Superman Returns did superman regret that he left for krypton?

[mego joe]

^ Respectfully El Pyaso, you are confused regarding the character of Superman.

That's what I was thinking. The characterization of Superman has always included his morality as part of his goodness, just as his determination and indominatable will have. The character's positive traits go way beyond his physical powers and abilities. That is where in my opinion Singer went his own way with the character and really lost those other essential elements.

 

[afan]

Superman may be super but he's also a man. A good man but he has emotions. And he's not perfect. He chooses to use his gifts to help people. I love him for it.

Angeloz

All of the above, but I don't see how your description rules out the inclusion of exceptional ethical ideals.

 

[Angeloz]

All of the above, but I don't see how your description rules out the inclusion of exceptional ethical ideals.

Nice to know (the all of the above comment). As I said he is a man which means he can make mistakes. Even if he has ideals. Again I love how he uses his abilities to help people.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

That was my point. You can relate to "that kind of behaviour" but not with Superman. You see, you sounded like you can't stand a behaviour that's not on the top of moral highness. And as for interesting, yes it is.

To me, it is not interesting when a character has been changed without a believable and plausible motivation for this change. Singer didn't invent SUperman and he is accountable for portraying the character consistently with what the audience already knows about the character.

Comparing Truth and Justice as in fighting crime and personal life issues is as out of context as we'll see:



So lying about his identity is... a healthy exception to Truth?

But that's the thing, SUperman is just as dedicated to Truth and Justice in his personal life, it's not something separate from his public identity as Superman, it is the core of his being and he would act consistently in his personal life as well.

As for lying, having a secret id is not the same as lying. I think you are oversimplyfying the concept of the secret Id.

It goes like this:

Everyone in their personal life has things that they tell other people based on how close a relationship they have with that other person. The people you are closest to are the ones you tell the most to and to whom you reveal the most about yourself. A government agent would not tell everyone he knows exactly what he does for a living, that is a secret that protects him and his family, but it is not about lying. It is revealing thins about yourself to others based on their need to know which is based on their closeness to you and your level of trust with the other person. YOu don't walk up to people on the street and tell them eveything about yourself, you reveal things slowly over time, organically as your relationsip and trust build.

Just like anything that is personal to you or me, SUperman's secret ID is personal to him and something important to maintain secret to the general public and only reveal it those whom he is closest to. In current comic continuity his parents, his wife (Lois) and best friend from Smallville (Lana Lang) all know. In addition, some other costumed heroes know his identity, Batman, Wonder Woman etc... He has revealed this b/c they are close, personally.

In pre-Crisis continuity, his parents knew when he was Superboy, the entire Legion of SUper-Heroes, Pete Ross, his best friend from Smallville, I think Lori LEmaris knew also, as well as the costumed Batman, Wonder Woman etc....

It stands to reason that Superman would then reveal his identity to those he is closest to in a movie version if it is maintaining the integrity of the characer. It should not come as a surprise then to expect Superman to reveal his ID to the woman he loves and with whom he is involved in a sexual relationship. If he fails to do so then it becomes an issue of deception.

Mainting a secret ID is in no way comparable to simply lying, or saying that b/c he maintains a secret ID that he is a dishonest person.

He is still a good person in SR. That hasn't changed. It's just that he can make mistakes specially when is about his feelings which, as you see, is a different field than bringing Justice to the needed one.

He's not a good person. He wants to be, but he has failed as a man in being a good person. You don't treat the woman you love the way he treated Lois and are still considered a good person. YOu don't father a child and then by your own mistakes cause him his own problems and still be considered a good person. YOu are a messed up person to do those things, you are selfish and a contradiction b/c your public life is so opposite.

What about justice to Lois who deserves to know who she's really had sex with and to know who the real father of her baby is? What about justice for Jason, growing up not knowing who his father is? What about Justice for Richard, living a lie believing that Jason is his biological son?

Believing in truth and justice extends to all areas of your life not just 'crime and punishment.'

The thing is that SUperman has always been characterized as a good person through and through in all aspects of his life public and private. He doesn't have skeletons in his closet to hide. He is not that type of paradoxial(sp?) character. That is just not Superman.

Yes it is. Superman chose to quit his mission for his personal life and feelings. Not to mention that when the menace was too big - Zod Non and Ursa - he let them die after they were de-powered and were no threat anymore.

I have to disagree. Allowing the greatest criminals in the universe to die (they didn't in the Donner Cut outtakes) is not equivalent to what he did in SR. Also, he quit his mission of his own free will to live a regular life and commit himself to Lois. He did just the opposite in SR. He was unable to be honest or committed to Lois and chose to hurt her instead of standing up like a man and telling her the truth. The situations in SR are completely different than in SII.

Furthermore, you don't know if Zod, Ursa and Non were supposed to have died. The ending in the film was inconclusive. WHile you may believe they died, there was nothing showing a finality to their fate. Another thought is that according to KRyptonian law death would have been justice for the Phantom Zone criminals if not for the discovery of the PHantom Zone.

SUperman is more than a collection of powers, he is not a conflicted character that says one thing in public and does the opposite in private. Truth and Justice are ideals he believes in on a personal as well as public way. Why don't you read some Superman comics. SInger did not invent the character and he has fundamentally changed this aspect of the character. THat is the biggest problem with SR and why so many people did not embrace it. If you like it that is fine, but don't pretend that it is in character with the portrayal of Superman that the general public or comic fans know.

 

[El Payaso]

^ Respectfully El Pyaso, you are confused regarding the character of Superman. He is an individual of super-ethical ideals and behaviour.

That's what I was thinking. The characterization of Superman has always included his morality as part of his goodness, just as his determination and indominatable will have. The character's positive traits go way beyond his physical powers and abilities. That is where in my opinion Singer went his own way with the character and really lost those other essential elements.

And as you two could see in my post I get that. It's you two who seem to be confused at for why they actually called him "super."

 

[El Payaso]

To me, it is not interesting when a character has been changed without a believable and plausible motivation for this change. Singer didn't invent SUperman and he is accountable for portraying the character consistently with what the audience already knows about the character.

He hasn't been changed.

But that's the thing, SUperman is just as dedicated to Truth and Justice in his personal life, it's not something separate from his public identity as Superman, it is the core of his being and he would act consistently in his personal life as well.

Truth is he's Clark also. He doesn't go too much for Truth in that aspect. He goes with a secret. To hide truth is not a very honest way to deal with truth. I'm saying that his stand for those ideals is not absolute for 100% of his personal life. That is necessary and it's not going against them.

As for lying, having a secret id is not the same as lying. I think you are oversimplyfying the concept of the secret Id.

I'm actually watching for all implications. You're relativizing Truth. In worse of cases Superman is not what I'd call Super-honest. Superman going "Oh I put Clark in a safe place" is lying.

It goes like this:

Everyone in their personal life has things that they tell other people based on how close a relationship they have with that other person. The people you are closest to are the ones you tell the most to and to whom you reveal the most about yourself. A government agent would not tell everyone he knows exactly what he does for a living, that is a secret that protects him and his family, but it is not about lying. It is revealing thins about yourself to others based on their need to know which is based on their closeness to you and your level of trust with the other person. YOu don't walk up to people on the street and tell them eveything about yourself, you reveal things slowly over time, organically as your relationsip and trust build.

Just like anything that is personal to you or me, SUperman's secret ID is personal to him and something important to maintain secret to the general public and only reveal it those whom he is closest to. In current comic continuity his parents, his wife (Lois) and best friend from Smallville (Lana Lang) all know. In addition, some other costumed heroes know his identity, Batman, Wonder Woman etc... He has revealed this b/c they are close, personally.

Superman doesn't work for Government or any other institution or person who he has to answer for respect of certain stuff. He keeps a secret identity under his own will and his will only. I know it's necessary in order to keep his mission going on at least the way he wants to. But still is not being honest. He could choose to be Superman 24/7 and not being forced to have a secret identity but he went the other way. He has been Lois workmate for years and he hasn't "slowly" or "organically" come close to reveal who he really is. Same with Perry and Jiommy so he's not honest with people close to him.

And it's not like me not telling people on the street (strangers) my secrets. Is to have secrets with his friends and people who he loves and who love him.

And as for other heroes knowing his identity, since this is Donnerverse, there's no other superheroes.

