Superman Returns Re: The Offical Jason Appreciation Thread

[Fatboy Roberts]

My personal opinion: Hollywood's addiction to "The twist ending" (partially brought about by Singer's expert use of it in Usual Suspects, ironically) is killing storytelling. People can't just tell straight ahead stories anymore, they've gotta glue on a twist at the end now or people feel cheated.

It's mindless.

 

[J.Howlett]

Fatboy,

Absolutely. Recently, just watched Batman Begins again, and it was refreshing just to watch the story unfold without the twist within it. Sure, you could call the Ra's Al Ghul moment a twist but anyone paying attention during the film could've seen that coming a mile away.

I mean, you can't introduce Liam Neeson as Batman's teacher, have him exit late in the First Act and have him not come back later.

That was just obvious.

Even with that, it's just straight forward storytelling. And it kicked all kinds of a**.

 

[MoreCowbell]

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.

I want Superman to be the father, speak for yourself.

If the kid is Superman, why would Singer not lie? It gives away something in his movie perhaps? Oh yeah, that's it... The average movie goer just looking at the trailers would never assume it was his. It would be a twist to them and not to us.

 

[Nautica7mk]

I want Superman to be the father, speak for yourself.

If it matters any, I do as well.

 

[J.Howlett]

Yeah, this idea of people not wanting Superman to have a kid is stupid in my opinion.

Was their a poll taken besides these messageboards that stated overwhelming that audiences didn't want to see Superman have a kid, because I missed that.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

If the kid is Superman, why would Singer not lie? It gives away something in his movie perhaps? Oh yeah, that's it... The average movie goer just looking at the trailers would never assume it was his. It would be a twist to them and not to us.

Trust me, every teenager or average MTV viewer is going to plotz if the kid is his. There'll be a collective graon of "That's stupid" from nearly everyone below 30.

And besides, if the kid was his, don't you think he'd dodge the question rather playfully like: "You'll just have to wait and see"?

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

What? The average movie-goer isn't a mouthbreather. A lot of us like to think they are, but a lot of us forget WE ARE the average movie-goer.

You can hide secrets in your film without blatantly lying. It's typically bad business to outright lie to your customers. But that's more an aside from the main point--people watching the trailers are already assuming. People watch so much episodic television (a lot of which is better than most movies now) and other filmed entertainment that the grasp of storytelling conventions has gotten REALLY tight--even if the viewers can't explain what they know out loud. They just KNOW it because they've absorbed a lot of it.

And that kid screams "Superman plot twist" the instant he hits the trailer. So much so that journalists are asking point blank questions about his parentage without seeing any of the film. If they're figuring it out, not hard to believe regular joes are also figuring it out.

and if it's that transparent, why even bother hiding it? It becomes just another story element, not a poorly hidden "twist."

I don't think people are going to be super-pissed about it: Most casual fans will be like "hey, he's got a brat now." and move on. My problem isn't that he's having a kid--my problem is that it seems to be tackled in a weird way, not altogether congruent with the story. But it could be, I haven't seen it. If it fits, Singer will not only get away with it, people will be EXCITED by the idea (as shown by the advance reviews) if it doesn't, you're gonna see some kvetching

 

[Nautica7mk]

Trust me, every teenager or average MTV viewer is going to plotz if the kid is his. There'll be a collective graon of "That's stupid" from nearly everyone below 30.

I'm under 30, I watch MTV, and I've got no problems with Superman becoming a father and neither anyone else I know. I think the most consistent question I get from people are "Is it his kid?" So it piques people's initial reaction, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[J.Howlett]

Fatboy,

That's why I'm starting to think that it's something different. As someone on the previous page posted, Singer has said twice that the kid is Richard's.

He can't get away with that lie to sell the film. So, it has to be something else.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Trust me, every teenager or average MTV viewer is going to plotz if the kid is his. There'll be a collective graon of "That's stupid" from nearly everyone below 30.

And besides, if the kid was his, don't you think he'd dodge the question rather playfully like: "You'll just have to wait and see"?

No, because Richard is Jason's father in every way but biologically. He can get away with that "lie."


I would disagree that people would say "that's stupid" too. Why is it stupid? The greatest hero known to man has a child he didn't know about, only to leave earth and his family in search of... Family. His son is now being raised by someone else...

Irony is thick.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I think it would be brilliant (And within the realm of something Singer would do) if the twist is that the kid isn't his, since everyone seems so damn sure of the opposite.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that's it. You introduce the kid and, like Roberts said, people are naturally going to see it coming that the kid is his, surely Singer must've known that? Therefore wouldn't it be a far more effective twist to go against the obvious?

