Superman Returns Re: The Offical Jason Appreciation Thread

[charl_huntress]

LOL...enter his name in the search forums and read his early posts. That will tell you all you need to know

Personally, everyone is all up in arms because they think that Superboy and Superman Returns is going to be the next sequel, and that just sounds like an overhyped fanboy/girl reaction to the jarring notion of Superman having a son (or child). I would imagine the reaction would be the same if this was to occur in the comics tomorrorw. However, I think Singer is going to be able to introduce this element in a good way (at least I hope so), and everyone is just jumping the gun because we are all extra excited.

 

[Kane]

Not the engagement, the marriage. This is because of Lois not Richard.

Marriage yes but we dont know its because of Lois alone. Its not like she could have told Richard, 'Im putting it off because Im in love with Superman'...

I think we'll get a more legitimate reason and Lois doesnt really have much of an excuse in SR....Richard might.

 

[Venom71]

I didn't read all the pages of debate. I am assuming that now since so many reviews seem to be confirming that the kid is Superman's most of what is being asked or said is the same that has been said from the beginning.

At this point, I wondering about this dude Enigma2k.

Another thing, why does every keep thinking the sequel is going to be Jason and Supes flying around in tights (if indeed it is Superman's son)? I mean seriously, are you just saying this because you don't like the idea? Do you really think that's going to happen? Seriously, just because Superman could have a son do you really seeing them flying off around the world at super speed while Dad gives him lessons on the facts of life?

C'mon...that's crazy! You have to know it's not going to play like that. Yes, we may get a spectacular grand reveal that Jason has all of his dad's attributes, but that doesn't mean he's immediately going to don a cape a go flying! I mean...c'mon....just c'mon.

Yeah I don't see Superman and Jason flying around saving the world together..and I don't think this has been mentioned..if he really is Superman's son....that doesn't mean he will fully develope Superman's powers. He could end up being a normal kid...and never know he is the son of Superman. I will admit it...I wouldn't mind him being Superman's son if they do it right.

 

[Kane]

My guess is Richard finds out in the sequel and leaves Lois, and says good-bye to Jason.

Uhh no.

Richard wouldnt wait three years to figure it out if he starts to suspect it strongly in SR (as AICN claims).

Rich isnt that slow.

It doesnt add up with him not being the father..

 

[J.Howlett]

David Poland just ripped Superman Returns all to hell. His problem is that he can't seem to suspend disbelief when it comes to the continuity of the actors:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columni...06/060615.html

 

[Superman79]

Brandon is a young Superman, with alot of potential. I'd hate to see his character get tied down to raising a Super-son this early....it sucks.

Amen

You know what's funny, I have noticed a trend in Superhero movies. Often they take the comic and simplfy the material for the big screen (see Daredevil, The X-Men films, Batman '89, even the early Superman films). Often they cut a few minor corners/simply the back story of the hero (and sometimes the villans), or keep with the more well known aspects (1978 comic Clark was a TV reporter, but the movie version was at the Planet as per more established cannon...rather than expalining what happened).

The point is, most comic films have simplified the story, where here the kid could complicate it beyond anything we've seen in the comics. That just seems odd to me. Unless the kid is Richards, he goes away with Richard in the sequels and we go back to a simpler Lois/Supes world where we can cooncentrate on bringing in some great villans and spicing up the plot that way. And if they really want more love angst they can always bring Lana into the mix. My point being...get rid of the kid, or at teh very least NO SUPER_KID!!!!!!

 

[charl_huntress]

Amen

You know what's funny, I have noticed a trend in Superhero movies. Often they take the comic and simplfy the material for the big screen (see Daredevil, The X-Men films, Batman '89, even the early Superman films). Often they cut a few minor corners/simply the back story of the hero (and sometimes the villans), or keep with the more well known aspects (1978 comic Clark was a TV reporter, but the movie version was at the Planet as per more established cannon...rather than expalining what happened).

Per the more established canon at the time. Canon has obviously changed since STM. Canon changes with interpretation. And, depending on when you lived, when you first picked up a comic, and which version you prefer canon is subjective.

The point is, most comic films have simplified the story, where here the kid could complicate it beyond anything we've seen in the comics. That just seems odd to me. Unless the kid is Richards, he goes away with Richard in the sequels and we go back to a simpler Lois/Supes world where we can cooncentrate on bringing in some great villans and spicing up the plot that way. And if they really want more love angst they can always bring Lana into the mix. My point being...get rid of the kid, or at teh very least NO SUPER_KID!!!!!!

What is the problem with the kid having powers? If he is the son of Superman why wouldn't he/why shouldn't he have powers, and please don't quote some "it's not possible" because I would love for you prove this outright when the comics have flip flopped on the issue.

