The Top 11 Dumbest Superman Moments

[Trekker4747]

I never took it so literally, sure he was flying faster than normal to go around the earth, whereas the kryptonite weakened him so he couldn't do it originally as davejames suggested. However, I do not think that he was literally flying fast enough to cause the earth to spin the other way. This was merely an illustration for the audiences benefit.

See, when Jor-el told him not to interfere with human history, he wasn't referring to simply flying around and performing parlour tricks (this si supported by Supes revisit to the FOS in the extended cut) but that he should not tamper with time. There are hints in the film sprinkled throughout that the Kryptonians have some m,easure of control and mastery over time itself, and that is what makes them superior to Earthings . After all in his space capsule, Supes amassed a lot of informaiton from 12 galaxies in very little time. When he was in his twenties and in the FOS, he leaned a great deal more than 12 years would allow. When supes is flying around the world, you can see his struggle to access a power that had remained trather dormant, the ability to affect time. It was always there, and it took his rage at Lois' death to access that power.

That's my interpretation.

I've never believed that he reversed the rotation of the earth. Such an "concept" is a bit silly. As doing so would a)not likely reverse time b)be very disasterous to every. Single. Object. On the planet!

It was just a prespective thing to illustrated what it was he was doing. However, we *DO* see him flying very, very fast, infact he'd have to be flying faster than the Speed of Light to go backwards in time!

Now, sure all of that pent up rage and emotion drove him to go that fast, but still he has to know (per his "training" with Jor-El) he can fly, very, very fast. Certainly fast enough to catch up to two missiles. Flying to either side of the country or not. And ONE of the missiles was closeby in New Jersey (if we assume Metropolis in this movie is a New York stand-in). So he easily could've gotten both missiles without any effort and he was further a tool to fall for the "Detonator in the Box" trick Lex pulled on him.

All said. Superman 1 is still an awesome movie.

 

[DaleC76]

At the very least, the scene did a poor job of conveying exactly what was going on. It certainly looked like Superman's flight was physically moving the earth backwards, especially when he had to fly the opposite direction to get the Earth and time moving forward again.

On a side note: does anyone know when the time-travel aspect was added to the movie? In the scripts I found online, the movie ended without time-travel, with events playing out just like they did in the "new" timeline.

 

[Trekker4747]

At the very least, the scene did a poor job of conveying exactly what was going on. It certainly looked like Superman's flight was physically moving the earth backwards, especially when he had to fly the opposite direction to get the Earth and time moving forward again.

On a side note: does anyone know when the time-travel aspect was added to the movie? In the scripts I found online, the movie ended without time-travel, with events playing out just like they did in the "new" timeline.

Somehow the Salkinds are involved.

 

[Indysolo]

At the very least, the scene did a poor job of conveying exactly what was going on. It certainly looked like Superman's flight was physically moving the earth backwards, especially when he had to fly the opposite direction to get the Earth and time moving forward again.

On a side note: does anyone know when the time-travel aspect was added to the movie? In the scripts I found online, the movie ended without time-travel, with events playing out just like they did in the "new" timeline.

Somehow the Salkinds are involved.

It was written as the end of Superman II (which was being filmed simultaneously) but it was suggested by Richard Lester to make that the ending of Superman - The Movie instead.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I really hated the TT aspects of Superman 2: The Donner Cut. In fact with the exception of a few spots, that film was a waste of time.

 

[hyzmarca]

Eye lasers. Even if he couldn't fly fast enough, he did have eye lasers with which he could have destroyed the missiles from a great distance.

Needless to say, this is how it should have ended.

 

[Servo]

That's one possible rationalization you can make in your own imagination, but it's not what the typical viewer is going to take away from what's actually shown onscreen. The text and the interpretation are two different things. Your interpretation is that he somehow reversed time through some unexplained means and the text was merely symbolic. But the text itself, on the face of it, shows Superman making the Earth spin backwards and thereby reversing time, and surely you can understand how many people would perceive that as ludicrous.

And I'm sure those same people would find the actual idea of Superman to be just as ludicrous. So it's a pretty academic debate; a man who's existance is ludicrous performed a feat that is ludicrous in a fictional movie Universe.
If someone finds this scene so ludicrous that it detracts from the movie, then surely they must also find the idea of Superman so ludicrous that it begs the question of why they are a fan (or at least bothering to watch the films) in the first place?

Even when set in a fictional/fantastic world, there are still standards that should be met. The new Star Trek movie will require a lot of suspension of disbelief, but if Kirk has X-Ray and heat vision, fans will be upset. It's not completely fair to say that if you can accept the concept of Superman, you shouldn't have a problem with the time-travel scene.

Sorry, but that's a cop-out. People are willing to accept a man who defies every single law of physics, can catch falling people without snapping their necks, can propel himself at almost limitless speeds around the globe unaided, and can shoot frickin laser beams from his eyes, but as soon as he time travels by flying round the Earth really fast, it suddenly becomes ludicrous?

This "even in fantasy worlds there are standards" crap that people come out with is ridiculous. It's just a way of trying to justify the overly nitpicky. I say if you're in a fantasy world, then anything can happen, and anything can be a reality, otherwise you're just moving the goalposts to suit your own tastes.

 

[3D Master]

He only scratched the surface of what's wrong with the whole spin-the-Earth-backwards thing.

He didn't spin the Earth backwards. The Earth just appeared to go backwards because he was traveling through time. You know, like if you drop a glass and then someone goes back in time, bam, it jumps back up into your hand fully formed. Same difference.

If that were true, all Superman would have needed to do, was stop moving and he'd be where he wanted to be. However, he had to turn around, fly in the other direction, to move the Earth back in its original flow of time. Thus, he's ACTUALLY reversing the flow of time for the planet, and putting it back right.

This also explains why there aren't 2 Supermen; since Superman himself is outside of the planet, and thus outside of the reversed time flow, he himself is not reversed back in time.

The only way he could make sure though, that neither Lois nor the rest die, is if he uses his newfound speed to get to both nuclear missiles and toss them in space this time around. We however never saw this happening.

 

[DaleC76]

And I'm sure those same people would find the actual idea of Superman to be just as ludicrous. So it's a pretty academic debate; a man who's existance is ludicrous performed a feat that is ludicrous in a fictional movie Universe.
If someone finds this scene so ludicrous that it detracts from the movie, then surely they must also find the idea of Superman so ludicrous that it begs the question of why they are a fan (or at least bothering to watch the films) in the first place?

Even when set in a fictional/fantastic world, there are still standards that should be met. The new Star Trek movie will require a lot of suspension of disbelief, but if Kirk has X-Ray and heat vision, fans will be upset. It's not completely fair to say that if you can accept the concept of Superman, you shouldn't have a problem with the time-travel scene.

Sorry, but that's a cop-out. People are willing to accept a man who defies every single law of physics, can catch falling people without snapping their necks, can propel himself at almost limitless speeds around the globe unaided, and can shoot frickin laser beams from his eyes, but as soon as he time travels by flying round the Earth really fast, it suddenly becomes ludicrous?

This "even in fantasy worlds there are standards" crap that people come out with is ridiculous. It's just a way of trying to justify the overly nitpicky. I say if you're in a fantasy world, then anything can happen, and anything can be a reality, otherwise you're just moving the goalposts to suit your own tastes.

I don't people are complaining about time-travel as a concept. There are lots of time-travel movies that are highly though of. I think most people dislike the way it was filmed (where it appears that Superman is physically turning back time by making the Earth revolve backwards) and the deus ex machina aspect, which is the most glaring thing, IMO.

 

[Christopher]

I don't people are complaining about time-travel as a concept. There are lots of time-travel movies that are highly though of. I think most people dislike the way it was filmed (where it appears that Superman is physically turning back time by making the Earth revolve backwards) and the deus ex machina aspect, which is the most glaring thing, IMO.

Right on both counts, especially the second. Giving your hero the ability to reverse time and undo anything bad that happens is an awful thing to do dramatically, because it means there's never any danger anymore. Any time he screws up, any time he doesn't get there in time, he can hit the reset button and put everything back. The only worse example of lazy writing was the amnesia kiss. They're both glaring story cheats. Fantasy should NEVER be treated as an excuse to throw story logic out the window.

 

[Trekker4747]

The only thing we could probably "reason" is that Superman can't simply turn back time whenever he wants. I'd have to watch the scene again but when he's going around the Earth he has to be going at least c (about 8 times around the Earth in one second) it could be that just in that one moment, with all of his anger and rage end emotion over the loss of Lois he has the yellow-son influenced Krypotnian equivalent of an adrenaline rush x1000 with the loss of a loved.

He can't do it whenever he wants because he has to be able to build up all that emotion again.

"Smallville" handled the time-travel aspect nicely in the fifth season where Clark turns back time to save Lana, he's told by Jor-El he can only do this once and that there's consequences. In this case it being the loss of his Earth father Jonathon. That was a case where a time-travel "reset button" had impact because Clark's use of time-travel came at a high cost.

In Superman there's no "cost" of turning back time to save Lois.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

^ There is no price for turning back time because that isn't what Superman did wrong. The story arc for Superman was his trying to come to terms with his Kryptonian heritage and his Kryptonian upbringing. At the end of S:TM he chooses his human upbringing and defies Jor-El turning back time for Lois. He goes even further in Superman II by giving up his powers to be with Lois. This proves disasterous because it allows Zod to conquer the Earth. Superman resolves his heritage by putting himself above petty human concerns by becoming a God once again. When Superman turns time back in Superman II he not only undoes the damage he allowed to happen but he erases his romance with Lois and finds himself alone once again.

It's quite a lovely arc. That arc is what sets the Donner Superman movies above allother superhero franchises. The other heroes had to make choices but they never fucked up as big as Superman or had to repent as big as he did.

 

[Davros]

I remember a particularlly dumb moment in an ols Superman comic. Superman was giving a speech at a movie theater. Lex Luthor was in the projection booth and tried to shoot Superman with a kryptonite bullet. As the bullet got closer to Superman it made him weaker and he collapsed and the bullet sailed harmlessly over him.

 

[Silvercrest]

Are you saying Superman collapsed... faster than a speeding bullet?

 

[Davros]

Are you saying Superman collapsed... faster than a speeding bullet?

Yup

 

[Trevacious]

Fine:

How Superman Should Have Ended

 

[Trekker4747]

Fine:

How Superman Should Have Ended

Been linked to twice already in the thread.

 

[EnsignRicky]

I'll go with instantaneously killing every last living creature on the planet by thinking, while obviously grief stricken out of his skull, that suddenly stopping the Earth's rotation and then spinning it in the complete opposite direction would somehow reverse time. Thank God they fixed it up in the movie with some fantasy la la land bullshit.

 

[Checkmate]

I'll go with instantaneously killing every last living creature on the planet by thinking, while obviously grief stricken out of his skull, that suddenly stopping the Earth's rotation and then spinning it in the complete opposite direction would somehow reverse time. Thank God they fixed it up in the movie with some fantasy la la land bullshit.

^ I think you have that confused with the dumbest audience member moments for thinking that's what was occurring. As opposed to Earth just appearing to reverse direction because, you know, he was traveling backwards in time. Which is why waterfalls swooshed upwards. Why Lois' car pulled itself out of the ground. And all the other identical visual shots during the scenes.

 

[Cyke101]

Fine:

How Superman Should Have Ended

Been linked to twice already in the thread.

Actually, three, no, FOUR times now!