Could Superman bring Krypton back ?

[BlackKnight]

" Could Superman Bring Back Krypton" ?

Yes ..., Sorta .
Cuz in the Books , Brainiac Was Involved in Destroying Krypton. And in Doing so, Brainiac Bottled up The Kryptonian City of Kandor Before Krypton was Destroyed, Thus in a Sense, Krypton Still somewhat Exsisted ..... So, as you follow the Books, and the Movies, with Superman's Little White Crystal's, Superman Can recreate Krypton with the City of Kandor and a White Crystal. If He was to Find Brainiac.

Inwhich, would be a Better Movie, Than The Return of Zod.

[Brazoo]

I think we had this conversation a while ago - but:

One way to look at the end of Superman is that he didn't spin the globe backwards, he thrust himself into the past by breaking the speed of light - and since we were following him it only looked like the earth was going backwards...

...Which is a great explanation until it gets to the part where he goes the other direction and starts it spinning the correctly again...

Anyway - I do think he spun the world backwards, but if he just went back in time then maybe he could travel far enough back to when Krypton existed still ---- but then how would he save Krypton?

Even if we agree that he can live in space, as far as I understand it, he can't go near Krypton because it's made of Kryptonite.

"Spinning back time" for an ending is the biggest of a FEW reasons I think
RETURNS is superior to S:TMP.

Which is one of a few things that didn't make sense about "Superman Returns". He went to the spot Krypton was - the one spot in the universe most likely to have pieces of the only thing that can kill him? Wha?

[Earth 2 Chris]

"The Return to Krypton" sequence is due to finally be seen on the upcoming Superman Blu-Ray collection. I'd like to see it.

Best not to overthink the Superman-turning-the-world-thing. I take it as a visual representation of him going back in time, but I don't think Donner and Mankewicz really thought that one through. There one big blunder for Superman, me thinks. I'll forgive 'em for just that one though.

Chris

[Brazoo]

"The Return to Krypton" sequence is due to finally be seen on the upcoming Superman Blu-Ray collection. I'd like to see it.

Best not to overthink the Superman-turning-the-world-thing. I take it as a visual representation of him going back in time, but I don't think Donner and Mankewicz really thought that one through. There one big blunder for Superman, me thinks. I'll forgive 'em for just that one though.

Chris

Yeah - I agree with you. The Donner cut of Superman 2 makes me think that the "world spinning" scene would have had greater dramatic impact at the end of part 2. Originally gaining his powers back had a price - he had to give up the ability to communicate with his father - he was defying one of his father's last wishes and reconciling his human and Kryptonian halves to become and individual. Turning the world back was originally more of a redefining moment for Superman as a character, so the physics of what was happening might have mattered even less - if the studio had let things happen as originally intended - I think.

[huedell]

Which is one of a few things that didn't make sense about "Superman Returns". He went to the spot Krypton was - the one spot in the universe most likely to have pieces of the only thing that can kill him? Wha?

The idea of Kal's curiosity was the defining point there... and so
there is room for any number of cheats to balance out any petty
"Kryptonite concerns"... i.e. no actual Kyrptonite radiation at the site...
a lead protective ship... etc. etc.

[huedell]

I'll grant you the point on the spinning backwards aspect and I see your point on the "love is his weakness" make him more human...but... psycho, stalker human characteristics seem to be unbefitting the Superman I prefer. Even Clark on Smallville isn't that 'sprung' and he was a teenager.

I understand the difference in expectations of what makes
Superman "noble"....

my point in responding above was primarilly
trying to define what I appreciate about an admittedly "trickily defined"
movie like RETURNS.... the oddest defining thing in this context
being that I think it is a better movie than the other Super-flicks,
yet it's an unabashed tribute TO those flicks (the first 2 anyways).

THAT being said... who knows what THAT Superman (the Reeve/Donner
one) is REALLY capable of for Lois' sake after spinning back the Earth and
all that type jazz

[Brazoo]

The idea of Kal's curiosity was the defining point there... and so
there is room for any number of cheats to balance out any petty
"Kryptonite concerns"... i.e. no actual Kyrptonite radiation at the site...
a lead protective ship... etc. etc.

Yeah - I guess the practical side can be explained. My bigger problem was that there was no set-up to explain why it happened at all in the first place. If it's connected to Superman 2 then that film leaves us with a Superman who seems to have made a better connection with his place in the universe and is more comfortable with the sacrifices he's committed to for the greater good.

Which is about being present on earth and hiding his feelings from Lois to protect her. In those films he's not just 'Super' because of his powers.

In "Returns" he looses all that. He suddenly becomes needy and selfish. He ditches his responsibilities to check for his roots - which might have made sense for SuperBoy but not SuperMAN - and he basically torments Lois with HIS problems instead of protecting her.

He's just a dude with superpowers who needs therapy in that movie to me.

[johnmiic]

I still don't see why Superman floating outside the house where Lois lives and eavesdropping and spying on her w/X-Ray makes him a stalker.

[thunderbolt]

^^^ Its the same as you peeking in a woman's window to get a glimpse of her goodies.

[Hector]

Guys...if Superman were to travel to an existing Krypton...he would revert to being "normal" per say...he would no longer have superpowers...and no...kryptonite would not effect him...the component would act differently over there.

Kinda silly if you say a Kryptonian can't go back to Krypton because it's made of Kryptonite...that's funny...

[huedell]

Yeah - I guess the practical side can be explained. My bigger problem was that there was no set-up to explain why it happened at all in the first place. If it's connected to Superman 2 then that film leaves us with a Superman who seems to have made a better connection with his place in the universe and is more comfortable with the sacrifices he's committed to for the greater good.

It's not connected to Superman 2... and it doesn't need explanation.
It's explained in a few throwaway lines in RETURNS regarding Superman's
yearning to satiate curiosity about any potential living part of his history.

...hiding his feelings from Lois to protect her. In those films he's not
just 'Super' because of his powers.

In "Returns" he looses all that. He suddenly becomes needy and selfish. He ditches his responsibilities to check for his roots - which might have made sense for SuperBoy but not SuperMAN - and he basically torments Lois with HIS problems instead of protecting her.

He's just a dude with superpowers who needs therapy in that movie to me.

...which to me is a rational evaluation of the movie... but I can enjoy
that part of the character while others see it as being a meanie stalker
type.

To me, I'm convinced Superman is so noble that the darker parts are
accounted for.... until he starts trying to take over the planet and stuff,
ya know?

[Werewolf]

If it's connected to Superman 2 then that film leaves us with a Superman who seems to have made a better connection with his place in the universe and is more comfortable with the sacrifices he's committed to for the greater good.

Which is about being present on earth and hiding his feelings from Lois to protect her. In those films he's not just 'Super' because of his powers.

In "Returns" he looses all that. He suddenly becomes needy and selfish. He ditches his responsibilities to check for his roots - which might have made sense for SuperBoy but not SuperMAN - and he basically torments Lois with HIS problems instead of protecting her.

He's just a dude with superpowers who needs therapy in that movie to me.

Absolutely spot.

Returns didn't fail because it supposedly payed homage to Superman 1 and 2. It failed because it took everything good from the movies and noble about Reeve's performance and flush them down the toilet. It was far more a dark jaded parody of the movies than an homage, in my opinion.

[huedell]

Absolutely spot.

Returns didn't fail because it supposedly payed homage to Superman 1 and 2. It failed because it took everything good from the movies and noble about Reeve's performance and flush them down the toilet. It was far more a dark jaded parody of the movies than an homage, in my opinion.

^^^to me, that was a logical conclusion of the first 2 movies.

In a way, RETURNS took everything that was hardcore
about the first 2 movies (Supes crazed focus on Lois... Lex's crazed focus
on Superman and world domination... Jor-El's fixation on carrying on
Krypton's legacy) and magnified them... you call it a dark parody, I call
it bravely brilliant.

The only stupid thing about RETURNS in my opinion is that there was
really nowhere else to go afterwards, save anything more bizarre,
and, frankly, I don't know if that's a movie that even "I" would like
to see.

As I've said before, and will say again, SUPERMAN RETURNS was too good
for it's own good. With all it's potential sequel pitfalls, I can't believe
WB actually allowed it to be made.

[ctc]

>The only stupid thing about RETURNS in my opinion is that there was really nowhere else to go afterwards

I can see that. It's the same problem the comics have: you can't ACTUALLY have something happen 'cos it changes the dynamic. Instant death for a perpetual franchaise. Biggest problem from the flick: what do you do with super-kid in the next film? Second biggest: how do you deal with Deadbeat Super-dad? It's there, it happened, now what? (They can't even use the Disney "nephew" copout.)

Don C.

[Brazoo]

Guys...if Superman were to travel to an existing Krypton...he would revert to being "normal" per say...he would no longer have superpowers...and no...kryptonite would not effect him...the component would act differently over there.

Kinda silly if you say a Kryptonian can't go back to Krypton because it's made of Kryptonite...that's funny...

Wait - I'm confused now. I thought Kryptonite was pieces of the planet Krypton. I know that Krypton wouldn't normally harm a Kryptonian, but i thought it was toxic to Supes because he underwent abnormal physical changes - no?