Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLOT-HOLE STUDY #2 - Why Does Young Clark Wear Glasses?

By Dr. Thomas Weintraub
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

This plot-hole is never explained in Superman Returns. And this aspect never shows up in the comics, for young Clark Kent never wore any glasses as a kid. Superman Returns gives no explanation whatsoever about the glasses and what purpose they serve young Clark.

There were many people who saw this movie, both Superman fans and non-Superman fans, that were left scratching their heads over why on Earth young Clark would want to wear glasses. We have reviewed the movie several times, and it has not given a single answer, not even a hint as to why Bryan Singer decided to include young Clark wearing glasses.

As a matter of fact, this aspect even conflicts with the original Superman, the film that Singer rehashed, as we see young Clark wearing no glasses. The glasses on young Clark was obviously something that Singer came up with, however, he has yet to explain why and what purpose this serves.

My hypothesis is that Singer knew nothing about Superman, thus, he added the glasses without knowing why or what for -- he just felt it was the thing he had to do.

So with the analysis presented, the plot-hole that needs to be answered is the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Does Young Clark Wear Glasses?

& these are a few of the reasons why SR sucked big time & didn't make a whole mess of ca$h

all very good points.

Originally posted by Madvillain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLOT-HOLE STUDY #2 - Why Does Young Clark Wear Glasses?

By Dr. Thomas Weintraub
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

This plot-hole is never explained in Superman Returns. And this aspect never shows up in the comics, for young Clark Kent never wore any glasses as a kid. Superman Returns gives no explanation whatsoever about the glasses and what purpose they serve young Clark.

There were many people who saw this movie, both Superman fans and non-Superman fans, that were left scratching their heads over why on Earth young Clark would want to wear glasses. We have reviewed the movie several times, and it has not given a single answer, not even a hint as to why Bryan Singer decided to include young Clark wearing glasses.

As a matter of fact, this aspect even conflicts with the original Superman, the film that Singer rehashed, as we see young Clark wearing no glasses. The glasses on young Clark was obviously something that Singer came up with, however, he has yet to explain why and what purpose this serves.

My hypothesis is that Singer knew nothing about Superman, thus, he added the glasses without knowing why or what for -- he just felt it was the thing he had to do.

So with the analysis presented, the plot-hole that needs to be answered is the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Does Young Clark Wear Glasses?

who really cares, it was a very insignificant part of the movie

Originally posted by brainchild81
& these are a few of the reasons why SR sucked big time & didn't make a whole mess of ca$h

it did make alot of cash btw... about 450 mil worldwide, broke IMAX theatre records as well as the top 10 opening weekend EVER totals. This is impressive considering its the first of a trilogy, and the Pirates of the Caribean SEQUEL came out a week later and broke every record. It just didnt make alot of PROFIT becuase someone spent 75 mil more on production then any movie in history. But it definately made money, and the DVD release should make alot as well with Xmas around the corner and over 30 minutes of additional footage.

This whole topic is dumb

The dogs are the same kind from Superman II. When the wind blows, one was about to get stepped by a woman, one struggles to get loose, and the other got away!

Dr. Thomas Weintraub needs to find better ways to occupy his time.

Originally posted by redcaped
The dogs are the same kind from Superman II. When the wind blows, one was about to get stepped by a woman, one struggles to get loose, and the other got away!

lol WHAT?!!?!?

haha redcaped you are a character

The biggest plot hole is: why this movie was made?

how how howhow how...Krypto the one that got away!

What I want to know is, why is Superman being beaten up by 4 normal guys at one minuit under the effect of Kryptonite and then lifting a continent at another, its like Kryptonite just stopped working at that point, even if he used the crust as a sheild thats fair enough, but when the shards came through why wasnt he effected again? I love the feet but its just soooo stupid.

SR was perfect. He has learned to overcome his weakness just like any of us can sometimes. It turns out more difficult when we deal with people rather than just a thing with no life or conscience.

Originally posted by Sparkz
What I want to know is, why is Superman being beaten up by 4 normal guys at one minuit under the effect of Kryptonite and then lifting a continent at another, its like Kryptonite just stopped working at that point, even if he used the crust as a sheild thats fair enough, but when the shards came through why wasnt he effected again? I love the feet but its just soooo stupid.

he was effected... he dropped some 50000 feet into the ground if i recall. His hands were burning... his will to get the planet out of the atmosphere is how he did it... willpower is very strong, especially Supermans. If the shards didnt effect him he would have just flown back to earth

I also hated the Young Clark part of the movie. It was completly useless in every way, and why WAS Clark wearing glasses? that really bugs me...

