Love letter

[Sluggo]

My biggest question about this movie is, will it be just another love letter from Singer to Donner or will Singer allow Routh to play Superman and Clark HIS way rather then pretending to be Reeves, forget the "son of Superman" thing all together etc...

[Angeloz]

Perhaps they'll have Clark and everyone work for an internet porno site just to be different. :D

Angeloz

[Sun_Down]

My biggest question about this movie is, will it be just another love letter from Singer to Donner or will Singer allow Routh to play Superman and Clark HIS way rather then pretending to be Reeves, forget the "son of Superman" thing all together etc...

Wow, you've regurgitated other people's words so well that you've forgotten to actually make any sense. Bravo.

[TheComicbookKid]

Routh said in an interview that the next one will be completely Singer.

I know that strikes terror into some of your hearts!:woot:

[TheComicbookKid]

Double post

[mjbull23]

At this point, I think Singer has no choice, it has to be his intrepretation and solely his.

[superbaby]

At this point, I think Singer has no choice, it has to be his intrepretation and solely his.
but he has none!

maybe more superman's ass kicking... and giving him a daughter this time.

[Qwerty©]

Okay, I'm getting fed up with this absurd assumption that Singer is obsessed with the Donner movies and refuses to deviate from them.

Superman Returns was OBVIOUSLY a send off to the Donner films. This is extremely evident in many ways:

- The plot mirrors that of Superman: The Movie, not because Singer was ripping it off, as some posters incorrectly assume, but because it is to reflect a new start, a second origin, so to speak.

- Metropolis looks completely different.

- The suit looks completely different.

- Lex Luthor is bald most of the time, if the Donner films were truly his only frame of reference, he would constantly be wearing a wig.

- Superman has a freakin' son now! If that isn't deviating from the Donner films, then I don't know what is.

Superman Returns was all about moving away from the past and looking into a new direction. This is shown in the movie by how he lands to earth in a ship a second time, reintroduces himself by catching a plane, and dies and is ressurected. He also flies off into the sunset, which in movies is often used to show new adventure is ahead.

Basically, if you think Singer is afraid to move on from the Donner films, you don't know what you are talking about.

[Chaos Bringer]

- Lex Luthor is bald most of the time, if the Donner films were truly his only frame of reference, he would constantly be wearing a wig.

wasn't that Gene's idea?

[Angeloz]

At least he was conned into shaving the mustache. Which amused him when he found out.

Angeloz

[ThanosOfTitans]

Okay, I'm getting fed up with this absurd assumption that Singer is obsessed with the Donner movies and refuses to deviate from them.

Superman Returns was OBVIOUSLY a send off to the Donner films. This is extremely evident in many ways:

- The plot mirrors that of Superman: The Movie, not because Singer was ripping it off, as some posters incorrectly assume, but because it is to reflect a new start, a second origin, so to speak.

- Metropolis looks completely different.

- The suit looks completely different.

- Lex Luthor is bald most of the time, if the Donner films were truly his only frame of reference, he would constantly be wearing a wig.

- Superman has a freakin' son now! If that isn't deviating from the Donner films, then I don't know what is.

Superman Returns was all about moving away from the past and looking into a new direction. This is shown in the movie by how he lands to earth in a ship a second time, reintroduces himself by catching a plane, and dies and is ressurected. He also flies off into the sunset, which in movies is often used to show new adventure is ahead.

Basically, if you think Singer is afraid to move on from the Donner films, you don't know what you are talking about.

most of the things you pointed out are aesthetic qualities. "looks different"...well, the movies happened in two different times. technology and culture have changed quite a bit...so i think it's a given that things would look different.

and the son is merely one aspect of the film. it doesn't drastically change the fact that Superman Returns is dreadfully close to Donner's original work. in fact, some have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. many pretty much already knew the kid was superman's before the movie released despite Singer's effort to keep it a "surprise." i'm sure most of us that saw the movie (who are on the boards)...weren't really surprise at all. it was pretty predictable to me.

[WhatsHisFace]

I trust Singer, I really do. Though "Returns" was classically made to fit Richard Donner's vision, Singer added hints of what he wants to do. "The Kid" "Richard" a morose Superman, et cetera.

I think I will miss some of the Donner touches, like the very respectable Superman, but Singer makes great films.

[The Kid]

I would love to see Singer do a batman film. He's more suited for that than superman, really. Nolan's the Superman kind of director.

Just watch returns again and imagine it's batman you're watching. Fits perfectly. Don't believe me? don't be dumb and think I'm referring to the island lifting as something batman would do. I'm talking about the darkness. Imagine lex's ho as Harley and Lex as Joker. Imagine all the brooding Routh does as batman's brooding. Imagine the beating as something batman would typically have to endure. Wow.

Now turn it around on Begins. Imagine ra's as the genius crimminal mastermind, Lex Luthor. Imagine Batman as superman, flying in to save the day. Imagine Rachael as Lois Lane.

Everything's backwards. WB should just switch the directors for batman and superman if they're smart.

[Qwerty©]

most of the things you pointed out are aesthetic qualities. "looks different"...well, the movies happened in two different times. technology and culture have changed quite a bit...so i think it's a given that things would look different.The entire concept of what Metropolis should be was different. The main point is that Metropolis' appearance is what Singer wanted it to be, and not a Donner ripoff.

and the son is merely one aspect of the film.Merely? It completely changes the dynamic of the character. it doesn't drastically change the fact that Superman Returns is dreadfully close to Donner's original work.Except it's not. It's a completely different film in terms of tone and message. in fact, some have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick.And those people would be wrong. Singer isn't into gimmicks being used as major plot points. many pretty much already knew the kid was superman's before the movie released despite Singer's effort to keep it a "surprise." i'm sure most of us that saw the movie (who are on the boards)...weren't really surprise at all. it was pretty predictable to me.What does that have to do with anything?

[Dr. Fate]

most of the things you pointed out are aesthetic qualities. "looks different"...well, the movies happened in two different times. technology and culture have changed quite a bit...so i think it's a given that things would look different.

and the son is merely one aspect of the film. it doesn't drastically change the fact that Superman Returns is dreadfully close to Donner's original work. in fact, some have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. many pretty much already knew the kid was superman's before the movie released despite Singer's effort to keep it a "surprise." i'm sure most of us that saw the movie (who are on the boards)...weren't really surprise at all. it was pretty predictable to me.
Yup. Biggest difference: Donner's Superman was a respectable guy and Singer's Superman is not a respectable guy.

[COMPO]

maybe, they'll turn Clark more assertive so that he'll want to fight for Lois himself and not as Superman.

[Qwerty©]

Yup. Biggest difference: Donner's Superman was a respectable guy and Singer's Superman is not a respectable guy.Well, I guess if you make an absolute statement like that, you MUST be right!

I mean, presenting your opinion civilly like "I connected with Donner's Superman more than Singer's Superman" is completely out of the question! :rolleyes:

Everybody has to be right all the time, and that's what is driving these boards straight to hell.

[ThanosOfTitans]

The entire concept of what Metropolis should be was different. The main point is that Metropolis' appearance is what Singer wanted it to be, and not a Donner ripoff.

Merely? It completely changes the dynamic of the character. Except it's not. It's a completely different film in terms of tone and message. And those people would be wrong. Singer isn't into gimmicks being used as major plot points. What does that have to do with anything?

Well, I guess if you make an absolute statement like that, you MUST be right!



I mean, presenting your opinion civilly like "I connected with Donner's Superman more than Singer's Superman" is completely out of the question!



Everybody has to be right all the time, and that's what is driving these boards straight to hell.



it's funny how you seem to be the main advocate behind this "opinion is different from fact" movement, yet you seem to be stating opinion as fact. I said that people have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. and your rebuttal is that these poeple are "wrong" because Singer isn't into gimmicks (because you know Singer so well). You're the main one complaining about people just always have to be right and know everything...and then you flat out say that people who basically don't see things the way you do are wrong. hyporcrite much? you just made posts about opinions and facts...and this whole thing about how people so insistant on being right.....well, what do you think you're doing? but i understand your need to stand by superman returns and constantly defend it by all means necessary...and condescendingly discredit other individual's opinions. i guess if the boards truly are going to hell (like you so melodramatically insist...you're apart of the problem)

[Qwerty©]

it's funny how you seem to be the main advocate behind this "opinion is different from fact" movement, yet you seem to be stating opinion as fact. I said that people have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. and your rebuttal is that these poeple are "wrong" because Singer isn't into gimmicks (because you know Singer so well). You're the main one complaining about people just always have to be right and no everything...and then you flat out say that people who basically don't see things the way you do are wrong. hyporcrite much? you just made posts about opinions and facts...and this whole thing about how people so insistant on being right.....well, what do you think you're doing? but i understand your need to stand by superman returns and constantly defend it by all means necessary...and condescendingly discredit other individual's opinions. i guess if the boards truly are going to hell (like you so melodramatically insist...you're apart of the problem)Except I wasn't calling an opinion wrong.

Singer handled the kid in a way that was unfavourable? Opinion.

Introducing a kid was a mistake? Opinion.

I wouldn't argue those.

But stating that Singer casually threw the kid in just to create one difference between SR and STM, as was said in the example you presented, that's not an opinion, that's an accusation.

One that is incorrect. I know this because I have judged other examples of Singer's work and followed the production of SR, he is not the type to introduce gimmicky plot points. It's just not his style.

[ThanosOfTitans]

Except I wasn't calling an opinion wrong.

Singer handled the kid in a way that was unfavourable? Opinion.

Introducing a kid was a mistake? Opinion.

I wouldn't argue those.

But stating that Singer casually threw the kid in just to create one difference between SR and STM, as was said in the example you presented, that's not an opinion, that's an accusation.

One that is incorrect. I know this because I have judged other examples of Singer's work and followed the production of SR, he is not the type to introduce gimmicky plot points. It's just not his style.


honestly, you really just haven't said much of anything. and you making proclamations that you have judged other examples and followed production of SR doesn't make you anymore credible than anyone else over an internet forum. sorry to remove you from your pedastal. it doesn't make your opinion any greater than anyone elses. but of course...you just have to be right and insist that people who disagree with you are wrong. because somehow...you are the ultimate authority in an online forum because you'ved judged other examples. sorry, but full of it much? and i guess you were also the only one on these boards to follow the SR production? that makes you mega credible now!

[Showtime]

For the good or bad of it, Singer always had the idea of a "Returns Story" for his version of Superman. They added the kid as far back as the first real discussion of the story in the famous trip to Hawaii. Just after this before they pitched the idea is when they decided to have the kid be Superman's son. This was planned all along from the beginning.

[ThanosOfTitans]

For the good or bad of it, Singer always had the idea of a "Returns Story" for his version of Superman. They added the kid as far back as the first real discussion of the story in the famous trip to Hawaii. Just after this before they pitched the idea is when they decided to have the kid be Superman's son. This was planned all along from the beginning.

does that some how discredit it as being a plot twist? or being a gimmick? because it was planned from the beginning? i never said it was an afterthought rushed at the last minute....to me...it felt like a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the franchise....no matter when the idea was introduced into the story.

[Super Kal]

My biggest question about this movie is, will it be just another love letter from Singer to Donner or will Singer allow Routh to play Superman and Clark HIS way rather then pretending to be Reeves, forget the "son of Superman" thing all together etc...
uh, he never pretended to be Reeve... Singer just saw distinct similarities in the two. and HOPEFULLY, Singer will stop the whole love letter crap and make a good movie this time...

[Qwerty©]

honestly, you really just haven't said much of anything. and you making proclamations that you have judged other examples and followed production of SR doesn't make you anymore credible than anyone else over an internet forum. sorry to remove you from your pedastal. it doesn't make your opinion any greater than anyone elses. but of course...you just have to be right and insist that people who disagree with you are wrong. because somehow...you are the ultimate authority in an online forum because you'ved judged other examples. sorry, but full of it much? and i guess you were also the only one on these boards to follow the SR production? that makes you mega credible now!Ugh, please, don't waste my time. I have never said my opinion was right. I haven't put myself on a pedestal. I am just fed up of how people in these boards act like whiny children. It's ridiculous how people are against each other over things like shades of red on a costume and Superman lifting a giant rock.

I have always criticised people's tone and manner, and never their opinion. It is clear as day and i'm really fed up of pointing it out again and again.

[Super Kal]

what do you expect?... this is a comic book movie forum... almost everyone's gonna think they're opinion is the best one.

[Qwerty©]

what do you expect?... this is a comic book movie forum... almost everyone's gonna think they're opinion is the best one.
Unfortunately.

[ThanosOfTitans]

Ugh, please, don't waste my time. I have never said my opinion was right. I haven't put myself on a pedestal. I am just fed up of how people in these boards act like whiny children. It's ridiculous how people are against each other over things like shades of red on a costume and Superman lifting a giant rock.

I have always criticised people's tone and manner, and never their opinion. It is clear as day and i'm really fed up of pointing it out again and again.

honestly, not even to sound rude, but your melodramatic and condescending tone doesn't alleviate the situation. if it is that taxing to you, you really don't have to participate in the discussion. i mean, it's just an online forum.

and just as you insist people are whining like children...anyone can make the same accusations against you. if you think you pointing fingers like the high and mighty makes the circumstances better (especially when you're behavior seems similar to the very behavior that you detest), you're mistaken.

it's a message board...if people want to express their grievances (appropriately) with the movie and singer (without insulting others directly or indirectly)...let them be. don't chastise them...what gives you the authority? if someone is insulting you...directly or indirectly, i can understand...but when you carry on the way you do (especially when you generalize), you're only exacerbating the situation.

if everyone agreed 100% all the time...what fun would that be?

and i'm not wasting your time, buddy...it's your choice to read and respond to my posts....if your time is being wasted, it's you who is causing that to happen. and if it really takes you that much time to read and respond in an online forum....i don't even know what to say.

[Showtime]

does that some how discredit it as being a plot twist? or being a gimmick? because it was planned from the beginning? i never said it was an afterthought rushed at the last minute....to me...it felt like a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the franchise....no matter when the idea was introduced into the story.

I wasn't really replying into anybody in particular, I was adding some more information into how the kid played into the idea. I know you hate it if one tries to discredit your info. :csad:

[ThanosOfTitans]

I wasn't really replying into anybody in particular, I was adding some more information into how the kid played into the idea. I know you hate it if one tries to discredit your info. :csad:

LOL no, it's not like that. i admit, i can be argumentative, but i don't go down without a fight. i can admit when the opposing side has a valid point or when i'm wrong...but i want there to be some good words exchanged before i go down. it makes things interesting...

[Qwerty©]

honestly, not even to sound rude, but your melodramatic and condescending tone doesn't alleviate the situation. if it is that taxing to you, you really don't have to participate in the discussion. i mean, it's just an online forum.Online forums are for discussion, and I see no discussion here, I just see arguments and spite.

and just as you insist people are whining like children...anyone can make the same accusations against you. if you think you pointing fingers like the high and mighty makes the circumstances better (especially when you're behavior seems similar to the very behavior that you detest), you're mistaken.My behaviour is not the same as those who I detest. They act like they are acting because of differences in opinion, which is childish. I am simply pointing out howridiculous it is. I don't think I am enlightened in any way, others also feel it is ridiculous, they just don't feel like doing anything about it for reasons of their own.

it's a message board...if people want to express their grievances (appropriately) with the movie and singer (without insulting others directly or indirectly)...let them be. don't chastise them...what gives you the authority?I'm not chastising them because of differences in opinion, I say again. I'm chastising them because of their manner and how they refuse to act civilly. I even agree with some of them on some points. But they can't get their point across in a way which doesn't provoke or condescend. if someone is insulting you...directly or indirectly, i can understand...but when you carry on the way you do (especially when you generalize), you're only exacerbating the situation.I do feel insulted by their behavior.

if everyone agreed 100% all the time...what fun would that be?I don't want everyone to agree (Why must I repeat this so much?), I just want everyone to agree to disagree.

Superman Returns has been out for nearly a year. And people are still arguing about the same things. Does this not bother you?

[Showtime]

LOL no, it's not like that. i admit, i can be argumentative, but i don't go down without a fight. i can admit when the opposing side has a valid point or when i'm wrong...but i want there to be some good words exchanged before i go down. it makes things interesting...

Understood, the captain of the Titanic did the same thing. He was going places. :oldrazz:

I have no problems with you, you are very articulate and it doesn't seem that you have to much of an attitude. Maybe a little bit. I'll be watching. :ninja:

[ThanosOfTitans]

Online forums are for discussion, and I see no discussion here, I just see arguments and spite.

My behaviour is not the same as those who I detest. They act like they are acting because of differences in opinion, which is childish. I am simply pointing out howridiculous it is. I don't think I am enlightened in any way, others also feel it is ridiculous, they just don't feel like doing anything about it for reasons of their own.

I'm not chastising them because of differences in opinion, I say again. I'm chastising them because of their manner and how they refuse to act civilly. I even agree with some of them on some points. But they can't get their point across in a way which doesn't provoke or condescend. I do feel insulted by their behavior.

I don't want everyone to agree (Why must I repeat this so much?), I just want everyone to agree to disagree.

Superman Returns has been out for nearly a year. And people are still arguing about the same things. Does this not bother you?

well, i just think people are passionate about the character and the film. it doesn't really bother me. when people who enjoyed the movie post their comments...i don't question it. i do feel inclined to participate in the discussion if something is said that is false or just really doesn't agree with me.

the only time i'm bothered is when people post comments just to bash. which has died down a lot since the movie first hit theaters. i don't understand how people think the boards are bad now...i thought things were totally chaotic when the movie first released..lol..especially with all the X3 comparisons.

but i don't have a problem with the arguing..or people who like the movie and support it, because i know i'm the same way with certain movies.

for instance...at first...i completely hated what they did to the phoenix in X3 and felt as though the movie lacked many qualities that compromised its potential; however, i find myself watching the movie all the time....and i know it's because i love the x-men so much that i make the movie work for me. i know it's not the greatest comic book movie ever...but it entertains the hell out of me....and i'll defend it up and down. so i can understand those who support Superman Returns and it doesn't bother me, cuz maybe they feel the same way about SR that i feel about X3...or maybe they just genuinely liked SR without any gripes....it's all good.

i think more people are more passionate about Superman though, because he just came back into the lime light...and it seems like he is running into some bumpy ground. the x-men have had their time, spiderman has had his, the fantastic four are having theirs, and batman is having his.....and I think that's why there is sooo much attention on Superman...we're all just awaiting that official sequel announcement. i'm not too fond of what singer did...but i'd rather have singer on board for the sequel than nothing at all.

[ThanosOfTitans]

Understood, the captain of the Titanic did the same thing. He was going places. :oldrazz:

I have no problems with you, you are very articulate and it doesn't seem that you have to much of an attitude. Maybe a little bit. I'll be watching. :ninja:

lol yes, i do give off a lil attitude every now and then, but it's only when i feel like i'm being insulted or if someone is challenging my intelligence. i've expressed my gripe with certain individuals who imply i'm a caveman cuz i didn't like a frickin movie...

and i've been told i'm sarcastic, i don't know where people get an idea like that

[Angeloz]

So this thread is about how extremely wrong of Singer to love the Donner Superman and he should of based it on something else? Like spiders, polar bears and Kryptonian CIA agents. 'Cos that's original. ;) :oldrazz: :D

Just joking. :)

Angeloz

[The Kid]

Yeah basically we love those silly superman comics this singer guy barely paid attention to. I can't stand by idly watching returns fans Villify and deride those who cherish and love the comics and want to see that version respected more than an old movie version. It's not right, i think.

I'm not totally against the donner stuff. But I'm totally against ignoring the source material to the extent singer did. That was a big boo boo.

[Angeloz]

He used different source material i.e. the Donner film(s). I don't see how that can't be respected either. And I've read a few comics myself though not many recently. I plan on ordering some TPBs but it'll take time.

Angeloz

[dude love]

I'm not totally against the donner stuff. But I'm totally against ignoring the source material to the extent singer did. That was a big boo boo.

Well if it's any consolation, the plane scene and bullet in the eye scene had inspirations from John Byrne's Man of Steel, Superman holding Kitty's car was the same as the cover to Action Comics #1 and an article title Why the World Needs Superman appeared in Identity Crisis.

[The Kid]

And superman being a dick leaving lois for five years without warning after they did the deed must have come from the Superman is a dick issues.

yadda yadda, well I hope singer reads more of the books if he gets another shot.

[Showtime]

I think you mean Superdickery.

[The Kid]

yah superdickery... oops I guess I'm starting to get a life, and forget all about this superman movie stuff, show. Save me.

[Showtime]

I don't want to save you, because if you get out of here, I need you to help break me free.

[Malone]

My biggest question about this movie is, will it be just another love letter from Singer to Donner or will Singer allow Routh to play Superman and Clark HIS way rather then pretending to be Reeves, forget the "son of Superman" thing all together etc...

Good question.

[dude love]

And superman being a dick leaving lois for five years without warning after they did the deed must have come from the Superman is a dick issues.

yadda yadda, well I hope singer reads more of the books if he gets another shot.

Didn't he do that in Return to Krypton?

[superbaby]

My biggest question about this movie is, will it be just another love letter from Singer to Donner or will Singer allow Routh to play Superman and Clark HIS way rather then pretending to be Reeves, forget the "son of Superman" thing all together etc...
if he can't refer to donner's, what can he refer to??? comic is silly to him.
star war?

if there isn't son of superman, it will not be a singer's superman story.

[Qwerty©]

if he can't refer to donner's, what can he refer to??? comic is silly to him.
When did he ever say comics are silly?

The fact he has now directed two different superhero franchises says to me that he thinks comics are not silly. He grew up watching the Superman TV show and the Donner movies. He is also a Star Trek fan so he has an interest in sci-fi.

So why do you think that he believes comics are silly? Because he didn't do the Superman movie you wanted, and therefore he is ignorant?

[superbaby]

When did he ever say comics are silly?

The fact he has now directed two different superhero franchises says to me that he thinks comics are not silly. He grew up watching the Superman TV show and the Donner movies. He is also a Star Trek fan so he has an interest in sci-fi.

So why do you think that he believes comics are silly? Because he didn't do the Superman movie you wanted, and therefore he is ignorant?
sorry if i have putting words into his mouth. but he said he didn't read comics. and i think he doesn't have the sci-fi genre. or to be exact the good sci-fi genre.

btw, do you think he will still using the sympathetic strategy to sell superman? you know like spiderman , self-pityness...
my son is very vulnerable and sick, should i take care of my son, or should i take care of the world?
i'm still in love in lois, but i can't spoil her family, what can i do?
my ass is still painful, lex is still having a piece of kryptonite, if he returns how can i save my ass???...
although i'm superman... but i'm troubled, please give me sympathy and love... :csad:

[Qwerty©]

sorry if i have putting words into his mouth. but he said he didn't read comics. and i think he doesn't have the sci-fi genre. or to be exact the good sci-fi genre.

btw, do you think he will still using the sympathetic strategy to sell superman? you know like spiderman , self-pityness...
my son is very vulnerable and sick, should i take care of my son, or should i take care of the world?
i'm still in love in lois, but i can't spoil her family, what can i do?
my ass is still painful, lex is still having a piece of kryptonite, if he returns how can i save my ass???...
although i'm superman... but i'm troubled, please give me sympathy and love... :csad:
I thought it was clear that at the end of the movie he was happy again, as he was flying into the sunset with a smile.

In fact, it's incredibly obvious the sequel will have a lighter tone.

[Showtime]

sorry if i have putting words into his mouth. but he said he didn't read comics. and i think he doesn't have the sci-fi genre. or to be exact the good sci-fi genre.

btw, do you think he will still using the sympathetic strategy to sell superman? you know like spiderman , self-pityness...
my son is very vulnerable and sick, should i take care of my son, or should i take care of the world?
i'm still in love in lois, but i can't spoil her family, what can i do?
my ass is still painful, lex is still having a piece of kryptonite, if he returns how can i save my ass???...
although i'm superman... but i'm troubled, please give me sympathy and love... :csad:

Will you cut it out with that stuff, you're going to get put on probation or banned and it's going to be your own fault. :cmad:

[dude love]

I thought it was clear that at the end of the movie he was happy again, as he was flying into the sunset with a smile.

In fact, it's incredibly obvious the sequel will have a lighter tone.

Thank you! I've said that countless times.

[superbaby]

Will you cut it out with that stuff, you're going to get put on probation or banned and it's going to be your own fault. :cmad:
what's wrong with that???
we got those in SR, didn't we? and there are so many kryptonite left (planted for the sequel) and it has a high chance singer will use the kryptonite to kick superman's ass again. isn't it a high possible? why mad?

[Qwerty©]

what's wrong with that???
we got those in SR, didn't we? and there are so many kryptonite left (planted for the sequel) and it has a high chance singer will use the kryptonite to kick superman's ass again. isn't it a high possible? why mad?I think you know why what you said was inappropriate.

[superbaby]

I thought it was clear that at the end of the movie he was happy again, as he was flying into the sunset with a smile.

In fact, it's incredibly obvious the sequel will have a lighter tone.
lighter tone? how? example? within the singer's storyline.

[C. Lee]

my ass is still painful, lex is still having a piece of kryptonite, if he returns how can i save my ass???...

That's 7 days probation. If you do crap like this one more time it will be permanant banning.

[Showtime]

I thought it was clear that at the end of the movie he was happy again, as he was flying into the sunset with a smile.

In fact, it's incredibly obvious the sequel will have a lighter tone.

Very clear. The tone of the movie was put there for a reason, as they say. At the end Superman was content with his place on Earth and was moving towards brighter days. I have been saying this all along as well.

[dude love]

Very clear. The tone of the movie was put there for a reason, as they say. At the end Superman was content with his place on Earth and was moving towards brighter days. I have been saying this all along as well.

The dark tone of the film ended right about the time Superman had his arms extended in the crucifix position. Just thought I'd point that out for no reason.

[Showtime]

The dark tone of the film ended right about the time Superman had his arms extended in the crucifix position. Just thought I'd point that out for no reason.

I think there was still a dark and melancholy tone due to the fact that Superman was in a coma. I think it ended while he was speaking to Jason.

[dude love]

Really? I felt the whole scene was very serene. Like the three days between Jesus' death and resurrection. That's the beauty about movies I guess, everyone has a different interpretation.

[WormyT]

but he has none!

maybe more superman's ass kicking... and giving him a daughter this time.

LOL!!:woot:

[Mr. Socko]

The next film will be a throw back to Singer's favorite Star Trek film.




Superman vs Kirk


lol

[Showtime]

Really? I felt the whole scene was very serene. Like the three days between Jesus' death and resurrection. That's the beauty about movies I guess, everyone has a different interpretation.

I can see that though, it did have a surreal type quality to it.

[Mr. Socko]

The next film should be all Singer, I believe this time we'll see him at work on Superman using his complete vision.

[mego joe]

Well if it's any consolation, the plane scene and bullet in the eye scene had inspirations from John Byrne's Man of Steel, Superman holding Kitty's car was the same as the cover to Action Comics #1 and an article title Why the World Needs Superman appeared in Identity Crisis.

I think comic fans want some substance from the comics, not just superficial images.

[dude love]

I think comic fans want some substance from the comics, not just superficial images.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was just giving Wesyeed an empty meaningless consolation.

So, since when did I stop being a comic fan?

[mego joe]

I thought it was clear that at the end of the movie he was happy again, as he was flying into the sunset with a smile.

In fact, it's incredibly obvious the sequel will have a lighter tone.

It just seems contradictory to say that he was happier when it should be a gutwrenching experience to know that someone else is raising your child b/c you were a jerk. If he really feels happier now, he's a completely uncaring idiot. Oh, maybe that's who he is in Singer's movies.

[mego joe]

The next film should be all Singer, I believe this time we'll see him at work on Superman using his complete vision.

That's what scares me....

[mego joe]

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was just giving Wesyeed an empty meaningless consolation.

So, since when did I stop being a comic fan?

Sorry, didn't know if you were a comic fan or not. As a big comic fan myself, that's what I like in comic adaptations.

Didn't get that you were just playing with Weyseed. Play away!!

[dude love]

It just seems contradictory to say that he was happier when it should be a gutwrenching experience to know that someone else is raising your child b/c you were a jerk. If he really feels happier now, he's a completely uncaring idiot. Oh, maybe that's who he is in Singer's movies.

And when the sequel shows Superman watching over Jason, Supes will be labeled a stalker anyway. :whatever:

EDIT: (:whatever: smiley is not aimed at you, just as a punctuation to the observation.)

[dude love]

Sorry, didn't know if you were a comic fan or not. As a big comic fan myself, that's what I like in comic adaptations.

Didn't get that you were just playing with Weyseed. Play away!!

Oh, I'm a comic fan. Just a broke one.

That's why I've never used those sepcific instances against people saying Singer doesn't use the comics as a basis. They're only meant as cute homages.

[mego joe]

Oh, I'm a comic fan. Just a broke one.

That's why I've never used those sepcific instances against people saying Singer doesn't use the comics as a basis. They're only meant as cute homages.

I guess that's what some people don't like about SR, is that the only comic references are superficial and there is no story substance from the comics and in many ways SR contradicts Superman comics. I know that is at the root of why I dislike SR, Singer's characterization is just so opposite from the comic books in so many ways, that to me it may superficially look like superman, but it is the opposite of his character in a substantive way.

I think by doing this, he is unintentionally telling the audience that he doesn't care about the comics and he only 'gets' the Donner movie version and what he specifically identifies with from those films.

[dude love]

I guess that's what some people don't like about SR, is that the only comic references are superficial and there is no story substance from the comics and in many ways SR contradicts Superman comics. I know that is at the root of why I dislike SR, Singer's characterization is just so opposite from the comic books in so many ways, that to me it may superficially look like superman, but it is the opposite of his character in a substantive way.

I think by doing this, he is unintentionally telling the audience that he doesn't care about the comics and he only 'gets' the Donner movie version and what he specifically identifies with from those films.

Even though I disagree with your opinion on Supermans characterization, I do understand where your coming from. Putting his mistakes aside, I still see him as what Superman is all about in the comics. But that's just me. You're a whole different human being with a whole different perspective.

[mego joe]

Even though I disagree with your opinion on Supermans characterization, I do understand where your coming from. Putting his mistakes aside, I still see him as what Superman is all about in the comics. But that's just me. You're a whole different human being with a whole different perspective.


I think if you put his mistakes aside you are missing the whole point of Singer's version of the character though. While I'm not defending Singer's version of the character, you can't just 'put aside' what's in the movie. The character is made up of both aspects in the film. If you put those parts aside you are putting aside you are only looking at part of the character and essentially ignoring what Singer wanted to tell you about his version of the character. His version is a character who is different in his personal life than in his public life. I personally can't put it aside b/c it would negate all the conflict in the film and then there's no story. The story Singer told can't happen w/o that conflict that stems from Superman's inability to do the right thing in his personal life.

My experience with SUperman is that he tries to do the right thing in both his personal and public lives, there is no dichotomy between the two, he is not conflicted or ironic in that way.

[dude love]

I think if you put his mistakes aside you are missing the whole point of Singer's version of the character though. While I'm not defending Singer's version of the character, you can't just 'put aside' what's in the movie. The character is made up of both aspects in the film. If you put those parts aside you are putting aside you are only looking at part of the character and essentially ignoring what Singer wanted to tell you about his version of the character. His version is a character who is different in his personal life than in his public life. I personally can't put it aside b/c it would negate all the conflict in the film and then there's no story. The story Singer told can't happen w/o that conflict that stems from Superman's inability to do the right thing in his personal life.

My experience with SUperman is that he tries to do the right thing in both his personal and public lives, there is no dichotomy between the two, he is not conflicted or ironic in that way.

His mistakes don't completely define him, and both seperate aspects shouldn't and don't cancel out one another. With or without his f**k ups he's still the same guy. But he did make those stuff ups and did set out to straighten everything out. Just like comic book Superman. Infact my problem lies with comic Superman being too perfect.

[mego joe]

His mistakes don't completely define him, and both seperate aspects shouldn't and don't cancel out one another. With or without his f**k ups he's still the same guy. But he did make those stuff ups and did set out to straighten everything out. Just like comic book Superman. Infact my problem lies with comic Superman being too perfect.

I think there's a difference between being perfect and doing something that you know is wrong. If there is a question about whether or not something is right and one chooses it, that is something I can understand as an honest mistake. But if one knows it's wrong and does it anyway, then it's not a mistake but really a failure to do what one knows is right.


As far as the f**k us go, in SR I don't think the mistake he made are in Superman's character. I don't think there is eveidence elsewhere to show that they are. He might make mistakes, but the one that Singer chose just aren't part of who Superman is. And he didn't straigten everything out, Jason's life is a mess. He has a whole dysfunctional family now. There's nothing that will ever straighten that out.

If you have a problem with the comic Superman being too perfect, that is who he is and how he has been portrayed and defined.

I do feel the mistakes he makes in SR define who he is and create all the conflict in the film.

I do think to directly contradict something as important as Lois knowing SUperman is also Clark before having a sexual relationship is a great misunderstanding of the character on Singer's part. It completely changes the character and the dynamic of the relationship. It is unrecognizable as the Superman/ Lois relationship. And what it says about Superman's character is not good.

[dude love]

I think there's a difference between being perfect and doing something that you know is wrong. If there is a question about whether or not something is right and one chooses it, that is something I can understand as an honest mistake. But if one knows it's wrong and does it anyway, then it's not a mistake but really a failure to do what one knows is right.

We don't know the full circumstances of him leaving beyond trying to find Krypton.

As far as the f**k us go, in SR I don't think the mistake he made are in Superman's character. I don't think there is eveidence elsewhere to show that they are. He might make mistakes, but the one that Singer chose just aren't part of who Superman is. And he didn't straigten everything out, Jason's life is a mess. He has a whole dysfunctional family now. There's nothing that will ever straighten that out.

Really? Jason has Richard and Lois as parents. They both love each other. Superman is his guardian angel (As much as it's eating him up inside). Beyond that he might only suspect Supes is his father.

If you have a problem with the comic Superman being too perfect, that is who he is and how he has been portrayed and defined.

Uh uh. Wrong. There's plenty of stories that show just how flawed Superman really is. It's just that most stories don't give a damn.

I do feel the mistakes he makes in SR define who he is and create all the conflict in the film.

Yes the mistakes created the conflict, no they don't define him. Him wanting to give his life to save the world and stirring others into action are what define him.

I do think to directly contradict something as important as Lois knowing SUperman is also Clark before having a sexual relationship is a great misunderstanding of the character on Singer's part. It completely changes the character and the dynamic of the relationship. It is unrecognizable as the Superman/ Lois relationship. And what it says about Superman's character is not good.

Well, if you want to feel that way, that's up to you. But you might want to blame Superman II (Before you post Singer saying it didn't happen that way, save it. Because it still happened just not the "Sleepover in the mylar bed") as well, seeing as how that's what they where building off of.

In the end this line

I do feel the mistakes he makes in SR define who he is and create all the conflict in the film.

is what seperates our opinions on the characterization of Superman. I think it's way off the mark, but I'm not going to try and change what you think and there's no point for you to do likewise. Basically opinions and a**holes.

[Qwerty©]

It just seems contradictory to say that he was happier when it should be a gutwrenching experience to know that someone else is raising your child b/c you were a jerk. If he really feels happier now, he's a completely uncaring idiot. Oh, maybe that's who he is in Singer's movies.
You know, I think a father would only be concerned if his son was happy, rather than being concerned about who he believes to be his father. I think that would make him an uncaring jerk.

[manofsteel4life]

It just seems contradictory to say that he was happier when it should be a gutwrenching experience to know that someone else is raising your child b/c you were a jerk. If he really feels happier now, he's a completely uncaring idiot. Oh, maybe that's who he is in Singer's movies.
see this is when i think some people are being closed minded....but correct me if im wrong,but did superman know he had a child, before he left for Krypton? And besides he still has human qualities, even if he is alien, that's why he wanted to find out if there was more like him out there. The same goes for children that grow up, without a mom or a dad, and get adopted. You still have some curiousity as to..i wonder if i have brother or sisters, out there, that i never knew about, or where are my parents? So in my opinion i really dont think he was being a jerk, if that's what you are implying, the reason he is one

[Angeloz]

I think Jason is his miracle. It meant he wasn't alone and he was happy about that. If you need a "Star Wars" equivalent - wasn't Anakin happy he was a father when he heard about it and refused to think about the complications in that moment. I think it was the same for Superman. He was happy about Jason existing especially as he probably thought he would be impossible in the first place (having a child).

Angeloz

[manofsteel4life]

I think Jason is his miracle. It meant he wasn't alone and he was happy about that. If you need a "Star Wars" equivalent - wasn't Anakin happy he was a father when he heard about it and refused to think about the complications in that moment. I think it was the same for Superman. He was happy about Jason existing especially as he probably thought he would be impossible in the first place (having a child).

Angeloz
right on!

[buggs0268]

it's funny how you seem to be the main advocate behind this "opinion is different from fact" movement, yet you seem to be stating opinion as fact. I said that people have argued that the kid was a poor attempt to throw a plot twist into the superman franchise, kind of like a gimmick. and your rebuttal is that these poeple are "wrong" because Singer isn't into gimmicks (because you know Singer so well). You're the main one complaining about people just always have to be right and know everything...and then you flat out say that people who basically don't see things the way you do are wrong. hyporcrite much? you just made posts about opinions and facts...and this whole thing about how people so insistant on being right.....well, what do you think you're doing? but i understand your need to stand by superman returns and constantly defend it by all means necessary...and condescendingly discredit other individual's opinions. i guess if the boards truly are going to hell (like you so melodramatically insist...you're apart of the problem)
Yes. Finally someone else tells him what I been trying to tell the guy. I just put him on ignore. But good to see someone else not putting up with it from him, and telling him so.

[Qwerty©]

It's actually quite hilarious that buggs is making these comments more often now he can't see my replies.

[mego joe]

see this is when i think some people are being closed minded....but correct me if im wrong,but did superman know he had a child, before he left for Krypton?


That's not the problem, it's irrelevant whether he knew or not. He left Lois, the love of his life, the woman with whom he was having a sexual relationship (we're assuming it was also a committed relationship, b/c I can't imagine Superman in a casual sexual relationship with anyone) for 5 years w/o saying goodbye and he KNEW it was wrong to do it.


And besides he still has human qualities, even if he is alien,


But, even when Superman makes mistakes, you never question if his motivation or if his heart was in the right place. Concerning Lois, it clearly wasn't.

that's why he wanted to find out if there was more like him out there. The same goes for children that grow up, without a mom or a dad, and get adopted. You still have some curiousity as to..i wonder if i have brother or sisters, out there, that i never knew about, or where are my parents?


No problem there.

So in my opinion i really dont think he was being a jerk, if that's what you are implying, the reason he is one

Nope, he's a jerk b/c of the way he left Lois and was not consciencious about his respobsibilities and obligations as an adult in a sexual relationship. That's why I feel he was a jerk and a horrible example of a parent.

[mego joe]

I think Jason is his miracle. It meant he wasn't alone and he was happy about that. If you need a "Star Wars" equivalent - wasn't Anakin happy he was a father when he heard about it and refused to think about the complications in that moment. I think it was the same for Superman. He was happy about Jason existing especially as he probably thought he would be impossible in the first place (having a child).

Angeloz

But in Superman's case, it is also bittersweet b/c he's going to be unable to raise that child. It just isn't a clear cut case of being happy to be a parent. Children aren't there to make their parents to feel 'like they are not alone.' Children are the responsibility of their parents, not the other way around.

As far as Anakin goes, he was already on the path to the dark side and clearly not lucid about his situation. Sure he seemed happy, but it wasn't enough to make him feel happy enough to pull away from the dark path he was already on.

[mego joe]

You know, I think a father would only be concerned if his son was happy, rather than being concerned about who he believes to be his father. I think that would make him an uncaring jerk.

No a good parent would want what is BEST for his or her child. Sometimes a child is not happy, but that child is getting what is in fact best for that child. A good parent also would realize that it is his or her responsibility to care and raise that child, because it is morally and ethically the right thing to do.

If all a parent is concerned in the child's happiness, then they are not thinking like a parent.

Finally, the whole issue goes back to before he left for Krypton. His mistake was made then. In the situation he comes back to the best situation for Jason at the moment is to be raised by Lois and Richard. But before he left, if he had been congnisant of his responsibilities and obligations as an adult in a sexual relationship he might have gone ahead and told Lois that he was going to be gone for 5 years, in case she wondered why she hadn't seen him for a while.

[manofsteel4life]

That's not the problem, it's irrelevant whether he knew or not. He left Lois, the love of his life, the woman with whom he was having a sexual relationship (we're assuming it was also a committed relationship, b/c I can't imagine Superman in a casual sexual relationship with anyone) for 5 years w/o saying goodbye and he KNEW it was wrong to do it.

true....yea, but im sure he felt like ****, cause he did say it was unbearable for him to say goodbye to Lois, which it doesnt make him any less of a jerk, i guess, but im sure there are more reasons why, especially emotions of maybe finding anyone left from his planet

But, even when Superman makes mistakes, you never question if his motivation or if his heart was in the right place. Concerning Lois, it clearly wasn't.

yea, i thought so to,but he knows that he does love Lois, that's why i think he couldnt look her in the eyes and say he was leaving
No problem there.


Nope, he's a jerk b/c of the way he left Lois and was not consciencious about his respobsibilities and obligations as an adult in a sexual relationship. That's why I feel he was a jerk and a horrible example of a parent.
but he didnt know he had a child...had he knew, im sure he wouldnt have left for sure

[mego joe]

We don't know the full circumstances of him leaving beyond trying to find Krypton.


An excellent example of why SR is a poorly made film. Not knowing makes it difficult to understand Superman and Lois's motivations in the movie. Isn't it odd that this is left up to interpretation? But it really comes down to SUperman not saying goodbye to Lois. I don't think that's defensable under any circumstances considering what we do know from SR.


Really? Jason has Richard and Lois as parents. They both love each other. Superman is his guardian angel (As much as it's eating him up inside). Beyond that he might only suspect Supes is his father.


Yes, really. When Jason reaches a certain age and his powers develop, he's going to find out. At that point he's going to experiene all kinds of problem, especially in relation to SUperman. Imagine finding out that your father is not only one of the most well known and powerful people in the world, he lives in the same city as you and you weren't important enough to him to raise you? That is the question that a child in Jason's would ask. It isn't all smoothed out. THe worst is yet to come for Jason. If Jason was not going to develop powers that would make it obvious that he's not Richard's son, then him never knowing would make the most sense and be the best for him until he is an adult. But it's not going to happen that way. He's going to be 11 or 12 and it's going to blow up and create all sorts of havoc in his life, if it is treated realistically that is.


Uh uh. Wrong. There's plenty of stories that show just how flawed Superman really is. It's just that most stories don't give a damn.


But you never question if SUperman's heart is in the right place, do you? You never question his motivations. You know he believes he is doing the right thing. Unquestionably, in SR SUperman makes a huge, life altering for 4 people mistake that is obviously wrong and he knows it is wrong before he makes it.



Yes the mistakes created the conflict, no they don't define him. Him wanting to give his life to save the world and stirring others into action are what define him.


They why couldn't he sacrifice his own pain and do the right thing and be honest with Lois about leaving? To me these two situations play off each other to build a complete character, a character that Singer wants he viewer to see as conflicted and ironic. In other words, he can sacrifice for nameless millions, but to those whom he is closest (Lois) he can't. You've got to take it all together as a piece of his character.



Well, if you want to feel that way, that's up to you. But you might want to blame Superman II (Before you post Singer saying it didn't happen that way, save it. Because it still happened just not the "Sleepover in the mylar bed") as well, seeing as how that's what they where building off of.


Actually, you are wrong about that. Lois knows that SUperman is Clark before they have sex in both version of Superman II. In that movie, it is clear that he is committed to her, he's willing to give up his powers in order to be with her.


In the end this line



is what seperates our opinions on the characterization of Superman. I think it's way off the mark, but I'm not going to try and change what you think and there's no point for you to do likewise. Basically opinions and a**holes.

Understand your idea about opinions etc..., but I don't think you can separate the public life of a person and a private life of a person and think that they are don't go together to create the complete characterization of an individual. For instance, a politician who appears nice, friendly and honest in his public life, but in his private life is cheating on his wife is still a jerk. So, even though SUperman in SR appears to be a self-sacrificing, altruistic caring individual who can't be honest with Lois about leaving Earth for 5 years and who is not considering the moral and ethical obligations of being in a sexual relationship is still a jerk, under any circumstances.

[mego joe]

but he didnt know he had a child...had he knew, im sure he wouldnt have left for sure


I doesn't matter if he knew, his actions towards Lois indicate he wasn't even considering the moral and ethical obligations of being in a sexual relationship. That is the problem. Sure, if he knew he wouldn't have left, but if he's not considering his moral and ethical obligations of being in a sexual relationship, he's immature, irresponsible and not a good upstanding man.

To say otherwise treats sex far too casually and irresponsibly.

[manofsteel4life]

I doesn't matter if he knew, his actions towards Lois indicate he wasn't even considering the moral and ethical obligations of being in a sexual relationship. That is the problem. Sure, if he knew he wouldn't have left, but if he's not considering his moral and ethical obligations of being in a sexual relationship, he's immature, irresponsible and not a good upstanding man.

To say otherwise treats sex far too casually and irresponsibly.
yea.....like you said before about how we are interpreting things.....i think it will be clearer in the sequel, about why he left, because i really dont think it was just him wanting to find out about Krypton, but i totally understand your point mega

[Angeloz]

But in Superman's case, it is also bittersweet b/c he's going to be unable to raise that child. It just isn't a clear cut case of being happy to be a parent. Children aren't there to make their parents to feel 'like they are not alone.' Children are the responsibility of their parents, not the other way around.

As far as Anakin goes, he was already on the path to the dark side and clearly not lucid about his situation. Sure he seemed happy, but it wasn't enough to make him feel happy enough to pull away from the dark path he was already on.

I know you're a parent. So when you first had the news were you happy, sad, angry, afraid or indifferent? Don't answer if it makes you uncomfortable. I think the film shows Superman's reaction is happy. As for the other stuff he knows Jason is loved by his (other) parents. Also he himself was adopted and raised by non-biological parents. He may worry about what his involvement may or may not be. But I think he was just enjoying the fact of Jason's existance. And not letting the other stuff intrude on that for those moments. I guess you don't believe in just enjoying the moment. Too worried about your children? Or do you have the true happiness curse like Angel? :oldrazz:

So if you think him being happy is a sign of the Dark Side what do you think his first act will be? Burn Richard's bum with his heat vision? :D

Angeloz

[mego joe]

I know you're a parent. So when you first had the news were you happy, sad, angry, afraid or indifferent? Don't answer if it makes you uncomfortable.


Well, when my wife and I looked at the pregnancy test in the bathroom together, we were kind of in disbelief, it didn't seem real at first. But at the moment of birth, we were both ecstatic. It is the greatest experience in the world. Our second daughter was the same.


I think the film shows Superman's reaction is happy.


I felt it was bittersweet, b/c Superman repeats the same speech Jor-El made in a similarly bittersweet moment.

As for the other stuff he knows Jason is loved by his (other) parents. Also he himself was adopted and raised by non-biological parents. He may worry about what his involvement may or may not be. But I think he was just enjoying the fact of Jason's existance. And not letting the other stuff intrude on that for those moments. I guess you don't believe in just enjoying the moment.


I think this whole discussion started this time b/c I was saying something about the next films tone and handling of the situation. I was saying it would not be lighter and more upbeat b/c the circumstances of Jason with 3 parents is too complex to be a simple happy, upbeat storyline.

Additionally, you can't take SUperman getting the news that Jason is his son out of the context of the situation. The sitation is that he's not going to be that everyday father who raises Jason and that has to impact his reaction. It's not simply getting the news he's a father, it's also getting the news that he's missed the first four years of his son's life as well. His moment with him is a moment of controlled emotion, not unbridled ecstasy at becoming a parent. He can't just grab him and hug him and tell him how much he loves him, which is what I did when I first held both my daughters. It's completely different from the context of my situation.


Too worried about your children? Or do you have the true happiness curse like Angel? :oldrazz:


Well, you worry during all the post-natal assessments and tests. You worry about hospitals messing up and switching babies on you. YOu worry about your wife and how she's doing (my wife was gestational diabetic for both pregnancies). You are certainly carried by the euphoria of experiencing the birth of your children, but becasue you already loved them before they were born and you want the best for them, there are always concerns.

What's the true happiness curse and who is Angel? You?



So if you think him being happy is a sign of the Dark Side what do you think his first act will be? Burn Richard's bum with his heat vision? :D

Angeloz

No, not at all. I didn't think that it was a good analogy b/c Annakin was on the path to the dark side and SUperman clearly is not. Superman is not portrayed as evil, just irresponsible and immature when it comes to his ethical and moral obligations of being in a sexual relationship. Annakin might have done better in that regard. Even Vito Corleone in the Godfather films is better at that than Superman in SR.

Those are really just different aspects of one's character. And are not mutually exclusive of one another, but IMO, and my experience with the Superman character, he would be consistent in both his public and private life, he would be cognisant of his moral and ethical obligations were he to be involved in a sexual relationship. SR did not portray this, it portrayed the exact opposite, hence, that makes the characterization of Superman in SR wrong for me.