Superman Returns The KID.....merged threads

[Desk]

Anyone remember an episode of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman where a single mother turns up with her superpowered son, claiming that Superman unwittingly fathered him and is an absentee, deadbeat dad?

The episode was so effective because this notion was just so far removed from what we know of Superman. The audience was supposed to be outraged at this woman making such ridiculous claims, and that the fictional readers of The Daily Planet newspaper might actually think our hero capable of this.

And yet, isn't this eerily close to the scenario we're now supposed to reconcile with that same hero in this film?

 

[Tzigone]

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.

That's not true. If it is his child, that child was not born "outside of a loving relationship" - because the first two movies clearly show they were in love.

 

[Matt]

That's not true. If it is his child, that child was not born "outside of a loving relationship" - because the first two movies clearly show they were in love.

Not really, Clark may love Lois, but Lois is simply infatuated with Superman, which is why I liked Lois and Clark. No medium has ever shown the split personalities of Superman and Clark better. No medium has ever shown how Clark is competing with himself. Plus they gave Lois affection towards Clark and Superman, to make it not seem like "Oh, so you're Superman? NOW I can love you."

 

[Desk]

That's not true. If it is his child, that child was not born "outside of a loving relationship" - because the first two movies clearly show they were in love.

It was conceived as a result of a loving but very fleeting relationship. However, it wasn't born or raised within that relationship as Superman had already left months before on his 6-odd year trip to Krypton.

 

[skruloos]

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.

Yes but the Protagonist in the first movie was Sarah Connor. She is the one with the child. She is also the protagonist in the 2nd movie along with John. The Terminator was never the protagonist so I don't know why you bring him up.

 

[Tzigone]

Not really, Clark may love Lois, but Lois is simply infatuated with Superman, which is why I liked Lois and Clark.

We'll have to disagree. I love LnC. But, per the movies, Lois is in love with Superman. Maybe it's silly - she barely knows him. But it is portrayed as love.

 

[shelle]

Delurking to ask if the following quote helps shed light on the whole kid debacle? :

Harris: [Richard White]'s like Clark Kent. He’s almost the guy but he's not quite it. [Lois is] fully committed and has this great relationship with him and had a child with him and yet hasn't tied the knot, hasn't gone that extra bit. So it's a real world family, people have indecision.

from http://www.superherohype.com/news/featuresnews.php?id=4205

(SHH SR Set Visit pt. 9, interview with SR writers Mike Dougherty and Dan Harris)

If the kid is Richard's and Lois', would that calm everyone down?

 

[Phaser]

Delurking to ask if the following quote helps shed light on the whole kid debacle? :


from http://www.superherohype.com/news/featuresnews.php?id=4205

(SHH SR Set Visit pt. 9, interview with SR writers Mike Dougherty and Dan Harris)

If the kid is Richard's and Lois', would that calm everyone down?

No, then they would cry for making Superman a homewrecker. It's a lose-lose situation any way you see it.

 

[ultimatefan]

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.

Well, I´m in the field that having sex before marriage doesn´t necessarily mean you have an obligation to stick with the girl. Of course you have responsibility if she gets pregnant, but obviously Clark didn´t know that when he left. If he left right after they had sex, that was irresponsible. If he still was around for a while and she got pregnant and didn´t tell him, or took a while to find out, it´s more forgivable, IMO.

 

[ultimatefan]

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.

The writers´job is to create dramatic tension, not to make things simpler for the character. That´s why I think making the kid his is sort of an easy way out.

 

[Desk]

Well, I´m in the field that having sex before marriage doesn´t necessarily mean you have an obligation to stick with the girl. Of course you have responsibility if she gets pregnant, but obviously Clark didn´t know that when he left. If he left right after they had sex, that was irresponsible. If he still was around for a while and she got pregnant and didn´t tell him, or took a while to find out, it´s more forgivable, IMO.

But regardless of how innocent the character of Superman may have been in the context of the story, isn't it wrong that the screenwriters have written this iconic hero into such an embarassing and ignominious position?

 

[Desk]

The writers´job is to create dramatic tension, not to make things simpler for the character.

You're forgetting another key duty of the writers - to treat established, iconic characters with respect.

If they're unable to create dramatic tension without placing Superman in an embarassing and ignominious position then they're clearly not up to the challenge of writing for the character.

 

[Zor-El]

I've been talking withy my brother (20 yrs old) about the kid, and the possibilities therein. He was very anti-death of the kid, and also said if anyone has a child with lois lane, it should be Superman.
I'd like to point out that I honestly dont agree with what he said (lol), but i'm gonna post it anyhow because its one of the more unique ideas that i've heard about the kid...
"I figured it out! THE KID IS SUPERMAN'S, but not for the reason everybody says! Here is what I think. Luthor in his quest to destroy Superman decides to create his own Super man. He takes the DNA of Superman and mixes it with human DNA and finds a surogate (not sure how it is Lois, but you never know). Nine months later, the kid is born. "Super-Boy" (my project nickname for him) seems not to display any powers for the first five years and is raised by Lois and Richard. Then in the movie, in his quest to destroy Superman, Luthor uses Kryptonite and the boy tries to stop him and is killed
...If this situation is correct, then I would be content with his heroic death.
and I am in no way trying to say this kid is suppose to be the real Superboy in anyway. I'm just trying to say that Luthor is trying to build a New Krypton and of course needs New Kryptonians and since Big Blue won't be for the idea, Lex needs to create his own hybrid of people and the kid is just the preliminary test. And hey, it is not a long stretch to have this happen...I mean Luthor and DNA testing is part of comic book canon!"

again...just his thoughts, likely not true, but an interesting theory nonetheless...

 

[Mattman]

"I figured it out! THE KID IS SUPERMAN'S, but not for the reason everybody says! Here is what I think. Luthor in his quest to destroy Superman decides to create his own Super man. He takes the DNA of Superman and mixes it with human DNA and finds a surogate (not sure how it is Lois, but you never know). Nine months later, the kid is born. "Super-Boy" (my project nickname for him) seems not to display any powers for the first five years and is raised by Lois and Richard. Then in the movie, in his quest to destroy Superman, Luthor uses Kryptonite and the boy tries to stop him and is killed
...If this situation is correct, then I would be content with his heroic death.
and I am in no way trying to say this kid is suppose to be the real Superboy in anyway. I'm just trying to say that Luthor is trying to build a New Krypton and of course needs New Kryptonians and since Big Blue won't be for the idea, Lex needs to create his own hybrid of people and the kid is just the preliminary test. And hey, it is not a long stretch to have this happen...I mean Luthor and DNA testing is part of comic book canon!"

That is pretty original. Like you said, probably not true what so ever. But better reasoning for the kid than Joel Schumacher's one for Bat Nipples. lol

 

[Cinemaman]

If the kid is Richard's, Superman have no sense to be with Lois, because she is happy with her family

If the kid is Super's and have no superpowers, it will be better, because we will not have Superboy. But we also can have a new victim for Lex

If the kid is Super's and have superpowers, we will get anothe Superboy

If the kid is Super's and dies in the movie, Superman will not be with Lois, but then in sequel they will be together again

If the kid is Richard's and dies, Lois will hate Superman, because he didnt save the kid

 

[Atomic Crusader]

My thoughts on Superman having a kid: Its a disgraceful imposition by the movie studio. Wait, its worse than disgraceful, its disgusting.

 

[The Caped Knight]

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?

First of all, I believe the kid is Clark's kid, And I really I'm glad Lois & Clark can have a children. I always hated The article Man of Steel,
Woman of Kleenex Bull****. SUPERMAN should be able to have a child with Lois. Just because he's an alien from out of space with super powers doesn't mean he's not able to have a child with the woman he loves. Lois & Clark have had sex more than once . And she hasn't been hurt in fact she loves it. so if Lois can handle having sex with Clark In the comics . Then she can handle giving birth to a child .

Now in the movie like yourself. I hated The Whole kiss erasing in "SUPERMAN II" . I believe the kid is a result to Lois & Clark have sex in The Fortress of Solitude , SUPERMAN II now mind you Clark was powerless. However I believe that some of Clark DNA was left with inside of Lois . And when He got his powers back , his Kryptonian DNA was also left inside of Lois.

 

[ultimatefan]

You're forgetting another key duty of the writers - to treat established, iconic characters with respect.

If they're unable to create dramatic tension without placing Superman in an embarassing and ignominious position then they're clearly not up to the challenge of writing for the character.

Well, I personally don´t find that position as embarrassing and ignominious as you do, especially since he didn´t know she was pregnant. How he didn´t know is what remains to be seen.

 

[Nivek]

you know, what if the Kid isn't Supes, but the kid idolises Superman because of his mother admiration for him. that would be strange.

but hey, it wouldn't have gotten filmed if whatever they did was that contrived.

 

[Hugh'sMrs]

Okay when I first read the following quote I thought he was saying that Superman IS the kid's daddy, but he's not saying that at all.

The fans know Superman is the kids father. But in the movie it is not bad. Your almost wishing he is the father, just because you know he is supposed to be with Lois.

 

[Desk]

Okay when I first read the following quote I thought he was saying that Superman IS the kid's daddy, but he's not saying that at all.

Yes he is. Allow me to spell it out....

The fans know Superman is the kids father.

"The fans have all either already guessed that Superman is the kid's father, or have read reviews which confirmed this fact in advance."

But in the movie it is not bad.

"Despite your concerns about this fact it's actually handled quite well."

Your almost wishing he is the father, just because you know he is supposed to be with Lois.

"You don't know for sure that the kid is Superman's when he's first introduced, and because of Supes' relationship to Lois you find yourself beginning to hope that he is up until it's actually confirmed."

A poor choice of phrasing on the reviewer's part, but you can see what he's trying to say.

 

[afan]

^ This review also offers the observation that .......
"What the child does is cement the fact that lois has MOVED ON........."

Now if the child is Superman's how does the child represent that at all?

 

[Desk]

^ This review also offers the observation that .......
"What the child does is cement the fact that lois has MOVED ON........."

Now if the child is Superman's how does the child represent that at all?

Because at the start of the film we don't know the kid is Superman's, so it initially appears to both Clark Kent and the cinema audience that Lois has moved on to create a family which has no connection to her past life with the Man of Steel.

However, as we learn later on Lois' hasn't been able to move on from Superman because the child is revealed to actually be his son.

 

[gdw]

I have no problem with them having sex, and no problem with them eventually having a child, BUT what I do have a problem with is how Superman would have had to sleep with Lois without telling her who he is, OR they will be keeping some sort of memory loss thing in the story.

This is not some close minded thinking on the subject, these are simply the onlytwo options left if the paint then selves into this corer.

They have already established that in Returns Lois does NOT know Clark is Superman. So either she doesn't remember it, and thus doesn't remember sleeping with Superman, or he slept with her and never told her the truth, what a dick if he did

I can not seem to think of any other way around it. Can anyone else think of a theory?

 

[Venom71]

Because at the start of the film we don't know the kid is Superman's, so it initially appears to both Clark Kent and the cinema audience that Lois has moved on to create a family which has no connection to her past life with the Man of Steel.

However, as we learn later on Lois' hasn't been able to move on from Superman because the child is revealed to actually be his son.

What a lucky person you are to have already been able to see SR.