Superman Returns Re: The Offical Jason Appreciation Thread

jensmith said:
Yes, which is why it would be refreshing to see somebody take their lumps and not turn to the dark side.

;)
Plus Richard is a genuine nice guy. I don't think he could be a believeable villian. Perhaps Metallo, but that would be against his will and not his own decision to become evil.

What would you guys think about Bryan, Mike and Dan creating their own new villian? Something not seen before by comics, TV shows or animated series.
 
MoreCowbell said:
Plus Richard is a genuine nice guy.

For once, I would like to see somebody who lost (love, money, whatever) stay true to their initial good nature.

I'm not saying the character can't be hurt or angry, but that he wouldn't go postal.

Just because he doesn't have super powers doesn't mean he shouldn't be expected to lose with some type of grace.

That would be what I want to teach my children, just because life isn't fair doesn't mean it's okay to lash out at those who hurt you. Accept that life isn't fair but understand it goes on and good things are still to come.


What would you guys think about Bryan, Mike and Dan creating their own new villian? Something not seen before by comics, TV shows or animated series.

If it was cool, that would be fine by me. ;)
 
jensmith said:
It happened months later (TV show aired it for sweeps) in the comics, but it was planned years before in the comics. DC had to rush to production (they had a lot of done already which is why it only took months to get out) but couldn't quite coincide because the producers of the TV show didn't give them enough warning.

The actual plan to introduce it in to continuity (there had been imaginary stories, just as there had been imaginary children strories) originated in the comic book before the TV show was even cast. It wasn't some thing they 'might' do, like having a kid (which the couple talk about off and on in current continuity but DC has yet to decide if they will or not), it was GOING to happen regardless of the show.

I'm not exactly anti-kid (not thrilled, but I'll accept it) and I agree many things happened first in other media.

However, the concept of marriage was not one of them. Too many people use the TV marriage to bash the marriage in the comics, blaming the TV show for it when in fact it was the comics which started them down the path. The comics would have married them regardless of the TV show, that was my point.

Your assertion



leaves the impression that the comics took the marriage lead from the show, like they did with the other things you mention. It didn't happen that way, the marriage is a case of the comics leading the tv show. That the TV show aired their version (miserable one at that, mho) months before the comics doesn't mean the tv show introduced change that the comic book then followed. It only shows the TV producers didn't communicate properly with DC so it didn't happen on the same week like WB hoped it would.

The movie will lead the way with the Super kid the way other media did with some of your examples, and it remains to be seen if DC decides to introduce it to continuity (as they did with Kryptonite, Jimmy, etc) or treat this like an elseworld.


The marriage is not the issue mind you. It was just one of the things I as pointing out. If it helps, ignore it and look at the others.

I am mainly just confused what it is that you are upset about them aparently changing that is not canon?
 
I don't want Richard to become a bad guy . After reading the novel, I could see why Lois fell for him, Because he Looks & acts Like SUPERMAN, plus he's a bit liked Clark Kent .

I think because of Richard INTERNATIONAL job, his relationship with Lois won't last. {Long distant relationships never last.} Also Richard Knows she still Madly in love With SUPERMAN , And she has feelings for Her Friend who just returned Clark Kent . [I think Richard is just going to let her go be with The Man she Truly loves.]
 
Kal-El 8 said:
I don't want Richard to become a bad guy . After reading the novel, I could see why Lois fell for him, Because he Looks & acts Like SUPERMAN, plus he's a bit liked Clark Kent .

I think because of Richard INTERNATIONAL job, his relationship with Lois won't last. {Long distant relationships never last.} Also Richard Knows she still Madly in love With SUPERMAN , And she has feelings for Her Friend who just returned Clark Kent . [I think Richard is just going to let her go be with The Man she Truly loves.]
He doesn't have the international job anymore (he's now the international sections editor). He decided not to continue that job when he and Lois got serious.
 
gdw said:
The marriage is not the issue mind you. It was just one of the things I as pointing out. If it helps, ignore it and look at the others.

Understood.

I'm not upset just trying to clarify the marriage idea originated in the comic book.

I like the marriage, but when people argue against the marriage they use the TV show as the straw man. There are those who claim that if the TV show hadn't married them the comic book wouldn't have. As the argument goes , since it was the TV show's fault, DC should retcon the marriage.

That isn't true. The comics would have done it regardless.

WRT to the child, IF the child is introduced in to continuity people will blame the movie and they'll have a case.

I'm not saying the child can't work, I haven't seen the movie. It just might be a great addition and if DC follows it, then they will.

However, I just wanted to address the point that the marriage in continuity was something the comics did because of outside influences. It wasn't.

Peace!

:)
 
MoreCowbell said:
He doesn't have the international job anymore (he's now the international sections editor). He decided not to continue that job when he and Lois got serious.

Yeah I know that .

But he might take the job back, When he realizes Lois isn't going to Marry him .
 
Kal-El 8 said:
Yeah I know that .

But he might take the job back, When he realizes Lois isn't going to Marry him .

I hope so and I hope he meets some nice girl (PAGING CHLOE FROM SMALLVILLE) and lives a long and happy life.

charl_huntress, I hear you laughing at me. ;)
 
jensmith said:
Understood.

I'm not upset just trying to clarify the marriage idea originated in the comic book.

I like the marriage, but when people argue against the marriage they use the TV show as the straw man. There are those who claim that if the TV show hadn't married them the comic book wouldn't have. As the argument goes , since it was the TV show's fault, DC should retcon the marriage.

That isn't true. The comics would have done it regardless.

WRT to the child, IF the child is introduced in to continuity people will blame the movie and they'll have a case.

I'm not saying the child can't work, I haven't seen the movie. It just might be a great addition and if DC follows it, then they will.

However, I just wanted to address the point that the marriage in continuity was something the comics did because of outside influences. It wasn't.

Peace!

:)

Indeed

It began in Post-Crisis comics - In The issue Action Comics #484 [After many years Lois & Clark/SUPERMAN get married.]
ajlgl14b.jpg

"SUPERMAN Takes A Wife"!!!

Then in The Pre-Crisis Comics - In SUPERMAN : The Wedding Album [Lois & Clark/SUPERMAN get married,]
wedding.jpg


Then The Tv series Marriage
weddingdress.jpg
 
jensmith said:
I hope so and I hope he meets some nice girl (PAGING CHLOE FROM SMALLVILLE) and lives a long and happy life.

charl_huntress, I hear you laughing at me. ;)

NO GOD DAMNIT, I don't want Chloe or Lana in the new SUPERMAN movies .
 
But they are HAAAAAAAAAAAAWT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Kal-El 8 said:
NO GOD DAMNIT, I don't want Chloe or Lana in the new SUPERMAN movies .

LOL! I like Chloe, but okay, it could be an off screen mention. I don't want to see Richard in the sequel either. Just tell me he's moved on and is happy... ;)
 
Been busy today, just catching up here, but let me see if im understanding this right. After 14 positive reviews from various sources speaking of SR in high praise, people are buying into comments from AICN about the piano thing again? The very site that mentioned the piano thing in the first place? And this is the same place where someone stated they "snuck into" a secure press screening? Yeah,... and some of you are seriously buying it?

Simply stating I am Dissapointed isn't saying enough. I want to smack some of you and tell you to snap out of it. This is frigging AICN here, and no other place has even suggested Mori's script review was close to whats shot, especially THAT scene, but It's mentioned once again ON THERE OF ALL PLACES and some of you are like "OMG thats so F'ing stupid! OMG, thats gonna be stupid".

Oh, thank god this is an internet community....
 
Nivek said:
Been busy today, just catching up here, but let me see if im understanding this right. After 14 positive reviews from various sources speaking of SR in high praise, people are buying into comments from AICN about the piano thing again? The very site that mentioned the piano thing in the first place? And this is the same place where someone stated they "snuck into" a secure press screening? Yeah,... and some of you are seriously buying it?

