Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[mego joe]

Well, the night after Supes visits Jason in his room, Lois Richard and Jason are at dinner. Jason tells Richard how he threw a piano at the bad guy. Richard figures it out and him and Lois split. (it happenes in real life everyday) She tells Supes, he reveals he's Clark then Jason goes to live with Martha on the farm as she knows best how to handle the situation. Jason figuring out he's not like most kids starts his understanding of who he is and you go from there. Pretty easy.

See how all the solutions just involve Jason going away? Just reboot instead of having to waste any screen time on him. And SUperman still has a kid... etc.... Problem not solved.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I still don't see Superman not telling Lois his idenity before they have sex.

[hockeyboy89]

I still don't see Superman not telling Lois his idenity before they have sex.

Well she sure as hell didn't seem to remember him when he went back to work......."meet anyone special?" C'mon

[mego joe]

I still don't see Superman not telling Lois his idenity before they have sex.

I'm with you there.

[mego joe]

Well she sure as hell didn't seem to remember him when he went back to work......."meet anyone special?" C'mon

That's what ISS is saying, that him not telling her his identity b/f having sex was out of character for SUperman.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Well she sure as hell didn't seem to remember him when he went back to work......."meet anyone special?" C'monObviously Bryan Singer and Richard Donner's version of bigblue is different than mine.

The Superman/Clark Kent glasses disguise is already hard enough to believe without sex being brought into it. There is a really dirty joke floating in my head right now but I'm not letting it out.

[hockeyboy89]

That's what ISS is saying, that him not telling her his identity b/f having sex was out of character for SUperman.

I agree, but I'm going with the notion that hse loves Superman, not Clark. I think that would have created more problems for this story. Imagine Martha dropping that bomb on him when he got back to Earth

[hockeyboy89]

Obviously Bryan Singer and Richard Donner's version of bigblue is different than mine.

The Superman/Clark Kent glasses disguise is already hard enough to believe without sex being brought into it. There is a really dirty joke floating in my head right now but I'm not letting it out.

Well we can debate the whole glasses/diguise thing, but there's enough arguing going on here :cwink:

[Christmas]

It also is just moronically simple on the part of the writers. It takes more to make the secret identity of Clark be legitimate as a story conceit. The fact they copulated but she has no idea about who he really is is CRAZY. Imagine them laying there afterward, SO UH HEY WHAT'S YOUR REAL NAME ANYWAYS SUPERMAN? UHHH YOU GOTTA GET THE f*** OUTTA HERE LOIS.."

[Webhead2006]

yea having the kid depowered or just move away doesnt really solve the big issue of him still existing and all that.

[hockeyboy89]

Based on eveything I've heard you all say here, I went and bought Birthright. I'd be stoked to see that into a movie. I'm about halfway thru, but it's good so far.

[Nixon]

It also is just moronically simple on the part of the writers. It takes more to make the secret identity of Clark be legitimate as a story conceit. The fact they copulated but she has no idea about who he really is is CRAZY. Imagine them laying there afterward, SO UH HEY WHAT'S YOUR REAL NAME ANYWAYS SUPERMAN? UHHH YOU GOTTA GET THE f*** OUTTA HERE LOIS.."

"Kal-El, Lois."

That, or something like Superman II happened.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It also is just moronically simple on the part of the writers. It takes more to make the secret identity of Clark be legitimate as a story conceit. The fact they copulated but she has no idea about who he really is is CRAZY. Imagine them laying there afterward, SO UH HEY WHAT'S YOUR REAL NAME ANYWAYS SUPERMAN? UHHH YOU GOTTA GET THE f*** OUTTA HERE LOIS..":lmao:

Thankyou. It's so ridiculous.

[hockeyboy89]

yea having the kid depowered or just move away doesnt really solve the big issue of him still existing and all that.


Thats a given, but the question was how do you deal with him without killing him off or taking away his powers. The only way to make the kid nonexistant is to reboot, period. That doesn't seem to be the case so we're looking at other possibilities. I agree with the masses, you don't kill the kid, not in a Superman movie. Now if it were Batman, all bets are off. He and his family along with any pet rocks would be gone:woot:

[Christmas]

It is ridiculous. And I LIKED the movie.

[Webhead2006]

Yea with the whole kid thing and the other bad elements from SR singer made that is why i really would like to see a full on reboot so then we wouldnt have to worry about any of the SR stuff and have that fresh clean slate.

[Christmas]

BTW did anybody follow up on that Legendary/Unleashed stuff? I was away for the weekend.

[I Am The Knight]

LIKE CHRISSSSSTMASSS!

Ask Showtime!

[Webhead2006]

nope nothing else has been found out yet about the legendary/slashfilm/production weekly thing on unleashed.

[I Am The Knight]

It also is just moronically simple on the part of the writers. It takes more to make the secret identity of Clark be legitimate as a story conceit. The fact they copulated but she has no idea about who he really is is CRAZY. Imagine them laying there afterward, SO UH HEY WHAT'S YOUR REAL NAME ANYWAYS SUPERMAN? UHHH YOU GOTTA GET THE f*** OUTTA HERE LOIS.."

Hahahaha.

[Cool Monty]

Ask Showtime!

He's on vacation. He said Jamie was doing the digging on the Unleash stuff.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Hahahaha.I forgot to tell you just how awesome your avatar is. Jeffery Dean Morgan is hot and just seems like the perfect choice for The Comedian.

And yes, I know I am off topic.

[Nixon]

It changes Jason having powers or not.



I don't have a problem with Superman having a son. Richard is the one that needs to be dealt with. I know how I would want to see that handled too.


Me neither. I think the problem is that everyone's looking at Jason as a problem and not an opportunity.

This is a Donner/Pre-Crisis-ish Superman we're dealing with here. One who can't/won't be Superman and be able to share a life with Lois, any fleeting episodes aside. "To be with one of them, you have to be one of them" or something like that. I don't have that movie in front of me right now. For this Superman, to be with Lois means to leave the world without a saviour. Superman sacrifices a normal life for himself (and very often is willing to sacrifice his life, period) so that the rest of the world will have the chance at one.

Except now we've got something added to the mix. Someone who can one day take up the mantle, or enter the family business if you will, so that Superman can one day retire, knowing the world will be protected, and be with Lois.

Richard isn't an issue. Richard is Pa Kent. His fate is sealed. He's going to die so that Jason can learn about life and death and the fragile barrier that can seperate the two. It's just a matter of how and when.

[I Am The Knight]

He's on vacation. He said Jamie was doing the digging on the Unleash stuff.

Ah.

But what about the modding?

I forgot to tell you just how awesome your avatar is. Jeffery Dean Morgan is hot and just seems like the perfect choice for The Comedian.

And yes, I know I am off topic.

Thank you. I snatched it from the Watchmen boards :oldrazz:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Me neither. I think the problem is that everyone's looking at Jason as a problem and not an opportunity.

This is a Donner/Pre-Crisis-ish Superman we're dealing with here. One who can't/won't be Superman and be able to share a life with Lois, any fleeting episodes aside. "To be with one of them, you have to be one of them" or something like that. I don't have that movie in front of me right now. For this Superman, to be with Lois means to leave the world without a saviour. Superman sacrifices a normal life for himself (and very often is willing to sacrifice his life, period) so that the rest of the world will have the chance at one.

Except now we've got something added to the mix. Someone who can one day take up the mantle, or enter the family business if you will, so that Superman can one day retire, knowing the world will be protected, and be with Lois.

Richard isn't an issue. Richard is Pa Kent. His fate is sealed. He's going to die so that Jason can learn about life and death and the fragile barrier that can seperate the two. It's just a matter of how and when.Nice try but...nah.

[X Knight]

that's the whole thing with Jason. His presence, his inclusion just boxes the whole franchise into a corner.......

You can't kill him off, you can't just conveniently "leave him out of" the story and pretend he doesn't exist. Yet, if you keep him alive and explore Superman trying to reconnect with the son he never knew he had......well, that just feels like a whole soap-opera/drama element that many would feel doesn't belong in a Superman Comic Book movie.

The only logical solution......have Superman drop Jason off at Batman's newly renovated manor........:woot:

Superman: "Hey Bruce, I heard you were looking for a young ward to train."
Batman: "He looks kind of creepy. Can he kick a**?"
Superman: "He can chuck a grand piano clear across the room."
Batman: "Done! He's mine!"

Batman training Jason: "Make no mistake, Jason, in here you will face DEATH! You will........hey.......don't touch the Tumbler! No....put it down! Oh ****!! ALFRED!!!"

[hockeyboy89]

that's the whole thing with Jason. His presence, his inclusion just boxes the whole franchise into a corner.......

You can't kill him off, you can't just conveniently "leave him out of" the story and pretend he doesn't exist. Yet, if you keep him alive and explore Superman trying to reconnect with the son he never knew he had......well, that just feels like a whole soap-opera/drama element that many would feel doesn't belong in a Superman Comic Book movie.

The only logical solution......have Superman drop Jason off at Batman's newly renovated manor........:woot:

Superman: "Hey Bruce, I heard you were looking for a young ward to train."
Batman: "He looks kind of creepy. Can he kick a**?"
Superman: "He can chuck a grand piano clear across the room."
Batman: "Done! He's mine!"

Batman training Jason: "Make no mistake, Jason, in here you will face DEATH! You will........hey.......don't touch the Tumbler! No....put it down! Oh ****!! ALFRED!!!"


LMAO!!!! Thats soooooo much better than anything I could come up with

[mego joe]

Obviously Bryan Singer and Richard Donner's version of bigblue is different than mine.


I don't think Donner's version is on board with the sex before identity thing. If you recall in both version of SII, Superman doesn't make any moves on Lois until after she figures out he's also Clark.

The Superman/Clark Kent glasses disguise is already hard enough to believe without sex being brought into it. There is a really dirty joke floating in my head right now but I'm not letting it out.
!!

[mego joe]

I agree, but I'm going with the notion that hse loves Superman, not Clark. I think that would have created more problems for this story. Imagine Martha dropping that bomb on him when he got back to Earth

What bomb?

I would think that if they were in an honest relationship where she knew he was Clark, he would have said goodbye etc... and we could've had a very different story- one about mature adults instead of immature adults acting like teenagers.

Plus, if she knew the truth she would love them both b/c they are the same person, remember SUperman II.

[mego joe]

that's the whole thing with Jason. His presence, his inclusion just boxes the whole franchise into a corner.......

You can't kill him off, you can't just conveniently "leave him out of" the story and pretend he doesn't exist. Yet, if you keep him alive and explore Superman trying to reconnect with the son he never knew he had......well, that just feels like a whole soap-opera/drama element that many would feel doesn't belong in a Superman Comic Book movie.

The only logical solution......have Superman drop Jason off at Batman's newly renovated manor........:woot:

Superman: "Hey Bruce, I heard you were looking for a young ward to train."
Batman: "He looks kind of creepy. Can he kick a**?"
Superman: "He can chuck a grand piano clear across the room."
Batman: "Done! He's mine!"

Batman training Jason: "Make no mistake, Jason, in here you will face DEATH! You will........hey.......don't touch the Tumbler! No....put it down! Oh ****!! ALFRED!!!"

SUperman with an illegitimate son that he's not raising as his own is just anti-thetical to the character. It just doesn't belong in a SUpeman story. You can't get from point A to point B and have it be an in character Superman story. THat's the problem with Jason and this storyline from SR. That's why SUperman needs the reboot.

The reason SUperman can't live a normal life is b/c he chooses to live life this way not b/c he's a screw up. Superman II showed how he came to that choice where as SR showed that he's a screw up and forced into the situation.

BTW- Jason living in the Batcave? Priceless!

[RachelDawes]

A kid should never die in a Superman film. That is too depressing and nothing Superman should have to deal with.

And I don't know why some folks think the only way to solve the kid problem is by killing him. There are other creative ways to do it.

The only other solutions I see apart from killing him is to either make Jason Supes' sidekick/heir or turn him in to a dude-in-distress. None of those is completely satisfactory, though I lean towards the sidekick option.

[hockeyboy89]

What bomb?

I would think that if they were in an honest relationship where she knew he was Clark, he would have said goodbye etc... and we could've had a very different story- one about mature adults instead of immature adults acting like teenagers.

Plus, if she knew the truth she would love them both b/c they are the same person, remember SUperman II.


OK, well for one we don't know when exactly they had sex, so leaving like he did isn't that big of an issue. Has everyone followed up with someone they had relations say a month after to make sure they aren't preggo?? I mean we don't for sure that he "hit it" and flew off. They were both adults, and he is flawed. He has feelings too, he turned back time to save her before. Much against his daddy's wishes.

Hell have him fly backwards in time again and have him do the right thing by her. It's established film cannon so it could be done, although dumb.

And if you remember SM2, he had her memory erased because she couldn't handle knowing he was Clark. She was sobbing in her freshly squeezed OJ.

[bgshw44]

The only other solutions I see apart from killing him is to either make Jason Supes' sidekick/heir or turn him in to a dude-in-distress. None of those is completely satisfactory, though I lean towards the sidekick option.

superman doesnt have a sidekick, this better not turn into the legend of zorro

[Nixon]

And if you remember SM2, he had her memory erased because she couldn't handle knowing he was Clark. She was sobbing in her freshly squeezed OJ.


Which was a terrible moment for both characters. It makes Superman look overbearing and creepy and Lois look selfish and more than a little pathetic.

[hockeyboy89]

Which was a terrible moment for both characters. It makes Superman look overbearing and creepy and Lois look selfish and more than a little pathetic.

"and get me a cheeseburger....."

[Nixon]

superman doesnt have a sidekick, this better not turn into the legend of zorro


Not a side-kick, but how about an heir then?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Boy did I dislike Donner's Superman movies.

[Nixon]

"and get me a cheeseburger....."


That just made her look hungry and a fan of the cheeseburger diet I've been working on. ;)

[bgshw44]

Not a side-kick, but how about an heir then?

the story of superman is infinite, there is no end so why would you need an heir. he should be the target of the next villian, and he will lose his kryptonian powers because of it, but wont die

[RachelDawes]

Well, the night after Supes visits Jason in his room, Lois Richard and Jason are at dinner. Jason tells Richard how he threw a piano at the bad guy. Richard figures it out and him and Lois split. (it happenes in real life everyday) She tells Supes, he reveals he's Clark then Jason goes to live with Martha on the farm as she knows best how to handle the situation. Jason figuring out he's not like most kids starts his understanding of who he is and you go from there. Pretty easy.

I also think it'd have to be done real time.......Lex could have been defending himself in court the whole time. Lois would be back to work by now after taking a break from the continent issue.

This may end up happening but I've always felt sending Jason away but keeping Lois around was a bit of a cop-out. I don't know if I want to watch scenes of Jason finding himself, either. We already dealt with that in SR with Superman and it wasn't terribly entertaining. Besides, Jason is always going to be an unspoken presence between Superman and Lois. As long as they have a kid their relationship is going to be different from what it is in the comics.

