Superman Returns did superman regret that he left for krypton?

[mego joe]

He hasn't been changed.

I disagree, and I'll go through the reasons in the following responses.

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.

Actually, I don't think he ever actually lies as Clark or SUperman in SUperman: The Movie or SUperman II. I think they went out of their way to make sure that he never actually told a lie and developed other things to distract Lois etc.., or had dialogue that avoided the question w/o him having to answer it directly, b/c then he would not be able to lie. I think this is the part where you can say he does subscribe to those ideals in his life as Clark as well as SUperman. If he didn't he would be a huge hypocrite, and Superman would not be much of a hero as a hypocrite.

I find it interesting that your view of truth and lying is so black and white. For example:

If I asked you do describe in detail your last sexual encounter, you would probably tell me to 'take' off, b/c it's none of my business. THe situation to Superman's id is similar. There are some things that are not other people's business, but not revealing them is not the same as lying. Nor is it being untruthful. It's simply choosing to whom you will reveal the most personal things about yourself. While the whole secret id thing is unique to superheroes, I don't think you can say that every superhero who maintains a secret identity is a liar in his or her personal life. That seems to be great misunderstanding of the whole concept of the superhero's 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.

I don't think I'm 'relativizing' Truth, but simply putting it in it's proper context. YOur definition would mark every person in the world as untruthful or liars if the weren't forthcoming with a complete answer to every question they were asked by anyone ever. If Superman is not 'super-honest' why would they make such a big deal in STM about Superman never lying. Is that a lie? Can you see the contradiction in that?

"Oh, I put Clark in a safe place" is not lying. It's just not giving all the details in the answer. If Clark is now wearing the Supreman costume and doing the Superman thing instead of lying under the wreakage of a building doesn't that qualify as a safe place?

Superman doesn't work for Government or any other institution or person who he has to answer for respect of certain stuff.

He only has to answer to himself and since he has said publicly that he 'never lies,' he is giving a verbal promise to the general public so that they will trust him. And to maintain that trust he has to keep the promise.

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.

I think you're wrong about classifying the whole secret id thing as not being honest, and I think that he is not as close to Perry and Jimmy as you would like to believe. Certainly in the movies the only characters that he has a close enough relationship in the movies that would be privy to his id are Lois (if they are going to be in a serious romantic relationship) and his mom. The rest of the character neither Clark or SUperman have let them into his personal life. The slow, organic reveal that you mention is exactly how it played out in the comics, btw. The movie presents it differently in that Lois figures it out on her own very early in their relationship. At the time of SII, they have probably only known each other for a few weeks, a month at the most. The timeline for SR is much more problematic and it makes even less sense why Lois doesn't know considering that they are in a sexual relationship.

So, here is a point that has changed from SII to SR. In SII when SUperman and Lois have a sexual relationship Lois knows that he is really Clark. In SR when they have a sexual relationship LOis does NOT know that he is Clark. So he has changed in SR.

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.

The only movie where he has secrets from people who love him is SR. He and LOis are not in a relationship in S:TM or at the beginning of SII. As SII opens, they are still co-workers learining about each other, and Lois and SUperman are not in a relationship until AFTER she figures out his id. At that point he DOESN'T lie and instead shows her everything about him, including the FOrtress, b/c he is finally free to do so and share his feeling. Up to that point he had not been able to b/c they weren't in a close relationship and they were only acqaintances that had fallen in love through the old 'love at first sight' type of attraction.

He is never shown to have a personal realtionship with Jimmy or Perry, they are co-workers, and I challenge you to tell me how many of your co-workers know every intimate detail of your life.

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

At the point I wrote my respons I didn't know you were completely oblivious to the comic book version of the character, so I'm only focussing on the movies now.

Well, he did reveal it in Superman II, then he had sexual relationship with lois and then, without Lois' authorization... HE DELETED HER MEMORY.

SO then if the character has not changed from STM or SII, shouldn't he have revealed his id to Lois before having sex with her in the SR storyline? Otherwise, the character has changed. He is doing the opposite thing in the exact same situation.

YOu are right, though, and I've always hated it... the amnesia kiss. I feel the Donner Cut of SII dealt with this situation much better. But then again, I never liked the idea of them having sex in the first place.

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.

Exactly why the DC of SII is better, the whole thing never happened in the resolution of that cut of the film, and probably the one thing most fans dislike about the Lester cut of SII and feel is out of character for SUperman even in respect to the rest of the movie. So why make the same mistake again when it comes to Superman's character in SR? Why not get that part right.

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.

It's definitely not right, but it's not the type of mistake to repeat in another SUperman movie. NO ONE liked it in SII. The only differecne is that in SII it serves to reset the status quo at the end of that film, whereas in SR it is th BASIS for the entire plot of the film. His dishonesty with Lois that is. I can see how you can construe this as part of his character from this event in SII, but it doesn't mean that it is right for Superman. What it really is is an attempt by a filmmaker, Lester, to resolve a situation that will not change the status quo. THe fact is that you have to look at SUperman from the context of his whole history and not just 1 or 2 movies, that was a huge mistake on SInger's part.

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.

The only questionable move is the amnesia kiss. However, you will notice that the one differnce is that he does not do it so that it hurts Lois, he does it to help Lois. His motivation is critical to accept the amnesia kiss on any level. However, his motivation in SR is purely for selfish reasons, to take the easy way out. The difference in the SR and SII is SUperman's motivation.