Simply stating I am Dissapointed isn't saying enough. I want to smack some of you and tell you to snap out of it. This is frigging AICN here, and no other place has even suggested Mori's script review was close to whats shot, especially THAT scene, but It's mentioned once again ON THERE OF ALL PLACES and some of you are like "OMG thats so F'ing stupid! OMG, thats gonna be stupid".

Oh, thank god this is an internet community....
ROFL...

One thing going for your statement is that in one AICN review we read "subtle" and the next one we read that the piano scene is in. Obviously a contrast and someone is lying. If its in the film I'm ok with it. Same goes for it if it's not.
 
Nivek said:
Been busy today, just catching up here, but let me see if im understanding this right. After 14 positive reviews from various sources speaking of SR in high praise, people are buying into comments from AICN about the piano thing again? The very site that mentioned the piano thing in the first place? And this is the same place where someone stated they "snuck into" a secure press screening? Yeah,... and some of you are seriously buying it?

Simply stating I am Dissapointed isn't saying enough. I want to smack some of you and tell you to snap out of it. This is frigging AICN here, and no other place has even suggested Mori's script review was close to whats shot, especially THAT scene, but It's mentioned once again ON THERE OF ALL PLACES and some of you are like "OMG thats so F'ing stupid! OMG, thats gonna be stupid".

Oh, thank god this is an internet community....

thanks... i needed that.
 
echostation said:
where else could it go with a sequel... this is the intention clearly in the first place. if the kid is showing his power it's obvious enough he'll show a lot more of it in the sequel, it's a preview of things to come otherwise there'd be no mention of this track of storyline and the kid would be richards and all would be said and done and dealt with.

How is it obvious? How do you know this? Clue me in? Let me know because you sound assured that this will occur. He has one display of powers, if that, and you are assured this is going to be the main storyline for the rest of the Superman movie? You can't possibily see that perhaps this will play into the subplot of the relationship between Lois and Clark/Superman, and that adding a child ups the ante for them???? Is this soooo hard to see? Or again, are you saying this because you don't like the idea and instead of taking a bit of time to think about it your are just derailing it for the heck of it?

echostation said:
But because we have 6 year old Super-Kid in the works, it's going to be like the Stronghold 2... The Commander and Will Stronghold... I can just see it... both take on Bizarro and while Supes lands in an ocean again with hugely wet hair, Kid-Supes will fly up and defeat him..

This notion is so asinine. You describe a story that a five year old would write. That sounds like a bad story. Give the folks involved with this just a bit more credit. Yes, it could be the biggest pile of dog crap in existence, but you don't know what's going to happen. You haven't seen it executed, so you don't know and it sounds like you are letting your fears run away with you.

echostation said:
Now unless they actually KILL the kid in the second one, that would be a brilliant cinematic take overall to drive a huge wedge between Lois and Supes... that would be an excellent way to carry the story forward and we could see a Superman that finally cuts loose a little much like his angrier self in Justice League.

Kill a kid in a Superman movie? I just don't understand this hypocrisy? It's crazy really. Those who harp on this relationship aspect being a downer to the storyline and the kid not being a good addition destroy half of what they claim to stand for by throwing out comments like theres. Really....are you saying it's good thing to kill off a kid in a Superman movie?
 
jensmith said:
I hope so and I hope he meets some nice girl (PAGING CHLOE FROM SMALLVILLE) and lives a long and happy life.

charl_huntress, I hear you laughing at me. ;)


Hahahahahahahahahah........did you hear it really because I swear my next door neighbor almost called the cops. I would be surprised if you didn't hear it:)
 
didn't kate say along the lines of..."He DID actually feel like my STEP-SON" aka it isn't her kid. Now if she said, "He did actually feelike my son" then the kid is hers. Just a theory.
 
jensmith said:
Understood.

I'm not upset just trying to clarify the marriage idea originated in the comic book.

I like the marriage, but when people argue against the marriage they use the TV show as the straw man. There are those who claim that if the TV show hadn't married them the comic book wouldn't have. As the argument goes , since it was the TV show's fault, DC should retcon the marriage.

That isn't true. The comics would have done it regardless.

WRT to the child, IF the child is introduced in to continuity people will blame the movie and they'll have a case.

I'm not saying the child can't work, I haven't seen the movie. It just might be a great addition and if DC follows it, then they will.

However, I just wanted to address the point that the marriage in continuity was something the comics did because of outside influences. It wasn't.

Peace!

:)


Well good to understand eachother now.

But what was it that was the big issue with them going against canon? And what was it? Just the kid, and now it's not such a big thing, if it works?? (more or less my thoughts on the kid too mind you)
 
I'm not going to defend AICN, but both reviews either flat out say the kid throws the piano or hints that the kid is Supes. All of the other reviews out there ARE "spoiler free" reviews. I choose to believe the kid is Supes. I don't like it but I accept it.
 
gdw said:
Well good to understand eachother now.

But what was it that was the big issue with them going against canon? And what was it? Just the kid, and now it's not such a big thing, if it works?? (more or less my thoughts on the kid too mind you)

I think it's because this is a huge change to the mythos (granted it's not in continuity but the fear is it will be, lol ) , and the execution is not exactly what one would hope for Superman or Lois Lane.

In the comics whenever a super-baby is raised it is with a caveat it may not be possible, or if it was, it might be dangerous for Lois (carrying a half alien child).

If they did have a child it would completely alter the mythos, Superman would no longer be alone (he's not lonely, he has Lois and his parents, but he is the last El, an alien). Once he has a son his motivations change.

I understand why people were so upset when Superman married, while I liked it, it was a huge change. He was no longer lonely, he got the girl, which changed the direction of the mythos in a fundamental way. However, since Lois is not a child, she doesn't stand in the way of what he needs to do.

Adding a child to the mix takes Superman in a completely different direction. It's not the same as adding an adult character like Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, or other supporting characters.

Superman's child would mean both Lois and Clark have to rethink their priorities and focus. The JLA would be affected, anything Superman is involved with would feel the reverberations of a child.

It might work in the movies which is somewhat self-contained, but in the comic books it would be a huge huge change.

Will Superman be so quick to go off planet for months to battle evil or would he delegate it to others because of his responsibilities to his child? Would he scale back his JLA involvement and stick to Metropolis because he wanted to be there for his child? I don't know.

I'm interested to see where this goes in the movies, I don't like the setup though (unwed Lois, that Superman seems not to have told Lois who he was before they were intimate, or if he did, she doesn't remember. Superman II is vague history they say so we don't know the circumstances of their intimate relationship. Also, I don't like that Superman missed the first 5 years of his son's life, etc) .

I'm one of those who is very wary of what this would do to the Superman mythos if they introduced a baby in continuity.

All that said, I'm not bashing the movie, I haven't seen it. I'm looking forward to it, I've got my imax ticket in hand! ;)
 
KALEL114 said:
I'm not going to defend AICN, but both reviews either flat out say the kid throws the piano or hints that the kid is Supes. All of the other reviews out there ARE "spoiler free" reviews. I choose to believe the kid is Supes. I don't like it but I accept it.

All I got to say in response to this is that AICN has had numerous times in the past few years where they have flat out looked like FOOLS for printing reviews, pictures, behind the scenes scoops, and screening reviews that have been flat out false or sent in to purposely mislead them. And at designated press screenings where people have to be searched by security to look for hidden Cameras, you think a Joe schmo can just "sneak in" there? This is as bad as that earlier review they printed after Moriartys script review the day the trailer was released.

You can believe them all you want, but if anything their shady "reporting" skills and between the lines bias have only reinforced my skepticism.

Besides, I havn't seen it for myself yet, but I believe the Kid thing will work given the context. No one else has highlighted it, EVEN IN THE NEGATIVE POLAND REVIEW!
 
richard with his broken heart will infact become metallo or some form of him...mark my words
 
I guess we are stuck with Jason being Supe's kid (Jason Lane's initials are JL- like the justice league.... :) ...) any way, what doesn't make sense to me is how lois could ever have successfully made a kid with supes. their dna is completely different and there's no way it could have happened. There is a better chance of a monkey and human successfully conceing! btw, he is a great, but old, article of why lois and supe's can't have kids together:

http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"