Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Adam Lenhardt, Jun 27, 2006.
A few things....
-They wouldn't of had to do a new origin movie. They could have done just had a montage of scenes showing Krypton exploding...Clark growing up...and making his appearance as Supes.
-The more I think about Lex. The more I like him as they had him in the comics & animated series. Ruthless corporate boss. What makes it better. Is that he holds a lot of power in Metropolis and the world. And Supes knows he's dirty. But, Lex keeps his distance just enought that Supes can't touch him.
- think this is one of the first movies I have seen. Where reviewers loved it. Yet, the viewing public does not seem to. I have to wonder if a lot of the core fans are turned off by some of the story-plots in the movie.
-Just curious I wonder if Warner decides to do sequels but doesn't want the kid. How do they do it? I was thinking the next movie has Brainaic. And in a scene he learns of Jason. And in some kind of attack kills Jason and Richard.
-While I can't stand the kid idea. I did like the idea of Lois with someone else. And I will give kudos to Singer. In that they made Richard a nice guy. Even to Clark and Supes. They could have gone the cookie-cutter way and made him a smarmy jerk.
-Lastly, Can you imagine if Warner decided to go with another director for the sequel. And offered it to Sam Raimi? He was a huge Supes fan before he became a Spidey fan.
Actually its a conspiracy. Singer leaving X-Men to do Superman was part of Marvels plan to sabotage the Superman franchise. Thus keeping Marvel's stranglehold of the comic movie market.
And it was all planned by this man....
Strange question: Did Kevin Spacey play one of Luthor's henchmen as well? One of those guys looks so much like him that I got confused during the museum robbery when it cut between a goon with a Ceaser haircut and Luthor with the long hair.
This idea was first put forth in 1971 by science fiction writer Larry Niven, in his essay "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex". http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html
I think that you guys are thinking too much into it. The Donner films are just a backdrop for previous events not a set in stone history. The time period that the Donner films happened in doesnt matter.
That's another really good point. Especially the Smallville bit. If you cancel that by the end of Season 4 (where it was SUPPOSED to have ended in the first place) You get a LOT of separation between that and this movie, and a big jones starts to settle in to get that Superman fix.
Thanks for the link, Rob!
Here's Kevin Smith's take on it from Mallrats:
What's funny is that both takes are comedy for the sake of being comedy but people actually point to this in arguments now
That was my quote, not Chuck, so you're disagreeing with me, not Chuck.
I'm the one worried about Peters if the movie doesn't make enough, not the public. The Public has no clue who he is. I think the movies going to make enough to let Singer do what he wants, but you know there will be pressure to bring in a super powered Villain. Just no Polar Bears, Gay sidekick & Giant Spiders .
Of course, Superman was human when he slept with (and impregnated) Lois in Superman II.
What that then leaves is the question of how the kid has powers when his Superman half wasn't super when it met up with the Lois/human half.....
Oh, OK, it's been forever since I've seen the Reeve movies. So is the current movie implying that he left Earth to try to find Krypton immediately after that movie ended? Because, by the logic of the current movie, Lois thinks Richard is the dad (unless she's lying to Lex on his ship, which I doubt was what the filmmakers had in mind), and that means she would have had to get going with Richard awfully quickly after making it with Superman and then despairing over his leaving her without saying goodbye...wouldn't it?
Except according to Singer/Daugherty/Harris' story--Superman II didn't happen. There's Superman I, then there's this prequel comic story, then there's Superman Returns.
Apparently, in this movie, Superman CAN not only bang a human woman without blowing her brains out (which makes sense: It's not like everytime he hugs someone he pops their top off. He does have CONTROL of his muscles) but Lois CAN carry that baby to term (since it's not actually SEEING any sun on it's little baby skin and give birth to the half/alien half/human.
The other question is how does Superman bang Lois without telling Lois he's CLARK KENT? That's cold.
Well now there's plenty of Kyrptonite on Earth for future villains to find.
Ah, but see the Niven essay for discussion of that very point.
I haven't seen anything that indicatest that SUPERMAN 2 didn't happen. The only quote from Singer himself I could find on the subject is as follows:
Obviously, the line in SUPERMAN III referencing the death of Ma Kent must be ignored, but Singer's use of the plural "films" makes it clear to me that he intends for SUPERMAN RETURNS to be a sequel to at least the first 2 films. Also, Kitty in SR references Luthor's first visit to the Fortress, as seen in SM2.
There were four prequel comics published by DC during the month of June. #1 was about Jor-El and featured the opening scenes from the first movie, with additional dialogue. #2 focused on Ma Kent, and the fact that she buys her pies rather than making them herself from scratch, because that's too much trouble to go through for just herself. (At this point, the comics started to look a little expensive at $4 each, considering how little material they contain.) #3 featured Luthor and his release from prison. (The jailbreak and presumed eventual return to prison in SM2 are not mentioned). #4 is all about Lois Lane. The only mention of Jason's paternity is on page 24. In the delivery room, Lois says, "I can't believe I let you do this to me!! You owe me, White!" while Richard holds her hand and the doctors deliver the baby.
All four prequel comics feature the credit, "Story by Bryan Singer, Michael Dougherty, and Dan Harris" with script by some regular comic book people.
I thought they had acknowledged that Superman II was also part of the film's "vague history"? Singer said early on that you could basically consider the film to be "Superman 3", while the writers have since taken pains to downplay that notion. (According to them, they don't want to discount the work that people did on parts 3 and 4.)
Also, when Spacey appeared on The Tonight Show, he described the film as being set "five years after Superman II". I can't imagine he would think that unless the writers and director had explained it that way to him. (Not to mention, they do hint that Lex has been to the fortress before.)
Anyway, Superman was not only powerless when he slept with Lois in Superman II, but he erased her memory of the incident as well. I still find it odd that the film took time to explain trivial things like where Lex got his money, while avoiding big questions such as this one.
You can still buy that Jason is a product of the sex scene in Superman II. It's just the biology of the whole thing that's a bit wacky. I mean, if he is powerless and a mortal, does that mean he's not Kryptonian either?
Personally, I bought the whole thing. It seemed to me that Lois had no idea that Jason was Superman's.