It stands to reason that Superman would then reveal his identity to those he is closest to in a movie version if it is maintaining the integrity of the characer. It should not come as a surprise then to expect Superman to reveal his ID to the woman he loves and with whom he is involved in a sexual relationship. If he fails to do so then it becomes an issue of deception.

Well, he did reveal it in Superman II, then he had sexual relationship with lois and then, without Lois' authorization... HE DELETED HER MEMORY. Not only about his identity but about having a sexual relationship with him. Quite an honest ethical fellow. At the end of Superman II Lois is forced to forget he made love with Superman so from then on, she will think she still hasn't been in bed with him when the truth is, she has. Again, truth is manipulated by Superman.

And all of this, I insist, without her authorization in which I consider mind violation. He manipulated her mind just because he wanted to and not asking for Lois' permission in order to do so.

Again, being this the vague sequel to STM and SII, I have seen Superman making pretty questionable moves when refered to his personal life. Therefore it's somehow consistent with what we've seen in this incarnation of the character.

Mainting a secret ID is in no way comparable to simply lying, or saying that b/c he maintains a secret ID that he is a dishonest person.

Yes it is. Very dishonest to play with Lois talking like a Superman who "doesn't know" who Clark is. "Who's Clark? Your boyfriend?" very funny Superman, but very dishonest too because he knows for sure she doesn't know, he's just making a little fun of her because she doesn't know the truth.

He's not a good person. He wants to be, but he has failed as a man in being a good person. You don't treat the woman you love the way he treated Lois and are still considered a good person. YOu don't father a child and then by your own mistakes cause him his own problems and still be considered a good person. YOu are a messed up person to do those things, you are selfish and a contradiction b/c your public life is so opposite.

You don't commit yourself to protect humanity and then quit because of personal reasons (Superman II)

You don't make love with your girl and then erase her mempory about that (Superman II)

You don't interfere in human history just for personal reasons (STM)

You don't manipulate your girl's mind when you want without her permission (Superman II)

Superman has made mistakes before. Nothing new under the sun.

What about justice to Lois who deserves to know who she's really had sex with and to know who the real father of her baby is?

Yeah, what about her right to know who she's really had sex with in uperman II? She can't remember because Superman deleted his mind and she wasn't even warned about it.

What about her duty to know who the hell is she having sex with? She got involved with Richard after Superman and she was never insterested in doing the maths so she knew who is Jason's real father?

What about justice for Jason, growing up not knowing who his father is?

At the end of SR he pretty much had an idea of who his real father was. Next step in Superman's life is to tell him officially I agree.

What about Justice for Richard, living a lie believing that Jason is his biological son?

They have to tell him yes.

Or maybe they'll go by your way 'It's a secret and having a secret is not to lie.'

Believing in truth and justice extends to all areas of your life not just 'crime and punishment.'

And being Clark but lying Lois about him being Superman puts us again out of the map on this one.

The thing is that SUperman has always been characterized as a good person through and through in all aspects of his life public and private. He doesn't have skeletons in his closet to hide. He is not that type of paradoxial(sp?) character. That is just not Superman.

He's still a good person. Making mistakes doesn't turn him into a bad person as it could look from up there in your moral higness mountain. He has always been portrayed as a kind-hearted man and SR is no exception.

I have to disagree. Allowing the greatest criminals in the universe to die (they didn't in the Donner Cut outtakes) is not equivalent to what he did in SR.

It is actually a little worse since it's murder.

Also, he quit his mission of his own free will to live a regular life and commit himself to Lois. He did just the opposite in SR. He was unable to be honest or committed to Lois and chose to hurt her instead of standing up like a man and telling her the truth. The situations in SR are completely different than in SII.

Different, yes. Worse, not that much. Making the mistakes he did in SR doesn't make his mistakes in Superman II any better. His mission is to protect humankind. He quits that, he's pretty much stop being Superman, I don't know anything more against being Superman that not being him by your own will.

Furthermore, you don't know if Zod, Ursa and Non were supposed to have died. The ending in the film was inconclusive. WHile you may believe they died, there was nothing showing a finality to their fate. Another thought is that according to KRyptonian law death would have been justice for the Phantom Zone criminals if not for the discovery of the PHantom Zone.

