Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Hello. This is my first post on this MB. Anyway, I re-watched Superman 1 and 2 this weekend for the first time in years, and I noticed some plotholes that I never noticed before. If anyone can help me out with this, I'd appreciate.

- How is Superman able to turn back time by flying around the world? How did he know he had this power and why did he never use it before?
If he could turn back time why didn't he just go back enough to stop Lex from launching the missiles in the first place?

- If Supes went to save Lois after turning back time, what happened to the bus on the Golden Gate Bridge, the train, and the exploding dam?

-And why did Lois get mad at Supes after he rescued her! That woman is just rude! He should of let her die!

And of course Superman II(yes, I am nitpicky)

- Why the hell would Lois jump off Niagra Falls to try to prove a suspicion she had the Clark might be Superman?!? That is insane! Isn't she an ivestigative reporter? Why didn't she start investigating Clark? You know, like following him around and such until she could find hard prove that he is Superman?

- How did Clark and Lois get a car and drive back to that diner from the North Pole after Clark lost his powers?

- And for that matter, how did Clark get his powers back?

- And how did he get back to the North Pole without powers, and how did Lois get back to Metropolis?

- How did the Phantom Zone guys(forgot their names) get so strong so fast? Clark powers came from spending years under the yellow sun!

- And how were the able to discover all their powers so fast. Especially flying, which Clark only learned to do at 18!

- And aliens from another planet speak English?(I only find this a slip-up because General Zod and his friends could speak english. I believe that when we hear the people of Krypton talknig to each other, they are actually speaking in their own language. And whenever somebody hears the Jar-El or Lara in the crystals,  I believe that anybody would understand it in any language because there is a physic link)

- When did Supes switch the crystals around so that the others would be the ones to have their powers removed? And why would he kill General Zod and let the other 2 die! Supes would never do this! He could of easily put them in jail!

- And how did Clark erase Lois's memory by just kissing her?

- And why the hell would Clark go back to that Diner and beat that guy up!

Welcome!

You've made some pretty good observations.  Here's my take on some of them:


An excellent point.  The only way this can work is if Superman isn't turning back time, but is actually travelling back in time.  So that once he is back in time rescuing Lois, there is still the earlier version of himself going around rescuing the bus, the train, and the dam, who then travels back in time to rescue Lois.  Yes, it's weak, but if you watch the movie this way it makes a bit more sense.

A bit.



If you watch the extended version of Superman II, you'll discover that this is exactly what happens.  The "Arctic Police" come to haul the three phantom zone criminals away.  This is a scene that should not have been cut, because it creates the mistaken impression that Superman killed Zod.  He didn't.

They also cut the scene where Clark goes back to pay for the hotdog he got at Niagra Falls.



He only thought he did.  Lois went along with it. 8)

That's a good theory. I like it. But wouldn't that mean that there should be 2 Supermen?



Huh? Are you joking?

Yes, exactly.  We just don't ever see it.  We only see the time travelled Superman, but not the earlier one.  He's off doing all those rescues that we already saw the first time around.


Well, this one is a bit more off the wall.  But it works for me - try watching II and then IV with this in mind.

Short answer...he can't!  Ever since I first saw this film in the theater, I have never understood why flying around the Earth, no matter how fast you did it, would cause it to change rotation at all.  At most, a super-being zipping around in opposition to the directon of rotation might be able to suck away the atmosphere or even some surface dwellers and structures, but reverse the rotation of the Earth itself?  Not a chance.  In the comics, he probably would have achieved the same goal by pushing against the Earth.  But even there you have the problem of basic physics.  With no foothold to push from, how could he push at all?

Second, even assuming you could reverse the direction of the Earth's rotation, or even slow it significantly (in the film, it nearly stops momentarily), in theory everyone on the planet would fly off into space.

And third, why should reversing the Earth physically also cause a temporal reversal.  Especially since time is not a local phenomenon unique to Earth, but rather one that applies to the entire Universe.  By this logic, I should be able to undo today's mistakes by simply walking backwards to "yesterday."

In short, this scene makes no sense and never has.  But you add another twist I'd never thought of...what gives Superman the notion this would work in the first place?  Did he think, "Hey, I know! I'll use my time-reversal power!"  This is a recurring problem in the films, as we will later see with Superman's "memory-wiping kiss power," his "rebuild the Great Wall with his eye-beams" power, and of course his "make a giant cellophane net out of a chest emblem" power.

In fairness to the movie-makers, though, Superman did time-travel in the early comics by flying around in circles until he disappeared into the time stream (!!).  But even then, two rules applied:  one, only Superman himself moved through time and two, Superman learned repeatedly that the past cannot be changed, period.



A very good question.  This is the problem that plagues many time-travel films, of course, including Star Trek: Generations.  




More good questions.  Notice that Jimmy runs up to yell at Superman for leaving him on the side of the road.  Which he does after saving him from the dam, which wouldn't have busted without the missile having exploded.  Something is obviously missing here.  Note that we don't see Superman picking Lois' car out of the crevice a second time (but with her alive now instead of dead).  Rather it appears that in the second go-round she was never threatened by the fissure at all. And while I applaud Valdemar's efforts to explain this away with a "present Superman" and "past Superman," your follow-up question is a good one: why are there not now two Supermen?  What would make the "past self" simply disappear?

This segment is what keeps the movie from being truly great, in my book.  At least it took the comics several decades to start inventing powers to get Superman out of every jam.  It only takes the movie an hour and a half.



Well, he shouldn't let anyone die, of course, even Lois.  But I agree whole-heartedly that there have been very few incarnations of Lois Lane, inside or outside the comics, who were worthy of Superman's love.  He could do so much better.



Well, I can't count this one as a plot hole or mistake. It's entirely consistent with Lois' character in the films. After all, it wasn't too bright to sneak up the Eiffel Tower either, was it?  Lois Lane is a nitwit and a constant irritant, plain and simple.  In Margot Kidder's version, she's dumber than usual...Perry may call her his "best reporter," but she can't type very well and needs help spelling even the simplest words.



Santa Claus runs a Hertz franchise in the off-months between Christmases. :-)



As the Tootsie Pop commercial says, the world may never know.  This is the biggest cheat in a film full of cheats.  "After this I can never, never, never get my powers back.....Okay, I've got my powers back!"  Considering this dilemma is at the very heart of the film's plot, it's unforgiveable that the writers were too lazy to even try to explain its resolution.

My dream re-make of this film involves a plot lifted from the old Phantom Zone mini-series (and the Supergirl film).  Instead of the unbelievable (even offensive) "love story" with Lois, the way to get Superman out of the picture should have been to stick him in the Phantom Zone in place of the villains.  Then we could have had two plots going: Superman's struggles to escape the Zone and the villains' evil acts on Earth.  And Margot Kidder could have gone off to do an add for super-Polygrip or something.



Actually, I think this is an element of the legends that came later.  In the pre-Crisis continuity (when this film was made), I think Kryptonians got Superman-level powers pretty much as soon as they showed up under a yellow sun.  Notice in the first film that baby Kal-El can lift a truck over his head on day one.  I think the movie Clark grows up with super-powers but, unlike the comics version, he keeps them under wraps until adulthood.  (In contrast, Byrne's version doesn't really even have great powers until his late teens)

If Clark was weaker earlier on, it was because he was a boy, but if an adult Kryptonian came to Earth, he'd be immediately near to Superman's levels.  Then the thing that would keep Supes on top would be experience and his good physical condition (in the same way that if we all suddenly became super-powerful, Super-Mike Tyson would still be able to beat Super-Roger Ebert!).  A line of dialog bears this out: one onlooker says, "the big one's as strong as Superman!"  I take this to mean that Zod (a thinker) and Ursa (a girl) are not as powerful as Supes, but Non (a muscleman) is.



Well, this is a convention of Sci-Fi from way back.  Aliens always understand what we say.  Unlikely I grant you, but think of it like Cinderella's glass slipper or Clark Kent's glasses: it may not make sense, but without it, there's no story.




Oxygen deprivation.   :D   As stupid as she is, I'm wondering if he hasn't been kissing her a lot!

 

Because bullies need to get their just desserts.  What's that? A bully is a powerful guy beating up on a less powerful guy?  Oh, then I guess Clark is the bully now, isn't he?  Well, he got his just desserts later.  He had to come back for Superman III.

I really love some of these responses!    :rotfl:  It is fun hearing (reading) other people come up with some of the same questions and answers I have had.   Whether it is a tv show, comic or movie, when it comes to Superman flaws and inconsitancies I generally just try to let things go and enjoy my favorite hero.  If I stopped to question every little thing then I would never have been able to get through Superman III or IV.  Superman fighing himself, Street signs fighting eachother, and Nuclear Man to top it all off  :9: --- where would you begin?  There is a phrase that is used among theater people that I feel sums it up: "Suspension of disbelief".   :wink:

When it comes to Superman III and IV, there's an even better phrase: "Save Your Money!"

Suspension of disbelief is certainly a handy skill to have when it comes to watching any superhero movie, or reading a comic book, but I believe the story-teller enters into a sort of unspoken agreement with the viewer/reader.  The viewer agrees to accept certain impossibilities in order for the story to be told, and in turn the storyteller agrees to keep the foolishness to an acceptable level.  

For example, in watching Star Trek I will accept faster-than-light travel even if scientists tell me it can't be done, for the simple reason that without it the story cannot be told.  On the other hand, if an episode has Spock repeatedly acting out of character, or suddenly showing new super-powers, or if Kirk goes outside the ship without a spacesuit and is none the worse for wear, well then I'm jarred out of the story and everything falls apart.

Similarly, while I'm willing to  "believe a man can fly," there are some things that are not only outlandish, but actually work against the story.  For example, turning the world back to reverse time is, besides impossible, also a storytelling "cheat." Once you've done it, you can never create suspense again, because everyone will know, "hey if Superman doesn't make it in time, so what?  He can always reverse time and fix things later."

The "super-power for every situation" problem is just as bad.  Superman never has the ability to create "super-cellophane" except for that one time he does it.  In the same fight scene, I'm willing to accept what looks like teleportation and even replication on his part, on the assumption that it's really super-speed movement (ala The Flash).  But how does he manage to create a breathing simalacrum of himself that turns to plaster when Ursa kicks it?  And where do the villains get the power to shoot blue rays out of their finger-tips?  In Superman IV, what's with the power to rebuild things using eye beams?  The fun part of writing Superman, I would think, would be finding ways for him to use the (already considerable) powers he has to solve problems, not "grow" a handy new power for every crisis.  Heck, look how many millions of uses the Flash found for a power you'd think would be relatively useless: super-speed.

Lord knows movie scripts don't have to be 100 percent logical, but if they do deviate from logic, it should be to help the film.  For instance, the sound of ships exploding in Star Wars makes the battle scenes much better, even though we all know there is no sound in space.  In that case, breaking the rules enhances our experience rather than detracting from it.

Some other little things in Superman II bugged me even as a relatively uncritical teenager way back in '81.  Remember at the beginning of the film Clark is blind-sided by a Taxi cab (so much for super-reflexes!) and the car is demolished while Clark doesn't even lose his footing.  But later in the film Superman is hit by a flying manhole cover and it sends him hurtling backwards.  If a two-ton car crumpled against his body, why wouldn't a much smaller and lighter disc of iron?  Same with the light pole that sends Non "out of the park." Shouldn't it have merely wrapped around his head like a licorice stick?

And I don't know how many of you have been to Niagara Falls, but trust me if you fell over the rail there's no way the fall would last as long as it takes Superman to save that kid.  It's just not that high up.

I think the big question is, having suspended your disbelief, was the pay-off really worth it?  In the case of Superman films, for me the answer is YES for parts 1 (almost always) and 2 (by a nose), but NO for parts III and IV.

I didn't mean to make it sound like I think writers can do whatever they want because it is a fictional subject.  It drives me crazy that they have done so many ridiculous, nonsensical things, and nightwing made some excellent points.  It is because I am the kind of person who will nit pick at every tiny thing that I have to let go.  I love Superman.  If I don't let go I won't be able to enjoy the various stories about him.  
  The one thing I have to draw the line at is when they loose the sense of who the character is at heart and what drives him.  I am really afraid of that happening with the new movie.  I don't want it to turn out like the last Batman movie.  From the choices they have been making so far (remember Nickolas Cage? :l: ) it seems like no one there knows anything about Superman except that he is a guy who flies in a cape.  I can tolerate goofball powers and a few plotholes, but ruining the essence of Superman will infuriate me. :s:

Kara go to www.supermancinema.net and read up on SII. Richard Donner, the real Superman diretor or SI and SII had all this in mind, I wouldn't nit pick at the turning back time thing. It's a film. You'll enjoy ther movie less if you do this. What you see of SII on video is not the real film. Richard Donner had 85% of the film done and was fired. They only used 30% of his work. I have an extended European verion with 50% of Donner's footage and am getting the SII restored verion soon. The famous green cut cos I supplied the soundtrack for the fan edit. Marlon Brando shoot the footage of giving up his powers, Reeve faints and get his powers restored by Jor-El sacrificing himself for his son. The bit with Lara talking about the molecule chamber is actually supposed to be Brando, and this was shot. If you notice Hackman and Perrine are looking up (remember in SI Jor-El is a hallogram in the air) but it SII it's a crystal plaque. Lara's (York's) large crystal in on ground level but Hackman is looking up. There is also a lot cut out. Donner has his own Paris scene filmed and in the can and also his own honeymoon scene in the can. It's called the bullet scene. Lois has a blank gun and Clark owns up but then Clark says "I wasn't Superman, Clark Kent would be dead now. Lois says "What, with a blank, Got ya". Also before the Paris scene she jumps put the window or the Daily Planet.

i agree he is the superman and even though something dont make sense its because, SUPERMAN ALWAYS HAS TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION

regartung the questions of the Superman movie most can be answered un the encyclopedia on this site.
 Considering that Zod and and his cohorts have been banished to the Phantom zone seems they had plenty of time to understand and speak English though not to well versed after all they heard they heard the earth transmissions and referreed to the planet earth as planet Houston
 Remember thids is a fiction ubiverse where the general laws of physics don't apply Someone once stated Xena being  in several time perios in History and remained in her 20s-30-s spanning 3000 years called it the Xenaverse just call it the kryptyoverse here then

Part of the problem with the ending for Superman is that it was a last minute thing.  Donner and one of the writers realized that the ending was missing the human element.  That is why Lois dies, and the turning back time thing happens.

Also, the event was supposed to cause the destruction of the Fortress, as punishment for Supes trying to change the course of human history.  Also, missle he just threw up into space was supposed to free the Phantom Zoners in the second movie.

The Lois and Niagara thing was not Donner stuff.  She jumped out a window at the Daily Planet, but knew she would be saved by the awning of the fruit cart we saw in Superman 1.  She shoots Clark with blanks at Niagara, and he reveals the secret because he thinks they were real bullets.

Clark got his powers when Jor-El sacrificed himself for Kal-El.  You don't see this because it was cut Donner footage.  It was shot.

Lois took the car back to Metropolis (must've been a long drive).  The car was probably in the garage at the Fortress (makes about as much sense as anything else).

Actually, Clark has his powers, he just didn't know about them.  Remember baby Clark holding up the Kent truck in Superman 1?  As for the others, they were adults so it came to them easier.

Clark set up everything when he went back to the Fortress to regain his powers.  Luring the criminals to the Fortress was all part of the plan.  He didn't kill anybody.  Luthor, Miss Tecshmacher, and the criminals were arrested by the Arctic police.

The kiss was something from the comics of the 60s.  It didn't actually work in the movie though.  She revealed in Superman 4 that she still remembered.  Of course, that didn't stop him from trying it again in Superman 4.

Superman's whole ideal is to Champion the weak and oppressed.  The bully was definetly oppressing the others in the diner.  Clark went back to show him a lesson, to show him what it's like to be bullied, and to pay for all the damage to the diner.

Hmm...so he gets to save his girlfriend and monkey with history and his only "punishment" is that a big, empty, unsightly structure made of "pick-up sticks" falls apart?  Sounds like a pretty good trade to me.  Compared to the museum/retreat/resort/refuge of the comics, the movie "Fortress" looks like a big ugly beaver dam.



I always thought it would have been better to have the time-warp stunt somehow release them.  Maybe that mirror-thingie that represents the Zone could have been near Earth's orbit and when Superman whips the Earth around backward, the space-time continuum could be ripped up around it.  That way when the baddies get out and make his life Hell, the ghost of Jor-El could say, "see, you idiot, I told you not to monkey around with time!"

This would also add to the romance sub-plot. When Superman realizes his saving Lois unleashed disaster on Earth, he could resolve by the end of movie 2 to put his hormones on the back burner and concentrate on his job.



Well, I don't think it was cut because it was Donner's.  It was cut because they got into money disputes with Brando (hence the participation of Lara instead of Jor-El).

Anyway, I don't miss it.  The added DVD footage with Superman conversing with Jor-El is troubling to me, and this "sacrifice" scene would have made it much worse.  Did Jor-El die on Krypton or didn't he?  Are we seeing a pre-taped hologram?  A ghost?  Jor in the Phantom Zone?  What the heck is going on here?  Whatever the explanation, I can't warm to the notion that Superman needs his Daddy around to do his thinking and moralizing for him ("Keep your secret ID or your friends could become targets").  This is an addition to the mythos we don't need.




That's one scene it would've helped to keep in (I hear it was filmed).  Only problem is there are no Arctic Police, but if there were it'd probably be the most action they'd seen in their whole careers!



Really?  Do you remember what the explanation was in the comics for why it worked?



I think every bully knows what it's like to be bullied. They're usually part of a bigger cycle of violence and cruelty.  But I might be willing to accept that Clark wanted to impress on the guy that the worm occasionally turns.  That way, next time he might think "Hmmm, maybe I won't pick on this nerd.  The last one turned out to be a tiger!"

And the damage Clark paid for was the damage he did.

General Zod and his trio of terror could not betaken into normal Human Xustody Superman probably already would have known how to return criminals to Phantom Zone
 they would be too dangerous to be allowed even in a prison with Their Super intellect had  no choice but to be returned tp the phantom zone
 after alll some were temporily sentenced only to that isoled place and kal-el would have known that too so Zod
 in Superman 1 Luthor was returned to prison.
II left you guessing probably thinking Zod would make a SUPER comebaclk that never happened
 As to alering the timeline. all theroys are only hypothetical as it has never been done,
 Personally don't wanna know could sleep in a free US today and a Nazi tyranical state tommorow Life is uncertain enough in the one timeline we already live in

While I had most of the same problems with plot holes as most, the how he got his powers back wasn't one of them . The green crystal, which in the 1st film was shown to be the main power for the Fortress wasn't in place when he used the machine to take his powers. Lois had dropped it aside earlier.  When Clark gets back (& yes that makes little sense considering how he was dressed) it sensed his problem and used its power to restore him. My impression of what Jor-El was in the 1st film was a holographic representation of the real Jor-El which gave voice to a sophisticated interactive computer program capable of responding to most of the anticipated questions of Kal-El. The extended version does indeed show that the Kryptonians weren't killed and Luthor was not abandoned. Another interesting scene put back in has Clark destroyuing his now desecrated Fortress before taking Lois back to Metropolis.

the kryptonians had extensive knowledge of many planets, including earth.  Zod & company probably know hundreds (or thousands) of languages.    

   
     I don't think Superman (in the first movie) did any time travelling or time-reversing.  The whole sequence between lois's car going into the ditch & him saving her, was something he imagined.  


    One of the problems i had with the movies was how Lex luthor was done.  as a buffoon more or less.  in the first movie he discovers kryptonite & uses it against superman.  but in the second movie he goes to see zod & co. without it.  Lex knew they were evil & all three of them had superman's powers.

Look, I like the idea of continuity and all. But the focus of the new movie w/Brandon Routh should be on the phantom Zone Criminals in Jail Scheming to get their powers back and try to rule the world again...

Also...Work it in so that Non could speak. Have it work out this way...

Have it revealed that Non was sucker-punched in the neck by zod back on krypton. (unknown to ursa and to non, who got it from behind so he doesn't know) to make him mute...save for his grunts and his necessity to look for Zod's Guidance, in destroying things.

Zod did this because Non (child like) F 'ed up on something deserving that.

Zod then comes back sees Non holding his neck, makes up some story about evil insurgents doing it. Non believes it ('cuz he's stupid anyway)

then, Ursa, thinking that Non got mute some other way (according to zod, who she trusts and believes...)is the reson why she hates all men.

All this time Non believes one story, ursa believes another about how Non got mute.

I mean you'd think by now Ursa would've killed Non and Zod because of her hatred for all men, right? Wrong!

Because Non is Actually Ursa's brother. (although NOT Revelaed in the previous movies except for this one) She may have gotten him chemically neutered, but doesn't kill him.

She finds out because somehow Non finds himself glued to a television set, watching some kiddie show teaching kids how to sound out words...hence he learns to speak again, they start talking to each other and find that they got two diffrent stories from Zod. they both determine Zod did it.

Zod comes back kills Non, ready to let loose on ursa (how he got his powers back, i dunno) (but she gets them secondly)

and BLAMMO. URSA lets loose on ZOD
like hell hath no fury...leaving most of (insert major city here) in great big piles of u-no-what

And Zod is half to 3/4's  dead, Ursa has busted up knuckles, and a cut lip and black eye...but still looks sexy. and sexy beating the sh!t outta zod

and Ursa turns good...for a little while...I mean the only other superbeing on the planet is Clark, and Ursa thinks to herself....Well seemed to have a bigger *SHOE SIZE* (ahem!) So goes off to eliminate any competition from getter her hands on some SUPER-NOOKY!

It's just a thought from the Daily planet Janitor...

And in another plot twist...previously unearthed from pinewood studios...which has yet to see the light of day...

It is revealed that instead of the "Jor-El kills himself restoring Superman's powers" as donner filmed for S2....Lester may have secretly filmed another sequence that would have brought the now long dead Jor-El and Lara back to life...and into the continutiy again.

reports of Marlon Brando's Foot-dragging work ethics and lawsuits against the salkinds for getting two perfomances outta one paycheck ASIDE....the sequence that lester quite possibly have filmed might have been this.

Returning to the fotress our now battered, and humble-pie-eating clark finds Dad and begs for his powers back.

and dad, in his naturally stoic and clergistically sad way says..."go F yourself"

"but Dad! the villians are here on earth now...they've taken over the world...And i need my powers back"

and dad in turn says (in his ...way) "Boy you F'ed up big time didn't you?!

"But DaaaaaaD!"

"Alright, alright, FINE! Have your powers back if you must.."

and he gives hima hug (because even when they F up Dads still love their kids) Puts both hands on his shoulders looks him square in the eye (trying not to wince at his face, 'cuz that bully really to' it up!) and says "I restore to you your powers" .....

drum roll...and we cut shot to Jor-El's RIGHT FOOT raised up...ready to give Kal-El his powers back in a manner that will make KAL NEVER Disobey him again (for the changing-human-history, AND for giving up his powers...and all for LOIS...)

(BTW Jor-EL never really liked Lois...thought Kal was too good for her)

Just as he is about to make clark SUPER-GELDING (for obvious reasons)
LARA steps in and says "You will restore his powers in a more... APPROPRAITE manner"

So Jor-El...knowing he's gonna get cut off any nooky IF he continues...relents. Says "Fine!" Takes the palm of his hand smacks it on poor Kal's Head (which makes him fall to the ground around the busted up console...cut back to donner footage)

See...the whole time Clark's got his eyes closed. waiting to be imbued with his powers again. for all he knows these are just elaborate recordings that his father made to instruct him...

and the story's truth, ALMOST ALL of it is...except the fact that Jor-EL and Lara are now residing in the fortress.

Thank you to the Great RAO, they have been spirited to the fortess and now trapped there as ghosts...having to haunt the place.

they don't want Clark to know that though...because your kida will have to go on without you after death. And who the hell wants to constantly clean up their kids' f-ups on and on into eternity?! So...they let him think it's the recordings doing and saying all that....

the idea behind all this...
Superman's trapped as Clark, having to play a buffoon with glasses for a "normal" life and wanting to give up his powers bacuse its a curse to any REAL relationship with LOIS....and Jor-EL and lara are trapped inside the fortress Having to pretend thier recordings, because they dont want that super-brat of theirs to get too clingy... Lois is trapped because of her affections for Superman...

the only people that are free are the phantom Zone Villians...but on a deception as you might read in my earlier post.