Again, I won't believe until I see it for myself. LOL...I'm thinking Enigma2K had you all fooled, and Moriaty got you all hyped up over some bull**** piano throwing' so now everyone is expecting to see Superboy. That's like a load of crock if I ever heard it.

NO SUPER_KID!!!! NO SUPER_KID for what? Some of you folks are acting like Ma Kent's dying deed will be to create a new costume for Jason. C'mon the heck on...seriously

 

[jensmith]

David Poland just ripped Superman Returns all to hell. His problem is that he can't seem to suspend disbelief when it comes to the continuity of the actors:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columni...06/060615.html

Yep and dropped a hint about kid's paternity.

Spoiler

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So by building the story around, in part, a 5-year-old child, the movie is telling us that a 21-year-old Superman had sex with a barely 18-year-old Lois Lane in Superman II.

[/FONT]

 

[J.Howlett]

I tend to like Poland alot but you can't retell Superman's origins. You can tell in his review that that's what he wanted.

But, EVERYONE knows it. Whether first hand or through pop culture references and such, everyone knows Superman's origins. It's just something everyone knows.

And having Donner's film be the classic that it is doesn't help. So retelling the origin is out of the question.

The question is then, how do you bring him back?

 

[charl_huntress]

Yep and dropped a hint about kid's paternity.

Spoiler

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So by building the story around, in part, a 5-year-old child, the movie is telling us that a 21-year-old Superman had sex with a barely 18-year-old Lois Lane in Superman II. [/FONT]

LOL...and this is when it's really going to get fun

The vast majority of reviews are positive, and even the people who seem to not like certain elements of the film were wowed enough to give it a decent review. There are, of course, a few that are hateful and what movie doesn't have those.

The funny this is the reverse of the debates. We now get a rehash of all the stuff people were complaining about a year old, ie. the actors are too young.

At this point I know most of the concerns won't be fully settled until you see the movie, but there should be enough out there to inspire a little optimism. Let's not reverse that the actors look too young when we all had to get over that a while ago.

 

[Superman79]

Per the more established canon at the time. Canon has obviously changed since STM. Canon changes with interpretation. And, depending on when you lived, when you first picked up a comic, and which version you prefer canon is subjective.

Canon NEVER changes, hence it being canon. Ex: Superman is from Krypton, raised in Smallville, Red, Blue, and Yellow costume with a red \S/, Lois and Supes/Clark have feelings (and in fact have been married in past, so even that can be considered part of canon)...I could go on. At no point outside of an Elseworlds story (Son Of Superman) did Kal and Lois have a kid...I think 95% of fans out there would agree with me that this is basic canon.

What is the problem with the kid have powers? If he is the son of Superman why wouldn't he have power, and please don't quote some it's not possible because I would love for you prove this outright when the comics have flip flopped on the issue.

Again, I won't believe until I see it for myself. LOL...I'm thinking Enigma2K had you all fooled, and Moriaty got you all hyped up over some bull**** piano throwing, so now everyone is expecting to see Superboy. That's like a load of crock if I ever heard it. NO SUPER_KID!!!! NO SUPER_KID for what? Some of you folks are acting like Ma Kent's dying deed will be to create a new costume for Jason. C'mon the heck on...seriously

It is just a concern...and you are right, we could be getting freaked for no reason. It's jsut the idea oa a super-kid is so foreign to anything we know (that and I personally feel the whole "Daddy" thing would take away from the great stories that could be told) that we are uncomortable at even the thought.

 

[charl_huntress]

Canon NEVER changes, hence it being canon. Ex: Superman is from Krypton, raised in Smallville, Red, Blue, and Yellow costume with a red \S/, Lois and Supes/Clark have feelings (and in fact have been married in past, so even that can be considered part of canon)...I could go on. At no point outside of an Elseworlds story (Son Of Superman) did Kal and Lois have a kid...I think 95% of fans out there would agree with me that this is basic canon.

Well let's see about this canon. Superman came from a Matrix tube and grew in his space ship. Superman first worked at the Daily Star, and his parents were named something different. Superman didn't fly at first...he just leaped around like a frog.

Superman79, I see your point and there are certain established lores about Superman that will never change, but all I am saying is depending on when and who you read CANON is something entirely else.

Do you think any of us here can and will agree on any one interpretation of canon. I've been reading **** John Bryne all over the place now, and he is one of the ones directly responsible for most of the canon like stuff we've seen in Superman for the last ten years. That could change though ten years from now, so I just can't get down with this canon argument completely because it doesn't allow room for all the interpretations that deviate or have changed from what was original created, which would ulitmately be the TRUE canon.

As far as Son of Superman and elseworlds...you know I can't really say. I haven't read that or the other one where Superman has a son and retires. However, the fact of rather or not he can have a child hasn't been solved because the comic have gone back and forth on the issue. That I think 100% of comic fans will agree with this.

