|
|
Post by smd on Jul 18, 2009 22:13:38 GMT -5
Well, I'm happy we're never gonna find out.
In my mind, Jason wasn't Superman's son anyway. Since it was never explicitly stated in SR, I'm going to say that, Jason was Richard's son.
Jason wasn't having a reaction to kryptonite, he was simply having an asthma attack.
Jason didn't throw the piano across the room, a big wave simply tilted the boat.
Superman only gave the 'father and son' speech to Jason, because Superman is like a god parent to every child plus and he felt extra bad that Jason didn't really have much of a paternal role-model.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 18, 2009 22:30:38 GMT -5
I hate to say this, but you're overreaching.
But hey, if you can trick yourself and if it makes you happy, go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by smd on Jul 18, 2009 22:39:09 GMT -5
Yeah I pretending... to keep my sanity! Just like how in Cast Away Tom Hanks 'pretends' the ball is alive.  |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 18, 2009 22:44:17 GMT -5
C'mon, Jason wasn't bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 19, 2009 0:57:02 GMT -5
Gazer, I'm not gonna go point by point with you again, because it'a a bit tiresome...and I agree with you on more than you think. I respect your opinions on this.
However, I will respond to one thing, and that's yes, every 20 years or so, Superman needs an origin recap. It certainly doesn't need to be an exhaustive origin like STM, but he needs a "Year One" style introduction for audiences, and everyone should be treated to the traditional Clark/Lois/Superman/Daily Planet dynamic. It's one of the things that has made the character thrive for 70 years, and is as essential to the mythology as Krypton itself.
Jason will be a footnote, at best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2009 1:42:55 GMT -5
Just to clarify Val, I would consider a Superman movie of robots and spaceships to be "yawn." I'm not that heavy into sci-fi, and I've never been into the Superman comics that relied heavily on stuff like that. I've never been a big van of the vast DC universe where every character exists in the same space. For me, if you keep introducing powered characters, Superman is no longer unique. I think that's the general problem he faces in a world where rival studios crank out decent superhero movies, like Iron Man.
I'd prefer to see Superman deal with the various dilemmas. I want a moderately powered Superman, not one that can push the Moon in front of sunlight or one that can lift a small continent while a piece of Kryptonite is still lodged in his back. Guilty as charged, I like a more subtle approach.
|
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Jul 19, 2009 2:13:28 GMT -5
When I heard Lois Lane was going to have a child in SR, and that the film would be in the continuity of STM and SII, and take place 6 years after SII, it was obvious to me the child would be Superman's. Despite Singer's claims of Jason being Richard's son from a previous relationship, when you have a film where Superman's been gone for 6 years, and by the way had sex with Lois before he left, and comes back to find Lois with a 6 year old child...I mean, come on. Who were they trying to fool.
I was interested to see what they'd do with this in the film, and I was pleasantly surprised. Jason was one of the most realistic, non offensive children in cinema history. It could have been a disaster, but he was an adorable kid who fit well into the story.
That said, I can see why his existence would cause issues for any potential sequel. What do you do with Superman's son? Kill him off? Too dark, and too Batman/Spider-Man. Have him develop his powers? Then what...does he train with Superman or help him save the day? And then there's the secret identity to consider. Lois doesn't even know Superman is Clark Kent, so how can he establish a fatherly role with Jason? Not to mention how do you deal with Richard? Killing him off or having him sacrifice himself would be too cliche, but if you don't remove him then Superman's a home wrecker. And then there's the whole "dead beat dad" thing brought up by Jason's very existence.
