Should they kill the kid off?

[Superman]

If some villain killed the kid that would make for one hell of a fight scene plus we'd get rid of the kid, of which I was never to happy with in the first place.

[Nathan]

I personally don't have anything against the kid. It wouldn't bother me if they left him alive.

[Super Kal]

I dont have a problem with the kid either, but for the sake of a good storyline, I say kill him off... that would give us a chance to see Superman actually get angry and unleash hell on the villain. That's the only time I would want to see Superman's eyes glow red, because it would suit him.

[Nathan]

If that would mean getting a fight like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdSoEyquVQk), then hell, why not. Kill him off.

[JackBauer]

kill that dirty little bastard!! :mad:

[matthooper]

In the immortal words of Zod...."Kill him"

[bunk]

I don't think Singer created the kid just to kill him off. I wouldn't be terribly upset if they did though.

[dark_b]

I don't think Singer created the kid just to kill him off. I wouldn't be terribly upset if they did though.fans dont use their brain. its just sad. :csad:

[TheComicbookKid]

I sometimes feel like if some fans wrote Superman, he'd still be leaping instead of flying.

Changes can be good. The kid isn't in the comics. Let him be in the movie.

[matthooper]

I doubt anyone seriously thinks Singer will undo a mistake with another mistake by killing him. You can't unring a bell. We can just hope whatever the plans are for Superlad, it doesn't make the sequel worse.

I thought the "I like cheese" vote kinda told us that the thread wasn't serious.

[Scottish Flash]

As long as he's done well then i think the kid should stay

[bunk]

fans dont use their brain. its just sad. :csad:


I'm not using my brain?

[Motown Marvel]

killing the kid would be an extremely cheap attempt to restore the status quo.

[Immortalfire]

I think the kid is dying anyway, being a hybrid and so frail. I don't want Superbaby hanging around, Jason; be gone!

[lordofthenerds]

Let the kid live, but find another way to get rid of him.

[SupermanCan]

I'm still holding on to the chance that the kid isn't Superman (since it was never officially announced...) but if it is, KILL HIM!!!!!! In a great subtle way....

[Freddy_Krueger]

Killing the kid=lazy writing.

[Maze]

Exactly.

and considering there are hundreth of interesting story to tell with him ( yes, he doesn't necesseraly mean "superboy"..) it would be stupid at this stage..

[SamuraiSon6]

i would actually like it if it was written with intent and not just to get rid of him and please the fans

^^^that sounds so morbid^^^

[Super Kal]

but killing the kid would let us see an angry Superman... I'd like to see that.

[Freddy_Krueger]

You can see an angry Superman without killing the kid off. Just having the kid get kidnapped would put Superman into a rage. You don't have to kill the poor little guy off. That's just cruel. Plus it'd be an automatic R rating.

[Kabuki_Jo]

Kill, kill, kill.

[Kabuki_Jo]

Killing the kid=lazy writing.

Nah!

Killin' the kid = setting things right.

[Super Kal]

You can see an angry Superman without killing the kid off. Just having the kid get kidnapped would put Superman into a rage. You don't have to kill the poor little guy off. That's just cruel. Plus it'd be an automatic R rating.

NOT TRUE... Luthors goons were killed in SR, and it got a PG-13 rating, and there are ways of using film editing to imply it but never actually showing it.

[Freddy_Krueger]

What's worse? Implying that some murdering criminals got killed, or that a five year old innocent child got killed? The MPAA would go nuts.

[Myrddin_Emrys]

Whats worse is the fan bois wanting everything in a movie to be a more or less page by page reindition of their favourite Supes comic.
This is the movies folks, an alternative story telling medium. Thank god someone has the balls to bring something into the franchise that hasnt even been thought of before.
The kid in my opinion is a great addition and I for one look forward to see how his story develops. The kid is basically a great end to Supermans quest of discovering to see if he really is the 'last one'. For him to find that is not so as is the case with his son, brings another unexplored aspect to Supermans character. All good stuff.

However I enjoyed the line of 'The father becomes the son, the son becomes the father'. I love the fact that if I had not have seen the Donner cut of Superman II then I would have had no idea what so ever what this line really meant.

[The Kid]

LOL, restart nice and fresh I say.

What good is this kid? Sidekick? Wow. This is what people wanted with superman brought back today?

Stick more to the comic and less to donner's coat tails, WB. Don't be foolish. We know you are crappy with comic book movies but you can still save this. Just find someone who has their own style, yes but actually knows the source material intimately.

[AssMan]

The kid isn't in the comics. Let him be in the movie.

Maybe not Jason but there are PLENTY of comics out there where Superman has a son & Batman for that matter

[dark_b]

I'm not using my brain?i agree with you. if he made the character jason why would he now kill him?

[dark_b]

LOL, restart nice and fresh I say.

What good is this kid? Sidekick? Wow. This is what people wanted with superman brought back today?

Stick more to the comic and less to donner's coat tails, WB. Don't be foolish. We know you are crappy with comic book movies but you can still save this. Just find someone who has their own style, yes but actually knows the source material intimately.lets not forget about batman begins. but i think they just had luck. nolan is god :wow:

[The Kid]

It was definitely a step up from previous batman film, that's for sure. I'm not sure if nolan is god yet though. Anyone could have made a batman movie sans the crap schumacher did and it'd have been held up as the greatest thing evahh compared to what came before it. Where Nolan truly will become god is if he can top himself with The Dark Knight.

[dark_b]

It was definitely a step up from previous batman film, that's for sure. I'm not sure if nolan is god yet though. Anyone could have made a batman movie sans the crap schumacher did and it'd have been held up as the greatest thing evahh compared to what came before it. Where Nolan truly will become god is if he can top himself with The Dark Knight.in nolan we trust :word::up:

[The Kid]

Amen. He's earned my trust. :word:

[Kid_Kaos]

Maybe not Jason but there are PLENTY of comics out there where Superman has a son & Batman for that matter 1. That's right.
2. They are campy **** stories no one in their right mind would recommend to read.

If you argue that way, why not take another classic comic to draw from:
http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/156/b1b/156b1b8b-8b83-4493-adc7-f6bc0b0b1e46
It may be a bad story, but HEY IT'S FROM A COMIC!!!
...

Singer did two things in one and completely failed. He ended the storyline of a 28 year old movie but also made a movie that wasn't supposed to happen until 10-20 years from now.

Geeez, we've never even seen all the good rogues from the comics in the movieverse. But we already have to deal with Superman's offspring, placing the timeline after the whole Lois and Clark lovestory, skipping most of the villains' real first encounters with Supes.
It's like Raimi would've started Spider-Man with Pete and MJ married and having kids. That's bull. You first have to introduce the characters properly and show off what happens in their first few years. Then, only then, you can move forward in such a livechanging way.

Also, the kid would be much more acceptable if done like in "Kingdom Come". I recommend that one to any non-comic fans. The way a kid is brought into Superman's live works much better. And it's also uplifting and shown as a good thing to look forward to. The next generation Superman leading us into completely new stories with new heroes, because most are are way too old now. That gave me goosebumps reading it. Sorry if I spoiled the end.

You can turn it around like you want, Jason is a bastard. Such a story is a disgrace to Superman (and any other comic hero). Yes, illegitimate conceptions happen all the time. Doesn't mean we have to see a comic book hero to go through it. Especially if there's not some kind of positive message from it. Barely anyone today can say he's got a well working family. Most of us have patchwork families or just one parent. What's better than to show how it can be? I certainly don't want to see the same depressing things on screen that I experience in real live.

And, why introduce a Kid anyway? Only because Superman feels alone? Sounds like a good opportunity to bring in Kara. She doesn't even have to start playing Supergirl. Introduce her as a teenager, around 13 years old would be good. Let Martha & Jonathan raise her. YES, Jonathan lives! "Smallville" will soon be over. A good opportunity to make a new series which is actually tied with the movieverse. Watch Kara growing up like Clark but from a girls view. Bring in Diana for a few episodes with a good comic villain and let her grow into Supes footsteps. Other than another big DC cashcow on tv, what better advertising for any new movie can you do?

Regarding the thread question. I don't have a clue what to do with that little brat. But I'm certainly anxious to see how Singer will get away with him without adding (more) camp.

[DarkSuperman]

He should have never existed in the first place.

[Bad Superman]

http://www.salariya.com/web_books/gladiator/ouch/images/thumbsdown.jpg

FINISH HIM!!!

[Tzigone]

Keep him alive - killing him is lazy writing, and it's backtracking on story progression, and things could never go back the status quo, anyway.

[DavidTyler]

They can't just kill the kid off... It changes Lois forever. It changes the dynamic between her and Clark forever. Lois and Clark will forever be the greiving parents.

Better to find a way to remove the kid as if he had never been.

[Jimmy, GL]

They can't just kill the kid off... It changes Lois forever. It changes the dynamic between her and Clark forever. Lois and Clark will forever be the greiving parents.

Better to find a way to remove the kid as if he had never been.

I completely agree with you. If they killed the kid it would turn the movie towards a downward spiral that would literally take the series into the plot line of Burton version. Superman would become Batman with his only son being killed.

Make it a "What if?" machine viewing with Superman watching what it would have been like if Donner and Singer had made movies about him.

Also I like cheese.

[El Payaso]

lets not forget about batman begins. but i think they just had luck. nolan is god

Nolan is crap about editing and letting Goyer's dialogues and on-liners in. Far from God.

[terry78]

A piano should fall on him. Poetic justice is rarely used anymore.

[chosen1]

how about a redo of the enitire movie w/ a new story?





"Might as well dump em, get another." -- Proposition Joe

[GhostPoet]

The kid should be non existant in the sequel.
wait..i've got it!!

He can get ran over by a school bus....a lot...multiple times....until he dies.

It'd be tragic for superman!

"I'm sorry superman, your son...he....he died in a freak accident with a school bus that ran him over 240 times...the driver couldn't see him"

[dark_b]

Nolan is crap about editing and letting Goyer's dialogues and on-liners in. Far from God.i personal find the editing in BB better than in SR.

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

Never liked the kid. Never will. In my opinion, the kid should be removed from the franchise as soon as possible.

[matthooper]

Even if they kill they kill the kid, they have to spend time on him in the sequel. Singer screwed up SR and he has to continue the line with the sequel. It's a fact we have to live with.....or not bother seeing like me.

[lexlives]

I doubt anyone seriously thinks Singer will undo a mistake with another mistake by killing him. You can't unring a bell. We can just hope whatever the plans are for Superlad, it doesn't make the sequel worse.

I thought the "I like cheese" vote kinda told us that the thread wasn't serious.


But the only way to salvage the franchise now is, IMO, with the kid dead. Otherwise it devolves in absurdity..

I'd open with the kid dead and Superman grieving - that way audiences don't actually see the kid dying and only the briefest screentime is spent before seeing the story shift to Superman and what this does to him.

Superman goes into a rage at the villain who did it and almost loses it - he must fight his own demons and the film can be about that and him - Superman, Kal. I am not interested in any more screentime for the kid.

Lois would blame Superman indirectly for Jason's death - they would grow apart. Lois would find a sympathetic shoulder to lean on in Clark. And Lana just might show up about then as a sympathetic shoulder for Superman to lean on.

You get action, the triangle back in spades and a potential new love interest for Superman.

And to repeat we get a Superman-centric story. WE see Big Blue in a rage = pressing the fight and not being pressed by it. WE see him close to breaking his oath and the focus becomes that struggle.

[lexlives]

how about a redo of the enitire movie w/ a new story?





"Might as well dump em, get another." -- Proposition Joe

The only way we get a re-do is if Singer walks - a good possibility IMO. But at that, to be honest, we will have to wait a decade for the redo.

[Jimmy, GL]

But the only way to salvage the franchise now is, IMO, with the kid dead. Otherwise it devolves in absurdity..

I'd open with thekid dead and Superman grieving - that way audiences don't actually see the kid dying.

Superman goes into a rage at the villain who did it and almost loses it - he must fight his own demons and the film can be about that and him - Superman, Kal. I am not interested in any more screentime for the kid.

Lois would blame Superman indirctly - they would grow apart. Lois would find a sympathetic shoulder to lean on in Clark. And lana might show up about then as a sympathetic shoulder for Superman to lean on.

You get action, the triangle back in spades and a potential new love interest for Superman.

Wrongo. You forget Richard. Lois would go straight to him. The kid kills Supe's both literally and figuratively. He's killed literally because now the focus of the film is on him and not on the hero. If he is killed Superman descends into Batman. He must his inner Demons. The only he should do this would be if, albeit, Lois were killed. This would also present the issue of Superman thinking he is the last Kryptonian in the universe. The only way to make it work AT ALL is if they add Supergirl and kill the kid. Kara would become the child the big man in the fact that he must teach her how to use hew powers. They would also be both pure Kryptonian. This would make it so Lois could fall back in love with either Clark or stay with Richard. The kid dying would pretty much destroy the fanchise for the kids watching. Parents will probably take their children to it expecting no major death but when they kill the kid it will piss off mothers.

[lexlives]

Wrongo. You forget Richard. Lois would go straight to him. The kid kills Supe's both literally and figuratively. He's killed literally because now the focus of the film is on him and not on the hero. If he is killed Superman descends into Batman. He must his inner Demons. The only he should do this would be if, albeit, Lois were killed. This would also present the issue of Superman thinking he is the last Kryptonian in the universe. The only way to make it work AT ALL is if they add Supergirl and kill the kid. Kara would become the child the big man in the fact that he must teach her how to use hew powers. They would also be both pure Kryptonian. This would make it so Lois could fall back in love with either Clark or stay with Richard. The kid dying would pretty much destroy the fanchise for the kids watching. Parents will probably take their children to it expecting no major death but when they kill the kid it will piss off mothers.

I said to open the film with the kid already dead so audiences don't have to see that.

Truth, the whole thing is a mess and it can't be fixed short of a re-start.

The problems you have with my scenario exist too in different ways if the kid remains. The focus shift from Superman to Superman's son. Will he gain powers, who will kidnap him to get at Superman. Contrived, convoluted - an absolute creative disaster that frankly cannot be fixed.

The SHH news page talks of an impresive WW script WB has taken off the market. The point is WW and Batman and others can have all sorts of different writers coming up with unique and distinct stories - with SR there is absolutely no crerative freedom in a sequel. it first and foremost has to resolve Lois and Richard and Richard and Jason and Jason and Superman and Lois and Superman. You don't think that is going to take a good chunk out of a 2 hour script. You don't think that precludes little or any new creative direction from being infused into the franchise. As I said it is a creative diaster.

[Jimmy, GL]

I said to open the film with the kid already dead so audiences don't have to see that.

Truth, the whole thing is a mess and it can't be fixed short of a re-start.

The problems you have with my scenario exist too in different ways if the kid remains. The focus shift from Superman to Superman's son. Will he gain powers, who will kidnap him to get at Superman. Contrived, convoluted - an absolute creative disaster that frankly cannot be fixed.

The SHH news page talks of an impresive WW script WB has taken off the market. The point is WW and Batman and others can have all sorts of different writers coming up with unique and distinct stories - with SR there is absolutely no crerative freedom in a sequel. it first and foremost has to resolve Lois and Richard and Richard and Jason and Jason and Superman and Lois and Superman. You don't think that is going to take a good chunk out of a 2 hour script. You don't think that precludes little or any new creative direction from being infused into the franchise. As I said it is a creative diaster.

I absolutely do think that which is exactly why they have to give Singer the boot and restart the series. It's the only logical way they could make money at this point and time. Singer basically told the writers, "This is what I want and that's how we'll do it." The writers almost didn't have any creative freedom with their script.

[Michael Corleone]

While I don't think they will kill the kid. I understand some people's views. While the subplot didn't bother me. I know it did some people. The idea is interesting. If they did I would agree with others, it would be cool to see Superman really crack and almost, and I stress almost, go over the edge. Something that would be truly interesting is if Lex was witness to this and really for the first time show true fear from it. It could also solidify his xenophobia.

[superbaby]

let the superkid replace superman. then, WB & Singer could have a new cash cow. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[matthooper]

But the only way to salvage the franchise now is, IMO, with the kid dead. Otherwise it devolves in absurdity..

I'd open with the kid dead and Superman grieving - that way audiences don't actually see the kid dying and only the briefest screentime is spent before seeing the story shift to Superman and what this does to him.

Superman goes into a rage at the villain who did it and almost loses it - he must fight his own demons and the film can be about that and him - Superman, Kal. I am not interested in any more screentime for the kid.

Lois would blame Superman indirectly for Jason's death - they would grow apart. Lois would find a sympathetic shoulder to lean on in Clark. And Lana just might show up about then as a sympathetic shoulder for Superman to lean on.

You get action, the triangle back in spades and a potential new love interest for Superman.

And to repeat we get a Superman-centric story. WE see Big Blue in a rage = pressing the fight and not being pressed by it. WE see him close to breaking his oath and the focus becomes that struggle.


That's a really good idea. We'd see Superman like we've really never seen him before. Too bad Singer would never do it, because it would indirectly be admitting he made a mistake by giving him a kid in the first place.

[dpm07]

They can't just kill the kid off... It changes Lois forever. It changes the dynamic between her and Clark forever. Lois and Clark will forever be the greiving parents.

Better to find a way to remove the kid as if he had never been.

This is how I feel as well. I want the kid gone, but it's a tough challenge to find a way to do it.

[SatEL]

The kid was not needed for SR and he isnt needed for a sequel get rid of him and try and salvage this disaster of a franchise.

[Mr. Socko]

I don't want them just saying the kid died before the movie starts. That'll send everyone going "WTF he's superbaby, how could he have been killed. That's almost like them killing superman". Then on the other hand, I hate the kid and wish he was never there in the first place.

But knowing Singer, superbaby will be alive and kicking in the sequel.

[dpm07]

I don't want them just saying the kid died before the movie starts. That'll send everyone going "WTF he's superbaby, how could he have been killed. That's almost like them killing superman". Then on the other hand, I hate the kid and wish he was never there in the first place.

But knowing Singer, superbaby will be alive and kicking in the sequel.

I can't remember where I heard it, but I seen some interview where they interviewed the kid's grandpa, and he said that the kid was going to fly in the next film, and have his own action scenes. It's really sad...

Personally, if they were going to introduce anyone, I'd rather they introduce Kara, and then not until at least a third film. By having superkid, this pretty much neutralizes that.

[Dr. Fate]

Kill the little demon child bastard.

[Mr. Socko]

LOL! That's one way to put it.

[choujin]

fans dont use their brain. its just sad. :csad:

agreed

No the kid should not be killed, ever heard of Superboy?

How is the Kid a demon???

[dark_b]

I'm not using my brain?i agree with you. if he created jason why would he now kill him. thats bad storytelling. not SR but killing jason would be bad storytelling.

[superbaby]

i agree with you. if he created jason why would he now kill him. thats bad storytelling. not SR but killing jason would be bad storytelling.
yep. killing superman off and replaced him with super jason is the way to go. then they could do whatever they wanna do and the fans can't ***** a thing about it.

[oldsboy20]

But the only way to salvage the franchise now is, IMO, with the kid dead. Otherwise it devolves in absurdity..

I'd open with the kid dead and Superman grieving - that way audiences don't actually see the kid dying and only the briefest screentime is spent before seeing the story shift to Superman and what this does to him.

Superman goes into a rage at the villain who did it and almost loses it - he must fight his own demons and the film can be about that and him - Superman, Kal. I am not interested in any more screentime for the kid.

