there you go praylu, your sig says it all really, his son has inherited the kryptonian dna of his father who was subjected to red sun radiation at the time, but that doesnt alter his dna, as in the film, he eventually rid himself of the effect over time. so his son will have powers one way or another.
Originally posted by NPC
Who's to say he didnt? There wasnt anything showing that he didnt do exactly that. Or maybe he just wanted to change history as little as possible given the warning Jorel gave him. Or then again maybe no one other than lois died so there was no point in going back further than he did.
SR has bigger plot holes than you can imagine. Picking up a Kryptonite island? Flying to the created island KNOWING lex would be there KNOWing lex knows his weakness, KNOWING SOMEONE HAD BEEN AT HIS FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE AN TOOK STUFF an NOT PREPARING FOR IT?!? The biggest most retarded plot hole ever conceived!!!!!!
He has telescopic vision, he has x-ray vision, the only thing that can block it is lead. If he sees a compartment of lead on lex from 10 miles away, kryptonite, HFS! He should of went an got a radiation suit a la the cartoon, HFS!
Being found floatin the water with kryptonite in his back, needle in a MF-ing haystack while the helicopter was flying around? My ass!
Lois swimming superman's 250 pd. 6'2" ass alone to the surface? YA RIGHT, while her supposed husband plays the weak helpless douche(ghey like) while the woman(lois) plays the man. Sounds kinda like a ghey plot to me. You have a guy portrayed weak like that it TOTALLY comes off as gay, IM SERIOUS!
Lois taking her kid an wandering RIGHT Into lex's hands? Ignorant
Superman returning in a spaceship? He shoulda been flying his ass around space without a ship. So again makes no sense or isnt explained at all.
I agree with alot of that, but when the found Superman in all that water it was Jason who found him so I suppose his X-ray vision and telescopic vision kicked in, as he was the only one to see him, and Lois did ask twice. At least that is my theory.
And by now Superman should know that if he's going to take on Lex Luthor Lex will have some way of hurting him, especialy when he stole Superman's possesions, i thought he was supposed to be smart.
Also the kryptonite made no sense, at one point it weakens him so much he is being beaten up by 3 normal guys, at another he's lifting a continent into space...make up your mind either it effects him or not, if it was shown to only hurt him then yes I could say he fought through the pain, but it just seemed to turn his powers off in the film.
And when he was in space listning to everything on earth lol, you can't hear anything in space...how did that work. fair enough if they make it so you can hear things in space to make it intresting but don't make a big scene about someone listning in space because that makes no sense, he could have at least been left in the atmosphere.
I still enjoyed the film (even if it was realy long and got abit boring) but these plotholes are just weird to be quite honest. Action scenes were great though.
Originally posted by MattDay
there you go praylu, your sig says it all really, his son has inherited the kryptonian dna of his father who was subjected to red sun radiation at the time, but that doesnt alter his dna, as in the film, he eventually rid himself of the effect over time. so his son will have powers one way or another.
I am all too aware of the eventuality of Superman's powers being passed on to his seed, the original point being disputed was that it was a major plothole in the film due to the fact that it was left unexplained.
There's a difference between something not being explained, and the filmmakers trusting the audience to figure things out for themselves. Since Superman I & II were widely seen, and it's known they are following that continuity more or less, they aren't wasting time explaining everything. Some of us don't need to be spoon-fed.
Originally posted by roughrider
There's a difference between something not being explained, and the filmmakers trusting the audience to figure things out for themselves. Since Superman I & II were widely seen, and it's known they are following that continuity more or less, they aren't wasting time explaining everything. Some of us don't need to be spoon-fed.
*heavy sigh* 🙄
There's also a clear obvious difference between a plothole and "trusting audiences to figure out things for themselves". Yes, it is known by EVERYONE that they attempted to follow the continuity of the first two films, but this goes beyond merely watching the films to connect the pieces. We are dealing with the matter of Superman being "powerless" during his intercourse with Lois and her giving birth to a child who still inherited his father's gifts. It's not "wasting time explaining everything", we're not speaking of something as trivial as Clark's posture changing from one film to another...this is the film's climax. An audience should not have to rely on his/her imagination to fill the gaping hole found residing within the plot of the film.
"Some of us don't need to be spoon-fed"
*Slightly amused by misinformed assumption*
This of course means you are perfectly satisfied with plotholes that leave the audience uninformed of the film's major plot vehicle?
Honestly now, all of us can sit here and develop theories as to what enabled Superman's son to inherit his father's abilities....but none of them will be fact. Why? Because it was left without the mildest push in the proper direction to even conceive of knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt our/my/your theory is true.
I'm not attempting to bring the film down in any shape or form, I am as grand a fan as any other found within this forum.....BUT this does not mean I am going to act as if the film did not have it's mistakes.
It is one thing to defend a film, it is another to ignore & argue all so evident flaws. Many if not all of our favorite films include these no matter how low or high in quanity they may be.
Originally posted by MattDay
I'm lost are you arguing that the kid isn't superman's child or you are? because your arguement is vague to say the least...
NO....what??? 😕
I failt to see where you got that from....
If you've read the last few posts you'll know I'm NOT debating whether or not he is Superman's son, obviously he is and again I don't know where you got the idea that I believed otherwise.
I was conveying the fact that given the events of the second film and the son's inheritance of his father's abilities in SR, everything was left to the imagination of the viewers to fill the gaping hole found residing within the plot of the film.
Originally posted by Praylu
*heavy sigh* 🙄There's also a clear obvious difference between a plothole and "trusting audiences to figure out things for themselves". Yes, it is known by EVERYONE that they attempted to follow the continuity of the first two films, but this goes beyond merely watching the films to connect the pieces. We are dealing with the matter of Superman being "powerless" during his intercourse with Lois and her giving birth to a child who still inherited his father's gifts. It's not "wasting time explaining everything", we're not speaking of something as trivial as Clark's posture changing from one film to another...this is the film's climax. An audience should not have to rely on his/her imagination to fill the gaping hole found residing within the plot of the film.
"Some of us don't need to be spoon-fed"
*Slightly amused by misinformed assumption*
This of course means you are perfectly satisfied with plotholes that leave the audience uninformed of the film's major plot vehicle?
Honestly now, all of us can sit here and develop theories as to what enabled Superman's son to inherit his father's abilities....but none of them will be fact. Why? Because it was left without the mildest push in the proper direction to even conceive of knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt our/my/your theory is true.
I'm not attempting to bring the film down in any shape or form, I am as grand a fan as any other found within this forum.....BUT this does not mean I am going to act as if the film did not have it's mistakes.
It is one thing to defend a film, it is another to ignore & argue all so evident flaws. Many if not all of our favorite films include these no matter how low or high in quanity they may be.
Originally posted by Praylu
We are dealing with the matter of Superman being "powerless" during his intercourse with Lois and her giving birth to a child who still inherited his father's gifts.
Superman may have been powerless when he slept with Lois, but he was (and is) still Kryptonian, not human.
His son would be Kryptonian. (/human)
Being a Kryptonian, living on Earth under a yellow sun, he will have a dense molecular structure, and some(if not all) of the same powers that Superman, Zod, or any other Kryptonian would have on this planet.
Superman not having use of his powers, and becoming mortal, was still Kryptonian. 😖mart:
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Superman may have been powerless when he slept with Lois, but he was (and is) still Kryptonian, not human.His son would be Kryptonian. (/human)
Being a Kryptonian, living on Earth under a yellow sun, he will have a dense molecular structure, and some(if not all) of the same powers that Superman, Zod, or any other Kryptonian would have on this planet.
Superman not having use of his powers, and becoming mortal, was still Kryptonian. 😖mart:
Interesting...but I already knew that.
I was merely discussing the matter that it was left untouched on during SR. One spoken line would have made it clear to all viewing what direction or theory the film was utilizing.
Originally posted by Praylu
Interesting...but I already knew that.I was merely discussing the matter that it was left untouched on during SR. One spoken line would have made it clear to all viewing what direction or theory the film was utilizing.
If you already knew it, then why do you need the film to touch on it?
Obviously you got it on your own. 😄
Originally posted by sithsaber408
If you already knew it, then why do you need the film to touch on it?Obviously you got it on your own. 😄
What I have....is theories/ideas alike you and everyone else. None of them certain for fact. Which is the actual theory or idea that the film intended to follow? It is unknown due to the fact that it was not shown. That was my point.