Superman Returns Bosworth nominated for a Razzie WTF?!?

[RedIsNotBlue]

Then that's the price you pay for being a mom, it's called sacrifice. Child's safety first, always, which means going home, NOT LEAVING HIM IN THE CAR ALONE, as some people may think I or RedIsNotBlue is suggesting. And I would have been totally fine if it was Lois with Jason just ringing the bell to the house, but it was the sneaking around/trespassing with a child that calls into question Lois' character.

Well it all comes down to the kid. He was a stupid addition to the movie and just created problems with the story. A lot of the problems I have with the movie center around the ****ing super kid. And I love how alot of people before the movie were saying "There is no way the kid is Superman's Singer would never do that" and now after it seems the people who like the movie are saying "I loved the kid!". I am really pissed about the future sequels because of the kid. The best possible solution is for the kid to ****ing die. But no I have a feeling we are conveniently going to see Richard get killed off and Supes taking over the babys daddy role. The whole thing is just a mess.

 

[dude stannis]

The child shouldn't have been there in the ****ing first place which is my whole point but whatever. It seems you guys are stretching and really trying to validate it. I am done arguing it people either love it or hate it and I just hate. Shame on Singer and the writers. Hopefully with the sequel he will stop piggybacking off Donner and make his own film because I really want to see a Singer Superman film.

I'm talking to a friggin' brick wall. You completely ignored my whole point. I'm not stretching, I'm explaining a common occurance, you're the one who refuses to look at the logic. Yes, shame on Singer for not explaining something that's common sense. Hopefully with the sequel everytime someone goes to do something the movie pauses, Bryan Singer comes out and explains to everyone something that is a common everyday occurance, so nobody has to use their brains and they can all sit in the theatre drooling their little hearts out...

 

[explode7]

Well its not like if Kate didn't deserve it.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I'm talking to a friggin' brick wall. You completely ignored my whole point. I'm not stretching, I'm explaining a common occurance, you're the one who refuses to look at the logic. Yes, shame on Singer for not explaining something that's common sense. Hopefully with the sequel everytime someone goes to do something the movie pauses, Bryan Singer comes out and explains to everyone something that is a common everyday occurance, so nobody has to use their brains and they can all sit in the theatre drooling their little hearts out...

I am ignoring your whole point because it's not how I see it. Yes sorry I don't see something the way you do therefore I am an idiot or a brick wall according to you. Common sense to me is when your doing a job that involves snooping around illegally for a story YOU DON'T DRAG YOUR ****ING KID ALONG. God forbid. I am sorry it doesn't make sense to me and I find it a dumb way to setup the superkid appearance. Now excuse me I have to go be stupid.

 

[tallsy_1]

I don't think Kate Bosworth was Razzie worthy (or unworthy), but she does typify many non-fanboy's criticism of the movie. When I talk to people who don't read comics or watch Smallville, they say SR was too "mopey" and not fun enough. Bosworth's Lane, I think, became the lightning rod for that criticism.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

She isn't a bad actress and it wasn't a bad preformance per se but she made a terrible Lois Lane so I completely agree with the nomination.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

I'm sorry but if someon was going to kill my mother, i would kill them in a heartbeat.

So if someone's trying to kill your mother, you're just gonna stand there and let her try to defend herself.

> PLEASE GOD, PUT BRAINS IN THEM!

I pointed out TWICE that my complaint is the whole scene with Lois & Jason on the boat! It's a stupid and sick way to introduce Jason's powers. There were tons of other ways to show him doing something "super" but by killing someone.

Somehow, all that you guys do is focus on the shown events instead of questioning the purpose of the scene from a storyteller perspective, like I do.

Go, try it again. Read and understand the words. Then comment.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

The scene makes an excellent point to show how dangerous Superman´s powers can be if you can´t controll them. Now it´s second nature to Supes, but it couldn´t have been easy to learn how to hug people without breaking them in two, things like that, and now Jason has to go through it, gift and curse, etc.

Then really I hope Singer elaborates that point in the sequel, otherwise it's like I wrote just an unnecessary way to show that Jason has powers.

 

[KalMart]

> PLEASE GOD, PUT BRAINS IN THEM!

I pointed out TWICE that my complaint is the whole scene with Lois & Jason on the boat! It's a stupid and sick way to introduce Jason's powers. There were tons of other ways to show him doing something "super" but by killing someone.

Somehow, all that you guys do is focus on the shown events instead of questioning the purpose of the scene from a storyteller perspective, like I do.

Go, try it again. Read and understand the words. Then comment.

It is kinda' funny how you have a story about a hero who obviously treasures all life and would do whatever he could not to kill anyone, even the most evil of criminals....yet gruesome death to Luthor's thugs happens so casually and arbitrarily.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

> PLEASE GOD, PUT BRAINS IN THEM!

I pointed out TWICE that my complaint is the whole scene with Lois & Jason on the boat! It's a stupid and sick way to introduce Jason's powers. There were tons of other ways to show him doing something "super" but by killing someone.

Somehow, all that you guys do is focus on the shown events instead of questioning the purpose of the scene from a storyteller perspective, like I do.

Go, try it again. Read and understand the words. Then comment.

Nice condescending attitude.

Your complaint is that Jason killed someone who was trying to kill his mother. He wasn't aware of his powers, he probably didn't know he'd kill him, and--considering his age, probably doesn't understand the concept of death. Even so I find no reason to be so offended at someone killing out of self defense.

And don't give me that crap about not looking at it from a storyteller perspective. Lois and Jason needed to be in danger. They were. Lois needed saved, Jason saved her. The end.

Thank you, and have a pleasant tomorrow. And should you choose to reply, how about not coming off as a jerk again, 'kay?

 

[Kid_Kaos]

...

Thank you, you just contradicted yourself and finally showed you understand what I mean but still don't care to think about it from a story perspective:

Lois and Jason needed to be in danger. They were. Lois needed saved, Jason saved her. The end.
Exactly, and my point is this:
Your complaint is that Jason killed someone who was trying to kill his mother.

Now think about the opportunities to put Lois in danger and come back when you finally realised how wrong the final result was. Because:

It is kinda' funny how you have a story about a hero who obviously treasures all life and would do whatever he could not to kill anyone, even the most evil of criminals....yet gruesome death to Luthor's thugs happens so casually and arbitrarily.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Thank you, you just contradicted yourself and finally showed you understand what I mean but still don't care to think about it from a story perspective:

Lois and Jason needed to be in danger. They were. Lois needed saved, Jason saved her. The end.
Exactly, and my point is this:
Your complaint is that Jason killed someone who was trying to kill his mother.

Now think about the opportunities to put Lois in danger and come back when you finally realised how wrong the final result was. Because:

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Lois was put in a situation where she needed saved. Jason saved her life. Your complaint earlier was that it was murder, which I and others have refuted over and over again. It's only recently that you've complained about "the story perspective." In order for a story to progress, there needs to be conflict and the archetype that is brought to us so often in superhero films is the damsel in distress. It just so happens that this damsel has a son, it turns out that he is at least half Kryptonian and we are presented with this not only when he reacts to the Kryptonite that Lex pulls out, but also when he discovers his powers and saves his mother from certain death.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

> PLEASE GOD, PUT BRAINS IN THEM!

I pointed out TWICE that my complaint is the whole scene with Lois & Jason on the boat! It's a stupid and sick way to introduce Jason's powers. There were tons of other ways to show him doing something "super" but by killing someone.

Somehow, all that you guys do is focus on the shown events instead of questioning the purpose of the scene from a storyteller perspective, like I do.

Go, try it again. Read and understand the words. Then comment.

I know exactly what your saying, so dont act so High and Mighty. Earlier you called Jason a murderer, i am saying he isnt and that i had no problem with the way they revealed his powers.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Then that's the price you pay for being a mom, it's called sacrifice. Child's safety first, always, which means going home, NOT LEAVING HIM IN THE CAR ALONE, as some people may think I or RedIsNotBlue is suggesting. And I would have been totally fine if it was Lois with Jason just ringing the bell to the house, but it was the sneaking around/trespassing with a child that calls into question Lois' character.

Oh like Mum's dont do stuff like this everyday. People do it for convenience, she was in a rush and didnt have time to drop Jason anywere. Did you mother not ever take you shopping with her when she picked you up from school. My mother NEVER left me in the car on my own in case someone robbed it while i was in it. Lois didnt know she was putting them in danger as the House was still under the name Vanderworth, as said by the telephone operator Lois spoke to.

 

[SentinelMind]

It's just bizarre to watch posters go to the end of the earth to rationalize crappy storytelling and irresponsible behavior. Lois had no reason to bring a child to the location of possible headquarters of a city-wide blackout and criminal entity. Knocking on one's door is one thing. Snooping around in someone else's property is ILLEGAL. Who cares if the yacht seemed to belong to "an old woman". The old woman could have had a gun or a big boyfriend who would could have done damage. Even if nobody was assaulted or kidnapped, the owner of the property could have had her arrested for tresspassing and the son would have been along for the ride.

It's funny, when you look at how the posters defending Singer and Co's writing don't seem to believe that characters have a responsibility or obligation to others. Singer fanatics say Superman doesn't have an obligation to tell Lois he's going to leave for several years. SR fanatics say Superman doesn't have to tell her he's Superman before having a sexual relationship. Lois doesn't have to tell Richard anything about her son, that he might not be the real father. Lois has to get the scoop, even if it means putting her son's life in danger. The way you guys go to defend the indefensible (crappy characterization and bad storytelling) is amazing.

 

[Billy Batson]

I am LOVING THIS!
LMAO!!!!!

It's just bizarre to watch posters go to the end of the earth to rationalize crappy storytelling and irresponsible behavior. Lois had no reason to bring a child to the location of possible headquarters of a city-wide blackout and criminal entity. Knocking on one's door is one thing. Snooping around in someone else's property is ILLEGAL. Who cares if the yacht seemed to belong to "an old woman". The old woman could have had a gun or a big boyfriend who would could have done damage. Even if nobody was assaulted or kidnapped, the owner of the property could have had her arrested for tresspassing and the son would have been along for the ride.

It's funny, when you look at how the posters defending Singer and Co's writing don't seem to believe that characters have a responsibility or obligation to others. Singer fanatics say Superman doesn't have an obligation to tell Lois he's going to leave for several years. SR fanatics say Superman doesn't have to tell her he's Superman before having a sexual relationship. Lois doesn't have to tell Richard anything about her son, that he might not be the real father. Lois has to get the scoop, even if it means putting her son's life in danger. The way you guys go to defend the indefensible (crappy characterization and bad storytelling) is amazing.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

It's just bizarre to watch posters go to the end of the earth to rationalize crappy storytelling and irresponsible behavior. Lois had no reason to bring a child to the location of possible headquarters of a city-wide blackout and criminal entity. Knocking on one's door is one thing. Snooping around in someone else's property is ILLEGAL. Who cares if the yacht seemed to belong to "an old woman". The old woman could have had a gun or a big boyfriend who would could have done damage. Even if nobody was assaulted or kidnapped, the owner of the property could have had her arrested for tresspassing and the son would have been along for the ride.

It's funny, when you look at how the posters defending Singer and Co's writing don't seem to believe that characters have a responsibility or obligation to others. Singer fanatics say Superman doesn't have an obligation to tell Lois he's going to leave for several years. SR fanatics say Superman doesn't have to tell her he's Superman before having a sexual relationship. Lois doesn't have to tell Richard anything about her son, that he might not be the real father. Lois has to get the scoop, even if it means putting her son's life in danger. The way you guys go to defend the indefensible (crappy characterization and bad storytelling) is amazing.

Personally, I think it's bizarre how posters blow everything out of proportion. It's simple storytelling: conflict must arise.

And I love how you claim that those who like the film are "fanatics." It's not like we're saying the film is flawless. I've cited problems in the editing and some of the special effects as well. But I know that if Lois had never taken Jason on that boat, she never would have been in peril and we still wouldn't know that Jason was Kryptonian.

It's like a horror movie. You know a certain character shouldn't go down that dark spooky hallway, but she does in order to progress the story and create conflict.

 

[tallsy_1]

Can we please put discussion of Lois's parenting skills in another thread? And leave this thread for discussion of whether Kate Bosworth's performance was Razzie material.

 

[SentinelMind]

Oh like Mum's dont do stuff like this everyday. People do it for convenience, she was in a rush and didnt have time to drop Jason anywere. Did you mother not ever take you shopping with her when she picked you up from school. My mother NEVER left me in the car on my own in case someone robbed it while i was in it. Lois didnt know she was putting them in danger as the House was still under the name Vanderworth, as said by the telephone operator Lois spoke to.

Oh, yes...cause go shopping at a local market is just as dangerous as illegally tresspassing around in some stranger's property. Yep, the name on the boat was some old woman (..suspected of causing a city-wide blackout..shhhhh!!!!), so there's no danger in walking in uninvited. You guys are hilarious.

 

[SentinelMind]

Personally, I think it's bizarre how posters blow everything out of proportion. It's simple storytelling: conflict must arise.

And I love how you claim that those who like the film are "fanatics." It's not like we're saying the film is flawless. I've cited problems in the editing and some of the special effects as well. But I know that if Lois had never taken Jason on that boat, she never would have been in peril and we still wouldn't know that Jason was Kryptonian.

It's like a horror movie. You know a certain character shouldn't go down that dark spooky hallway, but she does in order to progress the story and create conflict.

That's bad storytelling. Having to compromise a character's common sense to tell a story denigrates the character. If she's that foolish to put her son in that obvious danger, then she's simply not a good mother. Period. If this were some cheesy horror flick, sure...I'll watch and laugh along the way. If this is a character I'm suppose to respect, then sorry. I know you're not suggesting that this was the only way a write could have setup a premise for a Lois to find out Jason is Kryptonian. I didn't mind too much that Lois being kind of ****y to Clark. I didn't mind Lois lying to Richard about whether she loved Superman, since answering honestly would not have brought the right results. Lying to her about him and her son and putting her son in danger to get "the big scoop" is unacceptable. Just because conflict is necessary doesn't mean any ol' conflict will do.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

That's bad storytelling. Having to compromise a character's common sense to tell a story denigrates the character. If she's that foolish to put her son in that obvious danger, then she's simply not a good mother. Period. If this were some cheesy horror flick, sure...I'll watch and laugh along the way. If this is a character I'm suppose to respect, then sorry. I know you're not suggesting that this was the only way a write could have setup a premise for a Lois to find out Jason is Kryptonian. I didn't mind too much that Lois being kind of ****y to Clark. I didn't mind Lois lying to Richard about whether she loved Superman, since answering honestly would not have brought the right results. Lying to her about him and her son and putting her son in danger to get "the big scoop" is unacceptable. Just because conflict is necessary doesn't mean any ol' conflict will do.

I :heart: you. It is always nice to see another poster put my same thoughts more eloquently.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Can we please put discussion of Lois's parenting skills in another thread? And leave this thread for discussion of whether Kate Bosworth's performance was Razzie material.

Its all related. The character was written badly. She was miscast as Lois Lane, given bad material to work with, and gave a mediocre performance. That easily qualifies as a Razzie nomination to me at least.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Oh, yes...cause go shopping at a local market is just as dangerous as illegally tresspassing around in some stranger's property. Yep, the name on the boat was some old woman (..suspected of causing a city-wide blackout..shhhhh!!!!), so there's no danger in walking in uninvited. You guys are hilarious.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

That's bad storytelling. Having to compromise a character's common sense to tell a story denigrates the character. If she's that foolish to put her son in that obvious danger, then she's simply not a good mother. Period. If this were some cheesy horror flick, sure...I'll watch and laugh along the way. If this is a character I'm suppose to respect, then sorry. I know you're not suggesting that this was the only way a write could have setup a premise for a Lois to find out Jason is Kryptonian. I didn't mind too much that Lois being kind of ****y to Clark. I didn't mind Lois lying to Richard about whether she loved Superman, since answering honestly would not have brought the right results. Lying to her about him and her son and putting her son in danger to get "the big scoop" is unacceptable. Just because conflict is necessary doesn't mean any ol' conflict will do.

Again, where's the obvious danger? No one has been able to tell us what's dangerous about questioning an old woman.

And hey, it's not like she didn't know she was trespassing. Jason knew it. She knew it. It's just that ol' feisty reporter coming out of Lois. Whether or not it's good parenting is moot. Lois Lane would do anything for a story...aside from prostituting herself anyway. People complain about Lane not being written properly, but this is the very thing that Lois Lane would do, parent or no.

(..suspected of causing a city-wide blackout..shhhhh!!!!)

She was suspected? Funny, considering that there was never an official investigation concerning the black out. If there were, Luthor would have been found out by the police before Lois ever got to the scene. It was obvious that Lois thought something might have just gone wrong at the Vanderworth house--nothing life threatening. If she thought it was a life threatening situation, she never would have considered bringing Jason along.

You guys are hilarious.

Yeah, because we view the film differently than you do.

Film is an artform and thus can be viewed objectively. That means that some people will like it and appreciate it, and some won't. There's nothing hilarious about it. It comes down to personal taste and opinion. Don't like it? Deal with it.

 

[SentinelMind]

Again, where's the obvious danger? No one has been able to tell us what's dangerous about questioning an old woman.

I don't know how much more I can say this. She's ILLEGALLY tresspassing on someone's property because she thought that property was the source to a city-wide blackout. She had no idea who is in there. She knocked, heard nothing...and continued snooping around with her child. She had no idea what to expect while committing ILLEGAL activity. And she brought on a little super-accomplice. You suggest it is illegal to leave child in car. I agree with that. Leaving a child in car is illegal and stupid. But what's even more illegal and stupid is bringing a child to commit an illegal act investigate potential criminal entity. Both are illegal and stupid, but one puts the child in the center of great risk . If Lois was hurt as she went in snooping in some stranger's house, Jason could have seen what happened or heard screaming and at least get out of the car and run away, calling the cops or whatnot.

And hey, it's not like she didn't know she was trespassing. Jason knew it. She knew it. It's just that ol' feisty reporter coming out of Lois. Whether or not it's good parenting is moot. Lois Lane would do anything for a story...aside from prostituting herself anyway. People complain about Lane not being written properly, but this is the very thing that Lois Lane would do, parent or no.

Uhhhmm....that was our entire argument. Thanks for conceding her parenting skills deserving some treatment. The point of being a good parent is that it doesn't matter what you're good at, your child comes first. Obviously not with Lois.

She was suspected? Funny, considering that there was never an official investigation concerning the black out. If there were, Luthor would have been found out by the police before Lois ever got to the scene. It was obvious that Lois thought something might have just gone wrong at the Vanderworth house--nothing life threatening. If she thought it was a life threatening situation, she never would have considered bringing Jason along.

Since everyone is in love with Superman and don't care about a city-wide blackout, Lois is the only reporter with the chutzpah to investigate a story that might lead to uncovering a diabolic conspiracy or at best a safety hazard. It simply doesn't matter who owns the boat. Lois has NO idea what to expect when she entered that boat. Now, she may be willing to risk her own life for story (something that debatable as whether a mother should do that, that's another argument for another time)....but risking her son's life in the process is reprehensible.

Yeah, she didn't realize it was life threatening until after she snooped around in Lex Luthor's bedroom.

Yeah, because we view the film differently than you do.

Film is an artform and thus can be viewed objectively. That means that some people will like it and appreciate it, and some won't. There's nothing hilarious about it. It comes down to personal taste and opinion. Don't like it? Deal with it.

This isn't about liking or disliking a film. It's the ability to rationalize absurd, idiotic, and reprehensible behavior in a story for the sake of 'creating conflict'. II don't hate this movie. It was ok popcorn fun. I rate it 6.5 out of 10. Not great...but not bad. But failing to acknowledge bad characterization and illogical behavior involves giving the script a free pass. I simply won't do that.