Visualizing A Superman Reboot: Pictures Welcome

[Jimmy, GL]

1. I think someone follows him home.

2. Singer just has to setup a situation where everyone realizes Superman needs to be Jason's father. Richard can step aside as being responsible and wants what's best for Jason.

3. Superman doesn't have to do anything if the above situation happens.

4. I think the whole point of the movie was that Supes doesn't need his father anymore. When you have children, you are certainly no longer a child.

5. I don't think anyone knows Lex did it. It would just be Supes and Lois' words against his. I admit it is diffucult.

1. I'll agree with this.

2. Don't know how they'd work that, SR followed the story of S2 and that's Superman used the mind-wipe kiss on Lois. There would be no way for Lois to remember and I doubt anyone would know they got jiggy with it in the sack. (Excuse my french)

3. I hate the whole Richard/Lois/Clark thing so i won't talk about it.

4. Supe's didn't need his father in S2 so he shouldn't have needed him in SR. The only reason the crystals were referenced was for the recycled plot. (Another annoying problem about SR.) @Green: Also we saw Kitty throw all the crystals out of the helicopter so therefore they're all on NK. (Can't argue with facts.

5. Everybody will trust Supe's word (knowing he was just in a near death experience). Therefore everyone will know about the Lex killing several millions people thing easily.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

The thing about SII is confusing because of the two versions. Supes did need his father/mother to get his powers back. Adults still need their parent's advice sometimes. A parent doesn't need advice nearly as much.

Yeah, the Lex thing is diffucult. But think about the comics. How many times has Lex done something and got away with it because of lack of evidence? He has the widow's money to buy a good defense.

What does the kiss have to do with SR? Lois realized he was his son at the end of the movie. The situation just needs to be something that makes Richard realize Jason needs his real father. Like a child with special needs.(excuse the comparison)


This is why I love this movie. I hate movies where even I could have written it. I have no idea how Supes is going fix this. I'm sure the WB made Singer pitch how to resolve the situation before signining him.

 

[Brendan]

I feel like maybe/hopefully they'll use the return to krypton scene to show that maybe he was followed back??

That is actually a perfect scenario for bringing Brainiac into the movie. I like it a lot.

 

[bosef982]

I feel the first movie locked itself in a corner with several elements. I have the DVD on order and once I've seen it again, I will be able to critique the movie in a more detailed way (though The Complete Shooting Script book is heartbreaking enough in showing what was cut and what was left in that should have been cut!!!)

1. The Krypton exploration was cut out - how can it easily be used in a sequel when it relates specifically to the events in the first movie? Won't it feel disjointed and out of context?

2. Jason and Richard - they won't kill off the kid, they can't just shove Richard out of the picture or kill him (poor old James Marsden if they do, he was shoved aside enough in X-Men)

3. Lois - since they can't just get rid of Jason and Richard now they've been established, Superman's love for Lois seems doomed. It would be wrong to show Superman destroying the Lois/Richard relationship, it would be too contrived to show some other force destroying that relationship. Does Superman need a new love interest? If so, how do Lois, Richard and Jason fit in?

4. The crystals - they are on NK, which means no more Jor-El, no more communication/control system in the Fortress. Plus, Lex now knows where the Fortress is and he knows there is no security around it.

5. Lex - he is still at large, stuck on an island. He has tried to destroy billions of people so the chances of him becoming a more respectable corporate tycoon are zero.

Can all those issues be resolved? How?

Wow, what you wrote above almost sounds like....CONFLICT!!!!!! Something that all great movies have. The situations at the end of Superman Returns are so much more engaging and interesting then at its beginning. Singer has propelled them into a new arena of character and story, and will no doubt bring it to a head with a great amount of action.

Plus, I think you just take any issue you DON'T LIKE and deem it as being UNRESOLVABLE....they're not the same. You may want to remember that.

 

[bosef982]

I feel the first movie locked itself in a corner with several elements. I have the DVD on order and once I've seen it again, I will be able to critique the movie in a more detailed way (though The Complete Shooting Script book is heartbreaking enough in showing what was cut and what was left in that should have been cut!!!)

1. The Krypton exploration was cut out - how can it easily be used in a sequel when it relates specifically to the events in the first movie? Won't it feel disjointed and out of context?