But the time that that sceneused up could have been used for something else, like Supes owning those guys with the minigun and helecopter.

Other then that I loved the movie, best movie of the year IMO.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
I also hated the Young Clark part of the movie. It was completly useless in every way, and why WAS Clark wearing glasses? that really bugs me...

But the time that that sceneused up could have been used for something else, like Supes owning those guys with the minigun and helecopter.

Other then that I loved the movie, best movie of the year IMO.

agreed!!

the young clark was pointless... thats why him having glasses is pointless as well even if it doesnt make since becuase Clark didnt have glasses until he decided to be Superman

They were very careful this time on every aspect...the air waves when he flies...the hair moving...the heat vision varies...and he needed the glasses during his development. He reached full power after being adult.

clark doesnt wear glasses until he decides to become superman and he realizes he needs a secret identity...

Originally posted by bakerboy
The biggest plot hole is: why this movie was made?

yeah good point.Superman was not at all in the same catagory of Batman.It was imperative and absoultely neccessary for them to restart the batman franchise all over again because all the batman movies before it were all horrible and not at all loyal to the comic where Batman Begins erased all those horrible memorys of the nightmare franchise of those crappy burton/schumacher batman movies.Superman already had two great superman movies made loyal to the comicbook so geez,leave it alone at that for god sakes.

Instead of building off the Pre-Crisis Superman Christopher Reeves movie, they should have just re-started this franchise as well. I heard Kevin Smith had an awesome scripte all written, and Singer tossed it in the can.

I lost respect for Singer for that. I like what he did with the x-men, but I can't believe he did Superman this way. It was my least favorite movie of 06. I think that says something, because I got dragged to Hoodwinked.

Originally posted by chase el
clark doesnt wear glasses until he decides to become superman and he realizes he needs a secret identity... With glasses is no sequel...with Zod is a sequel. I know you're kidding.

Originally posted by Super Guy
Well, more to the point: when in Superman 2 did Clark have the time to screw lois, 'cos at the end he somehow mindwiped her... and how do you know he didn't use a condom or whatever? 2 points say he could've had protection:
a) condoms are only 97% effective
b) Maybe he has "super sperm" meaning they literally could punch through the condom/ femidom...
See my point? if this was the case, he would have no reason to suspect a pregnancy... though his departure to Krypton must have been incredibly fast in time for Lois to meet richard, fall for him, get engaged and get married, all in time to have the faintest possibility that Dick was the father... so, yeah, the plot was as holey as Jesus...

They had sex just after Clark lost his powers, you saw them both in bed together...

stop yo

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah good point.Superman was not at all in the same catagory of Batman.It was imperative and absoultely neccessary for them to restart the batman franchise all over again because all the batman movies before it were all horrible and not at all loyal to the comic where Batman Begins erased all those horrible memorys of the nightmare franchise of those crappy burton/schumacher batman movies.Superman already had two great superman movies made loyal to the comicbook so geez,leave it alone at that for god sakes. Parker... you're such a dumbass sometimes. Its pretty blatant that the first 2 Supermans were not totally loyal to the comics. the two points that spring to mind are the whole flying wrong way round the earth to turn back time and his "super-memory-wipe" kiss...

Originally posted by Super Guy
Well, more to the point: when in Superman 2 did Clark have the time to screw lois, 'cos at the end he somehow mindwiped her... and how do you know he didn't use a condom or whatever? 2 points say he could've had protection:
a) condoms are only 97% effective
b) Maybe he has "super sperm" meaning they literally could punch through the condom/ femidom...
See my point? if this was the case, he would have no reason to suspect a pregnancy... though his departure to Krypton must have been incredibly fast in time for Lois to meet richard, fall for him, get engaged and get married, all in time to have the faintest possibility that Dick was the father... so, yeah, the plot was as holey as Jesus... The involuntary muscular contraction of ejaculation would blast the semen right through her.

That's actually a pretty good point...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The involuntary muscular contraction of ejaculation would blast the semen right through her.

..Well, isn't that a pleasant thought.

daily planet headlines....


"superman comes... lois goes..."

Meh - I think the biggest plot hole will all of the movies/comics - is how in the world could Superman be attracted to a whore like Louis( I mean come on - she's obviously been around the block - how many big city reporters(females) - haven't slept with a man(or woman) to get a good story?)

And casting Margot Kidder as Louis only added to this whorishness persona. She was pretty nasty chainsmoker(as the character Louis and in real life) I bet you Reeves had to use a whole gallon of mouthwash, and two boxes of tic tacs - just to get that taste out of his mouth, after the kissing scene(in fact - I heard a little rumour that Reeve didn't want to do a 5th movie, because it required another love scene with Kidder, and the studio couldn't afford the lifetime supply of tic tacs Reeve requested, as well as they could not make any promises about Reeves contracting STD's..He..He..*joke*).

most people don't care, singer used the word "loosley" in his description of how this film connects with one and two of the series... go home you guys suck ass

Originally posted by Madvillain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLOT-HOLE STUDY #2 - Why Does Young Clark Wear Glasses?

By Dr. Thomas Weintraub
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

This plot-hole is never explained in Superman Returns. And this aspect never shows up in the comics, for young Clark Kent never wore any glasses as a kid. Superman Returns gives no explanation whatsoever about the glasses and what purpose they serve young Clark.

There were many people who saw this movie, both Superman fans and non-Superman fans, that were left scratching their heads over why on Earth young Clark would want to wear glasses. We have reviewed the movie several times, and it has not given a single answer, not even a hint as to why Bryan Singer decided to include young Clark wearing glasses.

As a matter of fact, this aspect even conflicts with the original Superman, the film that Singer rehashed, as we see young Clark wearing no glasses. The glasses on young Clark was obviously something that Singer came up with, however, he has yet to explain why and what purpose this serves.

My hypothesis is that Singer knew nothing about Superman, thus, he added the glasses without knowing why or what for -- he just felt it was the thing he had to do.

So with the analysis presented, the plot-hole that needs to be answered is the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Does Young Clark Wear Glasses?

Getting back to debunking these.

One possibility:

Clark Kent had weak eye-sight as a child, and in the flashback scene we see him exploring his powers.

Now he's already powerfull when he arrives on earth, but it makes sense to say that he becomes more powerfull through his child-hood and teen years, as he absorbs more solar energy into his body. (the relationship of solar energy to Superman's powers is demonstrated quite plainly in the scene where he goes above the clouds for a quick recharge.)

So I'm thinking that as a kid he had weak eyes, and then he became more powerfull and didn't need them anymore. (think Peter Parker in the first Spiderman film)

He discards them for high school (the only time we see him in Superman '78, something the skeptic is forgetting) and takes them back on for his disguise as an adult.

But the scene in superman returns has him at about 13 or 14 I'd guess.


This isn't clearly explained, since you'd need the rip-off of Spiderman's scene where he holds the glasses up to his face and they're blury. But it's hinted at in the barn where the first time he realises that not only can he run fast and jump far, but that he can also fly, you see his glasses fall to the ground next to him.

He no longer needs them.




Even if I'm wrong, which I could be, this is hardly a plot-point to get all worked up about.

Originally posted by chase el
actually he didnt lift the kryptonite continent.. he used his laser vision so he could lift the continent from UNDER the kryptonite.... using the crust as a shield... but then some krptonite seethed through... but he purposely went underneath the crust to shield himself the sayin using the crust as a shield is about totally lame.....unless superman is a master alchemists and can turn any mass into lead. which from what i understand is the only thing that can block the kryponite radiation. that whole scene was completely unrealistic. nice try singer , you suck making movies...dont know squat.

Well, there could easily have been lead in the crust...

know one cares, most people don't have so much time on their hands to listen to this garbage anyway, spam off.

Ignore Weintraub, a lot of members of IMDB believe he's a troll. He is.

For #1, I don't think Clark would have thought the he an alien, with drastically different DNA, would have been able to know that he could have a child with Lois, I also don't think he would be looking at her stomach with x-ray to see if she is.

as for #3 and #4 I'm going to ask everyone to think about what happened during the Infinite Crisis when he fought Superboy prime. He flew a ring of huge chunks of Kryptonite, through a red sun, and then crash landed on a living Green Lantern planet, still having enough strength to beat Superboy Prime before he collapsed. To sum it up, Kryptonite does not turn him into a helpless baby unless for prolonged periods of time. And I doubt the validity of yor information on how his physiology speeds up it's half life. Also keep in mind, that the Kryptonite in the movie never glowed, at all.

