Superman Returns Who's Your Daddy? The Ultimate Jason Poll [Place your bets]

[hippie_hunter]

i think it's neither clark's or lois's, but richard from previous relationship, although, as we approach the date, seems more and more likely that the kid has more of role than that.

That's what I'm thinking. That way if Warner Bros. don't like it, it can be easily undone by the sequel. Plus, now that Superman II is out of continuity, when the hell did Superman have sex with Lois.

 

[Kane]

Mike and Dan said they knew fanboys would complain if this was done in a disrespectful way so I think they have an intelligent way to deal with it...

I guess we should just have some faith

 

[tallsy_1]

The ONLY way I can see this child being Richard's is if Richard dies, and the raising of Jason is supposed to parallel the way Superman was raised by the Kents.

Again, there is no reason to have a question about paternity if the father is Richard. It would only annoy fans. If they wanted Richard to be the father, they would have made Jason 3 or 4.

 

[Kane]

Jason is 4.

 

[DvilDog]

jason is 5 kane

 

[VGPOP]

Kid is Richard's.

Novelization never says Superman is the father.

 

[DvilDog]

Never says that richard is the biological father either lol

 

[LuvSupes]

That's what I'm thinking. That way if Warner Bros. don't like it, it can be easily undone by the sequel. Plus, now that Superman II is out of continuity, when the hell did Superman have sex with Lois.

It's not out of continuity, see here:
http://www.infocusmag.com/06june/supermanuncut.htm

Plus if you tune into fanboy radio, they had Marc Andreyko on. He is the writer of the SupermanReturns Ma Kent and Lois comic prequels. He talked about how the prequels take place between SII and SR.

Here's a mp3 snippet of it:
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=167983B15675E8D5

 

[Excel]

the kid is SUPERMAN




"i wanted to tell you something"....and as she says clark glances at jason.

that something is that jasons his son. he could die and he ought to know. it is not left up n the air, i guarentee in you-in the movie-well learn who the father it.


WHY DO YOU THINK JASONS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

he is there at supermans death bed, hes 5, the same amount of years superman has been gone. he's constantly sick. he is there in the whole finale.

supes is father, ive known since day we learned she had a kid, and i thought more people did too.

plus, theres got to be SOMETHING connecting superman to lois at the end of the movie if she is still with richard, and itll be that jasons their kid. singer seems far too into the comics to make it so lois and superman is over. atleast if they have a friggin son theyll still have to see eachother sometimes.

the childs clark/supermans. i'd bet an eternal ban on it.

 

[Nivek]

I really like this exchange, the end all, be all explanation...

Q: Is “Superman Returns” the unofficial "Superman III"?

MD: [sighs] Okay, um, it’s funny — I think Bryan and Dan and I need to sit down and discuss this answer before we talk to too many other reporters.

My personal belief — and I know Bryan has been quoted as saying differently — is that this is not “Superman III.” I don’t feel like it’s appropriate to discount “Superman III” and “IV,” because a lot of people put a lot of hard work into them, and even if you don’t like them or don’t think they’re up to a certain quality, they’re still “Superman” movies.

DH: It’s complicated. If this is a sequel to “I” and “II,” then everything in “I” and “II” happened. But if we’re picking and choosing what we want — which is what I think is what happened, using our memories of “Superman: The Movie” to build our back story — then I can guarantee that it’s not the specifics, but the broad strokes of those movies that are part of the “Superman” we’re making.

MD: The comparison I like to make is that they’re closer to James Bond films. We had a series that starred Sean Connery, and then the torch is passed to another actor, all the way up to Daniel Craig. But they don’t call a sequel “James Bond 19,” and they don’t necessarily refer to events that took place in the previous film. But you do have certain conventions and supporting characters that you’re expected to use well. There’s always the opening with the iris and the theme song.

So I think we’re kind of taking a different franchise in the same direction. We’re not going back to square one.

We’re not doing a remake. We push the story forward.

DH: Except we’re not working with a villain of the day, or a villain of the movie…. It’s a “Returns” story. What does that mean? We’re trying to have our cake and eat it too — we’re remembering things we loved about “Superman I” and “II,” and moving forward at the same time. And we’ve used a big plot device to let us do both.

MD: But I think I have to sit down with Bryan and discuss this with him, because he went to a comic-book convention and said, “Yeah, I guess you could think of this as ‘Superman III.’” I just slapped my head and said, “Oh! No! No!”

I like the James Bond analogy. If some people cant grasp that concept, well...

 

[Kurosawa]

I really like this exchange, the end all, be all explanation...

Q: Is “Superman Returns” the unofficial "Superman III"?

MD: [sighs] Okay, um, it’s funny — I think Bryan and Dan and I need to sit down and discuss this answer before we talk to too many other reporters.

My personal belief — and I know Bryan has been quoted as saying differently — is that this is not “Superman III.” I don’t feel like it’s appropriate to discount “Superman III” and “IV,” because a lot of people put a lot of hard work into them, and even if you don’t like them or don’t think they’re up to a certain quality, they’re still “Superman” movies.

DH: It’s complicated. If this is a sequel to “I” and “II,” then everything in “I” and “II” happened. But if we’re picking and choosing what we want — which is what I think is what happened, using our memories of “Superman: The Movie” to build our back story — then I can guarantee that it’s not the specifics, but the broad strokes of those movies that are part of the “Superman” we’re making.

