Superman Returns The KID.....merged threads

[afan]

^ It's the end of the drama.
Just consider all the films that involve male / female lead characters who are romantically drawn together but for whatever plot device must remain apart. When the plot device is resolved and they finally fall into each others arms the story is over roll the credits. Why because the drama is gone, kaput, non existant.
The intersting facet in the scenario here is that Lois has a realationship with two men who are the same person. It's the mother lode of intergender relationship tension. Why would you possibly want to dull that with marraige!

 

[Tzigone]

I hate static relationships that never progress. There's a reason I stopped watching X-Files (besides the ever-screwy, ever-contradictory mythology)

 

[Nautica7mk]

I hate static relationships that never progress. There's a reason I stopped watching X-Files (besides the ever-screwy, ever-contradictory mythology)

Exactly. Especially after so many people were so invested in the characters.

 

[afan]

I hate static relationships that never progress. There's a reason I stopped watching X-Files (besides the ever-screwy, ever-contradictory mythology)

Over time, and this is one of the weaknesses of episodic television, any plot device becomes tiresome. Rest assured if Mulder and Scully began a relationship the show's demise would have been X-cellerated!

 

[Nerial]

I hate static relationships that never progress. There's a reason I stopped watching X-Files (besides the ever-screwy, ever-contradictory mythology)

That show was on WAY longer than it should have been. Especially when Mulder left, and that new guy came in.

Anyway, I do agree on some levels with what you're saying, however. The 'romantic-angst' crap grows sour after awhile. Many times this is due to repetition in the plot.

Nonetheless, that static adds sizzle and conflict and sometimes depth into the characters if it's done right. I just don't want to see it running through three movies. I can take it for this one, though.

 

[Kryptonite]

I hate how Kryptonian powers can be given and taken like this. It's not magic, it's supposed to be a science! The effect of the yellow sun and the weaker gravitational acceleration on Earth was supposed to be the source of Kal-El's powers, not some strange voodoo that Jor-El wields

 

[Cinemaman]

I hate how Kryptonian powers can be given and taken like this. It's not magic, it's supposed to be a science! The effect of the yellow sun and the weaker gravitational acceleration on Earth was supposed to be the source of Kal-El's powers, not some strange voodoo that Jor-El wields

I think it were kryptonian radioactive info-green lights. So it is a science.

 

[Visionary]

I think in the end, you all are going to end up loving that Chucky looking kid.

 

[X Knight]

But......But........Chucky always scared the **** out of me!!!!!!!!!

Superman vs. Chucky...........now that would be interesting.......would Chucky be able to hurt Supes? considering that Supes is vulnerable to magic and Chucky practices vodoo.

 

[afan]

I hate how Kryptonian powers can be given and taken like this. It's not magic, it's supposed to be a science! The effect of the yellow sun and the weaker gravitational acceleration on Earth was supposed to be the source of Kal-El's powers, not some strange voodoo that Jor-El wields

I'm gonna take that thought a step further...........
I don't care for the idea that Green K robs Superman of his powers. Green K causes immense and immediate weakness and after prolonged exposure death, but it does not negate his powers.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I`d like to put my thoughts in this kid thing but first i`ll quote Action Comics #775:

Black is silent for a moment and then his silence turns to rage. He tells Superman that if he thinks that it is over then he is living a dream.

Superman tells Black: "You know what, Black..? I wouldn't have it any other way. Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul I swear... until my dream of a world where dignity, honor and justice becomes the reality we all share... I'll never stop fighting. Ever."

One criticisms over Superman being a father is the if he gets the girl and start raising a family, its the end of his heroic quest. Or even his reward. And thats where you`re wrong. What makes Superman timeless and diferent from any other hero is that his quest is not just personal. Yes, being human, raise a family, fall in love is one part of his quest. But theres more. His quest is also to make Earth a better place to live, to be a better human being, to not give up and keep going on, always.

Superman is idealistic. His ideals for Truth and Justice is something he we`ll always fight for.

So, really, Is being a father and ending up with Lois is the end of his quest? No. Its just one step in his and our never-ending battle.

Hopefully with this post i could cheer you guys up and show how i feel regardin this kid thing.

 

[TheBat812]

"it puts the first film into a vague history, the second film is not in my history. its not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again. We are referencing the first film in the designs and the detail but not over - referencing it."

The kid is not Superman's.

 

[The Kid]

I say the kid is superman's

And so does Mo.

 

[SuperDaniel]

"it puts the first film into a vague history, the second film is not in my history. its not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again. We are referencing the first film in the designs and the detail but not over - referencing it."

The kid is not Superman's.

Man, the kid is Superman`s. We don`t need Superman II to understand Superman and Lois were in Love and had sex.

 

[The Kid]

eww, I find it hard to imagine that they'd have sex and nevah get married and then boom lois has a kid and doesn't think to ask superman to gett a blood test.... it's all too complicated that way. I'll just go with the idea that they did it in superman 2. He gives lois the memory wipe kiss and that's how come she doesn't remember to ask supes to pay child support.

 

[afan]

"it puts the first film into a vague history, the second film is not in my history. its not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again. We are referencing the first film in the designs and the detail but not over - referencing it."

The kid is not Superman's.

Where and who is this quote from?

Man, the kid is Superman`s. We don`t need Superman II to understand Superman and Lois were in Love and had sex.

Yes, we do.

 

[M.O.Steel]

Here's the thing...

Who says that the kid occured during Superman 2, when they had sex? Since the old movies are in "vague history" only, isn't it entirely possible that superman and lois can have sex whenever they want. Do we even know that kryptonians can't have sex with humans? We don't. We're assuming that since he gave up his powers in 2 for lois, that the only way for them to be together, but that doesn't have to be the way.

 

[afan]

Here's the thing...

Who says that the kid occured during Superman 2, when they had sex? Since the old movies are in "vague history" only, isn't it entirely possible that superman and lois can have sex whenever they want. Do we even know that kryptonians can't have sex with humans? We don't. We're assuming that since he gave up his powers in 2 for lois, that the only way for them to be together, but that doesn't have to be the way.

It's not about the physiology and or the biological differences, it's about rules of storytelling.
If SII is not part of the vague history of SR then you just can't pull an intimate relationship between Lois and Clark / Superman out of thin air.

 

[Nautica7mk]

In defense to Lois and Superman's relationship prior to Returns, it has been said that they've been involved before he left. So it really doesn't matter if Superman II is a part of its 'vague' history because either way, the relationship was there between them.

 

[Cinemaman]

Kid isn't Superman's. But he is also can die, see shots with him in tv-spot. There is something strange.

 

[afan]

In defense to Lois and Superman's relationship prior to Returns, it has been said that they've been involved before he left. So it really doesn't matter if Superman II is a part of its 'vague' history because either way, the relationship was there between them.

If you can accept, that Lois and Superman where in an intimate relationship and that consequentially she also knew the secret of the dual identity, based solely on the events portrayed only in STM than yeah it really doesn't matter.

 

[Cinemaman]

I cant understand one thing. If SR is sequel of STM, why Lois know that Superman is Clark Kent???

 

[Venom71]

I cant understand one thing. If SR is sequel of STM, why Lois know that Superman is Clark Kent???

From what we have seen in the trailer it doesn't look like at least IMO that Lois knows Clark and Superman are the same person....she is excited to see Clark in the scene at the DP(when she introduces him to the Munchin) and then she seems to be upset and not very happy to see Superman on the roof of the DP biulding....either she doesn't know..or she does know and is protecting his secret for him in the Lois & Clark scene.

 

[Cinemaman]

From what we have seen in the trailer it doesn't look like at least IMO that Lois knows Clark and Superman are the same person....she is excited to see Clark in the scene at the DP(when she introduces him to the Munchin) and then she seems to be upset and not very happy to see Superman on the roof of the DP biulding....either she doesn't know..or she does know and is protecting his secret for him in the Lois & Clark scene.

But she said: "How could you leave us like that?".

 

[Venom71]

But she said: "How could you leave us like that?".

Yeah..she most likely says that to Superman..us meaning the people of Metropolis/The World.