Superman Returns The KID.....merged threads

[sheltz32tt]

In the review it says superman has to get his powers back. What if jorel says something along the lines of "I am giving my last blood line, the last kryptonian powers back. Use them wisely." Is it possible thats how the kid gets powers? Then supes would have to decide if he wants his son to grow up with the same life and responsibility that he had to go through. Or take his powers away at the FOS.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Do you mean that Superman steals his powers from his son? That would be okay. But Superman would be a jackass if he didn't let his kid have powers later in life.

 

[Kane]

this is how I'd handle it;

If the child is Superman's, I would make the child terminally-ill; he has some serious medical issues as Kryptonian DNA and Human DNA cant mix properly.

When Superman looses his powers or dies, Jor-El would transfer the Kryptonian powers from the child to restore Superman. In the process the kid would now be fully human and would go on to live with Richard and Lois as their son.

Richard and Lois would never know Superman was the father but Superman would and he'd sacrifice his feelings for Lois in order to give her happiness with her new family.

 

[Zor-El]

*cough*"son becomes the father-- and the father, the son."*cough*

i dont think the kid will have powers, but i wouldnt be surprised if once lex renders superman powerless* the kid sacrificed himself, or at least helped (not necessarily by dying)... helped to keep Superman alive (hospital scene?) then once back at the fortress, the de-powered clark would be given back his powers by marlon bra-- uh....Jor-El.

JOR-EL
You have made a dreadful mistake, Kal-El.
You have abandoned the world for the sake of private
ambition. You did this of your own free will, and in spite of all i could say to dissuade you.

CLARK
I...

JOR-EL
Now you have returned to me for one
last chance to redeem yourself. This too- finally- i have anticipated, my son.
(pause)
Look at me, Kal-El...

CLARK stares at him. JOR-EL'S eyes dance with light.

JOR-EL
Once before, when you were small, I died while giving
you a chance for life. And now, even though it will exhaust the final energy within me...

CLARK (turns frightened)
Father, no!...

JOR-EL
Look at me, Kal-El!

CLARK turns, stares back, Jor-El's face grows larger. Hand reaches out toward his son, the index finger extended, his expression almost mystical.

JOR-EL
The Kryptonian prophesy will at last be fulfilled.
The son becomes the father--
the father becomes the son. Goodbye forever, Kal-El.
Remember me, my son...

CLARK starts to speak, but JOR-EL's eyes suddenly come ablaze with energy, riveting him to the spot. Two dazzling white arcs of light shoot into CLARK, racking his body with involuntary vibrations. CAMERA PUSHES IN on JOR-EL'S face, straining to summon up the suicidal energy, until only his blinding eyes are in the frame.

Not that that's how Singer would use the footage, just wanted to give an idea of what theyd likely be working with.
anyhow...the theme i see (if the kid is Superman's) is "Fathers and Sons"
which is why i've been quoting that line/prophesy from S:TM like its my job.

 

[ultimatefan]

Let´s assume the AICN review is "REAL real" and the kid is Clark´s. What is the real issue in that? That Superman shouldn´t have kids? I beg to differ, I mean, fans came to accept that Clark and Lois are married - something that was unthinkable just a couple decades before. That it´s not the best solution for the whole "Lois has another boyfriend and a kid with him" thing? THERE I think there is something. According to Singer himself, the idea behind that was to show that there are problems that Superman can´t solve with his superpowers, that there are complicated situations, things where nobody is the villain. Superman´s main weakness, even more than Kryptonite, may be his heart. In this, the kid turning out to be his is the easy, predictable, simplifying solution. I won´t argue the whole thing is he has powers or not, I´m not particularly worried with continuity towards Superman II - I guess that´s what "vague history" means...

On the other hand, there can be a meaning to that. If Superman´s heart is his main weakness, it might be as well his greatest power, that the solution for the problem ultimately was not superstrength or heat vision or any of that, but the love between him and Lois. Bit corny, right, but there is a potentially relevant character insight in that. It can be interesting drama to think what it could mean to be the son of Superman, would you be happy as hell or it would drive you crazy?

But even if that particular point doesn´t quite work, due to execution or whatever, will it ruin the movie? Not to me, not necessarily. Do I like the ending of the first Superman? No, I HATE the turn back in time ending... But all in all the movie´s qualities by far surpass that particular flaw, it remains to me a classic of its genre. I didn´t quite enjoy Superman killing Zod or the whole kiss erasing memory thing in SM II, but I overall enjoyed the movie too. So regardless of this whole argument, I´m gonna see the movie and it´s quite possible I´ll enjoy it very much, Superman son or not. What about you?

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I can only say one thing, i always found stupid the all "Superman can´t get laid" angle.
To came up with reason for him to never "touch" Lois, is purely, too many fanboys with too much time on their hands.
If you buy that Superman can´t have sex because of his powers, than every single superhero with superhuman strengh (and it doesn´t have to be much) would have the same problem.

Now that i got that out of my chest, no, it doesn´t bother me one bit that Lois and Kal have a son.
Singer´s vision, that bothers me, not the kid issue.

 

[X Knight]

hey ultimatefan,

That's a great post and very good arguments.

I think, for me, making the kid Superman's, in the context of the film, in a way cuts at the core of Superman's character.

For me, Superman is not just Super because of his powers, but also because of his Ideals and Moral Code. Which are a result of his strong family bond, and the way his parents raised him in Smallville.

So, for me, Superman should know, more than anyone, that it is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE to have sex with a girl, get her pregnant, and then ABANDON her for 5 years and leave her to raise the kid without the real father!

IOW, Superman should not be an irresponsible, dead-beat dad with a child out of wedlock! His strong moral code and upbringing should give him enough sense not to do that. And, even if he did have sex with Lois before marriage, he should stick around and plan on marrying her, not LEAVE her for 5 or so years.

Now, if Supes and Lois were married, like in the comics, then Supes having a kid would make more sense, perhaps not in a Movie, but just in the comics.

For me, it would be an even more emotional challenge for Supes if the kid was Lois' and Richard's. I mean, it is pretty hard to come back and find that the woman you love has moved onto another man. And, if she is engaged to him and even has a child with him, that is even harder. Because, then the girl has really moved on with her life, and she is more "lost" to you.

If that is the case in movie, then I can accept that, and I would even feel more sorry for Supes.

But, if the Kid is Superman's, then, to me, that is an easy cop out to the situation. I mean if the kid is really yours, then that makes it somewhat easier for the girl to come back to you eventually.

IDK, it just seems that the Kid issue complicates the whole story. Plus, it ties into the first 2 movies, which had there own questionable plot lines (like the Amnesia Kiss).

Will I go see the movie? Yes, definately!! Everything looks fantastic!!! And, hopefully, everything will be explained and resolved in the movie.

But, if the movie portrays Supes as an irresponsible dead-beat dad, and encourages and promotes that behaviour, then I will be dissappointed.

Because, for me, Supes is the hero who should inspire all of us (and our kids especially) to live our lives more morally and responsibly.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Who knew there were so many hyper-moralist fanboys on the internet. I'll keep that in mind next time I remember how much PORN is floating around out there.

I didn't know "WEDLOCK" was still even a derogatory term, actually.

And this thread is the definition of superfluous, by the way.

 

[Sverdlovski]

My problem isn't that the kid is Superman's son per se, but that the script seems so simplistic it's frustrating. For instance, when I found out they were including a kid in this story, I though it would somehow represent the innocence in a cynical world, where everyone doubted Superman, but the kid. At the same time, he also loved his father Richard and Lois, so Lois reuniting with Supes would create some dilemma. Or something like that. But instead, we've got the simple way out... "teh kid is Supermans's son!!! Wooot!". Or so it seems.

 

[X Knight]

hi fat-boy roberts,

I wouldn't call myself a hyper-moralist fanboy. And, I'm not saying Supes shouldn't be infallible.

It's just that, I'm sure there are still Superman fans who have more "traditional" viewpoints and they see Supes as a very idealistic and moral hero. And, that may be one of their attractions to the character. So, they may have a hard time accepting the SR Supes, especially if he is portrayed as a dead-beat dad. It just seems so out of character!!

And, like I said, even if they did have sex before marriage, you would think Supes, should, at the very least, stick around and stay with Lois, help her raise THEIR child, and marry her.

I mean, on a recent Smallville episode, Clark finally had sex with Lana. Of course, Clark's parents gave him an earful afterwards, since they were not married. And, they even said he should have know better, and thought they had raised him differently. So, that kind of exemplifies the upbringing Clark should have had.

And, besides, I'm pretty sure Clark and Lana had the sense to use Protection so she won't get pregnant. And, Clark really, really, loved Lana and, at the time, had every intention of settling down with her. Plus, he doesn't strike me as the type who would just ABANDON Lana if he found out she were pregnant. And, I think in that episode, Clark had lost his powers, so he was "normal" just linke in Superman 2.

So, again, I hope the movie will explain everything in its proper context.

 

[Saint]

Superman doesn't have a son, and that's really my issue. If Clark Kent has a son in the comics, then fine, adapt it to other mediums, but until then? Don't.

I know people have this notion that comics shouldn't be law, but when it comes to matters like this, they definitely should be. We're not talking about tweaking a costume or an origin or something, we're talking about FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES to the concept and the core of a character. In those matters, the comics ALWAYS come first.

Think of it this way: if Peter Jackson gave Frodo an evil twin brother, it would be stupid, right? This is the same situation. Ultimately it's a matter of letting the primary version of the character (which is the comics) make the advances before TV or film jumps ahead.

Another issue is that it's just being done poorly. Superman fathers a bastard child and then buggers off to krypton for a few years? The Superman I know isn't an absentee father, nor does he abandon earth for years on end! Oh, and of course when he comes back, the kid

Spoiler

hits people with a piano.

I'm sorry, but that just reeks of stupidity.

I can only pray that this bloody kid issue works out better in the film than all the reports suggest.

 

[Zor-El]

could a mod just name one (of the many) threads "The official KID thread" so everyone would know there is ONE thread on the topic in which they can voice their opinion?

 

[X Knight]

right on Saint,

That's exactly what I'm talking about. As you said, it is a "FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE to the CONCEPT and CORE of the character"

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

super-bats: Don't sweat it, I was more just commenting on the overall phenomenon of the kid hand-wringing than your post specifically, although you seem to not even say YOU'RE the one thinking these things, but that OTHERS might. In which case--who the hell CARES what others think. It's what YOU think.

If Clark Kent has a son in the comics,

That's happening, actually.

Another issue is that it's just being done poorly. Superman fathers a bastard child and then buggers off to krypton for a few years? The Superman I know isn't an absentee father,

Superman fathered that bastard Child in Superman II, so Donner did that poorly, I guess Yes, I know I'm being a smartass for the sake of it, but honestly, Superman giving up being a superhero to bang Lois Lane on a giant Mylar bed was just as irresponsible as leaving for a few years to find out about Krypton for himself. Not as many indignant complaints about that one.

Me--I don't like EITHER plot point in EITHER movie, really, but to act like this is a new stream of piss in the fans face is sorta disingenuous. It's the same piss, it just stinks different.

 

[X Knight]

hey fat-boy roberts,

Actually, I WAS describing myself in those posts, and I AM one of those people who are concerned about Superman's character on a Moral issue, as that is very important to me. I just wouldn't consider myself hyper-moralistic.....lol.

but, you actually bring up a good point. Donner did introduce the idea of Supes having sex with Lois out of wedlock (Naturally, I really didn't like that part of the movie).

So, it's not totally Singer's fault......It' Donner's fault too........lol......

 

[Saint]

That's happening, actually.

Or so some fans theorize. If it does happen, it illustrates my point well: it means the comics are playing catch-up with the movies, when the opposite should be true. In any case, I do think Superman should have a child in the comics, just not in the ridiculous way Superman Returns is doing it.

Superman fathered that bastard Child in Superman II, so Donner did that poorly, I guess Yes, I know I'm being a smartass for the sake of it, but honestly, Superman giving up being a superhero to bang Lois Lane on a giant Mylar bed was just as irresponsible as leaving for a few years to find out about Krypton for himself. Not as many indignant complaints about that one.

I have never defended Superman's irresponsibility in Superman II. Unlike most here, I do not consider the Donner films to be godly. In fact, I find it rather ridiculous that Clark didn't say to his Mother "Uh, I'm going to keep my powers AND have a relationship with Lois because there's really nothing you can do to stop me."

Me--I don't like EITHER plot point in EITHER movie, really, but to act like this is a new stream of piss in the fans face is sorta disingenuous. It's the same piss, it just stinks different.

Since I never said a word defending Superman II, I don't know why you're even talking about this...

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

Superman should know, more than anyone, that it is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE to have sex with a girl, get her pregnant, and then ABANDON her for 5 years and leave her to raise the kid without the real father!

& how do we know at the time either of them knew Lois was Preganent when Superman decided to leave ? Why not try getting the facts first & see the Movie first. Sure its wrong the way he left but if he or Lois had no idea that she Preganent after that encounter you can not blame Superman for that. I am sure if he knew ahead of time Lois was Preganent he never would have left. You can not blame Superman for leaving & not knowing she was Preganent. Superman is an Orphan you can not blame any Orphan for wanting to see for themselves where they came from Destroyed or not & like I said up to when he leaves if he has no idea Lois was Preganent then you can not put any blame on him for that.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Donner did introduce the idea of Supes having sex with Lois out of wedlock (Naturally, I really didn't like that part of the movie).

Not only did Donner introduce that idea, he had Superman give up on being Superman--for some poon. At least Singer has him giving up on Earth to find out about his homeworld. Donner had him give up Superman for Margot Kidder's hambox. BLECH.

And what's funny is that we all FOLLOWED IT. We went with it. I think it's crap now, yes, and I thought it stunk mildly of crap THEN ("Homies before Hoes, Superman! Don't get in the chamber! No!") but a large number of people, fanboys especially, still cite Superman II as the best superhero movie ever, and THAT'S the movie that includes the cellophane S, the finger power, and Superman abandoning his duties and responsibilites as a superhero to bang Lois Lane.

My problem is that apparently Singer has decided to base the entirety of his character motivation on THAT PLOT POINT from Superman II--and that's a very bad choice, I think. But again--I'll see the flick, because Donner/Lester somehow managed to get people to forget how off-base the character was straying in his Mylar post-coitus love lump, so maybe Singer can make Superkid seem like a logical progression of the Film Superman story.

I'm skeptical, however.

Since I never said a word defending Superman II, I don't know why you're even talking about this...

Well, then I was probably speaking generally at that point, and not directly TO YOU or in response to you. Sorry for any confusion on that.

 

[X Knight]

hey Dnsk,

as I've said before, hopefully the movie will give good explanations for all of that and put everything in its proper context.

so, yes, I will definately see the movie. I want to see Supes back in all of his glory.

I'm just getting a little bummed out by the whole Kid issue and the lack of clarity on the subject.

but, as you said, we won't know until we SEE the movie.......or at least until we get a LEGIT movie review..........

So.....yes......I agree with you...let's all SEE the movie first, and find out the real truth before we totally lose hope. This movie certainly looks amazing!!!!

Some people on this board are saying the movie will SUCK when they haven't even seen it.....lol We must all form our own opinions........

But, in the meantime, some of us can still worry and be a little cautious, as we wait......

 

[Desk]

& how do we know at the time either of them knew Lois was Preganent when Superman decided to leave ? Why not try getting the facts first & see the Movie first.

The problem is that it doesn't matter who knew what when... the end result remains the same - Superman has been an absentee father to a child born outside of a loving relationship.

You're quite right to say that it's not the fault of the character. It's the fault of Singer and the writers for allowing the character to find himself in this situation.

If, in a running gag, Superman Returns saw Superman continually get covered in cow manure as a result of events outside his control it would diminish the character. As with the child it would not be the fault of the character - it would be the fault of the writers for choosing to place the character in this ignominious position.

 

[Matt]

See The Legend of Zorro for my problem with the kid. The child of the protaganist sucking is inevitable.

 

[Desk]

Not only did Donner introduce that idea, he had Superman give up on being Superman--for some poon.

Yeah, but Donner and co. recognised that Superman dealing with the complications of a human relationship with Lois should be an interesting diversion and not the status quo. At the end of the movie, having explored this notion, he put the genie back in the bottle.

What Singer has done is not only let the genie out again, but with the arrival of the kid created a situation where it is nigh on impossible to put it back in.

 

[Matt]

Yeah, but Donner and co. recognised that Superman dealing with the complications of a human relationship with Lois should be an interesting diversion and not the status quo. At the end of the movie, having explored this notion, he put the genie back in the bottle.

What Singer has done is not only let the genie out again, but with the arrival of the kid created a situation where it is nigh on impossible to put it back in.

However, there is another way. Just do a restart focusing on a post-crisis Superman. Wasn't the point of post-Crisis to make Superman more human and less super? There was a much smarter way to approach it...and Singer just brushed it off due to his hard on for Donner.

 

[skruloos]

See The Legend of Zorro for my problem with the kid. The child of the protaganist sucking is inevitable.

Not necessarily. Depending on how the kid is used, I think it can work. Terminator 2, in my opinion, handled the child well. Now, I'm not saying that is how the child is handled in SR. Just showing that having a "kid" doesn't automatically mean it will suck. Like with most things, it depends on execution.

 

[Matt]

Not necessarily. Depending on how the kid is used, I think it can work. Terminator 2, in my opinion, handled the child well. Now, I'm not saying that is how the child is handled in SR. Just showing that having a "kid" doesn't automatically mean it will suck. Like with most things, it depends on execution.

Terminator 2 handled it well because the Terminator has no personality. It is a machine. John Conner was meant to be the main character. Not the Terminator. He was the focus, not the son of the protaginist.