Superman Returns Re: The Offical Jason Appreciation Thread

[Kane]

I swear, if this sh^t is legit;

- Singer and Mike D have been lying to us all this time and Jason is Superman's son with superpowers, Richard thinks Superman and Lois had sex and are not telling him, and Jimmy has a crush on Clark -_- .......


That would be f^ckin' garbage!

I'm still going to give Bryan and Mike the benefit of the doubt and hope they werent lying. I trust them more than AICN for sure.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

plenty of great arguments FOR and AGAINST it's legitimacy, and the problems it creates (or solves) in the already existing thread I just linked, man. Check it out.

 

[Zing79]

As has been mentioned in the talkbacks of AICN (for those that are worried about the kid spoilers and many of the things they didn't want to hear), this review may be lie.

The reviewer mentions there's only ONE change from Clark to Superman (elevator), which anyone who's seen the trailers, knows isn't true. You see him running in the street opening his shirt to fly off to save the shuttle/plane, and then in the elevator to fly off to save Lois from Lex.

I'd focus more on the reviews from critics you know on Rotten Tomatoes then on this.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Technically--they cut from the shirt rip to him already flying. That's not a transformation.

Plus, they're REALLY tightening down on their reviewers after everyone got all wiseass with the X3 pre-release reviews.

 

[millennium movies]

Your forgetting the one where he runs up in an alley! I still think the one on the street is fake. Its not discreet one bit and its in an open street , anyone would see him. The alley one is the real deal. Dont forget there's a closet one as well. So definately the open street one is a white shirt rip to which he returns to the Planet and changes in the closet.

 

[Michael Corleone]

I dont know how to take this one. Despite being supposedly a spoiler heavy review he really didnt say anything that hasnt been confirmed or speculated on a lot. Plus the "big twist" he comments on isnt really much. He just says "we all know". Well no we don't...we all have speculated but he doesnt give us any confirmation of any kind. Aside from the "cover up". But really...that just sounds a little too vague to me. If that really was part of the plot and they were going to drop that bombshell on Superman and the viewers for that matter....I think they would make it a little more than just a passing nod or scene.

 

[MoreCowbell]

I swear, if this sh^t is legit;

- Singer and Mike D have been lying to us all this time and Jason is Superman's son with superpowers, Richard thinks Superman and Lois had sex and are not telling him, and Jimmy has a crush on Clark -_- .......


That would be f^ckin' garbage!

I'm still going to give Bryan and Mike the benefit of the doubt and hope they werent lying. I trust them more than AICN for sure.

1. I think the writers can always say Richard is the father, just like Jonathan to Clark. But even besides that.... Do you really think they would tell the truth and give the spoiler away themselves? There's no reason to do it. It's an obvious plot point (when people first heard Lois had a kid everyone assumed it was Clark's) and they need to cover it up.

2. I've said it before here at SHH. Richard would have to suspect something. 5 and 5? The writers aren't stupid to make that a coincidence. If it was just that, they would have changed his age.

3. We know Jimmy has a "man crush" on Clark. In one of the clips we got today we hear Richard say "I've heard a lot about you" with Clark looking at Lois with a smile. "Jimmy just won't shut up about you."

I think it's real.

 

[Michael Corleone]

One more thing....if it is true then Lois lets Richard think it's his? Just wow...that just takes her several notches down in the morality department doesnt it?

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

again, not to harp on this--but all those issues are getting hashed out in the thread I linked above

sorry. redundancy is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Kane]

1. I think the writers can always say Richard is the father, just like Jonathan to Clark. But even besides that.... Do you really think they would tell the truth and give the spoiler away themselves? There's no reason to do it. It's an obvious plot point (when people first heard Lois had a kid everyone assumed it was Clark's) and they need to cover it up.

2. I've said it before here at SHH. Richard would have to suspect something. 5 and 5? The writers aren't stupid to make that a coincidence. If it was just that, they would have changed his age.

3. We know Jimmy has a "man crush" on Clark. In one of the clips we got today we hear Richard say "I've heard a lot about you" with Clark looking at Lois with a smile. "Jimmy just won't shut up about you."

I think it's real.

Yuck. Better not be. Sounds horrible.

Superman and Lois lying to Richard about having sex? And Mike actually said (from what Im told) that Rich is the biological father. I dont even think the kid is the major twist of this story, it shouldnt have been.....this isnt Jerry Springer.


Another fact from the novel is that Superman doesnt end up with Lois in the end. Seems odd they would let it end like that if Jason IS Superman's son?

Seems odd Richard would stay if Lois and Superman were lying to him about the child for so long (which is pretty cold).


I dont think the writers and director of those 2 badass Xmen flicks would ever give us this sh^t.

I have faith that they werent lying and AICN is bs.....yet again.

 

[MoreCowbell]

One more thing....if it is true then Lois lets Richard think it's his? Just wow...that just takes her several notches down in the morality department doesnt it?

We'll, there are issues with the child being Clark's (Fatboy and J have documented them in the "just a question, the kid" thread.

Everyone loves the film so far... Not one negative review. So maybe things are explained more clearly then what we know of (aside from the ACIN review - which is in question) we don't know anything about the twist. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Kane]

One more thing....if it is true then Lois lets Richard think it's his? Just wow...that just takes her several notches down in the morality department doesnt it?

Ya. Its especially cold and uncharacterisitic. It doesnt make much sense that they would ruin the Lois character that badly.

Alot doesnt add up here based on that review.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Yuck. Better not be. Sounds horrible.

Superman and Lois lying to Richard about having sex? And Mike actually said (from what Im told) that Rich is the biological father. I dont even think the kid is the major twist of this story, it shouldnt have been.....this isnt Jerry Springer.

I don't remember reading he is the biological father... But even if he did say that, he lied to protect a plot point. It's acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Lois, Jason, and the audience know. That's it. Superman and Richard are in the dark. I mean, wtf guys... This isn't a "no big deal" situation. Lois has a child with SUPERMAN. Not some average joe, but SUPERMAN. It's a complicated situation... There isn't a clear answer. You don't come out and say "This is jason, his dad is Superman..." Just like the Kents she came up with a backstory (his "illnesses"). That works as far as I'm concerned. Would Richard love the child if he knew it wasn't his? Would anyone want to raise Superman's child? This is what makes this movie good. It's complicated, not one dimensional crap where the answers are so easy for the characters (and yet they complicate them anyway for the sake of the story).

The issues of Superman being the dad relate more towards the connection with SII and such.

Another fact from the novel is that Superman doesnt end up with Lois in the end. Seems odd they would let it end like that if Jason IS Superman's son?

Doesn't seem odd to me... Superman leaves without knowing? Or maybe the novel is different from the movie (which it would need to be as to not give away this twist)

Seems odd Richard would stay if Lois and Superman were lying to him about the child for so long (which is pretty cold).

Does he say Superman knows and is lying to Richard? I don't remember reading that. He questions if Lois is lying (if the review is true).

I dont think the writers and director of those 2 badass Xmen flicks would ever give us this sh^t.

I have faith that they werent lying and AICN is bs.....yet again.

We'll, you may be disapointed then... If this review is true (IF) then the movie obviously works because there isn't one negative review yet.

 

[#1DanteBlade]

Hey, since this is vague history. Does this mean that in these movies Superman could actually have sex with a woman without killing her with his....you know?

 

[Kane]

Then the reviewers are morons; Personally I dont think they are....but AICN has proven in the past to exhibit questionable behavior.

Someone has obviously been doing some lying in all this but theres no way Im gonna take AICN seriously at this point.

 

[Kane]

Personally Ive seen comics where Superman could do the deed, but its been said that he certainly couldnt conceive a child with a human...(at least not in the modern mainstream postcrisis timelime).

He could do just about anything in the Elseworlds and the zany precrisis days.

 

[Michael Corleone]

two new reviews just went up on the same page

 

[MoreCowbell]

Then the reviewers are morons; Personally I dont think they are....but AICN has proven in the past to exhibit questionable behavior.

Someone has obviously been doing some lying in all this but theres no way Im gonna take AICN seriously at this point.

I understand where you're coming from (as far as questioning the review). But as someone said at BT.

Interesting isn't? People who have seen the film (including Superman fans) and seen how this particular plot point plays out love it, people who haven't seen the film are already declaring they hate it.

Something to consider.

IF it's the truth, then there's no reason to dismiss the movie at this point. It's not a great written review and things are cloudy. We'll know more in the coming days, I'm sure.

 

[Nivek]

All the other reviews already said the cast had great performances. AICN isnt really telling us anything we havent heard.

Something is fishy about this, just like all their other reviews.


They seem to highlight Luthor's Wigs, Throwing pianos (which was removed for some reason from their 'review' conviently) and Jason being Superman's son (all the crap from the first AICN review that the writers debunked).


Like seriously, just because theyre trying to make it look positive....doesnt make it anymore legit.

I agree Kane. It is typical AICN fashion to put up a scoop without checking out who this reviewer actually is.

 

[Nivek]

Are you sure?

Like I said, I might be wrong.

http://bluetights.net/theplanet/showpost.php?p=689028&postcount=57

I read that and from his previous comment on the thread assumed it was changed.

Matches has had a hard one for having it confirmed the Kid is Supes for Awhile. He wants to eat that comic pretty bad. Not exactly the best person to quote from.

I cant help but find it VERY suspect that this "Reviewer" needed IMDB to remember the kids name.

 

[Morg]

Matt cool it!

 

[Nautica7mk]

I cant help but find it VERY suspect that this "Reviewer" needed IMDB to remember the kids name.

Shamelessly, I've had to defer to IMDb plenty of times to acquire basic information.

 

[maninfridge]

has the book been released yet and if it has then has noone read it to let us all know how acuarte this all is

 

[J.Howlett]

The book has been released and from the clips and trailers, everything is pretty accurate except the kid.

In the novel, it's left up to the reader. There are hints both ways to support an argument for Richard and Clark/Superman. That was an obvious move to protect the plot of Jason being Clark's/Superman's.

Again, it's not a bad idea. This also means this film is a direct sequel to Superman II. That's part of the continuity. Which is fine. Superman II is an entertaining flick, especially the parts by Donner.

Singer knows how much Superman II is somewhat loved by the fanbase. It's got great moments in it despite the history behind the production...

 

[Batman the 6th]

Supes2 has to be part of it somehow, because in the novel, Lex shows Lois the father crystal, and she thinks she remembers it, but doesn't. So I think she somehow forgot about the Fortress. And for the whole Clark thing, she could be neglecting him on purpose. She may still know his secret, but act as if she doesn't know.