[bgshw44]

i cant believe lois and superman slept together in SII, that was such a poor decision. this is superman not a soap opera

[hockeyboy89]

That just made her look hungry and a fan of the cheeseburger diet I've been working on. ;)


:woot:

[Double Down]

Dan Lin was the guy pushing to oust Singer and a Superman sequel altogether in favor of Justice League: Mortal. He went as far as give up his seat at the studio to produce JLM via his newly-formed production company.

Needless to say, he played a game of chicken by doing that...and it backfired. That said, his company is producing stuff like Terminator: Salvation, Sherlock Holmes and other big properties with Warner Brothers - none of them DC Comics related, mind you.

So it worked out fine for him in the long run.

It looks like Dan Lin is going to get to produce Suicide Squad now instead:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=320161

[hockeyboy89]

This may end up happening but I've always felt sending Jason away but keeping Lois around was a bit of a cop-out. I don't know if I want to watch scenes of Jason finding himself, either. We already dealt with that in SR with Superman and it wasn't terribly entertaining. Besides, Jason is always going to be an unspoken presence between Superman and Lois. As long as they have a kid their relationship is going to be different from what it is in the comics.

If they keep him (no reboot) he has to be addressed and given some screen time. There's no way around it. I agree with the Lois angle, which is why I'd love to know Singers answer for it all. He put it all there for a reason, he did this movie knowing he'd follow up on it in a sequel.

[Nixon]

the story of superman is infinite, there is no end so why would you need an heir. he should be the target of the next villian, and he will lose his kryptonian powers because of it, but wont die

While the story of Superman might be infinite, the story of a particular iteration of Superman need not be. Think "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" for an example.

[Nixon]

i cant believe lois and superman slept together in SII, that was such a poor decision. this is superman not a soap opera

:hehe:


Nicely done.

[Nixon]

It occurs to me that with Lois squared away with Richard and Jason that Singer's cleared the board for Superman to not have to bother with any of that romancing Lois mushy soap opera stuff anymore.

Now all he's got to do is smack villains around.

[RachelDawes]

If they keep him (no reboot) he has to be addressed and given some screen time. There's no way around it. I agree with the Lois angle, which is why I'd love to know Singers answer for it all. He put it all there for a reason, he did this movie knowing he'd follow up on it in a sequel.

I think Singer intended for Jason to be his sidekick/heir, which is why I'm in favor of that angle for the next film. If that's what Singer planned when he set up his trilogy let's just finish the story. Besides, it's really the only way to have Jason be important to the story without killing him or having him be kidnapped.

[bgshw44]

i couldnt watch him being a sidekick, i dont see how it wouldnt come off totally cheesy and lame.

[X Knight]

sigh.....I just have this feeling that the Superman movie franchise is.........doomed! :(

[hockeyboy89]

I think Singer intended for Jason to be his sidekick/heir, which is why I'm in favor of that angle for the next film. If that's what Singer planned when he set up his trilogy let's just finish the story. Besides, it's really the only way to have Jason be important to the story without killing him or having him be kidnapped.

I get he was shipped to us from a dying planet defying space travel with no food or life support, I get his powers (all of them) without explanation, I get he had unprotected sex with the woman of his dreams and left her without saying good bye. I have no problem with any of that. But please, for the love of God, do not give him a side kick.

[X Knight]

"That's why Superman works alone."

[mego joe]

Boy did I dislike Donner's Superman movies.

You've got nothing then in terms of SUperman on the big screen don't you?

[hockeyboy89]

"That's why Superman works alone."

"Chicks dig the flying"

[mego joe]

OK, well for one we don't know when exactly they had sex, so leaving like he did isn't that big of an issue.


But see, it is an issue. It is pretty important. THis isn't Joe anybody we're talking about. It's Superman. He's not an 'everyman' character. He's the opposite of that- he's the example.

Has everyone followed up with someone they had relations say a month after to make sure they aren't preggo?? I mean we don't for sure that he "hit it" and flew off. They were both adults, and he is flawed.


But he's not an ***hole. He's not a jerk. He loves Lois, remember? He actually cares about her more than anybody, especially himself. And by his own admission the only reason he didn't say goodbye was b/c he chickened out b/c 'it was too difficult.' Does that really sound like Superman?

His flaws are not that he is not a good person or that he is selfish. His flaws are that he cares so much he wants to save everybody- but he's not going to screw over Lois.
He was clearly out of the picture before Richard was around, and there's no way Lois could mistake Richard for the father unless she had sex with both of them within a two week period.

He has feelings too, he turned back time to save her before. Much against his daddy's wishes.

Hell have him fly backwards in time again and have him do the right thing by her. It's established film cannon so it could be done, although dumb.


It's also the last thing we need. We need more new things and less rehashes of previous films which is what SR was in the first place. It was more about nostalgia for the Donner films than it was about Superman.

And if you remember SM2, he had her memory erased because she couldn't handle knowing he was Clark. She was sobbing in her freshly squeezed OJ.


Oh yes, I remember. It's that scene that shows that he's putting Lois's well being first and his own desires and needs aside in order to make life easier for her.

[mego joe]

If they keep him (no reboot) he has to be addressed and given some screen time. There's no way around it. I agree with the Lois angle, which is why I'd love to know Singers answer for it all. He put it all there for a reason, he did this movie knowing he'd follow up on it in a sequel.

This is the best argument there is for a reboot.

[mego joe]

sigh.....I just have this feeling that the Superman movie franchise is.........doomed! :(

If they don't reboot in some form it definitely is.

[Nightwing1977]

I forgot to tell you just how awesome your avatar is. Jeffery Dean Morgan is hot and just seems like the perfect choice for The Comedian.



Must be the "Tom Selleck" mustache that you dig on Morgan. Many women love those kind of mustache on guys. :p

[hockeyboy89]

Mego Joe, I agree with almost all you said. But this was his one time to think of himself and his dream of no longer being alone. In his world, hasn't he earned it? Granted it became a much bigger issue with Jason coming along. I for one think it was ok, and also VERY unfortunate the way it all unfolded.

He didn't talk to her first when he chose to lose his powers in SM2 so it's not like he doesn't doesn't make big decisions without consulting her.

[hippie_hunter]

superman doesnt have a sidekick, this better not turn into the legend of zorro

Supergirl and Superboy :o

[mego joe]

Mego Joe, I agree with almost all you said. But this was his one time to think of himself and his dream of no longer being alone. In his world, hasn't he earned it? Granted it became a much bigger issue with Jason coming along. I for one think it was ok, and also VERY unfortunate the way it all unfolded.


At no point does anyone earn the right to behave sexually irresponsible and hurt the person you love b/c it's 'too difficult' to do the right thing.

If he was in a sexual relationship with Lois wasn't he already 'not alone?' It just seems out of character that he would be in a sexual relationship with Lois and not say goodbye. That it would be too difficult to tell the woman he loves 'goodbye' under the circumstances that he might never return.

Plus, to paint SUperman as this character who's so alone is also incorrect. He's more human than he is Kryptonian. I think the aspect of Superman being 'alone' is way overblown in this film. Singer emphasized an aspect - Last Son of Krypton- and made it his defining characteristic b/c that's what Singer himself identified with.

He didn't talk to her first when he chose to lose his powers in SM2 so it's not like he doesn't doesn't make big decisions without consulting her.

I'm not sayig he had to ask permission, I'm just saying that since they were in a sexual relationship he had a responsiblity to her as her sexual partner. It would be just as irresponsible to not tell her about a V.D. wouldn't it?

[hockeyboy89]

At no point does anyone earn the right to behave sexually irresponsible and hurt the person you love b/c it's 'too difficult' to do the right thing.

If he was in a sexual relationship with Lois wasn't he already 'not alone?' It just seems out of character that he would be in a sexual relationship with Lois and not say goodbye. That it would be too difficult to tell the woman he loves 'goodbye' under the circumstances that he might never return.

Plus, to paint SUperman as this character who's so alone is also incorrect. He's more human than he is Kryptonian. I think the aspect of Superman being 'alone' is way overblown in this film. Singer emphasized an aspect - Last Son of Krypton- and made it his defining characteristic b/c that's what Singer himself identified with.


I'm not sayig he had to ask permission, I'm just saying that since they were in a sexual relationship he had a responsiblity to her as her sexual partner. It would be just as irresponsible to not tell her about a V.D. wouldn't it?


Sorry, just because you have a sexual relationship doesn't mean you have to discuss your travel plans. This is the year 2009. While it may be out of character for him, it is what it is. Using your argument, it's a very "human" thing. I'm not saying it's right, just like he did when he apologized.

And you can still be lonely while in a relationship. Look at Lois and Richard. He's the last of his kind. There's no one else like him, no one that could understand the day to day strain he places on himself.

As for him hurting her, it happened. He admitted it was wrong but it was his way of dealing with it.

As for him being alone, it's in every incarnation of Superman, not just this film.

[Nixon]

And you can still be lonely while in a relationship. Look at Lois and Richard. He's the last of his kind. There's no one else like him, no one that could understand the day to day strain he places on himself.



"Listen, what do you hear?"

"Nothing."

"I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a saviour but everyday I hear people crying out for one."

"I'm sorry I left you Lois, I'll take you back now."

Or something like that. Says it all without saying it all, doesn't it?

[hockeyboy89]

"Listen, what do you hear?"

"Nothing."

"I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a saviour but everyday I hear people crying out for one."

"I'm sorry I left you Lois, I'll take you back now."

Or something like that. Says it all without saying it all, doesn't it?

I love you Nixon. In a non-creepy message board kind of way.

[mego joe]

Sorry, just because you have a sexual relationship doesn't mean you have to discuss your travel plans.


If you know you're not going to be around for a while, you do. Especially if you actually love the person.

This is the year 2009. While it may be out of character for him, it is what it is. Using your argument, it's a very "human" thing. I'm not saying it's right, just like he did when he apologized.


It's isn't in character for him and it invalidates the rest of the film. It's something that should never have happened and thusly we got a bad Superman film.

And you can still be lonely while in a relationship. Look at Lois and Richard. He's the last of his kind. There's no one else like him, no one that could understand the day to day strain he places on himself.


Superman is not a character that feels sorry for himself. He doesn't wallow in self-pity.

As for him hurting her, it happened. He admitted it was wrong but it was his way of dealing with it.

As for him being alone, it's in every incarnation of Superman, not just this film.

But this version uses that as the defining element of his characterization which gets the character wrong. It would be just as wrong as eliminating it altogether. It's part, it's not the driving force.

[mego joe]

"Listen, what do you hear?"

"Nothing."

"I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a saviour but everyday I hear people crying out for one."

"I'm sorry I left you Lois, I'll take you back now."

Or something like that. Says it all without saying it all, doesn't it?

But that doesn't make him insensetive to Lois's needs or any other persons needs. It doesn't give him an excuse to hurt Lois.

Superman may not be perfect, but he's not a jerk. And that's what the 'no-goodbye' Superman of SR was.

[hockeyboy89]

Ok, MJ....you win. Good luck getting your perfect interpretation of Superman on film. You have your reasons for not liking it, and I'm not going to debate with you. I'm simply trying to show another side to the story.

Keep chasing that rainbow

[Nixon]

But that doesn't make him insensetive to Lois's needs or any other persons needs. It doesn't give him an excuse to hurt Lois.



Superman may not be perfect, but he's not a jerk. And that's what the 'no-goodbye' Superman of SR was.





No, it's not an excuse. It's an explanation for why he made a mistake. A mistake he manned up and apologized for. Instead of, you know, just mindwiping Lois like an overbearing boyfriend because it's easier.

[Nixon]

I love you Nixon. In a non-creepy message board kind of way.


Um, thank you. In a similarly non-creepy message board kind of way.

[mego joe]

Ok, MJ....you win. Good luck getting your perfect interpretation of Superman on film. You have your reasons for not liking it, and I'm not going to debate with you. I'm simply trying to show another side to the story.

Keep chasing that rainbow

It's not about perfection it's about being more right than wrong and SR just didn't do it for me. At all. Hope you get a Superman film you can get behind too.

[hockeyboy89]

I did....it was called Superman Returns. And rumor has it it's getting a sequel.

[mego joe]

No, it's not an excuse. It's an explanation for why he made a mistake. A mistake he manned up and apologized for.


Superman in character would never make that mistake. Period.


Instead of, you know, just mindwiping Lois like an overbearing boyfriend because it's easier.

But he would move heaven and earth to prevent Lois from suffering. As long as you perceive that amnesia kiss as anything but Superman helping Lois you are misinterpretting that scene. That scene is all about Superman aleviating Lois's pain. It's a stupid method but it's not about Superman taking the easy way out. The easy way out is leaving w/o saying goodbye b/c it's too difficutl.

I guess he shouldn't have turned back time either and just let her stay dead, instead of doing the tough thing and defying Jor-El's wishes.

[mego joe]

I did....it was called Superman Returns. And rumor has it it's getting a sequel.

Hopefully not! ;)

[Nixon]

Superman in character would never make that mistake. Period.

Movie Superman has and would.



But he would move heaven and earth to prevent Lois from suffering. As long as you perceive that amnesia kiss as anything but Superman helping Lois you are misinterpretting that scene. That scene is all about Superman aleviating Lois's pain. It's a stupid method but it's not about Superman taking the easy way out. The easy way out is leaving w/o saying goodbye b/c it's too difficutl.

I guess he shouldn't have turned back time either and just let her stay dead, instead of doing the tough thing and defying Jor-El's wishes.

Well, turning back time doesn't treat Lois like a child or violate her at least. And it wasn't the tough thing, it was the human thing. The tough thing would've been to leave Lois dead like he does so many other people because it is forbidden to interfere in human history.

As to trying to help Lois but in a weird, overbearing way: I wonder, what if, in the long run, Lois would have thought that emotional distress was worth it if it meant having the memory of that short time together?

Nevermind growth or dignity or responsibility, Supes, without even bothering to ask what her thoughts were on the matter, has robbed her of even those good memories.

And leaving without saying good bye is only the easy way out when you ignore the fact that he came back, he apologized, and he atoned.

[mego joe]

Movie Superman has and would.



Only SR. Which is an abomination of the character as represented in the Reeve films.


Well, turning back time doesn't treat Lois like a child or violate her at least. And it wasn't the tough thing, it was the human thing. The tough thing would've been to leave Lois dead like he does so many other people because it is forbidden to interfere in human history.


Yes, it's so easy for Lois to be dead. Next time the paramedics come to save your life be sure to have your sign up that says, "Don't save me. It's easier being dead."

As to trying to help Lois but in a weird, overbearing way: I wonder, what if, in the long run, Lois would have thought that emotional distress was worth it if it meant having the memory of that short time together?

Nevermind growth or dignity or responsibility, Supes, without even bothering to ask what her thoughts were on the matter, has robbed her of even those good memories.


It didn't seem like she was really enjoying those memories. I think the scene tries to indicate there's no emotional recovery for her.

And leaving without saying good bye is only the easy way out when you ignore the fact that he came back, he apologized, and he atoned.

It's the easy way out whether he comes back and appologizes or not. The damage has been done. He got out of having to be honest with her. After the fact it's a lot easier than doing the right thing the first time.

[Nixon]

Only SR. Which is an abomination of the character as represented in the Reeve films.


Exaggerrate much?



Yes, it's so easy for Lois to be dead. Next time the paramedics come to save your life be sure to have your sign up that says, "Don't save me. It's easier being dead."


Um, reread what I wrote please. I said that leaving Lois dead would be the tough but human choice to make, not the easy one.


It didn't seem like she was really enjoying those memories. I think the scene tries to indicate there's no emotional recovery for her.


Right, because there's no chance he feelings would've changed over time. People's intial emotional reactions are always their only emotional reactions.


It's the easy way out whether he comes back and appologizes or not. The damage has been done. He got out of having to be honest with her. After the fact it's a lot easier than doing the right thing the first time.

He made a mistake and he paid for it. I'm not sure why that's a concept so difficult to understand.

You keep talking about it like this was scam that Supes was trying to pull rather than a moment of human weakness he suffered from.

[Anita18]

Same here. It would be too dark (many think SR was dark enough anyway :p). Not to mention it would be a little controversial for a Supes film. We need the next Supes film to be happy & bright again compare to SR.
It's hard to be bright and happy when you're supposed to have a supervillain causing death and destruction in there. :oldrazz:

Unless you want the kind of ridiculous, campy action set pieces like the ones in Pirates 2. BTW I thought that movie was total crap. Pirates 3 was a lot darker and had its problems, but I enjoyed it a lot more.

I think they did, I remember Singer saying something about incorporating Jason firmly into the house of El or something that.
And to think people were up in arms over the non-canon existence of Rachel Dawes in BB/TDK. :o

that's the whole thing with Jason. His presence, his inclusion just boxes the whole franchise into a corner.......

You can't kill him off, you can't just conveniently "leave him out of" the story and pretend he doesn't exist. Yet, if you keep him alive and explore Superman trying to reconnect with the son he never knew he had......well, that just feels like a whole soap-opera/drama element that many would feel doesn't belong in a Superman Comic Book movie.

The only logical solution......have Superman drop Jason off at Batman's newly renovated manor........:woot:

Superman: "Hey Bruce, I heard you were looking for a young ward to train."
Batman: "He looks kind of creepy. Can he kick a**?"
Superman: "He can chuck a grand piano clear across the room."
Batman: "Done! He's mine!"

Batman training Jason: "Make no mistake, Jason, in here you will face DEATH! You will........hey.......don't touch the Tumbler! No....put it down! Oh ****!! ALFRED!!!"
:lmao:

[GreenKToo]

Most know I want a reboot with Routh, but if we get a sequel with the whole jason, richard and Lois thing going on, then the only way I could see it working would be for Jason to be kidnapped by Brainiac and whisked away, FAR away.

Superman would spend most of the film in space tracking Brainiac and Jason.
after several different stops on various worlds and meeting their inhabitants, the trail would finally lead Superman to a Dark, fiery, planet...

Superman would soon learn that Jason wasnt the target, he was.

With Superman gone, the earth is being invaded.

[afan]

The idea was about scientists that discovered Krypton didnt explode, and Superman leave Earth to search his home planet. But, in fact, that was a plan from Lex Luthor to get rid of Superman. This way, Luthor would be free and no Superman to bother him anymore.

Not only the Luthor plan was removed from final cut, but also the entire travel of Kal-El searching Krypton.

Than, afeter 5 years, Superman returns (name of the movie, ta-dã!) to Earth and find out that ppl moved on and learned to live wihtout him. Now, Superman has to regain ppl trust, see horrible things that happened while he left, and find out his place in this new world.

This would actually be a good plotline to reintroduce the character to a new audience, and show what Superman is about and why.

But, at the end, that wasnt done.

One more element needs to be added.........

Some device, preferably a Luthor contrivance, that prevents Superman from announcing his mission and hence his absence.
After all every detail of the conflict in SR is the result of Superman leaving unannounced.

[GreenKToo]

The editing was just horrible in S.R. I felt like I got a whole different film than the one I had followed from day 1.

[Nixon]

Yeah, so much of what was left on the cutting room floor, from the RtK sequence through to much of the Clark in Smallville stuff and Lex's plot, really should've been left in. It would've added some visual oomph to the movie, made Lex look even more evil, and made Superman's reasons for leaving much clearer.

Not sure why it was left out.

[Nixon]

I'm wondering, is this Suicide Squad news a new development, or, as with Green Lantern and Jonah Hex, are we seeing more and more info from the DC Super Summit finally start to leak out?

[dark_b]

The editing was just horrible in S.R. I felt like I got a whole different film than the one I had followed from day 1.the pacing was completely of :o

[bgshw44]

I'm wondering, is this Suicide Squad news a new development, or, as with Green Lantern and Jonah Hex, are we seeing more and more info from the DC Super Summit finally start to leak out?

i find it hard to believe its coincidence that you have the Superman Unleashed news, followed by this. I think they may finally have their plan together and its only a matter of time before they roll out the rest

[Mostpowerful]

"Listen, what do you hear?"

"Nothing."

"I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn't need a saviour but everyday I hear people crying out for one."

"I'm sorry I left you Lois, I'll take you back now."

Or something like that. Says it all without saying it all, doesn't it?

YES. Such a compelling scene, IMO. He is saying so much with those simple words, as well as with his facial expression. Fantastic stuff.



Ok, MJ....you win. Good luck getting your perfect interpretation of Superman on film. You have your reasons for not liking it, and I'm not going to debate with you. I'm simply trying to show another side to the story.

Keep chasing that rainbow

Yup, pretty much. I don't waste my time arguing with Mego anymore. He thinks this is the 40s. :woot: He wants a goody-goody two shoes Superman.


Really, with Supes you can't win. People complain that he is way too perfect and one-dimensional, and that it makes him boring. But when they give him a human weakness, people ALSO complain. :whatever:




No, it's not an excuse. It's an explanation for why he made a mistake. A mistake he manned up and apologized for. Instead of, you know, just mindwiping Lois like an overbearing boyfriend because it's easier.

Exaaaaaactly. It's part of Superman's emotional arc in the story.

Was it right , probably not , but Superman is entitled to make mistakes too. Which is pretty much the point of the film and of the earlier movies. Without that , would you really have any worthwhile drama? It'd just be a mindless action flick/cartoon.



Um, thank you. In a similarly non-creepy message board kind of way.

I love you too, Nixon, in the same non-creepy message board kind of way. :woot: :cwink:

[NeoRanger]

Really, with Supes you can't win.
I'm sorry, but this literally offends me. When one fails to properly utilize the material, it's not the audience's fault. Respect the material, adapt it properly and don't bother with "giving it" anything.

Seriously, people.

[RachelDawes]

I get he was shipped to us from a dying planet defying space travel with no food or life support, I get his powers (all of them) without explanation, I get he had unprotected sex with the woman of his dreams and left her without saying good bye. I have no problem with any of that. But please, for the love of God, do not give him a side kick.

I'm sorry, you'll have to clarify that. I can't tell how you feel about Superman having a sidekick. :cwink:

[That-Guy]

Most know I want a reboot with Routh, but if we get a sequel with the whole jason, richard and Lois thing going on, then the only way I could see it working would be for Jason to be kidnapped by Brainiac and whisked away, FAR away.

Superman would spend most of the film in space tracking Brainiac and Jason.
after several different stops on various worlds and meeting their inhabitants, the trail would finally lead Superman to a Dark, fiery, planet...

Superman would soon learn that Jason wasnt the target, he was.

With Superman gone, the earth is being invaded.


They could always do the "pre-boot" thing like they're doing with Star Trek.

Superman goes back in time and give Lois an abortion. Problem solved.

[Double Down]

Most know I want a reboot with Routh, but if we get a sequel with the whole jason, richard and Lois thing going on, then the only way I could see it working would be for Jason to be kidnapped by Brainiac and whisked away, FAR away.

Superman would spend most of the film in space tracking Brainiac and Jason.
after several different stops on various worlds and meeting their inhabitants, the trail would finally lead Superman to a Dark, fiery, planet...

Superman would soon learn that Jason wasnt the target, he was.

With Superman gone, the earth is being invaded.

Sign me up. :up:

[bgshw44]

Sign me up. :up:

i think that is a bit too out there.

[GreenKToo]

No doubt it's out there, but I really think they'll have to do something different AND action packed to draw folks into seeing another. And by folks, I dont mean us fanboy/girls either.
I think its pretty much a given that the next one will be wall to wall action. The only question is, what kind exactly.

[hockeyboy89]

I'm sorry, you'll have to clarify that. I can't tell how you feel about Superman having a sidekick. :cwink:

I'm sorry I wasn't clear....I'D RATHER GO WITH THE INITIAL ABRAMS SCRIPT THAN GET A SUPERMAN SIDEKICK. Thats all I'm saying

[GreenKToo]

No sidekicks for the love of Gawd!! :facepalm
:D

[X Knight]

what about Krypto, the super bow wow? :woot:

[GreenKToo]

Lol. what about his cat, superp.........eh, nevermind.

[Sverdlovski]

The kid shouldn't be in a new movie. Just have a scene where Lois briefly mentions that she sent him to a private school in England, for his own protection or something.

Problem solved. We wouldn't have to deal with the kid anymore.

[I Am The Knight]

The kid shouldn't be in a new movie. Just have a scene where Lois briefly mentions that she sent him to a private school in England, for his own protection or something.

:huh:

[FilmNerdJamie]

The kid shouldn't be in a new movie. Just have a scene where Lois briefly mentions that she sent him to a private school in England, for his own protection or something.

Problem solved. We wouldn't have to deal with the kid anymore.

Clark, Lois and Jimmy are standing around the break-room sipping on coffee.

Jimmy: (to Lois) Hey, don't you have a kid - like five years old or something?
Lois: Nope.
Jimmy: (confused) Uh, there are pictures of you next to a kid and some other guy all over your desk. You sure?
Clark & Lois: (concurrently) YES!

[Webhead2006]

YEa maybe singer shouldnt have cut all that stuff out that many have said that didnt make it into the final cut of the film. I and others like me probably would have liked the film a bit more story wise if that stuff was left in. Though we will probably never know. As for the sucide squad thing i do hope it is from the summit things and stuff finally moving around with dc characters into the film world. I hope it doesnt fall a part like jlm and supermax films. Also i hope gl and hex do well so wb can see that these non batman characters are a viable series if written well and they have the right people on board.

[Christmas]

Man what a sticky situation. No wonder this is taking so long to figure out.

I wonder what Singer, Harris, Dougherty's initial plans were for Jason, if they even thought it thru. They must have, even if in the vaguest way. In July 06 they must have been knocking around ideas.

Why did Harris and Dougherty back out so early? Questions, questions......

[regwec]

They should release a cut of SR in which all scenes featuring or referring to the kid are omitted, and replaced with animated segments featuring Lex Luthor in his green battlesuit. A sequel would then come quite easily.

[X Knight]

The kid shouldn't be in a new movie. Just have a scene where Lois briefly mentions that she sent him to a private school in England, for his own protection or something.

Problem solved. We wouldn't have to deal with the kid anymore.

This doesn't solve anything.

You just can't write off a major character like that. Plus, it doesn't really satisfy anyone....

Fans of SR and Jason, who want to see how Jason's character develops in the sequel, will naturally be angry and feel that's a cheap cop out.

Likewise, those of us who didn't like Jason wouldn't feel all that satisfied either. Even though Jason wouldn't be shown on screen, his character would still exist in that universe. And, thus, all the circumstances and behaviors of Supes and Lois that led to Jason would still exist.

Again, that's why I say, they boxed themselves into a corner with Jason. If you do a sequel, YOU HAVE to include Jason and the consequences and ramifications that his character brings. You just can't "pretend" he doesn't exist, when in fact he still does.

The only scenario that I could see them doing would be to somehow "retconn" Jason's exact heritage. Based on SR, everyone would assume Jason is Superman's son. However, while Jason IS Alien or Kryptonian or some hybrid, it turns out that he IS NOT Superman's son.

In fact, Jason's real heritage would be connected to the villain of the next movie. You could make Jason Zod's and Ursa's son, much like Donner did in the Superman comics. This would obviously set up Zod and co being the main bad guys ( It could work if you update those characters and give them interesting backstories ).

Or, to do something different, make Jason of alien or Kryptonian heritage, but also make him a "test-tube" baby or experiment or "last of his kind" specimen, part of someone's "collection" ( this would be Brainiac, folks ).

Either way, the premise would be that, while Superman was away for 5+ years, young Jason somehow escaped his situation and crashed on Earth, much like Supes did himself. And, just like the Kents found and adopted Supes, Lois and Richard ( or just Lois first ) found and adopted Jason.........

Of course, this would provide motivation for the next villain to come to Earth to "reclaim" Jason......

scenarios such as those are just about the only ones that could get me to see a sequel.......

[Christmas]

I do like the idea of Brainiac becoming fanatically interested in Jason as a specimen to study. A cross species child, the grandson of Jor-El no less.

I can't wait til Brainiac is on screen one day.

[Cool Monty]

I do like the idea of Brainiac becoming fanatically interested in Jason as a specimen to study. A cross species child, the grandson of Jor-El no less.

It does propose a direction to go with young Jason and a sequel.

[Webhead2006]

Yea i to would love to know what singer/co had in mind with giving supes a kid and for future films.

[Mostpowerful]

It does propose a direction to go with young Jason and a sequel.

Like someone said, Nixon I think, Jason is an opportunity to show another side of Superman. The father. Jason is another and more effective 'weakness' for Superman. Just imagine what Superman would do to find his son and to save ther world against an army of robots sent by Brainiac at the same time!. It could be soo compelling and exciting and epic! Brainiac or Darkseif in a follow up could also kidnap the kid and turn him against Supes... so many posibilities. And they can get rid of Richard by killing him heroically while trying to save Lois or better Jason. I don't see anything wrong with Supes being a father. On the contrary, it suits him. And Jason doesn't and shouldn't be the main focus, just a subplot to give more depth to the character of Supes. The main focus should always be Superman saving the world.

[Nightwing1977]

Superman goes back in time and give Lois an abortion. Problem solved.



And some fans hate Supes in SR, but they would hate that idea even more. Beside, is Supes really a baby killer? Or at least support abortion? :oldrazz:

[Sverdlovski]

:huh:

What's so confusing? If they make a sequel, have a scene where Lois says that Jason is in a private school in London.

This doesn't solve anything.

You just can't write off a major character like that. Plus, it doesn't really satisfy anyone....

Of course you can write off a character like that. It deals with it and gives some clousure.

And it satisfies people that don't want to have a superkid in their Superman movie.



Fans of SR and Jason, who want to see how Jason's character develops in the sequel, will naturally be angry and feel that's a cheap cop out.

Tough luck. You can't please everyone.

Likewise, those of us who didn't like Jason wouldn't feel all that satisfied either. Even though Jason wouldn't be shown on screen, his character would still exist in that universe. And, thus, all the circumstances and behaviors of Supes and Lois that led to Jason would still exist.

Better than have him killed off, which would have drastic consequences to the characters of Superman and Lois.

Supes and Lois had a relationship before, that's not unusual of the characters.

I think this is a way to have a movie where we don't have to deal with the kid, we should be able to focus on the things that really matter to us Superman fans: Superman fighting the bad guys, doing his stuff.

Again, that's why I say, they boxed themselves into a corner with Jason. If you do a sequel, YOU HAVE to include Jason and the consequences and ramifications that his character brings. You just can't "pretend" he doesn't exist, when in fact he still does.

He does exist, but you don't have to make things worse than they are by making him a major plot point in a new movie.

I don't want a Superman movie to revolve around this kid. So, don't kill him off, don't make him Superboy, don't make him the main villain.

By saying he's studying in London, or traveling with the boyscouts, or living with his maternal grandparents in Germany, he's still part of the universe but not in a way that would hinder the movie.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Or like Kevin Smith's answer to how to resolve Jar-Jar Binks:

"Hey, what happened to Senator Jar Jar?"
"Killed."
"Oh, okay."

[X Knight]

well, if you're not even going to include or address the kid, why even make a sequel to SR?

you'd be better off just making a reboot and starting with a fresh, clean slate......

[bgshw44]

its so funny how we are so caught up on the kid. the GA just wants a good, entertaining movie

[Sverdlovski]

well, if you're not even going to include or address the kid, why even make a sequel to SR?

you'd be better off just making a reboot and starting with a fresh, clean slate......

The kid is being addressed. He's just not connected to the main plot of the story.

As to why making a sequel instead of a "reboot"? To me, it doesn't matter really. I say the series needs a GOOD movie, and I don't want an origin story.

[Cool Monty]

As to why making a sequel instead of a "reboot"? To me, it doesn't matter really. I say the series needs a GOOD movie, and I don't want an origin story.

Exactly. :up:

[bunk]

The kid shouldn't be in a new movie. Just have a scene where Lois briefly mentions that she sent him to a private school in England, for his own protection or something.

Problem solved. We wouldn't have to deal with the kid anymore.

So... she would rather have strangers watch over her child who's fully capable of killing people at will? Don't you think maybe Jason would be better "protected" right under the nose of his super powered father?

Terrible idea.

[echostation]

A villain, Brainiac or Darkseid somehow get to the kid, and the kid now grown up actually tries to use his powers to fight one of them off but they incapacitate him for the rest of the film, Superman goes ape**** with his "Angry God/Unleashed" mode and kicks some serious ass...

that could be one way

[Anita18]

Really, with Supes you can't win. People complain that he is way too perfect and one-dimensional, and that it makes him boring. But when they give him a human weakness, people ALSO complain. :whatever:
I dunno, I think Superman having to choose what kind of future his son would have would be an incredibly powerful idea, but he only does that during the last 5 minutes of the film. For most of the movie, it just looks like he's immature for being upset Lois moved on after he was gone for 5 years.

It was just utterly stupid to me. Like, Superman seriously expected things to be normal and then was emo-petulant when it didn't work out to his expectations. I'm fine with human weaknesses, but I don't stand for stupidity.

[sf2]

a reboot with brandon in and singer out!!! and do it quick!!!

[RachelDawes]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear....I'D RATHER GO WITH THE INITIAL ABRAMS SCRIPT THAN GET A SUPERMAN SIDEKICK. Thats all I'm saying

I was only kidding. I could tell you hated the sidekick idea. :funny:

[RachelDawes]

a reboot with brandon in and singer out!!! and do it quick!!!

I agree completely.

[X Knight]

I dunno, I think Superman having to choose what kind of future his son would have would be an incredibly powerful idea, but he only does that during the last 5 minutes of the film. For most of the movie, it just looks like he's immature for being upset Lois moved on after he was gone for 5 years.

It was just utterly stupid to me. Like, Superman seriously expected things to be normal and then was emo-petulant when it didn't work out to his expectations. I'm fine with human weaknesses, but I don't stand for stupidity.

Agreed. It was like, Superman returns and expects everyone, including Lois, to just welcome him back with cheers and open arms. And, when he finds out Lois is angry ( she doesn't "love" him ), he feels hurt and flies away almost crying.

Wellllll......DUUUUUUHHHHH!!! What did you freakin expect!!! :wow: :whatever:

It's almost as if Superman didn't take ANYONE ELSE'S FEELINGS into consideration when he made the decision to leave. He only thought of HIS FEELINGS.....he would be too "hurt" or "lose courage" ( and thus unable to make the journey ) if he saw Lois to say good-bye before leaving because he supposedly "loved" her so much........:huh:

Never mind the whole kid issue.

Did Superman ever consider how Lois would feel when he disappeared for 5 long years without any explanation or even a goodbye?

Did Superman ever consider how worried and distraught his mom ( y'know...the woman who RAISED him ) would be with him making such a perilous trip? What if something happened to her while he was gone, something he might have been able to prevent had he been around? Would he be able to forgive himself for that?

Did Superman ever consider how the good ppl of Metropolis, nay....the rest of the world, who now look to him as their "savior" and "protector," would feel if he suddenly disappeared? Wouldn't they feel, like Lois, abandoned and confused? What if someone else as devious as Lex came along? What if another alien force invaded and mass slaughtered innocent lives? Threats that Superman might have been able to stop, had he been around.....

Did Superman think of any of these consequences of his actions?

If he did not, then that's why he came across as SELFISH, IRRESPONSIBLE, IMMATURE, and JUST PLAIN STUPID!!

And, that's why, any sequel that continues this story, regardless if the kid is included or not, will NOT interest me. The version of Superman established in SR in NO WAY resembles the Superman that I know and love.

[RachelDawes]

Maybe Singer should make a prequel. Not only would we be rid of Jason, but writers could come up with some plausible reason why Supes couldn't say goodbye to anyone (or even leave a note). We would probably have to leave the whole Donner connection behind, though, unless the next movie were to take place right after Superman has slept with Lois and removed her memory.

[hockeyboy89]

So... she would rather have strangers watch over her child who's fully capable of killing people at will? Don't you think maybe Jason would be better "protected" right under the nose of his super powered father?

Terrible idea.


Thats why you send him to live with Ma Kent.

[X Knight]

Maybe Singer should make a prequel. Not only would we be rid of Jason, but writers could come up with some plausible reason why Supes couldn't say goodbye to anyone (or even leave a note). We would probably have to leave the whole Donner connection behind, though, unless the next movie were to take place right after Superman has slept with Lois and removed her memory.

If I recall, there were some easy-reading "kiddy" books that kind of acted as "prequels" to the story of SR.

In one of those, I believe that there was some sort of evil Superman clone ( like Bizarro, I guess ) that caused mayhem and destruction. This caused ppl to start looking at Superman differently, like he's more of an alien outsider than their friendly protector. This caused Superman to feel more alone and outcast, and in turn factored in his decision to seek out "his own kind."

Indeed, a situation like this would have provided better context for the story of SR, especially if it was all part of Luthor's master plan to get rid of Superman.

Lex, knowing that it's virtually impossible to harm Superman physically, would instead attack him "emotionally." Creating Bizarro to tarnish Superman's reputation, sowing the seeds of mistrust and suspicion amongst the general populace, and thus turning them against Superman would certianly demoralize Supes.

This, in turn, would make Supes more likely to fall for the "bait" ( the fake Krypton story ). So, it would be like a "1-2 punch" by Lex to finally get rid of Superman......

[hockeyboy89]

Agreed. It was like, Superman returns and expects everyone, including Lois, to just welcome him back with cheers and open arms. And, when he finds out Lois is angry ( she doesn't "love" him ), he feels hurt and flies away almost crying.

Wellllll......DUUUUUUHHHHH!!! What did you freakin expect!!! :wow: :whatever:

It's almost as if Superman didn't take ANYONE ELSE'S FEELINGS into consideration when he made the decision to leave. He only thought of HIS FEELINGS.....he would be too "hurt" or "lose courage" ( and thus unable to make the journey ) if he saw Lois to say good-bye before leaving because he supposedly "loved" her so much........:huh:

Never mind the whole kid issue.

Did Superman ever consider how Lois would feel when he disappeared for 5 long years without any explanation or even a goodbye?

Did Superman ever consider how worried and distraught his mom ( y'know...the woman who RAISED him ) would be with him making such a perilous trip? What if something happened to her while he was gone, something he might have been able to prevent had he been around? Would he be able to forgive himself for that?

Did Superman ever consider how the good ppl of Metropolis, nay....the rest of the world, who now look to him as their "savior" and "protector," would feel if he suddenly disappeared? Wouldn't they feel, like Lois, abandoned and confused? What if someone else as devious as Lex came along? What if another alien force invaded and mass slaughtered innocent lives? Threats that Superman might have been able to stop, had he been around.....

Did Superman think of any of these consequences of his actions?

If he did not, then that's why he came across as SELFISH, IRRESPONSIBLE, IMMATURE, and JUST PLAIN STUPID!!

And, that's why, any sequel that continues this story, regardless if the kid is included or not, will NOT interest me. The version of Superman established in SR in NO WAY resembles the Superman that I know and love.


Given all your reasons, that solidifies my belief why he left the way he did. He told his mom, and thats are far as it HAD to go. Yes he should have told Lois, but he didn't.

He shouldn't have to consider the rest of the world when he wants to do something for himself. Aliens, human bad guys, etc he's protected the world from them, by his own decision putting his life on the line. Leaving to find out if he's the last of his kind is fine by me. If he announced he was leaving, every evil doer would have risen and had a free for all. Expecting to come home and find everyone welcoming him with open arms, thats crazy. And fortunately the film didn't go that way.

[RachelDawes]

If I recall, there were some easy-reading "kiddy" books that kind of acted as "prequels" to the story of SR.

In one of those, I believe that there was some sort of evil Superman clone ( like Bizarro, I guess ) that caused mayhem and destruction. This caused ppl to start looking at Superman differently, like he's more of an alien outsider than their friendly protector. This caused Superman to feel more alone and outcast, and in turn factored in his decision to seek out "his own kind."

Indeed, a situation like this would have provided better context for the story of SR, especially if it was all part of Luthor's master plan to get rid of Superman.

Lex, knowing that it's virtually impossible to harm Superman physically, would instead attack him "emotionally." Creating Bizarro to tarnish Superman's reputation, sowing the seeds of mistrust and suspicion amongst the general populace, and thus turning them against Superman would certianly demoralize Supes.

This, in turn, would make Supes more likely to fall for the "bait" ( the fake Krypton story ). So, it would be like a "1-2 punch" by Lex to finally get rid of Superman......

That's a clever idea, though it makes it harder to explain why Metropolis just embraces him wholeheartedly when he returns, and we still need a reason for Supes not to say goodbye to Lois.

[X Knight]

That's a clever idea, though it makes it harder to explain why Metropolis just embraces him wholeheartedly when he returns, and we still need a reason for Supes not to say goodbye to Lois.

well, of course, this scenario would work better if Superman HAD RETURNED TO A WORLD THAT HAD MOVED ON WITHOUT HIM. A world, or at least Metropolis, that looked to a new savior........LEX LUTHOR! ( And that would be the perfect way to bring in corporate Lex ).

[hockeyboy89]

well, of course, this scenario would work better if Superman HAD RETURNED TO A WORLD THAT HAD MOVED ON WITHOUT HIM. A world, or at least Metropolis, that looked to a new savior........LEX LUTHOR! ( And that would be the perfect way to bring in corporate Lex ).


Amen brother

[hockeyboy89]

I was only kidding. I could tell you hated the sidekick idea. :funny:

Yeah, hate......that's one word for it......

[Nixon]

Appropos of nothing, I wonder if Singer, when calling Superman Lois's ex-boyfriend, wasn't just referring to the period after he left for Krypton.

What if their relationship had hit the rocks before he left? Whatever the circumstances, there's certainly enough obstacles for that to have happened aren't there?

Does he still need to let his ex-girlfriend know he's going to find home?

[Nixon]

I love you too, Nixon, in the same non-creepy message board kind of way. :woot: :cwink:

Aww cripes, ain't it just becoming a regular old love-in around here. :cmad::hehe:

[X Knight]

Appropos of nothing, I wonder if Singer, when calling Superman Lois's ex-boyfriend, wasn't just referring to the period after he left for Krypton.

What if their relationship had hit the rocks before he left? Whatever the circumstances, there's certainly enough obstacles for that to have happened aren't there?

Does he still need to let his ex-girlfriend know he's going to find home?

but the movie seemed to imply that they were still in love with each other. It never said that they broke up.

Indeed, when Lois was barking at Clark, expressing her anger that Supes couldn't even say good-bye, didn't she say something to the effect of "what if you met that person that you felt destined to meet, then all of a sudden....poof....he just vanishes."

Course I'm paraphrasing here, but that piece of dialogue strongly suggested that Lois was in love with Superman, he was her soulmate, and hence, why she was so angry he left without even saying goodbye.

[Nixon]

i find it hard to believe its coincidence that you have the Superman Unleashed news, followed by this. I think they may finally have their plan together and its only a matter of time before they roll out the rest


Jebus, let's hope you're right.

[FlawlessVictory]

Appropos of nothing, I wonder if Singer, when calling Superman Lois's ex-boyfriend, wasn't just referring to the period after he left for Krypton.

What if their relationship had hit the rocks before he left? Whatever the circumstances, there's certainly enough obstacles for that to have happened aren't there?

Does he still need to let his ex-girlfriend know he's going to find home?

Apparently Lois felt he should have been responsible and done so, otherwise she wouldn't have been so pissed. Actually, I thought of this myself, what if they weren't in a relationship at the time Superman left. That's fair to bring up, but remember, Clark told Lois outside the Daily Planet that maybe it was too hard for Superman to say Goodbye, that was the reason given, implying they still had some responsibility towards each other but that Superman lacked testicluar fortitude. If they weren't dating than Clark should have said, "Where you and Superman dating when he left?" :funny:

And also, if they weren't together, then why the flippin F would Clark be surprised that Lois actually moved on?! 5 F'n years and he is surprised that Lois has moved on. What kind of selfish bologna is that? :down

[FlawlessVictory]

but the movie seemed to imply that they were still in love with each other. It never said that they broke up.

Indeed, when Lois was barking at Clark, expressing her anger that Supes couldn't even say good-bye, didn't she say something to the effect of "what if you met that person that you felt destined to meet, then all of a sudden....poof....he just vanishes."

Course I'm paraphrasing here, but that piece of dialogue strongly suggested that Lois was in love with Superman, he was her soulmate, and hence, why she was so angry he left without even saying goodbye.

Hehe, you beat me to it but we are on the same page!

[NeoRanger]

There is no truly good way to get rid of Jason. The damage is done. If a sequel is shot, we'll either have to deal with him or a cop-out solution to him.

Neither are acceptable for me. So scrap the damn thing.

[GreenKToo]

I'll be glad when we know one way or the other whats gonna happen. Then at least those that aren't interested in what they decide to film will be able to move on.

[afan]

He shouldn't have to consider the rest of the world when he wants to do something for himself.

This sentence demonstrates that you clearly have no grasp of the Superman caharacter.


If he announced he was leaving, every evil doer would have risen and had a free for all.


You are contradicting yourself here. If his decision to leave un-announced is based on the belief that an announcement would give crime a "free-for-all" opportunity he is considering the rest of the world.

Now as to this being a rationale for leaving un- announced consider this......

Superman knew how long his journey would take.
The journey to and from Krypton's remains lasting approximately 5 Earth years.
Superman knew he would be gone for at least that length of time.

Now he has two options......
Tell the world of his plan, or leave unnanounced.
If he tells the world.
Criminals would cheer, and perhaps plan the free for all.
Meanwhile authorities, realizing this, would plan for it and ramp up to compensate for Superman's absence.

If he leaves un-announced.
Given the time Superman is absent; criminals eventually(conservatively a month or two) come to realize as does the world that Superman is gone, and begins the free for all.
Authorities are caught flat footed, possibly never regaining control.

As far as crime is concerned, the free for all would still occur as soon as it was clear that Superman was no longer a factor. The only difference being that the world would have no chance to prepare for Superman being gone. This doesn't only apply to a response for criminal activities but also those agencies that would be responding to narural and man-made disaster, they also would be blind sided by Superman's decision to leave un-announced. Does that really sound like a scenario that Superman would purposefully create?


Expecting to come home and find everyone welcoming him with open arms, thats crazy. And fortunately the film didn't go that way.

If Superman had announced his journey, his reason's for leaving, and it's duration; not only would the Earth eagerly welcome him back, but at the estimated time for his return I dare say that everyone, criminals included, would be watching the sky.

[GreenKToo]

Its to bad the writers didnt think it through.

[NeoRanger]

Ironic how "Lois & Clark" always gets the short end of the "preference" stick, but at least there Superman acted like Superman.

You know, like how he gave a press conference when he was about to leave for another planet, possibly never coming back?

[El Payaso]

I don't remember Superman announcing the world he was goiung to de-powering himself and thus quit his mission forever back in Superman II.

It seems to me that this incarnation of Superman (Donner/Singer) just does his personal things privately. And when things get too complicated with Lois, he doesn't ask her opinion on the matter. You know, whether he's going away to an important mission or he's going to wipe her mind.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Maybe Singer should make a prequel. Not only would we be rid of Jason, but writers could come up with some plausible reason why Supes couldn't say goodbye to anyone (or even leave a note). We would probably have to leave the whole Donner connection behind, though, unless the next movie were to take place right after Superman has slept with Lois and removed her memory.

I have said for a while that prequel would be the best way to go, could explain some things more and get rid of the kid. I dont mind the kid but a lot of people do.

[Superfreak]

I have said for a while that prequel would be the best way to go, could explain some things more and get rid of the kid. I dont mind the kid but a lot of people do.

I've been going over this in the requel thread.

a prequel doesn't have to get rid of Jason, it can reconceptualize him into something other than a love child. I forwarded the idea, that in a prequel, Lex would be involved in genetically modifying soldiers. Jason would infact be a scientific rape of Lois, after she gets into trouble, and is captured by some Luthor goons (after luthor had collected some superman dna of course). Lex will be reimagined, where he is a billionair mogul, and vain, and with hair. By the end of the movie, he will be bald, and slightly loony, after Superman has foiled all his plans.

that way, it actually makes sense that Supes didn't know he had a son, and that Jason is really his son, but is his offspring... and there is a reason for Lex to be 'crazy'... leading into SR



a sequel to SR would finally deal with Jason, and reveal what I outlined above. Jason would be captured, and infested by Brainiac born out of NK, who seeks a body strong enough to kill the last kryptonian. Lex would be acquired by the government, due to his knowledge of the kryptonian crystals.

[afan]

I have said for a while that prequel would be the best way to go........


SR in it's conception, already has a prequel, though vague, it's S:TM.

[Superfreak]

SR in it's conception, already has a prequel, though vague, it's S:TM.

I think the point is to divorce SR from the donner franchise, with a new origin

[NeoRanger]

Now we're grasping at straws. SR follows the Donner franchise. It's meant to follow the Donner franchise. It's meant to have Brando as Jor-El, it's meant to have crystals and a ridiculous Lex Luthor. And now it's meant to have a kid and a love triangle that, for some reason, doesn't include Clark Kent.

Mark my words: they go out of their way to disassociate SR from the Donnerverse, or get rid of Jason or Richard (heroically, no less), it's going to blow up in their face.

I don't know if we'll have a reboot, a sequel or a vague sequel. But whatever we end up with, I don't see how it will work if it's not simple and clear within its own framework.

[afan]

I think the point is to divorce SR from the donner franchise, with a new origin

Which = reboot, and I'm 100% all for that.

In fact, while watching "Changeling", keying paticularly on it's depiction of the press, and more generally on it's sets and costumes; it occurred to me that a Superman film done as a period piece would send a clear and present signal to the GA that this motion picture has no connection what so ever to Donner's or Singer's Superman, communicating that it truly is a reboot.

[X Knight]

I don't remember Superman announcing the world he was goiung to de-powering himself and thus quit his mission forever back in Superman II.

It seems to me that this incarnation of Superman (Donner/Singer) just does his personal things privately. And when things get too complicated with Lois, he doesn't ask her opinion on the matter. You know, whether he's going away to an important mission or he's going to wipe her mind.


agreed. That's why I never held the Donner movies on such a high pedestal. Sure, Reeve was iconic as Clark/Supes, and the Williams theme is equally iconic and classic.

But, other than those 2 elements, I really didn't care much for the original Superman movies. Supes and Lois sleeping together in the FOS....Supes turning back time......and the Amnesia Kiss.......that's just plain stupid and downright creepy.

That's also why I wanted a clean break from the Donner universe. Going forward, it would be nice if we could get a Superman movie completely ( or at least largely ) free of the Donner universe. I'm sure some Donner-type influences would remain, but they need to incorporate elements from other sources, y'know...like THE COMIC BOOK and the Animated Series.

WB had the perfect opportunity to do that with SR. With the franchise dormant for....what.....almost 20 years, and the last 2 films laughable, that was the perfect time to reintroduce Superman, free from the prior movies. I mean, they just had a successful attempt with Batman Begins! That was the formula to use!

However, WB ultimately chose the "safe" route. It seems that, during the developmental hell period, they did try to reimagine the charcter. The only problem was that most of those failed concepts, while being more "ambitious" or "creative" than SR, would have radically altered the Superman universe. So, in the end, it's like they threw their hands up and let Singer make a SR movie that was closer to the original Donner movies. IOW.....the "safer" choice.

Now, it seems, WB is going for the safe route again. It seems that they had been looking for ideas, writers, etc. to come up with a way to reboot/reintroduce Superman but to no avail. With the latest Unleashed "news," it seems WB is going back to the safer comfort zone of just making a sequel to SR........

[Superfreak]

Which = reboot, and I'm 100% all for that.

In fact, while watching "Changeling", keying paticularly on it's depiction of the press, and more generally on it's sets and costumes; it occurred to me that a Superman film done as a period piece would send a clear and present signal to the GA that this motion picture has no connection what so ever to Donner's or Singer's Superman, communicating that it truly is a reboot.

no, but it wouldn't be a full reboot, it would be a prequel that assumes the role of SR's origin.

[afan]

no, but it wouldn't be a full reboot, it would be a prequel that assumes the role of SR's origin.

So it would be a reboot of S:TM? and the "vague" inclusion of the events of SII?

Sounds mighty confusing to me.

[Superfreak]

So it would be a reboot of S:TM? and the "vague" inclusion of the events of SII?

Sounds mighty confusing to me.

no, it would be a prequel to SR, and a new origin, and the Donner Franchise would no longer exist in the SR universe. Get rid of the vague continuity, by removing the donner franchise, and replacing it with an origin that fits with SR.

It would solve a whole bunch of problems, and help to reconceptualize SR, as well as provide an opportunity to right some wrongs in SR... ie. making jason a bizarro clone that Lois was implanted with without her knowledge, making Lex a billionaire magnate, driven mad by the interference of a nearly omnipotent being etc.

it doesn't matter if it's attached to SR, as long as the movie is kick ass. Then you follow it up with a sequel to SR

[X Knight]

no, it would be a prequel to SR, and a new origin, and the Donner Franchise would no longer exist in the SR universe. Get rid of the vague continuity, by removing the donner franchise, and replacing it with an origin that fits with SR.

It would solve a whole bunch of problems, and help to reconceptualize SR, as well as provide an opportunity to right some wrongs in SR... ie. making jason a bizarro clone that Lois was implanted with without her knowledge, making Lex a billionaire magnate, driven mad by the interference of a nearly omnipotent being etc.


so...it would be like "retconning" SR? :woot:

[Superfreak]

so...it would be like "retconning" SR? :woot:

retconning of the donner franchise, not SR.

Retconning SR is just a waste of $$$$ already invested. Better to retcon all the Donner stuff (it's made it's money already), and do a full origin prequel for SR that is awesome, to prop up the current franchise.

are you guys making this difficult on purpose?

[NeoRanger]

If it took you that long to explain it to them, imagine what will happen when a clueless guy walks into the theater and watches that movie.

[Superfreak]

If it took you that long to explain it to them, imagine what will happen when a clueless guy walks into the theater and watches that movie.

it would be simple as someone coming forward and simply saying there is no such thing as the vague continuity, and SR has nothing to do with the christopher reeve superman.

I think they're just playing stupid IMO

[bgshw44]

If it took you that long to explain it to them, imagine what will happen when a clueless guy walks into the theater and watches that movie.

no kidding. just make a good sequel everything will fall into place

[X Knight]

retconning of the donner franchise, not SR.

Retconning SR is just a waste of $$$$ already invested. Better to retcon all the Donner stuff (it's made it's money already), and do a full origin prequel for SR that is awesome, to prop up the current franchise.

are you guys making this difficult on purpose?

no, we're not. I get what you're saying, and those aren't actually bad ideas ( although I don't agree with everything ).

but if you're going to go through all that trouble....wouldn't it just be soooo much simpler to just reboot the whole thing?

No Donner. No SR. Just a fresh start.

If you make essentially a prequel to SR, but "retconn" all of the Donner influences, you will be making an "origin" movie with a very different look, feel, or tone than SR. Plus, if you start changing circumstances ( such as Jason's birth ), then you will be presenting conflicting info compared to SR.

Then, what will the next movie be? A direct sequel to what happened in SR, but also based off the stuff from this new origin prequel movie...

SR was enough of a vague sequel.

Either make a direct sequel or a complete reboot. Let's not make this "franchise" any more confusing than it already is.

[Superfreak]

Now we're grasping at straws. SR follows the Donner franchise. It's meant to follow the Donner franchise. It's meant to have Brando as Jor-El, it's meant to have crystals and a ridiculous Lex Luthor. And now it's meant to have a kid and a love triangle that, for some reason, doesn't include Clark Kent.

Mark my words: they go out of their way to disassociate SR from the Donnerverse, or get rid of Jason or Richard (heroically, no less), it's going to blow up in their face.

I don't know if we'll have a reboot, a sequel or a vague sequel. But whatever we end up with, I don't see how it will work if it's not simple and clear within its own framework.

see, I missed your post here.

I disagree.

They could just forget the Donner franchise, and replace the whole issue with an origin that fits SR. This makes way more sense to me. It allows for fixes to 90% of the problems with SR, 'cept the lack of action.

[Superfreak]

no, we're not. I get what you're saying, and those aren't actually bad ideas ( although I don't agree with everything ).

but if you're going to go through all that trouble....wouldn't it just be soooo much simpler to just reboot the whole thing?

No Donner. No SR. Just a fresh start.

If you make essentially a prequel to SR, but "retconn" all of the Donner influences, you will be making an "origin" movie with a very different look, feel, or tone than SR. Plus, if you start changing circumstances ( such as Jason's birth ), then you will be presenting conflicting info compared to SR.

Then, what will the next movie be? A direct sequel to what happened in SR, but also based off the stuff from this new origin prequel movie...

SR was enough of a vague sequel.

Either make a direct sequel or a complete reboot. Let's not make this "franchise" any more confusing than it already is.


see... going forward with a kick ass sequel can work... but it still leaves all those questions about the annoying things in SR unanswered. Personally, the vague history idea is the problem behind SR. By replacing that vague history, with a concrete one, I think the overall story will work better.

doing a full retcon, and starting over from scratch is a waste of a couple of hundred million $$$ in the form of SR (like I typed before, the donner franchise has made it's money). All that investment will be for nothing, and will go nowhere.

again, I'm all for going directly into a sequel, but it has to be a real sequel. Not a sequel that picks and chooses what to remember from it's previous installment. Do it properly, or don't do it at all.

[NeoRanger]

Not only does it not fix anything, since a Superman consistent with the one in SR is a Superman I don't want to have to see again, not to mention the little inconvenience of still being stuck with a son in future movies, but what you're suggesting is still plenty confusing. SR was obviously made to have a lot to do with Reeve and Donner's Superman. You can't detach it without any explanation and you can't detach it with an extensive explanation. It's a lose-lose.

Besides, what would be the point? If it's essentially a reboot that has a different style and it's disconnected from the Donnerverse, why should it be a prequel to SR?

[Superfreak]

Not only does it not fix anything, since a Superman consistent with the one in SR is a Superman I don't want to have to see again, not to mention the little inconvenience of still being stuck with a son in future movies, but what you're suggesting is still plenty confusing. SR was obviously made to have a lot to do with Reeve and Donner's Superman. You can't detach it without any explanation and you can't detach it with an extensive explanation. It's a lose-lose.

Besides, what would be the point? If it's essentially a reboot that has a different style and it's disconnected from the Donnerverse, why should it be a prequel to SR?

Like I said, I'm jsut offering a solution... I tried to expand it in the 'requel' thread.

I'd personally go for a full reboot, with Routh... but that would be equally confusing wouldn't it.

PS. screw the donnerverse, in context of today's franchise. The only thing that attachs it to SR, other than the stylistic version of New Krypton and the fortress and the farm, is the Jor'el monologue (in little bits) and a fuzzy image of marlon brando. Nothing else in SR connects it to the donner franchise.

And the only other questions that need to be answered in prequel origin to SR would be Lois's knowledge of Superman (listed conveniently in one scene), and Lex's knowledge of kryptonite and the fortress location.

These can all easily be answered in a prequel origin with little trouble.

I'm sensing the superman forum has become closed minded in the last little while.

[Nixon]

If you want to do a prequel to Superman Returns without doing a hard retcon you just situate it in the time between the end of Superman: The Movie and when he left in search of Krypton.

There's clearly a window of time for stories there, there's no Jason for the people that hate, Hate, HATE the kid, and you've got an unattatched Lois for Superman to romance. Corporate Lex is a no-no because he's going to be rotting away in jail but there's other villains that can be brought into the mix isn't there?

[NeoRanger]

PS. screw the donnerverse, in context of today's franchise. The only thing that attachs it to SR, other than the stylistic version of New Krypton and the fortress and the farm, is the Jor'el monologue (in little bits) and a fuzzy image of marlon brando. Nothing else in SR connects it to the donner franchise.
And Lex and Clark and the music and about a million references/homages. It's going to be impossible to disassociate SR from the Donnerverse. I'm sorry, I just don't see it happening.

I'm sensing the superman forum has become closed minded in the last little while.
Actually, I find this a bit ironic. I find going back and working out a complex solution to make something work "just 'cause" a bit more close-minded than scrapping everything and going freely about a new direction and whatever possibilities it offers.

[Vaibow]

Guys, there already is a sequel to SuperMan Returns, it's called Superman 3 and superman 4 - i don't see any Super kid in theose!!

That's what's so stupid.. Superman Returns should have been classed as a remake, using Donner elements - hence the term remake!

i'm working on a scene that could explain Jason in the sequel, failing that just reboot.

[afan]

Guys, there already is a sequel to SuperMan Returns, it's called Superman 3 and superman 4 - i don't see any Super kid in theose!!

That's what's so stupid.. Superman Returns should have been classed as a remake, using Donner elements - hence the term remake!

i'm working on a scene that could explain Jason in the sequel, failing that just reboot.

What film would it be a remake of?

[regwec]

"Big Trouble in Little China".

There were some rewrites, some ad-libbing...

[FilmNerdJamie]

"Big Trouble in Little China".

There were some rewrites, some ab-libbing...

Pretty big rewrites as I recall on that one.

[NeoRanger]

What film would it be a remake of?
Touché.

[Showtime]

We have a Superman Returns section. You can talk about Jason White and his purpose in that sub-section. This has gone way off topic for this past week. Please stop the same arguments over and over again in this thread and in this section, they can be had elsewhere as above.

Thanks.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator.

[Vaibow]

Touché.


how?

I would say it was a remake of Superman the movie - steeling direct quotes and also, the luthor plot of land and with Superman lifting a large land mass (california) not to mention various other scene.

i'm not in an arguement or joining in, i'm just stating, SR is a sequel to superman 2, so where does 3 and 4.... so going back to the topic, i guess they should just, reintroduce it all over again

[X Knight]

We have a Superman Returns section. You can talk about Jason White and his purpose in that sub-section. This has gone way off topic for this past week. Please stop the same arguments over and over again in this thread and in this section, they can be had elsewhere as above.

Thanks.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator.

ahhhhh.......stay on topic??? where's the fun in that??? :csad: :grin:

this does seem to be the pattern here. We get a little tidbit of new "news." But, without further confirmation or details, we just end up getting sucked back into the vacuum of debating the same old arguments.......lol.

[afan]

We have a Superman Returns section. You can talk about Jason White and his purpose in that sub-section. This has gone way off topic for this past week. Please stop the same arguments over and over again in this thread and in this section, they can be had elsewhere as above.

Thanks.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator.

Who is Jason White?:cwink:

[X Knight]

Who is Jason White?:cwink:

you mean....Jason White Lane Kent aka Kid-El?????? :woot: :cwink:

[Nixon]

So, I'm wondering if being turned down by Gosling and then Emil Hershe even constitutes difficulty filling the role?

If so, might these sorts of problems explain the slower than expected release of news?

[X Knight]

So, I'm wondering if being turned down by Gosling and then Emil Hershe even constitutes difficulty filling the role?

If so, might these sorts of problems explain the slower than expected release of news?

:huh:

[FlawlessVictory]

Looks like Nixon thought he was in the GL Casting Thread. :woot:

[Nixon]

:huh:


Oh right, the linky. I was talking about this (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/from-kyle-reese-to-green-lantern-6278).

[FlawlessVictory]

What does that have to do with Superman though? As far as we know the role of Superman is already filled. And if this movie is planned for summer or winter of 2011 then it would still be awhile before we hear anything anyway.

[Nixon]

Looks like Nixon thought he was in the GL Casting Thread. :woot:

No, I'm still thinking about Superman. If they're waiting to get all their ducks in a row before making a big push with the news for their DCU projects, then maybe this difficult ducky might explain some of the hold up.

[X Knight]

Oh right, the linky. I was talking about this (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/from-kyle-reese-to-green-lantern-6278).


ah....I see. thanks.

Not really familiar with GL, so I can't comment on any of those potential choices......lol.

now....hurry.....let's get back on topic before Showtime reprimands us again! :woot:

[FlawlessVictory]

No, I'm still thinking about Superman. If they're waiting to get all their ducks in a row before making a big push with the news for their DCU projects, then maybe this difficult ducky might explain some of the hold up.

Oh! Well, I don't expect some big press release one day announcing all their superhero projects at once with cast and directors, etc... I just think we will hear bits and pieces here and there for the different projects. Besides, wasn't that Robinov who said that. It's obvious now that none of what he said has actually happened.

[Nixon]

Well, this is kinda sorta on topic since it's at least kinda sorta speculating on why announcements are slow in coming for a lot of things, even the Man of Steel.

[I Am The Knight]

We have a Superman Returns section. You can talk about Jason White and his purpose in that sub-section. This has gone way off topic for this past week. Please stop the same arguments over and over again in this thread and in this section, they can be had elsewhere as above.

Thanks.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator.

THANK YOU. I have been avoiding this thread like the plague for days because of this over played nonsense.

No, I'm still thinking about Superman. If they're waiting to get all their ducks in a row before making a big push with the news for their DCU projects, then maybe this difficult ducky might explain some of the hold up.

Enough with the ducks.

[X Knight]

I still have a feeling that WB might decide to wait and see how GL actually performs, critically and BO wise, before going full speed ahead with the rest of their DCU movies.

Kind of like with IM. Once Marvel saw how big of a hit that was, that seemed to give them confidence to forge ahead with their other Avengers-related properties.

also, as some ppl have mentioned. If Clark/Supes does have a cameo in the GL movie, and if he is played by Routh, then that would kind of give away WB's plans.

just some food for thought......

[Nixon]

Enough with the ducks.

:huh:

[I Am The Knight]

You 'erd me.

[Nixon]

I still have a feeling that WB might decide to wait and see how GL actually performs, critically and BO wise, before going full speed ahead with the rest of their DCU movies.

Kind of like with IM. Once Marvel saw how big of a hit that was, that seemed to give them confidence to forge ahead with their other Avengers-related properties.



Which, now that you mention it, might actually not be the worst decision in the world.

[echostation]

what do people think of my idea? i thought it'd be a suitable one given the direction legendary want to push this in

[Nixon]

You 'erd me.


I did, I just don't understand where the anti-duckism is coming from.

[X Knight]

what idea was that, echostation?

this thread has been all over the place lately...lol....

[Nixon]

A villain, Brainiac or Darkseid somehow get to the kid, and the kid now grown up actually tries to use his powers to fight one of them off but they incapacitate him for the rest of the film, Superman goes ape**** with his "Angry God/Unleashed" mode and kicks some serious ass...

that could be one way


I think he means this one.


I do think that putting Jason in real mortal danger in a sequel, something that a Brainiac who's interested in collecting unique specimens would do, is as good a way as any to get Superman to lose his **** and go to the brink.

Does Superman hold onto his "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" code of conduct even when his own flesh and blood is in mortal danger?

[echostation]

Oh I just wrote this below, i mean it may seem simplistic but I think it'd be an easy quick economical way to get rid of the kid for a movie or 2..

A villain, Brainiac or Darkseid somehow get to the kid, and the kid now grown up actually tries to use his powers to fight one of them off but they incapacitate him for the rest of the film, Superman goes ape**** with his "Angry God/Unleashed" mode and kicks some serious ass... by the end of say 2 films, Supes manages to resus him and bring him back to life but at the cost of his superpowers thus rendering him with normal human abilities only.

that could be one way

[echostation]

sorry as you can see I added a few things like restoring Jason but at the cost of him losing his kyrptonian superpowers

[X Knight]

echo, those are good ideas.

It's just that, any kind of relationship or dynamic between Superman and Jason ( father and son ) is marred by the rather "complicated" circumstances and questionable behavior/judgment surrounding his birth.

See, for myself ( and many others ), the fact that Superman was not even around for his own son's birth, that he wasn't around to raise his son for the first 5+ years, the fact that Jason had to be raised by another man......that just kind of "negates" the whole family/father-son dynamic. IOW....it makes it hard for us to really "feel" Superman's love for Jason or to really root for him.

Take The Incredibles movie. In that story, Mr. Incredible and Elasticgirl are in love in the beginning of the movie, get married, and after being forced into retirement, decide to settle down, start a family, and raise their kids as "normal" children. So, in the later half, when the whole family gets involved in superheroics, and the kids get involved, you feel the family bond, how the parents are worried about their kids, etc. IOW.....there is a very convincing family bond presented there.

In the SR universe, the whole "family structure" is broken, messy, and complicated. Richard and Lois raised Jason, not Clark and Lois. So, if Superman gets angry over Jason being endangered, it just doesn't have the same "impact" or "meaning" as it would if Superman had raised Jason himself ( with Lois ).

Again......the whole "foundation" of the SR universe is very shaky. That's probably one reason why WB had ( or is having ) such a hard time finding another creative team, especially if they wanted to make a sequel.

at least for me it wouldn't..........

[GreenKToo]

Off on vacation to the house of the mouse. see you guys in about a week.
(hopefully some news will be waiting when I return)

[NeoRanger]

Off on vacation to the house of the mouse.
Good god, I hope that's an expression of a sort.

[X Knight]

That's Disney World, isn't it?

Hope you have a good vacation GreenKToo!!

[Nixon]

Have a great one GKT!

[Nixon]

In the SR universe, the whole "family structure" is broken, messy, and complicated. Richard and Lois raised Jason, not Clark and Lois. So, if Superman gets angry over Jason being endangered, it just doesn't have the same "impact" or "meaning" as it would if Superman had raised Jason himself ( with Lois ).



I'll give you complicated, but broken? Jason's got three people looking out for his best interests right now in a world where a lot of kids are barely lucky enough to have one.

I'd hardly call that situation "broken".

[Superark]

We have a Superman Returns section. You can talk about Jason White and his purpose in that sub-section. This has gone way off topic for this past week. Please stop the same arguments over and over again in this thread and in this section, they can be had elsewhere as above.

Thanks.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator.


THANK YOU!!

You are the man! I was seriously about to take a long break from these boards after all those old arguments popping their way onto here.

[Double Down]

For what it's worth, IMDB has changed the movie's title from "Superman: Man of Steel" to "Superman Unleashed"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/

[bunk]

I wonder if there is some way a complete reboot with Routh could be sold. I think WB would have to be much more blunt and straight forward about it then they are willing to be. It would be pretty much unprecedented though.

"We aren't satisfied with the direction the franchise is going, so we want to start completely fresh with Superman in every way with the lead actor being the only exception. Forget everything you think you know about Superman films apart from Brandon Routh, he is still our guy".

[Nightwing1977]

As to why making a sequel instead of a "reboot"? To me, it doesn't matter really. I say the series needs a GOOD movie, and I don't want an origin story.



Same here. While the first Supes film is campy & some say it don't hold up well like it use to, the origin was perfect though. We don't need another origin film. Just give us a kickass Supes film & that it. No need for another "been there, done that".



Enough with the ducks.



No way, man! You can never have enough ducks here. Beside, who doesn't like 'em? ;)

http://www.freefoto.com/images/01/08/01_08_34---Ducks_web.jpg

http://dandyfop.com/o/15/images/duck_with_money_in_bill_photo_medium.jpg

[NeoRanger]

We don't need another origin film.
"I don't need to watch the OC, but it makes me happy"

[I SEE SPIDEY]

We don't need another Superman film but I want one.

The people against the reorgin idea have yet to convince me not to want one. I'm just not changing my opinion on the subject, I want an orgin film. That doesn't mean that I'm getting one but thats what I want. Personally I love orgin films so they don't bother me one bit. Mainly I want one so the series can scream out that it is starting over and has no connection to the Donner one, kinda like Batman Begins had no connect to the Tim Burton/JS Batman flicks.

I realize not everyone will agree but I'm not representing this post as anything but my opinion, my two cents as it were.

[FilmNerdJamie]

We don't need another Superman film but I want one.

We don't need anything in regards to film - any film.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

We don't need anything in regards to film - any film.Exactly. Thats why the we don't or do need arguement is silly.

[FilmNerdJamie]

*Nods in approval*

[X Knight]

We don't need another Superman film but I want one.

The people against the reorgin idea have yet to convince me not to want one. I'm just not changing my opinion on the subject, I want an orgin film. That doesn't mean that I'm getting one but thats what I want. Personally I love orgin films so they don't bother me one bit. Mainly I want one so the series can scream out that it is starting over and has no connection to the Donner one, kinda like Batman Begins had no connect to the Tim Burton/JS Batman flicks.

I realize not everyone will agree but I'm not representing this post as anything but my opinion, my two cents as it were.

I'm with you SPIDEY!! I want an origin film too....a new introduction free from the shadows of the Donnerverse, incorporating elements of the Animated Series and the Comic Book......

but....alas.....with the way WB seems to think......it may be another 20+ years before we get that..........:csad:

sigh.....oh well.......NASH OUT!! :woot:

[RachelDawes]

I wonder if there is some way a complete reboot with Routh could be sold. I think WB would have to be much more blunt and straight forward about it then they are willing to be. It would be pretty much unprecedented though.

"We aren't satisfied with the direction the franchise is going, so we want to start completely fresh with Superman in every way with the lead actor being the only exception. Forget everything you think you know about Superman films apart from Brandon Routh, he is still our guy".

No matter what some people are going to associate the next Superman film with the Donner and Singer ones. Hypesters have testified how they know people who believe that BB and TDK were prequels to Burton's Batman series. :facepalm

That's why I think the kind of movie made doesn't matter. It just needs to be good with lots of action. Only the fanboys will fuss over the details.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm with you SPIDEY!! I want an origin film too....a new introduction free from the shadows of the Donnerverse, incorporating elements of the Animated Series and the Comic Book......

but....alas.....with the way WB seems to think......it may be another 20+ years before we get that..........:csad:

sigh.....oh well.......NASH OUT!! :woot:lol That StreetFighter movie looks soo horrible.

And as for your 20 years comment...unfortunately I agree.:csad:

[X Knight]

lol That StreetFighter movie looks soo horrible.

And as for your 20 years comment...unfortunately I agree.:csad:

yah....as much as I love KK ( my LANA!! :heart::heart: ), it appears that they managed to do the unthinkable.....make a Street Fighter movie EVEN CRAPPIER than the 1st one!! lol.

What's even more disappointing is that I recently bought the Street Fighter IV Collector's Edition ( awesome game...btw ) for my birthday, and I watched that little animated movie that came with it ( The Ties that Bind ). Surprisingly, I really enjoyed it, and I thought the basic storyline could have fit well into a live action Street Fighter movie ( and it would be relevant too, dealing with new forms of terrorism, etc. ).

Plus, the team behind the animated movie "got" the characters and understood the source material. Apparently, that's something neither live action movie has done........:o

And, hopefully, whoever does the next Superman movie will respect the source material.

If they don't, well....they need to be locked in a dark, windowless room, forced to watch BOTH Street Fighter movies back-to-back.......:word:

aren't I cruel??? :grin:

[Double Down]

No matter what some people are going to associate the next Superman film with the Donner and Singer ones. Hypesters have testified how they know people who believe that BB and TDK were prequels to Burton's Batman series. :facepalm
That's why I think the kind of movie made doesn't matter. It just needs to be good with lots of action. Only the fanboys will fuss over the details.

Word. :cool:

[Sverdlovski]

We don't need another Superman film but I want one.

The people against the reorgin idea have yet to convince me not to want one. I'm just not changing my opinion on the subject, I want an orgin film. That doesn't mean that I'm getting one but thats what I want. Personally I love orgin films so they don't bother me one bit. Mainly I want one so the series can scream out that it is starting over and has no connection to the Donner one, kinda like Batman Begins had no connect to the Tim Burton/JS Batman flicks.

I realize not everyone will agree but I'm not representing this post as anything but my opinion, my two cents as it were.

When peopple say we don't need an origin story is because, as opposed to Batman, Spiderman Ironman, Hulk and even James Bond, we've had a movie dedicated to tell Superman's origin (and it was told brilliantly IMO).

In B89, we didn't see Batman becoming Batman, his training, how he learned to do what he does etc. We got that in Batman Begins.

With James Bond, we knew him since 1961, but never seen how he became 007. Casino Royale showed that.

Another movie dealing with Superman's origin would be a waste of time and resources. People want to see Superman doing his thing, saving the world, fighting the bad guys. That's the meaty stuff. Not how he became Superman.

I'm not opposed to a movie showing Superman's origins during the opening credits (a thing that Superman Returns should've done), or using flashbacks during the main story to tell something relevant about Superman's past.

So, that's why people say we don't need an origin story. We got one already. Let's do things that weren't done before, like Superman fighting Brainiac, Parasite, Metallo, etc.

Here are my thoughts on a new Superman movie: http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showpost.php?p=1717367&postcount=32

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Movie from the 70's that told an origin story amidst the obvious modern age of superhero films that are being done in a newer more inventive way these days... Hmm...

Ever think that an origin with a tweaked story line (such as everyone's favorite TAS version with Brainiac involved) might be a more interesting and better origin?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I wasn't even alive when the first one came out. As a Superman fan I'd like one for a newer generation.

[hippie_hunter]

I wasn't even alive when the first one came out, but I love Superman the Movie.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

When peopple say we don't need an origin story is because, as opposed to Batman, Spiderman Ironman, Hulk and even James Bond, we've had a movie dedicated to tell Superman's origin (and it was told brilliantly IMO).

In B89, we didn't see Batman becoming Batman, his training, how he learned to do what he does etc. We got that in Batman Begins.

With James Bond, we knew him since 1961, but never seen how he became 007. Casino Royale showed that.

Another movie dealing with Superman's origin would be a waste of time and resources. People want to see Superman doing his thing, saving the world, fighting the bad guys. That's the meaty stuff. Not how he became Superman.

I'm not opposed to a movie showing Superman's origins during the opening credits (a thing that Superman Returns should've done), or using flashbacks during the main story to tell something relevant about Superman's past.

So, that's why people say we don't need an origin story. We got one already. Let's do things that weren't done before, like Superman fighting Brainiac, Parasite, Metallo, etc.

Here are my thoughts on a new Superman movie: http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showpost.php?p=1717367&postcount=32Everything in your post is negated by the fact that I don't care for the original Superman movie and believe the orgin can be done better.

In my opinion it's ridiculous for us to keep following up a 30 year old movie. I understand that most of my fellow geeks look at that movie as the end all be all - next to The Dark Knight - but I don't see it that way. Again I don't think that I'm going to get my wish but I'd like an orgin film that clearly sets up it's different rules so they can't go back to the Donner well without screwing up continuity, effectively making it damn near impossible to drink from that well again.

It's awesome that so many people like the Donnerverse but I would like some new ideas funneled to Superman on the bigscreen. Donner has had plenty of play and he is getting play in the comicbooks now, let a new vision in, for atleast two films.

[hippie_hunter]

Guys, there already is a sequel to SuperMan Returns, it's called Superman 3 and superman 4 - i don't see any Super kid in theose!!
What :huh:

Superman Returns invalidated Superman III and Superman IV. Sorta like how a bunch of Godzilla movies invalidate previous movies of the series and start a new continuity using only the first movie..

That's what's so stupid.. Superman Returns should have been classed as a remake, using Donner elements - hence the term remake!
Superman Returns was nowhere near a remake though :huh:

What the hell are you talking about?

i'm working on a scene that could explain Jason in the sequel, failing that just reboot.
A reboot would be best for the fans IMO. But I'm down for a sequel and honestly, I think the general public isn't going to give a damn if it's a reboot or not.

I'm kinda getting tired of reboots as well. It's gotten to the point where there are so many reboots that my dad asked if Hellboy II was a reboot because he saw the Incredible Hulk, Batman Begins, Friday the 13th, James Bond, and Punisher getting reboots; and I'm tired of explaining to my mother that certain movies never happened.

[hippie_hunter]

Everything in your post is negated by the fact that I don't care for the original Superman movie and believe the orgin can be done better.

In my opinion it's ridiculous for us to keep following up a 30 year old movie. I understand that most of my fellow geeks look at that movie as the end all be all - next to The Dark Knight - but I don't see it that way. Again I don't think that I'm going to get my wish but I'd like an orgin film that clearly sets up it's different rules so they can't go back to the Donner well without screwing up continuity, effectively making it damn near impossible to drink from that well again.

It's awesome that so many people like the Donnerverse but I would like some new ideas funneled to Superman on the bigscreen. Donner has had plenty of play and he is getting play in the comicbooks now, let a new vision in, for atleast two films.

Blasphemer :cmad:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Blasphemer :cmad:*slap* Shut-up!:cmad:

[Mostpowerful]

Oh I just wrote this below, i mean it may seem simplistic but I think it'd be an easy quick economical way to get rid of the kid for a movie or 2..

A villain, Brainiac or Darkseid somehow get to the kid, and the kid now grown up actually tries to use his powers to fight one of them off but they incapacitate him for the rest of the film, Superman goes ape**** with his "Angry God/Unleashed" mode and kicks some serious ass... by the end of say 2 films, Supes manages to resus him and bring him back to life but at the cost of his superpowers thus rendering him with normal human abilities only.

that could be one way

Interesting! :yay: As long as Jason doesn't die.


I'll give you complicated, but broken? Jason's got three people looking out for his best interests right now in a world where a lot of kids are barely lucky enough to have one.

I'd hardly call that situation "broken".

Agreed. If anything, Jason is a very lucky child.



No matter what some people are going to associate the next Superman film with the Donner and Singer ones. Hypesters have testified how they know people who believe that BB and TDK were prequels to Burton's Batman series. :facepalm

That's why I think the kind of movie made doesn't matter. It just needs to be good with lots of action. Only the fanboys will fuss over the details.

:applaudexactly!


I wasn't even alive when the first one came out, but I love Superman the Movie.

Same here. And the movie still holds up, IMO. :o

[hippie_hunter]

*slap* Shut-up!:cmad:

You shut up. :cmad:

Burn the witch :cmad:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You shut up. :cmad:

Burn the witch :cmad:Where'd I'd put my rifle???:cmad:

[hippie_hunter]

Where'd I'd put my rifle???:cmad:

Witches don't need rifles :cmad:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Witches don't need rifles :cmad:You're right...
































They need shotguns.:cmad:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

So do you guys think the leaked page (now deleted I believe) was just sitting on the Legendary site for a while before the SR sequel was scrapped?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^I don't know what to think anymore.

[Nightwing1977]

*slap* Shut-up!:cmad:

*slap ISS upside the head with a large trout*

Haven't your parents or someone taught you any manners? Especially when it unnecessary to slap a mod like hippier_hunter? :oldrazz:

[Anita18]

In my opinion it's ridiculous for us to keep following up a 30 year old movie. I understand that most of my fellow geeks look at that movie as the end all be all - next to The Dark Knight - but I don't see it that way. Again I don't think that I'm going to get my wish but I'd like an orgin film that clearly sets up it's different rules so they can't go back to the Donner well without screwing up continuity, effectively making it damn near impossible to drink from that well again.

It's awesome that so many people like the Donnerverse but I would like some new ideas funneled to Superman on the bigscreen. Donner has had plenty of play and he is getting play in the comicbooks now, let a new vision in, for atleast two films.
Exactly. Superman I isn't The Godfather. It's okay if they do another origin movie for Supes. Really. Especially since a good chunk of current movie-goers weren't alive when it came out, and gosh knows many aren't pop-culture knowledgeable enough to know the difference. Or care. :funny:

I mean heck, most people, at least in the general public, thought Jack Nicholson's Joker couldn't be topped. That was my parents' reaction at least, when I told them about Ledger's casting: "But Jack Nicholson was so good!" WB/Nolan dared to try, and they succeeded.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

*slap ISS upside the head with a large trout*

Haven't your parents or someone taught you any manners? Especially when it unnecessary to slap a mod like hippier_hunter? :oldrazz:Chris Brown, is that you?

[Sverdlovski]

Everything in your post is negated by the fact that I don't care for the original Superman movie and believe the orgin can be done better.

In my opinion it's ridiculous for us to keep following up a 30 year old movie. I understand that most of my fellow geeks look at that movie as the end all be all - next to The Dark Knight - but I don't see it that way. Again I don't think that I'm going to get my wish but I'd like an orgin film that clearly sets up it's different rules so they can't go back to the Donner well without screwing up continuity, effectively making it damn near impossible to drink from that well again.

It's awesome that so many people like the Donnerverse but I would like some new ideas funneled to Superman on the bigscreen. Donner has had plenty of play and he is getting play in the comicbooks now, let a new vision in, for atleast two films.

Well, nothing you said negates any of my points, really. Superman's origins were already shown on screen, as opposed to Batman's before BB, James Bond's before Casino Royale and so on.

It doesn't matter if you don't care about STM, the movie won't simply disappear.

Just like Dr. No and Goldfinger, movies made almost 50 years ago, won't simply disappear.

Making a movie and wasting half of its lenght to tell Superman's origin once again is simply a waste of time and resources.

People want to see Superman being Superman. Why keep doing things that were already done before?

Again, use the opportunity and money to tell a new story. The origin can be told during the opening credits. Hell, The Incredible Hulk, considered by some an example that WB should follow for the new Superman movie, told the origin of the hero in like 20 seconds (and it was a flashback scene). If there's anything about Superman's origins that's really relevant to the main plot of a new movie, they can always use flashbacks and dialogue...


And this talk about "donnerverse", "singerverse"... whatever. NOBODY CARES but the most anal fans.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Well, nothing you said negates any of my points, really. Superman's origins were already shown on screen, as opposed to Batman's before BB, James Bond's before Casino Royale and so on.

It doesn't matter if you don't care about STM, the movie won't simply disappear.

Just like Dr. No and Goldfinger, movies made almost 50 years ago, won't simply disappear.

Making a movie and wasting half of its lenght to tell Superman's origin once again is simply a waste of time and resources.

People want to see Superman being Superman. Why keep doing things that were already done before?

Again, use the opportunity and money to tell a new story. The origin can be told during the opening credits. Hell, The Incredible Hulk, considered by some an example that WB should follow for the new Superman movie, told the origin of the hero in like 20 seconds (and it was a flashback scene). If there's anything about Superman's origins that's really relevant to the main plot of a new movie, they can always use flashbacks and dialogue...


And this talk about "donnerverse", "singerverse"... whatever. NOBODY CARES but the most anal fans.I'm not asking for the movie to go away, I'm asking for another version of Superman because I think that the Donner version is out of tune and after 30 years another version certainly couldn't hurt. I sure don't remember people flocking to SR because it was apart of the beloved Donnerverse.

And I'm not talking about non-geeks, I'm strickly talking about what I and a few others on these boards want. I have drawn that line over and over again. The moviegoing public loved "Transformers" so I don't even begin to always understand what they will respond to. Let me put it in lamest (selfish) terms. I HAVE DISLIKED EVERY LIVEACTION SUPERMAN FILM AND I AM AT THE POINT WHERE I COULD CARE LESS IF I WERE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WHO LIKES THE NEXT MOVIE. ME LIKING IT IS ALL THAT MATTERS TO ME RIGHT NOW.

You got that? Good.

The Incredible Hulk is not a good example of anything really so I wish people would stop bringing it up. I liked the flick but it's nothing special to me.

Supes orgin being told before means that it can never be told again:huh: In the comics the writers change things when the redo the orgin...shocking I know!:wow: So this orgin wouldn't be the same Krystal Krypton, Superman is bible Jesus orgin from the first film. *gulp* You could also....make it that he didn't stay in the Fortress of Solitude until he turned 30.:wow: You could also establish that Luthor is running LexCorp in this film and is not an underground criminal moron.

Gosh, I bet this is all blowing your mind. Breath deep, breath deep.

[Sverdlovski]

I'm not asking for the movie to go away, I'm asking for another version of Superman because I think that the Donner version is out of tune and after 30 years another version certainly couldn't hurt. I sure don't remember people flocking to SR because it was apart of the beloved Donnerverse.

And I'm not talking about non-geeks, I'm strickly talking about what I and a few others on these boards want. I have drawn that line over and over again. The moviegoing public loved "Transformers" so I don't even begin to always understand what they will respond to. Let me put it in lamest (selfish) terms. I HAVE DISLIKED EVERY LIVEACTION SUPERMAN FILM AND I AM AT THE POINT WHERE I COULD CARE LESS IF I WERE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WHO LIKES THE NEXT MOVIE. ME LIKING IT IS ALL THAT MATTERS TO ME RIGHT NOW.

You got that? Good.

The Incredible Hulk is not a good example of anything really so I wish people would stop bringing it up. I liked the flick but it's nothing special to me.

Supes orgin being told before means that it can never be told again:huh: In the comics the writers change things when the redo the orgin...shocking I know!:wow: So this orgin wouldn't be the same Krystal Krypton, Superman is bible Jesus orgin from the first film. *gulp* You could also....make it that he didn't stay in the Fortress of Solitude until he turned 30.:wow: You could also establish that Luthor is running LexCorp in this film and is not an underground criminal moron.

Gosh, I bet this is all blowing your mind. Breath deep, breath deep.

First: SR's (lack of) success has nothing to with being set in "donnerverse" or anything like that. SR failed because it was not that good of a movie.

Don't blame STM or Richard Donner for SR mistakes.


Second: I am not talking about making a sequel, "donneverse" etc. I'm talking about not making another origin story. Tell his origins during the opening credits and any other relevant information to the main plot can be said during flashbacks or dialogue.



Third: It doesn't matter if you don't like anything about the Superman movies, it doesn't change the fact that we already have a movie dealing with his origins in details. Making a movie following the same structure that superhero origin movies have been doing since STM is doing something that was already done before.

Wasting almost an hour to tell basically the same thing that has already been told before is, uh, a waste of opportunity.


Fourth: As I've already stressed in point number 2, any relevant detail about Superman origin that is crucial to understanding the main plot point can be shown through flashbacks. And it doesn't mean it has to follow STM's origin. STM presented Superman's origin and even with the multiple revamps Superman had through time, it does not deviate much from that. Superman's origin are basically Krypton blowing up, growing up in Smallville, living in Metropolis and creating Superman/Clark Kent.

For instance, if the director wants it and it's relevant to the main story, he can show a scene or two where Clark Kent as an young man (before becoming Superman) travels the world helping people, doing humanitarian work.

Again, he doesn't need to waste a whole movie to tell basically the same story that has been told before.


Let's see a story where Superman fights Brainiac. If they want to make Brainiac involved with Krypton's destruction, like JcDc suggested, they can tell this "revelation" during Brainiac's destruction of Earth.

In Superman: The Animated Series, we knew Brainiac was a villain all along, and the terrible things he had done to Krypton and other worlds. So, when he tried to "seduce" Superman to the "dark side", it wasn't as powerful as it would be if Brainiac's wrongdoings were revelead after Superman refused his offer, IMO. They could do something similar in a movie. Show Brainiac seeming like a peaceful alien visitor, just like Superman, and how people are embracing him and the tecnology he brings to Earth. Then after Superman turns him down (his offer of ruling the world with him), show Brainiac's destruction of other worlds and his evilness.

[Showtime]

THANK YOU!!

You are the man! I was seriously about to take a long break from these boards after all those old arguments popping their way onto here.

I've been on vacation for the past week, every time I looked at this thread I couldn't help but cringe.

For what it's worth, IMDB has changed the movie's title from "Superman: Man of Steel" to "Superman Unleashed"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/

Interesting.

[Excel]

First: SR's (lack of) success has nothing to with being set in "donnerverse" or anything like that. SR failed because it was not that good of a movie.

Don't blame STM or Richard Donner for SR mistakes.

I gotta disagree; I found the fact that looked so unoriginal to be extremely annoying and dull.

Second: I am not talking about making a sequel, "donneverse" etc. I'm talking about not making another origin story. Tell his origins during the opening credits and any other relevant information to the main plot can be said during flashbacks or dialogue.

His origins are far more interesting than to be suck in the credits I feel.


Third: It doesn't matter if you don't like anything about the Superman movies, it doesn't change the fact that we already have a movie dealing with his origins in details. Making a movie following the same structure that superhero origin movies have been doing since STM is doing something that was already done before.

That movie is totally dated. Its good the 1st time you see it butthere are def. things about it that could change for the better and be done more interesting. Plus, the vast majority of people who went to see Superman Returns hadnt seen it, or if they had likely didnt remember every detail.

Wasting almost an hour to tell basically the same thing that has already been told before is, uh, a waste of opportunity.

Its been told to the fans, it has not been told to most of movie audiences.

My personal take is its not a good idea to eliminate any part of Supermans story before you actually know what the script will be. Most superhero movies have proved that when it comes to starting a franchise, its usually for the best to show their origin just so you can see howmuch the characters grown at the end.

[Vaibow]

What :huh:

Superman Returns invalidated Superman III and Superman IV. Sorta like how a bunch of Godzilla movies invalidate previous movies of the series and start a new continuity using only the first movie..


Superman Returns was nowhere near a remake though :huh:

What the hell are you talking about?


A reboot would be best for the fans IMO. But I'm down for a sequel and honestly, I think the general public isn't going to give a damn if it's a reboot or not.

I'm kinda getting tired of reboots as well. It's gotten to the point where there are so many reboots that my dad asked if Hellboy II was a reboot because he saw the Incredible Hulk, Batman Begins, Friday the 13th, James Bond, and Punisher getting reboots; and I'm tired of explaining to my mother that certain movies never happened.


I was expressing my opinion, that is why there is such a mess now, you cannot set a movie in a universe that has 4 films and plant a new film right in the middle that totally changes the next turn of events and history.

They use the same theme, the same look and feel, the same character for supermans biological father. They even make the lead character re use old dialogue. It is quite clear that superman is a sequel to Superman 1 & 2, that is why singer said himself, go watch Superman 1 & 2 if you want to know the origins.

But, with this in my mind, it totally screws up continuity, how can you just forget 3 & 4?

So now a sequel to returns just confuses it even more and gives off two time lines after superman 2.

That is why i, personally, look at Superman Returns to be a poor attempt of a remake. What else is it called??? ripping off Superman 1 & 2 and donnerverse but telling his own story?? what is that called??

Singer, IMO took elements of the donner movies and said, right, this is my version - which is in my mind, a remake. Just set with an established supes.

Now, if Superman Returns had started with an origin that explained what happens fully, with out relying on movies from 20 years ago, you could easily say, ok, it's a retelling of the donnerverse movies or a remake, keeping key elements.

But, if he had used a diferent theme tune, set it in a modern era with modern fashion, and had no connection to the past movies, then you have license to do what you want.

Start fresh, no connection to the past, and tell a new story

[Brian Braddock]

It's quite easy if you just pretend that III and IV never happened, which is the whole intent in the 1st place. I thought that was pretty much a no-brainer.


IMO, you're needlessly complicating something which is relatively simple.

[Showtime]

Since I've already said this section or thread ISN'T about Superman Returns, I'm not sure why we are still talking about it.

[Brian Braddock]

Sorry Show, it's the 1st time I've mentioned it for an age.

I havent really been on this thread for a while - havent recapped on what Ive missed and didnt realise that SR talk had been declared as a no-go area.

Rest assured, I know now.

[sf2]

2009 the perfect timing for a superman movie, just like spidey in 2002. and WB has just missed it.

[Excel]

2009 the perfect timing for a superman movie, just like spidey in 2002. and WB has just missed it.

Not really. 2008 has 3 big comic book movies, one that made one billion the other was well into ths 500's.

Spider-man was perfectly timed because there hadnt been a real huge comic book film since 2000, and Xmen wasn't remembered THAT well. Huge movies on super-famous heros are a easy sell; Spider-man, Batman 1989, and Supes 78 are prime examples of how they can easily explode if the market hasnt one of them in a while. TDK was just a freak of nature.

In reality w.b.'s BEST bet for supes might be waiting for this whole comic book movie to fade, and release superman a few summers after the last major comic book movie franchise ends (bats, spiderman, iron man)...say the least one is in 2014 or 2015...if W.B. were to release a Superman origin fil in 2018, it would probably be a huge hit based on the fact the market hasnt one in forever.

[sdc10]

Not really. 2008 has 3 big comic book movies, one that made one billion the other was well into ths 500's.

Spider-man was perfectly timed because there hadnt been a real huge comic book film since 2000, and Xmen wasn't remembered THAT well. Huge movies on super-famous heros are a easy sell; Spider-man, Batman 1989, and Supes 78 are prime examples of how they can easily explode if the market hasnt one of them in a while. TDK was just a freak of nature.

In reality w.b.'s BEST bet for supes might be waiting for this whole comic book movie to fade, and release superman a few summers after the last major comic book movie franchise ends (bats, spiderman, iron man)...say the least one is in 2014 or 2015...if W.B. were to release a Superman origin fil in 2018, it would probably be a huge hit based on the fact the market hasnt one in forever.

I seriously doubt DC would have the mindset to wait 9 years to release a film just based on the mindset that it Could be a hit. Especially in the meantime allowing Marvel to corner the market. And whos to say that in 2018 the superhero film genre will fade? What if Cap America, Thor, and the Avengers are huge hits? Of course they will want to make sequels for them and possibly other films that have come out.

[I Am The Knight]

Chris Brown, is that you?

:oldrazz:

[Nightwing1977]

Chris Brown, is that you?

LOL! You're terrible. But I'm white though. :D :woot:

Since I've already said this section or thread ISN'T about Superman Returns, I'm not sure why we are still talking about it.

Yep. But then some of us are bored & trying to get rid of it. Can you blame us? :oldrazz:

[RachelDawes]

Well, nothing you said negates any of my points, really. Superman's origins were already shown on screen, as opposed to Batman's before BB, James Bond's before Casino Royale and so on.

It doesn't matter if you don't care about STM, the movie won't simply disappear.

Just like Dr. No and Goldfinger, movies made almost 50 years ago, won't simply disappear.

Making a movie and wasting half of its lenght to tell Superman's origin once again is simply a waste of time and resources.

People want to see Superman being Superman. Why keep doing things that were already done before?

Again, use the opportunity and money to tell a new story. The origin can be told during the opening credits. Hell, The Incredible Hulk, considered by some an example that WB should follow for the new Superman movie, told the origin of the hero in like 20 seconds (and it was a flashback scene). If there's anything about Superman's origins that's really relevant to the main plot of a new movie, they can always use flashbacks and dialogue...


And this talk about "donnerverse", "singerverse"... whatever. NOBODY CARES but the most anal fans.

I agree with you about replacing a full-blown origin with flashbacks to Supes' past. It's got nothing to do with the origin having already been depicted on screen before it's just that I find origin movies to be tedious. The dullest parts of BB for me were the lead-up to Bruce's parents getting killed; a story I've seen many times over.

I do like the idea, however, of Superman's past being a mystery and the next movie is about him discovering his own past with the help of Brainiac or Zod. We could see an alternate history of Supes' origin mixed with plenty of action. Who says we can't have our cake and eat it too? :grin:

[RachelDawes]

In Superman: The Animated Series, we knew Brainiac was a villain all along, and the terrible things he had done to Krypton and other worlds. So, when he tried to "seduce" Superman to the "dark side", it wasn't as powerful as it would be if Brainiac's wrongdoings were revelead after Superman refused his offer, IMO. They could do something similar in a movie. Show Brainiac seeming like a peaceful alien visitor, just like Superman, and how people are embracing him and the tecnology he brings to Earth. Then after Superman turns him down (his offer of ruling the world with him), show Brainiac's destruction of other worlds and his evilness.

Very cool idea.

ETA; I agree with most of the rest of your post, BTW, I just didn't quote it.

[hippie_hunter]

*slap ISS upside the head with a large trout*

Haven't your parents or someone taught you any manners? Especially when it unnecessary to slap a mod like hippier_hunter? :oldrazz:

Oh yeah, I forgot about that :oldrazz:

BAN :cmad:

[BenReilly]

Exactly. Superman I isn't The Godfather. It's okay if they do another origin movie for Supes. Really. Especially since a good chunk of current movie-goers weren't alive when it came out, and gosh knows many aren't pop-culture knowledgeable enough to know the difference. Or care. :funny:

I mean heck, most people, at least in the general public, thought Jack Nicholson's Joker couldn't be topped. That was my parents' reaction at least, when I told them about Ledger's casting: "But Jack Nicholson was so good!" WB/Nolan dared to try, and they succeeded.

Yeah but even Nolan would agree that when it comes to the best comic book film of all time, it's Superman: The Movie. :hehe:

"For some reason, the academy has gotten away from recognizing what Hollywood does really well: entertain the masses," says media critic Elayne Rapping, a professor of American studies at the University at Buffalo. "Not all popular movies are good; many of them are terrible. But there is something to be said for entertaining great numbers of people. Recognizing The Dark Knight could be a sea change in the way commercial movies are treated."

That kind of talk makes Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan cringe. He still considers the original Superman the best comic-book movie ever made and doesn't buy that his Batman saga has brought a new pedigree to the genre.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-01-20-dark-knight-oscars_N.htm

[hippie_hunter]

I was expressing my opinion, that is why there is such a mess now, you cannot set a movie in a universe that has 4 films and plant a new film right in the middle that totally changes the next turn of events and history.
They retconned the Superman film universe in which Superman the Movie and Superman II happened, but Superman III Superman IV, and Supergirl didn't. They didn't just plant a new film right in the middle that totally changes the the next turn of events and history. They created a new film, modified continuity, and erased half of what happened.

They use the same theme, the same look and feel, the same character for supermans biological father. They even make the lead character re use old dialogue. It is quite clear that superman is a sequel to Superman 1 & 2, that is why singer said himself, go watch Superman 1 & 2 if you want to know the origins.Superman Returns is obviously a sequel to Superman the Movie and Superman II, but it isn't a remake.

But, with this in my mind, it totally screws up continuity, how can you just forget 3 & 4?How can you just forget Batman the Movie when they made Batman? Or the Burton/Schumaker films when they made Batman Begins? Or how about Hulk when they made Incredible Hulk? Or the 20 James Bond films before Casino Royale? Or the Jack Ryan films when they made The Sum of All Fears? Or any other film series that has been rebooted like Halloween, Friday the 13th, Pink Panther, etc.

And doing what Superman Returns did in regards to continuity has happened before with other films. The Godzilla films have gotten several continuity overhauls with 1984's the Return of Godzilla which excluded all of the previous films except for the first one from 1954. And with the exception of Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S. which was a sequel to Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla, all of the Godzilla films from 1999 onwards have been semi-reboots ignoring the previous films entirely and using the first film only for continuity.

Halloween has done the same thing with Halloween: H2O discarding Halloween III, Halloween 4, Halloween 5, and Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers from continuity.

And the Terminator franchise is one huge timeline discussion with Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles television show discarding Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines while using The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Meanwhile you have the upcoming Terminator Salvation which is a sequel to Terminator 3 and a prequel to the entire series.

So now a sequel to returns just confuses it even more and gives off two time lines after superman 2.Personally, I prefer to forget that Superman III and Superman IV ever, ever happened. With that in mind, the timeline is simple:

Superman the Movie ---> Superman II ---> Superman Returns ---> Superman Unleashed?

That is why i, personally, look at Superman Returns to be a poor attempt of a remake. What else is it called??? ripping off Superman 1 & 2 and donnerverse but telling his own story?? what is that called??A sequel.

Singer, IMO took elements of the donner movies and said, right, this is my version - which is in my mind, a remake. Just set with an established supes.A remake would need a similar plot to the original film. If Superman Returns were a remake of Superman the Movie, Superman would have to meet Lex Luthor and Lois Lane for the first time, he wouldn't have a kid, there would be no Richard White, Superman would turn the Earth backwards making everything go back in time, Krypton would be fleshed out, Pa Kent would die, etc.

But Superman Returns is a continuation of Donner's Superman movies. Lex Luthor is out of jail after Superman put him there in Superman the Movie and Superman pretty much ruined any proof of his crimes of hijacking nuclear weapons, attempting to destroy California and change the environment of Nevada, and treason against the planet Earth because of his manipulation of time. Superman got Lois pregnant from his night with her at the Fortress of Solitude, doesn't remember who he is because of the forgetfull kiss/turning the Earth backwards, and Lex mentions that he was in the Fortress of Solitude before in Superman II.

Merriam-Webster defines a sequel as "a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one." Superman Returns is a continuation of what happened in Superman the Movie and Superman II, therefore it is a sequel. Not a remake.

Now, if Superman Returns had started with an origin that explained what happens fully, with out relying on movies from 20 years ago, you could easily say, ok, it's a retelling of the donnerverse movies or a remake, keeping key elements.If Superman Returns had started with an origin that explained what happened fully without relying on the movies from 20 years ago, that would mean that it would have been a reboot. Not a retelling or remake.

But, if he had used a diferent theme tune, set it in a modern era with modern fashion, and had no connection to the past movies, then you have license to do what you want.But Singer did have license to do what he wanted. He wanted to tell a story that continued from Richard Donner's Superman films instead of a new Superman world.

Start fresh, no connection to the past, and tell a new storyI agree with that. I loved Superman Returns, but we should get a Superman film that all fans can get behind.

[Sam]

2009 the perfect timing for a superman movie, just like spidey in 2002. and WB has just missed it.

Well, i think we all can assume that the date we can think of is 2011 (maybe winter season) at least. Before that, its impossible.

Worst case... i dont want even think about it.