TO BE SUPE'S KID, OR NOT TO BE - FILM AND NOVEL DON'T AGREE

[Kar-El]

Doth this ferment anyone else's eggnog as it does mine? :x

Feeling a bit Shakespearean for no reason at all here, but Superman deserves some consistency. Even the official comic has nary a hint of Kryptonian geneage(is that a word?) for the kid. :?

I'm assuming Wolfman et al were working off an early script and Singer got the bright idea after both novel and comic were baked and we all know a cooked cookie can't be undone. :oops:

Experts... your thoughts?  And if this topic was hashed out before I apologize -- I searched but could not find. :roll:
So I post. :wink:

[Uncle Mxy]

The novel came out before the film and was tweaked so as not to spoil the surprise in the film.

[Kar-El]

That makes sense in a perverse corporate way, but plays havoc with any consistency in story. and seems really cynical to me. Is there a precedent for this kind of meddling with the facts of a story just to avoid giving away a plot secret? :roll:

If they didn't want to give away anything, then they should have timed the book release with the movie so it doesn't matter. Who did they think they were fooling anyway?

And what about the fact that a casual fan reading the book may not be terribly motivated to see the film due to the watered down threat created by the omission of Singer's ramped up emotional dilemma for Superman?  I wasn't thrilled with the idea of a kid, but on viewing the film have realized how this problem, unsolvable by Super powers, is more interesting than anything Lex could throw at him.