Sequels Should they kill the kid off?

[El Payaso]

Unprotected sex kills?

 

[Super Kal]

Unprotected sex kills?

it can if the mother chooses to have an abortion...

 

[El Payaso]

*slaps in the head*

When a woman dies by an abortion, it dies by the abortion, not the sex, buddy. Terrible attempt to satanize sex.

Even so, Superman and Lois knows too well Lois wouldn't have one.

 

[Showtime]

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.

Why are they forced together because they have a son? Correct me if I am wrong, but don't divorced couples have have kids? I think she is going to marry Richard and Superman is going to be on the outside looking in if you ask me.

 

[Super Kal]

*slaps in the head*

When a woman dies by an abortion, it dies by the abortion, not the sex, buddy. Terrible attempt to satanize sex.

Even so, Superman and Lois knows too well Lois wouldn't have one.

I wasn't talking about the death of the mother...

and I never tried to "satanize" sex either...

 

[theknightreturn]

they should kill off the kid. maybe they should have brainiac possese him and afterwerds kill him.

 

[El Payaso]

My bad.

Again.

When a baby dies by an abortion, it dies by the abortion, not the sex, buddy. Terrible attempt to satanize sex - by trying to blame sex for the death of anyone as a consequence of any future possible abortion.

Even so, Superman and Lois knows too well Lois wouldn't have one.

 

[Super Kal]

*slaps head with the other hand*

When a baby dies by an abortion, it dies by the abortion, not the sex, buddy. Terrible attempt to satanize sex - by trying to blame sex for the death of anyone as a consequence of any future possible abortion.

Even so, Superman and Lois knows too well Lois wouldn't have one.

it dies by the choice of the mother...

and I'm gonna say this again... I'm not trying to "satanize" sex...

 

[El Payaso]

it dies by the choice of the mother...

Exactly. Not because of the sex.

and I'm gonna say this again... I'm not trying to "satanize" sex...

Then why when I asked

Unprotected sex kills?

your answer was,

it can if the mother chooses to have an abortion...

implying that sex without protection can kill?

 

[El Payaso]

Edit

 

[Super Kal]

Exactly. Not because of the sex.



Then why when I asked

Unprotected sex kills?

your answer was,

it can if the mother chooses to have an abortion...

implying that sex without protection can kill?

it's definitely a catalyst...

 

[El Payaso]

A decision over abortion is a decision over abortion. No woman or man can blame sex - or anything ekse for that matter - for making such an horrid decision.

Calling it a catalyst is calling Superman a catalyst for that kid that jumped out of the window because he believed he was Superman. Or the man who blames a violent movie or the existence of guns for the crime he commited.

In other words it's like claiming Satan was on that thing that made them take that decision and that'd be the reason for such decision. That is, to satanize.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

Why are they forced together because they have a son? Correct me if I am wrong, but don't divorced couples have have kids? I think she is going to marry Richard and Superman is going to be on the outside looking in if you ask me.

Yeah, he has proofed to be very good doing that. t:

If you really think Singer won't use the kid, then WHY in god's name do we need him in the first place??? No one wants to see Lois getting banged by Cyclops with Superstalker looking in on them. It's like in the Spider-Man movies MJ marrys Harry and Peter is left alone, or in a Hulk movie Betty Ross ignores Bruce Banner and takes another guy. You can't build up on that. OK, if your a homewrecker you certainly find a way ... but is that really what you want to see or show your kids?

 

[El Payaso]

It's like in the Spider-Man movies MJ marrys Harry and Peter is left alone, or in a Hulk movie Betty Ross ignores Bruce Banner and takes another guy. You can't build up on that.

When couples can-t get toghether is the perfect material to build up on. In fact I think Harry did marry (or almost did) MJ. And Bruce and Betty had spent more time separated than happily toghether. Romeo and Juliet.

OK, if your a homewrecker you certainly find a way ... but is that really what you want to see or show your kids?

And what do kids have to do in this? Am I going to choose what a good Superman movie - or any kind of movie - should be based on what kids might like? or what it would be "healthy" for them to see? No way. Kids can go and watch Barney, Lazy Town or whatever.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

When couples can-t get toghether is the perfect material to build up on. In fact I think Harry did marry (or almost did) MJ. And Bruce and Betty had spent more time separated than happily toghether. Romeo and Juliet.

Their romance or whatever there was before is buried. The kid is in a good family now and if Superman suddenly starts to break that bond up - like he tried on the rooftop already - he will look like an a$$h*le. Would be different if Lois would just be in a relationship with Richard, but they have Jason and already raised him as their child, so like Singer said once: It's an obstacle Superman just can not overcome. The whole movie was about Superman rejecting to let go of Lois but the ending of SR made it clear that he finally understands that Lois can't be with him anymore and leaves his son with her and Richard, a working and loving family. Sorry, but there's no logical future for them in that continuation.

And what do kids have to do in this? Am I going to choose what a good Superman movie - or any kind of movie - should be based on what kids might like? or what it would be "healthy" for them to see? No way. Kids can go and watch Barney, Lazy Town or whatever.

I'm actually on your side with this one. But sadly WB wants kids to go see their movies even if the stories aren't really suited for them. I would love to see a more adult (even 'R' Rated) take on the DC characters, 'cause their clearly more adult themed than most of the Marvel guys. Doesn't mean I don't like those too, it's just not suitable for Superman or Batman to be in adolescent storylines. They failed before and I'm glad Batman finally gets a mature treatment. Too bad SR has lots of boring and dull "O.C." scenes instead of adults dealing with the mess they created.
But I'm sure the time will come when a writer or director takes on the project and finally delivers something to be proud of as Superman fan. (And yes, I hate the Donner movies and don't understand the big hype about them. Reeve? Yes. The movies and their stories? No.)

 

[Showtime]

Yeah, he has proofed to be very good doing that. t:

If you really think Singer won't use the kid, then WHY in god's name do we need him in the first place??? No one wants to see Lois getting banged by Cyclops with Superstalker looking in on them. It's like in the Spider-Man movies MJ marrys Harry and Peter is left alone, or in a Hulk movie Betty Ross ignores Bruce Banner and takes another guy. You can't build up on that. OK, if your a homewrecker you certainly find a way ... but is that really what you want to see or show your kids?

Do you read comics? He's using his X-Ray vision for spying purposes all the time, Lois and Clark, Smallville...

I think that the kid will be used, but as a barrier between him and Lois keeping them apart, not as a tool to get them together. Creates more inner conflict for Superman.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

Do you read comics? He's using his X-Ray vision for spying purposes all the time, Lois and Clark, Smallville...

I think that the kid will be used, but as a barrier between him and Lois keeping them apart, not as a tool to get them together. Creates more inner conflict for Superman.

I know he spied on people, even Lois, doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. The Post-Crisis washed away alot of crap - for all DC characters - but also brought up some new. Still, it's no excuse to focus on that and point to it like "Hey, it was few times in several comics, so it's cool!". With nearly 70 years of history it's logical that Superman committed pretty much every "sin" once. Just look at the superdickery.com comics. But we don't need him to repeat that stuff on screen, do we?

I also don't see how killing one of the best lovestories is creating more inner conflict? A conflict would be what for ex. "The Incredibles" showed, having a normal live with a wife and kid while protecting the world, not being a deadbeat dad, which he now officially is. He can't deal with Jason as a father and Lois doesn't even give a damn about him without the suit! And at the end of SR he accepts Lois' wish and steps aside. So, what's the conflict now? He's actually still a free man without any obligations but to his own conscious. And he showed how flexible that can be by leaving earth without even telling Lois.
The whole "keeping secrets" speech sounds dandy on the first thought, just not interesting enough to work within a story that far down the road. Now, if it would've been an origin story, I still wouldn't like it cause we already see it in "Smallville" and nearly any other CB movie, but I would agree on the terms to build up a deeper storyline.
But if he now reveals his identity to Lois in the next movie, it has zero impact (on me at least). Basically the exact opposite of the old movies or Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I agree that the movie made money and even made some new fans but I just don't see any logical possibilities to build up on it. It felt more like a final closure to the old movies instead of a setup for new ones. And for the benefit of the Superman character, I would leave it by that and make a reboot with a fresh cast, stories more drawn from the comics with intelligent people in charge other than some weirdo clowns like Burton or Peters. Singer is a good director, he can do better with something else. A direct sequel with inevitable camp is more likely to kill the franchise and Singer's reputation for a long time.
IMO, of course.

 

[lexlives]

I know he spied on people, even Lois, doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. The Post-Crisis washed away alot of crap - for all DC characters - but also brought up some new. Still, it's no excuse to focus on that and point to it like "Hey, it was few times in several comics, so it's cool!". With nearly 80 years of history it's logical that Superman committed pretty much every "sin" once. Just look at the superdickery.com comics. But we don't need him to repeat that stuff on screen, do we?

I also don't see how killing one of the best lovestories is creating more inner conflict? A conflict would be what for ex. "The Incredibles" showed, having a normal live with a wife and kid while protecting the world, not being a deadbeat dad, which he now officially is. He can't deal with Jason as a father and Lois doesn't even give a damn about him without the suit! And at the end of SR he accepts Lois' wish and steps aside. So, what's the conflict now? He's actually still a free man without any obligations but to his own conscious. And he showed how flexible that can be by leaving earth without even telling Lois.
The whole "keeping secrets" speech sounds dandy on the first thought, just not interesting enough to work within a story that far down the road. Now, if it would've been an origin story, I still wouldn't like it cause we already see it in "Smallville" and nearly any other CB movie, but I would agree on the terms to build up a deeper storyline.
But if he now reveals his identity to Lois in the next movie, it has zero impact (on me at least). Basically the exact opposite of the old movies or Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I agree that the movie made money and even made some new fans but I just don't see any logical possibilities to build up on it. It felt more like a final closure to the old movies instead of a setup for new ones. And for the benefit of the Superman character, I would leave it by that and make a reboot with a fresh cast, stories more drawn from the comics with intelligent people in charge other than some weirdo clowns like Burton or Peters. Singer is a good director, he can do better with something else. A direct sequel with inevitable camp is more likely to kill the franchise and Singer's reputation for a long time.
IMO, of course.

ITA - SR was a homage to the Donner era, a tribute to Christopher Reeve and an ending/closure to Superman 2. but it was not the one thing it needed to have been and that is a re-launch of the francchise for a new time, a new audience a new century.

A direct sequel will I agree kill the franchise for 20 or 30 years. The only way to save the franchise is reboot/re-start in a decade or so.

 

[Showtime]

I know he spied on people, even Lois, doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. The Post-Crisis washed away alot of crap - for all DC characters - but also brought up some new. Still, it's no excuse to focus on that and point to it like "Hey, it was few times in several comics, so it's cool!". With nearly 80 years of history it's logical that Superman committed pretty much every "sin" once. Just look at the superdickery.com comics. But we don't need him to repeat that stuff on screen, do we?

I also don't see how killing one of the best lovestories is creating more inner conflict? A conflict would be what for ex. "The Incredibles" showed, having a normal live with a wife and kid while protecting the world, not being a deadbeat dad, which he now officially is. He can't deal with Jason as a father and Lois doesn't even give a damn about him without the suit! And at the end of SR he accepts Lois' wish and steps aside. So, what's the conflict now? He's actually still a free man without any obligations but to his own conscious. And he showed how flexible that can be by leaving earth without even telling Lois.
The whole "keeping secrets" speech sounds dandy on the first thought, just not interesting enough to work within a story that far down the road. Now, if it would've been an origin story, I still wouldn't like it cause we already see it in "Smallville" and nearly any other CB movie, but I would agree on the terms to build up a deeper storyline.
But if he now reveals his identity to Lois in the next movie, it has zero impact (on me at least). Basically the exact opposite of the old movies or Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I agree that the movie made money and even made some new fans but I just don't see any logical possibilities to build up on it. It felt more like a final closure to the old movies instead of a setup for new ones. And for the benefit of the Superman character, I would leave it by that and make a reboot with a fresh cast, stories more drawn from the comics with intelligent people in charge other than some weirdo clowns like Burton or Peters. Singer is a good director, he can do better with something else. A direct sequel with inevitable camp is more likely to kill the franchise and Singer's reputation for a long time.
IMO, of course.

The problem is it's never before been seen on screen, but it's been in the comics. Does the general public read comics? No, but you and I do. Stuff we think is old, might be new to them. I am not saying I would have even done that scene with Superman outside Lois' house, but it's not out of character for Superman.

Superman is not a "deadbeat dad" look it up. A dead beat dad is somebody who refused to take financial and emotional responsibility for a child. Superman just found out he was a father, and told Lois "He is always around". That term doesn't apply, either does the term "homewrecker". I know it sounds good to use those phrases but they are being misused.

In many incarnations of Superman Lois doesn't give a damn about Superman unless he is in the suit. That is nothing new either. Singer reputation is fine now, and it will be fine. Not everybody hated this movie, I think you know that from what you wrote above. 25million tickets sold in the U.S. Somebody went to see this movie.

 

[dpm07]

The problem is it's never before been seen on screen, but it's been in the comics. Does the general public read comics? No, but you and I do. Stuff we think is old, might be new to them. I am not saying I would have even done that scene with Superman outside Lois' house, but it's not out of character for Superman.

Superman is not a "deadbeat dad" look it up. A dead beat dad is somebody who refused to take financial and emotional responsibility for a child. Superman just found out he was a father, and told Lois "He is always around". That term doesn't apply, either does the term "homewrecker". I know it sounds good to use those phrases but they are being misused.

In many incarnations of Superman Lois doesn't give a damn about Superman unless he is in the suit. That is nothing new either. Singer reputation is fine now, and it will be fine. Not everybody hated this movie, I think you know that from what you wrote above. 25million tickets sold in the U.S. Somebody went to see this movie.

Some people may have wanted to see the movie just because it had Superman in it. However, a really great film does well because it is based off of repeat viewing, ie. Titanic, LOTR, SW, Spiderman, Forrest Gump, etc. I don't believe Superman Returns really falls into that category. Many people saw SR because of the novelty, but I believe that the film didn't do as well as expected because many people were disappointed with the writing, as well as Singer's approach. Many people were really disappointed and disenchanted with the introduction of "Superson".

 

[Jimmy, GL]

Some people may have wanted to see the movie just because it had Superman in it. However, a really great film does well because it is based off of repeat viewing, ie. Titanic, LOTR, SW, Spiderman, Forrest Gump, etc. I don't believe Superman Returns really falls into that category. Many people saw SR because of the novelty, but I believe that the film didn't do as well as expected because many people were disappointed with the writing, as well as Singer's approach. Many people were really disappointed and disenchanted with the introduction of "Superson".

Cause you know, every normal person has a degree as a Critic and script-writing, including children under the age of 12.

 

[Super Kal]

I think that the kid will be used, but as a barrier between him and Lois keeping them apart, not as a tool to get them together. Creates more inner conflict for Superman.

then it might not work... Donner made STM work because he made the love story work, so why the sudden change?

 

[Steelsheen]

have i posted here? i dont remember...

i dont want them to kill the lil bugger off, just write him out of the story.

 

[El Payaso]

then it might not work... Donner made STM work because he made the love story work, so why the sudden change?

It's something called development. Stories can't be frozen in one state the whole time. Things should happen in between.

 

[dark_b]

let me again ask if i get this right. people who dont like the story of SR are saying that they should be ashamed that they wrotte a story where superman had sex with lois got her pregnant and went away for 5 years. so this is a very bad thing to do are some of you saying.

then someone fo those people opens a thread and all those people start debating how to kill a child.


woooow. guys you rock. your IQ level is way to high for this forum. t: