Superman Returns The general public discovers Lois' kid!

[Superfreak]

Just thinking on the kid a little. Now I don't think it's superman's child. It can't be really, and if it is, it is just poor taste. So I don't think the kid will be supes' own.

but, now on to what I was thinking about: If the kid was a kryptonian hybrid, would someone like Lois be able to raise a part kryptonian child in metropolis? We know that strength and invulnerability are the first gifts to develop with a kryptonian child. How could Lois be able to hide the truth of the child in the middle of the worlds biggest city? Ma and Pa kent had the advantage of being isolated out in the middle of BF no where (smallville), which gave young Clark a safe place to 'play', as well as discover and learn how to use his powers etc.

If Lois' child was a 'super' child, I feel that it is improbable that she would remain in Metropolis. Moreover, if this film is vague sequel, with STM and SII standing as cannon, then Lex Luthor would also suspect some sort of copulation took place in the super sex pit, since he was able to hand lois over to Zod as bait in SII.

I'm just thinking that as I see more of what's to come, the idea of the kid being the son of superman, becomes more and more far fetched every passing minute.

Any thoughts?

 

[buggs0268]

I like the name Abraham better than Jason. Jason sounds too stupid. Jason Lane. wtf is that. It should be Abraham Lane.

Jason is a normal name. Abraham is too close to Abraham Lincoln. It is also not a common name here now. America goes through spurts of common names they name kids. Agraham was a long time ago. it sounds dated now.

 

[buggs0268]

dont you guys know the rules of movies. They don't have something in a movie unless it is meant as a plot device. Shane Black wrote the rules into the dialogue in his last movie. If they show it, or make mention of it, that means it will have a point later. From his movie "Why show the cook in Hunt for Red October unless he was a part of the plot." The kids is Supes. If it wasn't, he would not be in the movie.

 

[Zor-El]

I like the name Abraham better than Jason. Jason sounds too stupid. Jason Lane. wtf is that. It should be Abraham Lane.

i thought the kid's name was Jason White... isn't that what we were told when the first pics of him were released?

 

[Morgoth]

I really don't think it'll be Clark's kid. Everyone I spoke to, fan or not so big of a fan, just don't like the idea at all.

It really is messing with something that shouldn't be messed with. The Superman mythos is sacred, even to those who aren't comic book nuts. People who don't read the books know it's wrong.

I always get a strong negative reaction to it. Especially the fans who read and all but don't spend all their time on the internet finding out about the movie plots, etc.

 

[Spare-Flair]

This is hillarious.

A bunch of grown adults hoping a kid dies.

It's because of Cousin Oliver Syndrome - the name for the phenonmenon of adding a kid to a show that never works and inevitably (or immediately) ruins it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_Oliver

 

[Oldguy]

It's because of Cousin Oliver Syndrome - the name for the phenonmenon of adding a kid to a show that never works and inevitably (or immediately) ruins it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_Oliver

Somebody should hold a telethon for Singer and Co.

 

[Catman]

i thought the kid's name was Jason White... isn't that what we were told when the first pics of him were released?

I have no idea, man. I found out the kids name was Jason yesterday. lol.

 

[Katsuro]

Personally, i'm praying that it's Lois's stepson, and the son of James Marsden's character.

 

[sf2]

the flying piano poster is superb!

 

[afan]

dont you guys know the rules of movies. They don't have something in a movie unless it is meant as a plot device. Shane Black wrote the rules into the dialogue in his last movie. If they show it, or make mention of it, that means it will have a point later. From his movie "Why show the cook in Hunt for Red October unless he was a part of the plot." The kids is Supes. If it wasn't, he would not be in the movie.

You are absolutely correct, but you are missing another possibility.

If the "munchkin" is Richard's son from a previous relationship and Lois has become his surrogate "mommy"; then he becomes a plot device as another brick in the "Lois has moved on with her life" wall. Take away the kid and Lois' decision to leave Richard for Superman is much easier. In fact it's probably the only device that would make her decision dramatically difficult.

Now if Richard should die in the film and Lois is the only "family" the child has remaining that would only serve to itensify the child's impact.

 

[chosen1]

one word: hook

Peter pan having kids was fine with me.

that's a better movie to compare it too.

I made this thread already but whatever, what's the harm.

Peter Pan's Gots Kids?

 

[Catman]

You are absolutely correct, but you are missing another possibility.

If the "munchkin" is Richard's son from a previous relationship and Lois has become his surrogate "mommy"; then he becomes a plot device as another brick in the "Lois has moved on with her life" wall. Take away the kid and Lois' decision to leave Richard for Superman is much easier. In fact it's probably the only device that would make her decision dramatically difficult.

Now if Richard should die in the film and Lois is the only "family" the child has remaining that would only serve to itensify the child's impact.

Dude, even if she's the surrogate mother I don't think she would just abandon the child. So, I think we're stuck with the kid. Personally I don't have a problem with it and I don't think the general public will care that much. People will probably just crack jokes about 'super' condoms and stuff like that. It's the purist (sp?) that are gonna be *****ing about it.

