Superman Returns Superman Returns: Happy 2 Year Anniversary

[mojo-x]

You're important to us.







I sense a paradox. You're saying that WB is totally clueless because they greenlighted Singer's treatment. Then you say that WB deciding for a reboot is significant; it means SR failed.

But if WB is so totally clueless, could it mean that the reboot is just another of its clueless decisions? Or that greenlighting SR was another of its significant moments?

Or, as I suspect, WB is clueless just in the decisions you don't approve and significant in the ones you do?



AVE already explained it to you. That's in the movie. So the things you don't like about Singer's movie are the ones you didn't understand from the plot.

I meant WB was clueless on how to start a successful Superman franchises. As for x1 what I meant by I did not understand was I did not understand his motives.
I understand the reason that the movie gives, but all I am saying is it dose not seem like something that the Magneto I knew form the comics would do. Kind of like Superman being a deadbeat dad and a stalker. It just seems out of character and in some ways unfaithful to the source material.

 

[El Payaso]

Of course there are, however while the Lois/Richard/Jason triumvirate is not a dramatic dead end it most definitely creates a long stretch of road that the character must follow.

And what's the problem?

The Joker card at the end of BB forced the story to follow on a Joker way. It must be Joker. When Norman Osborn called Harry to be his successor, we all knew what the story were going to in the next movie.

What's the actual problem with knowing where the story is heading to?

And that's the point.....it may not be a decision based solely on financial success, but to avoid that road for Superman altogether.

Give SR big numbers and you'd have no executive thinking, "yes, we must have a sequel but that story of the kid and Richard was so unfauthful that, even when our pockets are full, I feel we owe a more traditional story for our beloved Superman."

 

[El Payaso]

I meant WB was clueless on how to start a successful Superman franchises.

Exactly. Clueless about starting a sequel, but not clueless as to decide on a reboot.

Now, "Superman franchiseS"? Wasn't STM and SII like a very successful Superman franchise?

As for x1 what I meant by I did not understand was I did not understand his motives.

AVE explained it. After the movie did.

I understand the reason that the movie gives,

You did or you didn't?

but all I am saying is it dose not seem like something that the Magneto I knew form the comics would do.

Welcome to the movies, where things are adapted. You'll find changes in every movie. You'll have Two-Face having revenge and not obsessed on number 2 or Dr. Octavius being a good guy and married.

Kind of like Superman being a deadbeat dad and a stalker.

Yet he was neither.

I covered the "stalker" issue in anoither post so I'll quote myself:

stalk (FOLLOW) Show phonetics
verb
1 [T] to follow an animal or person as closely as possible without being seen or heard, usually in order to catch or kill them:
The police had been stalking the woman for a week before they arrested her.

Not the case; it wasn't in order to catch or kill Lois.

2 [I or T] to illegally follow and watch someone, usually a woman, over a period of time:
He was arrested for stalking.

Not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.

3 [T] LITERARY If something unpleasant stalks a place, it appears there in a threatening way:
When night falls, danger stalks the streets of the city.

Not the case; he wasn't threatening Lois or anyone inside of Richard's house.


stalker Show phonetics
noun [C]
a person who illegally follows and watches someone, especially a woman, over a period of time:
Several well-known women have been troubled by stalkers recently.

Not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.

****

Now about "deadbeat dad," let's check the actual definition of that.

dead·beat dad
man not paying child support: a man who, upon divorce, separation, or desertion of his family, avoids or refuses payment of child support ( slang insult )

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861671214


deadbeat dad n.

1. A father, usually divorced, who does not contribute to the care of his children.


http://ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?service=ee&text=deadbeat+dad

DEADBEAT meaning "a person who is not willing to work, does not behave in a responsible way and does not fit into ordinary society"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=19860&dict=CALD

and "(a person or company) not willing to pay debts"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=19861&dict=CALD


Superman in SR simply doesn't fit in any of the definitions. At moist the "he doesn't fit in ordinaryu society" part. And well, we all know why that is, and it is not because he doesn't want to. Being Superman prevents him to have a normal life.

He's like a man having a difficult relationship that's suddenly sent to Vietnam, a duty he can't refuse. 5 years later he finds out his former girlfriend is having a new relatioonship and has a kid. And then he finds out (along with the former girlfriend) that the kid is his.

And when Superman finds out Jason is his, the first thing he does is to go right there, recognize Jason as his son and tell Lois he will always be there for them. That is, if anything, the opposite of deadbeat.

It just seems out of character and in some ways unfaithful to the source material.

But is it not to this version of Superman, which started with STM and SII. According to those versions, this Superman is the same.

 

[Superark]

exactly. Clueless about starting a sequel, but not clueless as to decide on a reboot.

Now, "superman franchises"? Wasn't stm and sii like a very successful superman franchise?



