Superman Movie Fan Theories That Actually Make Sense

I've seen "Superman: The Movie" at least a thousand times. I watched it often as a kid and spent many afternoons adorned in a blue shirt and red towel, reenacting my favorite scenes. Yet, I've never once questioned what year the story takes place. I always assumed it occurred in the 1970s but never bothered to pinpoint the exact time of events.

Thankfully, a few die hard fans took to a discussion forum to debate this particular topic. According to a user named LogicDictates, "Superman" takes place in 1978. That makes sense considering Richard Donner's beloved superhero classic was released that year, but LogicDictates believes there are additional clues throughout the franchise that confirm this theory. 

First, we are told that Clark was 18 when he went north to find his true heritage. He creates the Fortress of Solitude, meets his real father, Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and spends the next 12 years learning about the universe — a detail confirmed by Jor-El. Later, when Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman), Otis (Ned Beatty), and Miss Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine) read an article written by Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), we learn that Krypton exploded in 1948, 30 years prior to Clark Kent's appearance at the Daily Planet. So, it tracks and even matches the film's Messiah allegory, as Jesus Christ was 30 when he started his ministry.

Another unique "Superman: The Movie" theory directly tied to the above time-travel idea posits that two Supermen existed at the end of Donner's original film. Remember, the terrifying events wrought by Lex Luthor only occur because our caped hero doesn't have enough time to stop both nuclear missiles from detonating. Superman manages to perform many super-heroic acts but misses the chance to save Lois Lane from certain death. Hence, the need to travel back in time to remedy the situation.

Except, as noted by Fherchoz, when Superman travels back in time, he stumbles into his younger self. Together, these two super men are able to successfully prevent both missiles from hitting their targets, saving Lois and stopping Luthor's maniacal real estate plot. The catch is that older Superman must now live in the new timeline. Original Superman's sacrifice allows Lois to live happily ever after with a version of himself but ultimately renders himself obsolete. Eventually, he grows angry and, according to ComplexPractical3292, winds up fighting and losing to the New Superman during the junkyard scene in "Superman III." "And the 'past' killed the 'future,'" the user states.

Taking the concept in a different direction, another commenter notes that Original Superman tried to rectify his situation with more time travel and wound up resetting his own timeline resulting in "Superman Returns." Mind blown?

Following the success of "Superman: The Movie," Richard Donner went to work finishing "Superman II," most of which he filmed while shooting the original film. As mentioned above, Donner was replaced by Richard Lester after disagreements with the producers, resulting in a sillier, albeit still effective, sequel.

Lester returned for "Superman III" and the British auteur crafted a largely comedic followup focused on the Man of Steel's battle against a wealthy industrialist (Robert Vaughn) and a goofy computer genius named Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor). Largely panned by critics and audiences, "Superman III" marks an enormous step down from the first two films in terms of quality, despite the sensational Evil Superman vs. Superman junkyard dustup.

Nevertheless, some fans argue the picture contains more depth than meets the eye. Reddit user Necronamakahn suggests that the villain Brainiac operated behind-the-scenes and aided Gus' superhuman computer abilities. "My theory is that Brainiac was in orbit and responsible for said events," Necronamakahn writes. "Gaining access to the computer Gus was using and, through subliminal messaging and suggestion, gave him the knowledge on how to hack computers as well as the schematics to the super computer they later built."

I like the theory. Unfortunately, as others point out in the comments, Necronamakahn likely put more thought into the story than Lester or his writers. However, it should be noted that Donner's plan for "Superman III" initially included Brainiac, according to the 13th Dimension (per ScienceFiction.com).

Reddit user zakiszaz suggests another cool theory that gives "Superman Returns" more credence than it probably deserves. He believes that Singer was setting up a "Dark Superman" trilogy that would have culminated in our blue boy scout turning evil in the vein of "Injustice: Gods Among Us" and "The Dark Knight Returns" comic book series. He argues that Singer's film contains a "creepy underbelly," pointing out odd character beats that show a mopey Superman (Brandon Routh) spying on Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth). "Superman feels the need to leave Earth," zakiszaz says. "He has no problem with Earth lacking a protector."

Indeed, the film spends a good deal of time showing us that no one cares much about his alter ego, Clark Kent, either. Everyone, including Lois, dismisses him as little more than a bother. As Superman, his first interaction with Lois draws mixed emotions, and our mighty hero responds by acting "like a sulky teenager when he can't have what he wants." Zakiszaz believes that the sequel would have explored Superman's devolution from mankind's protector to a Homelander-like overlord, likely adding to the list of terrible things he's done throughout his lifetime.

Unfortunately, Singer's followup was cancelled in favor of Zack Snyder's DCEU, during which he ironically planned to make the Man of Steel a central villain working alongside Darkseid, albeit via mind control.

"Man of Steel" serves as the port of entry for Zack Snyder's under-appreciated "Snyderverse" and presents a darker, and per our original review, more action-packed iteration of Superman, here presented as a loner deciding whether or not to align with the human race to stop General Zod (Michael Shannon). Long story short, Superman (Henry Cavill) chooses Earth, but his decision comes with a cost. 

During the climax, Superman squares off with Zod and, following a bitter scuffle, snaps his neck to prevent more destruction. According to Reddit user thundermatters, the controversial moment contains more depth than initially thought. He believes Zod wanted to die a soldier's death and used Superman as the gun to deliver the killing blow. Hence the reason he doesn't immediately murder the family with his heat vision, choosing instead to slowly push the beams toward them until Superman has no choice but to carry out the execution.

Essentially, both warriors knew the battle needed to end and made decisions to ensure it ended on their own terms. "So Zod let Superman kill him, but that act allowed Superman to remain the hero," noted nmvzciehjfal in the comments. Moreover, Superman's decision plays into his ultimate dilemma — is he a farm boy from Kansas or a god-like deity? "Him snapping Zod's neck is Superman allowing himself to be human," explains another user. "We're not perfect, we have weaknesses and emotions, and he's okay with that." 

Warner Bros. canceled the Snyderverse after numerous failed attempts to reconfigure the series on the fly, paving the way for James Gunn's "Superman Legacy," itself the jumping-off point for an all-new shared universe. Not much is known about the plot of the Man of Steel's latest chapter, but that hasn't stopped fans from offering their ideas.

Notably, a Twitter user by the name of @MrRadastic believes that "Superman Legacy" will see a world densely populated by superheroes. Superman enters the foray and must figure out how to leave a mark on this strange, new Earth. The twist is that all the heroes running rampant across the globe are a*******. Not villains, mind you, just jerks. Superman's efforts to lead the other heroes ultimately prevents him from saving his father, Jonathan Kent.

@MrRadastic believes the film will then follow the "Kingdom Come" storyline, which Gunn has already cited as a source of inspiration, that saw Superman retire due to apathy. A global threat beckons him back to action, and he lays down the law, showing his fellow super powered beings what it means to be a real hero. The meta connection, notes @MrRadastic, is that moviegoers have grown tired of traditional heroes and need a reminder of what it means to be a true leader.

This theory may also explain why the film's first official photo portrayed Superman seemingly wearily slipping into his famous costume.