Sequels Should they kill the kid off?

[Superman]

If some villain killed the kid that would make for one hell of a fight scene plus we'd get rid of the kid, of which I was never to happy with in the first place.

 

[Nathan]

I personally don't have anything against the kid. It wouldn't bother me if they left him alive.

 

[Super Kal]

I dont have a problem with the kid either, but for the sake of a good storyline, I say kill him off... that would give us a chance to see Superman actually get angry and unleash hell on the villain. That's the only time I would want to see Superman's eyes glow red, because it would suit him.

 

[Nathan]

If that would mean getting a fight like this, then hell, why not. Kill him off.

 

[JackBauer]

kill that dirty little bastard!!

 

[matthooper]

In the immortal words of Zod...."Kill him"

 

[bunk]

I don't think Singer created the kid just to kill him off. I wouldn't be terribly upset if they did though.

 

[dark_b]

I don't think Singer created the kid just to kill him off. I wouldn't be terribly upset if they did though.

fans dont use their brain. its just sad.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I sometimes feel like if some fans wrote Superman, he'd still be leaping instead of flying.

Changes can be good. The kid isn't in the comics. Let him be in the movie.

 

[matthooper]

I doubt anyone seriously thinks Singer will undo a mistake with another mistake by killing him. You can't unring a bell. We can just hope whatever the plans are for Superlad, it doesn't make the sequel worse.

I thought the "I like cheese" vote kinda told us that the thread wasn't serious.

 

[Scottish Flash]

As long as he's done well then i think the kid should stay

 

[bunk]

fans dont use their brain. its just sad.

I'm not using my brain?

 

[Motown Marvel]

killing the kid would be an extremely cheap attempt to restore the status quo.

 

[Immortalfire]

I think the kid is dying anyway, being a hybrid and so frail. I don't want Superbaby hanging around, Jason; be gone!

 

[lordofthenerds]

Let the kid live, but find another way to get rid of him.

 

[SupermanCan]

I'm still holding on to the chance that the kid isn't Superman (since it was never officially announced...) but if it is, KILL HIM!!!!!! In a great subtle way....

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Killing the kid=lazy writing.

 

[Maze]

Exactly.

and considering there are hundreth of interesting story to tell with him ( yes, he doesn't necesseraly mean "superboy"..) it would be stupid at this stage..

 

[SamuraiSon6]

i would actually like it if it was written with intent and not just to get rid of him and please the fans

^^^that sounds so morbid^^^

 

[Super Kal]

but killing the kid would let us see an angry Superman... I'd like to see that.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

You can see an angry Superman without killing the kid off. Just having the kid get kidnapped would put Superman into a rage. You don't have to kill the poor little guy off. That's just cruel. Plus it'd be an automatic R rating.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

Kill, kill, kill.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

Killing the kid=lazy writing.

Nah!

Killin' the kid = setting things right.

 

[Super Kal]

You can see an angry Superman without killing the kid off. Just having the kid get kidnapped would put Superman into a rage. You don't have to kill the poor little guy off. That's just cruel. Plus it'd be an automatic R rating.

NOT TRUE... Luthors goons were killed in SR, and it got a PG-13 rating, and there are ways of using film editing to imply it but never actually showing it.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

What's worse? Implying that some murdering criminals got killed, or that a five year old innocent child got killed? The MPAA would go nuts.