Sequels Received an email with a link to Superman Sequel news... Enjoy (link inside)

[romeogbs19]

Come on, you don't think Routh did a nice job, if anything the movie itself let him down.

For me, there wasn't really enough to judge him on. All we got of Routh were a few lines. There was no way as much to judge him on compared to Reeve in STM.

While I don't have anything against Routh, I think it'd be impossible to reboot the franchise if you have him wearing the suit, and I'm of the opinion that SR was poorly written, lacked action, and frankly, unoriginal.

I respect those who enjoyed SR, but I've found the majority of true blue fans, and I define them as long-time Superman comic book readers, agree that SR lacked what we were looking for. If it weren't for the Williams' theme, I might have walked out before it ended.

Superman has always stood for truth, justice and the American Way; Singer basically turned the blue boy scout into something much less. I think the WB completely misunderstood the passion people have for the character. People like Superman b/c he embodies the ideals and principles we too want to express and live by. As "corny" as his boy scout moniker may sound, that I believe is what makes the character ultimately attractive. SR, I hoped, would show that even in these times where heroes like Batman and the X-Men rule, Superman's character could endure and find a place. On paper, that's what SR claimed it wanted to do.

But instead what we got was a Superman brought down to the level of Batman and the X-men (fathering a child out of wedlock, spying on Lois with his x-ray vision, essentially invading her house at the end). These are just uncharacteristic and made Singer's Superman -- honestly -- unlikeable.

Turn the page, WB. If Routh has to be a casualty to get a Superman movie that goes back to what worked with Reeve, then so be it. And no way should Singer be helming another one. Bring in someone else; there are plenty of AAA directors out there who would gladly take the opportunity to bring Big Blue to the screen.

 

[El Payaso]

For me, there wasn't really enough to judge him on. All we got of Routh were a few lines. There was no way as much to judge him on compared to Reeve in STM.

I don't know where this notion of acting = lines spoken came from but certainly it's not like that. The more you talk is not the best you act. Not even the screentime means something if the actor is good.

Routh (and Reeve) for me was Superman simple the way he stared and stood. After that he (they) sounded as Superman too the times he spoke.

While I don't have anything against Routh, I think it'd be impossible to reboot the franchise if you have him wearing the suit

I also think that if they make a reboot, they won't be using Routh for Superman.

I respect those who enjoyed SR, but I've found the majority of true blue fans, and I define them as long-time Superman comic book readers, agree that SR lacked what we were looking for.

I'll have to ask for a link or more information about this poll.

Superman has always stood for truth, justice and the American Way; Singer basically turned the blue boy scout into something much less. I think the WB completely misunderstood the passion people have for the character. People like Superman b/c he embodies the ideals and principles we too want to express and live by. As "corny" as his boy scout moniker may sound, that I believe is what makes the character ultimately attractive. SR, I hoped, would show that even in these times where heroes like Batman and the X-Men rule, Superman's character could endure and find a place. On paper, that's what SR claimed it wanted to do.

I'm sure the super-powers and the fun of using them are for people more important factors at the time of watching a Superman movie. Add lots of action and punching to SR and they won't care about morals.

But instead what we got was a Superman brought down to the level of Batman and the X-men (fathering a child out of wedlock, spying on Lois with his x-ray vision, essentially invading her house at the end). These are just uncharacteristic and made Singer's Superman -- honestly -- unlikeable.

As we see Lois and Superman hgave a past. He "invaded" her house but we never see her insulted or outraged by this. After all he's the love of her life and father of her son.

The same, Superman has manipulated Lois' mind without her authorization (or even knowledge), quit his mission for a girl in the previous movies and abused his super-powers over a human being on a personal vendetta.

I don't think any of that is part of truth, justice (and certainly I hope it's not the American Way).

 

[romeogbs19]

I don't know where this notion of acting = lines spoken came from but certainly it's not like that. The more you talk is not the best you act. Not even the screentime means something if the actor is good.

Routh (and Reeve) for me was Superman simple the way he stared and stood. After that he (they) sounded as Superman too the times he spoke.

I don't completely disagree with you. I never found Routh to be a poorly cast actor. He certainly looked like Superman but I felt that as a newcomer to the role, we'd see a script with more dialogue and interaction. When Reeve played the MoS, we saw plenty to judge him on. Sure, having lots of lines doesn't necessarily mean you're a good actor, but it does help to show whether he can act. Playing Superman has a lot more to it than just standing and staring. Take a look at the X-Men movies; Jackman for instance convinced us through a combination of his dialogue and actions; IMHO, we got more to judge Jackman in X-Men where there are dozens of characters than in SR, where in theory Routh should have been the focus.

I also think that if they make a reboot, they won't be using Routh for Superman.

Glad to see we agree on this.

I'll have to ask for a link or more information about this poll.

Yeah, yeah; there's no poll of course. Any judgment on this is subjective, I admit; neither side can truly prove that hardcore Superman fans disliked SR. You've probably seen the arguments b/f -- the relatively lackluster box office performance ($400M ain't shabby but this IS Superman so we expect more) and the opinions from core Superman writers/artists such as Alex Ross, Kevin Smith, Mark Waid, etc. weren't nearly as supportive as some of the Hollywood press. The bottom line is true-blue fans waited for 20 years for this movie, and well, we expected something more original. SR is -- as many posters have rightfully proffered -- STM retold.

I'm sure the super-powers and the fun of using them are for people more important factors at the time of watching a Superman movie. Add lots of action and punching to SR and they won't care about morals.

That's a bit unfair. People somehow think if you add action then you automatically must be dumbing down the movie. I'm not implying that action alone was what SR needed. IMHO, the SR script was just bad, especially in comparison to even the BAS, STAS, or even JLU. Those "cartoons" dealt with very powerful and sometimes emotional issues and did it with action and substantially less screen time.

And I do believe that as a summer blockbuster, SR failed too. Sure, you don't need as much action as Transformers but movies are a commercial business and Superman is a commercial franchise. I'm all for making artistic expressions in film but Superman isn't what I would characterize as being that kind of subject. Sure, it can be well done and serious, but SR felt like Singer trying to force on consumers only his vision, and while that can work for the X-Men (b/c there was nothing there b/f), he did it to Superman w/o really paying any attention to STM and Superman II (face it, as much as Singer talks about Donner's influence, it's fairly obvious that the tone of SR is starkly different from both of the earlier films and yes, I know II wasn't Donner's but Singer clearly was going off the well known version)

As we see Lois and Superman hgave a past. He "invaded" her house but we never see her insulted or outraged by this. After all he's the love of her life and father of her son.

But there's something odd about it regardless. For starters, the first interaction b/t Superman and Lois on that rooftop felt totally off. If Lois finds Superman to be the love of her life, then there was very little of it in that scene. What I got from Bosworth was neither anger nor compassion. It just felt indifferent. May be the lack of chemistry between the two made it that much more disconcerting to see Superman spying on Lois.

On this note, I just want to say I never liked the son idea to begin with. After 20 years, I wanted a SUPERMAN movie -- a film dedicated to the MoS, with all the stories/struggles in the comics in real-time. Sadly, that's not what I got. Am I bitter? Sure. But I think these boards clearly show I'm far from the only one who feels this way.

The same, Superman has manipulated Lois' mind without her authorization (or even knowledge), quit his mission for a girl in the previous movies and abused his super-powers over a human being on a personal vendetta. I don't think any of that is part of truth, justice (and certainly I hope it's not the American Way).

But even STM and Superman II reconciled WHY he did those things. Ultimately, Superman's notorious kiss was b/c he loved Lois so much. He didn't want to see her so broken everyday. The love for human life and the struggle to be who he is and is defined to be is far more apparent in the earlier movies than in SR. In SR, there's no clear resolution -- at the end, you're just left wondering -- okay, Superman has a son -- he refuses to talk to Lois about it -- there's very little closure. And yes, may be Singer made it with a sequel in mind, but that doesn't mean he could not have placed Clark/Superman and Lois in further dialogue sequences to flesh out the problem and give us a better sense of how this plays out. Too much of SR is in silent darkness (sometimes literally).

Reeve's Superman (and the script) carried a far greater tone that set Superman's character apart. The line I will always remember is when Lois tells him that his desire for truth, justice, and the American Way would lead him to fight every politician in Metropolis. Reeve interjects and states in a tone as powerful as it is firm, "Lois, I never lie." That moment defined the movie. It also defined the character. Sure, Donner's Superman wasn't perfect but his mistakes weren't, IMHO, nearly as destitute as those Singer imposes on SR's Superman. I admit this debate isn't a strong one. It's a personal view -- essentially, I think Superman should always retain that "role model" image that makes us want to be him. Not for his powers but for what he stands for. I never got that in SR. As I said before, I almost started to dislike him. May be it was b/c I saw what he was doing as so extremely out of character -- but some may not see that. Here, it's a moral judgment. I think Superman's should always stay close to the ideal with any aberration not swaying too far from what could be viewed as equally noble. In SR, the pendulum swings too far to the other side -- his actions do seem hardly noble (leaving without even saying good-bye?, spying on Lois, child out of wedlock and then never talking to Lois about it -- instead just flying off at the end?). It never felt right. I suppose, it never felt even close to truth, justice, and the American Way.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

To all the responses to my post:

I wrote that I felt some Superman fans liked the movie because it was a Superman movie...and I stick by that because I feel that it is true. Hell, I'm sure some Spidey fans liked his movies because they liked the character, not as much as SR if I had to guess. And yes, all of this is my guess, ofcourse I don't know. I understand that there is absolutely no way of proving my theroy, just like there is no way I can prove that SR was a bad film.

I wasn't directing my post at any one SR liker/lover, I was just stated my opinion...like I always do. I have no idea when any of you liked SR.

 

[X-Maniac]

I could have coped with the costume, the sombre lighting, the Lex land scheme and many other things if the finished product had been tighter and more dynamic, instead of this thing of vague histories and thin plots stretched out with weak supporting roles and a lack of conflict and dialogue. It wasn't so much the lack of action as the lack of interpersonal conflict - everyone's emotions were inside, you have to guess what they might be really thinking, there was lots of standing and staring and sideways glances. It was too introspective and sullen.

Whereas Singer's X2 was packed with comicbook-derived material and some nice character scenes and dialogue, SR wasn't. It was apparently outlined on a flight to Hawaii and it feels like something scribbled down on a plane.

I know two people who liked it, one of them loved it and thought it a quality movie. I know more than two people who didn't like it and thought it was a misfire and a misjudgement. Clearly reactions are mixed. Production values and technical/artistic merits are not enough on their own to make a good movie.

 

[SuperDaniel]

If Singer is comming back, WB is more stupid than i thought...

A REBOOT is the way to go.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

X-Maniac is becoming one of my favorite posters. I don't exactly agree with him because I think that SR had a very poor story that wouldn't have worked in any context but his view of SR is very interesting.

 

[X-Maniac]

X-Maniac is becoming one of my favorite posters. I don't exactly agree with him because I think that SR had a very poor story that wouldn't have worked in any context but his view of SR is very interesting.

Thanks! And I agree SR's story was poor... i did mention the vague history and thin plot. But I think the final nail in the coffin was the pacing and editing. We should have had that Krypton sequence in the movie, we should have had the newspaper headlines sequence, we should have had more of Martha and Clark talking and more of Lois and Clark talking.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't completely disagree with you. I never found Routh to be a poorly cast actor. He certainly looked like Superman but I felt that as a newcomer to the role, we'd see a script with more dialogue and interaction. When Reeve played the MoS, we saw plenty to judge him on. Sure, having lots of lines doesn't necessarily mean you're a good actor, but it does help to show whether he can act. Playing Superman has a lot more to it than just standing and staring. Take a look at the X-Men movies; Jackman for instance convinced us through a combination of his dialogue and actions; IMHO, we got more to judge Jackman in X-Men where there are dozens of characters than in SR, where in theory Routh should have been the focus.

That's the thing. Jackman is convincent as Wolverine as soon as he griowls and makes those Wolverine gestures. Nothing more Wolverinesque as when he attacked the guys at the "wrestling bar" or when he woke up at the Xavier School and tried to escape.

And I forgot to mention but Routh had lines enough.

Glad to see we agree on this.

Yeah, yeah; there's no poll of course. Any judgment on this is subjective, I admit; neither side can truly prove that hardcore Superman fans disliked SR. You've probably seen the arguments b/f -- the relatively lackluster box office performance ($400M ain't shabby but this IS Superman so we expect more) and the opinions from core Superman writers/artists such as Alex Ross, Kevin Smith, Mark Waid, etc. weren't nearly as supportive as some of the Hollywood press. The bottom line is true-blue fans waited for 20 years for this movie, and well, we expected something more original. SR is -- as many posters have rightfully proffered -- STM retold.

