Dude, haven't you ever seen a time travel movie?

No. I'm a moron.

Yes, I've seen time travel movies. They all have their own internal logic/paradoxes mostly, from Primer to Terminator to Back to the Future to Timecop any myriad number of other movies. Like for instance, Superman, where SPINNING THE WORLD BACKWARDS (lol) rewinds everything that happens on the planet BUT SUPERMAN, since he's the one doing the spinning.

When time is reversed, EVERYTHING is reversed.

What? No it's not. Because HE'S not reversed. He's doing the reversing. Later on in this argument you use "Back to the Future" and When time is reversed, MARTY isn't reversed. It's not like he becomes a zygote and zips back into his fathers dick, right? That's sorta the same argument I'm making about Jason, since Superman isn't going back in time with Lois at the fortress. It very MUCH matters where someone is physically at the time of the reversal in the SUPERMAN movies. At least it matters where SUPERMAN is.

And if you use Back to the Future's time travel "rules" as a guide, as soon as you create another timeline via time travel, a second time traveller is also created, hence Marty seeing himself at the end of BTTF I. He went back in time and came

But--why would I? I'm watching Superman. I'm using SUPERMAN'S rules of time travel as a guide. When he goes back in time, he doesn't create another alternate timeline and another alternate Superman. So at that point, it's pretty obvious I can't use "Back to the Future's" rules because they, at that point, have NOTHING TO DO with Superman.

HOWEVER, all of this is meaningless when considering that fact that if you reversed the rotation of the earth, time would NOT rewind, but continue forward,

Sure--in real life. But in the cinematic universe of the Superman movies, apparently spinning the earth's rotation backwards reverses time. That's what we have to work with, that's what you have to keep in mind, and there ARE rules to it, and your reasoning doesn't match up.

What your argument sounds like is a mix-n-match of cinematic tropes to explain to yourself by any means necessary that Superman never impregnated Lois so as to ensure that no one tries to tie "Superman Returns" into any sort of continuity since you don't like it.

Which is fine.

I like it, but I don't NEED to have Returns tied into continuity. But since people here are talking about making fan edits to do just that, I figured I might as well explain exactly HOW that can work without having to re-introduce one of the hokiest, crappiest, poorly implemented and poorly thought out "powers" in the entire Superman lexicon, almost worse than a Cellophane S and Eye-Beams that can move the bricks back into the great wall. So far, the only halfway explained reasoning as to why the Super-Kiss belongs there is from the guy who says "It's been there 25 years." and no one else can come up with a reason why the kiss works any better than spinning the world backwards again.

If you're talking about making the best Superman II without any sort of connection to returns, then simply cut out all the world spinning nonsense AND the super-kiss and have Clark trusting Lois on that Balcony to stay quiet about the secret and then have him fly straight to the North Pole. That's the simplest, and probably best choice if all you're concerned with is making Superman II itself the best Superman II it can be, everything else be damned. Re-introducing the Super-Kiss means you either have to a) excise the balcony scene or b) have Clark ruin it (like he ruined it by spinning the world back) the next morning with Crackhead Lois getting kissed on her skeletal face to forget.

Bizzle, are you serious about advising newcomers to skip Superman II in favor of Bryan Singer's ultimate fanfic?

Sure. Superman II, even if Donner had gotten his way, was going to be flawed and corny. It wasn't going to stand up, and while it would have stood up better than Lester's, I think, it'd have slowly slid in quality much like Donner's Lethal Weapon flicks did. Calling it "Bryan Singer's Ultimate Fanfic" is cute, but it comes down to personal preference. Superman Returns breaks just as many "Superman Rules" as Superman II does, but does it in a more emotionally honest fashion. They both (Donner and Singer) start to run roughshod over the mythology in their sequels, so it comes down to a choice of HOW they did it, and I think, even though I really DO like the Donner Cut, I prefer the way Singer fleshed out those same concerns.

Now, don't get me wrong--the movie is too long, and Singer made the wrong choices in his cutting, excising a lot of the SOUL of the movie in favor of focusing on Lois, which stretches the movie's feelings very thin and makes the movie feel, as some have put it, "Stalker-ish" but some of those shots attain a DIFFERENT meaning when viewed after seeing some of the Smallville Deleted Scenes that show Clark's real dilemma wasn't "I need Lois back for more lovin" but "Should I even BE a Superman again?"

Which is, of course, the same sort of topic Donner was exploring in II. Donner explored it with Disco Villains and Product Placement getting slammed into, with Superman killing people, boning in a giant mylar bed and taking revenge on bullies. Singer explored it by visiting Krypton, pining over Lois, Learning that he has a kid and throwing a chunk of his planet back into space.

But I do believe "Returns," is a better made movie than II. Either version. Or even whatever hybrid version the fan-editors here will come up with. And when someone (ADM, I'm lookin at you) chops together a fan-edit version of Returns, then it'll be even better.

and III and IV shouldn't even be introduced into the equasion here, as far as comparison to Returns. There's no way anyone's going to convince me they have any appreciation of the craft of filmmaking and then go on to say Superman Returns isn't as good as III or IV. That's either nostalgia taking over, or a gross misunderstanding of what makes a decent film.