Talk:Superman Returns

Cleaning the Page

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

Budget

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

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

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

I feel that this movie would be a mild success. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Can this be verified by any other website, or source? Please provide links to other sources if you find them. Bignole 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the same article, only on two different websites. Read it, it is almost word for word what the other says. You don't count the cost of the movie before Singer took over, because when he took over it became a completely different movie. Granted that with all the writing changes and director changes the cost is probably up there, but Singer's movie is not 250 mill. plus. I think the safe estimate to go with is what your own sources say Warner Brother's stated they paid, which is 204 million. Bignole 21:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I posted it twice is that some times New York Post asks to sign in so you could see the article on the other site knowing that it’s from Post. I agree with you for now we go with $204 millions instead of previous $185 millions.

MSNBC claims a budget of $280 million.

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

Continuity

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

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

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

MARTHA KENT DIED IN BETWEEN SUPERMAN 3 & 4, ONLY PA KENT DIED IN THE 1ST ONE User:192.91.172.42 13:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As for why've they've not aged, the amount of time that has passed between the events of superman II and superman returns doesn't have to be the amount of time between their releases. For all we know, this could take place a mere five or six years after superman II.

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

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

Hold on. Is Superman Returns connected to Smallville?.Leader Vladimir

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

Good, because if the movie is connected to Smallville, then Superman Returns would be a sequel to Smallville, not a sequel to the Christopher Reeve films.Leader Vladimir

Not necessarily. Since Smallville occurs before the Superman films (continuity wise [excluding precise dates]) then it could pass as both connected to Smallville and the Superman Films, but it isn't so the only thing you will get is homages and inside jokes through dialogue about Smallville and the Superman Films. SR is not going to literally say "back in 1978" because the film takes place in present time, atleast from the look of the vehicles it does. So, I think what they are doing is just taking the events of the first two films, not the dates of the first two films, and then simply hinting at the rest of the stuff. But, one can only see when the film finally comes out. Bignole 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Re: Superman's Costume

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

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

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

I don't know if I would consider an aricle from The Sun to be worth mentioning, especially since fitting superhero actors with codpieces isn't anything especially new: they joke about Reeves' codpiece on the DVD features for the 78 film. Boxclocke - "!" 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, just a bit of worthless trivia really, I guess. Sweetie Petie 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rating

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

Links

This first part of the article has too many links.

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

Internal links

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

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

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

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

This also applies to tables, considered by themselves.

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

Thanks

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

Metallo?

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

Sequel?

Does anybody knows the name of the sequel for this film? It is stated that the sequel would be released in the Summer of 2009 but no title had been mentioned for this film. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumored Actors

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

• Daniel Day-Lewis as Jor-El
• Famke Janssen as Lara Lor-Van
• Jude Law as General Zod

Is this true? Leader Vladimir

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

Budget

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

Because IMDb has been wrong a many occassion when they post info before the movie is released. Bryan Singer has said himself that the budget is less that 200 million. Chances are they are including the marketing costs along with the production costs in the budget. Wiki usually lists the production cost. Bignole 21:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Now the budget is stating 260 million? Has this been confirmed on any other site besides Boxofficemojo?? Singer has said the production budget is less that 200 million. Are we incorporating the marketing costs as well now, because that is the only way I can see the budget being more than what Singer has stated. Bignole 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Release date pushed up