Originally posted by Blind
Instead of building off the Pre-Crisis Superman Christopher Reeves movie, they should have just re-started this franchise as well. I heard Kevin Smith had an awesome scripte all written, and Singer tossed it in the can.

I lost respect for Singer for that. I like what he did with the x-men, but I can't believe he did Superman this way. It was my least favorite movie of 06. I think that says something, because I got dragged to Hoodwinked.

Kevin Smith did indeed write a scrpit on it, but producer Jon Peters had some whacko ideas that he forced Smith to write in, such as a Superman that couldn't fly, a didn't wear his trademark suit. When Tim Burton came on the project, he tossed out Smith's script. Burton then cast Nichloas cage as Superman. When Singer came aboard, Peters had finally wisened up and let people do it the right way.

Go to youtube, type in "Kevin Smith" and "Superman" and look for a nearly 20 min video where Smith talks about his involvement inthe project, it's pretty darned funny. Or go to wikipedia and look up "Superman Reborn" the orginal title for the project.

Originally posted by Blind
Instead of building off the Pre-Crisis Superman Christopher Reeves movie, they should have just re-started this franchise as well. I heard Kevin Smith had an awesome scripte all written, and Singer tossed it in the can.

So what? Did you actually hear about what Smith's script included? I'm glad it was thrown out because frankly, it was garbage. And it wasn't Singer who threw it out anyway.... it was Burton.

Ok, just to make sure I've got everything cleared up, I'm going to be a bit more descriptive on what a GREAT script Smith wrote under Peters direction.
In it we have a Superman who can't fly, and doesn't wear the classic red and blue costume (was deemed to faggy by Peters). I also hear that Braniac would have had a gay robot sidekick, and a pet Chewbacca like character. Peters also wanted Sean Penn to play Kal-El because he had "the look of a killer" Additionally, Peters wanted Smith to include a fight with a giant spider (later dubbed a Thanagarian Snare Beast), when he couldn't have that he later put that idea in another movie he produced. A piece of crap we all know as Wild Wild West. There also would have been a nice scene between Lois and Clark on Mt. Rushmore where they talk about their relationship. It would have been a nice touchy little scene, vital to the plot. Buuuutt Peters wanted to cut it out, there wa no time for too many scenes with Lois and Clark, as Peters demanded wall-to-wall action! Peters and the fellows at WB seemed a tad bit more concerned with making money off of merchandising instead of actually making a decent movie. Then, lucky us, we got Tim Burton instantly threw out Smith's script. Under his direction, it's rumored we would have gotten Chris Rock as Jimmy Olsen, and Jack Nicholson as Lex Luthor. Of course that didn't last long and Burton later dropped out of the project. Afterwards, about two directors, scripts, and possible actors for Superman we get Singer, who actually made a decent Superman film.
And with that ladies and gents, I hope you all have a newfound appreciation with the final product we recieved.

those plotholes can easilly be argued that is why it hasn't been massly publicized and I love the doctor thrown at the end. I find it ammusing to read none the less as the movie was descent and that's the fact. The sequel will be godly.

Damn right. And RedAtom, may I add that you have a fantastic sig.

Thank you for the keen complement. All credit goes to The Pittman. Only user I request sigs from this day and age.

I really think it was never intended to be historically accurate. First of all, your hypothesis about Singer not knowing about superman is completely false. Singer was very clear that he was an avid superman fan, and wanted to do the series "justice" It is because he valued the original movies so much that he "rehashed" so much, he was trying to stay true to the originals.

As for the glasses, it always bothered me as well, they should not be there, but in the end I have always believed it was more of an artistic statement than anything. It also makes clark readily distinguishable as a boy (as if the super speed and jumping across a cornfield wasn't enough....) Again, in the end I think it is simply Singer taking a little bit of artistic license. (silly as it is) He knew they didn't belong, but thought they looked good.


Originally posted by Madvillain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLOT-HOLE STUDY #2 - Why Does Young Clark Wear Glasses?

By Dr. Thomas Weintraub
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

This plot-hole is never explained in Superman Returns. And this aspect never shows up in the comics, for young Clark Kent never wore any glasses as a kid. Superman Returns gives no explanation whatsoever about the glasses and what purpose they serve young Clark.