2. Jason and Richard - they won't kill off the kid, they can't just shove Richard out of the picture or kill him (poor old James Marsden if they do, he was shoved aside enough in X-Men)

3. Lois - since they can't just get rid of Jason and Richard now they've been established, Superman's love for Lois seems doomed. It would be wrong to show Superman destroying the Lois/Richard relationship, it would be too contrived to show some other force destroying that relationship. Does Superman need a new love interest? If so, how do Lois, Richard and Jason fit in?

4. The crystals - they are on NK, which means no more Jor-El, no more communication/control system in the Fortress. Plus, Lex now knows where the Fortress is and he knows there is no security around it.

5. Lex - he is still at large, stuck on an island. He has tried to destroy billions of people so the chances of him becoming a more respectable corporate tycoon are zero.

Can all those issues be resolved? How?

To answer your "issues" though:

1. Singer has said that this may be released as not part of the sequel, but as its own story somewhere down the road. You're creating a red herring argument, a situation that was never discussed in the first place outside of fans who think that that, somehow, would ever be a good idea. Next...

2. I doubt they intend to. I'm sure Singer has a very clear idea where these characters are going. I've suggested any manner of ways, none of which I think will happen, but just some that could create substantive storylines. Jason could have unstable powers, and been seen as a degenerate mistake by the coming Eradicator, forcing Superman to choose between his Kryptonian heritage and Earth. Richard could discover this and go insane, doing something horrible that would push him over the edge and into becoming a "sort of villian" (think harry in SM2). Lois and Richard could become the guardians of Jason, protecting him from Superman's reputation. Luthor knows the kid's Superman's and could work with Brainiac or some villian to stop him. Or, fitting mythology, the child buckles under Superman's legacy as Superman forfiets his life to save the world from Brainiac, and in the third film, Lois and Richard must protect jason from being discovered in a world ravenous for a Superman. There are many ways they could take this, none of which are unresolvable...

3. Read the above. You tried to use one issue as two. Singer seems to be approaching Lois and Superman's relationship as star-crossed, which I like. They CANNOT be together due to who he is and Lois is now the mother of his child, the caretaker of his entire heritage, something that is in some ways larger than their own love. It's an interesting new take on the mythos in a movie that is lamblasted by many as being "unoriginal..."

4. Which will make the rise of Brainiac from the growth of New Krypton and perhaps him taking station at Superman's Fortress of Solitude even the more ominous and awe-inspiring. (see, one sentence to resolve that issue).

5. Which is good...how many evil corporate tycoons have I seen: Kingpin, Norman Osborn, Doctor Doom, Donald Trump...I've had my fill. The World's Greatest Superhero deserves someone more amorphous, more fluid to be his villian. Luthor returning in a different fashion, more bitter than ever, with enough knowledge to literally DESTROY Superman and all those he loves is much more compelling then a penny-pinching Bill Gates with a taste for the sadistic.


See, each one of your issues resolved. Like I said, don't confused what you don't like with that which is unresolvable...

 

[I Am The Knight]

To answer your "issues" though:

1. Singer has said that this may be released as not part of the sequel, but as its own story somewhere down the road. You're creating a red herring argument, a situation that was never discussed in the first place outside of fans who think that that, somehow, would ever be a good idea. Next...

2. I doubt they intend to. I'm sure Singer has a very clear idea where these characters are going. I've suggested any manner of ways, none of which I think will happen, but just some that could create substantive storylines. Jason could have unstable powers, and been seen as a degenerate mistake by the coming Eradicator, forcing Superman to choose between his Kryptonian heritage and Earth. Richard could discover this and go insane, doing something horrible that would push him over the edge and into becoming a "sort of villian" (think harry in SM2). Lois and Richard could become the guardians of Jason, protecting him from Superman's reputation. Luthor knows the kid's Superman's and could work with Brainiac or some villian to stop him. Or, fitting mythology, the child buckles under Superman's legacy as Superman forfiets his life to save the world from Brainiac, and in the third film, Lois and Richard must protect jason from being discovered in a world ravenous for a Superman. There are many ways they could take this, none of which are unresolvable...

3. Read the above. You tried to use one issue as two. Singer seems to be approaching Lois and Superman's relationship as star-crossed, which I like. They CANNOT be together due to who he is and Lois is now the mother of his child, the caretaker of his entire heritage, something that is in some ways larger than their own love. It's an interesting new take on the mythos in a movie that is lamblasted by many as being "unoriginal..."

4. Which will make the rise of Brainiac from the growth of New Krypton and perhaps him taking station at Superman's Fortress of Solitude even the more ominous and awe-inspiring. (see, one sentence to resolve that issue).

5. Which is good...how many evil corporate tycoons have I seen: Kingpin, Norman Osborn, Doctor Doom, Donald Trump...I've had my fill. The World's Greatest Superhero deserves someone more amorphous, more fluid to be his villian. Luthor returning in a different fashion, more bitter than ever, with enough knowledge to literally DESTROY Superman and all those he loves is much more compelling then a penny-pinching Bill Gates with a taste for the sadistic.


See, each one of your issues resolved. Like I said, don't confused what you don't like with that which is unresolvable...

Nice post. Another reminder of why I love the movie so much. Can't wait to see how Supes overcomes all of this!

 

[Jimmy, GL]

To answer your "issues" though:


3. Read the above. You tried to use one issue as two. Singer seems to be approaching Lois and Superman's relationship as star-crossed, which I like. They CANNOT be together due to who he is and Lois is now the mother of his child, the caretaker of his entire heritage, something that is in some ways larger than their own love. It's an interesting new take on the mythos in a movie that is lamblasted by many as being "unoriginal..."

Yes it was... partly. SR was basically the STM just with different story elements. Think about it. Lex luthor = villain. What's his plan? Land mass. Get lots of land. That was his plan for both the first movie and this one. Singer basically took this and said, hey that's a great idea! We'll go with that. The fact that Bryan did that is why I hated the movie. The kid means squat to me. I hoped they would leave him out but instead he's signed on for another two movie *grumble grumble* Either way the main plot of the movie, Lex and New Krypton(Land mass). That's what bugged me and probably several other fans alike.

Also they didn't even use the name of the movie. The movie was supposed to represent Superman's return to earth in a huge galant fashion. Instead by the end of the movie he gets his arse whooped some bald guy and Kumar. Humans have to save him. That was not Superman Returns. It was more like, Humans: The power to be a superhero. SR sucked nads.

 

[Andy C.]

In regards to #5, why is it that everyone seems to think that being an evil businessman is the only part of Lex Luthor's character? LexCorp didn't even exist until the Post-Crisis continuity, and IMO that persona makes him too much of a Kingpin wannabe (especially in MoS where he was all chubby) Luthor's always been the evil genius at heart, and while being filthy stinking rich helps, he's more of a threat to Superman because of his brains, not his money. Sure, when done right, billionaire Lex can be fun, but at the end of the day, he's been "Luthor the Mad Scientist" for much longer, and that's the more important aspect of the character.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

^I'll give people some slack. They grew up with the Post-Crisis version so that's all they care about.

I just like to see Lex and Supes. I'm familiar with different versions so I just wanted to see a good Pre-Crisis version.

And in response to an earlier post. I thought Singer said "Return to Krypton" will be in the sequel.

 

[X-Maniac]

Wow, what you wrote above almost sounds like....CONFLICT!!!!!! Something that all great movies have. The situations at the end of Superman Returns are so much more engaging and interesting then at its beginning. Singer has propelled them into a new arena of character and story, and will no doubt bring it to a head with a great amount of action.

Plus, I think you just take any issue you DON'T LIKE and deem it as being UNRESOLVABLE....they're not the same. You may want to remember that.

I never said the issues were 'unresolvable'. I asked how they could be resolved, how the movie could get itself out of what looked like a tight spot.

Yes, I do not agree with the omission of the Krypton sequence (which is the heart and soul of the movie, and would also have provided some of the sci-fi 'wow' that many people wanted to see); and I do not really feel comfortable with the inclusion of Richard and Jason; nor the portrayal of Lex as an archetypal dastardly villain with a silly plan, like something out of a 1960s/70s Bond movie.

I believe there were better ways of handling those areas. I also feel sorry for James Marsden, whose character once again plays second fiddle to an unmatchable male rival. Just like Cyclops. The dependable good guy who is portrayed as boring. If Richard gets written out or killed off, we'll all feel for poor old James opting out of one 'trodden-on male' role only to be typecast in another.

I'll look at your suggestions for my issues in a separate thread below this.

 

[X-Maniac]

In regards to #5, why is it that everyone seems to think that being an evil businessman is the only part of Lex Luthor's character? LexCorp didn't even exist until the Post-Crisis continuity, and IMO that persona makes him too much of a Kingpin wannabe (especially in MoS where he was all chubby) Luthor's always been the evil genius at heart, and while being filthy stinking rich helps, he's more of a threat to Superman because of his brains, not his money. Sure, when done right, billionaire Lex can be fun, but at the end of the day, he's been "Luthor the Mad Scientist" for much longer, and that's the more important aspect of the character.

I think an intelligent villain with complexity is these days preferred to the mad scientist screaming 'I vont to destroy the vurld'.

A rise to power using the alien technology of the Kryptonian crystals would have been a fantastic combination of scientist and businessman, especially if he unleashed a computer virus (Brainiac) to disable the world's systems and ensure he held the world in his grip with his Krypto-tech as the only way forward. We also needed to see his motivation more clearly - a hate for Superman putting him in jail, a hate for Superman having a scientific advantage through the crystals... that would have made his actions with the crystals, and against Superman, more solid and defined rather than simply making him insane.

 

[X-Maniac]

1. Singer has said that this may be released as not part of the sequel, but as its own story somewhere down the road. You're creating a red herring argument, a situation that was never discussed in the first place outside of fans who think that that, somehow, would ever be a good idea. Next...

I don't understand how this can be 'its own story somewhere down the road'? What does this mean?

2. I doubt they intend to. I'm sure Singer has a very clear idea where these characters are going. I've suggested any manner of ways, none of which I think will happen, but just some that could create substantive storylines. Jason could have unstable powers, and been seen as a degenerate mistake by the coming Eradicator, forcing Superman to choose between his Kryptonian heritage and Earth. Richard could discover this and go insane, doing something horrible that would push him over the edge and into becoming a "sort of villian" (think harry in SM2). Lois and Richard could become the guardians of Jason, protecting him from Superman's reputation. Luthor knows the kid's Superman's and could work with Brainiac or some villian to stop him. Or, fitting mythology, the child buckles under Superman's legacy as Superman forfiets his life to save the world from Brainiac, and in the third film, Lois and Richard must protect jason from being discovered in a world ravenous for a Superman. There are many ways they could take this, none of which are unresolvable...

Hollywood isn't going to allow anything that looks harmful, damaging or abusive to a child.

There WAS an X-Files arc in which Sculley had a half-alien child and ended up giving him away to protect him and that was excellent, though it featured an unaware infant, not a young boy.

I'm not sure of your ideas. The child has to feature somehow in the story, and my own suggestion would be that maybe there is a way that Jason is somehow seen by an enemy as something that must be captured or destroyed. Either as the new future of humanity and the new way for Krypton to live again, or as a dilution of the Kryptonian gene pool.

3. Read the above. You tried to use one issue as two. Singer seems to be approaching Lois and Superman's relationship as star-crossed, which I like. They CANNOT be together due to who he is and Lois is now the mother of his child, the caretaker of his entire heritage, something that is in some ways larger than their own love. It's an interesting new take on the mythos in a movie that is lamblasted by many as being "unoriginal..."

I thought the point about Lois and Superman (in all prior incarnations) was the chemistry, the possibility, the 'will they, won't they?' dilemma, not 'they never can.' You'd think it's time for Superman now to move on too and leave Lois and Richard alone, or he will look like the bad guy....

I'm sure Lana Lang might like a Krypto-child too, it would be someone for Jason to play with!!! And Superman must still be fertile and capable - it's not as if Jason is his only chance at fatherhood.

4. Which will make the rise of Brainiac from the growth of New Krypton and perhaps him taking station at Superman's Fortress of Solitude even the more ominous and awe-inspiring. (see, one sentence to resolve that issue).

Perhaps, but does the Fortress now have any real function or use?