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

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

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

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

New Page

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

"Other" casting

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

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

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

Preceeded by

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

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

He never said that it follows Superman II by five years. What he said was that Superman has been gone for about 5 years. It couldn't possibly follow Superman II by five years, because all the cars in Metropolis are late model cars. That puts the time frame into today's present, not the present of the 1980s. What he said was that it was a loose sequel to Donner's films, but it would contain more homage shots and references to the previous films, but in no way was it a sequel. He has stated explicitly that it is not a sequel. Bignole 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I've read that the film is set 5 years after the second one. If I can dig up some evidence, I'll provide it. Also, the model of the cars is a pretty weak argument; if we were to follow that logic, Lois and Lex should be a lot older than they are. EVula 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, the writers of the film, have repeatedly said in interviews that this film follows the first two films in canon. In the film it's implied that one of the reasons Superman leaves for the remains of Krypton is because he had just fought three Kryptonian criminals: Zod, Non, and Ursa. Singer has repeatedly said that he uses the first two films as a history for this one. Keep it in, it's right. III and IV are retconned by this film. CmdrClow 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As promised, here is an article that mentions he has been gone for five years.[3] Put "five years" into your browser's Find function to jump straight to it. EVula 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What he said was that they were loose history, only mentioned by in-jokes and homages. He never said that they were outright predecessors to this film. They couldn't possibly be, because this film is set in the present and not in the 80s. This film stands alone as a movie, but uses the past movies as an invisible backstory to help keep the allusion that it's the same person. Show me where he says "Superman Returns is a sequel to Superman II". Bignole 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I did not say he wasn't gone for 5 years, what I said was that Singer did not say it was 5 years after the events of Superman II. What the infobox is stating is that Superman II comes directly before Superman Returns, when in fact Singer has stated that Superman Returns is not a sequel, nor a remake. It just uses the first two films as a "vague history" referenced by "in jokes". Show me where he has stated "this is a sequel to Superman II". That link will provide the right information for the infobox to be correct. Otherwise, Superman Returns is a stand alone movie with no predecessor. BTW, just to point out, there is a section in the article that says "Connections to Superman I and Superman II" and it specifically says "vague history" and then lists the references to the two movies. Bignole 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

SPOILER!!!!!!!!! Jason is Superman's son. He is four years old, concieved during the events of Superman II when Lois and Clark slept together. If that's not proof, I'm not sure what is.

First, even is Jason is Superman's, he still wouldn't be Superman's, he would be Clarks. Still doesn't prove that Superman II is the outright predecessor to Superman Returns, just because they use certain aspects of the story. That is what is meant by a "vague history". They choose what they want, and it's referenced in some way, but the movie itself is not a prequel to Superman Returns. Bignole 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has provided a source that debunks this, and consistenly provides information in the article that says "this is a vague history" and not a sequel, then it needs to be corrected. Most films use the "preceeded by" to list the movie that came last, in film making. The Nightmare on Elm Street series lists "New Nightmare" as following "Freddy's Dead", yet 'New Nightmare' holds no connection to that movie, or any other of those movies, except by characters alone. 'New Nightmare' was not a sequel to any of the Nightmare movies, thus it followed 'Freddy's Dead', and preceeded Freddy vs Jason. So, If you want to keep the "preceeded by" then the proper film to go there should be "Superman IV: Quest for Peace", even though those events are retconned, they still came before this film. Bignole 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reindent here. Preceeded by should mention the previous film, not the supposed prequal of the film. Supes IV would be the correct entry for that field. A simple "(unrelated)" could be added for clarification. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He would still be Superman's son. The chamber that took away his powers in the second film "harnessed the rays of the red Krypton sun". It said nothing about changing his genetic makeup or his physiology. Just because his powers were taken, he was still Kryptonian. Now, take a child with half the genetic makeup of a Kryptonian. He would still develop powers through natural life. His father having no powers would have no effect on the growth of the child. CmdrClow 12L18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, please do not interrupt conversations chronology, place your message at the end. Second, see the bottom discussion about Lois' child for answers to your statement. Bignole 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't interrupting, I was attempting a direct response to your statement. No need to sass back since your two cents have already been debunked by Superman's physiology. CmdrClow 02:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bignole, but, going by your earlier argument in reference to other film series, that means that Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace would be directly preceded by Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Also, I'd like to mention that the concept of retconned chronologies has happened before in other film series; the Halloween series, for example. In one chronology, the character Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) has been killed in a car accident; while, in another, she is alive, well, and in hiding. Please, check your information for accuracy before posting on Wikipedia. As always, have a nice day!

P.S. Don't threaten me with the three-revision rule. Recheck your information, please. I'm sorry I have to tell you this, but, paraphrasing Spock, you are operating on "faulty logic". I don't like haggling, but, please, don't make me argue with you again. Can't we all just...get along?

First, if the consensus of this article is that it should be Supe IV, and you keep reverting it, then you would violate that 3RR. Second, Episode I should follow Episode VI (i.e. it should read IV, V, VI, I, II, III), just because they don't doesn't mean they are right. You can't monitor every page. "Halloween" doens't go: Hall, Hall2, H20, HRes, Hall3, Hall4, Hall5 and Hall6. It goes Hall 1-6, H20 and HallRes. That is the order they were released that is how they should be listed. The titles are "preceeded by" not "prequel/sequel". That states what movie came before it, not in continuity, but in production. Also, please always sign your comments, even if you are an unregistered user.Bignole 05:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

George Lucas himself stated that the Star Wars saga is intended to be watched I-VI. The general consensus with most other Wikipedians and Superman fans is that this film follows Superman II. Also in another scene in this film, Richard White directly mentions the article "I Spent the Night With Superman" which she wrote in the first film. There seems to be a canon trend, doesn't there? Oh and by the way, you may want to pop over to Lex Luthor's article on the Returns section. I know your faulty logic radar will go off of the deep end after reading that. CmdrClow 05:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me slow this down so it is easier. I have not said that Superman II does not preceed Superman Returns in history, or that Superman III and IV were retconned, because they were. What I said was "preceeded by" and "followed by" are used to establish which movies came where in production, NOT in continuity. Other wise you say "sequel/prequel". Now, if you want to add "prequel" to the list and in there say "Superman II" (even though it isn't a true prequel to this film) that would be more correct than saying Superman II preceeded Superman Returns when Superman IV came out in 1987, well after Superman II. It has nothing to do with continuity, it has to do with production. Bignole 05:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with continuity, it has to do with production. Is that so, huh? I'm sorry, but tell that to most Star Wars fans! You are posting information on the basis of faulty logic, and you know it. Please. Cut it out. 05:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, CmdrClow! I was hoping to deal the fatal blow myself, but... you spaketh better than I. A worthy user! Also, Bignole, I didn't seem to notice any concensus on the Talk page around the time you posted your info. As a matter of fact, a discussion is still procceding! So, please. Stop beating a dead Superman. Let the info stand until the 28th. After that, we'll see. (P.S. Can't get ID number up - computer's gone funky. Ciao!) 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't interrupt the order of the conversation, even to make direct comments to other users. Thank you. To answer you most recent statement first, I am not saying that to watch the movies you should watch them by when they were made. But, for enyclopedic purposes, when you are listing which ones come first and which ones come last you list them (LIST THEM) by when they were made, not by which ones follow which ones in continuity. The only argument those first users carried was that they believed I was saying that Superman II didn't come before Superman Returns continuity wise. You and Clow are aware of what continuity is, right? Because you two both seem to dwell on the fact that the 28th is going to help you prove what Superman Returns retcons Superman III and IV and thus Superman II preceeds it. Unfortunately, what you both are failing to grasp, and I can't for the life of me understand why, maybe it's because you know you aren't even arguing the same thing, is that PRECEEDED BY is refering to when the movies were made not what happens in them. I'll say it again, WHEN THE MOVIES WERE MADE, NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN THEM. I capitalized it so hopefully you will see it. Superman I and Superman II are vague histories, not true prequels to Superman Returns. If that was the case then the movie would take place in the 1980s, not 2006. Now, I'm not saying that it isn't important to note that they establish a vague history for Superman Returns, just that labeling the preceeding movie Superman II is incorrect when you are referring to when the movie was made, which is what Followed By and Preceeded By are meant to do. Bignole 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox links

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

• Firefly (TV series)
• Hulk (film)
• X-Men (film)
• Batman Begins
• Daredevil (film)
• Serenity (film)
• Terminator 2: Judgment Day

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

If, by your own admission, they are "redundant", then by definition there can be no need for them. The cast members are already linked in their own table to the left. Wiki's own MoS on links states that if a link is duplicated on a page, then that article is considered to be overlinked. However, the guidance on Template talk:Infobox Film/Syntax Guide says they should be linked. Obviously this is conflicting advice, and I've left a message on Template talk:Infobox Film to try and get some clarification. Chris 42 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was using "redundant" for lack of a better term. I consider the infobox content to be both supplemental and separate from the article (for example, movie infoboxes tend to have IMDB links, even though they are usually in the "External links" section, and will cite release dates, regardless of whether they are already mentioned in the article). EVula 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lois' child

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

He may have given up his powers, but his genetic structure would likely remain the same, meaning his kid would probably have similar powers. Of course, this goes into the realm of Larry Niven's Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex essay. I love that essay. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that was the point of the machine, do alter his genetic structure so that he wouldn't have his powers, so that he could foster a child. The basis for his powers is his genetic structure. The point of him being sent to Earth was that they were so similar, not only in looks but genetics. It was only specific genetic traits that allowed him to be who he was, and the machine turned those genes off. The child wouldn't grow up with his powers, though, it could be assumed that he would grow up with those dormant genes that maybe could be turned on by the FOS. The point is, his powers lie in his genetics, no powers = no genetics = not Kal-El's child, but Clark Kent's child. Bignole 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, maybe. To be honest, I forget the exact details of his power loss in that movie. Did they actually mention his genes being repressed? From the visuals, I assumed it was just designed to oversaturate his cells with red sunlight and prevent any yellow sunlight from making him super again. In any case, it would simply be a question of which set of genes would be more dominant: human or kryptponian. Regardless of his genes being turned off, they'd still be there, so he would pass them on. I doubt the machine was so powerful as to completely humanize Kal-El, since he had the option of becoming super again. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was just a case of oversaturation of Red Sun, then he would have eventually gotten his powers back, because the saturation would begin to wear and the Yellow sun would revert the changes. It has to be on a genetic level. I said that they would have been passed on, but even being passed on they would be second generation, dormant, and only half of what he is seeing as Lois is 100% human. Regardless, they aren't active genes. The son would be a carrier. Regardless, it says "Superman's son", and it should be Clark's son. Even if say the genes were active, Superman is the name Lois gave him and it would be more accurate to be either Kal-El, or Clark. Seeing as Clark is his birth certificate name (granted it's forged) it would still be Clark's son. Bignole 16:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't argue with that logic. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The same concept was explored in the conclusion of Infinite Crisis, and the subseuqent One Year Later Superman story Up up and Away. Superman's cells were oversaturated with red sun rays when he and the Earth-2 Superman drove Superboy-Prime through Krypton's red sun. It took him over a year to get his powers back. Who's to say the effects wouldn't be the same in the film universe? The oversaturation case would still stand and he wouldn't get his powers immediately back. The machine only oversaturated. It's in the dialogue. It did not change his genetic structure in any way. CmdrClow 02:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, learn was sass means. I didn't sass, I was informing you that it isn't proper etiquette to place your response in the middle of conversations past, even if it's direct responses. If that's the case you quote the person. Second, why would he only give up his powers for a short amount of time? He wanted to live with Lois forever, marry her and have children. He couldn't do that if his powers where to start leaking back. Remember, we are referring to the movie, not the comics. The reason it has to be on a genetic level is because those genes would need to be turned off in order for his DNA to be able to attach to ours, when creating a child. You can't just mix and match any species you want, just because cells are oversaturated. Oversaturated wouldn't have done anything but make him weaker, not human which is what he was going for to have a child. Bignole 11:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The film's dialogue said that the machine "harnessed the rays of the red Krypton sun." Not, "Will alter your genetic structure to make you human." It's in the DIALOGUE. If the dialogue said anything different, you'd have a point. Since all it did was kick the red rays into overdrive. There is also precedent in the comics that human and Kryptonian DNA have spliced. There was an Elseworlds tale involving Superman's direct son. Nobody has said that the movie-verse doen't allow Kryptonian/Human splicing. But either way, let's just shut up and wait for the 27th to get here and we can continue this then. CmdrClow 12:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But the Red Sun didn't just saturate his cells, other wise how could his DNA mix with ours? That's simple science. If you read the plot correctly what it says is that the child is Clark's, not Kal-El's. I say Kal-El's because Kal is who he was born, that is his Kryptonian name, not his human name. I don't say Superman because that is a title, still not his name. It's like Jesus Christ. Jesus is his name, not Christ. Christ is a title. The point of this section was to correct the plot from calling it Superman's son, when, regardless of whether he had his powers or not, wouldn't be 'Superman's' son, because technically that is just a name that Lois gave him because she didn't know his real name. We never denied the son was his, just that the name "superman" is inaccurate when it comes to naming the child's father. Also, if he had his father's powers he probably would have killed Lois while she was pregnant with him. We already know the book about Superman having kids, thus, the change would have had to be on a genetic level. Why would his mother tell him that if he made this decision he would be human, forever and that there was no going back (the only reason he was able to go back was because he found the original crystal that created the FOS, it wasn't the machine that did it). Saturation would reverse itself, so it wouldn't be forever. Now, turning genes on and off could be forever if you didn't go back and change them. Now, it would have to be more than just turning on and off, because his molecule structure is different than ours, and his DNA wouldn't match. The only way it could match would be if Kryptonians were once Humans (or vice versa), again simply science. The change would have to alter his DNA so that it would match ours, making it possible for him to have children. Since it can't be known what a harnessed amount of Red Sun radiation would do, you can't simply assume it's a saturation affect. It was harnessed radiation at close range, not to mention there was probably another step in there that helped change his DNA. Simply stripping him of his powers wouldn't make him human, his genetics would still be different. But, I digress. The point was that we are saying 'Superman' is a title and thus it can never truly be 'Superman's son', only Clark's or Kal-El's son. That is the accurate description. Bignole 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clark is Superman, so if you say "Superman's son", you're basically saying it is Clark's son. If you want to get technical, Clark isn't his true given birth name. It would be Kal-El's son. But everybody just knock this off til the 27th. We'll know soon enough.

Please always sign your comments. Why do you keep saying knock off till the 27th? First the movie isn't released till the 28th and even the ones that are released on the 27th won't end till after midnight, thus it will still be the 28th. Second, read this carefully now, we have not said it wasn't his son. What we said was Superman is a title and not his name. Clark is his Earth name, Kal-El is his Kryptonian name, Superman is nothing more than a title given to him by a newspaper, describing what he was when they first saw him. What you are having trouble grasping is the fact that because everyone calls him Superman that it must be his name. Sorry, but his name is Clark/Kal-El, not Superman. It can best be described by a nice little quote from L&C, "Superman is what I do, Clark is who I am." Society calls him Superman because that is what he is to them, a Super Man. Thus, it isn't accurate to say Superman's son, unless you are speaking from Metropolis' communities stand point, which you aren't because you know his real name. Bignole 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't realize you were reaching for such an analytical perspective. That quote from L&C was from a different representation of the character, more approaching the John Byrne cmics, in which the focus was placed more on the alter ego rather than the hero. Bottom line the movie is released to the public on the 27th at 10 pm. That's established. Clark Kent isn't his real name either. By saying Superman you know who I'm talking about so you don't need to throw an anal fit over it because if I say it's Superman's son, you know who Superman really is. You don't need to be so extremely retentive. So, let's just wait til the 27th, or the 28th however you want to look at it, because this is getting tiresome and I just want to wait and see the movie. So just stop. CmdrClow 16:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you get all your personal attacks out of your system? Guess what, this is a different representation of Superman as well. This isn't Christopher Reeve, this isn't Donner's film. Just because it's on the silver screen doesn't mean it's the same representation. Regardless of your representation, he didn't come to this planet as 'Superman', his adoptive parents did not name him 'Superman'. Metropolis named him that, so when you refer to the person you are refering to Clark/Kal, but when you refer to the superhero you are referring to Superman, the title. It's a title no matter what representation you are reading/watching. Hence the reason why it's not Superman's child, it's Clark's/Kal's. If you were to pay attention to what I said, I never said that they are different people. What I said was that when you are describing certain things you have to use certain names. It isn't Superman's mother, Martha Kent, it's Clark's mother. It isn't Superman's child, it's Clark's child, because he wasn't Superman when he fathered him. Lois didn't go to bed with Superman, she went to bed with Clark Kent, birth name Kal-El. The quote by Dean Cain works for every incarnation of the character, because no matter how you look at it his name is not Superman, his monicker is Superman. Bignole 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

stop ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stp)

v. stopped, stop·ping, stops v. tr.

  1. To close (an opening or hole) by covering, filling in, or plugging up: The tea leaves stopped the drain.
  2. To constrict (an opening or orifice): My nose is stopped up.
  3. To obstruct or block passage on (a road, for example).
  4. To prevent the flow or passage of: stop supplies from getting through.
  5.
        1. To halt the motion or progress of: stopped me and asked directions.
        2. To block or deflect (a blow, for example); parry or ward off.
        3. To be or get in the way of (a bullet or other missile); be killed or wounded by.
  6.
        1. To cause to desist or to change a course of action: stopped us from continuing the argument.
        2. To prevent or restrain: stopped him from going.

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

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