 

[MoreCowbell]

I think it would be brilliant (And within the realm of something Singer would do) if the twist is that the kid isn't his, since everyone seems so damn sure of the opposite.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that's it. You introduce the kid and, like Roberts said, people are naturally going to see it coming that the kid is his, surely Singer must've known that? Therefore wouldn't it be a far more effective twist to go against the obvious?

Haha, yeah I guess. Except then he didn't lie and blatanly gave it away before. WB wouldn't ask reviewers not to reveal that. That's an ironic twist, not a real big twist that WB is worried that would be given away before the release.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I would disagree that people would say "that's stupid" too. Why is it stupid? The greatest hero known to man has a child he didn't know about, only to leave earth and his family in search of... Family. His son is now being raised by someone else...

Hey, I'm not against the kid being his, so I agree. Why would it be stupid? Just about everyone I know that's under 30 is that petty to find the kid being his a film-ruiner.

I don't have faith in the youth of the world, I just don't. It's my opinion that there's going to be a huge negative response by the braindead "children" of today if the kid is his.

 

[J.Howlett]

True.

I don't personally care which way they go. But, if they do go the route of Jason being Superman's heir, there has to be a damn good explaination for it. That's all I want.

 

[MoreCowbell]

I don't have faith in the youth of the world, I just don't. It's my opinion that there's going to be a huge negative response by the braindead "children" of today if the kid is his.

But no Super hero film has ever delt with a kid. Not Spider-Man, not X-men, not Batman, etc... It's very different then the norm. I just think people would find it interesting. We'll have to agree to disagree on this, but I understand where you're coming from. Hopefully if Jason is the son of Clark, people won't hate it.

 

[The Kid]

give the kid a chance, everybody.

 

[J.Howlett]

People won't hate it but they'll wonder how the heck Lois doesn't know Clark is Superman....that's the main problem with the whole situation, not so much that Jason is either Clark's, Superman's, or Richard's.

 

[gaheris]

I think it would be much better to have the child be Richard's. Then you eliminate the possibility of having superboy and all the issues that would come about because of it which I think would take away from the realism even though this is Superman we are talking about. It makes the consequences of Superman leaving much more real and personal than if it was his child. I just hope whatever they do with it it is done intelligently because it can be easily handled very badly.

 

[J.Howlett]

gaheris,

From the novel, it's quite intellegently done. It works very well, having Jason be Richard's.

 

[MoreCowbell]

People won't hate it but they'll wonder how the heck Lois doesn't know Clark is Superman....that's the main problem with the whole situation, not so much that Jason is either Clark's, Superman's, or Richard's.

The general audience asks that same question anyway. How does she not know?!

Without the glasses, hair dew, being clumsy, etc... All the things that make Clark Kent work as a disguise (atleast his Metropolis Clark) would not be exposed to Lois if Clark decided that knowing his secret would not be a good idea at that point (or however Singer explains it).

 

[J.Howlett]

Well, the whole disguise of Superman as Clark Kent has always been this great, little plothole/in joke when it comes to the Superman mythos.

But, when you add a kid, that's something wholly different. Superman, as he states all the time, never lies.

He could not have sex with Lois as Clark Kent and not tell her that he's Superman.

 

[charl_huntress]

SII is taken into the account. One of the reviews and person who saw the confirms that the five year journery takes place pretty much directly after SII. Again, which elements Singer decides to keep are debatable, but SR does take SII into account, and at this point I think it's pretty obvious that the kid is Supes.

At this point, the biggest twist would be for it not to be his.

 

[J.Howlett]

With the trailers and the novel, it does seem that Singer and company picked and chose different elements from Superman II in their Returns story...

 

[Desk]

Yeah, this idea of people not wanting Superman to have a kid is stupid in my opinion.

Maybe Superman should also have a mortgage to maintain for the Fortress of Solitude, a dependence on prescription painkillers, male pattern baldness and a beer gut?

Singer and co. are taking and godlike, iconic superhero who should soar in the heavens and are giving him feet of clay.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Maybe Superman should also have a mortgage to maintain for the Fortress of Solitude, a dependence on prescription painkillers, male pattern baldness and a beer gut?

Singer and co. are taking and godlike, iconic superhero who should soar in the heavens and are giving him feet of clay.

You must have forgotten about Clark... You know, the real person who wants those things? If he didn't, he wouldn't bother with lois or women in general. There wouldn't be a need to have a Clark. You're being ridiculous.