Sequels Should they kill the kid off?

[Jimmy, GL]

I said to open the film with the kid already dead so audiences don't have to see that.

Truth, the whole thing is a mess and it can't be fixed short of a re-start.

The problems you have with my scenario exist too in different ways if the kid remains. The focus shift from Superman to Superman's son. Will he gain powers, who will kidnap him to get at Superman. Contrived, convoluted - an absolute creative disaster that frankly cannot be fixed.

The SHH news page talks of an impresive WW script WB has taken off the market. The point is WW and Batman and others can have all sorts of different writers coming up with unique and distinct stories - with SR there is absolutely no crerative freedom in a sequel. it first and foremost has to resolve Lois and Richard and Richard and Jason and Jason and Superman and Lois and Superman. You don't think that is going to take a good chunk out of a 2 hour script. You don't think that precludes little or any new creative direction from being infused into the franchise. As I said it is a creative diaster.

I absolutely do think that which is exactly why they have to give Singer the boot and restart the series. It's the only logical way they could make money at this point and time. Singer basically told the writers, "This is what I want and that's how we'll do it." The writers almost didn't have any creative freedom with their script.

 

[Michael Corleone]

While I don't think they will kill the kid. I understand some people's views. While the subplot didn't bother me. I know it did some people. The idea is interesting. If they did I would agree with others, it would be cool to see Superman really crack and almost, and I stress almost, go over the edge. Something that would be truly interesting is if Lex was witness to this and really for the first time show true fear from it. It could also solidify his xenophobia.

 

[superbaby]

let the superkid replace superman. then, WB & Singer could have a new cash cow. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[matthooper]

But the only way to salvage the franchise now is, IMO, with the kid dead. Otherwise it devolves in absurdity..

I'd open with the kid dead and Superman grieving - that way audiences don't actually see the kid dying and only the briefest screentime is spent before seeing the story shift to Superman and what this does to him.

Superman goes into a rage at the villain who did it and almost loses it - he must fight his own demons and the film can be about that and him - Superman, Kal. I am not interested in any more screentime for the kid.

Lois would blame Superman indirectly for Jason's death - they would grow apart. Lois would find a sympathetic shoulder to lean on in Clark. And Lana just might show up about then as a sympathetic shoulder for Superman to lean on.

You get action, the triangle back in spades and a potential new love interest for Superman.

And to repeat we get a Superman-centric story. WE see Big Blue in a rage = pressing the fight and not being pressed by it. WE see him close to breaking his oath and the focus becomes that struggle.

That's a really good idea. We'd see Superman like we've really never seen him before. Too bad Singer would never do it, because it would indirectly be admitting he made a mistake by giving him a kid in the first place.

 

[dpm07]

They can't just kill the kid off... It changes Lois forever. It changes the dynamic between her and Clark forever. Lois and Clark will forever be the greiving parents.

Better to find a way to remove the kid as if he had never been.

This is how I feel as well. I want the kid gone, but it's a tough challenge to find a way to do it.

 

[SatEL]

The kid was not needed for SR and he isnt needed for a sequel get rid of him and try and salvage this disaster of a franchise.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I don't want them just saying the kid died before the movie starts. That'll send everyone going "WTF he's superbaby, how could he have been killed. That's almost like them killing superman". Then on the other hand, I hate the kid and wish he was never there in the first place.

But knowing Singer, superbaby will be alive and kicking in the sequel.

 

[dpm07]

I don't want them just saying the kid died before the movie starts. That'll send everyone going "WTF he's superbaby, how could he have been killed. That's almost like them killing superman". Then on the other hand, I hate the kid and wish he was never there in the first place.

But knowing Singer, superbaby will be alive and kicking in the sequel.

I can't remember where I heard it, but I seen some interview where they interviewed the kid's grandpa, and he said that the kid was going to fly in the next film, and have his own action scenes. It's really sad...

Personally, if they were going to introduce anyone, I'd rather they introduce Kara, and then not until at least a third film. By having superkid, this pretty much neutralizes that.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Kill the little demon child bastard.

 

[Mr. Socko]

LOL! That's one way to put it.

 

[choujin]

fans dont use their brain. its just sad.

agreed

No the kid should not be killed, ever heard of Superboy?

How is the Kid a demon???

 

[dark_b]

I'm not using my brain?

i agree with you. if he created jason why would he now kill him. thats bad storytelling. not SR but killing jason would be bad storytelling.

 

[superbaby]

i agree with you. if he created jason why would he now kill him. thats bad storytelling. not SR but killing jason would be bad storytelling.

yep. killing superman off and replaced him with super jason is the way to go. then they could do whatever they wanna do and the fans can't shiit a thing about it.

 

[oldsboy20]

But the only way to salvage the franchise now is, IMO, with the kid dead. Otherwise it devolves in absurdity..

I'd open with the kid dead and Superman grieving - that way audiences don't actually see the kid dying and only the briefest screentime is spent before seeing the story shift to Superman and what this does to him.

Superman goes into a rage at the villain who did it and almost loses it - he must fight his own demons and the film can be about that and him - Superman, Kal. I am not interested in any more screentime for the kid.

Lois would blame Superman indirectly for Jason's death - they would grow apart. Lois would find a sympathetic shoulder to lean on in Clark. And Lana just might show up about then as a sympathetic shoulder for Superman to lean on.

You get action, the triangle back in spades and a potential new love interest for Superman.

And to repeat we get a Superman-centric story. WE see Big Blue in a rage = pressing the fight and not being pressed by it. WE see him close to breaking his oath and the focus becomes that struggle.

I like that idea

 

[oldsboy20]

I can't remember where I heard it, but I seen some interview where they interviewed the kid's grandpa, and he said that the kid was going to fly in the next film, and have his own action scenes. It's really sad...

That's going to be funny as hell if that happens, and it's inspired me to make this lol.

 

[El Payaso]

That's a really good idea. We'd see Superman like we've really never seen him before. Too bad Singer would never do it, because it would indirectly be admitting he made a mistake by giving him a kid in the first place.

Not if he planned it. To put the child just to take him out, so SDuperman can face his biggest grief.

I'm actually happy lexlives put some effort in a proposal instead of only repeating the usual complains forever.

 

[dar-El]

Adding the kid and having superman kill = peeing on the last 70 years of history

 

[lexlives]

Without killing the kid it is harder and more contrived to "get rid" of him.

Only other alternative is to make the kid Lois's sisters or friends who was unable to raise3 him for some reason and come up with some excuse for the hints at super-strength in SR.

 

[Showtime]

Or depower the kid using the chamber from Superman 2, thus taking away his Kryptonian connection. That would work too.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I was appalled when the kid saves Lois... how could they sh:t on the movie even more... the franchise is unfortunately going down the dead end... send him off to prep school or let Lois lose custody over him and let Marsden take him in once they get a divorce... its the last thing we need really

 

[lexlives]

Or depower the kid using the chamber from Superman 2, thus taking away his Kryptonian connection. That would work too.

No, IMO the problem and the break with contiuity is Lois and Superman having a bastard son. It destroys the characters' integrity and forces them together in a subsequent film because of the kid. We never get a childless romance or Superman seriously with another woman besides Lois.

And you wanna bet the kid gets kidnapped in a Singer sequel to get at Superman. Contrived and un-original. A creative dead end especially for a first film. So many possibilities shut out.

 

[El Payaso]

No, IMO the problem and the break with contiuity is Lois and Superman having a bastard son. It destroys the characters' integrity and forces them together in a subsequent film because of the kid. We never get a childless romance or Superman seriously with another woman besides Lois.

What continuity is broken here?

Oh and nice to call a child with a derogatory term just because they didn't get into a religious ritual, which is as relative as any other.

So what. What if they can't have a childless romance? Is it any worse than a romance with a child? If so, how and why?

And you wanna bet the kid gets kidnapped in a Singer sequel to get at Superman. Contrived and un-original. A creative dead end especially for a first film.

You wanna bet any Superman movie has had and will have Lois kidnapped or in danger to get at Superman? Same contrived un-original ****.

So many possibilities shut out.

Out of curiosity, what those so many possibilities are?

 

[Super Kal]

Oh and nice to call a child with a derogatory term just because they didn't get into a religious ritual, which is as relative as any other.

oh, and I guess you think it's okay for Superman to be irresponsible as an adult?

 

[El Payaso]

Not getting married is an irresponsible option?

Inquisition's back and no one told me?

I can have kids and raise them as a great father without a priest or Government official authorizing me to as if I was a kid needing some 'adult' permission, thank you.

 

[Super Kal]

Not getting married is an irresponsible option?

Inquisition's back and no one told me?

I can have kids and raise them as a great father without a priest or Government official authorizing me to as if I was a kid needing some 'adult' permission, thank you.

no, but having unprotected sex is...
Superman knows better than that.