Talk:Superman Returns/Archive 1

message: I think it would have been interesting to take the more realistic approach of Batman Begins for this film and give Superman a costume that reflects his Kryptonian heritage, much like the costume an older Superman wore in the episode "The Call" from the animated show Batman Beyond.  The Question 11:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, I heard a rumour that SR will address some elements of his costume. But I actually think that the costume that they're going with in the movie does have a more "alien" feel than the others: more texturing, darker colours, raised S-shield, and large, prominent seams. --Marcg106 01:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know if I would consider an aricle from The Sun to be worth mentioning, especially since fitting superhero actors with codpieces isn't anything especially new: they joke about Reeves' codpiece on the DVD features for the 78 film. Boxclocke - "!" 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, just a bit of worthless trivia really, I guess. Sweetie Petie 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Superman's Costume 

message: This first part of the article has too many links.
Please refer to WP:MOS-L for more information about having too much links in an article.
Internal links
The use of links to other Wikipedia articles, for example, Ant, is encouraged. Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to the article.
The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere — for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.
On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
* more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
* it has more links than lines;
* a link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence);
* more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
* low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.
This also applies to tables, considered by themselves.
As a general rule, do not put links in the title; however, this may be acceptable with complex titles or verbose leads, such as those concerning multiple concepts.
Thanks
:Just to say, echo that. I've now reverted this article several times for overlinking: specifically within the cast info table. All the principal actors are linked already in the opening paragraph. One link is all that is needed. Chris 42 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: According to Superman Returns (video game), Metallo is "one of the Man of Steel's main adversaries from the movie." I'd heard nothing to that effect. What is the veracity of that claim?--Filby 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallo? 

message: Does anybody knows the name of the sequel for this film? It is stated that the sequel would be released in the Summer of 2009 but no title had been mentioned for this film. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel? 

message: There have been reports of rumored actors that have acted for certain roles in the movie. There are some of them.
*Daniel Day-Lewis as Jor-El
*Famke Janssen as Lara Lor-Van
*Jude Law as General Zod
Is this true? Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the least. We already know that Jor-El is still being played by Brando, in CGI footage and audio from the original movies. As faw at the other characters are concerned they aren't even in this film. Bignole 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumored Actors 

message: IMDb lists the budget for this movie as $250 million. What's the basis of the $185m figure? Should it be changed? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because IMDb has been wrong a many occassion when they post info before the movie is released. Bryan Singer has said himself that the budget is less that 200 million. Chances are they are including the marketing costs along with the production costs in the budget. Wiki usually lists the production cost. Bignole 21:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the budget is stating 260 million? Has this been confirmed on any other site besides Boxofficemojo?? Singer has said the production budget is less that 200 million. Are we incorporating the marketing costs as well now, because that is the only way I can see the budget being more than what Singer has stated. Bignole 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And Warner Brothers claims that Singer's budget was just 204 million. When Singer took over, it means that we only report his budget. If you want to do the research and find out how much was spent overall, with every director, writer, etc..then that will be fine. It could be included as trivia, but only if you have the references to back it up. Bignole 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget

message: ComingSoon.net is saying that the movie will get released on the 28th instead of the 30th. Reference noted here rather than in the article (rather insignificant detail for a full reference). EVula 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are they saying that the release date is June 28, if theaters will officially be showing it at 10PM on June 27? Why not just say that it is being released on June 27? --Keeves 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date pushed up  

message: I think that a good portion of this page eventually needs to be moved to it's own page, maybe something titled "Bringing Superman Back To The Silver Screen: 10 Years of Work", or something to that affect. It should incorporate the costs from the beginning to the end, in there entirety, all actors considered for the role and how long they stay on board. The same for directors and writers and other crew members. A brief description of the previous stories accepted (i.e. Superman Lives and Batman vs. Superman). Only brief, because they already have their own detail pages. This page should contain information soley for this movie. Does anyone else agree? Bignole 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page 

