Superman Through the Ages! Forum

In Superman II, when the Krypton guys throw the bus at Superman, why doesn't he stop it, or get out of the way, or even stand there and the bus would just slice down the middle and keep going around him? Do you see what I'm saying? And don't say it's because of how hard they threw it. That doesn't make any sense because the bus is still just a regular Earth bus.

Thanks for any help, as I am very comfused.

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but weren't there people in the bus?  I seem to recall people climbing out of it after it hit.  I could be wrong, however, since I haven't watched the entire movie in a long, long time.

There were people in the bus, but that still doesn't explain why he couldn't stop it. There are also major fluctuations in his powers throughout the movies, TV shows, and comic books. For example, in Superman III I think it was, Lois Lane is killed and he flies around the Earth until it actually starts spinning in the other direction, turning back time allowing him to save Lois. Now if he can move that fast, surely he could have gotten everyone safely out of the bus before it crashed, right?

That was Superman I where he turned back time to save Lois.  Lois had a cameo in Superman III.  They used Lana instead.
But you're right.  He should have been able to actually stop the bus without sliding all the way down the street.
If you want to rationalize it, maybe the street surface couldn't hold up to his pressure against the bus, or maybe if he anchored himself the entire bus would have been smashed and the people killed.
There were a lot of flaws in Superman II.  Like how the Zone villains has more powers than Superman;  how Superman could remove his S Shield and throw it and have it enlarge to wrap around someone and still have it on his chest, how Superman could be in several places at once in his fortress.
Maybe if the original version were kept it would have been better.  Superman II was supposed to follow Superman I directly.  As I had heard, the atomic missle Luthor shot off that Superman pushed into space was supposed to have freed the Zone villains and Superman was supposed to have had his powers removed because he violated Jor-El's rule about not interfering with human history by saving Lois.  The switch in directors plus the problems with Marlon Brando's contract required a lot of what was shot during the filming of Superman I for the second film to be scrapped.

They didn't have more powers than him, there were three of them. Superman has always had relatively slow reflexes. He wasn't in several places at once, they were holograms. And I can't explain the S thing. It wasn't a missile, radiation waves from the hydrogen bomb in the elevator (from the Eiffel Tower) shattered the phantom square thing, subsequently freeing the three Kryptonian villains imprisoned within. And don't even get me started on the giant enveloping emblem. And as for Marlon Brando, he was only on screen for like nine minutes, why did he even have a contract?

Speaking of the film and its final confrontation, did always wonder (and somewhat bothered by) what happened to the Phantom Zone villains at the end, there---they just get knocked into that pit and presumably are killed? Even for thugs as loathsome as these three, it seems to me a rather, um, Byrne-like solution... ;-)

Well, the Zone villains could point their fingers and levitate people.  I can't recall seeing even Superman doing that in the films.  
Of course, one can rationalize that maybe they had those abilities before the sent into the Zone and that was how they tried to take over Krypton.  It might also explain why putting them into the Phantom Zone was the only solution.
Yes, the pit bothered me, too.  Seems like Superman and Lois killed all three villains at the end.
That was always the problem with the Superman movies.  A lot of things never made any sense and no attempt was made to explain it.

They don't die at the end.  I've seen the extended version of the moive, where there is a scene at the end showing the "Arctic Police" putting them under arrest and loading them into a van.  (Got it off ebay)

It also had the scene that showed Clark going back to pay for the hot dog at Niagra Falls.

Nice little touches - too bad they were cut out.

I'm sure Superman can do the levitating thing too, but why would he be running around levitating people? And another thing. For purposes of this conversation, let's say that Superman is 35 years old. So that would mean that Krypton exploded approximately 35 years ago. This raises a few questions. First, the three villains look exactly the same on krypton as they do on Earth 35 years later. Second, the movie takes place in approximately 1975, meaning Krypton exploded in 1940, which would presumably be when Cal El landed on Earth. So that must mean that Smallville (the TV show) takes place in around 1957. But I'm not even going to go into all of the inconsistencies between Smallville and the Superman movies. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they had one-manned, self propelled rocket ships capable of travelling 50 light years on a single tank of gas in 1940, and don't you think that if one were to find such a ship, they would tell someone? Or am I reading way too much into this?

About the levitating thing;  that was the explanation the producers eventually gave out to the public.  Superman could do it, they said, but we just didn't see him.
Still, this was a power that Superman never had before.  
One day I would like to see the uncut film.  The scene with the Arctic police would have been good.

Ah, the PZ crooks live, then--good. Wouldn't want to think the movies' writers were having premonitions of Mr. Byrne or anything... :-)  ("Arctic Police"?! Not Canadian, Russian or U.N. law enforcement officials?)

>>I'm sure Superman can do the levitating thing too, but why would he be running around levitating people? And another thing. For purposes of this conversation, let's say that Superman is 35 years old. So that would mean that Krypton exploded approximately 35 years ago.
This raises a few questions. First, the three villains look exactly the same on krypton as they do on Earth 35 years later.
<<

As the comics explained, those in the Phantom Zone don't age at all while there---how Mon-El was able to stay in there for 1,000 years...

>> Second, the movie takes place in approximately 1975, meaning Krypton exploded in 1940, which would presumably be when Cal El landed on Earth. So that must mean that Smallville (the TV show) takes place in around 1957. But I'm not even going to go into all of the inconsistencies between Smallville and the Superman movies.<<

Don't think Smallville and the movies are connected in any way (a few tongue-in-cheek references by Smallville's writers aside, perhaps). While Clark's teen years in the movies were (as they were in the 70's comics of the time) shown as taking place in the 1950's (we hear "Rock Around the Clock" playing on the radio in one of his classmates' cars...granted, we also see a Black student hanging out with all-White students. In the *1950's*? I suppose Smallville is a reasonably accepting place and all, but still, it is the 50's [and esp. with no Superboy as a good example]...).

If one wanted to set "Smallville" in the past (which it obviously isn't---Clark is using the Internet on a late-model Mac), Clark's teen years should be taking place in the late 80's to early 90's. Think Katie Couric upon seeing Smallville for the first time asked one of the show's producers about why the cars looked "too new"...

>> Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they had one-manned, self propelled rocket ships capable of travelling 50 light years on a single tank of gas in 1940, and don't you think that if one were to find such a ship, they would tell someone? Or am I reading way too much into this?<<

Well, they don't have such faster-than-light ships *now* ;-)  but I suppose you might be wondering why the Kents didn't tell someone about a device that in the 1940s was still experimental/science fiction at best to the people of Earth. Um...because the Kents were good people and not about such exploitation (esp. since there was a baby involved)?

Well then I guess everything's wrapped up in a neat little package. One more thing, has anyone else noticed that everyone Clark comes in contact with in Smallville happens to be carrying a piece of Kryptonite in their pocket?

That's true.  It was even worse the first season, where everything had to do with kryptonote.  At least there's a little more variety now.
It's been pretty much accepted in all versions that the Kents never said anything about the rocket because they feared they would lose Clark.  Too many questions they would have to answer if they revealed the rocket.

I think the original question was more about physics (or what passes for physics in the world of superheroes). And I have the same problem.  In fact the whole fight scene is a mess from my point of view:

- A hurled manhole cover, upon hitting Superman, does not bounce off (as bullets do) or crumple (as you might expect) but instead lifts Superman off his feet and sends him flying as well.

- A lampost swung at the head of Superman, but hitting Non instead, should, you would think, wrap around Non's head like taffy (after all, he's stronger than the steel in the post).  Instead it sends Non "out of the park" like a human baseball.

- Superman is tossed into a cigarette truck (nice product placement there!) and the side crumples like thin aluminum (guess why!).  So apparently Kryptonians' bodies are stronger than the steel in vehicles, but not stronger than the steel in manhole covers and light poles.

- Superman "cages" Non on top of a skyscraper with a radio antenna.  Again, for some reason you really expect the feet of the tower to crash through the roof of the building.  Instead they bend like rubber.  And incredibly, Superman flies off, when it's obvious the next step for Non will be to brush the tower aside and fly away.  Which means the tower is once again falling toward the street, more people are in danger and Superman has accomplished nothing.

The original question on this thread, I think, is in a similar vein.  Why, when a bus is thrown at Superman, is he not able to stop its forward motion?  Why is a flimsy thing of Earthly steel able to move a super-powered Kryptonian backwards when he is making an obvious effort to stand still?  It should not be possible.

Frankly, it's "little stuff" like this that ruins the film for me (well, that and an insane plot that establishes an absolute rule, then breaks it with no explanation).  To this day I can't understand why so many fans regard it as better than the first film, let alone call it the greatest comic book movie of all time.  It is a total mess.

On Smallville, Jonathan and Martha are always talking about people taking Clark away. Who's going to be able to take him away? Of course judging by his previous actions, Clark would probably go with them and let them do whatever they wanted to him. And I would have liked the scene in the diner at the end of Superman II to be a bit longer, and a lot more graphic. The producers really blew a great opportunity there. One more thing, the circumference of the Earth is 24,900 miles. In the first movie, I'm estimating he was flying around the planet about 3 times per second. Therefore, he was moving at approximately 75,000 miles per second. So that means Superman can fly at almost half the speed of light, but he can't dodge a man hole cover thrown from 20 feet away?

I stand by my assertion that IV and I are both much better films than II.


Maybe he doesn't dodge because his only limit is really the speed of his thought?

That's what I said before. He has slow reflexes, even compared to humans.

No matter which way you look at it, the physics are screwed up.  Even if you rationalize that Superman was caught off guard when the manhole cover hit him, would it have really moved him?
I agree.  In some respects even # IV was better than #II.

You're right, it should have just bounced off him. One more thing, what does the "S" on Superman's chest stand for?

It was supposed to be the El family crest or something.

Then why "S"? Why not E, or even J? I originally thought it stood for Superman, or even Smallville, but then I saw the symbol on Marlon Brando's shirt in the movie. So that means it couldn't stand for Superman, because Jor-El was dead at least 30 years before he was called Superman. One more thing, on Krypton, why do they have hyphens between their first and last names (Jor-El, Kal-El, Lara-El, etc.)?

I always thought it stood for Siegel and Shuster.

?

the creators of Superman

(http://superman.nu/superboy-lives/images/symbol.jpg)

 :D

Wow, so I guess it does stand for Superman. But that still doesn't explain why it was on Jor-El's shirt. One more thing, I never fully understood, at the end of Superman III, when Clark gives Lana the diamond ring, is he asking her to marry him, or is he just giving her a ring to replace the one that she had to pawn?

In the comics it stood for Superman.  In the movies, it was explained in press releases as the El family symbol.  There were a lot of things like that in the films, and people just have to accept them.

Gotcha. What about the ring?

I disagree. I've always looked at the Superman movies as getting worst with each sequel. Superman III was too campy and had a co-star (Pryor) who was so out of place it wasn't even funny. Superman IV: The Quest For Peace had a good idea (Superman getting rid of all nuclear weapons) but had the lamest villain of the series and bad special effects.

While Superman II isn't perfect by ANY means, it's the only one of the Superman sequels that I can watch. I'm hoping that the proposed "Special Addition" fixes some of the flaws and adds some new stuff.

As for the reason why so many people like the first sequel, there are several reasons, IMO. First of all, Donner's elements were still noticeable in the first sequel. Second, the first sequel was the most closely connected to its predecessor (also because of Donner). Third, Terence Stamp gave a great performance as General Zod. Fourth, this film actually had Lois discover Superman's secret identity and the two had a strong romantic involvement.

That reminds me, what was the deal with that whole memory-erasing kiss thing?

It was a Deus ex machina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex_Machina), similar to the ending in the first movie.

Basically, the "super-kiss" was a power created to solve the problem of Lois knowing Superman's secret. I can't say that I particularly liked it.

One of the things I always liked about Superman IV is that it becomes pretty clear that Lois never actually forgot anything as a result of that kiss, she just went along it.

Why do you say that?

Do you have the Superman IV DVD?

Scene 11:

Superman: "You remember, don't you."
Lois: "I remember everything."

The entirety of Scene 22, where Lois brings Superman's cape to Clark's apartment for him, and tells him how she feels about him.

And the closing scene (27) right before Superman addresses the public, where he tells Lois that he had a good nurse (referencing Scene 22)

I have the DVD box set. So I guess the kiss is only temporary. That's not very Superman-like. And what about Lana and the ring?

Going back and watching those scenes in Superman IV,  I realized it wasn't so clear-cut as a I remembered it being.  The whole thing is really open to viewer interpretation.  My interpretation of Lois going along with the gag works, but so would an interpretation that Superman is using Lois, somehow making her constantly remember and forget and remember again.  Or maybe as Lois' love grows, so does her inner knowledge of Superman's dual-identity.  There are probably other interpretations that would work.


No idea.