It's not obligatory, but they sure seemed to go out of their way not to rule it out; Kate recognized him on sight, and Bruce's version of Luke Fox, Kate, and Beth were all played by the same actors.
Spoilers Crisis on Infinite Earths Discussion (CW Event Spoiler Thread)
- Thread starter Mark_Nguyen
- Start date
It's not obligatory, but they sure seemed to go out of their way not to rule it out; Kate recognized him on sight, and Bruce's version of Luke Fox, Kate, and Beth were all played by the same actors.
I'm not certain whether she did, or if she just figured it out from context. She sounded uncertain when she asked his name.
On the other hand, Earth-75's Lois looked the same as Earth-38's, but their Supermen looked different. Plus we know that Earth-90 has several identical doppelgangers on Earth-1 (Tina, Bellows, Julio, Trickster, Prank, and arguably Henry Allen as a doppelganger for Barry-90) but a few namesakes of different appearance and age (Iris West, Nora Allen, Sam Scudder).
Of course, the safest move is to leave it ambiguous whether she recognized him or not, so as not to rule out any future option for casting Bruce-1.
I assumed it was because he was older than her Bruce.
Like I said, it's wisest not to lock themselves down to either possibility.
That, and she was undoubtedly shocked at the mechanized exoskeleton.
I thought Kate sounded uncertain because he was walking in an exosuit... he certainly recognized her as Kate.
As for Brandon's Superman recognizing Lois, I don;t think she looked like his LL, he just sensed her essence as being familiar.
Speaking of Brandon's older Superman, have you seen this tidbit?
https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/12/06/bruce-campbell-says-he-is-ready-to-play-geezer-superman/
I already cited precedents for worlds where some people were identical but others were not.
And again, they are not going to absolutely lock themselves into either alternative. They aren't going to say "Bruce-1 definitely looks like Kevin Conroy," because they can't guarantee he'd be available for future appearances. And they aren't going to say "Bruce-1 definitely does not look like Kevin Conroy," because they don't want to rule out bringing him back if it's feasible to do so. It's ambiguous on purpose, free to be interpreted either way.
I wasn't talking about him (the Earth-96 Superman), but the Earth-75 Superman, the one in the recreation of the iconic "Death of Superman" image from Superman Vol. 2 #75 with Lois weeping over his corpse. In that image on the screen, Lois was played by Elizabeth Tulloch, but Superman did not appear to be Tyler Hoechlin.
Are you sure? Wikipedia says that it is him in both roles (well, it's Wikipedia, so...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths_(Arrowverse)
I don't think anyone's sure whose face that was, but still, there are other examples of worlds where not everyone looks the same. For instance, in worlds where different people play the same fictional character, but real-life historical, political, or media figures look the same. Even in two worlds where Supergirl or Batman looks completely different, they probably have the same image of Ben Franklin or JFK on their currency, and if they were both shown watching It's a Wonderful Life, Jimmy Stewart would have the same face in both universes.
I also thought he was Tyler. The good news is that maybe Earth 75 Superman will go through what his comics' counterpart did and be ok.
Despite what another member was going on and on about, it was clear they recognized each other, but it was through the lens of shock: Kate because Wayne was so frail and in an exoskeleton, and Wayne's shock was due to his world's Kate being dead. The scene would not work at all if either failed to recognize the other.
Probably. The script did not indicate anything else.
I ran across an interesting suggestion somewhere online that one way to make this work is to place Superman Returns directly after Superman II chronologically (as intended), but instead of treating the remaining films in the Reeve cycle (Superman III, Supergirl, and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace) as being supplanted or negated by Returns, they could simply follow it. After all, the major contradiction between Returns on the one hand, and III and IV on the other, is Martha Kent still being alive in Returns. That's a problem if Returns follows those films, but not if it precedes them. I'm sure there are other more minor inconsistencies, but perhaps nothing you couldn't squint and ignore.
You're saying that we just pretend his son was around off screen for those movies?
Didn't Martha Kent died in the fourth Superman movie?
That's his point. She's dead in Superman IV but not Returns, so the idea is to move Returns to between II and III. Can't see it working myself, but hey.
That's his point. She's dead in Superman IV but not Returns, so the idea is to move Returns to between II and III. Can't see it working myself, but hey.
Ok then I didn't read It right
You could also just assume that Routh is NOT Reeve, and that Superman Returns took place on a different Earth. That actually makes Superman Returns better because Routh didn't act like Reeve's version because he didn't have a good script. If you take Superman Returns as not a true sequel to Superman II, and put it in its own Earth, it doesn't hurt the legacy of the Reeve films at all.
And it does make some sense too. Why would Superman leave for 6 years to do a lap around his dead planet when Jor-El taught him all about Krypton during the 12 years he was learning? It made no sense. And why would Superman leave Earth defenseless a few minutes after he promised the President he would never do that again? One of the most important lessons of Superman II is how important Clark is to the world, and that there are threats that only Clark can handle.
And it does make some sense too. Why would Superman leave for 6 years to do a lap around his dead planet when Jor-El taught him all about Krypton during the 12 years he was learning? It made no sense. And why would Superman leave Earth defenseless a few minutes after he promised the President he would never do that again? One of the most important lessons of Superman II is how important Clark is to the world, and that there are threats that only Clark can handle.
It's a little convoluted.
Martha is also stated to be dead in Superman III (probably to explain why Clark spends so much of the film in Smallville without her appearing).
It's not a perfect fit, and I'm not exactly advocating for it, just putting it out there. "Crisis" does seem to place all the Reeve/Routh films in the same continuity: Guggenheim has outright stated the intention is that Routh is playing Reeve's Superman, and there are references to characters and events from III, IV, and Returns. So this is just a suggestion someone made to minimize the discontinuities and make all six films (including Supergirl '84) part of the same "canon."That's his point. She's dead in Superman IV but not Returns, so the idea is to move Returns to between II and III. Can't see it working myself, but hey.
It's suboptimal, but easier to accept than Martha's death and resurrection.
Given the minimal usage of Routh in COIE, it's just as easy to explain the differences as saying this is not Reeve's Superman, and a writer's intention, while important, can be contradicted on screen.
If the fans have to come up with difficult to accept explanations, then the writer did not live up to his intent.
It's easier to accept that this is a sequel to the Superman Returns version of Superman, if you put that version on a similar but different Earth than the Reeve Superman. Changes a lot. Plus, it's hard to accept Reeve's Superman going through the pain of the Kingdom Come Superman -- especially since he could time travel and fix it in a few seconds.