No one is really free, everyone is frustrated with their present situations (and the villians are getting bored ruling all they survey (before lex steps in))

I mean, Remeber...Superman was created by two Jewish kids in Cleveland, OH of all places back in 1933...right?

This is the best way to redo the film so good...that even the light bulb in woody allen's head will finally light up and he says "OY Vey!"

Just another thought from the Janitor at the Daily Planet.

nightwing is quite correct that Superman can't reverse time, but I think the intention was to show Superman traveling backwards through time. Think about it, if Superman is traveling backwards through time, the Earth would appear (to him) to slow, stop, then reverse its rotation. Likewise, when he returned to the normal timestream (in the past, of course), the Earth would appear (again, to him) to slow, stop, and resume its proper rotation. Unfortunately, the film didn't provide an explanation for this, and the impression was that Superman reversed time. Imagine an earlier scene where Professor Potter or some geek at STAR Labs tells Superman, "I theorize that if you flew around the Earth counterclockwise at 732 jillion times the speed of light, you could break the time barrier and travel into the past!" Now, duly informed, the audience would know that Supes will get to try this before the credits roll.

Okay, that being said, the idea that Superman could change what had already occurred is hooey! Lois was dead, dead, dead! So there!

Yeah, but they filmed it and there it is. Superman showed up before Lois took the fatal test drive. So how come the ground didn't open up and swallow the car after Lois got out of it?! And why didn't earlier Superman (the one originally scheduled to appear in this time slot) show up a few minutes later?!? And if he didn't, how did he know to go do the break-the-time-barrier trick so that he could already be there rescuing Lois?!?! AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! Not only has Superman broken the time barrier, he's broken the very concept of causality!!! Effects are now independent of causes! Why, some of these words are actually appearing on my monitor before I touch the keyboard! Thanks for shredding the fabric of time-and-space, Superman!

Time travel is an intriguing concept, but it is rarely done well. The various Star Trek series have abused the idea on a semi-regular basis. And they always ignore causality -- how/why did someone from a future (that will never happen) come back to prevent that future?

For some good time-travel stories, try Mixed Doubles by Daniel da Cruz, After the Fact by Fred Saberhagen, and Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams.

Superman comics, at least during the Silver/Bronze Age, usually tried to protect causality by saying "Thou shalt not change the past, no matter how hard thou tryest."

On another point, I never understood why the super-fight in Times Square (SII) involved manhole covers, buses, and lightpoles. Didn't these people realize that the hardest things they could hit with were there own fists? Sheesh!

Don't even get me started on "Why did Superman have to lose his powers to love Lois?" But Kal-El10 did have the right answer about how he got them back:



The bottom line is that the movies were a different interpretation of Superman than the 1970s comics. Too bad the filmmakers didn't consult with Julie, Nelson, Elliot, and Cary.

Think that green cyrstal was something akin to gold kryptonite? Except that with gold-K it is usually a one way trip

Well, I never thought of the crystal as being like kryptonite at all. Remember, the green crystal was the one Clark found, carried to the Arctic, and threw into the horizon causing the Fortress to appear. Apparently, it told him to do this. (Yikes! Superman is hearing voices that tell him what to do!) And he seems to gain his full powers at this time, although we had already seen super-strength and super-speed before this.

So, Lois left the green crystal out of place, then Superman de-powered himself (which also destroyed the Fortress). But since the green crystal was not destroyed, Clark was able to re-build the Fortress and re-power himself. I know, I know, it doesn't follow any logic, but I'm just explaining it. I didn't write it.

Another big plot hole: when Superman de-powers himself, it obviously is painful, but when he tricks the PZVs, they don't feel any pain. We could make up an explanation for this, but the simple one is the filmmakers goofed.

The physical change was symbolic as well. When Kal-El removed his powers he emerged from the tube as Clark Kent. Not so the PZ folks...but then a nitpick maybe that they didn't have civilian identities. Nevertheless they should have changed someway, but I guess, that would have given the surprise away.