Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Lois Lane having a child in Superman Returns movie is a problem for that movie and future Superman movies. I like Bryan Singer as a director but if this of all movies come out wrong I do not what to hear his name in a action movie again also the next Superman movie would have to be call Superman Begins. Super hero movie should always be true to the comic books.

If this is true why is WB allowing this happen they of all people should know how to not make a bad super hero movie.

Please Bryan Singer use the comic books for help.

Originally posted by BB_hawk
Lois Lane having a child in Superman Returns movie is a problem for that movie and future Superman movies. I like Bryan Singer as a director but if this of all movies come out wrong I do not what to hear his name in a action movie again also the next Superman movie would have to be call Superman Begins. Super hero movie should always be true to the comic books.

If this is true why is WB allowing this happen they of all people should know how to not make a bad super hero movie.

Please Bryan Singer use the comic books for help.


they gonna have a super boy...or a super girl how sweet...but I could see problems with this too bro.

Originally posted by BB_hawk
Please Bryan Singer use the comic books for help.

Which comic books?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Which comic books?


god help us.

What I should have said was that the child was Lois and Richard White nephew of Perry White.

been there... done that... Lonna already had a kid in Superman 3. Lois doesn't need children because you just lost the tension between Superman and his love. Brett Ratner needs to stick to what he knows. A goofy black man and a chung kind cop. He's made alot of money off of Rush hour. Start working on 3 and leave Superman alone.

No Lois should not have a child.

Superman is one sicko...dressing up his two year kids as little images of himself.

The child should be Clark's instead of Richard's.

Originally posted by DarkCrawler
Superman is one sicko...dressing up his two year kids as little images of himself. Have you seen the rest of what he did on that site?

Offering batman a gun duel to the death was funny, but snapping Lois's air tube because she wouldn't marry him? What a dick.

I'm not sure if he's killed her more often, or married her more often . . .

rush hour 3 was cancelled, so ratner is free to spoil x-men...

as a superman fan i feel so f*cked over that singer is doing superman returns...

Originally posted by pr1983
rush hour 3 was cancelled, so ratner is free to spoil x-men...

as a superman fan i feel so f*cked over that singer is doing superman returns...

i thought you'd never said that.... man, this is so f@cked, who the heck picked bryan singer??? apparently WB doesn't wanna challenge MARVEL, they just wanna destroy superheros, what a bunch of j..., can't believe all i read here. i just wanna go to another planet, or pretend this never happened, on the other hand, let this guy bring superman down, so the next superman movie we watch will look even bigger. i don't know what i am saying anymore, i am just so mad and disappointed.

What if I tell you that there was a new rumor out there about the child and it was Superman child and that the kid don't have super powers what so ever. I still think it shouldn't be because it would make Superman more soft.

http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html

'nuff said

Originally posted by Creshosk
Which comic books?

LOL LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Supes' son in the undies without the tights looks really really wrong.....

I think that the child may ACTUALLY be Superman's.cough Lois and Clark had sex in Superman II cough

^^^^^^ comeon thats was pretty obvious... and we all know Supes didn't have protection on him in the Fortress of Solitude ^^^^^^

finally some people feel like me! i went and saw this crap yesterday and hated the movie after clues were being dropped that jason was the son of superman. WTF? superman should not have a friggin kid. that destroyed the whole movie. please either get a new director producer or erase this movie and say it was a dream before they destroy superman even more. i also thought that this made superman look weak especially when he basically "died".

Originally posted by alexanderluthor
i thought you'd never said that.... man, this is so f@cked, who the heck picked bryan singer??? apparently WB doesn't wanna challenge MARVEL, they just wanna destroy superheros, what a bunch of j..., can't believe all i read here. i just wanna go to another planet, or pretend this never happened, on the other hand, let this guy bring superman down, so the next superman movie we watch will look even bigger. i don't know what i am saying anymore, i am just so mad and disappointed.

Dr. Zaius agrees with you on all following matters of interpretation:

1) Your anger and disappointment over the poor quality of the film.

2) Your incredulity that a major motion picture studio could make such staggeringly bad decisions with a major film property.

3) Your growing dislike for Bryan Singer.