message: From what I can tell, it is perfectly acceptable to have redundant links in the infoboxes:
* Firefly (TV series)
* Hulk (film)
* X-Men (film)
* Batman Begins
* Daredevil (film)
* Serenity (film)
* Terminator 2: Judgment Day
So... yeah. EVula 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If, by your own admission, they are "redundant", then by definition there can be no need for them. The cast members are already linked in their own table to the left. Wiki's own MoS on links states that if a link is duplicated on a page, then that article is considered to be overlinked. However, the guidance on Template talk:Infobox Film/Syntax Guide says they should be linked. Obviously this is conflicting advice, and I've left a message on Template talk:Infobox Film to try and get some clarification. Chris 42 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was using "redundant" for lack of a better term. I consider the infobox content to be both supplemental and separate from the article (for example, movie infoboxes tend to have IMDB links, even though they are usually in the "External links" section, and will cite release dates, regardless of whether they are already mentioned in the article). EVula 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox links 

message: Director Kevin Smith wrote a draft for a Superman film, but this script delved greatly from the comics. Superman would not fly, he would not wear the blue and red tights, and he would fight Doomsday in a black Supersuit while riding a giant mechanical spider! Horrified by the "mockery of the Superman mythology," the board at Warner Brothers quickly cancelled the project. 
This does not jive entirely with the information in An Evening with Kevin Smith and the info in Superman Lives. If the page ever gets unprotected, I'd suggest a rewrite. Or just refer to the Superman Lives for the history leading up to the current film production. Blade 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as it's unprotected, we'll get right on it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. _72.200.147.16 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just copy-edited this section, but feel free to remove any dubious content. You may have to reinstate some links though, since I deleted any duplicates that appear further down the article. Chris 42 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think that any of it needs to be on this page, except maybe as a link to another page. I think that a new article, one that describes the decade of trying to bring Superman to the silver screen again, needs to be created. There shouldn't be sole articles for "Superman Lives" and "Batman vs. Superman". They're movies that do not exist, yet we have entire articles devoted to them, like a fan website. I think they should all be consolidated into one article title something along the lines of "The History of Superman Returns" (or something like that, not exactly that). There is no need to go into detail on this article's page about the history of bringing Superman back to the silver screen. Because there is so much history involved, and most of it has nothing to do with what is being released later tonight, it should be in one article, instead of 3 separate ones. Bignole 16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and Kevin Smith 

message: The entire casting section is unsourced. I'll wait a day or two before I remove the bits that don't have citations. CovenantD 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There was only one item that actually has a reference, so I moved that to the Trivia section. CovenantD 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the credits list Kitty as Koslowski, or Kowolski? There was a character in the animated series that was Kitty Koslowski, and she was Lex's henchwoman/bodyguard. Did any even stay to see what her last name was? Because she is only refered to as Kitty in the film, except when she requests Superman to call her Katherine. Bignole 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casting

message: See X-Men: The Last Stand in regards to excessive summary length and how to deal with it.  I would trim it myself, but I haven't seen the film so I don't want to dedicate more than a cursory glance to the summary. WesleyDodds 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that this 'summary' is longer than it needs to be by about two-thirds. As above, I don't wish to spoil the film for myself so I won't attempt any sort of copy edit until I've seen it. If anyone can pare it to the bone before then it would be much appreciated. Chris 42 11:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it, and did my best to get the plot summary into a clearer format as a first step. If no-one else takes a stab at it today while I'm at work, I'll see what I can do. Ubernostrum 12:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just put in a first attempt at it. Ubernostrum 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  ...and someone just deleted the entire section. Whomever you are, could you pop in here and explain what's going on? Ubernostrum 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: I added another pic of Superman, plus one of Spacey Luthor, being that they're both major characters. I also increased the sizes slightly, to 300px/250px for Luthor respectively, to fill in some of the dead space and gave me the page more visual weight. Plus, they look better. rootology 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool, but that one image is not of the FOS, that is of the land that Luthor creates. Bignole 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the catch. Going to add one of Lois a bit further down, probably above Lex. And thanks for the move of the pic moving up. Looks better up there. rootology 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to find a better place, or at least make it so that the text wraps, because right not it is sitting under the infobox, creating a large gap in text. Bignole 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: check now. Move the Lex Suprise pic down to the dead area under the budget/external links section. Works better there. Smaller pics now too? You guys don't think the 300px wide for Superman/210px wide for secondary characters is better? rootology 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that they should all be equal, and that they should be respectable size. We can't have the pictures overrunning the page. The largest should always be what is in the Infobox. 250px is usually standard for most 'thumb' pics, atleast it is over on all the Smallville pages. Bignole 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 250px at the most. 300 is too much. Images of actors are large enough to be simple-thumbed for auto-sizing. One can see Spacey clearly at 150 (my setting) as easily as 210. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Forget sometimes I'm at 1280 wide here... rootology 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Found and added one to Brando's section. rootology 19:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images, image sizes 