It is very much conclusive the ay it was showed. If they'd be on the Phantom Zone they would have showed that. There was a scene of them being taken to jail filmed by Donner but they decided to not to address that and left the scene out; they just left them falling into Fortress' precipices.

SUperman is more than a collection of powers, he is not a conflicted character that says one thing in public and does the opposite in private.

As for the movies, thanks God, he doesn't say anything. He's a man of actions, he's not living a model life to lecture humakind about how you have to live your lfe. He, instead, teach people about being kind to others through his public actions, not words.

Truth and Justice are ideals he believes in on a personal as well as public way. Why don't you read some Superman comics.

Because, I'm sure you know, SR is based on STM and SII so I don't need to in order to analyze SR. Just having seen the previous movies.

SInger did not invent the character and he has fundamentally changed this aspect of the character.

No, it is quite consistent with STM and SII.

THat is the biggest problem with SR and why so many people did not embrace it. If you like it that is fine, but don't pretend that it is in character with the portrayal of Superman that the general public or comic fans know.

The portrayal that mst people know is STM and SII which this movie is based on. In those Superman has made mistakes like the ones he did in SR.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I personally prefer a Superman that is more 'human' so to speak, it allows us to connect with him a lot more than with someone who his divine and never makes mistakes.

Yes he made mistakes and questionable decisions in the events leading up to SR, but by the end of the movie, i think he both realised and learned from those mistakes (notice he makes sure he says "Bye" to Lois when he leaves the sea plane and doesnt think he is coming back). This is still a young Superman we are talking about also, so he is bound to make mistakes, hence why we connect with him.

 

[afan]

I personally prefer a Superman that is more 'human' so to speak, it allows us to connect with him a lot more than with someone who his divine and never makes mistakes.

Then you acknowledge that Superman as portrayed in SR is a break with the traditional characterization.
By the way I don't like or subscribe to the divine and infallible Superman either and it's really not a cornerstone of the character.

There is nothing unethical about maintaining anonymity. The purpose of the secret identity is the key. Is an anonymous benefactor of charitable organiztions unethical simply because of his desire for secrecy?

In the case of super hero lore, secret identities are the norm not the exception. The use of the dual identity allows the hero to function, without it his crusade would be severely handicapped, for both public and private rationales. It also is very fertile and productive soil for the growth of dramatic mechanics.

Now as to lying to protect the secret identity. Clark's standard response to Lois' inquiring probes is classically along this line, "Superman, me!!!?? Lois what's in your coffee this morning?", quickly followed by an event, often cleverly created by Clak, the results of which make Lois question her sanity at entertaining such a ludicrous thought. Is that lying? It sure is an opportunity for a talented writer to entertain his audience, but it's not a lie.


El Payaso if you are only using the STM and SII as a basis for your points and your understanding of the character of Superman, and I and Mego Joe are using approx. 70 years of tradition, then clearly we are arguing apples and oranges. So for the sake of a uniform baseline for discussion are you focussing on Donner's version and vision, or the films as they were finally presented on screen, or on both.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Then you acknowledge that Superman as portrayed in SR is a break with the traditional characterization.
By the way I don't like or subscribe to the divine and infallible Superman either and it's really not a cornerstone of the character.

There is nothing unethical about maintaining anonymity. The purpose of the secret identity is the key. Is an anonymous benefactor of charitable organiztions unethical simply because of his desire for secrecy?

In the case of super hero lore, secret identities are the norm not the exception. The use of the dual identity allows the hero to function, without it his crusade would be severely handicapped, for both public and private rationales. It also is very fertile and productive soil for the growth of dramatic mechanics.

Now as to lying to protect the secret identity. Clark's standard response to Lois' inquiring probes is classically along this line, "Superman, me!!!?? Lois what's in your coffee this morning?", quickly followed by an event, often cleverly created by Clak, the results of which make Lois question her sanity at entertaining such a ludicrous thought. Is that lying? It sure is an opportunity for a talented writer to entertain his audience, but it's not a lie.


El Payaso if you are only using the STM and SII as a basis for your points and your understanding of the character of Superman, and I and Mego Joe are using approx. 70 years of tradition, then clearly we are arguing apples and oranges. So for the sake of a uniform baseline for discussion are you focussing on Donner's version and vision, or the films as they were finally presented on screen, or on both.