I have seen arguments in every forum of every movie. Now, SR having more than the average - let's accept this as true - or what Kevin Smith or Alex Ross thought of it... I honestly couldn't care less. Many fans would be happy with a Spiderman movie copy (which is STM retold btw) or an action-packed flick without much more substance than some old-fashioned cliché lines (why do we fall? ; It's what I do). Smith was fired from this project before and I see mediocre flicks like Transformers having solid numbers. What can I say? I rather have SR the way it is than pleasing those people with average action movies with Superman in it. What can I do if I see the movie and liked it a lot?

And i accept the costs of a movie like SR. I have said this many times but I much prefer one SR with no sequel than 4 mediocre sequels.

That's a bit unfair. People somehow think if you add action then you automatically must be dumbing down the movie.

No, never said that. I just said most people would go and like the exact same SR movie if it had much more action and a giant robot to punch.

I'm not implying that action alone was what SR needed.

Got it. It's actually what I was implying.

But it didn't need action per se. Only in terms of having better BO numbers.

And I do believe that as a summer blockbuster, SR failed too. Sure, you don't need as much action as Transformers but movies are a commercial business and Superman is a commercial franchise. I'm all for making artistic expressions in film but Superman isn't what I would characterize as being that kind of subject. Sure, it can be well done and serious, but SR felt like Singer trying to force on consumers only his vision, and while that can work for the X-Men (b/c there was nothing there b/f), he did it to Superman w/o really paying any attention to STM and Superman II (face it, as much as Singer talks about Donner's influence, it's fairly obvious that the tone of SR is starkly different from both of the earlier films and yes, I know II wasn't Donner's but Singer clearly was going off the well known version)

Well, a superhero summer blockbuster = action. It was my previous point.

And yes, Superman or any other superhero can be envisioned as an artistic subject and I was just glad it happened for once.

Now, we didn't have lots of action in STM either. It worked back in the 70's. Of course today you can't not put lots of action in a Superman movie and get away with it.

And Superman's morals weren't too different from STM and SII. The difference is that, as STM and SII didn't address Superman's questionable actions, SR did. In SR Superman going away without saying good-bye had consequences for him. In SII Superman manipulating Lois' mind was like a nice thing to watch (Ah, Superman's powers are infinite). But mind-manipulation, specially without the consentment of the other person, is not very ethical.

But there's something odd about it regardless. For starters, the first interaction b/t Superman and Lois on that rooftop felt totally off. If Lois finds Superman to be the love of her life, then there was very little of it in that scene. What I got from Bosworth was neither anger nor compassion. It just felt indifferent.

You have to consider Superman left her alone without telling her a word. And in the scene the "I'm sorry please understand what is like to be me" Superman and the resentful Lois are all over. It was everything but indifference.

May be the lack of chemistry between the two made it that much more disconcerting to see Superman spying on Lois.

So if the chemistry was okay, Superman's actions are okay too?

On this note, I just want to say I never liked the son idea to begin with. After 20 years, I wanted a SUPERMAN movie -- a film dedicated to the MoS, with all the stories/struggles in the comics in real-time. Sadly, that's not what I got. Am I bitter? Sure. But I think these boards clearly show I'm far from the only one who feels this way.

And I loved the movie and I'm not alone on this either. But let's feel the way we want without caring for being in some majority group. We had 4 films about Superman vs enemies. Fatherhood was an inherent theme in STM and that was rescued here. Finally they took Superman to a level other than good guys vs bad guys (which still is on the film).

But even STM and Superman II reconciled WHY he did those things. Ultimately, Superman's notorious kiss was b/c he loved Lois so much. He didn't want to see her so broken everyday.

They merely showed eveything going ok at the end. But Superman beating a human being back for personal spite or manipulating Lois mind is wrong and immoral and unethical no matter what his intentions were.

By deleting her memory, Superman prevents Lois from getting over her love for the man of steel and took away her right to remember who was she with and who she has sex with. Instead of learning a valuable lesson Lois got back to zero.

For that matter we know why Superman didn't say good-bye to Lois in SR. That doesn't make it a right thing.

