Talk:Superman II

message: This film is ranked second on metacritics all time top 250. This should be mentioned in the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeyjamie (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That's why I looked up the film in the first place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.82.129 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Metacritic

message: I think the trivia section needs a rewrite as it's very bad, gramatically-wise, with lots of frivilous text. Smoothy 13:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia Section

message: Over edit war on whether sequence of films listed should be on basis of continuity or production order.  The conversation is at Talk:Superman Returns#Protected. -- Samir   धर्म 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I don't think problems of scientific plausibility--the scenes on the moon, whether or not the kryptonians feel pain--are "plot holes," which are gaps in explanation between events in the story. Should there be a separate section for "problems of plausibility"? Although one might have to "existence of Superman" under that heading. Ccoll 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the whole section. Most are not plot holes and you don't give huge paragraphs for what should be listed in bullet form. Them talking on the moon is a continuity error. If if you could believe in Superman and the powers, they still cannot defy the laws of nature, which when there is no air there is no sound. (Star Wars violates these rules all the time; like when a ship explodes it always seems to fall like a sinking ship, but in the depths of space there is no gravity). The "pain in the molecule chamber" is continuity error as well. As for the "Superman losing powers and then gaining them", that could be considered a plot hole, but it should be more like:
*In the film, Superman gives up his powers for Lois. In the process the FOS is destroyed, but not before his mother tells him he can never go back. Later, after the Kryptonians land on Earth, Clark goes back to the FOS and finds the green crystal. He eventually returns with his powers restored and no explaination.
**Note: The scenes that explained this were cut, because they involved Marlon Brando whom the Salkinds refused to pay for his contributions. Bignole 22:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Plot holes"

message: The heading "Controversy and cult status" was recently changed to "Controversy and cut status" by an anonymous user. I immediately thought "ah! stupid! change it back." But now that I think about it, the heading "cut" status seems even a bit more logical. Should we keep it? This should be decided soon, since the page Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut explicitly links to that section (and is currently broken). —EatMyShortz 14:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut status or Cult status 

message: At the top of the cut section is a proposal that this page be merged with the Donner Cut page.
I don't think this should be merged with the Donner Cut page. From what I'm reading they're essentially two separate films and, in fact, warner brothers will be releasing them as two separate films this fall. Spookyadler 15:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge suggestion 

message: I posted a very lengthy section entitled "Scenes Donner Shot" above the Trivia section.  This took considerable time and effort and User:Bignole decided to delete it.  It was accurate and I am sure people do want to know what Donner shot.  People here need to be less hasty with the edit button!  I won't be adding anything further from now on  - Indo77
:Please be aware that you need to provide sources to back that kind of information up, not just something you say you "know". No source = removal. Bignole 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've provided a source, and it seems to be a reputable one, at least Entertainment Weekly thinks so; so I'm cool with it. But, if you personally added some of that information it wouldn't be able to be placed in the article unless you can provide additional sources as to where you found that information out. Bignole 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, as I said on your personal page, it is YOUR responsibility to provide a source to prove your work, not the responsibility of other editors to seek YOU out to prove it. If you cannot prove it then it gets removed. You cannot write a research paper that contains information "FROM YOUR HEAD" and say it's "FACT" and not expect people to question it. NO SOURCE = NO EDIT. I do believe I was polite enough to alert you to why you were being reverted, Cgivillains, and you proceded to lose control and go off about it. You could have simply provided your source initially, that source could have been verified, and this could have all been over. Look what Indo77 did. The situation was presented and they provided their sources, which were reliable, and as far as I'm concerned they have the right to post their information again. You on the other hand persist in arguing about it, and never providing anything to back you up, just simply spouting "Fact#1..." Bignole 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, "scripts" are rather hard to verify, and as I said on your page if it contains scenes that Indo provided a source for, then ok. As for the fans thing, you have yet to actually prove anything of the sort. Again, all of this could simply be avoided by actually provided documentation of what you edit, but you have yet to do so. Apparently it's bothering you because you feel the need to nitpick a typing error. Bignole 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting a Poster's contribution 

message: I may have missed this in older discussions about this article: What evidence do we have that Sup used the green crystal to rebuild the FOS as opposed to just fixing the control panel or something similar? I seems perfectly plausible BUT I've never seen any scenes or heard any dialogue that illustrates this, either in the theatrical or extended vers... Tommyt 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was insinuated that he used it, because it was the only thing left when he returned and it was what built the FOS in the first place. Also, I think that I may have heared that Donner originally filmed that sequence of events, but I'm not sure and no one will be till the Donner version comes out in November. Bignole 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess we'll all have to wait n' see then. Tommyt 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fortress & the green crystal 

message: There's a part in the article where it says the salkinds used Donner as "a scapegoat".I'm not trying to justify what the Salkinds did,but that's really a POV.The Salkinds belived that Donner may fail the movie by going over the budget.
Basically they too have their side of the story and probably won't admit that they used him as a "scapegoat".
I just think it should be removed as it's a simple POV.Nadirali 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Bignole 15:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV correction needed 

message: If ever a 'blooper' section is added to this article, here's a blooper> Clark Kent (minus his super-powers) somehow manages to walk through snowstorms and freezing climate, back to his 'Superman Fortress'. He neither freezes or starvs to death (even more laughable, he's got no winter clothing).  GoodDay 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Walking to Superman's Fortress

