Superman Returns Superman Returns: Happy 2 Year Anniversary

[mego joe]

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.

My only interolerance is Superman acting out of character. If they could have given him a child in a manner fitting his characterization (see Son of Superman by Howard Chaykin) I would be fine with that. But in Singer didn't do that, he made Superman the bad guy instead of Superman.

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

It's not really a story about Superman though. There's nothing special about the situation that makes it SUperman. It's really just a story about a screw up who was too lame to tell his girlfriend to goodbye and was such a knuckle head he didn't think anything would change while he was gone for 5 years.

Superman as a parent is one thing. SUperman as an absentee parent in a dysfunctional family is a compeltely different and out of character story.

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

I guess since Singer has no ideas of his own he might as well try to use yet another theme from the Donner films.

As explained in the movie, he HAD to go away beyond his will, so "deadbeat" is not the proper word.

And that's the problem. SUperman would say goodbye. That is not 'beyond his will.' I don't deny that he should have gone. He just should have said goodbye given the circumstances. It is incorrect characterization to say it was 'too diffilcut.' SUperman is not an emotionally weak or weak minded character. He knew it was the right thing to say good bye so there's no in character reason for him not to say goodbye.

He was absentee as any man who had to go to the war before he even knew he was going to be a father.

Not saying goodbye under the circumstances of being in a sexual relationship with the woman you love , no less makes you a deadbeat. A jerk. A shmuck. All of the above. And it is definitely NOT Superman.

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.

But not the characterizations.

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).

But portaying SUperman as some 'inherently lonely' character is wrong as well. Superman is not some mopey, feel sorry-for-yourself, woe-is-me character. He's posititve uplifting and inspires hope. That's not what SR portrayed. He ended just as isolated from the the world as he began it. Unable to be with Lois and ALSO his son who he will not raise.

And then it leaves stories for the future.

That undoubtedly have nothing really to do with 'Superman,' but instead some loser who was too lame to say goodbye to the woman he loved and now can't even raise his own son and will STILL be an outsider. Yea, that sounds like a SUperman story to me. (Sarcasm.)

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

I'm talking about Lois. The Superman in STM and SII, would not leave Lois w/o a goodbye under the circumstances of being in a sexual relationship. He's willing to give up EVERYTHING to be with Lois so he would just ditch her w/o a goodbye? It goes against everything we learn about the character.

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 he's already learned that lesson hasn't he, so he won't make the same mistake again. He's not that weak minded. If he knew he had to go to Krypton, he would. No matter what Lois would say. But he would take the time and have the common decency to say goodbye.

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

Superman only made 1 mistake in STM and SII combined. ANd he never left Lois w/o saying goodbye. He gave up everything FOR Lois. He put Lois first in every situation. Can't you see that? Can't you see that after putting Lois frist in every situation he wouldn't ditch her w/o a goodbye?

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.”

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.

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.

I actually gave SR another viewing and it re-invigorated my fervor against this film. But until there is any news on the re-boot, I'll just have to keep checking in every once in a while.


Here's the thing. I can watch it and appreciate elements of it as a movie, or as scattered Superman moments. But as a Superman story/film it fails. It has too much wrong about the characters and relationships and so many things take place on such a superficial level that once you start digging in and asking questions it falls apart.

 

[mego joe]

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.



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?

Because instead of doing a story about Batman's greatest foe you are restricting yourself to dealing with a stupid story about SUperman being an absentee father. Is it really that hard to understand how a Joker story fits with Batman and a deadbeat/ absentee father story is completely anti-thetical to the essence of Superman's character?

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.

I think they realized there's no market (thus no profits) for deadbeat/ absentee dad Superman stories and realized it was time to start over the right way this time.

 

[mego joe]

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

A couple of good posts there Wushboy.

Y'konw there very fact that we are getting so involved in Superman's sex life should be a sign that this was a horrible idea from the start. I think it's safe to say that SUperman being irresponsible sexually is about the dumbest idea for a SUperman story ever. To me it just points out that Singer just doesn't get what Superman is really about.

 

[El Payaso]

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

I’m just saying that a risk taker and a woman who wants to have a sex life out of marriage are not mutually exclusive.

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

Based on what do you state this?

I love how you state things as fact with your If comments.

The problem is that we don’t know how things happens. Now, given the alternative, you choose to think that things happened in ways that are incoherent with SR and I choose to think they happened coherently with the movie’s events.

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.

Oh, but that’s just because you’re assuming THAT is the time when Jason was conceived. It could have happened after the events in SII and before SR.

Because if Jason was conceived in the Fortress during SII, then Lois should have been more than puzzled since you know how the heroicly perfect Superman manipulated her mind without her permission at the end of the movie.

How exactly do you know she's on the pill?

How exactly do you know she's not 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.

And that’s why I choose the alternative that sounds more coherent with the movie. Why wouldn’t I?

That said, most modern women are on the pill when they’re not married. Lopis doesn’t seem the kind of girl that waits only for the “right man” or “marriage” to have a sexual life.

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.

Or maybe a silly joke made in a movie 30 years ago wasn’t considered for this new version. And it’s not the kind of consideration you should allow to ruin a movie that’s obviously not interested in silly jokes as the ground for a new story.

Or maybe Clark is shy enough to omit that information in the presence of her.

Or given her irresponsibility and lack of rigurosity, she keeps them in her office, where she knows she won’t forget them.

There's really no need for a woman to be on birth control if she's not in a relationship.

Yeah, it is better to know someone, go into her room and then tell the guy to wait seven days before doing it.

That is unless she plans to be sleeping around with lots of guys.

Or only one that she doesn’t know when is she going to meet.

So I guess Lois just likes to have casual sex with people.

Why not?

Also, it's been shown that Lois is pretty irresponsible in her actions.

Which fits having “casual sex with people.”

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.

On the contrary. She has a orange juice routine every day. She takes the pill with her orange juice.

That kind of routines doesn’t exclude an irresponsibility.

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?

Girls who know are irresponsible enough to have kids with any guy. Lois might be irresponsible but we know based on her career at the Daily Planet that she’s not absolutely irresponsible.

And so far, all the side effects haven’t prevented million of women to be on the pill, right?

I think women who are relationships would because they know for a fact they're going to be intimate.

Any woman who’s on the pill has plans to be intimate with a man for a fact, believe me.

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.

Well, it’s not clear when Jason was conceived.

I just assumed they hadn’t protection in that ocassion just to put ourselves in the case: Superman has sex without protection with Lois and even when they split up, he never checks if she’s pregnant or not.

Never happened in SII, why it’s a problem if it happens in SR then?

Sure you can bash whatever you want. And so can I.

In fact, I’m here in the defending business. Movies I have hated (Spiderman 3, Hellboy II), I have never wasted more than 3 weeks bashing them.

To spend your time defending what you love or bashing what you hate. That’s the dilemma.

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.

No, I don’t generalize. One woman like Lois in birth control doesn’t make 100% of them in the same situation. Every person is actually free to choose and they’re not conditioned by statistics.

But Lois’ personality matches birth control and the events prior to SR might match birth control, so why would I choose to believe the opposite?

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

Please show me where did Superman cared about safe sex and then when did he check if Lois was pregnant or not in SII.

Please.

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

There’s a chance she might have or not. My only point is that IF there’s a chance she was, then some of the events in SR are explained (why Superman and Lois dared to have sex and why Superman thought she wasn’t pregnant). IF there’s a chance she was on the pill, then there’s a reason why Superman did “use his xray vision to check out lois' lungs for cancer but he couldn't use it to check out her uterus”

 

[El Payaso]

My only interolerance is Superman acting out of character. If they could have given him a child in a manner fitting his characterization (see Son of Superman by Howard Chaykin) I would be fine with that. But in Singer didn't do that, he made Superman the bad guy instead of Superman.

Men who make mistakes are not the bad guy instantly

He wasn’t the bad guy because he decided to qiuit his mission in SII. He just made a mistake he had to regret.

Singer (and Donner) mad Superman a non perfect man.

It's not really a story about Superman though. There's nothing special about the situation that makes it SUperman.

Except that Superman is in it and what he does (to go back to Krypton) is what triggers the action.

It's really just a story about a screw up who was too lame to tell his girlfriend to goodbye and was such a knuckle head he didn't think anything would change while he was gone for 5 years.

Ah yes, poor wording as evidence.

Look: STM is just about a sissy alien who’s too dumb to be himself so he hides as a sissier journalist. In the end he spends his days chasing rockets.

See?

Superman as a parent is one thing. SUperman as an absentee parent in a dysfunctional family is a compeltely different and out of character story.

No, since this franchise made clear that Superman was impeded to have a normal life/family, etc.

He was absentee only as long as he didn’t know Jason was his.

I guess since Singer has no ideas of his own he might as well try to use yet another theme from the Donner films.

...

you’re aware that making a Superman movie is basically to use other people’s ideas right?

Even if someone bases his Superman movie in the comics? Right?

And that's the problem. SUperman would say goodbye. That is not 'beyond his will.' I don't deny that he should have gone. He just should have said goodbye given the circumstances. It is incorrect characterization to say it was 'too diffilcut.' SUperman is not an emotionally weak or weak minded character. He knew it was the right thing to say good bye so there's no in character reason for him not to say goodbye.

That is why I label that as a mistake and not a wise move.

He knew quitting his mission fo a girl was wrong. He was emotionally weak enough to be tempted, and made a mistake.

Same here.




And well, you totally turn my point into something else, but at least you admit he “should have gone” which is inherently an admission that he’s not a deadbeat anything.

Not saying goodbye under the circumstances of being in a sexual relationship with the woman you love , no less makes you a deadbeat. A jerk. A shmuck. All of the above. And it is definitely NOT Superman.

Therefore quitting your mission as Superman without even a warning/good-bye because of a girl makes you the exact same. Deadbeat hero, jerk, schmuck... horny and selfish.

But not the characterizations.

The characterizations are shaped by the themes in Donner’s films.

When it is about Lois, this Superman have weaknesses.

But portaying SUperman as some 'inherently lonely' character is wrong as well. Superman is not some mopey, feel sorry-for-yourself, woe-is-me character.

It is you the one who thinks that loneliness makes you instantly mopey.

He's posititve uplifting and inspires hope.

And so many people in real life who do or has done the exact same thing, that have been an inspiration, have had sad moemnts in their personal lives.

Being positive and inspirational doesn’t exclude you from human emotions and difficult moments.

That's not what SR portrayed.

Yes it is. He comes back and after saving the plane it is very much applauded as the hero he is. The world just go crazy when they see him back. Inspirational from minute 1.

And then he goes around the world saving people and in the end he risks his life to save them all. And you can see crowds of people outside of the hospital praying for him.

He ended just as isolated from the the world as he began it.

In fact he ends up exactly the opposite. Jason has completed his life. Now he understands that he might not be able to be with Lois, but started to feel human again, after 5 years of distance.

Unable to be with Lois and ALSO his son who he will not raise.

Yes. SII set those rules. So please set your complaints in the right movie.

That undoubtedly have nothing really to do with 'Superman,'

Yes, fatherhood in this super-franchise has everything to do with him.

but instead some loser who was too lame to say goodbye to the woman he loved and now can't even raise his own son and will STILL be an outsider. Yea, that sounds like a SUperman story to me. (Sarcasm.)

It is the same loser who got horny one day and was too much of a chicken to keep being who he is so he decided to desert his mission. But he had to come back crawling crying as a baby to have his powers back because he found out he’s nothing without them. In the end it was such the mess he provoked that he decided to manipulate his girl’s mind, which is the equivalent of sweeping his garbage under the carpet.

Again, poor wording not proving a thing.

I'm talking about Lois. The Superman in STM and SII, would not leave Lois w/o a goodbye under the circumstances of being in a sexual relationship. He's willing to give up EVERYTHING to be with Lois so he would just ditch her w/o a goodbye? It goes against everything we learn about the character.

But not against what HE has learnt about himself.

Once he gave upo everything in order to be with her. That’s why he knows he could be able to give up going back to Krypton because of her. That’s what he was trying to avoid.

[/b]But he's already learned that lesson hasn't he, so he won't make the same mistake again. He's not that weak minded. If he knew he had to go to Krypton, he would. No matter what Lois would say. But he would take the time and have the common decency to say goodbye.

That’s why he avoided to be tempted by staying next to Lois instead of do his duty.

Now, I have admitted many times that not saying good-bye was a mistake.

Superman only made 1 mistake in STM and SII combined. ANd he never left Lois w/o saying goodbye.

No, he left everyone else but Lois. Without saying a good-bye.

He gave up everything FOR Lois. He put Lois first in every situation. Can't you see that? Can't you see that after putting Lois frist in every situation he wouldn't ditch her w/o a goodbye?

In Superman words:

”Are you kidding? I didn’t do it for you, I did it for US.”

He didn’t quit his powers for her. He did it for hismelf too; to have a normal life. It wasn't a heroic deed for his loved one but he admitted that he was being as benefited from that as she was. It was as selfish as not saying good-bye.

I actually gave SR another viewing and it re-invigorated my fervor against this film. But until there is any news on the re-boot, I'll just have to keep checking in every once in a while.

Why? You might find news on the re-boot in here?

Here's the thing. I can watch it and appreciate elements of it as a movie, or as scattered Superman moments. But as a Superman story/film it fails. It has too much wrong about the characters and relationships and so many things take place on such a superficial level that once you start digging in and asking questions it falls apart.

If that’s true, more reason for not coming back. In your words, you won’t find anything else by digging. Why keep doing it?

 

[El Payaso]

Because instead of doing a story about Batman's greatest foe you are restricting yourself to dealing with a stupid story about SUperman being an absentee father.

And here we go again to El Payaso and afan’s point: it is a problem only if you want it to be.

Someone else could say “It’s dealing with that stupid clown against Batman” and it doesn’t make Joker any less of a good idea.

Superman was not an absentee father since he (nor Lois) even knew he was a father to start with. In a sequel we would have known if he was actually going to be absentee or not.

Is it really that hard to understand how a Joker story fits with Batman and a deadbeat/ absentee father story is completely anti-thetical to the essence of Superman's character?

Well, I have seen the importance of fatherhood in Donner movies so, no, I can’t see how something that has been all around suddenly is wrong.

As usual you provide passionate statements but no development. “Can’t you see I’m right?” doesn’t amke you right.

I think they realized there's no market (thus no profits) for deadbeat/ absentee dad Superman stories and realized it was time to start over the right way this time.

There’s a market since SR made more than Batman begins. 390 million is a market.

But they want more than that. And THAT is the reason for a re-boot.

 

[mego joe]

OK El Payaso,

We've had our fun this time around. It's certain we will never agree on SR or STM or SII. But since WB is going for the restart/ reintroduction and they realize that SR didn't 'position Superman as they'd hoped,' it appears they understand something is wrong with the deadbeat/ Jason/ Richard storyline.

Perhaps we might have a chance on both liking a reboot.

 

[nintendo nerd]

OK El Payaso,

We've had our fun this time around. It's certain we will never agree on SR or STM or SII. But since WB is going for the restart/ reintroduction and they realize that SR didn't 'position Superman as they'd hoped,' it appears they understand something is wrong with the deadbeat/ Jason/ Richard storyline.

Perhaps we might have a chance on both liking a reboot.

They are doing a reboot because they didn't get the money they wanted. Not because they didn't like the story.Heck, if Batman and Robin had made 50 million domestic there would've been another campy Batman film. WB as other studios only think about cash

 

[Scarlet Spider]

But since WB is going for the restart/ reintroduction and they realize that SR didn't 'position Superman as they'd hoped,' it appears they understand something is wrong with the deadbeat/ Jason/ Richard storyline.

Jeff Robinov was the exec who said "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned."

You know, the same guy that referred to Superman Returns as the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made.

"'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003019246

They are doing a reboot because they didn't get the money they wanted. Not because they didn't like the story.Heck, if Batman and Robin had made 50 million domestic there would've been another campy Batman film. WB as other studios only think about cash

Right on.

 

[stargazer]

Jeff Robinov was the exec who said "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned."

You know, the same guy that referred to Superman Returns as the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made.





Right on.

BenReilly19, you beat me to it! t: I was just about to post it. Thanks.

yeah, it seems to me that WB/Robinov are probably just very blinded by the success of TDK right now, hence why the "darker Superman'' comment. They seem to change their minds so often that is incredible.

Make our sequel, WB, DC,

Bryan Singer can deliver a great and exciting sequel, he made after all XMen2, a film that was widely approved as a big improvement to the first one.

This is what Singer said on the same article:

But Singer does know where he has to go with the sequel. He told Comic-Can fans that he would add more "scary sci-fi in the next movie." "We can now go to into the action realm."

While some "Superman Returns" viewers objected to the addition of an illegitimate child of Lois Lane and Superman (which never appeared in any of the comic books), Singer intends to proceed with that story arc. "There's a lot of room to go with that character and his upbringing and human background and Krypton heritage," he says. "He's the genetic material of both parents. Superman doesn't have that. It's hard to write for Superman. He's a tough character to create insurmountable obstacles for. This one is unique and insurmountable." For the sequel, Singer will be able to expand and play around with what he's introduced, and "bring in more of the energy" of the contemporary comics, he promised.

 

[Superark]

^Sadly WB won't be making a sequel MP. I think Singer would have done something truly extraordinary with the sequel.

At least we will always have SR, which is kind of bittersweet since, while SR is an amazing film for us, we won't see a sequel to it.

 

[mego joe]

Happily there will be no SR sequel and we'll get a chance at a truly great Superman film.

 

[El Payaso]

OK El Payaso,

We've had our fun this time around. It's certain we will never agree on SR or STM or SII.

No, but it is clear that Superman has beenm selfish before in his decisions. That Lois has not always have been the only one he wanted to put in the first place ("I didn't do it for you, I did it for us").

If anything in SR it is clear that Superman is not putting Lois in the first place anymore, but his duty, as it should be. He skipped the good-bye because he was certain that he wouldn't have gone to Krypton if he did say good-bye (as he was unable to keep being Superman when she told him she was in love with him) - in this respectm, Superman acknowledges his only weakness. And when he ahd to decide between saving Lois or Metropolis, he took the right decision again.

But since WB is going for the restart/ reintroduction and they realize that SR didn't 'position Superman as they'd hoped,' it appears they understand something is wrong with the deadbeat/ Jason/ Richard storyline.

No. Read. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."

They just didn't get his pockets full enough.

Time to get the facts right.

Perhaps we might have a chance on both liking a reboot.

I'm not against watching a new oriogin movie for Supes.

 

[El Payaso]

^Sadly WB won't be making a sequel MP. I think Singer would have done something truly extraordinary with the sequel.

At least we will always have SR, which is kind of bittersweet since, while SR is an amazing film for us, we won't see a sequel to it.

A sequel won't make SR any different than it is. While I would love to see what was coming next, I've always said I rather 1 great movie and not 3 crappy sequels.

 

[Superark]

A sequel won't make SR any different than it is. While I would love to see what was coming next, I've always said I rather 1 great movie and not 3 crappy sequels.

Never said it would

 

[El Payaso]

Never said it would

Oh yes. But SR with no sequel is, therefore, for me more of a sweet than a bitter thing. That's all.

 

[Double Down]

I saw this on another site and the theory intrigued me:

The kid exhibited powers ONCE in Returns...immediately after being exposed to Kryptonite. Due to his hybrid nature, he's like the anti-Superman...Kryptonite gives him his power, rather than taking it away. So, you have mommy Lois not wanting him to grow up as a freak and keeping him away from Kryptonite (which should be pretty easy to do), and there you have it. He's now just another kid, and an element that can be ignored plot-wise.

 

[Angeloz]

Wishful thinking I believe. As the kryptonite was nowhere near him when he displayed his power. Also in some versions Clark doesn't get all of his powers until later. Even "Smallville" has this. I'll point out "Superman Returns" shows Clark learning about his ability to levitate when a teenager. During a stressful situation. So I think it's like father like son. Even Lex stated this.

Angeloz

 

[Double Down]

Superman gets his power from the sun. He doesn't have to be in the sunlight to be powerful. His body stores the energy. Jason could do the same thing. He stored the energy, used it, then had none left. Only more exposure to Kryptonite would give him more power. I think it's an interesting theory.

 

[Angeloz]

You just explained how Jason gets his power: the Sun. He's young so it might not be full time yet and even Superman can lose power temporarily. It's a cute theory. But I don't think it's correct.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Jeff Robinov was the exec who said "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned."

You know, the same guy that referred to Superman Returns as the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made.





Right on.

Exactly, when are people going to realise WB are re-booting purely for monetary reasons, this is the most obvious thing ever.

^Sadly WB won't be making a sequel MP. I think Singer would have done something truly extraordinary with the sequel.

At least we will always have SR, which is kind of bittersweet since, while SR is an amazing film for us, we won't see a sequel to it.

I think it would have been awesome, I would even have liked Dougherty and Harris to stay on board, as I think them together with Singer would have made something awesome.

Happily there will be no SR sequel and we'll get a chance at a truly great Superman film.

I dont see that happening since WB's SOLE motivation in re-booting is for money, not art. Therefore, we will get a movie catered to making money, rather than one concentrating on being good.

 

[mego joe]

Exactly, when are people going to realise WB are re-booting purely for monetary reasons, this is the most obvious thing ever.



I think it would have been awesome, I would even have liked Dougherty and Harris to stay on board, as I think them together with Singer would have made something awesome.



I dont see that happening since WB's SOLE motivation in re-booting is for money, not art. Therefore, we will get a movie catered to making money, rather than one concentrating on being good.

Maybe a film like The Dark Knight? Good and profitable for the studio?

 

[El Payaso]

Maybe a film like The Dark Knight? Good and profitable for the studio?

They already said they wanted a darker version of Superman for the next movie. You see, in their minds, if 'dark' worked for TDK B.O. then it should work for Superman B.O. That's the mentality we're facing here. Fascinating, huh?

Everybody's dream is a movie that's both good and profitable but most of times we can't get both. Since I'm not an executive of WB, I choose good over profitable any day of the week. Which is what I got with SR.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Maybe a film like The Dark Knight? Good and profitable for the studio?

Money wasnt the sole reason for making TDK though, this is obvious from the lack of money BB made. They gave Nolan freedom, yet we have heard time and again this new Superman movie will be largely controlled by the studio. Profit is their only motivation with Superman, so I cant see a movie like TDK for Superman coming out of it.

They already said they wanted a darker version of Superman for the next movie. You see, in their minds, if 'dark' worked for TDK B.O. then it should work for Superman B.O. That's the mentality we're facing here. Fascinating, huh?

Everybody's dream is a movie that's both good and profitable but most of times we can't get both. Since I'm not an executive of WB, I choose good over profitable any day of the week. Which is what I got with SR.

Excellently said EP, couldnt have said it better myself. Yet Mega Joe seems to think WB listened to fans like him when deciding to instead of thinking of their pockets, but this DIDNT happen.

 

[mego joe]

Money wasnt the sole reason for making TDK though, this is obvious from the lack of money BB made. They gave Nolan freedom, yet we have heard time and again this new Superman movie will be largely controlled by the studio. Profit is their only motivation with Superman, so I cant see a movie like TDK for Superman coming out of it.

I think Nolan got it right with BB and the studio figured it out from reaction beyond simply $.

Excellently said EP, couldnt have said it better myself. Yet Mega Joe seems to think WB listened to fans like him when deciding to instead of thinking of their pockets, but this DIDNT happen.

I think they did. I think they know that SR was not the right film b/c of reaction beyond $ the same way they knew BB was the right film beyond $. When respsected comic book creators who've written Superman come out to bash SR, WB has to realize there were some serious flaws with the film. I think after the summit w/ DC, WB realized that they could do a lot better than SR in terms of getting Superman right.

I'd be behind that adaptation of "Birthright" you mentioned in the other thread.