5. Which is good...how many evil corporate tycoons have I seen: Kingpin, Norman Osborn, Doctor Doom, Donald Trump...I've had my fill. The World's Greatest Superhero deserves someone more amorphous, more fluid to be his villian. Luthor returning in a different fashion, more bitter than ever, with enough knowledge to literally DESTROY Superman and all those he loves is much more compelling then a penny-pinching Bill Gates with a taste for the sadistic.

I think the insane scheming madman went out of fashion about 20 or 30 years ago. People expect a little more complexity from today's villains, especially in today's cyber-world.

See, each one of your issues resolved. Like I said, don't confused what you don't like with that which is unresolvable...

As I said, i didn't say those issues were unresolvable. I believe they are all 'issues' that need attention, and that they were not well-conceived in the first place.

 

[bosef982]

I don't understand how this can be 'its own story somewhere down the road'? What does this mean?



Hollywood isn't going to allow anything that looks harmful, damaging or abusive to a child.

There WAS an X-Files arc in which Sculley had a half-alien child and ended up giving him away to protect him and that was excellent, though it featured an unaware infant, not a young boy.

I'm not sure of your ideas. The child has to feature somehow in the story, and my own suggestion would be that maybe there is a way that Jason is somehow seen by an enemy as something that must be captured or destroyed. Either as the new future of humanity and the new way for Krypton to live again, or as a dilution of the Kryptonian gene pool.



I thought the point about Lois and Superman (in all prior incarnations) was the chemistry, the possibility, the 'will they, won't they?' dilemma, not 'they never can.' You'd think it's time for Superman now to move on too and leave Lois and Richard alone, or he will look like the bad guy....

I'm sure Lana Lang might like a Krypto-child too, it would be someone for Jason to play with!!! And Superman must still be fertile and capable - it's not as if Jason is his only chance at fatherhood.



Perhaps, but does the Fortress now have any real function or use?



I think the insane scheming madman went out of fashion about 20 or 30 years ago. People expect a little more complexity from today's villains, especially in today's cyber-world.



As I said, i didn't say those issues were unresolvable. I believe they are all 'issues' that need attention, and that they were not well-conceived in the first place.

Your own suggestion???? Read a bit up buddy. That was exactly what I suggested when I said the Eradicator could view Jason as some 'degenerate mistake..." Now you steal ideas...??

Anyway, as to your not saying this situations were unresolvable...you said, quite clearly that you felt that the movie introduced some elements that "locked itself into a corner." LOCKED insinuates a permenant state, a corner being unresolvable or stuck....

Anyway...

 

[X-Maniac]

Your own suggestion???? Read a bit up buddy. That was exactly what I suggested when I said the Eradicator could view Jason as some 'degenerate mistake..." Now you steal ideas...??

Anyway, as to your not saying this situations were unresolvable...you said, quite clearly that you felt that the movie introduced some elements that "locked itself into a corner." LOCKED insinuates a permenant state, a corner being unresolvable or stuck....

Anyway...

I don't steal ideas; I didn't perceive your Eradicator scheme as the same as mine, as I also suggested Jason might be viewed as the key to the future that needed to be appropriated...

And locked doesn't mean permanence; what is locked can be unlocked, what is stuck can be unstuck. I was seeing what others thought and how they envisaged things could be moved forward.

 

[Obsidian]

5. Everybody will trust Supe's word (knowing he was just in a near death experience). Therefore everyone will know about the Lex killing several millions people thing easily.

Doesn't matter about Supe's word in court, unless Kitty testifies against Lex. There's very little salvagable evidence from the first film that links him to NK and nearly causing the deaths of billions of people.

 

[bosef982]

I don't steal ideas; I didn't perceive your Eradicator scheme as the same as mine, as I also suggested Jason might be viewed as the key to the future that needed to be appropriated...

And locked doesn't mean permanence; what is locked can be unlocked, what is stuck can be unstuck. I was seeing what others thought and how they envisaged things could be moved forward.

Words have conotative and denotative meanings. The way you arranged you words denotatively meant -- locked and could be locked out. However, anyone with half a brain and any knowledge of your posting history can easily tell what you meant when you said "locked itself in a corner" since that phrase is never meant literally, but is a figure of speech designed to imply that someone is trapped and cannot get out.

Don't play pathetic word games with me, X-Maniac.

Also your perception of your idea being different as mine is as about as bunk as your attempt to backpeddle out of your own words.

If you want to have a substantive conversation about this movie, let's have one. If you want to play middle school word games, leave me out of it.

 

[not_a_victim]

4. The crystals - they are on NK, which means no more Jor-El, no more communication/control system in the Fortress. Plus, Lex now knows where the Fortress is and he knows there is no security around it.

Lex only fired one crystal into the ocean. Now, I cant recall, but what happened to the other 5 or so that he had aboard the yatch? Did they escape with all of them? I can't recall, and I havent had time to go back and watch the DVD to find out.
If the crystals would up in the ocean, why wasn't there a new FOS grown out there? Did they wind up in the ocean?
ANyone?

 

[not_a_victim]

4. I think the whole point of the movie was that Supes doesn't need his father anymore. When you have children, you are certainly no longer a child.

Wow, I missed that concept altogether. Kal-El no longer has Jor-El, and Clark no longer has Johnathan Kent. The son has become the father. Cool.
Good job.

 

[X-Maniac]

Lex only fired one crystal into the ocean. Now, I cant recall, but what happened to the other 5 or so that he had aboard the yatch? Did they escape with all of them? I can't recall, and I havent had time to go back and watch the DVD to find out.
If the crystals would up in the ocean, why wasn't there a new FOS grown out there? Did they wind up in the ocean?
ANyone?

Kitty threw the other crystals from the helicopter down on to New Krypton. Superman then threw the island into space, with the crystals still on it. Some people believe the crystals will form into something, like Brainiac, which is one interesting idea.

 

[X-Maniac]

Words have conotative and denotative meanings. The way you arranged you words denotatively meant -- locked and could be locked out. However, anyone with half a brain and any knowledge of your posting history can easily tell what you meant when you said "locked itself in a corner" since that phrase is never meant literally, but is a figure of speech designed to imply that someone is trapped and cannot get out.

Don't play pathetic word games with me, X-Maniac.

Also your perception of your idea being different as mine is as about as bunk as your attempt to backpeddle out of your own words.

If you want to have a substantive conversation about this movie, let's have one. If you want to play middle school word games, leave me out of it.

My post meant that those issues had put the sequel/storyline/director/writers into a tight spot, a challenging situation. I then ASKED people how they thought the story could move on successfully from those issues. I was not saying 'it's impossible to move on' or 'a sequel cannot be made because of this'. The issues I raised are not insurmountable. I did not like those issues in the first place and now I am curious how the story can move on in a way that makes the sequel much better -- since those issues form part of many of the complaints and disappointments on here..

Those issues cannot be forgotten, but I believe they need to be developed in such a way that the sequel is not presenting similar issues, or continuing the same issues. The story needs to move forward, in fact it needs a major leap forward. But it is somewhat shackled by what was presented previously and I want to hear how people believe those shackles can be unlocked.

Once I've rewatched the movie closely (after the Ultimate Collection arrives) and also rewatched the previous Superman movies, and read the novelisation, i shall be presenting further arguments and scenarios.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey bosef!

To answer your "issues" though:

1. Singer has said that this may be released as not part of the sequel, but as its own story somewhere down the road. You're creating a red herring argument, a situation that was never discussed in the first place outside of fans who think that that, somehow, would ever be a good idea. Next...

Actually this was brought up in an interview with Singer.

Singer mentioned that he wasn't sure the scene would end up in the eventual directors cut dvd of Superman Returns or not. He was still undecided.

The only logical reason for that might be if he was planning to use the clip in the sequel.

Personally I am curious to know what the big deal is about the Return to Krypton scene? Superman gets to Krypton, finds its rubble, then flies back. What am I missing? Does something else happen?

2. I doubt they intend to. I'm sure Singer has a very clear idea where these characters are going.

Thats funny given Singer (when interviewed) couldn't even explain issues within Superman Returns. t:

I've suggested any manner of ways, none of which I think will happen, but just some that could create substantive storylines. Jason could have unstable powers, and been seen as a degenerate mistake by the coming Eradicator, forcing Superman to choose between his Kryptonian heritage and Earth.

Eradicator, while not an obvious choice for the next villain, might work.

Richard could discover this and go insane, doing something horrible that would push him over the edge and into becoming a "sort of villian" (think harry in SM2).

This Richard thing is the key. Its going to be so easy for them to just take an easy 'out'.

Lois and Richard could become the guardians of Jason, protecting him from Superman's reputation.

...and Lois goes on living with someone shes not in love with then?

Luthor knows the kid's Superman's and could work with Brainiac or some villian to stop him.

I can see that angle being explored.

Or, fitting mythology, the child buckles under Superman's legacy as Superman forfiets his life to save the world from Brainiac, and in the third film, Lois and Richard must protect jason from being discovered in a world ravenous for a Superman. There are many ways they could take this, none of which are unresolvable...

That last idea is so bad they might just use it.

3. Read the above. You tried to use one issue as two. Singer seems to be approaching Lois and Superman's relationship as star-crossed, which I like. They CANNOT be together due to who he is and Lois is now the mother of his child, the caretaker of his entire heritage, something that is in some ways larger than their own love. It's an interesting new take on the mythos in a movie that is lamblasted by many as being "unoriginal..."

Obviously in a movie that is virtually a remake, the single element of originality will stand out.

Personally I don't mind the kid and/or love triangle elements as long as they are not the focus of the movie (which they so clearly were). This type of melodrama is not what makes Superman 'super'.

4. Which will make the rise of Brainiac from the growth of New Krypton and perhaps him taking station at Superman's Fortress of Solitude even the more ominous and awe-inspiring. (see, one sentence to resolve that issue).

There seems to be three seeds planted in Superman Returns.

A) Superman's blood on the piece of kyrptonite (...Bizarro?)
B) New Krypton and the crystals (...Brainiac?)
C) Something follows him back from Krypton (...Eradicator? Doomsday? could be anyone)

5. Which is good...how many evil corporate tycoons have I seen: Kingpin, Norman Osborn, Doctor Doom, Donald Trump...I've had my fill. The World's Greatest Superhero deserves someone more amorphous, more fluid to be his villian. Luthor returning in a different fashion, more bitter than ever, with enough knowledge to literally DESTROY Superman and all those he loves is much more compelling then a penny-pinching Bill Gates with a taste for the sadistic.

The irony here is that Lex is the one villain who actually makes far more sense as a businessman.

He should be manipulating events behind the scenes. Not getting his hands dirty.

Also if Superman Returns follows Superman II, then how the hell was Lex released from prison!? Whether Superman testified or not Lex broke out of prison in Superman 2. Superman brought him back to jail, there was no need to testify against Lex - he must have already been serving a life sentence for trying to nuke america.

See, each one of your issues resolved. Like I said, don't confused what you don't like with that which is unresolvable...

I think there is a marked difference between resolving something and resolving it successfully.

 

[not_a_victim]

Kitty threw the other crystals from the helicopter down on to New Krypton. Superman then threw the island into space, with the crystals still on it. Some people believe the crystals will form into something, like Brainiac, which is one interesting idea.

Thanks.
I thought I remembered them getting them off the ship, but couldn't remember what happened after that.
I think if that is what happened, it was just an easy way for the writers to dispose of them.

 

[DavidTyler]

^I'll give people some slack. They grew up with the Post-Crisis version so that's all they care about.

I just like to see Lex and Supes. I'm familiar with different versions so I just wanted to see a good Pre-Crisis version.

And in response to an earlier post. I thought Singer said "Return to Krypton" will be in the sequel.

How about me... ? I KNOW I've been reading Superman longer than just about everyone here.

Super brilliant mad scientist Lex was a boringly bad joke. It was so bad that, during the later 70's, they put him in that sad purple and green skin-tight outfit. DC just didn't know what to do with him anymore. He was boring and cliche. The armoured Luthor was interesting but only for a short while. That was another dead end. Luthor couldn't be in the armour all the time. He was still the same boring criminal scientist but now he was like a poor man's evil Iron Man.

As to Corporate Shark Luthor: At first I also thought Post Crisis Lex was going to be a Kingpin wanna be but he became much more interesting and evil than Kingpin could ever be. I've read some phenominal Post Crisis Lex stories. My favourite is the short one where he visits a diner and makes an irresistable offer to a married waitress and then toys with her. Kingpin could never do that. I love when he came back and posed as his own son. The twists Post Crisis Lex have taken have so outstripped both 'criminally insane mad scientist Luthor' and Kinpin.

No one is saying that Lex isn't still brilliant. In fact, that was how Lex became a billionaire - through sales of some early inventions. Once his millions were made, he took on other scientists who he oversaw. It was like a massive think tank with Lex in control of it. Post Crisis Lex isn't just a genious in the realm of technology, he's also a genious at manipulating people and the general public.

No, not a Kingpin wanna be. More a much improved and well thought out Luthor.

 

[Zen Ith]

How about me... ? I KNOW I've been reading Superman longer than just about everyone here.

Super brilliant mad scientist Lex was a boringly bad joke. It was so bad that, during the later 70's, they put him in that sad purple and green skin-tight outfit. DC just didn't know what to do with him anymore. He was boring and cliche. The armoured Luthor was interesting but only for a short while. That was another dead end. Luthor couldn't be in the armour all the time. He was still the same boring criminal scientist but now he was like a poor man's evil Iron Man.

As to Corporate Shark Luthor: At first I also thought Post Crisis Lex was going to be a Kingpin wanna be but he became much more interesting and evil than Kingpin could ever be. I've read some phenominal Post Crisis Lex stories. My favourite is the short one where he visits a diner and makes an irresistable offer to a married waitress and then toys with her. Kingpin could never do that. I love when he came back and posed as his own son. The twists Post Crisis Lex have taken have so outstripped both 'criminally insane mad scientist Luthor' and Kinpin.

No one is saying that Lex isn't still brilliant. In fact, that was how Lex became a billionaire - through sales of some early inventions. Once his millions were made, he took on other scientists who he oversaw. It was like a massive think tank with Lex in control of it. Post Crisis Lex isn't just a genious in the realm of technology, he's also a genious at manipulating people and the general public.

No, not a Kingpin wanna be. More a much improved and well thought out Luthor.

And that Luthor was inspired by Donner's Luthor, according to Marv Wolfman.

Superman Return's Lex was a manipulator also, he tricked an old woman out of all her money. Also he had a buch of people who would do his every bidding and a girlfriend who he treated like crap, but still stayed (until Superman came along)

Not to say I don't want to see a Post-Crisis Lex, but I do like the character of Donner's Lex, and i'd like to see Singer expand the character.

 

[lexlives]

I feel the first movie locked itself in a corner with several elements. I have the DVD on order and once I've seen it again, I will be able to critique the movie in a more detailed way (though The Complete Shooting Script book is heartbreaking enough in showing what was cut and what was left in that should have been cut!!!)

1. The Krypton exploration was cut out - how can it easily be used in a sequel when it relates specifically to the events in the first movie? Won't it feel disjointed and out of context?

2. Jason and Richard - they won't kill off the kid, they can't just shove Richard out of the picture or kill him (poor old James Marsden if they do, he was shoved aside enough in X-Men)

3. Lois - since they can't just get rid of Jason and Richard now they've been established, Superman's love for Lois seems doomed. It would be wrong to show Superman destroying the Lois/Richard relationship, it would be too contrived to show some other force destroying that relationship. Does Superman need a new love interest? If so, how do Lois, Richard and Jason fit in?

4. The crystals - they are on NK, which means no more Jor-El, no more communication/control system in the Fortress. Plus, Lex now knows where the Fortress is and he knows there is no security around it.

5. Lex - he is still at large, stuck on an island. He has tried to destroy billions of people so the chances of him becoming a more respectable corporate tycoon are zero.

Can all those issues be resolved? How?

1) They probably can fit it in but my bet is they use it in a re-release of an
extended SR DVD next XMAS.

2) They have to kill the kid off to give a sequel the bang it needs and free
themselves from the writing constrainst they have imposed upon
themselves with the kid.

3) Lois and Superman - if the kid dies have Lois blame Superman at the very
time Clark is comforting her. Rejuvinate the triangle and open up the door
to another Supes love. They should recast Lois while they are at it.

4) Have Supes put in security - heck even I have a home alarm and I live in
middle class America.

5) This is a tough one cause Lex should be the Lex of SV or Lois and Clark. A
legit businessman to all appearances surrounded by competent and deadly
associates. Forget her name but loved Lex's assistant from L&C.

But really there is so much to fix don't you think it would be easier just to restart?