Superman Returns Re: The Offical Jason Appreciation Thread

[gdw]

Please, all that I would like to know is if it is made clear that

Spoiler

jason is Superman/Clark's?

Please, or at the least point me to a rewqview where it says.

Thank you.

 

[Action ACE]

Please, all that I would like to know is if it is made clear that

Spoiler

jason is Superman/Clark's?

Please, or at the least point me to a rewqview where it says.

Thank you.

In the novelization it was never clear, only hinted at. Nor have any of the reviews leaked the truth. I can tell you that Singer said flat out in an interview that it wasn't .

 

[Matt]

The novel hinted at it. Furthermore the kid in the novel felt very hollow, as if something was intentionally being left out. Also, a reviewer or two said there was a "big twist" that they could not reveal. Based on the novel, the only big twist that lends itself to the story would be

Spoiler

the kid being Clark's.

All signs point to yes.

 

[Wilde]

Well, it seems that Paul Levitz (Head of DC Comics) let the "big secret" slip in this interview taken after they saw the film:

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=pj-paullevitz

Press: How do you feel about the child, and is that something you could see bringing into the comics...Superbaby?

Paul: We've done a bunch of explorations of what would happen if Superman had a kid. I'm sure there will be others.

Press: But, in continuity, it would never happen.

Paul: Never's a long time. (laughs) I would have bet we would have never married Superman and Lois, but when Lois and Clark did, we went along with it, so who knows?

He is basically asking him how he felt about the "Superbaby" in the movie, and if he thought they could bring that into the comics. Keep in mind that both of these guys just watched the finished movie.

That looks like confirmation that Jason is indeed Superman's son. Well, it's good to finally know for sure!

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Yeah, I think WB is screwing up by keeping this under wraps. It's so obvious that people are asking about it anyway, meaning the twist is for all intents and purposes, f**ked as it is. And for some people, knowing AHEAD OF TIME that the kid is probably Superman's will HELP more than it will HURT.

On the one hand, you're insulting the audience's intelligence by referring to what happens as "a twist" when it's ridiculously obvious. On the other, you're chancing ANGRY surprise weighed against a more natural reveal.

 

[Matt]

Yeah, I think WB is screwing up by keeping this under wraps. It's so obvious that people are asking about it anyway, meaning the twist is for all intents and purposes, f**ked as it is. And for some people, knowing AHEAD OF TIME that the kid is probably Superman's will HELP more than it will HURT.

On the one hand, you're insulting the audience's intelligence by referring to what happens as "a twist" when it's ridiculously obvious. On the other, you're chancing ANGRY surprise weighed against a more natural reveal.

I agree, but what way can this news really reach the general public (I.E. not internet nerds who can over every interview, clip, and soundbyte) without putting it in a TV spot somehow, which would just be blatantly obvious.

Depending how they play this kid though, it could make or break this movie's word of mouth amongst the general public.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

but what way can this news really reach the general public

press interviews and puff pieces on Entertainment Tonight and Extra, stuff like that. That should get it out rather quickly.

I mean, the fact these reporters are ASKING means it's THAT obvious already. If that's your TWIST then it's not a twist. If friggin Pat O'Brien can guess it without seeing frame one of the film, it's not a twist. don't protect it as such.

 

[J.Howlett]

The kid issue (which I actually like) does raise this question...how the hell is it explained if this film is technically Superman III to Superman The Movie and Superman II?

Remember, Lois doesn't remember sleeping with Superman and the fact that Clark is Superman.

 

[Wilde]

The kid issue (which I actually like) does raise this question...how the hell is it explained if this film is technically Superman III to Superman The Movie and Superman II?

Vague. History.

The point is, in this film, Superman and Lois had a pre-existing romantic relationship, before he left Earth.

NOT that their entire relationship consists of what happened in Superman 2. In fact, Singer himself said that Superman 2 isn't really part of the "vague history" idea, or the continuity of this film. Forget about the whole "memory kiss" and Lois finding out that Clark is Superman. That is not part of the movies history.

All you need to know, is that Superman and Lois were romantically involved before he left.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Hell, the last few reports have had them saying this doesn't even take Superman II into account.

So if that's the case, and this movie is to stand mostly on it's own outside of some Superman 78 references--then how does either Lois OR Superman reconcile this? That's always been the hardest part for me to wrap my head around. The memory kiss doesn't exist--because Superman II didn't happen. or maybe only the Donner Cut of Superman II happened. Or neither happened, in which case, Lois and Superman hooked up for a one-night stand at some point and they had unprotected sex somehow. without Superman decapitating her via spunk missile.

The whole thing becomes weird. It's simpler if it's NOT his kid, but as a twist, it's not exactly TWISTY.

Myself, I just want to know which it is BEFORE I enter the theater. if it's his kid, I'll need time to get used to the idea. Having it sprung on me while I'm in there sitting might piss me off, regardless of all the critics who seem to be crapping themselves. But if I know before hand, I can get used to the idea and follow along, like I would any movie adapted from a previous work.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Hell, the last few reports have had them saying this doesn't even take Superman II into account.

So if that's the case, and this movie is to stand mostly on it's own outside of some Superman 78 references--then how does either Lois OR Superman reconcile this? That's always been the hardest part for me to wrap my head around. The memory kiss doesn't exist--because Superman II didn't happen. or maybe only the Donner Cut of Superman II happened. Or neither happened, in which case, Lois and Superman hooked up for a one-night stand at some point and they had unprotected sex somehow. without Superman decapitating her via spunk missile.

The whole thing becomes weird. It's simpler if it's NOT his kid, but as a twist, it's not exactly TWISTY.

Myself, I just want to know which it is BEFORE I enter the theater. if it's his kid, I'll need time to get used to the idea. Having it sprung on me while I'm in there sitting might piss me off, regardless of all the critics who seem to be crapping themselves. But if I know before hand, I can get used to the idea and follow along, like I would any movie adapted from a previous work.

IMO, I think it'll be much simpler. Lois and Superman had sex at one point and she got pregnant. She didn't know until after he had left. If we go back to SII when Supes depowered and they were together, it would be a miraculous conception of sorts for her because of the amnesia kiss, which is to complicated and creepy I might add.

Also, why don't you just start getting used to the idea that Jason is Clarks? If it turns out this way in the theater, then you're fine. If not, you're pleasantly surprised (I wouldn't be, as I want Clark to be the father, but this would work for you).

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

I was, actually, and had gotten my head wrapped around it pretty well, thinking about the possibility of the reveal for the audience, how it'd be paced and plotted, and what kind of effect it would have on those audiences.

And then Singer flat out told people in at least 2 interviews "It's not his kid" when directly asked.

Which caused me to reset

I'm pretty much working my way back to it, but as evidenced by the fact I frigging LIVE in the Spoiler sections on this board, I'd just like to know before I go in there, not guess.

And yeah, in this continuity, I believe the same thing, as I said, apparently Superman and Lois hooked up one night and he managed to bust off without breaking her in half. But that brings up some questions still, and I don't see this film answering them:

1) How does he get that vulnerable to let her in without letting her know he's Clark? Character-wise, thats' a big no-no. Clark having sex outside of marriage, okay. That I can believe. But Clark would spill the beans before taking that plunge. There's no way any version of this character DOESN'T DO THAT. And since Lois apparently still has no clue who he is, and we're subtracting any doofy Memory Kiss (since she knows it's his kid) then that brings up a pretty big incongruity.

2) Lois immediately becomes a huge liar. Doesn't matter if she knew BEFORE she hooked up with Richard, or AFTER, at some point, she knows before Clark comes back, and she doesn't tell anyone. Anything. Clark has to almost DIE before she apparently whispers it to him at a hospital. Again--doesn't ring true to almost ANY version of the character that came before.

The question is--does the movie become THAT good that those questions become very small things once you leave the theater?

Of course, the kid not being his erases those questions altogether, and has the added bonus of not insulting the audience's intelligence by assuming they're not gonna guess the kid is his for the entirety of the 2 hours after he's introduced.

 

[Steelsheen]

Well, it seems that Paul Levitz (Head of DC Comics) let the "big secret" slip in this interview taken after they saw the film:

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=pj-paullevitz



He is basically asking him how he felt about the "Superbaby" in the movie, and if he thought they could bring that into the comics. Keep in mind that both of these guys just watched the finished movie.

That looks like confirmation that Jason is indeed Superman's son. Well, it's good to finally know for sure!

i read the whole article from the link again....

you're right, it does sound like its Supe's kid.

ick.

oh well. if its already in print then its there. i'll just haveto see the film itself and see how they'll spin that subplot.





i can already see casual supes fans walking out of the theaters pissed

 

[J.Howlett]

Fatboy,

I share the same concerns as you're previous post. I've read the novel. Storywise and character wise, the story is fantastic. I loved everything about it...if and only if the kid issue is left how it is in the novel. They don't go either way. From the novel point of view, I'd say the kid is Richard's.

