Superman Returns Richard, dumbest fiance in the world?

[Showtime]

I feel bad for Richard, it is almost inevitable that he will lose not only Lois, but possibly his son. I felt bad for John Jameson as well, and James Mardsen isn't half as cheesey as the actor who played John is...so, yea, something tells me the audience is going to feel a great swell of pity for Richard

Unless he turns villian in a sequel.

 

[Matt]

Unless he turns villian in a sequel.

Even then, basing things on the way he is characterized in the book, he will likely be a sympathetic villian driven to it by the fact that he lost his fiancee and son and wants revenge on Superman. It'll still be hard not to root for him to an extent.

 

[DvilDog]

^^^Thats absolutely true. He would kind of turn everyone against Superman. Could be interesting, though i truely hope they dont go that route.

 

[Garzo]

Personally, I think Superman would be better off single than always romantically linked to Lois. It wasn't always the case that Superman and Lois were a couple destined to marry.

Singer might in fact be breaking this set up once and for all by sidelining Lois into a platonic friendship with Clark while keeping her part of the Daily Planet family.

This would free up Superman to go out with other awsome babes, like Lori Lemaris, or maybe even some intergalactic princess with secret plans to conquer Earth.

 

[Kane]

.

If Richard were the father, that would be the end of Superman and Lois. Superman would not be able to be around her. He would have to remove himself so that he didn't jeopardize Lois' family. You create these extra characters and tangent plotlines that move the story away from Superman. It is much better that the kid is Superman's. :up

Wrong. Theres obviously reasons why Richard and Lois have been engaged for years but never been able to tie the knot. Rich is an international reporter and likely away alot.

Theres a very good chance the Richard/Lois relationship wont last in the sequel. If Lois is officially broken up with Richard or Richard is dead then, I dont have a problem with Superman being there for her and eventually they grow back together towards the end of the franchaise. Seems like a realistic situation.

The fact is Singer said the kid is designed as a painful reminder to Supes of the consequences of him leaving (and he said the kid wasnt going anywhere). It isnt much of a consequence if the kid was Supermans all along.

Its stronger and more bold story development to see Superman teach Jason the same values Pa Kent taught him (even though he isnt the father). To see Superman learn to love Jason also despite not being the biological father and Jason being a painful reminder of Superman's mistake.

Its also much more character driven and deep to see Superman's sadness that he may not be able to have children with Lois (kryptonian and human DNA being incompatible) despite him and Lois really wanting to have a child of their own somewhere down the line.

Stuff like this humanizes Superman in the way Singer intended it to be.

Alot of what Singer and the writers said simply dont jive with that Aicn review.

 

[Kane]

Personally, I think Superman would be better off single than always romantically linked to Lois. It wasn't always the case that Superman and Lois were a couple destined to marry.

Theres always Lana Lang for the sequel. By the third film, its obvious he'd somehow end up with Lois again....

But it was inevitable theyd throw in a female third wheel eventually (like Gwen in SM3).

I'd rather Clark/Lana happen before he finally ends up with Lois again so it doesnt seem like Lana is trying to break them up and Clark is falling for it.

It should happen in 2 and then Lois and Clark back together by the 3rd.

 

[Kane]

^^^Thats absolutely true. He would kind of turn everyone against Superman. Could be interesting, though i truely hope they dont go that route.

Unless Richard is formed out of Kryptonian Crystals in space... I highly doubt he'll be the villian of the sequel.

I do think he will heroically meet his demise by II and they'll make it pretty moving (since the audience would have likely grown fond of the character from SR).

 

[Showtime]

Even then, basing things on the way he is characterized in the book, he will likely be a sympathetic villian driven to it by the fact that he lost his fiancee and son and wants revenge on Superman. It'll still be hard not to root for him to an extent.

If he were to turn villian I would imagine he would do something that changes this perception. It happens in lesser intellgient formats such as wrestling, so it isn't really hard to do for a sequel in a movie.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Nice signature Kane F^ck Venom420

But anyway, I think Jason will end up being Superman's son, but I don't wish for it.

 

[Kane]

Ya I wanted to make a returns thread after rising from the dead but you beat me to the punch...bastard


And yes, I dont wish for it either. Its very f^cked up.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Yea the kid being Superman's just seems downright wrong. Ecspecially considering that the kid was a mistake and has sense grown up being the bastard child of Superman, who left to go on a search for Krypton. I know the kid had Richard White, but still.

They could have left the kid out and still featured the Lois moving on storyline, and there is no way it would have came off as wooden as MJ/John Jameson in Spidey 2.

 

[Kane]

I like the concept of the kid as long as its the biological child of Richard and Lois....fully human.

Like I said, I wana see Kara (as a child) introduced later (since SR hinted there many be others..or another out there) but obviously she'd be around the same age as Jason.

By the 4th film, they'd both be teenagers; She'd become Supergirl, he'd be a reporter-wannabe/pilot and it would be a nice reversal from Superman/Lois. Something for the younger gen, since by then Bos and Routh would be in their 30s (still old enough to play the characters in the film) but not as relevant to the teens anymore.

And I want Superman to mirror Jonathan Kent in teaching Jason good morals and values (after Richard is out of the picture) despite Jason not being Supes biological child.

 

[Venom71]

Personally, I think Superman would be better off single than always romantically linked to Lois. It wasn't always the case that Superman and Lois were a couple destined to marry.

Singer might in fact be breaking this set up once and for all by sidelining Lois into a platonic friendship with Clark while keeping her part of the Daily Planet family.

This would free up Superman to go out with other awsome babes, like Lori Lemaris, or maybe even some intergalactic princess with secret plans to conquer Earth.

I agree..at least in the movies. Put them together in the movies and if the films go on long enough they get married...then what? I am really beginng to like the idea of Lois and Richard together no matter who Jason's father is. Superman would let Lois and Richard raise his son to protect Jason...I like it...I like it alot

 

[Ongie]

Richard is a poor, poor sumb!tch.
No man can compete with Superman. It's not fair.

 

[Kane]

Which is why if the child is Richard's, it levels the playing field. Superman may end up with Lois at the end of the film franchaise when Richard is gone....but Richard bioligically fathered a child with Lois......Something Superman was unable and may not be able to do.

In that sense, he has one up on the Man of Steel....and Superman will always have that do deal with.

 

[MoreCowbell]

Wrong. Theres obviously reasons why Richard and Lois have been engaged for years but never been able to tie the knot. Rich is an international reporter and likely away alot.

Nope, he runs the international section of the DP, but that's it. He told Lois that their relationship would be fun, and that's it because who knows when he'llbe shipped back to England. When the time came to go back to England, he said no so he could be with Lois. They've been engaged forever because Lois loves Superman and just can't let him go.

Theres a very good chance the Richard/Lois relationship wont last in the sequel. If Lois is officially broken up with Richard or Richard is dead then, I dont have a problem with Superman being there for her and eventually they grow back together towards the end of the franchaise. Seems like a realistic situation.

Their relationship is bound to fail. I want to see him die a heroic death myself.

The fact is Singer said the kid is designed as a painful reminder to Supes of the consequences of him leaving (and he said the kid wasnt going anywhere). It isnt much of a consequence if the kid was Supermans all along.

The kid is a painful reminder of the consequence of leaving... For the first film, Superman returns. Only Lois, Jason, and the audience will know the truth.

Its stronger and more bold story development to see Superman teach Jason the same values Pa Kent taught him (even though he isnt the father). To see Superman learn to love Jason also despite not being the biological father and Jason being a painful reminder of Superman's mistake.

I could live with that, but it's better if he's the biological father. Not only teaching him the values, but teaching him to control and master his powers and abilities. Clark had to do things the hard way.

Its also much more character driven and deep to see Superman's sadness that he may not be able to have children with Lois (kryptonian and human DNA being incompatible) despite him and Lois really wanting to have a child of their own somewhere down the line.

No, it's stupid... Why can't Kyptonian DNA mix? Superman is basically human on Krypton.

Stuff like this humanizes Superman in the way Singer intended it to be.

Stuff like being a dad and continuing the kyrptonian race humanizes Superman. Besides, how much MORE humanizing do we need? We get it, it's overkill at some point.

Alot of what Singer and the writers said simply dont jive with that Aicn review.

Because they're trying to keep it a secret.

Kane, you simply won't accept the idea that Clark has a son. You'll hate this movie if that's the case (and it is).

 

[Kane]

I simply wont accept it from AICN. So we'll see.

I doubt Singer and the writers would lie to us and let us down like this.

Holding out hope that AICN was once again full of sh^t.

 

[Kane]

No, it's stupid... Why can't Kyptonian DNA mix? Superman is basically human on Krypton.

No. Not true. Superman's DNA is vastly different, he may not have powers on Krypton but his DNA is different enough to allow him to gain abilities under the red sun.

Hes an alien. His appearance may be similar to earth men (as are alot of aliens on shows like Star Trek) but his internal chemistry is waaaay different.

I think they should be able to have a kid eventually by the end of the franchaise but they shouldnt be able to have one natually (I dont think theyll be able to have one naturally in the comics either) with the Kryptonian and Human DNA being different.... but a doctor or some scientist will find a way to help combine it.

 

[MoreCowbell]

I simply wont accept it from AICN. So we'll see.

I doubt Singer and the writers would lie to us and let us down like this.

Holding out hope that AICN was once again full of sh^t.

When you say "let us down" you mean let you down. I don't have a problem with Richard or Clark being the father, but I would prefer Clark to be. A lot of people feel the same way.

If everything comes to fruition, you will hate the movie for no good reason. The movie can work with either being the father (which is why most of thought that it would be vauge like the book) but you see things so one sided.

 

[LuvSupes]

Kane, you're thinking towards sequels but you have to think about the theme of THIS movie. As one of the reviewers said the film has a "fully developed theme". Superman is looking to find his place in the world. HE leaves earth to find kryptonian survivors and feels so completely alone, only to return and find that if he had stayed he would have found that "connection" he was looking for. The story is about SUPERMAN not Lois' family with some other guy. Having another man raise his child is his consequence. Having another man have that "connection" he was looking for is his consequence. Richard is still there and his bond with Jason is very real. Richard's relationship with Jason is a reminder to Superman of his relationship with Jonathan Kent. There is no riding off into the sunset or kiss between Superman and Lois in this film. What revealing the kid as Superman's son does do, is end the film on a hopeful note. It gives the audience hope that Superman and Lois will end up together in the future. Superman doesn't get his happy ending yet.

I'd want the Lois/Richard relationship to end in the sequel (whether that means he gets killed off heroically or something after they break it off or whatever).

That's a huge copout. You're basically throwing in extraneous characters that either 1)take the story away from Superman or 2)you're just gonna throwaway anyhow. If you're going to have a copout at least have the copout in the right spot, such as making the child Superman's so that the Lois and Superman relationship is not destroyed.

I knew from the moment plot points were leaked that because of how the story is structured, the only way to end the film on a hopeful note would be to have the child be Superman's. Otherwise you will end up with a depressing film.

Plus Singer has stressed all along that this is a love story. If he made the child Richard's, then I would say Singer doesn't know how to make a chick flick. Spoilers seem to indicate that he in fact does.

 

[LuvSupes]

I simply wont accept it from AICN. So we'll see.

I doubt Singer and the writers would lie to us and let us down like this.

Holding out hope that AICN was once again full of sh^t.

The only person that you can make a case for lying is Singer. But Singer has never said the words "Jason is Richard's biological child". Mike and Dan haven't really commented on who the father is. And don't tell me you heard from so and so, etc... from what I gather your source is batgirl but frankly she has been wrong many times before. It is enigma2k that has been correct all along.

 

[Matt]

If he were to turn villian I would imagine he would do something that changes this perception. It happens in lesser intellgient formats such as wrestling, so it isn't really hard to do for a sequel in a movie.

'spose so, but do you really wanna see the movie end up like wrestling?

 

[Showtime]

'spose so, but do you really wanna see the movie end up like wrestling?

I was using wrestling as an example of where characters can change roles from bad to good and it sells as long as it's done correctly. My point was that if the writers for WWE can do it than there is no doubt that it can be done on this scale.

 

[fangrl06]

I don't want Richard to turn villain....SM might do the same thing with John becoming Manwolf. Then I'd never hear the end of the SM copies Superman nonsense.

 

[Matt]

I was using wrestling as an example of where characters can change roles from bad to good and it sells as long as it's done correctly. My point was that if the writers for WWE can do it than there is no doubt that it can be done on this scale.

Maybe, but the trend now-a-days seems to be sympathetic villians in comic movies, if they make Richard a villian, I'd bet money he would be a sympathetic one, obsessed with revenge on the man who destroyed his life...and if thats the case, you gotta admit...he has a point.