Again, I will reiterate that Singer made a huge mistake by focussing on the worst part of SII to create a sequel around. I clears shows that he doesn't get who SUperman is and that his only exposure to the character is the previous movies. It would be like doing the Batman movie in 1989 and basing it on the Batman TV show from the sixties and expecting the public to embrace it becasue it was the version most people were familiar with.

Again, motivation. In STM and SII SUperman's motivations are not purely selfish, but rather based on his love for Lois and not wanting to hurt her.

Plus, LOis knows that once he regains his powers he can't have a normal life with her. SHe learned all that at the fortress. She knows that something is going to happen, she just doesn't know what. I believe she even says something about 'not being able to live like this' in reference to knowing Clark's identity and trying to carry on a normal life. I think it gets into sloppy storytelling, but I think it is implied subtlely that Lois doesn't want to know if she not going to be able to have the 'normal' life with him. Certainly, she knows she not based on what she learned in the fortress when he depowered.

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.

Well, I think it's really just misdirection. If you can't accept this type of thing in a superhero story, you just don't get the importance of the secret id concept. It would only be 'making fun' of her if he was having fun at her expense, but it is clearly just ensuring that Lois does not get a sense that there is a connection between Clark and SUperman.

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

Really? Ever quit a job? Take a new job? Change directions in your life completely? It has nothing to do with honesty or telling the truth though. In SUperman II, this situation is portrayed Superman finally getting the chance to choose his path in life instead of having it chosen for him by Jor-El. (See Misc. SUperman Films forum, Comics vs. Donner origin thread for a complete discussion on this topic.)

The question I am asking is "When did SUperman commit himself to protect humanity?" I say he never did in the movies until this point in SII when he has to decide if he's going to go back and try to regain his powers of if he's going to stay and have a life with Lois. At the end he promises the President it will never happen again. REmember, I and II were conceived as a single story, so they have to be viewed as such. You can see how this theme plays out to fruition when you view the two movies as 1 story.

The difference btw SII and SR in this case is that Lois knows that he is going back to the FOrtress to regain his powers, yet in SR he leaves Earth w/o a word to Lois. LOis in the know in SII, not in the know in SR.

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

LOis knows that once he regains his powers he can't have a normal life with her. SHe learned all that at the fortress. She knows that something is going to happen, she just doesn't know what. I believe she even says something about 'not being able to live like this' in reference to knowing Clark's identity and trying to carry on a normal life. I think it gets into sloppy storytelling, but I think it is implied subtlely that Lois doesn't want to know if she not going to be able to have the 'normal' life with him. Certainly, she knows she not based on what she learned in the fortress when he depowered.

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

So is everytime Superman saves someone's life wrong? If he stops a plane from crashing isn't he 'changing the course of human history?' It's not like this was completely self serving, he saved Lois's life and how many other's lives by reversing time. (Just wanted to point out that nobody likes this part of STM either.)

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

Possibility her permission would have been implicit based on above argument. THis doesn't mean I like this part of the movie, just that it's not supposed to be as maliscious as you make it out to be.

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

However, what is different is that the whole premise of the film falls apart when you remove the mistakes from SR. There is no story at this point. If you remove the 'mistakes' from SII, you still have a story, it's just a little different. In SII, the mistakes are part of the story, in SR the whole concept of the character is based on him making mistakes in order to have a story.

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?

That doesn't make any sense. When she got her due date from the doctor, based on an ultrasound she would have been able to pinpoint Jason's conception. If she realized it could have been either b/c she slept with both of them so close together then she should have been honest with Richard that she had been involved in a previous sexual relationship and the baby may not have been Richard's.

However, based on her portrayl I can't say I would be surprised to find out she 'wasn't interested in doing the math' b/c she comes off as irresponsible and vapid anyway.


So, how could she 'move on' so quickly from SUperman leaving?

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.

The thing is a 4 or 5 year old kid has no concept of 'real father' meaning biological father. His real father is Richard, the only father he's ever known and that's all a kid is going to be able to comprehend until he is old enough to understand how babies are conceived, otherwise it will be meaningless to him.

That next step is going to be an extrememly traumatic event for Jason to learn that Richard is not his real father and that SUperman is.

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.'

Every child deserves to know who his/her parents are. What you do with that knowledge defines you. The problem to me is that Superman should never be in this situation to begin with.

It was just a bad idea and makes it appear that the core of Supreman's character is one of hypocrisy and moral paradox. And that couldn't be further from the true essence of his character. That take on Superman's character is just wrong.

Even if singer took his inspiration from STM and SII to make SR and chose the worse parts to focus on doesn't mean that it is an accurate portrayal of the character. All it means is that he focussed on the marginal aspects of the character that the Donner films got wrong. Those parts are not essential to understanding the character, rather they are aspects that Donner changed to give texture and aspects that Singer amplified to being the essence.

Hence why SInger not starting fresh with a more comic book based take was a huge mistake. He amplified the worst parts of the Donner films to base his movie on, thus showing a basic misunderstanding of the character as he has been portrayed previously in comics, TV, films etc....

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



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.

There's nothing kind about what he's done to Lois and Jason. It's more than a 'mistake.' It's a mistake that negatively impacts Lois and Jason for the rest of their lives. He has hurt Jason. NOw when does Superman make mistakes that hurt children? THere is a degree of severity of the mistake that needs to be accounted for here as well.

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

Accidental death at the worse, if they actually died. Their fate was not explored. Footage from the Donner cut shows them being led off by Police. I don't think it was ever intended for the audience to think that Superman killed them.

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.

How about hurting people you love b/c of selfish motivations so you don't have to be hurt instead.

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.

Exactly, their final fate was never shown, so you don't reallly know what happened to them do you?

 

[mego joe]

Reply continued

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.

But it's OK for him to be an unlikable jerk in his private life? I guess that's the message of the movie. As long as you can fool the public you can be a jerk privately and you will still be lauded as a hero. That's the paradox that's antithetical to the essence of Superman and clearly Singer did not get that.



BTW, what's all that lecturing about smoking and flying all about then?



Dialogue should be used to reveal the inner feelings and motivations of character and to resolve interpersonal conflict, that's what I was talking about.

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.

Well, as I have analyzed them all, it's obvious to me that SInger only based SR on the worst aspects of SII and STM, the parts people don't actually like about those movies to base his ENTIRE film on and completely missed the essence of the character that has existed for decades independently of those movies.

No, it is quite consistent with STM and SII.

ACtually, it's not on the whole of the films, Singer just amplified the worst parts of them to ensure that he could ruin the SUperman movie franchise singlehandedly.

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.

They don't see the character as revolving around being a mistake prone hypocrite though, which is what you describe as SInger and Donner's collective vision.

 

[Angeloz]

I just want to say one thing about the ultrasound argument we don't know how long it takes for a Kryptonian child to develop and using human standards could be wrong.

Angeloz

 

[Angeloz]

Hello Angeloz....

Hi

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.

I thought you were playing devil's advocate as you put it. Nice for the confirmation. I think while it's not explicitly stated she knew I do think the way she reacted and they talked implied strongly that she knew. Especially as Showtime029 points out that she says his father would never have let him go strongly implying she did. Then there's the fact she knew it was him returning and not some other alien landing in her paddock.

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.

That's why I said it wasn't canon. Just to add information that might be of interest.

Angeloz

 

[afan]

Mego Joe, you beat me to the punch. We are most definitely on the same wave length.

Superman behaves ethically in STM and SII, clearly the vague history background, also includes a vague ethical background for SR.

If I may add some thoughts...............the ethical nature of a behavior lies not in the action itself but in it's intent.

If in SR it were made clear that by telling Lois, Superman would be putting her in grave danger emotionally or physically, then leaving uannounced would have been ethical. The sole reason we are presented with is to avoid the personal emotional distress it would create for him, and clearly that selfishly induced silence created an emotionally tumultuous and painful period for Lois. It's not the action of his silence but the intent of his silence that matters.

The intent of the amnesia kiss is to save Lois from what appears to be an oncoming nervous breakdown at best, a devestated life devoid of solace and wracked with emotional turmoil at worst. That's fairly obvious. Superman's action, the amnesia kiss, is not intended to remove the memory of the sexual encounter in order to protect himself from repercussion, or to protect his dual identity, it's to remove the source of her emotional trauma. That is the only motivation for the act. To use his abilities to aid someone in dire need of help. She was drowning in an emotional whirlpool, Superman as he always does rescued her. If Lois were an emotional rock, capable of maintaining status quo, of being just friends, with Superman / Clark, with all the knowledge of his secret, the kiss would not have occurred, plain and simple.

That being said I am also not defending the inclusion of the kiss in SII or the intimate relationship of Superman / Lois that necessitates it; not on any moral grounds but on a thematic level. Superman should not be embroiled in a melodrama. It's not where the character belongs. I would prefer a professional relationship between Superman / Lois( but not devoid of clever innuendo) and a purely platonic but close friendship between Clark / Lois.

My own objection to the time reversal is purely based on the ease in which it's used as a dramatic solution.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

Thats exaclty how i saw the scene too El Payaso I never once thought he went there simply to 'spy' or 'peep'.

 

[afan]

Thats exaclty how i saw the scene too El Payaso I never once thought he went there simply to 'spy' or 'peep'.

He lands in the bushes , if he were going for the purpose you suggest, wouldn't the front door be more appropriate?

 

[El Payaso]

Actually, I don't think he ever actually lies as Clark or SUperman in SUperman: The Movie or SUperman II. I think they went out of their way to make sure that he never actually told a lie and developed other things to distract Lois etc.., or had dialogue that avoided the question w/o him having to answer it directly, b/c then he would not be able to lie. I think this is the part where you can say he does subscribe to those ideals in his life as Clark as well as SUperman. If he didn't he would be a huge hypocrite, and Superman would not be much of a hero as a hypocrite.

And he is: "Clark, uh, who's that? Your boyfriend?" That's a way to create a lie wiothout pronouncing it directly. Pretending not to know who Clark is, when not only you do know but you ARE him is no more than a strategy to make other people - the woman you love included - believe something that is not true: Superman doesn't know Clark and therefore they're different people.

Of course nice writers can write cool comedic way-outs for those kind of questions, but once again, in real life he'd be forced to lie. A little joke won't distract a reporter like Lois from her suspicions.

I find it interesting that your view of truth and lying is so black and white. For example:

If I asked you do describe in detail your last sexual encounter, you would probably tell me to 'take' off, b/c it's none of my business. THe situation to Superman's id is similar. There are some things that are not other people's business, but not revealing them is not the same as lying. Nor is it being untruthful. It's simply choosing to whom you will reveal the most personal things about yourself. While the whole secret id thing is unique to superheroes, I don't think you can say that every superhero who maintains a secret identity is a liar in his or her personal life. That seems to be great misunderstanding of the whole concept of the superhero's secret id.

I have no problemns with superhewro's id's since I addressed that it was necessary for them. But the costs of having a double life are there too and it seems it's you who's having problems with that. They have a double life, they have to lie and/or hide the truth and willingly make people to believe things that are not true. It's the price to pay. You can't have your Super-honest shield in the chest while you're having a secret double life.