Now, I had not heard that Singer denounced Superman II as part of the history of this film. We can all agree that Superman The Movie is part of that.

Say that Superman The Movie is the only history this film goes by, then there has to be a way within the film to explain that the kid is Supeman's if it's actually his. The way the film is presented, you can't help but connect it to at least the first two films.

So, Singer has to find a way to explain the kid if it's Superman's. He can't get away with it just being apart of some past established relationship that was never truly explored.

Now, if Singer is going by Donner's Cut, then we'll just have to wait until the holiday season to see how it all fits once Donner's Cut becomes available.

Either way, I've liked everything about this production since day one and I even like the kid being Superman's as long as it's explained properly....

 

[Steelsheen]

I was, actually, and had gotten my head wrapped around it pretty well, thinking about the possibility of the reveal for the audience, how it'd be paced and plotted, and what kind of effect it would have on those audiences.

And then Singer flat out told people in at least 2 interviews "It's not his kid" when directly asked.

Which caused me to reset

I'm pretty much working my way back to it, but as evidenced by the fact I frigging LIVE in the Spoiler sections on this board, I'd just like to know before I go in there, not guess.

And yeah, in this continuity, I believe the same thing, as I said, apparently Superman and Lois hooked up one night and he managed to bust off without breaking her in half. But that brings up some questions still, and I don't see this film answering them:

1) How does he get that vulnerable to let her in without letting her know he's Clark? Character-wise, thats' a big no-no. Clark having sex outside of marriage, okay. That I can believe. But Clark would spill the beans before taking that plunge. There's no way any version of this character DOESN'T DO THAT. And since Lois apparently still has no clue who he is, and we're subtracting any doofy Memory Kiss (since she knows it's his kid) then that brings up a pretty big incongruity.

2) Lois immediately becomes a huge liar. Doesn't matter if she knew BEFORE she hooked up with Richard, or AFTER, at some point, she knows before Clark comes back, and she doesn't tell anyone. Anything. Clark has to almost DIE before she apparently whispers it to him at a hospital. Again--doesn't ring true to almost ANY version of the character that came before.

The question is--does the movie become THAT good that those questions become very small things once you leave the theater?

Of course, the kid not being his erases those questions altogether, and has the added bonus of not insulting the audience's intelligence by assuming they're not gonna guess the kid is his for the entirety of the 2 hours after he's introduced.

those are the exact questions that's been percolating in my head for months! how the heck can Superman father a child with Lois and Lois still being completely clueless that Clark and Supes is the same guy? isnt Lois supposed to be a smart lady? i'm not even gonna start with the biological repercussions for a full powered male Kryptonian getting together with a Human female.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Gotcha Howlett. The only problem with the Donner Cut being part of the vague history is that Singer's pitch and shooting started before Donner Cut work was really even known by anyone, and he had to know his movie would be out before his piece of continuity would even be seen by anyone, so I'm just gonna throw that possibility out due to logistics.

If there's a conversation that we're not privy to in the novel that explains somehow that Superman and Lois hooked up at one point without Superman ever coming clean about his identity, then the kid reveal can make sense. But otherwise, it calls into question too much stuff about Superman and Lois to smoothly fit in the movie. Then the movie becomes reliant on outside storytelling and filling in the blanks after the fact and that's not the greatest of storytelling. That sort of Star Wars-esque "Buy the novel and the comic book and watch the cartoon to understand why this is cool and how this happened, because we can't actually take the time to explain it in the movie" type stuff.

 

[J.Howlett]

Exactly.

In the novel, it makes no hint whatsoever that she knows that Clark and Superman are one in the same...and that doesn't work at all.

Even if the kid is Clark's, like Fatboy says, that still doesn't work either. Clark would've come clean and told Lois that he's Superman.

So again, this has to be explained very well for me to buy this aspect of the story. Everything else in the story works very well, according to the novel.

Again, if the kid is Richard's, it's all good and no one needs to worry.

 

[MoreCowbell]

I was, actually, and had gotten my head wrapped around it pretty well, thinking about the possibility of the reveal for the audience, how it'd be paced and plotted, and what kind of effect it would have on those audiences.

And then Singer flat out told people in at least 2 interviews "It's not his kid" when directly asked.

Which caused me to reset

I'm pretty much working my way back to it, but as evidenced by the fact I frigging LIVE in the Spoiler sections on this board, I'd just like to know before I go in there, not guess.

And yeah, in this continuity, I believe the same thing, as I said, apparently Superman and Lois hooked up one night and he managed to bust off without breaking her in half. But that brings up some questions still, and I don't see this film answering them:

1) How does he get that vulnerable to let her in without letting her know he's Clark? Character-wise, thats' a big no-no. Clark having sex outside of marriage, okay. That I can believe. But Clark would spill the beans before taking that plunge. There's no way any version of this character DOESN'T DO THAT. And since Lois apparently still has no clue who he is, and we're subtracting any doofy Memory Kiss (since she knows it's his kid) then that brings up a pretty big incongruity.

2) Lois immediately becomes a huge liar. Doesn't matter if she knew BEFORE she hooked up with Richard, or AFTER, at some point, she knows before Clark comes back, and she doesn't tell anyone. Anything. Clark has to almost DIE before she apparently whispers it to him at a hospital. Again--doesn't ring true to almost ANY version of the character that came before.

The question is--does the movie become THAT good that those questions become very small things once you leave the theater?

Of course, the kid not being his erases those questions altogether, and has the added bonus of not insulting the audience's intelligence by assuming they're not gonna guess the kid is his for the entirety of the 2 hours after he's introduced.

1. Yeah, I understand your point completely and agree. It would be odd, but I guess we'll just have to assume it was in the heat of the moment and was never brought up... Knowing Clark, there would probably be a lot of conflict about not telling her, but in the end it was for the best. That’s my best rationalization for it at this point.

2. I imagine that Lois is just extremely upset that he left. C_H talked about how it would have been tough to go through the pregnancy by herself, having a premature baby, and even considering raising him on her own. The pain she felt would have been so great during this time. Also, it explains why she has such a vendetta against Superman. She borders on complete and utter contempt for him. Until she understands why he leaves and why it's so hard for him to talk about (in their "interview"). Plus, I (I might be mistaken, I can’t remember) doesn’t Lex reveal that he had something to do with him leaving? So in the end it was a trap he fell into.

It's not about him almost dying before being honest. At this point in the story line there's no easy way to blurt out "he's your son" especially considering she's so conflicted about her feelings for him. She wants so badly to hate him and get on with her life... But she can't. Until she comes to the realization that she does love him (when she tells Richard to turn the plane around and go back for Superman). All these crazy events are happening at once.

Also, we’ll have to use our imagination about her relationship with Richard. If the kid is Superman’s, she met Richard AFTER he was born. There’s no way she just moved on within a few weeks of Superman having leaving (hell, how long before did they know he had “left them&#8221. So, she really doesn’t owe Richard anything. He came into a relationship in which there was a child. All he has to know is the father is gone.

HOWEVER this one issue that is really odd. Richard throughout the book questions her relationship with Supes. If the kid isn’t his, how come he never wonders if superman could be the father? It would be a logical assumption for him… Or does he know that Superman is the father and just believes Lois has moved on with him and he is the definitive father as far has he's concerned…

So many questions. I can’t wait to see how it all plays out.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Like Roberts says, as I've always said: you don't cover up something the audience will dislike as if it's reveal will appease them. Nobody wants Supes to have a kid, so I don't at all think Singer is lying when he said the kid isn't his. Lois even says in the film that it's Richard's kid.

I think the twist has to do with something else.

 

[J.Howlett]

Fatboy,

With Star Wars, the fill in the blank parts don't really help or hurt the specific Episodes, technically.

With this, it would.

They've stated that the novel and the film are different with it comes to one or two things...so, we'll have to wait two weeks.

But, it would be nice to know. And yes, using Donner's Cut to explain it wouldn't really work either because as you said, that wasn't in the pipeline when Singer started working on this film....

 

[MoviesKickAss]

There IS a Spoiler in the Movie that WAS NOT IN THE NOVEL

 

[Excel]

ya know, while this is a twist, i think when we sede themovie, people will be more surprised by

Spoiler

luthor having created everything that mde superman leave, thus he ****ed up his whole life for nohting

 

[J.Howlett]

Okay, if there is a spoiler that wasn't in the novel, I'm still trying to wrap my head around what that could be because in the novel, everything seemed to fit just right.

The only thing I can think of that would be considered a twist would be something with New Krypton or the Return of Zod from the depths of the Fortess of Solitude....

 

[MoviesKickAss]

Okay, if there is a spoiler that wasn't in the novel, I'm still trying to wrap my head around what that could be because in the novel, everything seemed to fit just right

You do realize that Movies WILL be different from the Novel

 

[J.Howlett]

Oh, I know. However, this novel just felt really, really close to what we've seen in the trailers. That's why I think the film won't be that much different except for the one spoiler not in the novel.