MD: The comparison I like to make is that they’re closer to James Bond films. We had a series that starred Sean Connery, and then the torch is passed to another actor, all the way up to Daniel Craig. But they don’t call a sequel “James Bond 19,” and they don’t necessarily refer to events that took place in the previous film. But you do have certain conventions and supporting characters that you’re expected to use well. There’s always the opening with the iris and the theme song.

So I think we’re kind of taking a different franchise in the same direction. We’re not going back to square one.

We’re not doing a remake. We push the story forward.

DH: Except we’re not working with a villain of the day, or a villain of the movie…. It’s a “Returns” story. What does that mean? We’re trying to have our cake and eat it too — we’re remembering things we loved about “Superman I” and “II,” and moving forward at the same time. And we’ve used a big plot device to let us do both.

MD: But I think I have to sit down with Bryan and discuss this with him, because he went to a comic-book convention and said, “Yeah, I guess you could think of this as ‘Superman III.’” I just slapped my head and said, “Oh! No! No!”

I like the James Bond analogy. If some people cant grasp that concept, well...

Works for me.

 

[Kane]

jason is 5 kane

Where does it specify exactly?

 

[Kane]

lol wheres that MD, DH interview Nivek?

 

[LuvSupes]

at this first link :

It's not out of continuity, see here:
http://www.infocusmag.com/06june/supermanuncut.htm

Plus if you tune into fanboy radio, they had Marc Andreyko on. He is the writer of the SupermanReturns Ma Kent and Lois comic prequels. He talked about how the prequels take place between SII and SR.

Here's a mp3 snippet of it:
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=167983B15675E8D5

 

[Kane]

When was this interview done?

 

[Superfreak]

as stated in one of the so called earlier script reviews: I think it will be left up in the air. There will be no concrete answer either way. Things will be implied, but never defined.

I quote myself, b/c everyone is saying the same thing

 

[VGPOP]

Never says that richard is the biological father either lol

The novel DOES say that Jason talked to his father.

"Hang on Jason, I'm Here"

"Daddy". He saw his father reach out a hand, and he grabbed it tightly.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

fathers gota be supes
i mean bryan singer lied about jean dyin in x2...he believes in the art of misdirection (also the x2 book didnt even say jean died it said she went blind) so since singers directing it id say that we cant go by the book as to wat will happen in the movie.

 

[VGPOP]

the kid is SUPERMAN




"i wanted to tell you something"....and as she says clark glances at jason.

that something is that jasons his son. he could die and he ought to know. it is not left up n the air, i guarentee in you-in the movie-well learn who the father it..

That's not what happened.

The novel says:

"Can you hear me?" she said softly, "They say, sometimes when people are..." She stopped and turned away. "Never mind"

......

She walked to his side and took his hand. "There's something...something I need to tell you."

She bent below, whispering in Superman's ears, her eyes filled with tears when she tried, fruitlessly, to wipe away.

On the other side of the half-drawn curtain, Jason ran his finger over the emblem of Superman's neatly folded costume. He was trying to be brave, but he was crying.

 

[MoreCowbell]

That's not what happened.

The novel says:

"Can you hear me?" she said softly, "They say, sometimes when people are..." She stopped and turned away. "Never mind"

......

She walked to his side and took his hand. "There's something...something I need to tell you."

She bent below, whispering in Superman's ears, her eyes filled with tears when she tried, fruitlessly, to wipe away.

On the other side of the half-drawn curtain, Jason ran his finger over the emblem of Superman's neatly folded costume. He was trying to be brave, but he was crying.

Also when Lois tries to leave, Jason runs to Superman and kisses his head and she really loses it.

 

[VGPOP]

Also when Lois tries to leave, Jason runs to Superman and kisses his head and she really loses it.

I know. That doesn't say anything at all that he is the father. You can assume that, but it's not definite.

While the novel put Richard as the father.

 

[Nivek]

The ONLY way I can see this child being Richard's is if Richard dies, and the raising of Jason is supposed to parallel the way Superman was raised by the Kents.

see I really see this being the case if Superman is if somewhere down the line does actually end's up being Jason's Biological Father. Just like in his upbringing, Jor-El was his Father, but Jonathan Kent was his Dad, Jor-El's biological make-up made him Super, Jonathan's upbringing made him a Man.

The general impression I was under after reading the novel was that Clark really respects Richard, and his own morality keeps him from doing anything that may jepordise Lois and her family. And to Jason, his Dad is Richard, without any doubt. But IMO, just because someone is a Father doesn't make them a Dad. A guy can be one, and not another.

 

[DvilDog]

Where does it specify exactly?

Page 145 of the novel. wait let me check to be sure. yes bottom of the page on 145 and top of the page again on 148.

 

[DvilDog]

The novel DOES say that Jason talked to his father.

"Hang on Jason, I'm Here"

"Daddy". He saw his father reach out a hand, and he grabbed it tightly.

Jonathan Kent was Clarks father! WE can go through this all day long my friends. Each of us have different opinions. As long as they make his part good i really dont care who the dad of the kid is.

And i got news I doubt they will tell us in the first movie either. I wont be a bit surprised if when lois whispers in supes ear in the movie that we dont get to hear it either

 

[Captain Kirk]

Well, if Jason shows up in the sequel with Superman's ablities then all bets are off...