Well SR got me reading Superman comics, and i've read quite a few now, and i still think character we are presented with in SR is basically the same as the comics. Dont get me wrong, i'm not claiming to be an expert on the Superman character, but i really dont see much of a difference in characterisation.

Now you could say Superman does things in SR that he wouldnt in the comics, but i think this is a poor argument, as Superman has never been in this situation in the comics, in SR, i think he feels the lonliest he has ever felt, and more alien than ever, thats why i dont find him listening in on Lois' conversation with Richard or anything else he does to be wrong or out of character.

 

[afan]

Well SR got me reading Superman comics, and i've read quite a few now, and i still think character we are presented with in SR is basically the same as the comics. Dont get me wrong, i'm not claiming to be an expert on the Superman character, but i really dont see much of a difference in characterisation.

Now you could say Superman does things in SR that he wouldnt in the comics, but i think this is a poor argument, as Superman has never been in this situation in the comics, in SR, i think he feels the lonliest he has ever felt, and more alien than ever, thats why i dont find him listening in on Lois' conversation with Richard or anything else he does to be wrong or out of character.

Good to hear that SR has stirred you to investigate the character, but it appears you still have some research to do.

Superman is indomitable in his ethics as well as in his physical strength. His behaviour is not dictated by the situation he finds himself in, it is consistently based solely on his principles, and they are not princibles arrived at through trial and error they are principles instilled by his upbringing in Snallville with the Kent's.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Good to hear that SR has stirred you to investigate the character, but it appears you still have some research to do.

Superman is indomitable in his ethics as well as in his physical strength. His behaviour is not dictated by the situation he finds himself in, it is consistently based solely on his principles, and they are not princibles arrived at through trial and error they are principles instilled by his upbringing in Snallville with the Kent's.

Possibly, but i dont think it is a case of principles in the situation he is in in SR. He went to Krypton to try and find other's like him and the planet intact, he finds neither and finds out he is truly the LAST of his kind (so we know for now) and then come's back to earth to find the only human he ever truly connected with has moved on without him. SO he is feeling more lonely and out of place than EVER before. Thats why i dont find his action so questionable.

The scene were he looks and listens in to Lois' house is actually touching to me, as he is looking in on a life he would absolutely LOVE to lead, but will likely never be able to.

 

[afan]

Possibly, but i dont think it is a case of principles in the situation he is in in SR. He went to Krypton to try and find other's like him and the planet intact, he finds neither and finds out he is truly the LAST of his kind (so we know for now) and then come's back to earth to find the only human he ever truly connected with has moved on without him.

Only because he lacked the personal fortitude and the conviction of his course(journey to Krypton) to tell the "only human he ever truly connected with" why he is leaving. That weakness of character on his part is the sole origin of his situation in SR, and that weakness occurs prior to his Kryptonian journey not as a result of it's outcome.

Undeniably he is faced with a difficult decision involving very strong emotional soul searching, and just as undeniably he takes the easy way out. One can only conclude that faced with similar difficult situations involving unpleasant tho necessary solutions, he again would opt for the easy way out. One simply does not acquire strength of character thru trial and error, you either got it or you don't, and Superman should have it in abundance.

The scene were he looks and listens in to Lois' house is actually touching to me, as he is looking in on a life he would absolutely LOVE to lead, but will likely never be able to.

You see, your honor, I was only lurking outside her window looking in on her family life because I realize it's something I can never have myself.
Oh yeah, that would work.
It may be the emotional rationale for his action, but it's not grounds for forgiving his action.

 

[C. Lee]

He should have told Lois he was leaving (we actually have no proof that he even told Martha)....so of course people had moved on.

If he had stood out on the sidewalk and looked at the house and listened to the muffled laughter that came from it like any passerby could....then that would have been fine.....once he used his powers to look and hear 'inside' of the house...he overstepped the bounds of propriety.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

He should have told Lois he was leaving (we actually have no proof that he even told Martha)....so of course people had moved on.

If he had stood out on the sidewalk and looked at the house and listened to the muffled laughter that came from it like any passerby could....then that would have been fine.....once he used his powers to look and hear 'inside' of the house...he overstepped the bounds of propriety.

Agreed and this scene could have easily been fixed. Have Superman just flyby Lois' house instead of landing and using his X-ray vision. Instead of the family being inside, have the family outside in the backyard eating dinner at a table. Superman flies by not detected by the family but he still gets a good look at them together and then perhaps he hears them laughing(not at his expense) and having a good time. I know it's not perfect but it's better than the George McFly scene we got in SR.

 

[afan]

The issue is the intent or dramatic purpose for the scene, which is still a mystery to me. All it ultimately did was cheapen two character's at once, creating a shrub lurking super powered peeping tom, and demonstrate Lois' ability to deliver a bold faced lie to a decent individual.

 

[El Payaso]

Then you acknowledge that Superman as portrayed in SR is a break with the traditional characterization.

No, he's merely admitting that, being Superman a fictional character that as such have had different versions, he prefers this specific version of him.

By the way I don't like or subscribe to the divine and infallible Superman either and it's really not a cornerstone of the character.

You're just not allowing him to fail and make mistakes.

There is nothing unethical about maintaining anonymity. The purpose of the secret identity is the key. Is an anonymous benefactor of charitable organiztions unethical simply because of his desire for secrecy?

If he's anonymous, no. If he's hidding secretly his identity and living two lives with people he knows and love, then maybe. Superman plays the whole time with Lois' feelings. He obtains information as Clark that he uses to seduce her. Keeping, of course, the secret that both guys are the same.

In the case of super hero lore, secret identities are the norm not the exception. The use of the dual identity allows the hero to function, without it his crusade would be severely handicapped, for both public and private rationales. It also is very fertile and productive soil for the growth of dramatic mechanics.

I don't know how Superman's mission would be handicapped by chosing not to have a secret.

He could choose to be Superman 24/7. Of course, for that he should quit to have a private life and close friends. Too much sacrifice? well then maybe the superhero life's not for you.

As for the 'very fertile and productive soil for the growth of dramatic mechanics,' that's the same argument you could have for Superman making mistakes like going to Krypton for 5 years without telling Lois.

Now as to lying to protect the secret identity. Clark's standard response to Lois' inquiring probes is classically along this line, "Superman, me!!!?? Lois what's in your coffee this morning?", quickly followed by an event, often cleverly created by Clak, the results of which make Lois question her sanity at entertaining such a ludicrous thought. Is that lying? It sure is an opportunity for a talented writer to entertain his audience, but it's not a lie.

That is just avoiding the point; to run away and hide from the truth.

And for someone really interested by such an issue ("Clark could be Superman,") no force on Earth could make someone to forget insisting on the subject just because Clark said something stupid in between.

El Payaso if you are only using the STM and SII as a basis for your points and your understanding of the character of Superman, and I and Mego Joe are using approx. 70 years of tradition, then clearly we are arguing apples and oranges. So for the sake of a uniform baseline for discussion are you focussing on Donner's version and vision, or the films as they were finally presented on screen, or on both.

I am basing this - as by now everyone knows since I've been repeating myself over and over now about it - in Superman Returns, a movie based in STM and SII but not in a complete way.

Superman has been like in Superman Returns in STM and SII and therefore, if we're saying something to SR we have to say it to STM and SII.

 

[El Payaso]

Agreed and this scene could have easily been fixed. Have Superman just flyby Lois' house instead of landing and using his X-ray vision. Instead of the family being inside, have the family outside in the backyard eating dinner at a table. Superman flies by not detected by the family but he still gets a good look at them together and then perhaps he hears them laughing(not at his expense) and having a good time. I know it's not perfect but it's better than the George McFly scene we got in SR.

I can get that one.

But I always thought Superman was going to talk to Lois and end the situation. But once he was there, he tried to know if it was a good moment for a talk, given the circumstances. And he looked inside and in that moment this conversation about Superman started and he was just searching for a sign from Lois that she could still be interested. Since she said she wasn't actually in love with Superman, he decided of course not to interrupt the familiar dinner.

Never saw the scene as he went there to spy and spy only.

 

[afan]

I am basing this - as by now everyone knows since I've been repeating myself over and over now about it - in Superman Returns, a movie based in STM and SII but not in a complete way.

Alrighty then..........

I don't know how Superman's mission would be handicapped by chosing not to have a secret.

The reasons are clearly outlined in STM, during a conversation between "Jor-el" and Superman in the FOS following Superman's first public appearances, but if STM is your owners manual for Superman, you must be aware and accepting of this facet of the character.

 

[Showtime]

He should have told Lois he was leaving (we actually have no proof that he even told Martha)....so of course people had moved on.

If he had stood out on the sidewalk and looked at the house and listened to the muffled laughter that came from it like any passerby could....then that would have been fine.....once he used his powers to look and hear 'inside' of the house...he overstepped the bounds of propriety.

I think it's that we know he told Martha because of the way she reacted when he returned.

"If your father was around, he would have never let you go" or something to that effect. That means she knew he was leaving in my mind.

In my mind, I had no problem that Superman was looking in on Lois and her family while I was watching the movie. After hearing arguments of why this might have cross the boundaries, I can understand why some would feel that way. I can now look at it in a different light.

I think it would have been more acceptable if he was just floating in the sky passing by and they were out in the yard having a bbq or what not.

That being said, I really like the interaction in the house between Lois and Richard during that scene.

 

[El Payaso]

The reasons are clearly outlined in STM, during a conversation between "Jor-el" and Superman in the FOS following Superman's first public appearances, but if STM is your owners manual for Superman, you must be aware and accepting of this facet of the character.

I do. Jor-El tells Superman he can't be Superman 24/7 and that's it. Firstly, I'll mention that I can't see the reason for stating this other than Superman, as everyone else, needs from interacting with other people.

That said, I accept Superman has chosen to have a secret identity. Therefore I accept he ahs to hide this identity. What I don't accept is that we have to consider Superman (and his double life) a "super" honest man. He's forced to lie now and then in order to keep his mission going on, I get that. But then, either he should choose not to live this double life, or we shouldn't consider him the ultimate epitome of honesty and perfection handling his personal life. But we can't have both.

 

[afan]

^ Fair enough, you equate maintaining a secret identity with unethical behaviour I don't.
However in SR he maintains the dual identity while in an intimate relationship, and that surely crosses the line, a line that was not crossed in STM or SII.

 

[C. Lee]

I think it's that we know he told Martha because of the way she reacted when he returned.

"If your father was around, he would have never let you go" or something to that effect. That means she knew he was leaving in my mind.

That's the most probable meaning....but it could also be interpreted as "If your father was around, he would have figured out what you were planning and talked you out of it." With out more exposition and the advent of vague history....it's hard to be sure.

That being said, I really like the interaction in the house between Lois and Richard during that scene.

Yup...good acting by both.

 

[Angeloz]

There's also when Martha asks if he found what he was searching for and it's like they've discussed it before because they don't mention the word Krypton. I know it's not canon but in the script and deleted scenes she wrote postcards to cover for Clark Kent's absence. As well as kept a whole lot of newspapers for him.

Angeloz

 

[C. Lee]

There's also when Martha asks if he found what he was searching for and it's like they've discussed it before because they don't mention the word Krypton. I know it's not canon but in the script and deleted scenes she wrote postcards to cover for Clark Kent's absence. As well as kept a whole lot of newspapers for him.

Angeloz

Hello Angeloz....

I tend to play 'devil's advocate'....so allow me to say this....Superman has been gone for 5 years...so, when he returns...her asking if he had found what he was searching for....would be something anyone could say whether they knew where he had went or not. As I stated earlier...it is extremely likelt that he did tell Martha what he was doing...I just wish it had been made clearer.

As to the deleted scenes of the postcards.....until they are inserted back into the movie...they don't really count (in my opinion of course)....because there are many things "intended" for many movies that are cut out or not shot at all...but until you actually see them in context with the rest of the film...they don't really have any effect upon it.

 

[Showtime]

That's the most probable meaning....but it could also be interpreted as "If your father was around, he would have figured out what you were planning and talked you out of it." With out more exposition and the advent of vague history....it's hard to be sure.

It is very "vague" for lack of a better term. I think that was the word that Singer hung on the wall during proudction instead of "verisimilitude".