There were many people who saw this movie, both Superman fans and non-Superman fans, that were left scratching their heads over why on Earth young Clark would want to wear glasses. We have reviewed the movie several times, and it has not given a single answer, not even a hint as to why Bryan Singer decided to include young Clark wearing glasses.

As a matter of fact, this aspect even conflicts with the original Superman, the film that Singer rehashed, as we see young Clark wearing no glasses. The glasses on young Clark was obviously something that Singer came up with, however, he has yet to explain why and what purpose this serves.

My hypothesis is that Singer knew nothing about Superman, thus, he added the glasses without knowing why or what for -- he just felt it was the thing he had to do.

So with the analysis presented, the plot-hole that needs to be answered is the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Does Young Clark Wear Glasses?

BTW, to add insult to injury...

You'll notice that when he falls though the roof, and it frames him floating (btw, also incorrect technically, as clark as I understand it learned to fly in the fortress, when he became "superman" but not as a boy).

Anyway, to add insult to injury you'll notice that not only does clark wear glasses, but they actually have a PRESCRIPTION! (notice the scene where he is framed that it bows the light. i.e he has corrective lenses...lol--that is kinda silly no? Again, artisic license me thinks..


Originally posted by SilentKnight
I really think it was never intended to be historically accurate. First of all, your hypothesis about Singer not knowing about superman is completely false. Singer was very clear that he was an avid superman fan, and wanted to do the series "justice" It is because he valued the original movies so much that he "rehashed" so much, he was trying to stay true to the originals.

As for the glasses, it always bothered me as well, they should not be there, but in the end I have always believed it was more of an artistic statement than anything. It also makes clark readily distinguishable as a boy (as if the super speed and jumping across a cornfield wasn't enough....) Again, in the end I think it is simply Singer taking a little bit of artistic license. (silly as it is) He knew they didn't belong, but thought they looked good.

Don't know if I would consider it a plot hole but when the shuttle hit Mach 1 the airplane should of instantaneously been ripped to shreds.

Originally posted by sapphiremouse
the sayin using the crust as a shield is about totally lame.....unless superman is a master alchemists and can turn any mass into lead. which from what i understand is the only thing that can block the kryponite radiation. that whole scene was completely unrealistic. nice try singer , you suck making movies...dont know squat.

Yes, some kryptonite leaked through and he could see it as he lifted. It's not so much a plot hole, as much as a demonstration of his force of will, using every bit of the energy he absorbed (and remember, he still had a tiny fragment of kryptonite stuck in his side) to lift it into space. We saw the effort nearly killed him.

One question truely central to the plot is actually, "How did Lex Luthor Clone Kryptonite"?

The movie pretends to answer this by stating that the crystals inherit the traits of the minerals around them. That flew with me for awhile. Ok, so the crystals inherit the traits of kryptonite....that seems reasonable.

Until, that is, you realize that what makes "Kryptonite" lethal to superman is the radiation that was impregnated in the actual pieces from the explosion of the planet around the red sun. So, when the crystals inherited the traits, it really would have just made a kryptonian island, not a kryptoNITE island. And that, I must say, would have made Lex Luther look like quite the jackass...

I suppose you could argue that radiation is nothing but gamma radiation that results from the decay of subatomic particals, and so--if something turned into the same "element" or composition of elements it, theoretically, would mimic it's radiation. That somehow the explosion changed krypton INTO kryptonite, and that kryptonite is not just krypton + radiation. Maybe.....but it seems to me that kryptonite is radioactive in the same way that a spoon at churnoble is radioactive, it isn't actually the spoon that is radioactive, but rather the explosion of the power plant, and that radioactivity is spread over otherwise normal substances. In short, radiation is not a mineral, it is not a substance--it is energy.

I suppose you could try to, again--say this is duplicated by cloning the mineral that is emitting the radiation, but as demonstrated above....seems a little suspect.

Of course it is ok that Supes had glasses as a boy.

They show superman's son tossing a piano, and looking at his
inhaler as he discovers he does not need it.

Its entirely plausible that he supes powers as an adolecent are only turned on during a period of extreme emotion or adrenoline induced.

the shard of kryptonite superman was stabbed with was the most radioactive and harmful piece seen in the whole film
the island was made up of much weaker form of kryptonite, so even though there may be tonnes of it, only the sheer volume posed a threat to superman, but it was not life threatening and only depowered him
when he went for a sun dip/sun bathe he gains enough energy to overcome the small shard still inside him just long enough to lift the island, but it took all his strength doing so
no kryptonite in its most harmful form is seen in any part of the film
so it is not a plot hole, it shows how powerful and epic superman is


also i liked the scene of him running and jumping through the fields, i don't care if he had glasses or not
it was much better than the original film of young clark running with the train, which is one of the very few parts of first movie i thouht was a it lame
difference being though, i don't say the first film is sh1t just because of that one lame scene, it is still an awesome film

Originally posted by SilentKnight
First, please don't use words that you don't understand. Apoptosis is, as you said, PROGRAMED CELL DEATH. It has nothing to do with damage to cells from an external source. Now that we are done with that bit of stupidity (lol, easy, I'm just kidding here...)

I am not sure where your getting this whole bit about lois leaving shards in him. Lex luthor put one shard in him, which broke cleanly OUTSIDE his body (clearly visible sticking through his suit). She pulled it out and tossed it. He was kryptonite free.

And yes, he flew under the crust. and lifted it up, not the kryptonite island. And as to your "only lead can shield kryptonite" that is not true. Distance itself is a shield. By your logic if I held a piece of kryptonite up in the air and superman flew overhead 10,000 feet up he would fall to the ground because he doesn't have lead in between himself and the kryptonite. wrong. Like any other form of radiation it has a range. (this is why when we take portable x-rays in hospitals we can stand just outside the room with no lead shielding and be ok, because the radiation falls off very quickly.

So to answer your question, 1)He did not have any kryptonite in him when he lifted the island, and 2) he flew under the crust, lifted it (not the island itself) into space. Only as he got higher up into space did the kryptonite begin to grow through the crust and get close to him, at that point the weight of the island was much less, as it was already in space (mass x distance squared). So while he was quickly weakened, he was strong enough to give it a good heave and fall back to earth. The shards that were pulled from him afterward were not from the original shard lex put in him, but occurred subsequent, during the whole continent struggle scene.

Lastely, And this is actually something I liked about the movie, Singer made the effects of kryptonite much weaker. In past movies, superman would be crying in pain and on the floor if kryptonite was even near him. In this movie, it seems to take away his strength, but isn't so "over the top". I actually liked that. (the scene where the sweat beads down his face letting lex know he was weak). i.e. the kryptonite weakened him and took away his powers, but he still walked up the steps. Maybe not true to the comics, but again, I liked the touch (otherwise it is just too much).

SO yeah, 1)kryptonite is weaker in this movie, 2)kryptonite was not in him after lois took it out 3)flew under the crust 4) shielded by distance and earth 5)re-exposed to (weaker)kryptonite only once he lifted the island high

Lois did leave a piece of shard in him, the hospital removed it from him while he was on the stretcher broke off.

Your logic about having distance from the kryptonite would work if it was just Lex's kryptonite shank or ring but it was a whole island. Superman should have been feeling the effects from metropolis. Here in the U.S. we can get hits of radiation from Japan's meltdown. Dirt doesn't protect you from radiation..
So he shouldn't have been able to lift the island with kryptonite still in him. Singer demonstrated that kryptonite takes away his powers in the supes asskicking scene earlier. The island was made of the stuff, dirt included.
The whole sequence was silly and Singer says he had supes willpower his way past kryptonite poisoning.

Originally posted by roughrider
Yes, some kryptonite leaked through and he could see it as he lifted. It's not so much a plot hole, as much as a demonstration of his force of will, using every bit of the energy he absorbed (and remember, he still had a tiny fragment of kryptonite stuck in his side) to lift it into space. We saw the effort nearly killed him.

if you use that logic then the kryptonite shouldn't have effected him in the first place since supes had been "flying high" all day absorbing energy. the whole sun dip thing is dumb enough, Singer just complicated the matter.

Sundips are a natural extension of his powerset. How are they "dumb"?

Originally posted by SilentKnight
I really think it was never intended to be historically accurate. First of all, your hypothesis about Singer not knowing about superman is completely false. Singer was very clear that he was an avid superman fan, and wanted to do the series "justice" It is because he valued the original movies so much that he "rehashed" so much, he was trying to stay true to the originals.

As for the glasses, it always bothered me as well, they should not be there, but in the end I have always believed it was more of an artistic statement than anything. It also makes clark readily distinguishable as a boy (as if the super speed and jumping across a cornfield wasn't enough....) Again, in the end I think it is simply Singer taking a little bit of artistic license. (silly as it is) He knew they didn't belong, but thought they looked good.

