Superman Returns The KID.....merged threads
- Thread starter sheltz32tt
- Start date
X Knight
Straight Edge
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 42,197
- Reaction score
- 1,573
- Points
- 103
No, Desk. I wouldn't think much of the person, either.
That's why, for some of us, if Singer and Co. decided to go that route, it would damage the character. Otherwise, there better be a VERY GOOD explanation to Superman's actions.
Obviously, for some, it wouldn't be a big deal, but for others, it would indeed matter. That doesn't make us close or narrow minded. It just contradicts our moral beliefs and makes the character somewhat distateful.
Ironically, isn't this similar to what happened in an alternate vision of the Spiderman movie? I think it was the one written by James Cameron. If I remember correctly, there was a scene where Spiderman had sex with Mary Jane on a bridge, and that was without Mary Jane knowing who Spiderman's real identity.
Now, granted, Singer is probably not going to include an actual "sex scene" in SR. But, the premise seems to be the same.
That is, our beloved heroes are acting quite out of character, are acting irresponsibly, and in a sense, taking advantage of a girl, because she is "infatuated" with the superhero.
Thank goodness Raimi did not include that in his version of Spiderman, as I'm sure many fans, myself included, found the concept distasteful.
Ironically, it seems us Superman fans may be getting a similar concept in our movie. And, as evidenced by the reaction on these boards, not everyone is particularly fond of the idea.
That's why, for some of us, if Singer and Co. decided to go that route, it would damage the character. Otherwise, there better be a VERY GOOD explanation to Superman's actions.
Obviously, for some, it wouldn't be a big deal, but for others, it would indeed matter. That doesn't make us close or narrow minded. It just contradicts our moral beliefs and makes the character somewhat distateful.
Ironically, isn't this similar to what happened in an alternate vision of the Spiderman movie? I think it was the one written by James Cameron. If I remember correctly, there was a scene where Spiderman had sex with Mary Jane on a bridge, and that was without Mary Jane knowing who Spiderman's real identity.
Now, granted, Singer is probably not going to include an actual "sex scene" in SR. But, the premise seems to be the same.
That is, our beloved heroes are acting quite out of character, are acting irresponsibly, and in a sense, taking advantage of a girl, because she is "infatuated" with the superhero.
Thank goodness Raimi did not include that in his version of Spiderman, as I'm sure many fans, myself included, found the concept distasteful.
Ironically, it seems us Superman fans may be getting a similar concept in our movie. And, as evidenced by the reaction on these boards, not everyone is particularly fond of the idea.
afan
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,642
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 58
Desk said:
The shooting script details Lois' car trapped in the fissure, but Superman rescues her.
By the way the missle that Superman directs into space is ultimately responsible for setting Zod free.
Not sure if changes were made only after Donner realized he wouldn't complete SII.
skruloos
Superhero
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 5,123
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I wouldn't see them jumping for joy, but depending on the character, they could take it in different ways. I'd think that Superman, being the noble character he is, would realize his mistake and accept responsibility honorably. I think he'd be willing to do whatever he could to make things right with Lois and the child.Desk said:
gdw
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,873
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 33
Now it seems pretty clear that Lois' love child is the 'organic web-shooters' of this film.
For those that don't remember, or know, the first Spider-man film sparked a lot of controversy, even before the Power Rang- sorry, the green goblin was unveiled. It came from the organic web-Shooters being used instead of Mechanical ones.
This lead to any fans deeming the movie Man-Spider, implying that he was more spider then man, or being made into even more of a genetic freak then he already was. (The guy sticks to things, come on)
Aside from the fact that they decided it was appropriate to put the MAN before the Spider in reflection of this in the title (which makes no sense because they were saying it was too much spider, so why put 'man' first in the name) they seemed to find this a bastardization of the character.
Hence the MANsuper, which in this case is more appropriate as it IS more of a possibly humanizing change, focusing more on just the man, or any man, rather the n the fact that this is SUPERman.
As we all know, Spider-man went onto be one of the top grossing films of all time, and is a huge success and franchise to boot.
Now on to Returns:
I believe, as do many, that this film will be incredible, with or with out the
.
But, it is not something that I like the idea of, largely because it makes so many plot holes. Big plot holes. Those are discussed to death in other threads, and some may find this thread un-necessary, but I just thought the title was clever
Seriously though, it seems that every film will have things that not everyone will like.
In the end they often become overlooked, and the film turns out to be incredible despite them.
Is this a good thing?
Does this mean that the "changes" to the character and or their mythos are acceptable? Or does it perhaps go to show that they were truly inconsequential? If so, then should we really be complaining?
Of course if they really dont matter all that much in the end, ell then perhaps that is all the more reason TOO argue against them, as they do not end up serving any purpose that the film could have done just as well with out.
In other words, if things with the kid pan out the way they seem to be heading towards now, and yet the film is huge, AND the kid thing works well in the story; considering the way it sounds, it should, as far as being a good film; but is not really something that betters it as a SUPERMAN film why should it be there in the end then?
Looking at the organic web shooters, they did not kill the film, and sure they worked in the context and added to his discovery of powers, but were they really a beneficial change, or addition, rather then simply one that provided a horizontal shift?
Do either of these, in the end, work as an improvement, or really just something different that doesn't really move the character up or down, but simply to a place sideways, being no better or worse for wear, just different?
If that is the case, and it worked the way it was, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Or is it justified being a change that is simply something different for the character(s), Superman (and Lois)?
In the end, I do not mind so much if the two progress to
as a natural development of their characters and their relationship, but is it really something needed for the movie, and in the way they are doing it?
Glenn
For those that don't remember, or know, the first Spider-man film sparked a lot of controversy, even before the Power Rang- sorry, the green goblin was unveiled. It came from the organic web-Shooters being used instead of Mechanical ones.
This lead to any fans deeming the movie Man-Spider, implying that he was more spider then man, or being made into even more of a genetic freak then he already was. (The guy sticks to things, come on)
Aside from the fact that they decided it was appropriate to put the MAN before the Spider in reflection of this in the title (which makes no sense because they were saying it was too much spider, so why put 'man' first in the name) they seemed to find this a bastardization of the character.
Hence the MANsuper, which in this case is more appropriate as it IS more of a possibly humanizing change, focusing more on just the man, or any man, rather the n the fact that this is SUPERman.
As we all know, Spider-man went onto be one of the top grossing films of all time, and is a huge success and franchise to boot.
Now on to Returns:
I believe, as do many, that this film will be incredible, with or with out the
child being Supermans
But, it is not something that I like the idea of, largely because it makes so many plot holes. Big plot holes. Those are discussed to death in other threads, and some may find this thread un-necessary, but I just thought the title was clever
Seriously though, it seems that every film will have things that not everyone will like.
In the end they often become overlooked, and the film turns out to be incredible despite them.
Is this a good thing?
Does this mean that the "changes" to the character and or their mythos are acceptable? Or does it perhaps go to show that they were truly inconsequential? If so, then should we really be complaining?
Of course if they really dont matter all that much in the end, ell then perhaps that is all the more reason TOO argue against them, as they do not end up serving any purpose that the film could have done just as well with out.
In other words, if things with the kid pan out the way they seem to be heading towards now, and yet the film is huge, AND the kid thing works well in the story; considering the way it sounds, it should, as far as being a good film; but is not really something that betters it as a SUPERMAN film why should it be there in the end then?
Looking at the organic web shooters, they did not kill the film, and sure they worked in the context and added to his discovery of powers, but were they really a beneficial change, or addition, rather then simply one that provided a horizontal shift?
Do either of these, in the end, work as an improvement, or really just something different that doesn't really move the character up or down, but simply to a place sideways, being no better or worse for wear, just different?