Ave explained it. After the movie did.



You did or you didn't?



Welcome to the movies, where things are adapted. You'll find changes in every movie. You'll have two-face having revenge and not obsessed on number 2 or dr. Octavius being a good guy and married.



Yet he was neither.

I covered the "stalker" issue in anoither post so i'll quote myself:

stalk (follow) show phonetics
verb
1 [t] to follow an animal or person as closely as possible without being seen or heard, usually in order to catch or kill them:
the police had been stalking the woman for a week before they arrested her.

not the case; it wasn't in order to catch or kill lois.

2 [i or t] to illegally follow and watch someone, usually a woman, over a period of time:
he was arrested for stalking.

not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.

3 [t] literary if something unpleasant stalks a place, it appears there in a threatening way:
when night falls, danger stalks the streets of the city.

not the case; he wasn't threatening lois or anyone inside of richard's house.


stalker show phonetics
noun [c]
a person who illegally follows and watches someone, especially a woman, over a period of time:
several well-known women have been troubled by stalkers recently.

not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.

****

now about "deadbeat dad," let's check the actual definition of that.

dead·beat dad
man not paying child support: A man who, upon divorce, separation, or desertion of his family, avoids or refuses payment of child support ( slang insult )

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryresults.aspx?refid=1861671214


deadbeat dad n.

1. A father, usually divorced, who does not contribute to the care of his children.


http://ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?service=ee&text=deadbeat+dad

deadbeat meaning "a person who is not willing to work, does not behave in a responsible way and does not fit into ordinary society"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=19860&dict=cald

and "(a person or company) not willing to pay debts"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=19861&dict=cald


superman in sr simply doesn't fit in any of the definitions. At moist the "he doesn't fit in ordinaryu society" part. And well, we all know why that is, and it is not because he doesn't want to. Being superman prevents him to have a normal life.

He's like a man having a difficult relationship that's suddenly sent to vietnam, a duty he can't refuse. 5 years later he finds out his former girlfriend is having a new relatioonship and has a kid. And then he finds out (along with the former girlfriend) that the kid is his.

and when superman finds out jason is his, the first thing he does is to go right there, recognize jason as his son and tell lois he will always be there for them. That is, if anything, the opposite of deadbeat.



but is it not to this version of superman, which started with stm and sii. According to those versions, this superman is the same.

thank you!

 

[mojo-x]

Exactly. Clueless about starting a sequel, but not clueless as to decide on a reboot.

Now, "Superman franchiseS"? Wasn't STM and SII like a very successful Superman franchise?


Welcome to the movies, where things are adapted. You'll find changes in every movie. You'll have Two-Face having revenge and not obsessed on number 2 or Dr. Octavius being a good guy and married.



Yet he was neither.

I .

There are some changes I can accept and some I can not. As for this being the same character form STM and S2, well I always felt that those movies were overrated and making this a sequel instead of a reboot was WBs 1st mistake.

 

[mojo-x]

stalk (FOLLOW) Show phonetics
verb
1 [T] to follow an animal or person as closely as possible without being seen or heard, usually in order to catch or kill them:
The police had been stalking the woman for a week before they arrested her

Usually i.e. not always. So you can take that part out because the motive does not matter.

Now about "deadbeat dad," let's check the actual definition of that.

dead·beat dad
man not paying child support: a man who, upon divorce, separation, or desertion of his family, avoids or refuses payment of child support ( slang insult )

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861671214


deadbeat dad n.

1. A father, usually divorced, who does not contribute to the care of his children.

Well he deserted Lois after knocking her up for 5 years with out even saying goodbye. When in the movie does he care for his child? Giving some self serving speeches while his child is asleep is not what I would consider making up for 5 years of desertion. Like it or not until he pays his back child support then by the very definition that you provided he is a Deadbeat Dad.

 

[El Payaso]

Usually i.e. not always. So you can take that part out because the motive does not matter.

Yes it does, that's why every definition involves sinister purposes. What Superman did was to know where Lois' life exactly was before talking to her. That's what he has done for years under the disguise of Clark. Clark - as a friend - gets Lois' secrets that Superman uses to talk to her. He has always used his powers and skills to do that.

Well he deserted Lois after knocking her up for 5 years with out even saying goodbye.

He had to. It was his duty, not his option.

Superman not only left Lois but his whole life, friends, mother, etc.

When in the movie does he care for his child?

When he finds out he's his child. And then before that he went to rescue him and Lois.

Giving some self serving speeches while his child is asleep is not what I would consider making up for 5 years of desertion.

It's not. it's the beginning.

Like it or not until he pays his back child support then by the very definition that you provided he is a Deadbeat Dad.

Like it or not, there's no proof he won't be paying such thing. And since the movie don't cover much more than the first day he know Jason is his child, everything else is yet to be seen.

That said, I doubt Lois will be asking Superman money. So they'll work things out as adults, that's my bet.

In any case, Superman is not willing to ignore and/or abandon his son, as it was stated at the end of the movie. Not a deadbeat dad.

 

[mojo-x]

Yes it does, that's why every definition involves sinister purposes. What Superman did was to know where Lois' life exactly was before talking to her. That's what he has done for years under the disguise of Clark. Clark - as a friend - gets Lois' secrets that Superman uses to talk to her. He has always used his powers and skills to do that.

.

Try and look at it form a legal prospective, if Lois felt threaten and wanted him to stop his stalking I believe she would have plenty of legal reasons too. Superman can say he did not have any sinister intent, but I doubt any judge would let that influence his or hers decision, mostly to protect the female form abuse.

 

[El Payaso]

Try and look at it form a legal prospective, if Lois felt threaten and wanted him to stop his stalking I believe she would have plenty of legal reasons too. Superman can say he did not have any sinister intent, but I doubt any judge would let that influence his or hers decision, mostly to protect the female form abuse.

At this point we all know the girl in completely in love with the man in tights. Yeah, she'll sue him, sure. If anything she'll feel flattered he was so concerned about her.

 

[mego joe]

Sometimes. Sometimes not. In the end it's money what dictates the sequel.


Yes, it does. Superman can't have a normal life. But he's a very paternal figure. And he became a Jor-El kind of figure now thanks to Jason.

As Jor-El before him, Kal-El has known now what's the price of being a true hero. Just as Jor-El had to sacrifice a normal life as a afther, Superman ahs to accept the joy of being a father in a not normal way.

Can't fit this version of Superman more.

While it's true that Superman can't have a normal life, the illegitimate child angle doesn't fit the Superman character and to think it does is to misunderstand the essence of the character.

Superman as absentee father and deadbeat boyfriend goes against everthing the character stands for. The storylines to come are anti-thetical to the essence of the character.

Of course Joker did. No matter how crappy it would have been done, the Joker name do that for people since it's the most popular character in Batman's world and one of the most popular villains ever. That's play safe; big deal.

But Singer took some serious risk introducing a new dimension in the character's story. And still fatherhood is a topic present during STM and Donner's SII. And Richard was another big challenge since he truly loves Lois. I had the feeling Superman should leave them toghether since he might be more suited to be Lois' mate, but he knows he can't.

In the end it's about money. At WB nobody has a exciting machine other than the BO numbers.

SR with a giant robot and a 15 minutes CGI fight would have probably made it for a sequel. But Singer went too far being risky and then not offering action enough.

It wasn't that Singer was being risky- he just doesn't know enough about the character to make a proper Superman film.

 

[mego joe]

But is it not to this version of Superman, which started with STM and SII. According to those versions, this Superman is the same.

It tries to be that version of SUperman. But it ultimately fails at it b/c the actions are incongruous. They don't add up to the same character. THere's no way Reeve's Superman would have left Lois the way the Superman in SR does. It goes against everything the Reeve/ Donner verison stands for. If you don't understand the Donner films, you don't understand the Donner films. But to anyone who truly understands the character of Superman it is clear that Singer misunderstood what Donner was going for and translated it incorrectly to SR, or purposely changed it to fit his own sensibilities.

Anyhow, it didn't work and we're looking forward to the reboot/re-introduction.

 

[afan]

And what's the problem?

To paraphrase....
The problem, El Payaso, is truly in the eye( or mind )of the beholder.

Whether the story line of Lois/Richard/Jason is problematic is a preferrance; some like it some don't, it's a matter of taste.

However it is an elephant in the room that must be dealt with, it is that restrictiveness of story and not necessarily the details that's problematic.

The Joker card at the end of BB forced the story to follow on a Joker way. It must be Joker. When Norman Osborn called Harry to be his successor, we all knew what the story were going to in the next movie.

Disagree with this point......in it's relevance to the "story" of a sequel.


What hint did the Joker card at the end of BB give us that TDK would feature a globe trotting Bond like adventure in Hong Kong for The Batman, involve the death of Rachel Dawes, give us the birth of Two-Face and conclude with Batman becoming a fugitive wanted for five murders?

Teasing the villian that will follow in a sequel does not restrict or hint at the direction of story; Lois, Richard, and Jason does.

 

[mego joe]

To paraphrase....
The problem, El Payaso, is truly in the eye( or mind )of the beholder.

Whether the story line of Lois/Richard/Jason is problematic is a preferrance; some like it some don't, it's a matter of taste.

However it is an elephant in the room that must be dealt with, it is that restrictiveness of story and not necessarily the details that's problematic.



Disagree with this point......in it's relevance to the "story" of a sequel.


What hint did the Joker card at the end of BB give us that TDK would involve the death of Rachel Dawes, give us the birth of Two-Face and conclude with Batman becoming a fugitive wanted for five murders?

Teasing the villian that will follow in a sequel does not restrict or hint at the direction of story; Lois, Richard, and Jason does.

Nice post.

 

[afan]

Thanks Mego.

Just to throw out there, sort out of left field.....................recently watched "Hook" again, and that film gives me pretty much the same feeling I have towards SR. "Hook" looks beautiful and features some inspiring visual elements and FX, but as to it's use of the characters of Peter Pan it takes Never Never Land and makes it Never Ever Land!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Of course there are, however while the Lois/Richard/Jason triumvirate is not a dramatic dead end it most definitely creates a long stretch of road that the character must follow.
And that's the point.....[/B]it may not be a decision based solely on financial success, but to avoid that road for Superman altogether.

Come on Afan, it is solely a financial decision, $100 million more for SR and we would be seeing a sequel this year, if not sooner.

Exactly. Clueless about starting a sequel, but not clueless as to decide on a reboot.

Now, "Superman franchiseS"? Wasn't STM and SII like a very successful Superman franchise?



AVE explained it. After the movie did.



You did or you didn't?



Welcome to the movies, where things are adapted. You'll find changes in every movie. You'll have Two-Face having revenge and not obsessed on number 2 or Dr. Octavius being a good guy and married.



Yet he was neither.

I covered the "stalker" issue in anoither post so I'll quote myself:

stalk (FOLLOW) Show phonetics
verb
1 [T] to follow an animal or person as closely as possible without being seen or heard, usually in order to catch or kill them:
The police had been stalking the woman for a week before they arrested her.

Not the case; it wasn't in order to catch or kill Lois.

2 [I or T] to illegally follow and watch someone, usually a woman, over a period of time:
He was arrested for stalking.

Not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.

3 [T] LITERARY If something unpleasant stalks a place, it appears there in a threatening way:
When night falls, danger stalks the streets of the city.

Not the case; he wasn't threatening Lois or anyone inside of Richard's house.


stalker Show phonetics
noun [C]
a person who illegally follows and watches someone, especially a woman, over a period of time:
Several well-known women have been troubled by stalkers recently.

Not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.

****

Now about "deadbeat dad," let's check the actual definition of that.

dead·beat dad
man not paying child support: a man who, upon divorce, separation, or desertion of his family, avoids or refuses payment of child support ( slang insult )

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861671214


deadbeat dad n.

1. A father, usually divorced, who does not contribute to the care of his children.


http://ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?service=ee&text=deadbeat+dad

DEADBEAT meaning "a person who is not willing to work, does not behave in a responsible way and does not fit into ordinary society"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=19860&dict=CALD

and "(a person or company) not willing to pay debts"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=19861&dict=CALD


Superman in SR simply doesn't fit in any of the definitions. At moist the "he doesn't fit in ordinaryu society" part. And well, we all know why that is, and it is not because he doesn't want to. Being Superman prevents him to have a normal life.

He's like a man having a difficult relationship that's suddenly sent to Vietnam, a duty he can't refuse. 5 years later he finds out his former girlfriend is having a new relatioonship and has a kid. And then he finds out (along with the former girlfriend) that the kid is his.

And when Superman finds out Jason is his, the first thing he does is to go right there, recognize Jason as his son and tell Lois he will always be there for them. That is, if anything, the opposite of deadbeat.



But is it not to this version of Superman, which started with STM and SII. According to those versions, this Superman is the same.

Great Stuff El Payaso.

Well he deserted Lois after knocking her up for 5 years with out even saying goodbye. When in the movie does he care for his child? Giving some self serving speeches while his child is asleep is not what I would consider making up for 5 years of desertion. Like it or not until he pays his back child support then by the very definition that you provided he is a Deadbeat Dad.

He didnt find out Jason was his child until the very end, how could he have possibly known that he had gotten Lois pregnant when he left? As SOON as he found out Jason was his son, he went to him, and told him and his mother he will always be there from now on.

While it's true that Superman can't have a normal life, the illegitimate child angle doesn't fit the Superman character and to think it does is to misunderstand the essence of the character.

Superman as absentee father and deadbeat boyfriend goes against everthing the character stands for. The storylines to come are anti-thetical to the essence of the character.

This is all only your opinion though Mega Joe, Superman is not that same character that you think in a lot of other peoples eyes. Many people have differing views on 'the essence of the character,' hence why there are just as many Superman fans who loved SR as there is ones who didnt like it.

 

[afan]

Come on Afan, it is solely a financial decision, $100 million more for SR and we would be seeing a sequel this year, if not sooner.

Of course if SR killed at the BO, we would be getting a sequel, it's black and white, overpowering financial success would make any decision process unnecessary, but I don't see how this is pertinent to disprove a decision to not go forward with Singer's vision for the character as a motivating factor.

SR did not completely bomb at the BO. It's returns over shadowed by it's production budget, and as you have said and as is obvious on the boards those who champion the film embracing it's characterization of Superman and those critical of it's use of The Man of Steel are fairly well split down the middle. Let's not forget it was also a critical success, leaving a grey area in which a decison process became a necessity.

That being said would it not follow that a sequel might, with a more practical budget, garner a more generous profit, still attracting those who support the film. Clearly this is not happening, tho it was rumored, hence there may be a concern, that transcends simple financial considerations.

 

[mego joe]

Come on Afan, it is solely a financial decision, $100 million more for SR and we would be seeing a sequel this year, if not sooner.

ANd thusly they don't have confidence that Singer's storyline will be a financial success in a sequel. It's solely financial, but you're not asking yourself WHY they think an SR sequel will do the numbers.

He didnt find out Jason was his child until the very end, how could he have possibly known that he had gotten Lois pregnant when he left? As SOON as he found out Jason was his son, he went to him, and told him and his mother he will always be there from now on.

But SUperman is about doing the right thing. And doing the right thing was explaining to Lois that he was leaving and the being too emotionally weak to say goodbye is just and incorrect characterization.

This is all only your opinion though Mega Joe, Superman is not that same character that you think in a lot of other peoples eyes. Many people have differing views on 'the essence of the character,' hence why there are just as many Superman fans who loved SR as there is ones who didnt like it.

Respectfully, I think those other opinions are wrong and are misreading the character. It is understandable how people could misinterpret stuff but I think that the essence of the character is that he would not leave Lois w/o saying goodbye if he were involved with her sexually. THat's not what a good, caring and sensistive person does. Especially, b/c 'it's too difficult.' Superman never fails to do something b/c it's 'too difficult.' He at least tries!

To me there is nothing he's done in any story anywhere that is even similar to this situation to support that it is in character for him to ditch Lois like he does.

If anything the Donner films on which SR is based only support the fact that he puts Lois first- not last or even second. If there's one thing that is obvious in the DOnner films it's that Lois comes first and he would not sacrifice her well being for his own feelings, no matter how difficult.

 

[mojo-x]

Come on Afan, it is solely a financial decision, $100 million more for SR and we would be seeing a sequel this year, if not sooner.


He didnt find out Jason was his child until the very end, how could he have possibly known that he had gotten Lois pregnant when he left? As SOON as he found out Jason was his son, he went to him, and told him and his mother he will always be there from now on.


.

He does have x-ray vision doesn’t he? Really it’s not that hard. You can buy home pregnancy kits at any local drug store. If he wanted to make sure she wasn’t pregnant before he left he could of, the fact that he didn’t just goes to show how irresponsible he is. Then again he didn’t even bother to turn the alarm on to the FOS.

 

[Wushuboy]

He does have x-ray vision doesn’t he? Really it’s not that hard. You can buy home pregnancy kits at any local drug store. If he wanted to make sure she wasn’t pregnant before he left he could of, the fact that he didn’t just goes to show how irresponsible he is. Then again he didn’t even bother to turn the alarm on to the FOS.

Agreed. Superman could use his xray vision to check out lois' lungs for cancer but he couldn't use it to check out her uterus? And here I thought superman's xray vision allowed him to see things on the cellular level.

 

[El Payaso]

While it's true that Superman can't have a normal life, the illegitimate child angle doesn't fit the Superman character and to think it does is to misunderstand the essence of the character.

The child is simply one of the hardest most complicated situations a man like him could deal with. Supervilliains defies his physical strenght, a son means a challenege for Superman that is simply much more complicated than even Kryptonite.

And the biggest is the challenge the most conflictive it is and the most interesting is the story for our hero. What you state at the end is just your intolerance and inability to accept any different vision than what have been seen already.

Superman might be the same but the stories - as with any hero - must test him, put him into the biggest possible conflicts.

That said, fatherhood was a key topic in STM and again in the Donner version of SII (with Jor-El in it).

Superman as absentee father and deadbeat boyfriend goes against everthing the character stands for. The storylines to come are anti-thetical to the essence of the character.

As explained in the movie, he HAD to go away beyond his will, so "deadbeat" is not the proper word. He was absentee as any man who had to go to the war before he even knew he was going to be a father.

It wasn't that Singer was being risky- he just doesn't know enough about the character to make a proper Superman film.

He knows the Donner franchise so well that he based this story only on what was unresolved before. Lois and Superman impossible love, Superman’s impossibility to have a normal life and fatherhood as a key theme.

Superman becoming a father closes the cycle of Jor-El unable to be with his son, Jonathan Kent’s life and death, Superman’s inherent loneliness (not only he is the last of his race but he has to live most of his life pretending).

And then it leaves stories for the future.

It tries to be that version of SUperman. But it ultimately fails at it b/c the actions are incongruous. They don't add up to the same character. THere's no way Reeve's Superman would have left Lois the way the Superman in SR does.

You mean he wouldn’t have quit his mission without telling anybody?

But I guess after the events in SII, Superman learnt that Lois is something he cannot overcome. He might have known that if he goes to her to say “I gotta go and I’m possibly never coming back, because there might be survivors in Krypton” there could have been temptations to re-consider such decision. She could convince him to quit being Superman before!

But as in SR, Superman has made terrible mistakes. Quit his mission for a girl. To leave without saying good-bye.

If you don't understand the Donner films, you don't understand the Donner films.

Yeah, and if that animal is a cat, is a cat.

We both get by now you forgot to make a point in that line. Or is it “redundant redundance.”

But to anyone who truly understands the character of Superman it is clear that Singer misunderstood what Donner was going for and translated it incorrectly to SR, or purposely changed it to fit his own sensibilities.

To anyone that knows a little of language, it is clear that you try too often to make circular and hermetic logics. And that makes nothing for your points.

You keep saying “I am right because anyone that thinks differently is wrong.” Or worse, “If you don’t get this is due to the fact that you don’t get this.”

There’s no bit of a valid point to retort to in that paragraph.

Anyhow, it didn't work and we're looking forward to the reboot/re-introduction.

That sounds great for you. I mean, if you were able to actually leave SR behind and enjoy the re-boot situation more than you enjoy coming back to hate this movie.

 

[El Payaso]

To paraphrase....
The problem, El Payaso, is truly in the eye( or mind )of the beholder.

Whether the story line of Lois/Richard/Jason is problematic is a preferrance; some like it some don't, it's a matter of taste.

However it is an elephant in the room that must be dealt with, it is that restrictiveness of story and not necessarily the details that's problematic.

In other words what you’re saying is:

“The kid/Richard thing is only a problem for those who decide to think of it as a problem; but it’s a problem they have to deal with.”

Contradictions aside, I’ll insist: it’s a seed for future stories. And if you think it’s a problem only for those who chose it to be a problem you are able to not conmsidering a problem. You are – under your own logic - actively deciding to have a restrictive elephant in the room. Restrictions here are goven only by the ability to imagine future stories.

Disagree with this point......in it's relevance to the "story" of a sequel.


What hint did the Joker card at the end of BB give us that TDK would feature a globe trotting Bond like adventure in Hong Kong for The Batman, involve the death of Rachel Dawes, give us the birth of Two-Face and conclude with Batman becoming a fugitive wanted for five murders?

Teasing the villian that will follow in a sequel does not restrict or hint at the direction of story; Lois, Richard, and Jason does.

And what, exactly, in the kid/Richard situation configurating a restriction for you?

Yes, in a sequel, the kid and Richard would be there, the same as the Joker was going to be in TDK. How is any of that restrictive?

Great Stuff El Payaso.

Of course if SR killed at the BO, we would be getting a sequel, it's black and white, overpowering financial success would make any decision process unnecessary, but I don't see how this is pertinent to disprove a decision to not go forward with Singer's vision for the character as a motivating factor.

SR did not completely bomb at the BO. It's returns over shadowed by it's production budget, and as you have said and as is obvious on the boards those who champion the film embracing it's characterization of Superman and those critical of it's use of The Man of Steel are fairly well split down the middle. Let's not forget it was also a critical success, leaving a grey area in which a decison process became a necessity.

That being said would it not follow that a sequel might, with a more practical budget, garner a more generous profit, still attracting those who support the film. Clearly this is not happening, tho it was rumored, hence there may be a concern, that transcends simple financial considerations.

And that is why a re-boot has only been considered more than two years after SR.

I think they put a lot of thought (so to speak) about whether a sequel could make more money than SR or not. If SR had bombed the re-boot could have been announced much earlier.

But there were doubts about it. Finally they decided against because of the money. For a budget like SR’s the movie should have made more money for them.

So it has nothing to do with Singer’s ideas for a sequel but with Singer’s involvement in terms of how capable wopuld he be to make a more profitable sequel.

 

[El Payaso]

He does have x-ray vision doesn’t he? Really it’s not that hard. You can buy home pregnancy kits at any local drug store. If he wanted to make sure she wasn’t pregnant before he left he could of, the fact that he didn’t just goes to show how irresponsible he is. Then again he didn’t even bother to turn the alarm on to the FOS.

Agreed. Superman could use his xray vision to check out lois' lungs for cancer but he couldn't use it to check out her uterus? And here I thought superman's xray vision allowed him to see things on the cellular level.

If you notice, every time Superman checks Lois’ body with his x ray vision, there’s a reason behind it. Knowing Lois, she’s probably on the pill. That said, there was no reason to suspect she was pregnant. God, not even SHE suspected about pregnancy herself! But sometimes the pill fails, I guess specially with Kryptonains.

 

[Wushuboy]

If you notice, every time Superman checks Lois’ body with his x ray vision, there’s a reason behind it. Knowing Lois, she’s probably on the pill. That said, there was no reason to suspect she was pregnant. God, not even SHE suspected about pregnancy herself! But sometimes the pill fails, I guess specially with Kryptonains.

Now you're just assuming you know Lois in and out.. hahaha. This Lois put her own son in danger by taking him along onto a boat that she knew nothing about and you think she'd have the mind to be taking birth control? Lois has always been the risk taker. Yeah the reason for Superman to check Lois' uterus is to see if she's pregnant. I think that's a pretty valid reason especially before he leaves for a trip to Krypton. He could have just taken a quick look since you've stated before he uses his powers when he's Clark to get information on her to use as superman. And there's precedent that he spies on her and invades her privacy as shown in his eaves dropping on her. Why would she be on the pill in the first place? Their sexual encounter was spur of the moment. It's not like Lois planned it. Lois wasn't seeing anyone before superman or at least it's not explicitly stated so why would any woman be taking the pill just to take it. I think most women who are on the pill are in relationships where theyve dated for a while. You think Lois just so happened to be on the pill just in case she got to have sex with superman? Doubtful. Also, if you read the instructions on birth control pills, it usually takes 7 days for the hormones to start affecting you and to get the full benefits of the pill you have to be taking it consistently for 28 days. You can't just take it right before and expect to not get pregnant. And I really don't think Lois and Superman were together for that long before they slept with each other.

I can accept your theory that Lois may have used birth control but you can't accept there's a chance she didnt. Besides if you can acknowledge that birth control isn't 100%, don't you think Superman would know that too? Especially since he's kryptonian, don't you think he'd question how it would react with his physiology.. that it might not be effective? With that said, isn't that an even greater reason for him to check to see if she's pregnant or not? Superman's not an idiot.

 

[El Payaso]

Now you're just assuming you know Lois in and out.. hahaha.

Well, everybody here are just assuming they know Superman in and out...

hahaha?

This Lois put her own son in danger by taking him along onto a boat that she knew nothing about and you think she'd have the mind to be taking birth control?

Absolutely. Lois can go up the Eiffel Tower under the elevator while some terrorist are preparing an H-bomb, but her lipstick is still perfect. It’s not just being precaucious but having her womanly things in order.

Lois has always been the risk taker.

In order to get an excusive.

Yeah the reason for Superman to check Lois' uterus is to see if she's pregnant.

Not if previous to the intercourse he goes “Lois, what about...?” and she goes “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill...”

For her it’s not about safety but not to ruin the moment.

I think that's a pretty valid reason especially before he leaves for a trip to Krypton. He could have just taken a quick look since you've stated before he uses his powers when he's Clark to get information on her to use as superman.

Maybe even Clark has seen the pills in her purse before as we know he spies in her purse.

Why would she be on the pill in the first place?

Women like her (and some others that are different) like to have sex without further worries. Many MANY women use the pill for many reasons. Why would she NOT be on the pill in the first place?

Their sexual encounter was spur of the moment. It's not like Lois planned it. Lois wasn't seeing anyone before superman or at least it's not explicitly stated so why would any woman be taking the pill just to take it.

Spur of the money? Really? How do you exactly know this?

But well, let’s say at the moment they weren’t dating. I guess Lois still has the chance to have an affair now and then?

And that said, I believe Superman and Lois had a sexual encounter in SII, without any protection (let’s assume this idea of her being in the pill is absolutely hahaha-ridiculous). One day after that Clark decides to go back to the Fortress to re-gain his powers. With that, they both know they can’t be together again, so it’s a definitive separation. Mh, I don’t remember Superman checking if she was pregnant, even if he knew they were fated to be apart. I think maybe this version of Superman doesn’t check pregnancy too much.

I think most women who are on the pill are in relationships where theyve dated for a while. You think Lois just so happened to be on the pill just in case she got to have sex with superman?

Or any other guy she knows. She won’t wait until she’s taking her bra off to start thinking about it or it will ruin the whole thing.

Also, if you read the instructions on birth control pills, it usually takes 7 days for the hormones to start affecting you and to get the full benefits of the pill you have to be taking it consistently for 28 days. You can't just take it right before and expect to not get pregnant.

That’s what I think she was taking it before that.

And I really don't think Lois and Superman were together for that long before they slept with each other.

Is that some conjecture or just some assumption?

I can accept your theory that Lois may have used birth control but you can't accept there's a chance she didnt.

Yes. I am for the chances that make sense. I don’t have to assume everything was unconnected with what happened in the movie so I can bash it.

Besides if you can acknowledge that birth control isn't 100%, don't you think Superman would know that too? Especially since he's kryptonian, don't you think he'd question how it would react with his physiology? With that said, isn't that an even greater reason for him to check to see if she's pregnant or not? Superman's not an idiot.

Nothing is 100% secure. Superman just relied on the pill the same Lois (and many other women) did. But, as I said, Superman didn’t check pregnancy in SII, and now he didn’t again.

 

[Wushuboy]

Well, everybody here are just assuming they know Superman in and out...

hahaha?



Absolutely. Lois can go up the Eiffel Tower under the elevator while some terrorist are preparing an H-bomb, but her lipstick is still perfect. It’s not just being precaucious but having her womanly things in order.



In order to get an excusive.



Not if previous to the intercourse he goes “Lois, what about...?” and she goes “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill...”

For her it’s not about safety but not to ruin the moment.



Maybe even Clark has seen the pills in her purse before as we know he spies in her purse.



Women like her (and some others that are different) like to have sex without further worries. Many MANY women use the pill for many reasons. Why would she NOT be on the pill in the first place?



Spur of the money? Really? How do you exactly know this?

But well, let’s say at the moment they weren’t dating. I guess Lois still has the chance to have an affair now and then?

And that said, I believe Superman and Lois had a sexual encounter in SII, without any protection (let’s assume this idea of her being in the pill is absolutely hahaha-ridiculous). One day after that Clark decides to go back to the Fortress to re-gain his powers. With that, they both know they can’t be together again, so it’s a definitive separation. Mh, I don’t remember Superman checking if she was pregnant, even if he knew they were fated to be apart. I think maybe this version of Superman doesn’t check pregnancy too much.



Or any other guy she knows. She won’t wait until she’s taking her bra off to start thinking about it or it will ruin the whole thing.



That’s what I think she was taking it before that.



Is that some conjecture or just some assumption?



Yes. I am for the chances that make sense. I don’t have to assume everything was unconnected with what happened in the movie so I can bash it.



Nothing is 100% secure. Superman just relied on the pill the same Lois (and many other women) did. But, as I said, Superman didn’t check pregnancy in SII, and now he didn’t again.

You are comparing wearing lipstick to being on birth control? jesus

She's a risk taker in life.. not just for her job

I love how you state things as fact with your If comments. Their sexual encounter wasn't spur of the moment? It all happened within like the same day. She discovers he's superman, he flies her to the fortress.. they have dinner.. boom.. they get it on that night. It's not like they had dated for a while.


How exactly do you know she's on the pill? Maybe she said "Im on the pill" .. maybe clark saw pills in her purse. Then again maybe she didnt.. and maybe he didnt. It goes both ways. If she's been using birth control the entire time as you say she is you're assuming she always carries it. If she's always carrying how come he didnt blurt it out in superman 1 when he describes the contents of her purse? Let me guess.. maybe she forgot to bring them on that day? Convenient. There's really no need for a woman to be on birth control if she's not in a relationship. That is unless she plans to be sleeping around with lots of guys. So I guess Lois just likes to have casual sex with people. Also, it's been shown that Lois is pretty irresponsible in her actions. Do you really see her following a routine of taking the pill every day at the same time? She's hardly the type of person to follow any schedule. Also, another reason why a woman wouldn't be taking it would be the side effects of birth control. It can cause increased bleeding, lower libido.. the list goes on.. afterall.. all it is doing is causing a hormonal imbalance in a woman. What girl would subject herself to that if she's just waiting for a chance encounter to have sex? I think women who are relationships would because they know for a fact they're going to be intimate.


Ok you just said you believed they had sex without protection.. what's the problem here?

I don't believe they were together for a prolonged period of time from the time she discovers he's superman in the hotel room to the night in the fortress. If memory serves me correct that all happens in the same day. So no.. they werent dating for a long time.


Sure you can bash whatever you want. And so can I. I can take your assumptions with a grain of salt just as you do. If the chance that she wasnt on birth control doesnt make sense to you then i guess you believe 100% of women with characteristics like lois must be on birth control. Right.

SR superman is not the superman in S2. The superman in S2 would never have left lois without checking first and taking care of things. SR superman did. that's the problem

But you know what.. rather than draw this out into a long winded debate,, let's just agree to disagree..

You believe she was on the pill
I believe she wasnt. We're not going to change each other's minds. Have a good day