message: The entry says "such crystals were routinely used to 'grow' useful objects such as buildings and vehicles". I don't remember anything like this in the movie. Is my memory just bad? f(x)=ax2+bx+c 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Lex asked Jor-El, "Tell me everything. Starting with the crystals." and the scene ended there. Lex later explained that the crystals grow landmasses, but I don't remember anything else. If a third person can corroborate us, let's fix it. --Keeves 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lex says "think of it, continents, vehicles, weapons....all grown". There is no mention of how this can take place for weapons and vehicles, but he does state that they can be grown as well. Bignole 14:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd heard rumors (can't source, but...) that Singer's original cut was about 22 minutes longer than what we have live in theaters now. There was a mention to this in the novel adaptation that I read. And the amount missing from the book > film easily can add up to 22 minutes. Blame the Warner Bros. Editing Gods on this one. rootology 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystals grow buildings and vehicles? 

message: It's the LA Dodgers... but who are they playing? We tried to figure this out last night during the film but couldn't. rootology 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have sworn that I saw an "A" on the hot of the opposing team, that looked like an 'A' on the hats of the Atlanta Braves, but I'm not 100% positive. Bignole 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball teams 

message: My understanding was that they needed the CGI of Brando in order to get his face and his voice to say new words. That didn't happen. It was just repeats of old speeches, and his face was seen only through a crystal. So why did they need to go through all that fancy work? Couldn't they have simply used old footage without such high-tech manipulation? My apologies if anyone thinks this question is fit more for a fansite than an encyclopedia, but I think the question of why they did it is as important as mentioning that they did do so. Thanks --Keeves 19:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might not of noticed this, but in the film, we see multiple angles of Brando's face, all througout the Fortress of Solitude. Since only one angle of him would have been shot, they needed to create a digital Brando, so as to see the other angles. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went to the film for my third time and kept this in mind during that Fortress scene, and it really didn't look like multiple angles to me. I understand that this is part of the movie official promotional information, but it might be worth questioning. --Boradis 08:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this movie yesterday, and I could immediately tell why they needed to do CGI.  Here's the thing.  The various things Jor-El says in this movie... some of those things were said in the original movie with Jor-El facing forward but here are said from a side view... MANY were said while Marlon Brando wasn't even "on" the screen... voiceover while you see various stellar bodies and so forth... and some were from scenes where he's looking down at the baby pod and his eyes are lidded.  Also, a FEW familiar lines from the movie didn't sound like they were paced (the talking speed or the same pauses) as they had been in the movie, suggesting alternate takes that weren't used or cut or eventually redone bits of footage from either of the first two movies.  Considering you don't actually have a visual of him for some of the things being said, or the same visual in other cases, it's rather obvious that Brando's face/lipsyncing needed to be generated.  72.192.237.134 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CGI of Brando -- why? 

message: Added in the image of Action #1 along side the Kitty trivia bit. I think it's appropriate to put into context the longevity of the character, the fact the film shot is a reproduction of that legendary image, and it's a nice juxtaposition to show the history of the story (especially as the Xbox 360 image is next, below the 1938 comic cover). rootology 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what would be cool would be to get a still of that same scene in the film and have them side by side. Maybe photoshop them into one image to save space. I know that when I saw it in the film I saw the obvious reference, but not everyone might. Bignole 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Friend of mine found one overnight, and I added it in. Yay! It's not a PERFECT matching shot--I *know* it was in the film, a moment after the one in place, but it's damn close. I asked him where he got this, and I assume it's from some trailer, maybe a foreign one. Once I get my hands on source material I'll retweak the image. rootology 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action Comics ref 