Superman's reasons for not saying good-bye to Lois in SR were the same than for deleting her memory or for reversing time against Jor-El commandment: he wasn't brave enough to see the consequences of his actions.

The love for human life and the struggle to be who he is and is defined to be is far more apparent in the earlier movies than in SR.

How so, if on SR we see Superman doing everything - even quitting Lois' rescue - in order to save people. And you cannot ignore how much personal grief he got out of being Superman.

In SR, there's no clear resolution -- at the end, you're just left wondering -- okay, Superman has a son -- he refuses to talk to Lois about it -- there's very little closure.

You said it. Just like in real life, things have no "endings," they just flow forward somehow. There's no magical deus ex machina or beautiful speech that make everything going right at the last second.

SR ala STM or SII would have Superman reversing time or deleting memories so Jason was never born or Lois won't be able to remember Superman left her without saying good-bye.

And yes, may be Singer made it with a sequel in mind, but that doesn't mean he could not have placed Clark/Superman and Lois in further dialogue sequences to flesh out the problem and give us a better sense of how this plays out. Too much of SR is in silent darkness (sometimes literally).

That is another quality I didn't mention. Conflicts are clear enough so they don't have to be spoonfeeding to us verbally. Sadly that happens too much nowadays. For me, movies that had everything to be great (as Batman begins for example) are toptally ruined by over-explainative repetitive dialogues.

Reeve's Superman (and the script) carried a far greater tone that set Superman's character apart. The line I will always remember is when Lois tells him that his desire for truth, justice, and the American Way would lead him to fight every politician in Metropolis. Reeve interjects and states in a tone as powerful as it is firm, "Lois, I never lie." That moment defined the movie. It also defined the character.

What defined something else for me was the way Superman, while not lying directly, hides the truth about him and his actions all the time. And saying “Oh I went for a juice” when Lois asks Clark where was he while Superman rescued that kid. I understand Superman’s mission requires he to distort truth in order to protect his identioty and mission. But then don’t go all “I never lie.”

I could, for example, be okay with the amnesia kiss if he offered to forget everything to Lois before doing it.

Sure, Donner's Superman wasn't perfect but his mistakes weren't, IMHO, nearly as destitute as those Singer imposes on SR's Superman. I admit this debate isn't a strong one. It's a personal view -- essentially, I think Superman should always retain that "role model" image that makes us want to be him.

Then Superman should stick to his decision of saving the most people and not to reverse time only to save is girl.

And cerytainly he shouldn’t go back to that diner to beat a human being only because he got humilliated after he – in another reprobable attitude – decided to quit his mission (to save many many lives) in order to have personal gratifications.

Not for his powers but for what he stands for. I never got that in SR.

In SR he opted for saving Metropolis over than saving Lois. And he didn’t reverse time or delete memories when things got difficult.

As I said before, I almost started to dislike him. May be it was b/c I saw what he was doing as so extremely out of character -- but some may not see that.

Not only I see that on SR, but as you see, on STM and SII.

Here, it's a moral judgment. I think Superman's should always stay close to the ideal with any aberration not swaying too far from what could be viewed as equally noble. In SR, the pendulum swings too far to the other side -- his actions do seem hardly noble (leaving without even saying good-bye?, spying on Lois, child out of wedlock and then never talking to Lois about it -- instead just flying off at the end?). It never felt right. I suppose, it never felt even close to truth, justice, and the American Way.

The way he saved so many people and putting others over Lois was as Superman as it can get. And watching his actions in STM and SII, he’s not that out of that vision.




Anyway, a pleasure to debate with you.

 

[stargazer]

JLA is dead and so is MOS. I dont think we'll see another superman film for a few years and itll be something entirely new and very different ala Batman Begins.

I am pretty sure that the sequel to SR will happen. Mark my words.
But if it didn't, I'm very happy with SR because it's awesome to me.

 

[The War Machine]

I think, for WB, it would be alot easier to continue from the 2006 film than to go back to the drawing board completely and reboot.

It took them 14 years of really bad failed projects to finally get SR off the ground. SR did decently in the Box Office but not great.

However, it didnt do bad enough to justify going back to the drawing board again.

A fast-paced more action packed Superman sequel can succeed.

The idea the old writers had of using Darkseid and shaking things up from the Donner stuff was smart.

 

[Superman-Prime]

To this fan, bringing back Routh WOULD be an unsult.

You're serious, are you?

 

[Super Kal]

I liked Routh... He's the only one I think that should stay on the project, no matter what

 

[GreenKToo]

Thanks! And I agree SR's story was poor... i did mention the vague history and thin plot. But I think the final nail in the coffin was the pacing and editing. We should have had that Krypton sequence in the movie, we should have had the newspaper headlines sequence, we should have had more of Martha and Clark talking and more of Lois and Clark talking.

Most, if not all, of that was supposedly cut after the friends and family screening. Not even sure if the friends and family thing is true or not, but as you know, it has made its rounds all over the net.

 

[Nightwing1977]

I respect those who enjoyed SR, but I've found the majority of true blue fans, and I define them as long-time Superman comic book readers, agree that SR lacked what we were looking for.

Are you trying to saying only "true fans" don't like Superman Returns & "non-true fans" do? I'm sick of this "true fans" crap. Even "true fans" that are long time Superman reader (even a comic book artist like Jamal Igle) can like Superman Returns. Not saying all of 'em are like this, but I'm sure there are plenty that do. I'm a long-time Superman comic book reader & I find SR entertaining. I don't love it, but I do like it. Why do some have to say that "true fans" who hate SR are long time comic book reader? Again, long time comic book reader can like the film where other don't. It go both way.

 

[VenomsMom]

You're serious, are you?

I believe he is.

 

[Superman-Prime]

I liked Routh... He's the only one I think that should stay on the project, no matter what

I'm glad you like Routh. He deserves to become Superman again.

I believe he is.

Then he's insane.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Based on observation a lone... Whatever polarized amount of SR fans exists, Routh did great with what was given. I don't even see that as a debate anymore. Just a fact.

 

[Angeloz]

Based on observation a lone... Whatever polarized amount of SR fans exists, Routh did great with what was given. I don't even see that as a debate anymore. Just a fact.

I agree Brandon was great. But you know the dangers of fact based opinion.

By the way I love the Panned User gag. Although it's better not to analyse it because that could lead to the question - what type of pan?

Spoiler

BTW - I realised it's a play with Banned.

Angeloz

 

[X Knight]

why, a super soft plushy pillow pan of course, angeloz..........

 

[Angeloz]

why, a super soft plushy pillow pan of course, angeloz..........

LOL. Nice to be remembered (not a fan of it being a pan though).

Angeloz

 

[Showtime]

Its taking longer to shoot than they expected,right?

Now they are shooting the scene in California...from IESB...

Even though Valkyrie wrapped shooting in Germany late last year, Bryan Singer is prepping to shoot the opening of the movie that is set in North Africa in key Southern California desert locations. Casting for extras is expected to start soon and filming is expected to start within the next few weeks and wrap by the first week of March.

Superstar Tom Cruise heads an international cast as Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, the aristocratic German officer who led the heroic attempt to bring down the Nazi regime and end the war by planting a bomb in Hitler's bunker. The "July 20 Plot" on Hitler's life is one of the most heroic but least known episodes of World War Two. Severely wounded in combat, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg returns from Africa to join the German Resistance and help create Operation Valkyrie, the complex plan that will allow a shadow government to replace Hitler's once he is dead. But fate and circumstance conspire to thrust Stauffenberg from one of many in the plot to a double-edged central role. Not only must he lead the coup and seize control of his nation's government... He must kill Hitler himself.

 

[Angeloz]

Now they are shooting the scene in California...from IESB...

Thanks Showtime.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

You're serious, are you?

You know I am!

Turn the page on the SIngerverse! Routh is not irreplaceable. Move on and reboot.

Keeping Routh is keeping the Singervese, it wasn't a 'lack of action' or 'super-fights' it was the TOTAL approach to and characterization of the character (s).

Bye, bye Routh, bye, bye Singer.

 

[mego joe]

Thanks! And I agree SR's story was poor... i did mention the vague history and thin plot. But I think the final nail in the coffin was the pacing and editing. We should have had that Krypton sequence in the movie, we should have had the newspaper headlines sequence, we should have had more of Martha and Clark talking and more of Lois and Clark talking.

I think the interesting thing is that even if they had executed the actual story better, there is still a problem with the story itself.