Singer was not a so called superman fan. he only heard of superman from the George Reeves tv show and only learned about supes from the donner movies. He admitted he never read a superman comic (most likely played with dolls). He also said he mostly enjoyed the romance from the originals. He didn't rehash SR, he practically remade Superman 1.
Singer was making a sequel to supes 1 & 2 so having young clark wear glasses and fly before his trip to the fortress is a plothole.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Sundips are a natural extension of his powerset. How are they "dumb"?

it was introduced to give supes a reason to have more power. it's a relatively new power. like his soul vision . there is no difference between red and yellow sun energy. sun dipping should cause cell damage to him but whatever....
so now whenever supes is presented with a challenge he'll sun dip his way out of it.

Originally posted by jedi90
it was introduced to give supes a reason to have more power. it's a relatively new power. like his soul vision . there is no difference between red and yellow sun energy. sun dipping should cause cell damage to him but whatever....
so now whenever supes is presented with a challenge he'll sun dip his way out of it.

it was introduced years ago. what do you mean by "relatively" because even john byrne used to reference it.

soul vision is just him seeing energies in the electromagnetic spectrum. it was explained.

red/yellow is just comics. it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate. that's kind of the point of the character's powers.

and no, he sundips rarely if at all. his powers as they are, are usually enough to help him.

if i remember correctly, superman's power intensifies with the sun's radiation.. the radiation emitted by the sun is metabolized by superman's cells in such a way that makes him, well, super.. seeing as how the sun is ground zero for his "energy" source, a sun dip is the most logical thing to do when superman is in a bind.. he's been doing it for a while.. not too often, as Pr said, but he's been known to sun dip here and there..

Originally posted by -Pr-
it was introduced years ago. what do you mean by "relatively" because even john byrne used to reference it.

soul vision is just him seeing energies in the electromagnetic spectrum. it was explained.

red/yellow is just comics. it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate. that's kind of the point of the character's powers.

and no, he sundips rarely if at all. his powers as they are, are usually enough to help him.

I don't remember Bryne using it but in the span of the character's history, it is a new power.

no, supes doesn't have to be scientifically accurate but it does have to have some logic or believable to work.

sundipping shouldn't work or should kill him. similar to all star superman.

Originally posted by jedi90
I don't remember Bryne using it but in the span of the character's history, it is a new power.

no, supes doesn't have to be scientifically accurate but it does have to have some logic or believable to work.

sundipping shouldn't work or should kill him. similar to all star superman.

byrne referenced superman being a solar battery. almost 30 years is no short time.

believable in the context of his own series and his own world, which it is. it's also logical. its been explained how his powers work.

why?

Originally posted by -Pr-
byrne referenced superman being a solar battery. almost 30 years is no short time.

believable in the context of his own series and his own world, which it is. it's also logical. its been explained how his powers work.

why?

The character is 70 years old.

Now a days by the fifth grade most kids are taught that there isn't much difference between a blue, yellow, and red star except age. There is enough science in superman stories to question this.

Over exposure to radiation kills. sundippin is supes over exposing himself to the sun for a power boost. this was also a plot point that was made in all star superman.

facepalm

Originally posted by jedi90
Over exposure to radiation kills. sundippin is supes over exposing himself to the sun for a power boost. this was also a plot point that was made in all star superman. All-Star Superman =/= mainstream Superman. They are two completely different versions of the character, from two completely different continuities. That said, mainstream Superman has sundipped numerous times on panel, with absolutely no ill-effect. He simply becomes more powerful for a duration of time, then the extra power he absorbed wears off, and he returns back to normal.

Regardless, Superman has been preforming actual sundips (or at least moving within close proximity to stars in order to empower himself well beyond the 'norm') for at least 13 years. Like it or not, it is a part of his powerset.

Originally posted by jedi90
The character is 70 years old.

Now a days by the fifth grade most kids are taught that there isn't much difference between a blue, yellow, and red star except age. There is enough science in superman stories to question this.

Over exposure to radiation kills. sundippin is supes over exposing himself to the sun for a power boost. this was also a plot point that was made in all star superman.

it's not the same superman, due to reboots and the like.

He can hear multiple voices more than 2 miles away but can't hear another heartbeat in Lois's stomach.