Superman Returns trailer--NOT merely a teaser!
Ken from Chicago
unambiguously evil.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/supermanreturns/trailer2/
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. It's up a mere 4 days before Mother's day. Coincidence?
trike
Basically it looks like a better version of the awful 70s movie.
My question is: if both Clark and Superman have been gone the exact
same amount of time, why doesn't anyone close to him notice?
Doug
Paul O'Neill
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146777845.9...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mind control?
PastaLover
To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would look
like. This new kid just looks too young. He'd have been okay for a
"Superboy" movie, but I'm just not sure about SuperMAN.
And as with the first Batman movie, the villian is going to steal the
show....
Ophidian
>
> To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
> Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would look
> like.
I think Welling looks the "young Superman" part better.
May not act it though...
Looks I liked:
Steve Reaves' beefy confident Supes.
His Clark wasn't too inspired though.
Chris Reeve's version of both Supes (happy, heroic, inspiring,
and human) and Clark (goofy, successful, likeable.)
Dean Cain's Clark.
But his Superman was too concieted and sneering.
He might have worked well as a different character...
Kirk Allen's laughing, happy, lanky Superman.
Not the book version, but fun.
Don't recall his Clark though, must have been really uninspired.
> And as with the first Batman movie, the villian is going to steal the
> show....
As with many of the best Superman and Batman comics!
George Peatty
>Basically it looks like a better version of the awful 70s movie.
The new trailer looks really good. Spacey plays Luthor much as Hackman did,
and they kept the John Williams music, so the score at least is gonna rock!
>My question is: if both Clark and Superman have been gone the exact
>same amount of time, why doesn't anyone close to him notice?
My question is: how can I pair of reading glasses and a feigned wussy
outlook on life fool so many people for so long? Everyone around Clark Kent
- *everyone* - should have figured out he was the Big Red S years ago ..
There was a neat Huntress story in the 80's where she is standing in some
attorney's office, and the lawyer suddenly has this epiphany: "My God,
that's Helena!" Lois, Jimmy and Perry all should have had such moments.
__
This space left blank
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
George Peatty
>To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
>Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would look
>like. This new kid just looks too young. He'd have been okay for a
>"Superboy" movie, but I'm just not sure about SuperMAN.
Chris Reeve isn't anywhere near what I thought Superman would look like ..
The problem with Routh is not that he's too young, it's that you're older ..
I have the same problem with Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane: there's no way
this nubile young maid is an experienced, hard-nosed reporter ..
Joe Sewell
Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote:
> PastaLover wrote:
>
> >
> > To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
> > Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would look
> > like.
>
> I think Welling looks the "young Superman" part better.
> May not act it though...
>
> Looks I liked:
>
> Steve Reaves' beefy confident Supes.
> His Clark wasn't too inspired though.
Point of order: his name was George Reeves.
--
_
ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Fight Spam! Join the Coalition
against HTML e-mail X Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
http://www.metacon.ca/ascii / \ http://www.cauce.org
Ophidian
> In article <iDv6g.6342$8q.5181@dukeread08>,
> Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>PastaLover wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
>>>Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would look
>>>like.
>>
>>I think Welling looks the "young Superman" part better.
>>May not act it though...
>>
>>Looks I liked:
>>
>>Steve Reaves' beefy confident Supes.
>>His Clark wasn't too inspired though.
>
> Point of order: his name was George Reeves.
I always get the correct spellings on Steev and Kris mixed up.
Sorry. ;(
junior-kun
They had an episode of Lois and Clark that had a similar plotline.
Everyone assumed that Superman was Clark's hero, and that when Superman
left, Clark moved back to Kansas because his heart was broken.
Fallen
I find myself strangely underwhelmed. The idea of making a pseudo sequel
just seems ridiculously stupid to me. The plotline with Lois being a
mother is even more stupid. The two chosen to play Lois and Clark are,
uhm, well nothing really. They just don't register as interesting enough
to even bother putting down. Spacey seems to be hamming it up as an
homage to Gene Hackman.
They should have 'Batman Begin'ed it.