message: These comments seem misguided. I have seen plenty of times, even in the original Superman movie, where he is in the vicinity of kryptonite but does not know it... he doesn't have a "spider-sense" for kryptonite, after all. It only begins affecting him when it is revealed and/or he becomes aware of it, which seems to be more of a dramatic device than anything else. And even though it weakens him more and more the longer he is exposed to it, he also seems able to withstand its effects in a very limited way, by drawing on his super-strength and stamina. Specifically in regards to this movie: Didn't Lois pull the kryptonite shiv from his side before he lifted the crystal landmass into space? Also, he was able to somewhat withstand the effects of the kryptonite while standing on the crystal landmass and when lifting it into space only because the landmass shielded him a bit from the effects of kryptonite, but obviously even this latter act drained him to the point of near-death. Discuss. --Daniel Villalobos 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing non-awareness of the K with it being hidden behind lead. For example, in the first movie, yes, he was quite close to the K necklace before Lex sprung it on him, but the reason Superman didn't notice is because it was in the lead box, not because no one told him about it. --Keeves 16:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Lois may have pulled the Kryp. out but there was still a sliver in him. The doctors in the hospital removed that when he was unconscious. Kryptonite has never "not affected him" because he wasn't paying attention to it. You're saying that if he ignores that it's in the room then it can't affect him? Riiight. He couldn't pull the necklace from off him in the original. He couldn't fend off the goons in this movie, and that was when he was merely on top of the mountain, with only fragments of kryptonite around him. He didn't notice the change when he landed, which he usually does if it isn't incased in lead. Yet he lifted the landmass with a huge piece in his face. That right there says he notices it, it is large and pure, and yet he's still managing his abilities. Problem anyone? Bignole 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't have posted this as a separate topic; I didn't realize it was being discussed quite in depth in a post above. But since you've already responded... If Harris, Dougherty and Singer wanted to do it this way for the sake of drama and their story, I don't have a problem with that. If others do, it's their prerrogative to dislike something b/c they disagree with it. As for my previous statements -- lead doesn't let Superman see the kryptonite behind it, but what about feeling its effects? Does lead shield him from kryptonite radiation? If so, then the crystal landmass could as well. What I am trying to say is that the way kryptonite's effects have been portrayed in the various films seems to depend more on dramatic tension and creative license than any sort of scientific basis. I personally don't have a problem with creative license as long as it doesn't cross my personal threshold of what's believable within the context of a story. Within the context of SR, lifting a kryptonite-laced landmass into space at (almost) the expense of his life doesn't cross that threshold. :-Daniel Villalobos 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you been? Lead has always shielded the effects of kryptonite from him. You see that in the comics, Superman: The Movie, Lois and Clark, and even Smallville. Why lead? Who knows. Maybe it's just because he can't see through lead. Since lead seems to impare his extra sight ability it would seem that it would impare his receptors as well. Who knows, but that has been the case for awhile. If it isn't behind lead then it would need to be far away from him. The landmass was made of kryptonite. Sorry, but you don't have dramatic tension when every other time he has no powers. He landed on the mass and didn't even notice a change in his own body, yet Lex did and kicked his ass off the steps. Up, I guess that meant he had no powers, because he wasn't able to fight back. Yet, he doesn't even realize what is going on till after he falls and all his powers are gone. Maybe they just made the affects latent (which is not something that usually occurs in the other mediums, thus it is a change and thus trivia). So, if they make the effects latent then it was obvious that it wasn't that latent because once down the steps he lost all abilities. They beat him up and he fell over the side. Next, we have him with a piece inside his body, an even larger one in front of his face, and an only partially blocked (by the other minerals of the ocean when it was built, but still enough when he landed on it to drain his powers) mountain of kryptonite that he is lifting into space, from below the sea no less, and yet he doesn't have any problems till after he releases it? That's a huge change from what he's been able to do in any other medium. That is why it is noted as trivia. We go from "Ms. Techmacher, help me help me", to "screw it I can do it all myself, I'll just ignore the effects". Riight. Don't kid yourself. I'm a huge fan of Superman, but I try not to allow that bias blind me from things that don't make sense even in a fictional world. Bignole 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a huge Superman fan and you know a lot more about the Superman universe than me. That is a fact I can't deny. Therefore, you take all this more seriously than I do and these inconsistencies bother you, whereas they don't bother me. However, for the intents and purposes of my posting, you are completely right. P.S. Thanx, Keeves. :-Daniel Villalobos 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's only as he gets older, and has constant contact with the radiation from the Yellow Sun. This couldn't occur when he's been gone for 5+ years, and hasn't had that contact. Bignole 14:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when he landed, the shards were probably too scattered for him to experience pain immediate pain. Consider this, I haven't read the novel this is only a theory. He just got back from "Krypton", we don't know what he experienced up there. Apparently Krypton has exploded and reformed. We see this in the opening credits of the film. Apparently it's in form of a half planet with rings around it. This "planet" made of kryptonite should have killed Kal El quickly, but it didn't. Perhaps his body gained more tolerance to kryptonite. The land mass (being made of basalt and other ocean floor rocks) was probably close enough to lead to sheild him partially. Lex probably punched him with kryptonite in hand. It would not be to hard to believe that he added extra mass to the bottom of the land mass before lifting it, but somehow the kryptonite sunk through. Just a theory. But look, this is just a story, Supes' powers have been retconned so many times from "Jumping high building, and stronger than trains" to near onipotence (time travel and moving planets). This is not much different. Will
"Superman was able to carry the mass into space by digging under it and carrying it and part of the sea bed underneath." To whoever added that: I thought about that before I added it, but it wouldn't account for the piece of Kryptonite in him (and that's even forgiving the large mass that he was in close proximatey with). By all accounts, he should have been dead. Zero X Marquis 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The kryptonite was in Lex's pocket when he hit Superman, and his powers were gone before Lex hit him. He wouldn't have broken out in a sweat within half a second of being next to Lex. Your body takes a little bit to heat up. There was no "new Krypton", what we saw at the beginning was a flashback/remake of the original movie. Even so, Kal was in a ship the whole time, which would have prevented him from being affected by any remains of Krypton in the area. But, with no Yellow Sun to energize him for 5 years, his body would have weakened a bit. The whole landmass was made of kryponite. How can you assume this? Well, the crystal takes any surrounding minerals and uses them to synthesize a new Krypton (i.e. the FOS). Well, Lex surround it with kryptonite (which as we know is actually remains of Krypton itself). So, the crystal would have minerals of Krypton to synthesize and thus would create a landmass that was entire synthisized radiated kryptonite, which is just as potent to Superman as regular Kryptonite. Bignole 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The crystal also seemed to have the minerals of the seabed to synthisize, otherwise the entire island would be glowing green kryptonite, would it not? Furthermore, the effects of kryptonite are radiative correct? That is why lead blocks the effects of kryptonite in the first movie, and also why having a bunch of seabed basaltic rock between himself and the crystals would make sense in allowing him to avoid its affects. At least until much of the seafloor material had broken off and the crystal kryptonite had grown through to his location on the bottom. As for the sliver in his side, if its supposed to be a radiative effect, then obviously small ammounts of kryptonite will have lesser effects on him than large chunks. "A little radiation never hurt anyone". In any event, he does take the time to recharge in the sun before lifting the landmass, and it nearly kills him besides. --68.0.147.116 06:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Synthesized Kryptonite has always been just as potent, just because that isn't explained in the movie doesn't mean it isn't so. The crystal couldn't make the entire land out of Kryptonite, there wouldn't have been as much. The Kryptonite was merely spread out, but still as powerful. A single stone dibilitated Superman in the first movie, then he lands on an entire island. The size doesn't matter when it is in his system. This has been explored in every medium. When it is in his system he still loses his powers, because his insides are more vulnerable to it than his outsides. It normally kills him faster if it is in his blood. The bedrock fell off well before he let go of the land mass. Bignole 11:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia: Effects of Kryptonite