I know some see these issues as rich story material for a sequel, but I find myself agreeing with those who see them more as a hindrance in telling the kinds of Superman stories that they, and frankly the general public, want to see. It works well in capping off a series though, and from the looks of it that's exactly what it's done.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jul 19, 2009 2:38:43 GMT -5
kirok said, Despite Singer's claims of Jason being Richard's son from a previous relationship, when you have a film where Superman's been gone for 6 years, and by the way had sex with Lois before he left, and comes back to find Lois with a 6 year old child...I mean, come on. Who were they trying to fool.They fooled me, Enrique and the people in the mainstream who don't read Superman message boards.. That said, I can see why his existence would cause issues for any potential sequel. What do you do with Superman's son? Kill him off? Too dark, and too Batman/Spider-Man. Have him develop his powers? Then what...does he train with Superman or help him save the day? I don't see Jason's existance as an 'issue' for potential sequels but as an oportunity to expand the Superman story and mythos. And then there's the secret identity to consider. Lois doesn't even know Superman is Clark Kent, so how can he establish a fatherly role with Jason?That's what sequels are for. Not to mention how do you deal with Richard? Killing him off or having him sacrifice himself would be too cliche,It's probably cliche for us nerds, not for the mainstream. They don't obsess about these things like we do. And if done well --Richard having a heroic death-- it can work just fine, IMO. He was just a tool. but if you don't remove him then Superman's a home wrecker.He could even remove himself from the picture since he knows damn well that Lois still loves Superman. It's the mature thing to do. And then there's the whole "dead beat dad" thing brought up by Jason's very existence. How is that? Are you saying that Superman is a dead beat dad in SR? If you do, Why do you think so? I know some see these issues as rich story material for a sequel, but I find myself agreeing with those who see them more as a hindrance in telling the kinds of Superman stories that they, and frankly the general public, want to see. Again, more assumptions. After reading a lot of reviews and opinions on the film, it seems to me that people just wanted to see Supes throwing some punches to a baddie and just more action in general. I mean, I don't remember the top professional critics saying in their reviews that Jason was a problem for any potential sequels. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jul 19, 2009 2:45:42 GMT -5
No, I liked Jason. Everything about him was handled well: his introduction, his revelation as Superman's son, and---above all---the acting. Child actors have an uncanny ability of coming off as annoying and fake...even Haley Joel Osment pissed me off in anything after 6th Sense. And this little actor was just the most natural, charismatic child performer. I'll never forget that I didn't come to the realization that he was Superman's son until Lex figured it out. He said, "Who is that boy's father?" And I remember thinking, "Ohhhhhh, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhit." Totally caught me off guard. I thought it was incredibly brave for a storyteller to do. And I'm very curious as to what Singer would've done with him in the sequel. AGREED. |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 19, 2009 7:24:36 GMT -5
I will say this...while I DO want more action in a Superman sequel, I did like the "Superman saves people, not hits people" approach that Singer took.
But now, I wants my action.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbluefan on Jul 19, 2009 17:50:20 GMT -5
To me Jason would have been fine if Singer didn't let the cat out of the bag and reveal to the world he's Superman's son in the first of what should have been a triology.  Lex would have used Lois' son to team up with a alien supervillain and we would have action galore. What could have been  |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jul 20, 2009 23:03:50 GMT -5
kirok said,
And then there's the whole "dead beat dad" thing brought up by Jason's very existence.
How is that? Are you saying that Superman is a dead beat dad in SR? If you do, Why do you think so?
I'd like to see your reply to this, Kirok..
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 20, 2009 23:23:48 GMT -5
Action?
FUCK YEAH!!!!
The series NEEDS action.
Like medicine.
I'm sick of Kryptonite, which was used in STM, SIII, and SR (twice). I'm sick of origins, Smallville and Krypton.
We need another General Zod type guy, mass destruction, super speed, super strength, super powers, super fights.
|
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Jul 21, 2009 0:55:50 GMT -5
They fooled me, Enrique and the people in the mainstream who don't read Superman message boards.. It's unfair to say it was totally obvious, but you can't say the thought didn't cross your mind. Lois and Clark have sex in SII, SR takes place 6 years after SII, Lois has a 6 year old child in SII. Much like Mutt Williams=Indiana Jones Jr. in KotCS, I saw this on coming a mile away. I don't see Jason's existance as an 'issue' for potential sequels but as an oportunity to expand the Superman story and mythos. I agree that Superman having a son is an intriguing notion, but Superman films are few and far between (not to mention quality Superman films). Jason is something that MUST be dealt with in all subsequent films. Before introducing such status quo shattering scenarios, it would have been nice to have the freedom to further explore the existing mythos. To begin a new series with such a restriction was, in hindsight, ill advised. How is that? Are you saying that Superman is a dead beat dad in SR? If you do, Why do you think so? I don't think Superman is a deadbeat dad, but it's a common sarcastic criticism I've seen in response to SR. Superman is supposed to the be shining example of superheroes, as Singer put it, "the Jesus Christ of Superheroes." Having a child he didn't even know about because he knocked up Lois Lane then left the planet for a very weak reason (at least as it was presented in the film) taints this image. If STM and SII were a modern retelling of the Christ story with a Superhero twist, then SR is like "The Da Vinci Code" of Superman. I know they were trying to make Superman more relatable and "human" but there were other ways to do it without giving him an illegitimate son. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Jul 21, 2009 9:36:53 GMT -5
They fooled me, Enrique and the people in the mainstream who don't read Superman message boards.. It's unfair to say it was totally obvious, but you can't say the thought didn't cross your mind. Lois and Clark have sex in SII, SR takes place 6 years after SII, Lois has a 6 year old child in SII. Much like Mutt Williams=Indiana Jones Jr. in KotCS, I saw this on coming a mile away. Well, it wasn't immediately apparent to me because: This was supposed to be a loose sequel to STM/SII, which was a vague idea. I thought it would have Brando and some visual nods, but no direct consequences from the earlier films. Even when Lex returns to the Fortress, they try to underplay it. "You act like you've been here before?" But he says nothing. And he activates the crystals differently here than in II. So I took it as a nudge nudge. Jason also had problems breathing. Not a Kryptonian-on-Earth quality. Soooooo...I have to admit I was fooled. But then, I wasn't really analyzing or judging. I just saw there in awe that I was watching new Superman movie. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Jul 21, 2009 12:47:07 GMT -5
kirok said It's unfair to say it was totally obvious, but you can't say the thought didn't cross your mind Lois and Clark have sex in SII, SR takes place 6 years after SII, Lois has a 6 year old child in SII. Much like Mutt Williams=Indiana Jones Jr. in KotCS, I saw this on coming a mile away The thought didn't cross my mind. ;D Seriously! Maybe because I wasn't spoiled when I watched the movie for the first time. And I think Singer did a good job at making you believe that Jason was a sickly child and that Richard was his dad. I bought it. So the 'reveal' of his true parentage was really cool to me.  I agree that Superman having a son is an intriguing notion, but Superman films are few and far between (not to mention quality Superman films). Jason is something that MUST be dealt with in all subsequent films.Well, I'm interested in good and compelling storytelling first and foremost, and Jason was indeed an intriguing and interesting character worth exploring, IMO, so I wanted more of that. I wanted to see how this character could help expand and enrich the Superman mythos and especially the Superman character in this story. After over 70 years I think it was about time for something new besides new and more challenging supervillains, which could have come in sequels.... Before introducing such status quo shattering scenarios, it would have been nice to have the freedom to further explore the existing mythos. It has been explored for over 70 years already through movies, tv series, cartoons, comics, etc.. To begin a new series with such a restriction was, in hindsight, ill advised. It was an opportunity. A fascinating one, IMO. An interesting challenge. But they chickened out. So, if they make more Superman films, it will probably be the same old same old ONCE again. But this time More formulaic and generic with lots of action and lots of cheesy jokes, ya know, to make LOTS of $. Hopefully not vulgar ones, though... I don't think Superman is a deadbeat dad, Ah, good. but it's a common sarcastic criticism I've seen in response to SR. Well yeah, there are lots of ignorant people out there. Sadly. Superman is supposed to the be shining example of superheroes, as Singer put it, "the Jesus Christ of Superheroes."And he still is, IMO. We just got to see more of how that god truly feels inside. Note that to the world he was still the same Superman we've known and loved; it was only Lois and US who got to see the other side of him, the outsider, a man longing to truly belong, and man looking for his place in the universe. Having a child he didn't even know about because he knocked up Lois Lane Exactly, he didn't know she was pregnant. I'm TOTALLY sure that if he knew that, he wouldn't have left, and he would have married her. And he'd be very happy too. then left the planet for a very weak reason (at least as it was presented in the film) taints this image. I disagree. It was not very weak at all. They didn't give a lot of exposition about why he left, but what was there was enough for me. I don't need to be spoonfed all the time. It was clear to me that he wanted to find out if there were any survivors, more Kryptonians like him. It was clearly his duty to go and help in any way he could. He was probably also very curious, what if Krypton didn't really explode? He had very valid reasons to leave, IMO. If STM and SII were a modern retelling of the Christ story with a Superhero twist, then SR is like "The Da Vinci Code" of Superman.Interesting, can you elaborate please? I know they were trying to make Superman more relatable and "human" but there were other ways to do it without giving him an illegitimate son.I have no problems with Jason being an illegitimate son; he had Richard and Lois who loved him very much. And Superman couldn't brake that family. He didn't do it, he let her go. It was clearly Lois' decision now. And like I said, if Richard didn't exist, he would marry her. No doubt. Thanks for the replies. |
|
heman
New Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by heman on Jul 21, 2009 20:17:19 GMT -5
All Ill say on the subject is it makes me cringe and what were the execs smoking the day they passed this idea.  Come on, they had to know that the diehard superman fans would never accept this path, ESPECIALLY after waiting almost 25 years from the last decent superman movie . Superman can settle down and have a superpowered kid after he has produced 3 straight testosterone movies where he is doing nothing but kicking butt and being SUPERMAN. Not being SuperSappyMan with a kid. |
|
Kirok
New Member
"You have failed this city!"
Posts: 3,179
|
Post by Kirok on Jul 22, 2009 0:52:22 GMT -5
If STM and SII were a modern retelling of the Christ story with a Superhero twist, then SR is like "The Da Vinci Code" of Superman.Interesting, can you elaborate please? Just something I thought of back when SR came out and how I refer to it's place in the STM/SII story if you follow the Biblical parallels through. In Da Vinci Code, Jesus had a family no one knew about, and in SR Superman had a son no one (not even him) knew about. |
|
|
|
Post by ADigitalMan on Aug 15, 2009 22:49:00 GMT -5
Surgeon General's Warning: Sex Causes Children. I think Jason was an inspired choice to move a 70-year-old plot forward. To be bold enough to suggest once again that Superman's actions have consequences, I think it's a heckuva play that his one chance to copulate with Lois resulted in a kid.
Of course, if there were an internet 30 years ago, we'd be shocked by the idea that Clark and Lois had sex at all and we'd probably have ripped Lester a new one for putting it in the film.
|
|