Lois would blame Superman indirectly for Jason's death - they would grow apart. Lois would find a sympathetic shoulder to lean on in Clark. And Lana just might show up about then as a sympathetic shoulder for Superman to lean on.

You get action, the triangle back in spades and a potential new love interest for Superman.

And to repeat we get a Superman-centric story. WE see Big Blue in a rage = pressing the fight and not being pressed by it. WE see him close to breaking his oath and the focus becomes that struggle.

I like that idea :yay:

[oldsboy20]

I can't remember where I heard it, but I seen some interview where they interviewed the kid's grandpa, and he said that the kid was going to fly in the next film, and have his own action scenes. It's really sad...

That's going to be funny as hell if that happens, and it's inspired me to make this lol.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c184/oldsboy20/superduo22.jpg

[El Payaso]

That's a really good idea. We'd see Superman like we've really never seen him before. Too bad Singer would never do it, because it would indirectly be admitting he made a mistake by giving him a kid in the first place.

Not if he planned it. To put the child just to take him out, so SDuperman can face his biggest grief.

I'm actually happy lexlives put some effort in a proposal instead of only repeating the usual complains forever. :up:

[dar-El]

Adding the kid and having superman kill = peeing on the last 70 years of history

[lexlives]

Without killing the kid it is harder and more contrived to "get rid" of him.

Only other alternative is to make the kid Lois's sisters or friends who was unable to raise3 him for some reason and come up with some excuse for the hints at super-strength in SR.

[Showtime]

Or depower the kid using the chamber from Superman 2, thus taking away his Kryptonian connection. That would work too.

[FaT_tONle]

I was appalled when the kid saves Lois... how could they ***** on the movie even more... the franchise is unfortunately going down the dead end... send him off to prep school or let Lois lose custody over him and let Marsden take him in once they get a divorce... its the last thing we need really

[lexlives]

Or depower the kid using the chamber from Superman 2, thus taking away his Kryptonian connection. That would work too.


No, IMO the problem and the break with contiuity is Lois and Superman having a bastard son. It destroys the characters' integrity and forces them together in a subsequent film because of the kid. We never get a childless romance or Superman seriously with another woman besides Lois.

And you wanna bet the kid gets kidnapped in a Singer sequel to get at Superman. Contrived and un-original. A creative dead end especially for a first film. So many possibilities shut out.

[El Payaso]

No, IMO the problem and the break with contiuity is Lois and Superman having a bastard son. It destroys the characters' integrity and forces them together in a subsequent film because of the kid. We never get a childless romance or Superman seriously with another woman besides Lois.

What continuity is broken here?

Oh and nice to call a child with a derogatory term just because they didn't get into a religious ritual, which is as relative as any other.

So what. What if they can't have a childless romance? Is it any worse than a romance with a child? If so, how and why?

And you wanna bet the kid gets kidnapped in a Singer sequel to get at Superman. Contrived and un-original. A creative dead end especially for a first film.

You wanna bet any Superman movie has had and will have Lois kidnapped or in danger to get at Superman? Same contrived un-original ****.

So many possibilities shut out.

Out of curiosity, what those so many possibilities are?

[Super Kal]

Oh and nice to call a child with a derogatory term just because they didn't get into a religious ritual, which is as relative as any other.
oh, and I guess you think it's okay for Superman to be irresponsible as an adult?

[El Payaso]

Not getting married is an irresponsible option?

Inquisition's back and no one told me?

I can have kids and raise them as a great father without a priest or Government official authorizing me to as if I was a kid needing some 'adult' permission, thank you.

[Super Kal]

Not getting married is an irresponsible option?

Inquisition's back and no one told me?

I can have kids and raise them as a great father without a priest or Government official authorizing me to as if I was a kid needing some 'adult' permission, thank you.
no, but having unprotected sex is...
Superman knows better than that.

[El Payaso]

Unprotected sex kills?

[Super Kal]

Unprotected sex kills?
it can if the mother chooses to have an abortion...

[El Payaso]

*slaps in the head*

When a woman dies by an abortion, it dies by the abortion, not the sex, buddy. Terrible attempt to satanize sex.

Even so, Superman and Lois knows too well Lois wouldn't have one.

[Showtime]

No, IMO the problem and the break with contiuity is Lois and Superman having a bastard son. It destroys the characters' integrity and forces them together in a subsequent film because of the kid. We never get a childless romance or Superman seriously with another woman besides Lois.

And you wanna bet the kid gets kidnapped in a Singer sequel to get at Superman. Contrived and un-original. A creative dead end especially for a first film. So many possibilities shut out.

Why are they forced together because they have a son? Correct me if I am wrong, but don't divorced couples have have kids? I think she is going to marry Richard and Superman is going to be on the outside looking in if you ask me.

[Super Kal]

*slaps in the head*

When a woman dies by an abortion, it dies by the abortion, not the sex, buddy. Terrible attempt to satanize sex.

Even so, Superman and Lois knows too well Lois wouldn't have one.
I wasn't talking about the death of the mother...

and I never tried to "satanize" sex either...

[theknightreturn]

they should kill off the kid. maybe they should have brainiac possese him and afterwerds kill him.

[El Payaso]

My bad.

Again.

When a baby dies by an abortion, it dies by the abortion, not the sex, buddy. Terrible attempt to satanize sex - by trying to blame sex for the death of anyone as a consequence of any future possible abortion.

Even so, Superman and Lois knows too well Lois wouldn't have one.

[Super Kal]

*slaps head with the other hand*

When a baby dies by an abortion, it dies by the abortion, not the sex, buddy. Terrible attempt to satanize sex - by trying to blame sex for the death of anyone as a consequence of any future possible abortion.

Even so, Superman and Lois knows too well Lois wouldn't have one.
it dies by the choice of the mother...

and I'm gonna say this again... I'm not trying to "satanize" sex...

[El Payaso]

it dies by the choice of the mother...

Exactly. Not because of the sex.

and I'm gonna say this again... I'm not trying to "satanize" sex...

Then why when I asked

Unprotected sex kills?

your answer was,

it can if the mother chooses to have an abortion...

implying that sex without protection can kill?

[El Payaso]

Edit

[Super Kal]

Exactly. Not because of the sex.



Then why when I asked

Unprotected sex kills?

your answer was,

it can if the mother chooses to have an abortion...

implying that sex without protection can kill?
it's definitely a catalyst...

[El Payaso]

A decision over abortion is a decision over abortion. No woman or man can blame sex - or anything ekse for that matter - for making such an horrid decision.

Calling it a catalyst is calling Superman a catalyst for that kid that jumped out of the window because he believed he was Superman. Or the man who blames a violent movie or the existence of guns for the crime he commited.

In other words it's like claiming Satan was on that thing that made them take that decision and that'd be the reason for such decision. That is, to satanize.

[Kid_Kaos]

Why are they forced together because they have a son? Correct me if I am wrong, but don't divorced couples have have kids? I think she is going to marry Richard and Superman is going to be on the outside looking in if you ask me.
Yeah, he has proofed to be very good doing that. :woot: :cwink:

If you really think Singer won't use the kid, then WHY in god's name do we need him in the first place??? No one wants to see Lois getting banged by Cyclops with Superstalker looking in on them. It's like in the Spider-Man movies MJ marrys Harry and Peter is left alone, or in a Hulk movie Betty Ross ignores Bruce Banner and takes another guy. You can't build up on that. OK, if your a homewrecker you certainly find a way ... but is that really what you want to see or show your kids?

[El Payaso]

It's like in the Spider-Man movies MJ marrys Harry and Peter is left alone, or in a Hulk movie Betty Ross ignores Bruce Banner and takes another guy. You can't build up on that.

:huh:

When couples can-t get toghether is the perfect material to build up on. In fact I think Harry did marry (or almost did) MJ. And Bruce and Betty had spent more time separated than happily toghether. Romeo and Juliet.

OK, if your a homewrecker you certainly find a way ... but is that really what you want to see or show your kids?

And what do kids have to do in this? Am I going to choose what a good Superman movie - or any kind of movie - should be based on what kids might like? or what it would be "healthy" for them to see? No way. Kids can go and watch Barney, Lazy Town or whatever.

[Kid_Kaos]

:huh:

When couples can-t get toghether is the perfect material to build up on. In fact I think Harry did marry (or almost did) MJ. And Bruce and Betty had spent more time separated than happily toghether. Romeo and Juliet.Their romance or whatever there was before is buried. The kid is in a good family now and if Superman suddenly starts to break that bond up - like he tried on the rooftop already - he will look like an a$$h*le. Would be different if Lois would just be in a relationship with Richard, but they have Jason and already raised him as their child, so like Singer said once: It's an obstacle Superman just can not overcome. The whole movie was about Superman rejecting to let go of Lois but the ending of SR made it clear that he finally understands that Lois can't be with him anymore and leaves his son with her and Richard, a working and loving family. Sorry, but there's no logical future for them in that continuation.


And what do kids have to do in this? Am I going to choose what a good Superman movie - or any kind of movie - should be based on what kids might like? or what it would be "healthy" for them to see? No way. Kids can go and watch Barney, Lazy Town or whatever.
I'm actually on your side with this one. But sadly WB wants kids to go see their movies even if the stories aren't really suited for them. I would love to see a more adult (even 'R' Rated) take on the DC characters, 'cause their clearly more adult themed than most of the Marvel guys. Doesn't mean I don't like those too, it's just not suitable for Superman or Batman to be in adolescent storylines. They failed before and I'm glad Batman finally gets a mature treatment. Too bad SR has lots of boring and dull "O.C." scenes instead of adults dealing with the mess they created.
But I'm sure the time will come when a writer or director takes on the project and finally delivers something to be proud of as Superman fan. (And yes, I hate the Donner movies and don't understand the big hype about them. Reeve? Yes. The movies and their stories? No.)

[Showtime]

Yeah, he has proofed to be very good doing that. :woot: :cwink:

If you really think Singer won't use the kid, then WHY in god's name do we need him in the first place??? No one wants to see Lois getting banged by Cyclops with Superstalker looking in on them. It's like in the Spider-Man movies MJ marrys Harry and Peter is left alone, or in a Hulk movie Betty Ross ignores Bruce Banner and takes another guy. You can't build up on that. OK, if your a homewrecker you certainly find a way ... but is that really what you want to see or show your kids?

Do you read comics? He's using his X-Ray vision for spying purposes all the time, Lois and Clark, Smallville...

I think that the kid will be used, but as a barrier between him and Lois keeping them apart, not as a tool to get them together. Creates more inner conflict for Superman.

[Kid_Kaos]

Do you read comics? He's using his X-Ray vision for spying purposes all the time, Lois and Clark, Smallville...

I think that the kid will be used, but as a barrier between him and Lois keeping them apart, not as a tool to get them together. Creates more inner conflict for Superman.
I know he spied on people, even Lois, doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. The Post-Crisis washed away alot of crap - for all DC characters - but also brought up some new. Still, it's no excuse to focus on that and point to it like "Hey, it was few times in several comics, so it's cool!". With nearly 70 years of history it's logical that Superman committed pretty much every "sin" once. Just look at the superdickery.com comics. But we don't need him to repeat that stuff on screen, do we?

I also don't see how killing one of the best lovestories is creating more inner conflict? A conflict would be what for ex. "The Incredibles" showed, having a normal live with a wife and kid while protecting the world, not being a deadbeat dad, which he now officially is. He can't deal with Jason as a father and Lois doesn't even give a damn about him without the suit! And at the end of SR he accepts Lois' wish and steps aside. So, what's the conflict now? He's actually still a free man without any obligations but to his own conscious. And he showed how flexible that can be by leaving earth without even telling Lois.
The whole "keeping secrets" speech sounds dandy on the first thought, just not interesting enough to work within a story that far down the road. Now, if it would've been an origin story, I still wouldn't like it cause we already see it in "Smallville" and nearly any other CB movie, but I would agree on the terms to build up a deeper storyline.
But if he now reveals his identity to Lois in the next movie, it has zero impact (on me at least). Basically the exact opposite of the old movies or Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I agree that the movie made money and even made some new fans but I just don't see any logical possibilities to build up on it. It felt more like a final closure to the old movies instead of a setup for new ones. And for the benefit of the Superman character, I would leave it by that and make a reboot with a fresh cast, stories more drawn from the comics with intelligent people in charge other than some weirdo clowns like Burton or Peters. Singer is a good director, he can do better with something else. A direct sequel with inevitable camp is more likely to kill the franchise and Singer's reputation for a long time.
IMO, of course.

[lexlives]

I know he spied on people, even Lois, doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. The Post-Crisis washed away alot of crap - for all DC characters - but also brought up some new. Still, it's no excuse to focus on that and point to it like "Hey, it was few times in several comics, so it's cool!". With nearly 80 years of history it's logical that Superman committed pretty much every "sin" once. Just look at the superdickery.com comics. But we don't need him to repeat that stuff on screen, do we?

I also don't see how killing one of the best lovestories is creating more inner conflict? A conflict would be what for ex. "The Incredibles" showed, having a normal live with a wife and kid while protecting the world, not being a deadbeat dad, which he now officially is. He can't deal with Jason as a father and Lois doesn't even give a damn about him without the suit! And at the end of SR he accepts Lois' wish and steps aside. So, what's the conflict now? He's actually still a free man without any obligations but to his own conscious. And he showed how flexible that can be by leaving earth without even telling Lois.
The whole "keeping secrets" speech sounds dandy on the first thought, just not interesting enough to work within a story that far down the road. Now, if it would've been an origin story, I still wouldn't like it cause we already see it in "Smallville" and nearly any other CB movie, but I would agree on the terms to build up a deeper storyline.
But if he now reveals his identity to Lois in the next movie, it has zero impact (on me at least). Basically the exact opposite of the old movies or Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I agree that the movie made money and even made some new fans but I just don't see any logical possibilities to build up on it. It felt more like a final closure to the old movies instead of a setup for new ones. And for the benefit of the Superman character, I would leave it by that and make a reboot with a fresh cast, stories more drawn from the comics with intelligent people in charge other than some weirdo clowns like Burton or Peters. Singer is a good director, he can do better with something else. A direct sequel with inevitable camp is more likely to kill the franchise and Singer's reputation for a long time.
IMO, of course.

ITA - SR was a homage to the Donner era, a tribute to Christopher Reeve and an ending/closure to Superman 2. but it was not the one thing it needed to have been and that is a re-launch of the francchise for a new time, a new audience a new century.

A direct sequel will I agree kill the franchise for 20 or 30 years. The only way to save the franchise is reboot/re-start in a decade or so.

[Showtime]

I know he spied on people, even Lois, doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. The Post-Crisis washed away alot of crap - for all DC characters - but also brought up some new. Still, it's no excuse to focus on that and point to it like "Hey, it was few times in several comics, so it's cool!". With nearly 80 years of history it's logical that Superman committed pretty much every "sin" once. Just look at the superdickery.com comics. But we don't need him to repeat that stuff on screen, do we?

I also don't see how killing one of the best lovestories is creating more inner conflict? A conflict would be what for ex. "The Incredibles" showed, having a normal live with a wife and kid while protecting the world, not being a deadbeat dad, which he now officially is. He can't deal with Jason as a father and Lois doesn't even give a damn about him without the suit! And at the end of SR he accepts Lois' wish and steps aside. So, what's the conflict now? He's actually still a free man without any obligations but to his own conscious. And he showed how flexible that can be by leaving earth without even telling Lois.
The whole "keeping secrets" speech sounds dandy on the first thought, just not interesting enough to work within a story that far down the road. Now, if it would've been an origin story, I still wouldn't like it cause we already see it in "Smallville" and nearly any other CB movie, but I would agree on the terms to build up a deeper storyline.
But if he now reveals his identity to Lois in the next movie, it has zero impact (on me at least). Basically the exact opposite of the old movies or Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I agree that the movie made money and even made some new fans but I just don't see any logical possibilities to build up on it. It felt more like a final closure to the old movies instead of a setup for new ones. And for the benefit of the Superman character, I would leave it by that and make a reboot with a fresh cast, stories more drawn from the comics with intelligent people in charge other than some weirdo clowns like Burton or Peters. Singer is a good director, he can do better with something else. A direct sequel with inevitable camp is more likely to kill the franchise and Singer's reputation for a long time.
IMO, of course.

The problem is it's never before been seen on screen, but it's been in the comics. Does the general public read comics? No, but you and I do. Stuff we think is old, might be new to them. I am not saying I would have even done that scene with Superman outside Lois' house, but it's not out of character for Superman.

Superman is not a "deadbeat dad" look it up. A dead beat dad is somebody who refused to take financial and emotional responsibility for a child. Superman just found out he was a father, and told Lois "He is always around". That term doesn't apply, either does the term "homewrecker". I know it sounds good to use those phrases but they are being misused.

In many incarnations of Superman Lois doesn't give a damn about Superman unless he is in the suit. That is nothing new either. Singer reputation is fine now, and it will be fine. Not everybody hated this movie, I think you know that from what you wrote above. 25million tickets sold in the U.S. Somebody went to see this movie.

[dpm07]

The problem is it's never before been seen on screen, but it's been in the comics. Does the general public read comics? No, but you and I do. Stuff we think is old, might be new to them. I am not saying I would have even done that scene with Superman outside Lois' house, but it's not out of character for Superman.

Superman is not a "deadbeat dad" look it up. A dead beat dad is somebody who refused to take financial and emotional responsibility for a child. Superman just found out he was a father, and told Lois "He is always around". That term doesn't apply, either does the term "homewrecker". I know it sounds good to use those phrases but they are being misused.

In many incarnations of Superman Lois doesn't give a damn about Superman unless he is in the suit. That is nothing new either. Singer reputation is fine now, and it will be fine. Not everybody hated this movie, I think you know that from what you wrote above. 25million tickets sold in the U.S. Somebody went to see this movie.

Some people may have wanted to see the movie just because it had Superman in it. However, a really great film does well because it is based off of repeat viewing, ie. Titanic, LOTR, SW, Spiderman, Forrest Gump, etc. I don't believe Superman Returns really falls into that category. Many people saw SR because of the novelty, but I believe that the film didn't do as well as expected because many people were disappointed with the writing, as well as Singer's approach. Many people were really disappointed and disenchanted with the introduction of "Superson".

[Jimmy, GL]

Some people may have wanted to see the movie just because it had Superman in it. However, a really great film does well because it is based off of repeat viewing, ie. Titanic, LOTR, SW, Spiderman, Forrest Gump, etc. I don't believe Superman Returns really falls into that category. Many people saw SR because of the novelty, but I believe that the film didn't do as well as expected because many people were disappointed with the writing, as well as Singer's approach. Many people were really disappointed and disenchanted with the introduction of "Superson".

Cause you know, every normal person has a degree as a Critic and script-writing, including children under the age of 12.:whatever:

[Super Kal]

I think that the kid will be used, but as a barrier between him and Lois keeping them apart, not as a tool to get them together. Creates more inner conflict for Superman.
then it might not work... Donner made STM work because he made the love story work, so why the sudden change?

[Steelsheen]

have i posted here? i dont remember...

i dont want them to kill the lil bugger off, just write him out of the story.

[El Payaso]

then it might not work... Donner made STM work because he made the love story work, so why the sudden change?

It's something called development. Stories can't be frozen in one state the whole time. Things should happen in between.

[dark_b]

let me again ask if i get this right. people who dont like the story of SR are saying that they should be ashamed that they wrotte a story where superman had sex with lois got her pregnant and went away for 5 years. so this is a very bad thing to do are some of you saying.

then someone fo those people opens a thread and all those people start debating how to kill a child.:huh:


woooow. guys you rock. your IQ level is way to high for this forum. :woot::up:

[dark_b]

It's something called development. Stories can't be frozen in one state the whole time. Things should happen in between.i agree. we need character development. and we got it in SR. a lot of.

[ThanosOfTitans]

i wouldn't mind if the son was killed...or became a villain under the influence of brainiac or darkseid. i would love to see jason become a member of the legion of doom! bwahahahaha because the whole "days of our lives" soap opera family-thing didn't work in SR.

[zanos]

If they kill the kid then who will help Superman fight villians in future sequels? Not to mention this will essentially kill any kind of spinoff superman movie with the kid as the main characer.

[Visionary]

Please tell me that you're joking. The super kid in his own movie?

[FooYu]

Kids ruin films.... KIll him off. :cmad: :cmad: (except for the Goonies) that film was ace.

[Jimmy, GL]

Kids ruin films.... KIll him off. :cmad: :cmad: (except for the Goonies) that film was ace.

Superman was in that too wasn't he? Man that movie was a better Supe's movie than SR.

[Billy Batson]

No! we need him for this.
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/6876/supeswwapocalypse0023in.jpg

and this

http://www.xraycomics.com/scans/superboy_annual_1994_2.jpg

[SlickSyck]

i was thinking about this. Superman in SR seemed like something was missing from the character aspect of his presence in the film. i think he seemed like kind of a shallow character just a little bit. im serious, its not very much in my opinion, i loved the character development in the film, but i was wondering...if the Character of Jason was killed off in the sequal, perhaps by something that was caused by who ever the next villian will be, or by the villian directly...i think that would give the character of Superman that missing piece on screen. It would make him seem like he means business when it comes to fighting the villian. I actually had the idea when I was watching Star Trek 3 the other day. When the Klingon killed David, the son of James Kirk, it seemed like suddenly, you REALLY didnt wanna mess with Kirk...i think that would be a nice way to make Superman seem more serious if this were to happen to Jason in the sequal. And since we got to know Jason a little in SR, not only would it pull the audience onto the edge of thier seats and into the story and film veiwing a lot, it would also add a really intense depth to the character of Superman.

[El Payaso]

Is it me or you're trying to kill Jason with a great narrative backup? :P

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think it would work with the kid in it or not. I have to say Jason was not all that annoying for a kid character in SR. However killing him off gives motivation for Supes which is a good thing. Keeping him lets us see the development of Superman with a son which has never been done. If done right it's all interesting to me.

[El Payaso]

Watch a Spierberg movie with a kid in it, now THAT's annoying. Jason was even likeable.

[Rated-X]

http://www.xraycomics.com/scans/superboy_annual_1994_2.jpg

Yeah but, he does not look like he has asthma either.

[VenomsMom]

Gimme a break! They are not going to kill the kid just to give supes a reason to rip some villains head off. That kid is here to stay and will have a big part in the sequel. Supes can take him to the park, play catch, help with homework, play video games, do all the things fathers do.

[DvilDog]

If you kill the kid thats just a copout and I would lose more respect for WB and Singer if they did it. I think he is a good addition and can definitly help to push the story along.

[Uncanny]

Kill the kid. It was one, if not the worst thing in this Superman movie.

[fabman]

They shouldn't kill the kid. Why should they kill him? Introducing a character / plot element just to kill him in the sequel? Now that's a stupid idea...

[dpm07]

Kill the kid. It was one, if not the worst thing in this Superman movie.

I believe the child should be removed from the franchise as well, and this may be one of the worst things ever in any superhero film much less a Superman movie. It's a sad testament to Singer that he did this.

[TripXyDE]

I believe the child should be removed from the franchise as well, and this may be one of the worst things ever in any superhero film much less a Superman movie. It's a sad testament to Singer that he did this.

yeah

- It's like introducing a canine sidekick for Batman. Batman & his smart dog Sparky... who can sniff narcotics and smell the bad guys.
(but then again, in Batman Beyond, senior citizen Bruce has a dog too. But that one made sense)

- It's like introducing Spider-man's SPIDER-MOBILE!

[true316]

LOL, for some reason this thread reminds me of that old Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd is singing: KILL THE WABBIT, KILL THE WABBIT, KILL THE WABBIT!

:p

[El Payaso]

yeah

- It's like introducing a canine sidekick for Batman. Batman & his smart dog Sparky... who can sniff narcotics and smell the bad guys.

You know, with a dog you can't develope the fatherhood theme, underlying on STM, in fact a dog is not related to any important theme for a man, so it's nothing like that.

(but then again, in Batman Beyond, senior citizen Bruce has a dog too. But that one made sense)

See how you can figure it out yourself?

- It's like introducing Spider-man's SPIDER-MOBILE!

Again, a car is nothing like- ok you got it. Anyway, polish up your material, could be genuinely funny.

[dpm07]

yeah

- It's like introducing a canine sidekick for Batman. Batman & his smart dog Sparky... who can sniff narcotics and smell the bad guys.
(but then again, in Batman Beyond, senior citizen Bruce has a dog too. But that one made sense)

- It's like introducing Spider-man's SPIDER-MOBILE!

Awesome post. A great analogy and one that I agree with. :up:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It's not that uncommon to introduce a character that hopefully gets cared about by the audience just to eventually kill them off and see how the main character deals with their death. Meh. I don't see that as a cop out myself.

[VenomsMom]

Superman's biggest threat in the sequel may be child support.

[dark_b]

It's not that uncommon to introduce a character that hopefully gets cared about by the audience just to eventually kill them off and see how the main character deals with their death. Meh. I don't see that as a cop out myself.i dont think that singer would do that. but i remember that singer said more then once that he needed something to hurt superman and thats not kryptonite. the kid is supermans kryptonite through the movie plus he feels alone. at the end he finds out that its hes kid and everything turns out good for him.
to kill him woudl destroy what they made in SR. S-man is nto the last one.



fan 1: superman is having sex with lois without a kondom. its a disater. superman would never do that. superman would never go for 5 years. that is not material for a superman movie.
fan 2: kill the kid.
fan 1. i agree fan 1

i am not even suprised that singer stays away from teh internet. it makes you dumb. posts like this make you dumb,they lower your IQ. :csad:

[TripXyDE]

the kid was singer's sad attempt on making a "MATURE" superman storyline but still employing heavily on the Singer formula. It is as if it was trying to catch up on the depth of Batman (Begins).

it is a sad sad attempt.

Batman & Superman are 2 very VERY different genres.

& you cant try to copy the depth of Begins... especially by not letting go of Donner's semi-campy elements as well

in the end (& ive said this before), Singer ended up with a Superman movie ---SOAP OPERA STYLE

[TripXyDE]

Anyway, polish up your material, could be genuinely funny.

i dunno

YOU'RE the one who call yourself "El Payaso" (The Joker)
yet I don't see you making good jokes

hey, please do prove me wrong.

throw in a good joke for us all to enjoy in this here grim thread

[El Payaso]

Aw, the angry response, death of comedy.

[dpm07]

the kid was singer's sad attempt on making a "MATURE" superman storyline but still employing heavily on the Singer formula. It is as if it was trying to catch up on the depth of Batman (Begins).

it is a sad sad attempt.

Batman & Superman are 2 very VERY different genres.

& you cant try to copy the depth of Begins... especially by not letting go of Donner's semi-campy elements as well

in the end (& ive said this before), Singer ended up with a Superman movie ---SOAP OPERA STYLE

Well said.

Again, SR was less Superman, and more "Singerman" and "Superson".

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I for one am sick of the term "Singerman"

LAME :down

[VenomsMom]

Well, there are now three superman movies we should ignore from continuity.

[El Payaso]

I for one am sick of the term "Singerman"

LAME :down

Well, not that much. I mean Donnerman made the hell of a movie and he should have finished the second one but you know how Lesterman ended up doing it. Now, Furieman's one, no one can't stand. Ah, the 'man' suffix really helps to channel the emotions.

[Yūgi's BM]

I'd like to see Jason get character development and I'd really would like to see how Kent squeezes himself into Jason's life (maybe...babysitting? Oh the Adventures in Babysitting puns that are possible).

I may have disagreed with Singer on a lot of Superman Returns, but Jason was defiently the best part of the film.

~Yūgi's Black Magician

[Billy Batson]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c184/oldsboy20/superduo22.jpg

LMAO!!!!!!
:wow: Man that is funny as H :woot: ll!

[Spiderine]

LMAO!!!!!!
:wow: Man that is funny as H :woot: ll!
Aint that cute, Superman and son.:oldrazz:

[Spiderine]

We so appreciate Singer's contribution to the francise.:whatever:

[I Am The Knight]

The kid is not Jar Jar. And even that one lived.

[dark_b]

I'd like to see Jason get character development and I'd really would like to see how Kent squeezes himself into Jason's life (maybe...babysitting? Oh the Adventures in Babysitting puns that are possible).

I may have disagreed with Singer on a lot of Superman Returns, but Jason was defiently the best part of the film.

~Yūgi's Black Magiciani dont think that singer will focus on the kid. a 2 hour movie is not even enough for superman so taking screentime to develope jason would not be right IMO.
of course he should be in the movie. he is now teh conncetion between lois and superman.

but the focus still has to be on superman.

[FlawlessVictory]

i dont think that singer will focus on the kid. a 2 hour movie is not even enough for superman so taking screentime to develope jason would not be right IMO.
of course he should be in the movie. he is now teh conncetion between lois and superman.

but the focus still has to be on superman.

At ComicCon in July 2006, Singer mentioned it would be interesting to explore the fact that Jason is half kryptonian and half human. This would lead me to believe that there will be screentime taken out to develop Jason's character.

[FlawlessVictory]

The kid is not Jar Jar.

Eh, they are both characters I have 0 interest in.

[dark_b]

At ComicCon in July 2006, Singer mentioned it would be interesting to explore the fact that Jason is half kryptonian and half human. This would lead me to believe that there will be screentime taken out to develop Jason's character.

i have one word for this: ohhhh **** :wow:

actually two :woot:

[Spiderine]

At ComicCon in July 2006, Singer mentioned it would be interesting to explore the fact that Jason is half kryptonian and half human. This would lead me to believe that there will be screentime taken out to develop Jason's character.
I thought we got that when we saw him as a frail little asthmatic kid with phenomenal super strength and a killer instinct.Half man Half amazing!

[El Payaso]

That happens all the time. They use screentime to develop characters. If Lois is there they use time for her, if there's Jimmy they use time for him, etc. I see nothing scandalous about it, no one's excepting Superman in every frame.

[Showtime]

At ComicCon in July 2006, Singer mentioned it would be interesting to explore the fact that Jason is half kryptonian and half human. This would lead me to believe that there will be screentime taken out to develop Jason's character.

Of course there will be? They aren't just going to put trash cans on his head and have him running around in the background.

[chosen1]

"might as well dump em, get another." -- Propostion Joe

[FlawlessVictory]

Of course there will be? They aren't just going to put trash cans on his head and have him running around in the background.

Well, they could have sent him to boarding school. :cwink:

[SamuraiSon6]

i was thinking about the quote...
"The son becomes the father, just as the father becomes the son..."
(they may not be exact either...)

first part is obvious, but what does "just as the father becomes the son" exactly mean

[I_Hate_U_All]

Watch the Richard Donner Cut of superman II to find out.

As for the Kid? I'd be more interested in a complete Batman begins style restart than a continuation of this Super baby story.

[Showtime]

Well, they could have sent him to boarding school. :cwink:

I see a semester at Sky High in his future.

[I_Hate_U_All]

No, he'll have a spinoff series similar to smallville.

[Jimmy, GL]

i was thinking about the quote...
"The son becomes the father, just as the father becomes the son..."
(they may not be exact either...)

first part is obvious, but what does "just as the father becomes the son" exactly mean

Well... I believe it was a kinky sex game that Clark's parents used to play. He accidently walked in and saw them and was forever scarred afterwards and so turned into this phrase whenever he pictures Lois naked.

[mego joe]

Watch the Richard Donner Cut of superman II to find out.

As for the Kid? I'd be more interested in a complete Batman begins style restart than a continuation of this Super baby story.

Two phenomenal ideas in one post, good job!

[El Payaso]

No, he'll have a spinoff series similar to smallville.

link?

[Mr. Socko]

Singer took Superman III and IV out of continuity so maybe a few years from now someone else will make a sequel to Superman I and II and take SR out of continuity.............

[VenomsMom]

They can take them out of continuity, but you cant erase them from Superman lore. Which is too bad.

[El Payaso]

Singer took Superman III and IV out of continuity so maybe a few years from now someone else will make a sequel to Superman I and II and take SR out of continuity.............

You mean SR and its sequel. 8)

[VenomsMom]

Make the kid Zod's.

[El Payaso]

Yeah, Zod shagged Lois somewhere in Superman II. Beautiful.

[VenomsMom]

Yeah, Zod shagged Lois somewhere in Superman II. Beautiful.
Why not, we dont know when Superman shagged her. Apparently it wasnt at the fortress. While we're rearranging history and exempting things why not add that.

[Billy Batson]

Since the young Lad is sickie, have his condition can worsen as he grow older and become Bizzaro.

" ME Love Momma LOIS"
"ME AM SAVE MOMMA"

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c184/oldsboy20/superduo22.jpg

The Bizzaro syndrome is already taking shape on the left side of his face :cwink:

[VenomsMom]

Since the young Lad is sickie, have his condition can worsen as he grow older and become Bizzaro.

" ME Love Momma LOIS"
"ME AM SAVE MOMMA"

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c184/oldsboy20/superduo22.jpg

The Bizzaro syndrome is already taking shape on the left side of his face :cwink:
LOL.Me like yOu idea better than mE idea.:woot:

[Yūgi's BM]

As a Superman fan, I see no rational for killing off Jason. If anything, it should be Clark who dies for the lad, to show how Superman's legacy transcends (spell?) physical conventions...and simply to do something new, of course.

[lexlives]

As a Superman fan, I see no rational for killing off Jason. If anything, it should be Clark who dies for the lad, to show how Superman's legacy transcends (spell?) physical conventions...and simply to do something new, of course.

Actually one of my fears was that that was Singer's plan for the end of the trilogy (which thankfully is not happening now) - kill off Superman and introduce a new "hip" mutant type Superman in his son. Another reason to be glad to see Singer gone.

[Billy Batson]

You have my vote of killing off Singer's Clark.
Singer the man who killed Superman. :woot:

[VenomsMom]

Doomsday anyone?

[Billy Batson]

^That'll be Singer .

[VenomsMom]

Yeah, Superman is already dead if you ask me.

[Billy Batson]

Sadly, you're right. :csad: :cmad:

[lexlives]

Yeah, Superman is already dead if you ask me.

Singer indeed has pretty much killed the Superman film franchise and as it reveberates it will negatively affect the rest of the franchise as in the books and such.

The question is can the franchise ever recover? I am not sure if it can, but if there is ever a rebirth it is going to be decades away. Its going to take that long to get out of the dark shadow Singer and his "team" have cast over everything Superman.

[Yūgi's BM]

Sure, Singer was wrong to reintroduce The Man of Steel the way he did (sucking up to the past franchise) but I wouldn't say he has forever destroyed Superman, not one bit.

Seems to me you are all being unreasonable with your judgement.

[Rated-X]

The superman franchise is not dead, but it is in serious condition.

[VenomsMom]

Sure, Singer was wrong to reintroduce The Man of Steel the way he did (sucking up to the past franchise) but I wouldn't say he has forever destroyed Superman, not one bit.

Seems to me you are all being unreasonable with your judgement.
Unreasonable, no realistic.:csad:

[lexlives]

Sure, Singer was wrong to reintroduce The Man of Steel the way he did (sucking up to the past franchise) but I wouldn't say he has forever destroyed Superman, not one bit.

Seems to me you are all being unreasonable with your judgement.

I didn't say it is forever destroyed but I did say it is possible it could not recover.

As of now the odds we will see another Superman film before 15 or 20 years are slim to none. That will be Singer's legacy. Its not totally out of the realm of possibility we will never get another Superman film. If that happens then Singer did indeed kill off Superman.

[Yūgi's BM]

Uh...there's one coming out in two years.

[Jimmy, GL]

Singer indeed has pretty much killed the Superman film franchise and as it reveberates it will negatively affect the rest of the franchise as in the books and such.

The question is can the franchise ever recover? I am not sure if it can, but if there is ever a rebirth it is going to be decades away. Its going to take that long to get out of the dark shadow Singer and his "team" have cast over everything Superman.

Yet again i must respond to this statement wit hthe simple fact that you are being too pessimistic. It does not take THAt long for superhero franchise to regain its legs. Look at the Batman series. The opinion I hear of them is that the first four kinda sucked and then they did a reboot about 8(?) years after the last one came out. It did superbly in my opinion. Now there is Hulk. The movie series is basically getting a reboot with a release date of somewhere around the time of 2009 - 2010. Not a bad leap knowing that it came out in 2001(?). In my opinion even if the sequal does do bad, the series still has a great possibility of regaining its legs. Hell look at the Transformers series. It's pretty much sucked since the cool days of Beast Wars and now a movie is coming with action that managed to an R rating. Meaning it it going to be on the level Superman should have been.

[lexlives]

Yet again i must respond to this statement wit hthe simple fact that you are being too pessimistic. It does not take THAt long for superhero franchise to regain its legs. Look at the Batman series. The opinion I hear of them is that the first four kinda sucked and then they did a reboot about 8(?) years after the last one came out. It did superbly in my opinion. Now there is Hulk. The movie series is basically getting a reboot with a release date of somewhere around the time of 2009 - 2010. Not a bad leap knowing that it came out in 2001(?). In my opinion even if the sequal does do bad, the series still has a great possibility of regaining its legs. Hell look at the Transformers series. It's pretty much sucked since the cool days of Beast Wars and now a movie is coming with action that managed to an R rating. Meaning it it going to be on the level Superman should have been.


It will take that long IMHO. SR is totally different from the Hulk and the late 90s batman film.

First off, though all three films were critically panned, the Hulk and Batman made back at the domestic box more than they cost to make. SR did not. The other two were moderate financial sucesses while SR was not. Plus there was the 10 years of development hell for SR and Lord knows the money WB actually blew on that.

Superman won't come back as quickly for fiancial reasons alone and too with Batman being a huge success now I expect we will see a run of 4 or 5 batman films. Plus JLA will likely get a trilogy and spin off if WB is lucky too potentially huge franchises.

WB will have all it can handle with batman, JLA, Flash, WW, GL, Aquaman and more for the next several decades. The simple truth is the studio does not need the Superman franchise as it has far more lucrative or potentially lucrative franchises.

Will they ever try again - yeah I think so in 15 - 20 years at a time when they have established success through Bats and these other characters as Marvel has now and can afford to put some money at risk by trying to bring Superman back again.

[Yūgi's BM]

The sequel coming out in 2009 will do much better, it's certain because they promised more action, thus the film will be better received by the everyman if advertised correctly. I don't honestly think Superman Returns was the right way to reintroduce Kent, but at least it did and I'm sure the populous will want to know what happens next.

[lexlives]

The sequel coming out in 2009 will do much better, it's certain because they promised more action, thus the film will be better received by the everyman if advertised correctly. I don't honestly think Superman Returns was the right way to reintroduce Kent, but at least it did and I'm sure the populous will want to know what happens next.

From what I see no one cares about finding out "the rest of the story". But that is just my circle.

I disagree about it doing better - I think it will do worse. The cloud and controversy over the film will be bigger than for SR and if photos start coming out and they are no better than the SR shots of Routh then it is over. Or if the trailer does not match FF2 or Spidey it is over. Singer has to get it all absolutely right and I don't think he has the talent to do that. JMHO. I expect crash and burn. A sequel is a huge risk not just for WB but maybe even moreso for fans.

[Jimmy, GL]

It will take that long IMHO. SR is totally different from the Hulk and the late 90s batman film.

First off, though all three films were critically panned, the Hulk and Batman made back at the domestic box more than they cost to make. SR did not. The other two were moderate financial sucesses while SR was not. Plus there was the 10 years of development hell for SR and Lord knows the money WB actually blew on that.

Doesn't matter. WB made money off it in the end and because of that fact we will be getting a sequel and probably an eventual reboot. How are they still making money? People still talk the film and people get interested which makes them go get the movie from a blockbuster. When it's rented then WB gets money. They make money off of all the different ads and such that were in the movie. They were making money before the movie came out. So I would think that they are set for more movies with Supe's. It's what companies do. They get themselves payed for before it's out.

Superman won't come back as quickly for fiancial reasons alone and too with Batman being a huge success now I expect we will see a run of 4 or 5 batman films. Plus JLA will likely get a trilogy and spin off if WB is lucky too potentially huge franchises.

Well that doesn't seem right. Why wouldn't Superman be able to come back. I've already stated above that they made back their money. And a JLA movie?! Why would they come out with a JLA movie when they can't make a decent Superman movie, oh great one. And 4 or 5 Batman films? I'd think we'd see a triliogy like Spiderman because directors have to do different things, sometimes series movies can just get kind of boring.

WB will have all it can handle with batman, JLA, Flash, WW, GL, Aquaman and more for the next several decades. The simple truth is the studio does not need the Superman franchise as it has far more lucrative or potentially lucrative franchises.

Like I said above why You of all people expect a JLA movie to come out you have said numerous times that they can't do a Superman movie. Superman is probably WB's biggest focus at this point because they know as well as us that, if done right, it can blow PotC, GL, Aquaman, Spiderman, Flash, and the rest out of the water.

Will they ever try again - yeah I think so in 15 - 20 years at a time when they have established success through Bats and these other characters as Marvel has now and can afford to put some money at risk by trying to bring Superman back again.

We've already established you're a huge pessimist so no more need to talk about that.

[Jimmy, GL]

From what I see no one cares about finding out "the rest of the story". But that is just my circle.

I disagree about it doing better - I think it will do worse. The cloud and controversy over the film will be bigger than for SR and if photos start coming out and they are no better than the SR shots of Routh then it is over. Or if the trailer does not match FF2 or Spidey it is over. Singer has to get it all absolutely right and I don't think he has the talent to do that. JMHO. I expect crash and burn. A sequel is a huge risk not just for WB but maybe even moreso for fans.

Exactly the point. It's your circle. There is a simple reason why Singer will do better. Do want to know what it is? He can learn. He learns from his mistakes. He probably knows right now that he made a mistake. He's probably afraid of admitting it for the fact he would be kicked from the project and that he knows he can right his wrong. Of course the case may be that has already that he admitted his wrong and asked for a second chance with is the reason they signed him on with a lower movie budget. A number of things could happen inside the offices of WB that we have no idea about. The greatest superhero movie in history could be coming. The point is that none of know, especially you who seems to be going off of complete observation within your region and the boards. I used to be on your side but not anymore. Sorry buddy.

[VenomsMom]

Exactly the point. It's your circle. There is a simple reason why Singer will do better. Do want to know what it is? He can learn. He learns from his mistakes. He probably knows right now that he made a mistake. He's probably afraid of admitting it for the fact he would be kicked from the project and that he knows he can right his wrong. Of course the case may be that has already that he admitted his wrong and asked for a second chance with is the reason they signed him on with a lower movie budget. A number of things could happen inside the offices of WB that we have no idea about. The greatest superhero movie in history could be coming. The point is that none of know, especially you who seems to be going off of complete observation within your region and the boards. I used to be on your side but not anymore. Sorry buddy.
Yes, he knows he made a mistake,yes,he is feeling the pressure,yes,he knows he can be replaced,yes,he knows he has to fix it. The real question is can he do it.:wow:

[Yūgi's BM]

Yes, he knows he made a mistake,yes,he is feeling the pressure,yes,he knows he can be replaced,yes,he knows he has to fix it. The real question is can he do it.:wow:

X2 says yes.

[Eros]

The kid can live forever, or die right now, It would not matter to me.

[Spiderine]

Why kill him?

[Venom'sDad]

Well.... he's in so you really can't kill him now.... death is not really the M O in the Superman franchise like it may be, in pretty much all of Marvel ComicBook Movies and in Batman.

[Spiderine]

Well.... he's in so you really can't kill him now.... death is not really the M O in the Superman franchise like it may be, in pretty much all of Marvel ComicBook Movies and in Batman.
I think that the kid will play a pivotal role why else would Singer put him in.

[dark_b]

I think that the kid will play a pivotal role why else would Singer put him in.whait a minute. so you think the kid is there for sequels?
i thought that the kid had an important role in SR.

[I_Hate_U_All]

Usually kids are added at the end of a superhero's movie career, a way to change the character as in hook or as part of the new trend of adding super kids in movies like spy kids, Incredibles, codie banks, baby geniuses, zorro jr, son of the mask...

hopefully WB realizes we're not interested in super kids anymore, but this is WB so I doubt it.

[dpm07]

Even if Singer delivers more action and a better story, it's a moot point. Superson is still there, and it really turns a lot of people off from going to the theatre to see a film about Superman. If I wanted to see a kid attached to a superhero, then I'd wait for the Captain Marvel film to come out.

If Singer wanted to put Superman in a mentor role, then he should have introduced Kara, and not until the third film. She's a lot older than Jason (late teen, early adult), Instead, we get the dynamic duo of Singerman and Superson.

[superbaby]

Even if Singer delivers more action and a better story, it's a moot point. Superson is still there, and it really turns a lot of people off from going to the theatre to see a film about Superman. If I wanted to see a kid attached to a superhero, then I'd wait for the Captain Marvel film to come out.

If Singer wanted to put Superman in a mentor role, then he should have introduced Kara, and not until the third film. She's a lot older than Jason (late teen, early adult), Instead, we get the dynamic duo of Singerman and Superson.
lol. singer has lead himself into a dead end.
the good thing is... he is out. :) ya, i choose to believe.

[dpm07]

lol. singer has lead himself into a dead end.
the good thing is... he is out. :) ya, i choose to believe.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, even if Singer is out, they would have to do a reboot to get rid of all the horrible elements Singer introduced.

Everything I have seen is that Singer will be attached to the sequel, and Singer will continue doing things his way without regard for many of the elements that have made Superman great. Singer's focus is doing things in the Donner vein.

[Spiderine]

whait a minute. so you think the kid is there for sequels?
i thought that the kid had an important role in SR.
What was so important about him other than being the bastard child of Supes and Lois and the fact he is half Kryptonian and half Earthling. Importance? There has to be some other purpose or intention for him in the sequel other than Brainiac and Lex hatching a scheme to kidnap him.

[Spiderine]

Even if Singer delivers more action and a better story, it's a moot point. Superson is still there, and it really turns a lot of people off from going to the theatre to see a film about Superman. If I wanted to see a kid attached to a superhero, then I'd wait for the Captain Marvel film to come out.

If Singer wanted to put Superman in a mentor role, then he should have introduced Kara, and not until the third film. She's a lot older than Jason (late teen, early adult), Instead, we get the dynamic duo of Singerman and Superson.
Well said...Singer introduced him for a reason whatever that reason being and we will see in the sequel or will he pretend the kid never happened.:whatever:

[Matt]

God no. For as bad as the idea was, the kid turned out to be one of the best parts of the movie. He was humor and lightheartedness in an otherwise dull, downbeat movie.

Plus, SR was angsty enough. We don't need a dead child to make the next one even moreso.

[I_Hate_U_All]

I have to say this whole idea of killing kids, even if fictional, is rather disturbing and I think this thread should be locked. As a kid, I wouldn't think this since I'd have killed a few kids back then, but as an adult now I... well it just doesn't seem right.

[redcaped]

Kids are only earthlings, children are from Krypton :)

[Spiderine]

Personally I don't see them killing this kid off. What ever purpose he serves for being crammed into this story is more important than merely allowing some villain to kidnap or kill him. We have only seen a glimpse of what the kid can do. The kid is almost like Hulk, the angrier he gets or when his mother is threatened he may go off the deep end and cause some real damage. I mean poor Brutus, that piano must have hurt.

[I_Hate_U_All]

OK, on second thought... Kill teh little SOB. :cmad:

[Yūgi's BM]

Honestly what would killing him solve? Nothing. Singer isn't stupid enough to mishandle Jason and I highly doubt we'll be having a Superboy on our hands. Honestly you guys are acting like the overall tone of Superman Returns, gloomy and angsty, not to mention you are all expressing your opinions rather immaturely.

[stpatrick]

imo the son was a bad idea from the beginning

[Venom'sDad]

I think that the kid will play a pivotal role why else would Singer put him in.

I concur...

[Yūgi's BM]

imo the son was a bad idea from the beginning

I concur...

He's a sign of the lost time that Superman will never get back.

He's only a bad idea if he isn't written right and up until this point there's not much of anything to judge.

[dpm07]

He's a sign of the lost time that Superman will never get back.

He's only a bad idea if he isn't written right and up until this point there's not much of anything to judge.

Actually, there's all of Superman Returns to judge. Introducing Superson was a horrible idea IMO, and one which never should have happened.

[El Payaso]

Actually, there's all of Superman Returns to judge. Introducing Superson was a horrible idea IMO, and one which never should have happened.

Please explain why it's a horrible idea.

[VenomsMom]

Please explain why it's a horrible idea.
You tell us why he was a good idea. No one wants to see Superman in a father figure role after being reintroduced to the big screen after all these years let alone see a relationship about bonding with a child he did not know he had. This is not a soap opera. This is not "As The Superman Returns":whatever:

[Venom'sDad]

He's a sign of the lost time that Superman will never get back.

He's only a bad idea if he isn't written right and up until this point there's not much of anything to judge.

Look, I said I concur with spiderine statement that he thought the kid will play a pivotal roll. I agree with that in the conext of the story that Singer has given us. The kid in Singer's mind obviously has a major part to do with in the story.... or at least I hope. there has to be a reason for putting him in.

However, I have always dislike this idea, from the beginning, and feel it was toatally unneccesary, in the first place. But lets not be nieve, he is not just going to kill the kid and really I wouldn't want to see that. I just wish WB kills Singer and ax him off the project and reboot..... and you know the reasons why. ;)

[Rated-X]

Actually, there's all of Superman Returns to judge. Introducing Superson was a horrible idea IMO, and one which never should have happened.

:up:

[I_Hate_U_All]

:csad: :csad: :csad: :csad:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6371/superboylivesob2.gif

[VenomsMom]

:csad: :csad: :csad: :csad:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6371/superboylivesob2.gif
Its a shame these are the images we think of when we talk about Superman Returns.

[lexlives]

Its a shame these are the images we think of when we talk about Superman Returns.

ITA!!!!

That first image of Routh as Superrman standing in a "warehouse" so to speak was disatrous. SR never rrecovered from it. It is THIRD RATE compared to the first photos we got of FF2 and Spidey 3.

Like what was going on!! Where were the "minders"?!

Why so few had the temerity to say the Emperor - Routh and Singer in this case - had no clothes is beyond me.

That first photo and most of the rest were simply INEXCUSABLE given Singer's budget.

Thank God he is gone from the franchise now. And that he is believe me - for those who still hold out hope. Why you would I will never fathom.

[El Payaso]

You tell us why he was a good idea. No one wants to see Superman in a father figure role after being reintroduced to the big screen after all these years let alone see a relationship about bonding with a child he did not know he had. This is not a soap opera. This is not "As The Superman Returns":whatever:

Given you're unable to explain why it's a bad idea even when you say you think it, I'll take the word.

It's a good idea because the fatherhood and father-son relationship has been a traditional subject in Superman TM and Superman II as has been his loneliness amongst humans (as Lara states in Krypton and Superman II shows showing Supes can't share his life with the woman he loves.)

That said, giving Superman a son is a perfect next step to enhanche all of those subjects. Now he feels what his father felt. Now he's not alone. Now when he dies, there'll be somebody else to continue his mission. Now his love for Lois - even when can't be physically concreted - will live on incarnated in the son of both.

It's not a good idea, it's a great idea.

Its a shame these are the images we think of when we talk about Superman Returns.

we = VenomsMom.

[VenomsMom]

Given you're unable to explain why it's a bad idea even when you say you think it, I'll take the word.

It's a good idea because the fatherhood and father-son relationship has been a traditional subject in Superman TM and Superman II as has been his loneliness amongst humans (as Lara states in Krypton and Superman II shows showing Supes can't share his life with the woman he loves.)

That said, giving Superman a son is a perfect next step to enhanche all of those subjects. Now he feels what his father felt. Now he's not alone. Now when he dies, there'll be somebody else to continue his mission. Now his love for Lois - even when can't be physically concreted - will live on incarnated in the son of both.

It's not a good idea, it's a great idea.



we = VenomsMom.Tune in next time for the ongoing saga of "As The Superman Turns":whatever: Given your explanation this further magnifies this whole idea as to why no one relates to this concept of Superman and why this should never have been included in this series. Its not just a bad idea it was a horrible idea.

[El Payaso]

Tune in next time for the ongoing saga of "As The Superman Turns":whatever: Given your explanation this further magnifies this whole idea as to why no one relates to this concept of Superman and why this should never have been included in this series. Its not just a bad idea it was a horrible idea.

Very original joke and cute emoticon. But you see, you still fail to explain why it's a bad idea given it's a subject that's been all in STM and SII.

And 'no one relates'? This very poll proves you wrong.

Explain why it's a bad idea and why my explanations makes it a bad idea.

I know I'm cruel because I know already you're unable to articulate an explanation (and I can,) but still.

[VenomsMom]

Very original joke and cute emoticon. But you see, you still fail to explain why it's a bad idea given it's a subject that's been all in STM and SII.

And 'no one relates'? This very poll proves you wrong.

Explain why it's a bad idea and why my explanations makes it a bad idea.

I know I'm cruel because I know already you're unable to articulate an explanation (and I can,) but still.
Im glad you like the joke after all you are el payaso.:o As far as the poll goes I voted to keep the little tike alive as there is no reason to kill him is there?So it means nothing. There have been many themes presented in the first movie and certainly your argument shows one of those themes. Superman and Lois have long been comic's most iconic couple and no one comes close. Their romance is legendary and I feel as though we missed those important aspects about them that has made them so interesting. Superman left a world that had long moved on. And now he is back and the world is realizing what he has meant to them. The kid inserted in all this seems rushed and the logic behind it seems out of place. He seems more of an obstacle that does not move the story along but hinders it. The themes and values set forth could have continued without the son as Supes copes with readjusting to society. I can respect your opinion and all jokes aside you make a good point. But I still dont see how all that could not be achieved without the kid.

[Yūgi's BM]

ITA!!!!

That first image of Routh as Superrman standing in a "warehouse" so to speak was disatrous. SR never rrecovered from it. It is THIRD RATE compared to the first photos we got of FF2 and Spidey 3.

Like what was going on!! Where were the "minders"?!

Why so few had the temerity to say the Emperor - Routh and Singer in this case - had no clothes is beyond me.

That first photo and most of the rest were simply INEXCUSABLE given Singer's budget.

Thank God he is gone from the franchise now. And that he is believe me - for those who still hold out hope. Why you would I will never fathom.

Stop spouting off your delusions as fact.

Given you're unable to explain why it's a bad idea even when you say you think it, I'll take the word.

It's a good idea because the fatherhood and father-son relationship has been a traditional subject in Superman TM and Superman II as has been his loneliness amongst humans (as Lara states in Krypton and Superman II shows showing Supes can't share his life with the woman he loves.)

That said, giving Superman a son is a perfect next step to enhanche all of those subjects. Now he feels what his father felt. Now he's not alone. Now when he dies, there'll be somebody else to continue his mission. Now his love for Lois - even when can't be physically concreted - will live on incarnated in the son of both.

It's not a good idea, it's a great idea.



we = VenomsMom.

Exactly, I couldn’t have said it better!!!

Tune in next time for the ongoing saga of "As The Superman Turns":whatever: Given your explanation this further magnifies this whole idea as to why no one relates to this concept of Superman and why this should never have been included in this series. Its not just a bad idea it was a horrible idea.

Nobody likes an immature little brat and that’s what your being.

Singer must’ve known it was dicey trying to make a sequel to Donner’s film(s) but the simple fact is this is what we’ve got to deal with so let’s take it like men! Singer’s not stupid enough to not make the rest of his era truly his and you know what? I want to see what happens next! I want to see how this Superman can become our Superman! Who the heck is with me?!

[VenomsMom]

And I really dont even know what to include in SII anymore as this whole continuity thing seem more abstract and flawed every time I think about it. All that we thought we knew is confused and conflicted. Superman knows his mission and knows the importance of that mission and what he is here to do. As Jor-el has stated. Prepping the next Superman was not an immediate aspect of all this. Superman's legacy and purpose has always been understood and the kid does not compliment that.

[Maze]

edit double post.

[Maze]

Stop spouting off your delusions as fact.



Exactly, I couldn’t have said it better!!!



Nobody likes an immature little brat and that’s what your being.

Singer must’ve known it was dicey trying to make a sequel to Donner’s film(s) but the simple fact is this is what we’ve got to deal with so let’s take it like men! Singer’s not stupid enough to not make the rest of his era truly his and you know what? I want to see what happens next! I want to see how this Superman can become our Superman! Who the heck is with me?!

I am :cwink:

[VenomsMom]

Nobody likes an immature little brat and that’s what your being.

Singer must’ve known it was dicey trying to make a sequel to Donner’s film(s) but the simple fact is this is what we’ve got to deal with so let’s take it like men! Singer’s not stupid enough to not make the rest of his era truly his and you know what? I want to see what happens next! I want to see how this Superman can become our Superman! Who the heck is with me?!
LOL! For a minute I almost took this little comment seriously and then I realized it was just you.:whatever: Of course Singer knew it was dicey and that wont stop criticism will it. Of course its here unless we choose to ignore it so hopefully you will see what happens next. Apparently you figured that out.

[Yūgi's BM]

LOL! For a minute I almost took this little comment seriously and then I realized it was just you.:whatever: Of course Singer knew it was dicey and that wont stop criticism will it. Of course its here unless we choose to ignore it so hopefully you will see what happens next. Apparently you figured that out.

Ignoring it is like ignoring the Earth is round.

At this point we don’t know much about what’s coming next but judging from the quality increase between X1 and X2 we can expect something good.

I’d like to also point out that I didn’t see the post you made at 7: 31PM, oddly enough.

EDIT: And I was being serious with my last comment.

[VenomsMom]

Ignoring it is like ignoring the Earth is round.

At this point we don’t know much about what’s coming next but judging from the quality increase between X1 and X2 we can expect something good.

I’d like to also point out that I didn’t see the post you made at 7: 31PM, oddly enough.

EDIT: And I was being serious with my last comment.
Ignoring was nothing more but sarcasm, Xmen should not be a blueprint for an entirely different francise,what post was that, and yes you probably were serious but it did not bother me one way or another.:cwink: