Superman Returns Bosworth nominated for a Razzie WTF?!?

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.

Again, no one is denying that it was an illegal activity. No one's saying she was being a great parent by bringing Jason along. We're just saying she expected a quickie interview, nothing more. It's very much in Lois' character to go where she isn't supposed to go.




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.

Actually the argument was Jason being a murderer. Somehow, someway it turned into the "Lois is a bad mother" thing.

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.

She expects a quickie interview. It may lead to another clue in her investigation, or it may be a dead end to her investigation. She doesn't know. We know that she just wanted to ask some questions and then go with Jason and Richard to the Pulitzer awards.

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

Ummm...yeah. Exactly. Thus why she says that it was a bad idea. By then, however, it is too late and our conflict arises.


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.


I don't think it's bad characterization or bad writing. You may, that's your right, that's your opinion. Personally I find it very much in Lois' character to go on that boat for a story. She put her career ahead of her parenting and she paid for it.
 
She expects a quickie interview. It may lead to another clue in her investigation, or it may be a dead end to her investigation. She doesn't know. We know that she just wanted to ask some questions and then go with Jason and Richard to the Pulitzer awards.

So let us put the situation in a realistic perspective. Say you mother is a reporter and when you were little she decided to get an interview with say I don't know...Tom Cruise. Your saying it that not only would it be sensible for to sneak onto Tom Cruise's yacht illegally and snoop around but also for her to drag you along while she does it. Your honestly not seeing how ******ed and dumb that scenario is? I don't know I just give up...haha.
 
No, I'm not saying it's sensible. I've already said it wasn't the greatest parenting and that she paid for it.

But that's Lois Lane. Do anything for a story.
 
So let us put the situation in a realistic perspective. Say you mother is a reporter and when you were little she decided to get an interview with say I don't know...Tom Cruise. Your saying it that not only would it be sensible for to sneak onto Tom Cruise's yacht illegally and snoop around but also for her to drag you along while she does it. Your honestly not seeing how ******ed and dumb that scenario is? I don't know I just give up...haha.


She was in a rush, she had already been late picking Jason up, its called convenience, to drop Jason off somewere and then pick him up again would have made her late for the Pulitzer. And honestly, what is the danger in taking a child to visit some house that is still under a rich old womans name? If you think thats putting a child in danger then people are putting children in danger everyday by taking them ANYWERE!
 
the thing is that i cna pick apart every movie. in this case some here did SR. its a movie.the plane crashed teh day when superman came back. if it would one week earlier than lois would be dead.
 
I'm already calling Kirsten Dunst will get a nom for Spider-man 3, given how her character will get all soapy and emo in it.
 
To go on a boat...yes....to bring a child into a dangerous situation to get the scoop? That hasn't been explored much I guess...but Singer sealed it. Lois lacks common sense and a mother's instinct. Any idiot could see that Lois was being wreckless by snooping around illegally in someone's home with her son.
 
To go on a boat...yes....to bring a child into a dangerous situation to get the scoop? That hasn't been explored much I guess...but Singer sealed it. Lois lacks common sense and a mother's instinct. Any idiot could see that Lois was being wreckless by snooping around illegally in someone's home with her son.

Yeah, and the problem is...?
 
38442a.jpg


"SETTLE!... Settle, settle, settle!"

But for what I saw in previous Superman movies, I totally see Lois risking everything in order to get the news first.
 
Except in this movie she didnt look like an old hag ;)

Edit:

Whoops Triplet post.

Eeek.
 
No, I'm not saying it's sensible. I've already said it wasn't the greatest parenting and that she paid for it.

But that's Lois Lane. Do anything for a story.

Yep no one ever said Lois had to be a perfect mother or parent. She certainly was never a perfect employee, friend, lover or wife before.
 
Well, since there's still no idea for a different scene for "Uh ma gawd, Jason's Superboy!!!", I will give you an example how it could've been actually heroic and dramatic:

The scene were Lois goes to the Mansion plays out different. She rings, knocks, no one's answering but Luthor sees her and hides on the yacht untill she's gone. She has no more time, she has to go to the Pulitzer but Luthor saw her and now knows she's on to him, so he sails away.
Now we have the same setup we had with Luthor, later sending the rocket to create NK except Lois and Jason are not with him.

So, how to reveal Jason's powers?
Well, considering that NK would cause huge damage to the planet, but Singer's "very realistic display" doesn't care for that and just shows Metropolis, I would insert a scene with Lois and Jason at the awards or on their way to them. Now an earthquake hits the city, buildings collapse and Lois and Jason run for their lives trough the city untill they end up on a place where suddenly a wall comes crashing down. Lois doesn't see it but Jason does and in a reflex movement hold's his hands before him and suddenly holds the crashing wall. Lois turns around looking stunned, he pushes the chunk back and they go on. Cut back to Supes who's stopping the fallen debris throughout the city and the movie goes on.

Result: Jason showed his powers, didn't kill anyone and even did something heroic by saving Lois.

And yes, I know it's very similar to Spider-Man 2, but who cares, they already ripped so much of anyway. Jason going all "HULK" isn't that new either, he just didn't turn green. He could also stop a car or whatever you like. There's alot to play with in an earthquake.

PS: For the wisea$$es now pointing out "But the public's seeing it!". I doubt anyone has enough time to look out for someone holding a chunk of wall or whatever while he's running for his life. You can also place the scene in an alley or one the f'n moon, 'cause if you're the writer its up to you how you present it! And the peeps in Metropolis don't really notice much anyway, so the movie's logic would remain.

Now, tell me again how great the "piano" scene was, considering the possiblities I pointed out .....

GO!
 
It's crap.

We didnt see him actually pushing the piano on screen but to show a little kid holding a gigantic wall, it would just look really lame.

I know the 78 film showed baby Clark lifting the truck but its just a bit too cheesy for this version.
 
It's crap.

We didnt see him actually pushing the piano on screen but to show a little kid holding a gigantic wall, it would just look really lame.

I know the 78 film showed baby Clark lifting the truck but its just a bit too cheesy for this version.

Agreed, the way they did it in SR was much better, we didnt actually see Jason pushing the piano, which IMO makes it a lot less corny.
 
So you both want and expect Jason to never show his powers in the sequels?
You guys are funny as hell. Whenever someone says that SR is a copy of STM, you like to point out to the totally fesh and new aspect of the movie (Jason), but don't want him do show his powers on-screen cause it'd be corny/cheesy!?

So, why give him powers in the first place? Why make him Supermans kid and (subtly) show him having powers if you never build up on that in future movies?

And then you also complain about guys who want to see Jason die in the sequel, cause then the boy wouldn't be build up on and be a stupid addition to the movieverse?

:huh:

You really don't make any sense. But please, go on, it's priceless fun to read here. :woot:
 
Yeah I mean they say it wouldbe cheesy to actually show Jason using his powers on screen but what the **** do you think Singer is going to do in the sequels? We are going to see Super Kid. Get ****ing used to it. What a horrible idea the kid was I just can't get over it.
 
We dont know how theyll handle Jason's powers in the sequel. They sure didnt want to openly show it onscreen in SR [eg:when he went to open the door, but Richard opened it from the outside].

So all this speculation you guys have about 'Superkid' is bs.

Regardless, it doesnt change the fact that little Jason lifting a giant wall would have looked really corny onscreen, it wouldnt have fit with the overall style of the film.
 
So your saying we will not see Jason using superpowers in the sequel? We will see buddy. Can't wait to see the backtracking like when people were saying the kid was no way Superman's. "Oh well Singer did it in a cool way so it is alright by me." But I think we probably see a character killed off and maybe it will be the kid. My money is on Richard though.
 
Superman is gonna be in some trouble in one of these sequels and Jason is gonna bail him out using his superpowers. I have forseen it. :o Seriously, I would expect us to get some display(and a clear one at that) of Jason's powers in the sequel. I'm not saying he's gonna be in tights but I'm figuring he's gonna save the day in some manner.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,289
Messages
22,080,683
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"