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Image:Superman ii ver3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Superman ii ver3.jpg

message: This article states that it was released in 1980 but Box Office Mojo states that it was released in 1981. Is there a more clear information on this? Jhenderson 777 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted here, it was released in several countries in December of 1980. It didn't find its way to the US until the summer season of 1981. Why they followed that marketing strategy is anybody's guess. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have my doubts about that listing, Bugs - and we know the IMDB gets things wrong sometimes, and should not be used as a reliable reference. I find it hard to believe that a film as troubled as this managed to have a finished version ready for exhibition six months ahead of its wide release in the US and the UK. We need to find vintage news stories that corroborate these early releases. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger Ebert's review is dated January 1, 1981. So, at the very least, the film was available for viewing by late December of 1980. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Never mind this comment for I figured out a little bit on the contribution history. Instead my question has something to do with the articles 1980 in film and 1981 in film since Box Office Mojo is the source for the top ten grossing films on those articles (and since Box Office Mojo deems it as a 1981 film it is listed on 1981) then which year does it really belong on the top ten list because originally I noticed it on both? Jhenderson 777 14:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does that site measure the total gross? Nationally or internationally? Given the limited 1980 releases, I would think most of its gross revenue came in 1981. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So leave it on the top ten grossing films in 1981 are you recommending? I just know it's got to be one over the other. As for putting it on the list of all the films released over the certain years I would probably recommend leaving it 1980 since most sources say it is released then on this article. Jhenderson 777 15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How do they measure the gross of other films released late in a given year? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we had to disambiguate the title by year then it would be Superman II (1980 film) as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name.  There are plenty of sources saying it was released in 1980: TCM, NY Times, Allmovie, British Film Institute. It was the norm 30 years ago for film releases to span several months, and Superman II was obviously held back for the US summer season. The film should be covered by 1980 in film since that was the year it went on general release—Avatar made most of its money in 2010 but it's covered by the 2009 article, as it should be. Lots of films have a release split over two calender years so I don't quite see what the problem is with this particular film; BOM has it down as a 1981 film because it uses the US release date, but I don't see why that prevents using the source on the 1980 article.  Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Obviously it should be covered in the domestic chart in 1981 in film, but listed as a 1980 release in 1980 in film. It's just a quirk that we'll have to accept. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am ok with that. Perhaps we could explain the difference of these quirks with a note. Jhenderson 777 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

text: That would make sense. There were always money issues with the first two films. It's amazing the films turned out as well as they did. That clip does raise the question of how Val's last name is pronounced: to rhyme with "queen" or "nine". The host of that show rhymes it with "queen", and she doesn't correct him. But I've often heard in rhymed with "nine" also. The article doesn't say. Does anyone here know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of detailed accounts of the release schedule here:  (pages 124–126) and  (page 42). It was even disqualified from the 1982 Hugos on account of its 1980 release! Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, those links include some stuff we can use in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980 or 1981? 

message: A lot of this article contains that are totally unsourced. In fact, much of the Production Difficulties, Later releases & Television sections just seem like an editors opinions and gossip, gleaned by watching the various releases of the movie, and maybe magazine articles or internet gossip. All statements of fact need sources. Please provide them to avoid having text chopped. Ashmoo (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements 

message: Why is this considered a British movie? Just wondering. Perhaps this could be more clear.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably classified as British by most sources because Dovemead (owned by the Salkinds and based in London) produced the film and it was filmed mostly at Pinewood Studios in England. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  British? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Superman II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090625232431/http://www.tcm.com:80/thismonth/article/?cid=90490&rss=mrqe to http://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article/?cid=90490&rss=mrqe
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think quoting Roger Ebert to this extent violates WP:UNDUE. We don't usually quote critics to that extent in criticism sections, and when we do it is because the critic is providing some illuminating insight into the quality of the film. As such Ebert's opinion now monopolises the section, and it is exacerbated by the fact that the extended quote is not essential to critiquing the film. Betty Logan (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Ebert review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Superman II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FwgrZEgJ?url=http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/the-top-50-greatest-heroes-villains-of-all-time-total-film-compiled-list/ to http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/the-top-50-greatest-heroes-villains-of-all-time-total-film-compiled-list/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224011850/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/30.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/30.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223024532/http://tobaccodocuments.org/youth/AmCgPMI19791018.Lt.html to http://tobaccodocuments.org/youth/AmCgPMI19791018.Lt.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030309213051/http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/pdf/sfm10_variety.pdf to http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/pdf/sfm10_variety.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified