comics, watch the movies (though it has to be said I've never seen superman four and never intend to) and read the fanfic. I think each incarnation has it's own upsides and downsides and in an ideal world you could mix and match.

This movie could have been terrible (especially given the inclussion of a bit of a fanfic classic cliche) but it was a very enjoyable watch. I even managed to get my geek on with the whole idea that there were supposedly remnants of a planet that was next to a star that went supernova - no money for research in the biggest movie budget ever?

I didn't even mind that i had to <g> go see it twice due to the Imax cinema really not being set for the requirements of a long movie and a large drink and me managing to somehow get lost and miss the end!

OK babble done I hope that wasn't too rambly - it's late and dark!

Jupiter

P.S. Am sooooo glad that there was no cheering when I went to see it that would have made me cringe - just a tad

I was amazed that Superman and Clark Kent arrived in Metropolis at the same time, left at the same time, arrive back at the same time, and NO ONE NOTICES!!!!

Also that Routh was cast, after seeing the movie a few times, I still have no idea why........

And why was it not dedicated to Christopher Reeve?

Ummmmm ... it *was!* If you saw the movie a few times, I guess you left each time before the end credits? It is dedicated to both Christopher and Dana Reeve. When I went to opening night, the entire theatre erupted in applause when that dedication ran across the screen!

OK, my bad..... I'm sorry mommy....

Now I know I'm a science geek. I simply *baulked* at this idea.

Right after Lois found out she's pregnant she would have gone for an ultrasound - standard procedure to confirm the pregnancy is not ectopic and to determine foetal age.

They can tell the difference between a two week and a two month old foetus. Even if he had a small birth weight, developmental landmarks couldn't have been that far off and would have been visible on an ultrasound (heart beat at four weeks, nueropore closures, head circumference, weight gain, etc).

It's been mentioned that the kid might not have developed normally, but if he were born and looked human enough I'm assuming he'd have developed at a similar rate. Especially if she got through the pregnancy thinking he were a human child - and how else would she have gotten away without the kid being locked up and studied?

Nope, I'm convinced that she knew it wasn't Richard's. Maybe she didn't know it was Superman's, but she must have known it wasn't Richard's.

/end science geek

Been saying 'Ruth' this whole time! I'm pretty sure the whole continent has. *grins*

Tank: Thanks for letting us know that in the comic prequel, Lois really believes that Richard is the father. My husband, brother, and I had an hour debate about this point after the film was over. The movie seemed to want to be deliberately vague on this point, so it doesn't seem right to have an official answer to this question in a source that the vast majority of movie viewers will never read. Does the comic go into detail about when/where Lois met Richard? I'm sure my biggest problem is that I'm a L&C fan, not a Superman fan, so I kept trying to force the L&C Lois and Clark out of my head as I was watching the film. But I can't accept that Lois would fall into bed with someone else so quickly. She has forgotten having sex with Superman, but she must remember the feelings she had for him...Supes didn't take away that much time from her memory. So why would she abandon those feelings for someone as whimpy as Richard? Okay, he's a nice guy, but he didn't blow me out of the water. Clark's a nice guy too, but Lois doesn't bother to notice him. Are we prepared to believe Lois likes Richard because of his money? I prefer to think she's not that shallow. My brother is convinced that Lois believes the lapse in her memory is caused by a raunchy night out at a bar and she's embarassed to have "evidence" that she got drunk, slept with a guy she didn't know, then passed out. Again, I prefer to think that's not in Lois' character either. So I concluded that Lois knows part of her memory is missing, the same time that coincides with Superman's departure, and figures something must have happened. She suspects it's Superman's child; it's common knowledge that Richard is not the biological father, but everyone is letting him play the role. What else explains why Lois hasn't actually married Richard? I gather no evidence from the movie that she's the independent, hard-hitting newswoman of L&C. Since now that Lois has evidence of her son's biological father (who she's clearly always and still does harbor feelings for), she can't marry Richard. Unfortunately, since the movie portrayed Richard as such a nice guy, Lois must necessarily come off as a total b&$*@ by dumping him ("Yeah, thanks for being my kid's father for the past 5 years, but the real one's flying around now, so screw you.") So in order for Lois not to have to do that, we've concluded that Richard must die in the next film (something nice and heroic, like jumping in front of a bullet to save Lois' son) so that Lois doesn't have to actually dump him. Thoughts about this line of thought, anyone?

I actually enjoyed my family's post-movie geek-fest debate more than the movie. Hated Clark (what little there was); hated all Superman-as-God metaphors; Kate appeared way too young for the role; liked Kevin's portrayal of Lex (though hated everyone else around him); liked the special effects; thought Lex's evil plot was good and grand enough to carry a movie. Overall, ehhh..okay. I didn't pay for it since I had the coupon from the L&C box set, so I can't complain.

Okay, I've *finally* seen it! It opened here in Sweden today.

And - yes, I liked it. I didn't love it, but I liked it. I'm glad this movie was made. I may or may not see it again in a movie theater, but I'm going to buy the DVD when it's available (assuming I've bought myself a DVD player by then).

So, the things in the movie that I liked:

Well, most of all I like that "Superman Returns" makes "Superman II" somewhat acceptable to me! "Superman II" was the movie that I hated beyond all others, because of what it did to Lois and Clark. Clark (or Superman) had to choose between his powers and Lois, and he first chose Lois. He did this by somehow losing his powers and then making love to Lois. But later he had to have his powers back, and then he knew that he could never be with Lois again. Never ever. Good-bye, relationship. Good-bye, future marriage. To stop Lois from complaining about this, he wiped her memory of what had happened between them. Good-bye, clingy ex-girlfriend. And would you believe how *happy* he seemed to be that he had solved his "Lois problem" in this way?

This movie put me off Superman for ten years, and I still feel angry and upset when I think of it. So I'm very, very glad that SR deals with a few of the things that almost killed me in Superman II:

1) In SR, Superman is *not* indifferent to Lois. On the contrary, he loves her and misses her. He wants her back.

2) SR shows us that Superman wasn't able to just mindwipe away all the consequences of his and Lois's lovemaking, because he made her pregnant. Yes!!! I've always wanted to see that. And now they have a child. Lois and Superman. I *love* that!

3) Lois was angry at Superman for leaving, and she told him so. Yes! Considering how angry *I* was at him for what he did to Lois in SII, I'm so glad she told him that he had hurt her.

There were other things that I really liked about SR, too:

4) Lois! I was afraid that I would really dislike Lois in this movie, both because of the script and because of the way Bosworth played her. But I was happy with her. Okay, she wasn't perfect, no. I would have liked her to have more spunk (even though I didn't find her completely lacking in it), and I would have liked her to have more presence, more charisma. But I was surprised to see that she *looked* more like Lois than I had expected her to, apart from the fact that she was very beautiful. And while some people have complained that she was meek and dull, I didn't find her a complete pushover at all. Indeed, I thought she was smart when she realized that somebody really needed to investigate that power failure instead of just raving about Superman's return. I liked how doggedly she kept looking into this. And while you could argue that she was a horrible mother for bringing Jason along to the place where the power failure started, I thought this was actually in character for her. Lois always jumps in without checking the water level first, doesn't she?

And I thought you could feel her love for Jason. In her own way, this Lois was the best mother she could be for Jason. And Jason knew it too, and loved her for it.

Also she wasn't a total wimp. She did save Superman when he was drowning, didn't she?

So, yes, I liked this Lois. She wasn't perfect, but she was good enough to make me happy!

And Brandon Routh's Superman was beautiful. He looked - well, occasionally he looked radiant, like Singer once remarked! He looked like the perfect Superman. And he flew, and moved, so gracefully. He, too, made me happy.

And while I had *never* expected to appreciate Lex Luthor in any way, there was something about this Luthor that made me - well, not *like* him, but appreciate him as a villain. I loved his Prometheus delusion. Imagine, he was comparing himself with Prometheus who stole the secret of the fire from the gods and gave it to humanity!

And I liked Jimmy. Imagine! Jimmy! Oh, I didn't adore him, don't get me wrong, but I did like his nerdy innocence and his fondness for Clark. And I liked Eva Marie Saint as Martha. And I really, really, really liked Parker Posey as Kitty! Okay, I actually adored her! And I liked Tristan Lake Lebau as Jason. Yep, I really did. And I liked the kid who played young Clark Kent. I really loved that part of the movie, where we saw young Clark Kent learning to fly!

And there were other things I liked - the special effects, the John Williams score, the beautiful and impressive space vistas, the various little tributes to classic and iconic Superman images and ideas. The way people are remembered - the picture of Glenn Ford on Martha's piano, the fact that the movie was dedicated to the memory of Christopher and Dana Reeve.

I even liked the religious references. I don't take them seriously because I am an agnostic, but I do think that Superman really can be thought of as a Christ figure of some kind. He is this miraculous character who is both "just a man" and "so much more than just a man". I would be slightly uncomfortable if this movie made people believe more in Jesus because of Superman, but quite apart from that I thought it was appropriate that the movie should acknowledge the similarities between the idea of Superman and the idea of Jesus.

There were, of course, things I disliked, too. As a space buff, I really did cringe at some things that were said in this movie. Krypton is supposedly half a galaxy away and yet Earth scientists have *seen* it? They haven't seen *a* planet half a galaxy away, which would be plenty remarkable enough, believe me, but they have seen that this planet is *Krypton*? The whole thing is so ludicrous that it makes the idea of a flying man quite humdrum and normal!

And there were other things, such as the fact that this movie *is* slow at times.

But to me, the biggest problem was that ultimately, Brandon Routh was somewhat lacking as Superman. Oh, he looked splendid and all, he was a joy to look at, but on some level I couldn't understand him. I couldn't see *why* he was Superman, what was driving him. I would have liked to see some *passion* in him, something that he felt so strongly about that it explained what he was all about, but I couldn't find it.

Similarly, the interplay between Bosworth and Routh was somewhat lacking in passion, and I don't mean just sexual tension, believe me. No, it was more that... I guess you could say that the script is so vague that we, the audience, don't understand what exactly has happened between Superman and Lois. Oh, we know that they made love at least once and that Superman left without saying good-bye, but there are so many things we don't understand. And you know what? I got the distinct impression that Routh and Bosworth didn't understand it, either. They play a romantic couple, but they don't understand the nature and the history of the romance that they are supposed to convey to the audience. They are left in the dark about *who* their characters really are, and therefore they ultimately leave us in the dark, too.

Because of that, the movie didn't really, really grab me. It didn't hypnotize me. I liked the movie, I'm glad it exists, I enjoyed watching it, but it did leave important parts of me untouched.

Ann

Well, wouldn't you know there were a few things I needed to add?

Clark Kent was definitely disappointing. I said in my previous post that Brandon Routh's Superman was somehow empty, but at the very least, I could imagine that his Kryptonian father's exhortations provided the motivations that he needed. But what motivates Clark Kent? The guy was sweet and not too dorky, but honestly, he was completely empty.

Richard White... gaaahhh! I hadn't expected it, but the guy gave me the creeps. Not because he seemed the least bit devious or anything. No, it just felt so horribly wrong to see him hold and kiss Lois. Please, please, these two people *don't* belong together!

The retro, somehow 1940s feeling to the whole movie.... Yes!!! I really liked it. There were a sufficient number of contemporary things in the movie to show us that the movie wasn't actually set in the 1940s, so the overall effect was a sense of timelessness, a feeling of how Superman belongs to many different times. I thought that was great!

Lastly, I must comment on something that Zoomway said over on her boards. She remarked on the Wizard of Oz parallel to this movie. In that movie, Dorothy left her Kansas home to go out into the world to seek for the wonders that she wanted to find. Eventually, though, she realized that everything she had been searching for had been back home in Kansas all the time.

Now compare this with SR. Superman goes to Krypton to find other Kryptonians, to find evidence that he is not the last of his kind. He finds only a dead and destroyed planet. But when he comes home - not to Kansas, but to Metropolis - he finds precisely that other Kryptonian that he has been looking for! Only this other Kryptonian is his own son. That was absolutely beautiful.

To me, what I like best hands down about this movie is that it gives Lois and Superman a child.

Ann

Aside from my personal loathing of the inclusion of a child into the mix of the Lois/Superman relationship, I also think it's one of the largest impediments to their ever getting together.

Whether Lois thought so, or not, the world thinks that Richard is Jason's son. So, even though Lois and Richard aren't actually married we do have a family unit here. Superman can never publically acknowledge that Jason is his son, nor can he ever rationally come between Lois and Richard for that reason.

I've read elsewhere that many folks think Richard is a 'good guy' and they don't want him to die. Sorry, but there is no way that Superman and Lois can ever be together openly with Richard alive. He is the acknowledged father in the family unit Lois has entered into. Therefore, Richard has to die, and thus he becomes a cliche.

Also, even once Richard is gone, how do you go about putting Lois and Superman together? All the reason's why Superman can't have an acknowledged personal relationship still apply, even in this version of the mythos. It's one of the reasons why the Byrne revamp made Clark Kent into a real three-dimensional person. Lois can never actually have a relationship with Superman, she has to have one with Clark Kent. In the movie continuity, which takes it's cue from the older version of the Superman mythos, there is no real Clark Kent.

It's a point that I know Zoom has brought up. Even if there is no Richard, how can anyone believe that Lois would fall for the persona of Clark Kent that is presented. We were spoiled by Lois and Clark because it gave us a 'real' Clark Kent and so the blossoming relationship could actually be believed. There is no such base in the movie continuity.

I don't know what Singer has planned, but he either has his work really cut out for him to make the audience believe that Lois would turn to Clark in her grief over Richard's death, or she and Superman will never really get together.

Time will tell.

Tank (who thinks that one of the reasons why Lois and Clark seemed to get slighed by all the recent productions and shows about the worlds of Superman is because it was a licensed property owned and produced by ABC/Disney, not Warner Brothers)

Good point, Tank. I probably don't have to tell you how much *I* want Lois and Clark to be together. But what's preventing them from being together in SR is Richard, not the kid. And as I already said, Richard gave me the creeps... precisely because he was such a severe impediment to Lois and Clark being together.

On the other hand, if you consider what was done to Lois and Clark (or Lois and Superman) in the four Christopher Reeve movies, and bear in mind that SR is supposed to be a sort of sequel to the first two CR movies, I guess Singer and the DC/Warner people were just looking for a way to keep Lois and Clark/Superman apart.

Ann

I believe, ABC aired the show and Disney owned ABC, but Warner Bros. actually owns LnC.

Jackie