 

[DogofKrypton]

I'm just thinking that as I see more of what's to come, the idea of the kid being the son of superman, becomes more and more far fetched every passing minute.

Any thoughts?

The writing is on the wall. The kid is his. And I guarantee you, no matter how much I may, or may not, like the movie the minute they reveal the kid is his, I will be COMPLETELY taken out of the movie.

And I have a STRONG feeling I won't be alone in this.

 

[Tzigone]

It won't bother me if it's well-done. But I'm not really a Superman fan. I've watched the shows and seen the movies (even own I and II), but I'm not heavily invested in Superman.

For the "general public" topic - A friend of mine saw the trailer recently. On her computer, not at the theater. Her only previous knowledge of Superman is from watching the movie with her big brother when she was a child - I don't think she remembers any of it, really. She said she likes the actors. She wants to see the movie. She thinks Lois Lane having a kid is neat and interesting, and she asked me who the daddy is.

 

[VGPOP]

Well, a very special person saw the trailer. My girlfriend .

Not a fan, not an anti-fan. No emotional whatsover .

I asked her, what did you think? (and I only played it once for her)

- "Very good trailer. It looks like a really good movie"

What else, do you have any questions?

- "Who is the bald guy? Is he the bad guy?"

Yes, what else?

"And Lois Lane has a kid? Is he superman's?" (she remembers Superman II)

We don't know that yet. What else do you remember?

"The young superman leaping in the sky. Really good shot. And superman in street clothes (she doesn't even remember his name, aka Clark Kent) is really handsome".

There you have it. Take it for what it's worth. She does not represent the whole population, but for me, she is as neutral as it can get .

 

[Compi716]

I just read the review, and I'm impressed. It certainly sounds good, and knowing that Brandon and Bosworth are able to hold his own against Kevin Spacey is a hell of a plus. I'm hoping that the plane scene, finale, and action-bits blow my mind like a Superman movie should.

There is still one thing that bugs me, though...

The kid. I don't know what it is, but the whole thing pisses me off. Sure the guy says that it works well in the film, but as a Superman Puritan (little bit of American history in there), I just can't help but feel that something is wrong. My dad, an old school Superman fan from waaaaaaay back when also find it a bit odd. Immediately after I showed him the trailer, he said to me, "Lois has a kid? Hmm..."

Something is not right. I just don't like it.

I pray I'm wrong. Really, I do. Hopefully I'll get over it, or it'll work for me [in the movie]. But right now, I've got a feeling of utter dread. Not that the movie will be bad, but that...part of Superman's history and aura will be destroyed.

I better be wrong.


JUST REMEMBERED: Does Terrance Stamp have a cameo, or was that just a rumor?

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

I said it in another thread, I'll say it in this one: Wishing for the 5 year old to die is just bad writing in this case. yeah, it's bad writing to have introduced him in the first place, but killing him off so that Superman may either live/be inspired to go after Luthor has more in common with the fetus-eating episode of South Park featuring Christopher Reeve than it does with this movie.

And you guys are straight faced ARGUING FOR IT.

 

[Tzigone]

I agree Fatboy Roberts. I didn't want the kid when I heard about him. But killing him off is just not good writing.

Superman is the hero who somehow manages to save everybody - not saving the kid would kind of make him a failure (in a motion picture, I mean, and from the audience stand-point - not in reality or even in a show or comic series where you'd get multiple episodes/issues of fallout and emotional repercussions).

It's also a gigantic depressing ending, which audiences probably wouldn't like in a hero movie (especially a non-dark one). Also, it will make people not want to take their kids/buy the DVD for their kids - which doesn't seem like something for "8 to 80" audience.

 

[Yellow Cyclone]

dont you guys know the rules of movies. They don't have something in a movie unless it is meant as a plot device. Shane Black wrote the rules into the dialogue in his last movie. If they show it, or make mention of it, that means it will have a point later. From his movie "Why show the cook in Hunt for Red October unless he was a part of the plot." The kids is Supes. If it wasn't, he would not be in the movie.

while this is true, sometimes good movies don't always follow it

however i totally know that the kid's is supes, the logic is almost airtight

plus is a freaking superman movie, no way WB is going to kill that kid off, off-screen or on...we're stuck with him

 

[Oldguy]

I agree Fatboy Roberts. I didn't want the kid when I heard about him. But killing him off is just not good writing.

So? It's not like there's much good writing going on before this moment.

 

[Tzigone]

So? It's not like there's much good writing going on before this moment.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know the movie is going to be good (though I fervently hope so), but I don't know it's going to be bad, either. And I'd rather not make it worse. The kid dying is about the only thing that could keep me out of the theater.

 

[Lightning54SC]

I guess we'll all find out in a month

 

[Oldguy]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know the movie is going to be good (though I fervently hope so), but I don't know it's going to be bad, either. And I'd rather not make it worse. The kid dying is about the only thing that could keep me out of the theater.

Fair enough. We both hope for the same thing, friend.

 

[The Game]

LOL, CLASSIC

I guess I have found my avi