If that is the case, and it worked the way it was, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Or is it justified being a change that is simply something different for the character(s), Superman (and Lois)?
In the end, I do not mind so much if the two progress to
eventually have kid(s)
Glenn
gdw
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,873
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 33
ultimatefan said:
Yes, it seems that making the kid his seemss to wrap it all up nicely (well, not for Richard, or for the kid who finds out that he is not his daddy anymore) and is a cop out for the main character's conflicts.
As is making the kic richards from another relationship, as it too wraps things up nicely for supes with out any real effort to resolve the conflict.
gdw
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,873
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 33
Desk said:
Originally he got both missles and one of them was actually what set Zod and his cronies free, ending it with a cliff hanger.
Although I'm not sure, he may have actually only got the one missle, and then it set them free, and they left it with a cliff hanger as to whether or not he gets the second missle too.
But yes, the time reversal thing was ment for the sequel.
So how did Donner intend to wrap up the sequel AFTER he switched the time reversal ending?
Desk
Sidekick
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,229
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Nah - for me, at least, there's a whole raft of contentious issues.gdw said:
The decision to base the film on Donner's 30-year-old singular take on the character, the casting, Clark's decision to abandon his "Neverending Battle," the costume, the bumbling Clark Kent, the Gene Hackman-style Luthor, "Kitty Kowalski," Kal Pen, the decision to try and incorporate Williams' score into Ottman's, the retread of story elements from the first two films...
The kid being Supes' son may be most obvious focus of debate at present, but that's only because it's only just been "confirmed."
There are plenty of other issues which have prompted dispute and division.
Zor-El
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I think it was Lester's idea....i forget where i read that (maybe the Salkind interview from a few months back?) but i think when Lester was brought in toward the end of S:TM, he suggested lois' death/turning the world back to ratchet up the drama or something...afan said:
X Knight
Straight Edge
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 42,197
- Reaction score
- 1,573
- Points
- 103
hey all,
I've been hearing rumours of Superman only being gone for a few weeks or months, from his perspective, which actually was 5 some years in "Earth time."
Are there any truths to these rumours?
If that is indeed the case, then that could be an interesting and plausible "solution" to the Kid being Superman's.
Now, bear with me for a moment.......
Let's say Supes and Lois did have sex in the FOS, ala Superman 2, minus the Amnesia Kiss ( a totally made-up power ). So, there is a chance that Supes does know and expect Lois to get pregnant. And, he is expecting to be a father, and he and Lois love each other and are expecting to start a family.
But, Supes learns that the remains of Krypton have been located in space. Realizing that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to discover his heritage and found out if he is indeed the last of his kind, Superman is now faced with a moral dilemma. Does he "leave" Lois and his future child to look for Krypton, as well as abandon Earth, which he swore to protect?
Now, perhaps Superman calculates that it would only take him a few weeks or few months to make the round-trip. With that thought, Superman figures that he should be back in that amount of time, and Lois and the world is not going to change. This would also tie into Lex getting out of prison. Doesn't Lex get out because Superman failed to testify against Lex? Well, againl, by Superman's thought, he should be back from his trip in time to testify.
In other words, from Superman's perspective, he would be able to make the trip to Krypton, but he would be back in time so that he could continue his duties here on Earth.
Now, let's say that the trip did indeed take a few weeks or months from Superman's perspective, but in our Earth time, it actually took 5 some years.
So, Superman, upon returning, discovers that the whole world has changed and moved on. But, Superman was not expecting this, because he thought he would only be gone a few weeks.
It's sort of like a Rip Van Winkle scenario. And, now Superman must pick up the pieces of his life where he left off.
Wouldn't this scenario be alot more plausible and acceptable?
I've been hearing rumours of Superman only being gone for a few weeks or months, from his perspective, which actually was 5 some years in "Earth time."
Are there any truths to these rumours?
If that is indeed the case, then that could be an interesting and plausible "solution" to the Kid being Superman's.
Now, bear with me for a moment.......
Let's say Supes and Lois did have sex in the FOS, ala Superman 2, minus the Amnesia Kiss ( a totally made-up power ). So, there is a chance that Supes does know and expect Lois to get pregnant. And, he is expecting to be a father, and he and Lois love each other and are expecting to start a family.
But, Supes learns that the remains of Krypton have been located in space. Realizing that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to discover his heritage and found out if he is indeed the last of his kind, Superman is now faced with a moral dilemma. Does he "leave" Lois and his future child to look for Krypton, as well as abandon Earth, which he swore to protect?
Now, perhaps Superman calculates that it would only take him a few weeks or few months to make the round-trip. With that thought, Superman figures that he should be back in that amount of time, and Lois and the world is not going to change. This would also tie into Lex getting out of prison. Doesn't Lex get out because Superman failed to testify against Lex? Well, againl, by Superman's thought, he should be back from his trip in time to testify.
In other words, from Superman's perspective, he would be able to make the trip to Krypton, but he would be back in time so that he could continue his duties here on Earth.
Now, let's say that the trip did indeed take a few weeks or months from Superman's perspective, but in our Earth time, it actually took 5 some years.
So, Superman, upon returning, discovers that the whole world has changed and moved on. But, Superman was not expecting this, because he thought he would only be gone a few weeks.
It's sort of like a Rip Van Winkle scenario. And, now Superman must pick up the pieces of his life where he left off.
Wouldn't this scenario be alot more plausible and acceptable?
X Knight
Straight Edge
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 42,197
- Reaction score
- 1,573
- Points
- 103
hey Desk,
That's true.
But, perhaps Clark crushes the picture because he's realizing that Lois did indeed have his Kid, but now Lois and His Kid are now with another guy.
Also, it's not entirely clear that Lois knows Superman's identity or not. When she says "Clark you're back!!" she could be saying that to not blow his cover in public. But, in private, she might have a very different reaction.
We just don't know.......and the Amnesia Kiss is a totally made up power.......So, if Singer is just using the prior movies as "Vague history" then the Kiss is one aspect you could just write off and pretend it didn't happen.
That's true.
But, perhaps Clark crushes the picture because he's realizing that Lois did indeed have his Kid, but now Lois and His Kid are now with another guy.
Also, it's not entirely clear that Lois knows Superman's identity or not. When she says "Clark you're back!!" she could be saying that to not blow his cover in public. But, in private, she might have a very different reaction.
We just don't know.......and the Amnesia Kiss is a totally made up power.......So, if Singer is just using the prior movies as "Vague history" then the Kiss is one aspect you could just write off and pretend it didn't happen.
Zor-El
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
regardless of the identity of his father, the kid is intended to represent the idea that the world, Lois included, has moved on since Superman left. I assume this is supposed to be somewhat of a shock to Superman, so i doubt he'd know she was pregnant...super-bats said:
SuperDaniel
Superhero
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 9,782
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
I hate this kid discussion. Its obvious that this movie is about Superman and his human side. His connection to the world. Superman is the most human alien so its perfectly reasonable for a man to be a father and i cant understand why people don`t get this! Lois & Superman love each other. Why can`t they be parents? Bul****.
I applaud Singer and the writers to take the risk, show character development and take the next step in Superman`s relationship with Lois that was getting so boring in the comics. I bet that he will have a kid in the comics too.
And i still think Richard White is a bad guy.
I applaud Singer and the writers to take the risk, show character development and take the next step in Superman`s relationship with Lois that was getting so boring in the comics. I bet that he will have a kid in the comics too.
And i still think Richard White is a bad guy.
X Knight
Straight Edge
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 42,197
- Reaction score
- 1,573
- Points
- 103
hey spiderdaniel.....
I think, for some of us, we are not opposed to Supes and Lois having a child per se..........
It's the WAY they become parents that concerns us.
As you say, Supes and Lois love each other. If they were married, like in the comics, then having a kid at some point would be ok, for me. And, that would actually be a very interesting and natural progression of the characters.
But, in the movie, their relationship is not like that. It doesn't seem they are in a loving, long-term relationship.
It sounds like Supes had sex with Lois, got her pregnant, and then LEFT for 5 some years.
Granted, we don't know all of the circumstances, which hopefully will all be explained in the movie.
But, so far, there is the impression that Supes is an irresponsible dead-beat dad. I think THAT'S what is bothering some of us.
I think, for some of us, we are not opposed to Supes and Lois having a child per se..........
It's the WAY they become parents that concerns us.
As you say, Supes and Lois love each other. If they were married, like in the comics, then having a kid at some point would be ok, for me. And, that would actually be a very interesting and natural progression of the characters.
But, in the movie, their relationship is not like that. It doesn't seem they are in a loving, long-term relationship.
It sounds like Supes had sex with Lois, got her pregnant, and then LEFT for 5 some years.
Granted, we don't know all of the circumstances, which hopefully will all be explained in the movie.
But, so far, there is the impression that Supes is an irresponsible dead-beat dad. I think THAT'S what is bothering some of us.
neelyohara
Civilian
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
If "the kid" was written into the comics tommorow, and put into comic continuity, would you be more accepting of him?
MatchesMalone
Sidekick
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,618
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Nope. I still refuse to accept that Supes and Lois are married. Such a stupid, boring, pointlessly bland storyline.
Michael Corleone
Don Corleone
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2003
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 58
MatchesMalone said:
It does water down the tension between the two. But that aside...shouldnt this be merged with another thread?
ReporterKent
Civilian
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
MatchesMalone said:
Pfft. Better that than being stuck in a timeless loop.
"Hey Lois I need to go into the supply closet and phone my congressman, I'll be in there awhile!"
CConn
Fountainhead of culture.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 57,619
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 58
The idea of Supes and Lois having a kid in the comics has been hinted at for a while now, actually. I wouldn't really be against it happening in the comics, but would it help me accept the kid in the movie? Not at all. Not to say I'm completely deadset against the kid in the movie, but realize the difference between the comics and movies - I realize that they can be different, and still be good - and if the kid' story isn't done well in the movie, no matter what happens in the comics, it will not improve that situation at all. Obviously, conversely, if the kid's story is done well, I'll have no problem his existance in the film or its relation to his status in the comics.
lujho
Superhero
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 5,409
- Reaction score
- 72
- Points
- 73
I don't dislike the fact that Lois and Clark somehow have a kid in the movie - I didlike the way it's done and the way it's tied in to film 2. It all comes down to the "requel" thing and the fact that Supes has been gone etc.
If the kid were introduce into the comics tomorrow it would be by neccessity a different story. He wouldn't be called Jason White, for one thing, he'd (probably) be Kal Kent.
I suppose some variation of "Whatever Haqppened to the Man of Tomorrow" would be a good final movie in a Superman series... so yeah, it's the the kid that's a problem, it's the way it's done.
If the kid were introduce into the comics tomorrow it would be by neccessity a different story. He wouldn't be called Jason White, for one thing, he'd (probably) be Kal Kent.
I suppose some variation of "Whatever Haqppened to the Man of Tomorrow" would be a good final movie in a Superman series... so yeah, it's the the kid that's a problem, it's the way it's done.
Nautica7mk
Civilian
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
I disagree. Twenty years from now, I don't want to be reading or watching something that I've seen my entire life. I'm pro-marriage and the child for the mere fact that it explores something different with the characters. The only thing that concerns me now is how well (or horrible) they tell the tale, IMO.afan said:
It dissolves the whole Clark / Lois / Superman angle.
One of the cornerstones of that being that the audience is in on the charade, take that away and the dramatic interest is nil.
Similar threads
Superman Returns
The Donner Cut ... will that help us???
- SuperDave
- Donner's Superman
Superman Returns
Hints of "Son of Superman" ?