4) Your disbelief at the blind fan loyalty on this board towards an obviously bad portrayal of their beloved character.

5) Your selection of a clearly superior Superman actor in the jpeg image below your comments.

Congratulations on your superior taste and judgment.

What then...diabolical?

Originally posted by darkthoughtbox
been there... done that... Lonna already had a kid in Superman 3. Lois doesn't need children because you just lost the tension between Superman and his love. Brett Ratner needs to stick to what he knows. A goofy black man and a chung kind cop. He's made alot of money off of Rush hour. Start working on 3 and leave Superman alone.

No Lois should not have a child.

I think you're confused. Ratner directed X3, not Superman.

Originally posted by BB_hawk
Lois Lane having a child in Superman Returns movie is a problem for that movie and future Superman movies. I like Bryan Singer as a director but if this of all movies come out wrong I do not what to hear his name in a action movie again also the next Superman movie would have to be call Superman Begins. Super hero movie should always be true to the comic books.

If this is true why is WB allowing this happen they of all people should know how to not make a bad super hero movie.

Please Bryan Singer use the comic books for help.


im a littel confused.

wb has smallville right well i watch it all the time and i love it but it does not stay true to superman comics

Originally posted by alexanderluthor
i thought you'd never said that.... man, this is so f@cked, who the heck picked bryan singer??? apparently WB doesn't wanna challenge MARVEL, they just wanna destroy superheros, what a bunch of j..., can't believe all i read here. i just wanna go to another planet, or pretend this never happened, on the other hand, let this guy bring superman down, so the next superman movie we watch will look even bigger. i don't know what i am saying anymore, i am just so mad and disappointed.

Your sig disgusts me. The costume was effin' fantastic. I would have been pissed if they had put him in some shitty spandex with gumboots, a bed-sheet cape, a crappy cotton symbol on his chest, and a cotton belt.

The new suit is AWSOME.

I bet a million dollars if the 'Superman Returns' suit was used in 78' and the 78' suit was used in Returns, you'd still cry over it.

If Routh was Superman in 78' and Reeves' in 2006, you'd still complain.

Bradon Routh was a better Superman.

Jesus H Christ. GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!

Quit your freakin' crying.

Thanks for reading!

Originally posted by roguemaster71
finally some people feel like me! i went and saw this crap yesterday and hated the movie after clues were being dropped that jason was the son of superman. WTF? superman should not have a friggin kid. that destroyed the whole movie. please either get a new director producer or erase this movie and say it was a dream before they destroy superman even more. i also thought that this made superman look weak especially when he basically "died".


Well, go get yourself a big hammer, a pile of sand, and pound it up your backside, if you're so upset.
I don't know how much more faithful homages they could have made, to the comics and to the first movie. But guess what? The filmmakers have artistic freedom too. This issue of having a child, this involves something not often seen in comics, where things are very much kept the same decade after decade. It's known as evolution - of character, of story.
They 've only explored Superman having offspring in alternate future stories, like Kingdom Come and DK2. In the movies, things can change, villains can actually die, people can get older. If the story of this movie is about Superman trying to find his connection to humankind - while also needing to hold them at a distance, for their own safety - this child is the answer. I will be interested to see where they go with this. Superman can't raise him, because it would acknowledge to the world who he is, and he feels the rest of humanity has to come first. We'll see...

As to making him look weak? He pulled off the greatest feat he has done yet in the movies, pushing an island bigger than Manhattan - filled with Kryptonite! - into space; and the strain nearly killed and left him comatose. Humans taking care of him while he's helpless - it's part of the rebonding he's been going through with them, since returning. If any had their doubts about the world not needing him before, they were gone after that.

I don't like the kid idea.

Thanks for ruining the movie for me. DUMBASS.

Couldn't you at least use spoilers or so !

Lois having a kid has been in the news since last year, and shown in the trailers since May.
They were just quiet about who the father could be, is all.

Doesn't matter. You just don't create threads that can spoil the fun of watching the movie. I know A LOT about movies, but I'll be honest and admit I had no idea they were giving Superman a son for this movie.

I also try to avoid trailers, because sometimes they ruin the movie for you.