Fallen.
dsi...@yahoo.com
George Peatty wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:50:43 -0700, PastaLover <photo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
> >Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would look
> >like. This new kid just looks too young. He'd have been okay for a
> >"Superboy" movie, but I'm just not sure about SuperMAN.
>
> Chris Reeve isn't anywhere near what I thought Superman would look like ..
> The problem with Routh is not that he's too young, it's that you're older ..
> I have the same problem with Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane: there's no way
> this nubile young maid is an experienced, hard-nosed reporter ..
Add to that the fact that she has a toddler. If Superman has been gone
long enough for this Lois to meet him, miss him, get over him, and have
a baby, she must have started at the Planet at about the age of 13.
My prediction? By the end of the picture, Lois's kid will have never
existed. Throws off the mythos too much.
--Dave Sikula
Barry Margolin
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I find myself strangely underwhelmed. The idea of making a pseudo sequel
> just seems ridiculously stupid to me. The plotline with Lois being a
> mother is even more stupid. The two chosen to play Lois and Clark are,
> uhm, well nothing really. They just don't register as interesting enough
> to even bother putting down. Spacey seems to be hamming it up as an
> homage to Gene Hackman.
The new Clark looks like an even dorkier version of Christopher Reeve.
And is it just me or does the new Lois look a little like a slightly
older Kristen Kreuk?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
John
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146777845.9...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
super-hypnosis glasses.
PastaLover
> PastaLover wrote:
>
>>
>> To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
>> Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would
>> look like.
>
>
> I think Welling looks the "young Superman" part better.
> May not act it though...
>
> Looks I liked:
>
> Steve Reaves' beefy confident Supes.
> His Clark wasn't too inspired though.
"Steve"????
You mean George Reeves? As in the 1950's "Adventures of Superman" TV show?
I thought he balanced Clark/Superman pretty well.
>
> Chris Reeve's version of both Supes (happy, heroic, inspiring,
> and human) and Clark (goofy, successful, likeable.)
>
> Dean Cain's Clark.
> But his Superman was too concieted and sneering.
Agreed.
> He might have worked well as a different character...
>
> Kirk Allen's laughing, happy, lanky Superman.
> Not the book version, but fun.
> Don't recall his Clark though, must have been really uninspired.
I've never really seen Kirk's work. I've seen a few pictures, but never
any of his movies.
>
>> And as with the first Batman movie, the villian is going to steal the
>> show....
>
>
> As with many of the best Superman and Batman comics!
No. The absolute best comics, regardless of whether they are Superman,
Batman, X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man, Green Lantern, etc., heck, not just
comics, any fiction (and real-life too), the hero and the villian are
written in such a way to balance each other. Sweet and sour, yin and
yang, good and evil; the way they play off each other and compliment
each other. One might temporarily gain the upper hand, but if either
side overpowers the other too much, it tends to weaken the story.
This, at least to me, if the flaw of several of the movie adaptations.
The actor choosen to be the villian is a far better actor, and ends up
"stealing the show."
Ken from Chicago
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-0D5C9C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
They are youngified. They look younger than Reeve and Kidder were ...
sheesh, a quarter century(?!?!!?!) ... ago in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. You could
believe Supes and Lois were in their early 30s. Now they look like they are
in their early 20s--which I think the actors are.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:e3es3b$kss$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
No, super-kiss from SII and SIII.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Ophidian" <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:iDv6g.6342$8q.5181@dukeread08...
How DARE you omit George Reeves' Superman / Clark Kent. He was the very
living model of Curt Swan's Superman.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"PastaLover" <photo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8VE6g.4288$_c1.580@fed1read05...
> Ophidian wrote:
>> PastaLover wrote:
<snip>
>>> And as with the first Batman movie, the villian is going to steal the
>>> show....
>>
>>
>> As with many of the best Superman and Batman comics!
>
> No. The absolute best comics, regardless of whether they are Superman,
> Batman, X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man, Green Lantern, etc., heck, not just
> comics, any fiction (and real-life too), the hero and the villian are
> written in such a way to balance each other. Sweet and sour, yin and yang,
> good and evil; the way they play off each other and compliment each other.
> One might temporarily gain the upper hand, but if either side overpowers
> the other too much, it tends to weaken the story.
>
> This, at least to me, if the flaw of several of the movie adaptations. The
> actor choosen to be the villian is a far better actor, and ends up
> "stealing the show."
Precisely. They get some young nobody to play the hero--on the cheap, for a
trilogy / series of movies--and go all out to get megastars for the one-time
villain role.
-- Ken from Chcago
Ken from Chicago
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146800554.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Or it's Clark's son.
-- Ken from Chicago
Mark J. Reed
>>>Steve Reaves' beefy confident Supes.
>>>His Clark wasn't too inspired though.
>>
>> Point of order: his name was George Reeves.
>I always get the correct spellings on Steev and Kris mixed up.
>Sorry. ;(
It's not that you mispelled the surname, it's that you have the first name
completely wrong. There is no "Steve" in this list; the 50's TV Superman
was named George.
Mark J. Reed
>They are youngified. They look younger than Reeve and Kidder were ...
>sheesh, a quarter century(?!?!!?!) ... ago in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.
28 years ago - a year before Brandon Routh was *born*.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Steve Reeves (no relation to either of them) was playing
Hercules in Eurofilm "epics" at about the same time, and does
have sort of the right look, so the confusion's
understandable.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"[Wolverine]'s in every book. I think he just joined
the JLA, and for some reason he's in the revised
Penguin edition of Little Dorrit." -Joss Whedon
George Peatty
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>How DARE you omit George Reeves' Superman / Clark Kent. He was the very
>living model of Curt Swan's Superman.
I wouldn't go that far, but Reeves *was* Clark Kent. No one else is even
close .. The only flaw with the Reeves vision is that his Kent was a bit too
forthright and assertive. He didn't put up much of a timid act ..
trike
Or the kid's adopted. And actually one of Luthor's many scions.
Doug
Lee K. Seitz
>unambiguously evil.
>
>http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/supermanreturns/trailer2/
I'm gratified to see that later discussion here, plus my wife's
comment after showing her the trailer, also commented on how young
Supes and Lois look. It's not just me.
So, why is this rated PG-13? "Some intence action violence." What
exactly does that mean? I wanted to take my 8-year-old son to see it,
but if it's rated PG-13, that sounds like a bad idea. :-(
--
lkseitz (Lee K. Seitz) .at. hiwaay @dot@ net
DOCTOR STRANGE: By the hoary hosts of Hoggoth!
-- Stan Lee
trike
George Peatty wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:50:43 -0700, PastaLover <photo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
> >Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would look
> >like. This new kid just looks too young. He'd have been okay for a
> >"Superboy" movie, but I'm just not sure about SuperMAN.
>
> Chris Reeve isn't anywhere near what I thought Superman would look like ..
> The problem with Routh is not that he's too young, it's that you're older ..
> I have the same problem with Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane: there's no way
> this nubile young maid is an experienced, hard-nosed reporter ..
They both look too young to me. Especially for all these adventures
they've supposedly had.
I think it'll be better than the 1978 version, because Singer is a
better director than Donner and he's also a fair hand at writing, but
this is clearly Singer's "geek movie." I'm guessing he's always adored
the 1978 film and now wants to remake it. The fact that Noel Neill
(Lois Lane from the 1950s TV show, 1978's Lois Lane's mom) is also in
it just underscores that notion.
Doug
Ken from Chicago
"George Peatty" <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:j1rm5251mp9vls0fr...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 May 2006 08:29:36 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>How DARE you omit George Reeves' Superman / Clark Kent. He was the very
>>living model of Curt Swan's Superman.
>
> I wouldn't go that far, but Reeves *was* Clark Kent. No one else is even
> close .. The only flaw with the Reeves vision is that his Kent was a bit
> too
> forthright and assertive. He didn't put up much of a timid act ..
Which perfectly pre-dated POST-Crisis Clark as being more assertive.
-- Ken from Chicago
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> I think it'll be better than the 1978 version, because
> Singer is a better director than Donner and he's also a
> fair hand at writing, but this is clearly Singer's "geek
> movie." I'm guessing he's always adored the 1978 film and
> now wants to remake it. The fact that Noel Neill (Lois
> Lane from the 1950s TV show, 1978's Lois Lane's mom) is
> also in it just underscores that notion.
I think the clearest evidence of this is using archive footage
of Brando's Jor-El...
And the 1950s Jimmy Olsen, Jack Larson, is going to be playing
Bibbo.
Not that I'm complaining; a "geek movie" is exactly what I
want to see.
Ophidian
Sorry, Mrak.
One got by you...
Ophidian
> Also Sprach Mark J. Reed:
>
>>Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>Steve Reaves' beefy confident Supes.
>>>>>His Clark wasn't too inspired though.
>>>>
>>>>Point of order: his name was George Reeves.
>>
>>>I always get the correct spellings on Steev and Kris mixed
>>>up. Sorry. ;(
>>
>>It's not that you mispelled the surname, it's that you have
>>the first name completely wrong. There is no "Steve" in
>>this list; the 50's TV Superman was named George.
>
> Steve Reeves (no relation to either of them) was playing
> Hercules in Eurofilm "epics" at about the same time, and does
> have sort of the right look, so the confusion's
> understandable.
No confusion.
Just sleep deprivation. ;(
Ophidian
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>> PastaLover wrote:
>>>
>>> To be honest, I think this movie looks like a parody of the original.
>>> Chris Reeve actually looked like we always imagined Superman would
>>> look like.
>>
>> I think Welling looks the "young Superman" part better.
>> May not act it though...
>>
>> Looks I liked:
>>
>> Steve Reaves' beefy confident Supes.
>> His Clark wasn't too inspired though.
>
> "Steve"????
>
> You mean George Reeves? As in the 1950's "Adventures of Superman" TV show?
"EVERYONE'S OUT TO GET ME!!!!" ;(
> I thought he balanced Clark/Superman pretty well.
I didn't see much personality in his Clark.
But then Lois didn't have a personality either.
>> Kirk Allen's laughing, happy, lanky Superman.
>> Not the book version, but fun.
>> Don't recall his Clark though, must have been really uninspired.
>
> I've never really seen Kirk's work. I've seen a few pictures, but never
> any of his movies.
They're fun.
But might not be what modern audiences would expect.
> This, at least to me, if the flaw of several of the movie adaptations.
> The actor choosen to be the villian is a far better actor, and ends up
> "stealing the show."
I dunno, there's always the "heroes are judged by the foes they face".
The more interesting the adversary...
Besides it's easier to play a villian...
Ophidian
>
> How DARE you omit George Reeves' Superman / Clark Kent. He was the very
> living model of Curt Swan's Superman.
Nice Ken, I deserved that one. ;)
Ken from Chicago
It sounds less like a typo but more like name switcheroo considering "Steve
Reeves" was vaguely familiar. Like someone who didn't know much history but
mixed George Jefferson for the 3rd POTUS.
-- Ken from Chicago
Forge
Steve Reeves was arguably one of the best-looking dudes to play
Hercules; he might've made an okay Supes if he could y'know, act.
Thing people forget: Christopher Reeve, no "s."
Forge
"Paul O'Neill" <new...@lazyeyedpsycho.cjb dot net> wrote:
> > My question is: if both Clark and Superman have been gone the exact
> > same amount of time, why doesn't anyone close to him notice?
> >
> > Doug
>
> Mind control?
That's one concept put forth in the comics; Clark subconsciously
hypnotizes onlookers such that there's no way anyone would ever believe
he's Superman. At one point they even said it's the Kryptonian glass
that his eyeglasses are made of.
spiritof...@hotmail.com
> Precisely. They get some young nobody to play the hero--on the cheap, for a
> trilogy / series of movies--and go all out to get megastars for the one-time
> villain role.
This is actually a good thing - for a few reasons:
The studios need to ensure that people go to see the moviesand that the
movies make money. Attaching big names to the movies will ensure that
people go to see those movies.
Going with an unknown for the heroes is usually better than casting
celebrities in the roles, because then you see the characters, not the
actors.
Occasionally, the choice for the hero isn't that great, so it's up to
the villain's actor to pick up the slack. For example, Michael Keaton
wasn't that great as Batman / Bruce Wayne. Jack Nicholson as the Joker
didn't steal the show. He saved the show.
Occasionally, the choice for the hero is good, but you still need some
big names to draw the people into the theaters. For example,
Christopher Reeve was great as Superman / Clark Kent, but he was a
nobody. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and Marlon Brando as Jor-El were
needed to guarantee the film's success, though.
Mark Moore
George Peatty
<fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
>That's one concept put forth in the comics; Clark subconsciously
>hypnotizes onlookers such that there's no way anyone would ever believe
>he's Superman. At one point they even said it's the Kryptonian glass
>that his eyeglasses are made of.
That's not Superman; that's the Shadow! ;)
Ken from Chicago
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 08:53:19 -0400, Forge
> <fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
>
>>That's one concept put forth in the comics; Clark subconsciously
>>hypnotizes onlookers such that there's no way anyone would ever believe
>>he's Superman. At one point they even said it's the Kryptonian glass
>>that his eyeglasses are made of.
>
> That's not Superman; that's the Shadow! ;)
Post-Crisis, there have been public sightings of both Superman and Clark
simultaneously, together. Most famously, Superman rescuing Clark after
Superman "died".
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Then it was shape-changing Supergirl aka Matrix, but previously I think
he's used robots.
Ken from Chicago
<spiritof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146928306....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Keaton was great was Wayne, but the role was underwritten. Nicholson had far
and away the most screen time between the two, so much it shoulda been
called JOKER.
George Clooney was a great bit of casting since on ER he played "Dr. Doug
Ross", playboy by night, do-gooder doc by day. Batman is playboy by day and
do-gooder vigilante by night. Natch, the role was--yet again--underwritten.
By BATMAN AND ROBIN there were so many characters, Bats, Robin, Batgirl,
Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze (in another bit of great casting, tho this time the
role was MISwritten as a wise-cracking villain, instead of the monotone,
deadpan, almost emotionless character, ala BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES,
which had the pathos of the character down perfect)--and even Bane was
inserted also.
-- Ken from Chicago
John L Fjellstad
> My question is: how can I pair of reading glasses and a feigned wussy
> outlook on life fool so many people for so long? Everyone around Clark Kent
> - *everyone* - should have figured out he was the Big Red S years ago ..
Check out Superman, the movie, where Christopher Reeve transforms from
Clark Kent to Superman, just by taking off his glasses.
--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Replace YEAR with current four digit year
Ken from Chicago
"John L Fjellstad" <john-n...@fjellstad.org> wrote in message
news:87u083v...@fjellstad.org...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000166/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005447/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0452962/photogallery-granitz-0
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0177639/photogallery-hh-0
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Then again, in the comics, Supes and Clark have appeared in the same
place at the same time (either a robot or shapeshifter involved), because
sometimes people look alike.
Ophidian
And Martians!
Ophidian
Nah, Steev is a typo.
Except when I do it on purpose.
Me talking about Teddy Roosevelt's New Deal would be a momentary lapse
of reason, not a result of ignorance.
Unless I did it on purpose.
Ophidian
Yeah, I was so concentrating on trying to get the last name
spellings correct that I didn't even notice I'd typed Hercules'
first name by mistook.
And I may still have screwed up the last names...
Ophidian
>
> Keaton was great was Wayne, but the role was underwritten.
I agree, but as a clarifier he was distinctly _not_ any version of
Wayne previously portrayed in comics or film.
Usually I hate when they change a character like that.
Keaton made me believe in the integrity of this one though.
> George Clooney was a great bit of casting since on ER he played "Dr. Doug
> Ross", playboy by night, do-gooder doc by day. Batman is playboy by day and
> do-gooder vigilante by night. Natch, the role was--yet again--underwritten.
> By BATMAN AND ROBIN there were so many characters, Bats, Robin, Batgirl,
> Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze (in another bit of great casting, tho this time the
> role was MISwritten as a wise-cracking villain, instead of the monotone,
> deadpan, almost emotionless character, ala BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES,
> which had the pathos of the character down perfect)--and even Bane was
> inserted also.
My take on the last two of this franchise is that most the actors did
an incredible job with the crap they were given to work with.
Arnold is one of the _few_ who's acting I would question in the
last two.
Middlebrow
news:125n2vf...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <vMWdnfmKbdEmeMTZ...@comcast.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>And nice to see Lex Luthor charming, humorous, borderline insane, and
>>unambiguously evil.
>>
>>http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/supermanreturns/trailer2/
>
> I'm gratified to see that later discussion here, plus my wife's
> comment after showing her the trailer, also commented on how young
> Supes and Lois look. It's not just me.
>
> So, why is this rated PG-13? "Some intence action violence." What
> exactly does that mean? I wanted to take my 8-year-old son to see it,
> but if it's rated PG-13, that sounds like a bad idea. :-(
I suspect it's only a bad idea if you happen to be James Dobson.
Ken from Chicago
I was just about to mention Jonn Jonnz.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
I spose it would have been difficult for Franklin Delano to walk softly,
much less carry a big stick.
-- Ken from Chicago
Daibhid Ceanaideach
But, post-Crisis, never Batman wearing a rubber mask over his
cowl...
John
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Hd-dnaQyTtaLzMbZ...@comcast.com...
>
snip
>>> Basically it looks like a better version of the awful 70s movie.
>>>
>>> My question is: if both Clark and Superman have been gone the exact
>>> same amount of time, why doesn't anyone close to him notice?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> No, super-kiss from SII and SIII.
>
But that would be silly.
Nollaig MacKenzie
On 2006.05.05 13:32:50,
the amazing <kwicker1...@comcast.net> declared:
>
><dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146800554.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
<snip!>
>>
>> My prediction? By the end of the picture, Lois's kid will have never
>> existed. Throws off the mythos too much.
>>
>> --Dave Sikula
>>
>
> Or it's Clark's son.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
After Larry Niven's 'Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex'
I've been unable to conceive of such a thing.
--
Peter Bruells
> On 2006.05.05 13:32:50,
> the amazing <kwicker1...@comcast.net> declared:
>
> >
> ><dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1146800554.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip!>
> >>
> >> My prediction? By the end of the picture, Lois's kid will have never
> >> existed. Throws off the mythos too much.
> >>
> > Or it's Clark's son.
> After Larry Niven's 'Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex'
> I've been unable to conceive of such a thing.
Hadn't it be heavly implied that Kal-El and Lois had consumated their
marriage when he forsaw his powers in Superman 2?
Ken from Chicago
"John" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:e3m4hg$d7h$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
You would think so--until you run smack dab into brickvision.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Peter Bruells" <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote in message
news:m21wv4l...@rogue.ecce-terram.de...
"Marriage"?
"Foresaw"?
-- Ken from Chicago
Peter Bruells
Well, they obviously didn't pay a visit of the Standesamt of Argo
City, but I think the whole scene of him giving up his powers und the
eyes of his mother for his human lover and escortingher to the bed
afterwards was a clear metaphor for a marriage ceremony.
> "Foresaw"?
Whops. "forsook".
Ken from Chicago
That was no bed. That was a SUPER HAMMOCK!
Or a HAMMOCK OF SOLITUDE.
>> "Foresaw"?
>
> Whops. "forsook".
Oh.
-- Ken from Chicago
mwo...@umich.edu
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:barmar-0D5C9C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <dAz6g.88$dW2...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>,
> > Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I find myself strangely underwhelmed. The idea of making a pseudo sequel
> >> just seems ridiculously stupid to me. The plotline with Lois being a
> >> mother is even more stupid. The two chosen to play Lois and Clark are,
> >> uhm, well nothing really. They just don't register as interesting enough
> >> to even bother putting down. Spacey seems to be hamming it up as an
> >> homage to Gene Hackman.
> >
> > The new Clark looks like an even dorkier version of Christopher Reeve.
> >
> > And is it just me or does the new Lois look a little like a slightly
> > older Kristen Kreuk?
> >
> > --
> > Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
> > Arlington, MA
> > *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
>
> They are youngified. They look younger than Reeve and Kidder were ...
> sheesh, a quarter century(?!?!!?!) ... ago in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. You could
> believe Supes and Lois were in their early 30s. Now they look like they are
> in their early 20s--which I think the actors are.
According to IMDB, Reeve was only 26 when Superman came out (which
makes him actually younger than Routh, even though he looked a lot
older). But the problem lies in that "Superboy" Welling is 2 years
older than Routh!!
But comparing to Chris Reeve is tough on anyone...the real difference
lies in Lois...who a a Kidder-ish 30 when Superman came out, but
Bosworth is all of 23...a seven year difference (like you couldn't do
the math :P ). And if Superman left 5 years ago...that makes her all
of 18, and that's not even X-long after Superman appears. So,
basically, Kal-El liked 'em young. And here I thought it was Ned
Beatty in the Deliverance south.
She's the casting that really seems off to me. I'm not wild about
Routh, but I'm reserving judgement. Bosworth seems all wrong for the
part, though. But maybe she'll prove me wrong.
Chris C.
George Peatty
[snip]
>After Larry Niven's 'Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex'
>I've been unable to conceive of such a thing.
That whole essay has as many problems as any element of Superman continuity.
Niven, as usual, comes up with interesting ideas, then fails to think them
through. There are any number of ways which the Man of Steel may safely have
sexual relations with a woman of kleenex, to use his term:
1) He and his mate move to a planet with a red sun.
2) He can construct a deus ex machina red-sun machine in the Fortress of
Solitude which will neutralize his powers and the powers of his sperm. Call it
a safe sex room. To restore his powers, he simply hits the off switch
3) He can mate in an artificial gravity environment on Kandor
4) Zatara or Zatanna can cast a magic spell over his bedroom in the Fortress of
Solitude which reduces his "powers" in this area
5) Corollary to 4), Zatanna could enable any LL woman to withstand .. perhaps
even enjoy .. the increased level of activity ..
6) He can find that one piece of red kryptonite that would neutralize those
"powers" and put it in his bedroom
7) We may be forgetting that Superman may be so "super" in this area that he
could voluntarily restrain himself in both foreplay and intercourse, out of
consideration for his mate.
8) His mate could also become "super" in this area. Green Lantern could pull
this off with a power ring burst.
9) His buddies in the Legion of Super Heroes may have already considered and
solved this problem in the 30th century. Maybe it's time for a phone call or a
visit.
10) His father, Jor-El, may have anticipated this contingency (he seems to have
anticipated every other), and included a solution in the various archives of
Krypton sent to earth on the ship that carried Kal-El.
--
Michael S. Schiffer
news:e3qjv...@drn.newsguy.com:
>...
> 6) He can find that one piece of red kryptonite that would
> neutralize those "powers" and put it in his bedroom
Nit: in the Silver Age each piece of Red-K could only affect a given
Kryptonian once. (I don't know if the question "what if you broke it
in two?" was ever answered, but I'd guess it would have been once per
unique effect.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Peter Bruells
> In article <orm3j3-...@news.amhuinnsuidhe.net>, Nollaig MacKenzie says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >After Larry Niven's 'Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex'
> >I've been unable to conceive of such a thing.
>
> That whole essay has as many problems as any element of Superman continuity.
> Niven, as usual, comes up with interesting ideas, then fails to think them
> through. There are any number of ways which the Man of Steel may safely have
> sexual relations with a woman of kleenex, to use his term:
...
> 6) He can find that one piece of red kryptonite that would neutralize those
> "powers" and put it in his bedroom
That would work only once, though, if I'm not mistaken.