message: In Superman I and II, Clark Kent's age is always given as 30. I live in the UK so I haven't seen this yet, but does that mean Superman is 36? Or is the absence of years caused by physics in Superman travelling to Krypton or something?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 June 2006
::I don't remember them actually saying Clark's age in either film. You infer that he is 30, because he was 18 when he was at the FOS, and 12 years passed Earth time. But, what Jor-El says is that 12 years passed will have passed in Earth's time, but it doesn't state that he has aged 12 years. He has aged some, but it's vague as to hold old he really is. I think for the purposes of these films he is always (no matter the amount of time) around 28-30. Bignole 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank Daniel Villalobos for reminding us above that this movie treats I and II as vague history. This is not a sequel in the strict sense of the term. Remembering this will solve a lot of other problems too. --Keeves 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superman's age 

message: lol - G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.230.215 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 July 2006
:Thanks for the useful contribution. And how does being on track for $81.3 million US from Wednesday to Sunday count as a bomb? It'll easily make back all it's money over it's initial release domestically at this rate unless it absolutely tanks out next week. Add in foreign and DVD? We can theoretically easily get a sequel to this. rootology 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a troll. Remember not to feed them. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That estimate is a bit off. It took in 21 mill for all day wednesday and a late night showing tuesday. Then Thursday it only took in 12 mill. Friday it was 16 mill. Friday and Saturday are the biggest days, yet as of June 30 (yesturday-Friday) it's only estimated at about 50 million. That leaves Sat. and Sun. for it to take in another 50 million, to reach your estimate of 100 million? It seems a bit far feached, especially since it hasn't had a 20mill day since it opened. Some sites aren't predicting it to take in more than 60 or 70 mill by the end of this weekend. Considering that it's been out since late Tuesday, and has yet to actually break 100 mill, in a total of 4 days (5 when Sunday is over) says that it is going to flop, atleast domestically. For it not to flop it should double it's costs domestically, as is the usual consensus when it comes to big budget films (not saying that if worldwide it doubles it's costs it won't get a sequel, just that it usually needs to do that domestically to be considered a success financially). Look at all the other profit holders. Most make 100 mill in 3 days, the ones that make the most money, at least. Even X3 made 100 million in 3 days, and that had mixed reviews. Bignole 01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's a legitimate discussion if it turns out to be true. If so, it should be noted on the page that is was a financial failure, and 84 million dollars, when it cost 204 mill, that isn't looking too good. You at least want to make half back in the first weekend, and it only made 50 million it's first weekend. It's only going to make less and less as the weeks go on, especially when Pirates comes out. That thing has more anticipation that Superman. Bignole 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol, the film bombed. 

message: In the Cast section, the name keeps switching between "Jason Lane" and "Jason White". Most recently (about 9.5 hours ago) Someguy0830 changed it from White to Lane. According to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/ the cast credits on screen show the character's name to be Jason White, and there should be a way to insure that it stays that way on Wikipedia. Someone tried to say that White would be the wrong name if he's not Richard's kid and/or if Lois is unmarried. Both objections are wrong, because the parents can put either family name on the birth certificate, whichever they want. --Keeves 04:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's curious is that Lois hasn't been dating Richard for the entire length of Superman's absence. So, she would have been well pregant before she met Richard, and couldn't possibly pass the boy off as his son. I doubt, that she gave birth to Jason and had enough time to think "oh, Richard is going to propose to me so I'll name him Jason White". Didn't Jimmy say their engagment has lasted like 3 or 4 years? I'm not doubting IMDb completely, but they have been wrong about things before, and I didn't wait to find out if his name is listed as White or Lane at the end of the movie (I kinda had to pee). So, I'm not sure what it should say on the cast list. I would think that it would be more appropriate to say Lane, seeing as it may mislead people into think that he is truly Richard's son, which is never completely established in the film. There are allusions to him being Superman, the piano incident for one, but a lot of it is left ambiguous, like the rest of the allusions to the previous films are. Bignole 04:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Lane or Jason White 

message: So with this archive having just occurred, will my last question be answered?  Do I need to ask it again?  Thanks.  --Eric Jack Nash 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, wait a second... I just thought of something else... So if he has his hair that long for style, and that it would be longer due to normal growth, then that means that he isn't Superman's son, right? You see, that means that Lois does get his hair cut, and therefore if his hair can be cut, then he doesn't have super powers. Your thoughts? Thanks. --User: Eric Jack Nash 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could mean he really isn't Superman's son, but it could also mean that his he needs to grow into his powers. Hair properties is one of those things that is usually only dealt with in the comics and even then it's rare. But, if he is Clark's son then chances are he is just growing into his powers, seeing as he has a lot of allergies to food and (sp) asyma. Bignole 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha!  Thanks Bignole.  Without some kind of explanation like that, I really had to think that I had something, one way or the other... I really didn't care which way, but would just like to know for sure.  However, it seems like all the other stuff does point towards Supe's son.  Again, thanks.  --Eric Jack Nash 19:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem. I'm going to go ahead and insert this into the archive section, seeing as it was originally part of that section. Bignole 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive and my last question 

message: Substituted at 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment