The Plot-Holes of Superman Returns

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...

Originally posted by Madvillain
(by Dr. Thomas Weintraub)

PLOT-HOLE STUDY #1 - How Could Superman Not Know Lois Was Pregnant?

By Dr. Thomas Weintraub
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

It takes 72 hours for pregnancy to occur from the point of unprotected consummation. If this was the case, then Superman would have had to have sexual intercourse with Lois and then immediately, within a three-day timeframe, have had enough time to build a spaceship, map out a route to the remnants of Krypton, and leave Earth without any explanation. This is highly unlikely, for Superman not only knew that he had sexual intercourse with Lois, but did so without protection. Thus, in the back of his mind, he KNEW that Lois stood a chance of getting pregnant.

Thus if Superman knew, and Lois knew, then they would both know that they would be expecting a child within the next 9 months. However, Superman, abruptly left in his search for “Krypton.” This is the excuse that he uses, however, it is not one that seems to be valid for if he did have unprotected sexual intercourse with Lois, how could he not know that she was going to get pregnant? And he would surely not be the kind of person to leave his girlfriend possibly pregnant without knowing. And Lois could have easily taken a pregnancy test to see if she was indeed pregnant, and would have notified Superman of the news.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Could Superman Not Know Lois Was Pregnant?

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...

Originally posted by Madvillain
(by Dr. Thomas Weintraub)

PLOT-HOLE STUDY #1 - How Could Superman Not Know Lois Was Pregnant?

By Dr. Thomas Weintraub
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

It takes 72 hours for pregnancy to occur from the point of unprotected consummation. If this was the case, then Superman would have had to have sexual intercourse with Lois and then immediately, within a three-day timeframe, have had enough time to build a spaceship, map out a route to the remnants of Krypton, and leave Earth without any explanation. This is highly unlikely, for Superman not only knew that he had sexual intercourse with Lois, but did so without protection. Thus, in the back of his mind, he KNEW that Lois stood a chance of getting pregnant.

Thus if Superman knew, and Lois knew, then they would both know that they would be expecting a child within the next 9 months. However, Superman, abruptly left in his search for “Krypton.” This is the excuse that he uses, however, it is not one that seems to be valid for if he did have unprotected sexual intercourse with Lois, how could he not know that she was going to get pregnant? And he would surely not be the kind of person to leave his girlfriend possibly pregnant without knowing. And Lois could have easily taken a pregnancy test to see if she was indeed pregnant, and would have notified Superman of the news.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Could Superman Not Know Lois Was Pregnant?

My turn at some of these. 😛

This argument first and foremost makes a large leap in logic to say that because Superman slept with Lois, he then KNEW she was pregnant when he left for Krypton.

First it's stated: "Superman not only knew that he had sexual intercourse with Lois, but did so without protection. Thus, in the back of his mind, he KNEW that Lois stood a chance of getting pregnant."

Followed directly by: "Thus if Superman knew, and Lois knew, then they would both know that they would be expecting a child within the next 9 months."... a total change in character.

This is then followed up by the idea that he MUST have known, and wouldn't leave her like that "since he's not that kind of person", and that Lois could have taken a pregnancy test to find out and would have told him.

The logic is quite flawed.

Following through the events of Superman II, Superman gives up his powers and sleeps with Lois. (she is impregnated here, though none of the characters or the audience knows it yet)

They travel back from the fortress of solitude, and eat at a diner, and Clark gets beat up.

He goes and gets his powers back.

He fights the evil Kryptonian villians and saves the day.

He "super-kisses" Lois, and she forgets who he really is.

I don't see her in that time frame taking any pregnancy test, nor is it reasonable to assume that she did so off-screen, considering all that had happened.

As for Supes, he doesn't "know" she's pregnant, and she doesn't say anything to him before he leaves.

He very may have left within the next 3 days or week, since he didn't "build" a new spaceship, but rather took the Kryptonian one that he arrived in back home. (or he "grew" a new one at the Fortress of Solitude with the crystals, take your pick.)

He even says to Ma Kent "I put the ship in the barn."

Seems to me that it's the same ship from Superman I, it certainly looks just like it.

So that answers the question: "How could Superman not know that Lois was pregnant?"

It does not, unfortunately answer the question of what Lois must have thought by the end of Superman Returns.

Obviously upset at supermans departure, it's reasonable to assume that she met Richard White at the Daily Planet within 2 or 3 weeks after Clark leaves, and that in her sadness looks to him for love and comfort and that they slept together about a month after Superman left.

She might not know that she was pregnant for up to another month or two, and at that point, with her memory erased and in a new relationship with Richard and having sex, she would just assume it's his kid.

Funny thing is, by the end of the film she knows that Jason is Superman's son (at least we all do, maybe she doesn't but she surely suspects), and so he must have boned her and then wiped her mind.

Wonder how she feels about that one?

😛

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. 😠

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...

😆 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 Madvillain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLOT-HOLE STUDY #3 - Why Isn‘t Superman Dead?

By Dr. Thomas Weintraub
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Kryptonite is known to cause Superman with a sudden onset of symptoms akin to that of fever, nausea, tremors, and pains in limbs and joints, just to name a few. These symptoms are documented in the comic books over the nearly 68-year-history of Superman comic books.

However, in Superman Returns, Lex Luthor stabs Superman with a kryptonite shiv and breaks it off, leaving a piece of it embedded in Superman’s body. But after Superman’s rescue by Lois, she removes as much of the shiv as possible, but still leaves a substantial amount left inside of his body. But for some reason Superman does not feel any weakness. He is up and flying around as if he is devoid of kryptonite poisoning. This leads to the most ludicrous scene of the film.

Superman, with the kryptonite shiv in his body, still flies around and manages to lift the Kryptonite Continent -- emphasize KRYPTONITE CONTINENT. An entire continent made out Kryptonite cannot be lifted by Superman, either with or without kryptonite embedded in his body. Thus, with the over exposure and prolonged radiation poisoning of kryptonite in his body, Superman should be dead. But he is not.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Isn’t Superman Dead?

Well this one isn't too hard, and I think was already covered by a few folks in here.

He's affected by the stab, and by the piece in him.

We see this, as he can't really swim and is drifting in and out of consciousness.

Lois removes almost all of the piece inside, in fact in the hospital later on the doctor pulls out less than the size of a quarter.

He is probably weakened, and feeling tired by this small sliver and would maybe get very sick if it were left in for weeks at a time, but it takes a significant amount of kryptonite, the size of a full knife or baseball, to actually kill him. (using the movies as cannon, as Singer did.)

As I said, Superman is weakened and tired out by the small piece so he heads up to the sun for a re-charge.

This re-charge coupled with his sheer will-power and determination to stop the continent before he dies is a sufficient explanation as to the small piece not stopping him.

(and he does believe he will die, that this is his last act, as evidenced by the way he says his final "Goodbye, Lois." in the plane)

So that's for the piece inside.

As for lifting a continent of kryptonite....

He doesn't.

He lifts a continent with kryptonite inside of it.

He burrows far beneath it using his heat vision, and lifts it from below.

As it goes higher into space pieces fall off, and the kryptonite starts to come through.

This affects Superman, as we see his hands bleed.

It hurts him.

He makes the final push, and falls to earth.

Depleted, all his solar energy gone.

The effort, the small piece of kryptonite inside of him, and the exposure to the under parts of the continent nearl do kill him.

Makes total sense to me.

The skeptic needs to go soak himself.

Originally posted by Madvillain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLOT-HOLE STUDY #4 - Why Can‘t Kryptonite Kill Superman?

By Dr. Thomas Weintraub
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

In the comics, Kryptonite is known to emit a fluorescent green glow. When all of the radiation of kryptonite -- which has an extremely long half life, but is known to be accelerated by Superman’s physiology -- is exhausted, the glow disappears.

The disappearance of the glow signifies the kryptonite using up all of its radiation and transferring it to some other external object. Thus, in the hospital scene, when the doctor pulls out the kryptonite shiv from Superman, we see the shiv as a piece of NON-GLOWING, transparent material.

Thus, if there is no glow, then the Kryptonite must have exhausted all of its radiation into Superman, thus killing him due to overexposure. But this was not the case. Superman recovers when his cells should have undergone apoptosis -- programmed cell death -- at the immediate exposure of kryptonite.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Can‘t Kryptonite Kill Superman?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank You. -- Dr. T. Weintraub

This is pretty much handled in my last post.

Kryptonite can kill him.

Just not so small of a piece.

Most of the kryptonite that he's stabbed with is removed by Lois, and such a little piece left would make him weak and tired but not kill him.

He's recharged by the sun, and lifts the continent. As the skeptic states, the sliver left already absorbed into Superman and did it's damage.

(however this "glowing" theory is only from the comics, and not movie cannon)

My last post handles this better, as the piece is small enough not to kill him, but still effects him regardless of its "glow."

"Why can't kryptonite kill superman?" = crock of crap.