It is just a concern...and you are right, we could be getting freaked for no reason. It's jsut the idea oa a super-kid is so foreign to anything we know (that and I personally feel the whole "Daddy" thing would take away from the great stories that could be told) that we are uncomortable at even the thought.

It's a foreign idea, and I understand people have concerns, but you haven't seen Singer execute it and you really don't know what is going to happen. It just seems like folks read about a piano flying across the room and immediately envisioned some scraggily haired kid flying in tights...I mean c'mon...that's all I'm saying.

I can understand you are wierded out because it's new element that hasn't been seen all that much before, but you haven't seen this one done yet, so just give it chance. You may actually want the damn kid in tights if one of the spoiler reviews is to be believed

 

[Superman79]

Well let's see about this canon. Superman came from a Matrix tube and grew in his space ship. Superman first worked at the Daily Star, and his parents were named something different. Superman didn't fly at first...he just leaped around like a frog.

Superman79, I see your point and there are certain established lores about Superman that will never change, but all I am saying is depending on when and who you read CANON is something entirely else.

Do you think any of us here can and will agree on any one interpretation of canon. I've been reading **** John Bryne all over the place now, and he is one of the ones directly responsible for most of the canon like stuff we've seen in Superman for the last ten years. That could change though ten years from now, so I just can't get down with this canon argument completely because it doesn't allow room for all the interpretations that deviate or have changed from what was original created, which would ulitmately be the TRUE canon.

As far as Son of Superman and elseworlds...you know I can't really say. I haven't read that or the other one where Superman has a son and retires. However, the fact of rather or not he can have a child hasn't been solved because the comic have gone back and forth on the issue. That I think 100% of comic fans will agree with this.



It's a foreign idea, and I understand people have concerns, but you haven't seen Singer execute it and you really don't know what is going to happen. It just seems like folks read about a piano flying across the room and immediately envisioned some scraggily haired kid flying in tights...I mean c'mon...that's all I'm saying.

I can understand you are wierded out because it's new element that hasn't been seen all that much before, but you haven't seen this one done yet, so just give it chance. You may actually want the damn kid in tights if one of the spoiler reviews is to be believed

Valid points all...

I guess teh biggest thing is that children frighten me...with their wee beady eyes, and their tiny but wily little minds...they'll be the death of us all!!

 

[Lightning54SC]

if the kid is his i give up superman entirely!!! end of story

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

later, then!

 

[charl_huntress]

if the kid is his i give up superman entirely!!! end of story

That's a shame...but you know. I feel the exact same way...but in the reverse. If the kid is not Superman's and it's Lois and Richard...well I guess I gotta give up my love for Superman...NOT!!!!!

I may not like this movie, and I will be highly disappointed with Singer, and I'll come here and ***** my little fangirl heart out until I'm completely content and convinced you know I hate Singer, but I'm not going to give up on Superman.

That's...like....****ing crazy

 

[bsquad]

I don't see what's wrong with them wanting to do something that will prevent them from 'playing it safe' in future Superman films. This is a huge revelation that has no choice but to take the characters to a whole other level. What's so wrong with that?

 

[bearhulk]

HEY got be kidding me superman's kid jason's daddy of supermna i got to be watch june 28! i can't damn wait ya guys make me grrrrrr come hurry fast time and days only have 13 days to go damn

 

[The Kid]

who think they should make a spinoff film of jason being sent to sky high... wow thatd be interesting.

 

[SuperDaniel]

The kid won`t have powers in this movie.

 

[RachelF5]

Are you sure Jason is not Adopted ?

 

[Batman the 6th]

Yep and dropped a hint about kid's paternity.

Spoiler

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So by building the story around, in part, a 5-year-old child, the movie is telling us that a 21-year-old Superman had sex with a barely 18-year-old Lois Lane in Superman II. [/FONT]

Lois was not 18 in Supes 1 or 2. Clark was supposed to be 30 in Supes 1.

 

[afrayedknot]

I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but didn't Superman give up his super powers in Superman II so he could "be" with Lois? So, essentially, he was human. If the kid is his, there wouldn't be any reason for him to have any special powers, right?

 

[J.Howlett]

People really need to get over the age factor.

Yes, the cast is younger. But, you have to suspend disbelief just a bit on this issue. No way were they going to cast older people just to fit in line with the ages of Reeve and Kidder in the first two films.

This film is set in the same continuity as the first two films. These are almost the same characters from those films except for the fact that Superman has been gone for 5 years in this movie universe and things have seriously changed for everyone.

That's the premise.

 

[Batman the 6th]

Clark's DNA would still be the same. He was a depowered kryptonian. Meaning his children would have powers, or halfway, wahtever you get my point. I'm still laughing that someone thought Lois was 18 in Supes 2. She became a star reporter when she was what, 13 or 14? C'mon. Seriously.