I don't think I'm 'relativizing' Truth, but simply putting it in it's proper context. YOur definition would mark every person in the world as untruthful or liars if the weren't forthcoming with a complete answer to every question they were asked by anyone ever. If Superman is not 'super-honest' why would they make such a big deal in STM about Superman never lying. Is that a lie? Can you see the contradiction in that?

"Oh, I put Clark in a safe place" is not lying. It's just not giving all the details in the answer. If Clark is now wearing the Supreman costume and doing the Superman thing instead of lying under the wreakage of a building doesn't that qualify as a safe place?

Maybe not even mention him could work, so he hasn't have to lie.

Maybe next time I kill a guy poisoning him and police is interrogating me about it, I should say 'Hey I didn't kill the guy,' because to speak half-truths as Superman does, it was the poison what killed the guy, not me, but as Superman I don't have to give the full answer. I mean, if half-truths makes him Super-honest, why not me too.

And yes, there's a huge contradiction when Superman says I never lie. At that moment he's lying and not only that, he's conditioning people's mind to think he actually doesn't lie. The game is as follows, I save people and say I don't lie. I'm playing with public opinion because you'd have to be a real bastard to not believe me after I saved people's necks - and considering you could be the next one I'll save - so, come on, when I say I never lie you MUST believe me. And by this, I'm protected.

He only has to answer to himself and since he has said publicly that he 'never lies,' he is giving a verbal promise to the general public so that they will trust him. And to maintain that trust he has to keep the promise.

And yet he doesn't. He just relies on his promise because no one knows he's not actually keeping it 100% since - we already know - he needs (or would need fr some reason) to make exceptions in order to keep his mission going on.

I think you're wrong about classifying the whole secret id thing as not being honest,

You're wrong thinking that because a secret Id could be justifiable, then it's Honest by consequence.

and I think that he is not as close to Perry and Jimmy as you would like to believe.

They're close enough so Superman wouldn't lie to them. I have workmates that are no close enough to me and still I'd be totally uncomfortable oif they'd be talking about my alter ego all the time, me knowing the whole truth but keeping it quiet.

Certainly in the movies the only characters that he has a close enough relationship in the movies that would be privy to his id are Lois (if they are going to be in a serious romantic relationship) and his mom. The rest of the character neither Clark or SUperman have let them into his personal life. The slow, organic reveal that you mention is exactly how it played out in the comics, btw. The movie presents it differently in that Lois figures it out on her own very early in their relationship. At the time of SII, they have probably only known each other for a few weeks, a month at the most. The timeline for SR is much more problematic and it makes even less sense why Lois doesn't know considering that they are in a sexual relationship.

She has the hots on Supes and Supes is naive enought op believe that's love because he is the one in love.

So, here is a point that has changed from SII to SR. In SII when SUperman and Lois have a sexual relationship Lois knows that he is really Clark. In SR when they have a sexual relationship LOis does NOT know that he is Clark. So he has changed in SR.

We don't know what heppened before that relationship. But I agree, it should have been explained way better than it was.

As I saw them in the previous movies, they both could have reached a consensus about having sexual relationships. After all it seems like Superman, after Superman II, knows too well Lois won't fall for Clark, specially if Clark does everything in order to be undesirable for Lois. So I guess Superman accepted they would develop their relationship being Superman. Situation and circumstances, as in every story, has varied, yes.

 

[El Payaso]

The only movie where he has secrets from people who love him is SR. He and LOis are not in a relationship in S:TM or at the beginning of SII. As SII opens, they are still co-workers learining about each other, and Lois and SUperman are not in a relationship until AFTER she figures out his id. At that point he DOESN'T lie and instead shows her everything about him, including the FOrtress, b/c he is finally free to do so and share his feeling. Up to that point he had not been able to b/c they weren't in a close relationship and they were only acqaintances that had fallen in love through the old 'love at first sight' type of attraction.

If we remember right, it wasn't like Superman was free to tell her eveything. It was more like she found out who he was even when he didn't want to tell her. He was confronted in such a way that keeping the double life charade was over. After that, of course, why not telling her eveything? And when things got complicated, Superman did what every good kind-hearted boyfriend would do: to erase her memory without telling her or asking her first. After that I'd say Superman is not only living the double life lie, but also the 'I deleted your memory' lie too, since he can't tell her. Well, he can, but he chose not to tell her the truth again.

It's not like in SR was the first time he kept secrets from her.

He is never shown to have a personal realtionship with Jimmy or Perry, they are co-workers, and I challenge you to tell me how many of your co-workers know every intimate detail of your life.

Well, I have not many co-workers that talks all the time or make great headliners about my alter ego in front of me.

SO then if the character has not changed from STM or SII, shouldn't he have revealed his id to Lois before having sex with her in the SR storyline? Otherwise, the character has changed. He is doing the opposite thing in the exact same situation.

No, because in SII he didn't DECIDED to tell Lois everything. He was busted. After what happened in SII, Superman clearly learnt that Lois could have a relationship with him as Superman, since telling her the truth and losing his powers didn't already work.

YOu are right, though, and I've always hated it... the amnesia kiss. I feel the Donner Cut of SII dealt with this situation much better. But then again, I never liked the idea of them having sex in the first place.

The same people makes mistakes, they have sex.

Exactly why the DC of SII is better, the whole thing never happened in the resolution of that cut of the film, and probably the one thing most fans dislike about the Lester cut of SII and feel is out of character for SUperman even in respect to the rest of the movie. So why make the same mistake again when it comes to Superman's character in SR? Why not get that part right.

In SR has been the only Superman movie (from STM, SII and SR) when things were furtyher and at the end there was no deus ex machina to makes us now nothign actually happened. Superman has a son and at the end he still has it and it will change his life. It's not the time-reversing, amnesia stuff when things never actually happened. So the mistake is not made again.

If for things never happened in SII, someone should re-make SII and correct those mistakes, not to have SR carrying the load.

It's definitely not right, but it's not the type of mistake to repeat in another SUperman movie. NO ONE liked it in SII. The only differecne is that in SII it serves to reset the status quo at the end of that film, whereas in SR it is th BASIS for the entire plot of the film. His dishonesty with Lois that is. I can see how you can construe this as part of his character from this event in SII, but it doesn't mean that it is right for Superman. What it really is is an attempt by a filmmaker, Lester, to resolve a situation that will not change the status quo. THe fact is that you have to look at SUperman from the context of his whole history and not just 1 or 2 movies, that was a huge mistake on SInger's part.

I'm, not sure if the amnesia kiss happened in SR. If it happened, then it is consistent with that version of the character. If you want to make a reboot with new Superman comics, then you got thew wrong director. But it's not loike it's a bad movie because it had a dofferent vision that yours. Or I'd been seeing you complaining for SII as much as you do with SR.

The only questionable move is the amnesia kiss. However, you will notice that the one differnce is that he does not do it so that it hurts Lois, he does it to help Lois. His motivation is critical to accept the amnesia kiss on any level. However, his motivation in SR is purely for selfish reasons, to take the easy way out. The difference in the SR and SII is SUperman's motivation.

He did the amnesia kiss it to help himself, not Lois. You don't help someone causing some amount of brain damage si she forgets what you don't want her to remember. Amnesia kiss was selfish and easy way the same way than what he did in SR.

But in SR, he didn't make Lois forget he was out for five years and didn't say Bye. He came back and talked about it. True love heals wounds in time, not in amnesia.

Facing mistakes takes time, it is a hard and slow process. Amnesia kiss takes one second and not even the authorization of the loved one. Easy way.

Again, I will reiterate that Singer made a huge mistake by focussing on the worst part of SII to create a sequel around. I clears shows that he doesn't get who SUperman is and that his only exposure to the character is the previous movies. It would be like doing the Batman movie in 1989 and basing it on the Batman TV show from the sixties and expecting the public to embrace it becasue it was the version most people were familiar with.

Except Burton did use some parts of the TV series the same Singer used some parts of Superman TM and SII. Not everything that happened in the previous movies happened in SR. Still the characters behave the same.

Again, motivation. In STM and SII SUperman's motivations are not purely selfish, but rather based on his love for Lois and not wanting to hurt her.

Exactly like in SR. Superman never wanted to hurt Lois. Not wanting to hurt her doesn't mean she doesn't get hurt. In SR his love for Lois collided with his love for Krypton. Tough choice.

Too Lois Lane to state he was just selfish.

Plus, LOis knows that once he regains his powers he can't have a normal life with her. SHe learned all that at the fortress. She knows that something is going to happen, she just doesn't know what. I believe she even says something about 'not being able to live like this' in reference to knowing Clark's identity and trying to carry on a normal life. I think it gets into sloppy storytelling, but I think it is implied subtlely that Lois doesn't want to know if she not going to be able to have the 'normal' life with him. Certainly, she knows she not based on what she learned in the fortress when he depowered.

That doesn't give Superman half a right to delete her memory. It would be like if I'm a doctor and a woman says she doesn't want to have more kids and I go and sterilize her without telling her.

And we should never lose from our sight that Superman would be immensely relieved of having to watch Lois' sad face every day.

Well, I think it's really just misdirection. If you can't accept this type of thing in a superhero story, you just don't get the importance of the secret id concept. It would only be 'making fun' of her if he was having fun at her expense, but it is clearly just ensuring that Lois does not get a sense that there is a connection between Clark and SUperman.

I know a better and more effective way to make people think you don't have a secret idenitity: Not having one. Be honest and keep your file with no secrets to keep.

And if your secret Id is going to interfere with the woman you love, go away and leave her safe from your secrets. I know Superman can't do that because he's too much in love with Lois and in order to keep that love - instead of quitting to it - he makes... mistakes.

Really? Ever quit a job? Take a new job? Change directions in your life completely? It has nothing to do with honesty or telling the truth though. In SUperman II, this situation is portrayed Superman finally getting the chance to choose his path in life instead of having it chosen for him by Jor-El. (See Misc. SUperman Films forum, Comics vs. Donner origin thread for a complete discussion on this topic.)

Being Superman and having his powers, no, I have never quit a job in those circumstances. But Superman is not me and I'm not him.

He can do that while I can't.

The question I am asking is "When did SUperman commit himself to protect humanity?" I say he never did in the movies until this point in SII when he has to decide if he's going to go back and try to regain his powers of if he's going to stay and have a life with Lois. At the end he promises the President it will never happen again. REmember, I and II were conceived as a single story, so they have to be viewed as such. You can see how this theme plays out to fruition when you view the two movies as 1 story.

At some point I guess he decided to save people he doesn't even know and that became a mission before Lois interviewed him in STM. In that interview he explains the whole Truth Justice American way commitment.

The difference btw SII and SR in this case is that Lois knows that he is going back to the FOrtress to regain his powers, yet in SR he leaves Earth w/o a word to Lois. LOis in the know in SII, not in the know in SR.

Not saying good-bye was Superman GREAT mistake in SR. A mistake that, no, he didn't ever make before.

LOis knows that once he regains his powers he can't have a normal life with her. SHe learned all that at the fortress. She knows that something is going to happen, she just doesn't know what. I believe she even says something about 'not being able to live like this' in reference to knowing Clark's identity and trying to carry on a normal life. I think it gets into sloppy storytelling, but I think it is implied subtlely that Lois doesn't want to know if she not going to be able to have the 'normal' life with him. Certainly, she knows she not based on what she learned in the fortress when he depowered.

Double post.

So is everytime Superman saves someone's life wrong? If he stops a plane from crashing isn't he 'changing the course of human history?' It's not like this was completely self serving, he saved Lois's life and how many other's lives by reversing time. (Just wanted to point out that nobody likes this part of STM either.)

Debatable until death. It's why I love when Superman is stuck in this kind of dilemmas. Do I stay with people of Earth and Lois or do I go back and search for my Kryptonian roots and try to see if some Kryptonian soul is alive?

Possibility her permission would have been implicit based on above argument. THis doesn't mean I like this part of the movie, just that it's not supposed to be as maliscious as you make it out to be.

How can she authorize someting she doesn't even know it exists? Tricky argument she 'implied' permission.

But same way, leaving Earth in order to rescue possible Kryptonian survivors or having consensual sex with a woman isn't as malicious as you make it out to be.

However, what is different is that the whole premise of the film falls apart when you remove the mistakes from SR. There is no story at this point. If you remove the 'mistakes' from SII, you still have a story, it's just a little different. In SII, the mistakes are part of the story, in SR the whole concept of the character is based on him making mistakes in order to have a story.

If you remove King Claudius' murder, you have no story for Hamlet. What does exactly that prove in regards of the story quality?

You always need a trigger.... better if it's the hero's mistakes instead yet another Mr. Evil plan. It makes the whole story more complex for the main character since he can't just point out the forces of evil are and balme them for everything that's wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. When she got her due date from the doctor, based on an ultrasound she would have been able to pinpoint Jason's conception. If she realized it could have been either b/c she slept with both of them so close together then she should have been honest with Richard that she had been involved in a previous sexual relationship and the baby may not have been Richard's.

That's my point, she didn't even care. She just wanted to believe Superman was out of her life for good.

However, based on her portrayl I can't say I would be surprised to find out she 'wasn't interested in doing the math' b/c she comes off as irresponsible and vapid anyway.

Exactly. Not that Margot's Lois was the end-of-all that is responsible.

So, how could she 'move on' so quickly from SUperman leaving?

Spite.

The thing is a 4 or 5 year old kid has no concept of 'real father' meaning biological father. His real father is Richard, the only father he's ever known and that's all a kid is going to be able to comprehend until he is old enough to understand how babies are conceived, otherwise it will be meaningless to him.

That next step is going to be an extrememly traumatic event for Jason to learn that Richard is not his real father and that SUperman is.

Traumatic yes. And the story gets better since it's not that simple to tell him the truth. It'd be like Clark Kent finding out he's actually... An Alien!

So I guess Superman and sons, as aliens super-powered beings, are just doomed to some traumatic episodes throughout their lives.

Every child deserves to know who his/her parents are. What you do with that knowledge defines you. The problem to me is that Superman should never be in this situation to begin with.

But he has been in it. He spent 17-18 years of his life not knowing who the hell he was. He just knew the Kents weren't his real parents. Then the whole alien story; it surely wasn't an easy thing to assimilate.

With luck, Jason will be able to know who he really is before that and gradually.

It was just a bad idea and makes it appear that the core of Supreman's character is one of hypocrisy and moral paradox. And that couldn't be further from the true essence of his character. That take on Superman's character is just wrong.

It is what you want it to be. For me, it's this man who in spite of troubles and mistakes, can go over things because of the immense heart and love he can share.

He has to live some lies and things are far more complicated than for an average man, but it's what implies to be Super, and at the same time, man.

Ignoring the difficulties and making him Mr. Perfect Moral guy whose problems means nothing is just boring.

Even if singer took his inspiration from STM and SII to make SR and chose the worse parts to focus on doesn't mean that it is an accurate portrayal of the character. All it means is that he focussed on the marginal aspects of the character that the Donner films got wrong. Those parts are not essential to understanding the character, rather they are aspects that Donner changed to give texture and aspects that Singer amplified to being the essence.

Slowly and gradually you're starting to accept where the SR vision comes from.

Hence why SInger not starting fresh with a more comic book based take was a huge mistake. He amplified the worst parts of the Donner films to base his movie on, thus showing a basic misunderstanding of the character as he has been portrayed previously in comics, TV, films etc....

It is more complex than most of other visions that are based on Mr. White Good vs Mr. Black Evil. Few other versions has been so 3-dimensional.

There's nothing kind about what he's done to Lois and Jason. It's more than a 'mistake.' It's a mistake that negatively impacts Lois and Jason for the rest of their lives. He has hurt Jason. NOw when does Superman make mistakes that hurt children? THere is a degree of severity of the mistake that needs to be accounted for here as well.

Is it to hurt a child to be his father? And I'm eager to see how Superman will still be forced to face his mistakes again. I don't think it's all over.

When does Superman hurt the people he loves? Risks of the profession. Many people ends hurting people they love even when they didn't mean it.

Accidental death at the worse, if they actually died. Their fate was not explored. Footage from the Donner cut shows them being led off by Police. I don't think it was ever intended for the audience to think that Superman killed them.

I think the official versions shows it too well to discuss. Superman throws Zod to a wall knowing that, without flying , he's going to fall into the precipice. Same with Lois and Ursa and same with Non who, even when jumped by his own will, was 'accidentally' left to fall into his death.

How about hurting people you love b/c of selfish motivations so you don't have to be hurt instead.

Yes, what about it? Any person in jail for hurting people he loves by making a mistake. Because for throwing people into a precipice I've seen some legal punishment.

Exactly, their final fate was never shown, so you don't reallly know what happened to them do you?

Was shown clearly. They fell into a precipice and never shown agaion. In cinematographic languages that's read as they died. Overall, considering that the issue (supervilliains being able to come back) is so serious than any director would have addressed any other possibility.

 

[El Payaso]

double post

 

[El Payaso]

However, what is different is that the whole premise of the film falls apart when you remove the mistakes from SR. There is no story at this point. If you remove the 'mistakes' from SII, you still have a story, it's just a little different. In SII, the mistakes are part of the story, in SR the whole concept of the character is based on him making mistakes in order to have a story.

If you remove King Claudius' murder, you have no story for Hamlet. What does exactly that prove in regards of the story quality?

You always need a trigger.... better if it's the hero's mistakes instead yet another Mr. Evil plan. It makes the whole story more complex for the main character since he can't just point out the forces of evil are and balme them for everything that's wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. When she got her due date from the doctor, based on an ultrasound she would have been able to pinpoint Jason's conception. If she realized it could have been either b/c she slept with both of them so close together then she should have been honest with Richard that she had been involved in a previous sexual relationship and the baby may not have been Richard's.

That's my point, she didn't even care. She just wanted to believe Superman was out of her life for good.

However, based on her portrayl I can't say I would be surprised to find out she 'wasn't interested in doing the math' b/c she comes off as irresponsible and vapid anyway.

Exactly. Not that Margot's Lois was the end-of-all that is responsible.

So, how could she 'move on' so quickly from SUperman leaving?

Spite.

The thing is a 4 or 5 year old kid has no concept of 'real father' meaning biological father. His real father is Richard, the only father he's ever known and that's all a kid is going to be able to comprehend until he is old enough to understand how babies are conceived, otherwise it will be meaningless to him.

That next step is going to be an extrememly traumatic event for Jason to learn that Richard is not his real father and that SUperman is.

Traumatic yes. And the story gets better since it's not that simple to tell him the truth. It'd be like Clark Kent finding out he's actually... An Alien!

So I guess Superman and sons, as aliens super-powered beings, are just doomed to some traumatic episodes throughout their lives.

Every child deserves to know who his/her parents are. What you do with that knowledge defines you. The problem to me is that Superman should never be in this situation to begin with.

But he has been in it. He spent 17-18 years of his life not knowing who the hell he was. He just knew the Kents weren't his real parents. Then the whole alien story; it surely wasn't an easy thing to assimilate.

With luck, Jason will be able to know who he really is before that and gradually.

It was just a bad idea and makes it appear that the core of Supreman's character is one of hypocrisy and moral paradox. And that couldn't be further from the true essence of his character. That take on Superman's character is just wrong.

It is what you want it to be. For me, it's this man who in spite of troubles and mistakes, can go over things because of the immense heart and love he can share.

He has to live some lies and things are far more complicated than for an average man, but it's what implies to be Super, and at the same time, man.

Ignoring the difficulties and making him Mr. Perfect Moral guy whose problems means nothing is just boring.

Even if singer took his inspiration from STM and SII to make SR and chose the worse parts to focus on doesn't mean that it is an accurate portrayal of the character. All it means is that he focussed on the marginal aspects of the character that the Donner films got wrong. Those parts are not essential to understanding the character, rather they are aspects that Donner changed to give texture and aspects that Singer amplified to being the essence.

Slowly and gradually you're starting to accept where the SR vision comes from.

Hence why SInger not starting fresh with a more comic book based take was a huge mistake. He amplified the worst parts of the Donner films to base his movie on, thus showing a basic misunderstanding of the character as he has been portrayed previously in comics, TV, films etc....

It is more complex than most of other visions that are based on Mr. White Good vs Mr. Black Evil. Few other versions has been so 3-dimensional.

There's nothing kind about what he's done to Lois and Jason. It's more than a 'mistake.' It's a mistake that negatively impacts Lois and Jason for the rest of their lives. He has hurt Jason. NOw when does Superman make mistakes that hurt children? THere is a degree of severity of the mistake that needs to be accounted for here as well.

Is it to hurt a child to be his father? And I'm eager to see how Superman will still be forced to face his mistakes again. I don't think it's all over.

When does Superman hurt the people he loves? Risks of the profession. Many people ends hurting people they love even when they didn't mean it.

Accidental death at the worse, if they actually died. Their fate was not explored. Footage from the Donner cut shows them being led off by Police. I don't think it was ever intended for the audience to think that Superman killed them.

I think the official versions shows it too well to discuss. Superman throws Zod to a wall knowing that, without flying , he's going to fall into the precipice. Same with Lois and Ursa and same with Non who, even when jumped by his own will, was 'accidentally' left to fall into his death.

How about hurting people you love b/c of selfish motivations so you don't have to be hurt instead.

Yes, what about it? Any person in jail for hurting people he loves by making a mistake. Because for throwing people into a precipice I've seen some legal punishment.

Exactly, their final fate was never shown, so you don't reallly know what happened to them do you?

It was clearly shown. They fell into a precipice and were never shown again. In cinematographic languages that's read as they died. Overall, considering that the issue (supervilliains being able to come back) is so serious than any director would have addressed any other possibility.

 

[El Payaso]

But it's OK for him to be an unlikable jerk in his private life? I guess that's the message of the movie.

Then you're getting it wrong. I don't even think this was a mesasage-movie.

Still, being a man of actions instead words is nothing negative. Now calling 'jerk' to a man who made a mistake surely makes it look bad.

BTW, what's all that lecturing about smoking and flying all about then?

That was more of a seducing talk.

Dialogue should be used to reveal the inner feelings and motivations of character and to resolve interpersonal conflict, that's what I was talking about.

That should never happen. Any screen or play writer knows that dialogues just should express what action on screen/stage can't. Otherwise it's repetitive or obvious or simply underlining unneeded lines.

Well, as I have analyzed them all, it's obvious to me that SInger only based SR on the worst aspects of SII and STM, the parts people don't actually like about those movies to base his ENTIRE film on and completely missed the essence of the character that has existed for decades independently of those movies.

worse = what you personally wouldn't have done.

He totally got the essence of Donner-Lester Superman.

ACtually, it's not on the whole of the films, Singer just amplified the worst parts of them to ensure that he could ruin the SUperman movie franchise singlehandedly.

Before or after he start planning kidnapping you so he can totally ruin your life?

They don't see the character as revolving around being a mistake prone hypocrite though, which is what you describe as SInger and Donner's collective vision.

Not at all. I describe them as most interesting pieces where heroes are not Mr. Perfect. I'm not the one hating Donner, Lester nor Singer.

 

[El Payaso]

He lands in the bushes , if he were going for the purpose you suggest, wouldn't the front door be more appropriate?

And while we're on that, why didn't he got a cab?

Superman is not for knocking at the door.

 

[afan]

And while we're on that, why didn't he got a cab?

Superman is not for knocking at the door.

Re. your lack of knowledge of Superman's character; you should be taking the fifth, you continually incriminate your self, with your words.

 

[El Payaso]

Re. your lack of knowledge of Superman's character; you should be taking the fifth, you continually incriminate your self, with your words.

Superman visiting Lois for the first time appearing right in the terrace. No door knocking. Yaaaa, Super-pervert-stalker. Plop.

 

[VenomsMom]

Superman visiting Lois for the first time appearing right in the terrace. No door knocking. Yaaaa, Super-pervert-stalker. Plop.

Lois was expecting him to meet her at that time thats why she was there. At least thats why he wrote the note. In SR, it was completely unexpected. Not to mention he knows she lives with another man. It seems as if he wanted to spy on her.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Lois was expecting him to meet her at that time thats why she was there. At least thats why he wrote the note. In SR, it was completely unexpected. Not to mention he knows she lives with another man. It seems as if he wanted to spy on her.

Exactly. He did want to spy on her. He wanted to see how her life was now. He knew at that time he wouldn't have been able to talk to her considering she was home with her family, hence the landing in the bushes. It was a different situation in S:TM, Superman was looking to speak with Lois and this was already arranged. He had no reason to be sneaking around.

 

[El Payaso]

Exactly. He did want to spy on her. He wanted to see how her life was now. He knew at that time he wouldn't have been able to talk to her considering she was home with her family, hence the landing in the bushes.

He wanted to do all of that before knowing if it was the moment or not to talk to her. I agree.

It was a different situation in S:TM, Superman was looking to speak with Lois and this was already arranged. He had no reason to be sneaking around.

It was the same in the sense that he's not a guy that comes in a car and knock at your door as anyone else.

 

[Eros]

I still thinks supes should of told Lois he was leaving, and why he was leaving before he did. He doesn't hesitate to go save a falling plane, but he was afraid to tell Lois he was leaving. Supes just came off alittle "girlish" in regards to his feelings and emotions.

 

[El Payaso]

I still thinks supes should of told Lois he was leaving, and why he was leaving before he did. He doesn't hesitate to go save a falling plane, but he was afraid to tell Lois he was leaving. Supes just came off alittle "girlish" in regards to his feelings and emotions.

Now that I can agree on.

 

[mego joe]

I just want to say one thing about the ultrasound argument we don't know how long it takes for a Kryptonian child to develop and using human standards could be wrong.

Angeloz

That could be true, but it's a lot to imagine that is not even hinted at in the movie.

The one thing that is hinted at is tha Lois believes that Jason was born premature. THis seems to mean that he wasn't, it just indicates that Lois didn't know when Jason was conceived or who the father really was, which would lead one to believe Jason developed along the same developmental line as a human baby.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I still thinks supes should of told Lois he was leaving, and why he was leaving before he did. He doesn't hesitate to go save a falling plane, but he was afraid to tell Lois he was leaving. Supes just came off alittle "girlish" in regards to his feelings and emotions.

I agree with this as well but, and I'm sure you know this, this was the irony that Singer was going for. Here is this man that can literally stop bullets with any part of his body, who can outrun trains, who can save crashing planes etc.., yet is still effected by "simple" emotions and feelings. Singer is showing us that this is his weakness outside of a physical threat.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Lois was expecting him to meet her at that time thats why she was there. At least thats why he wrote the note. In SR, it was completely unexpected. Not to mention he knows she lives with another man. It seems as if he wanted to spy on her.

And now that I think about, Superman "spying" in on Lois with her family was key to what Singer was trying to do in showing the contrast and and how downhill everything went from S:TM to SR for Superman. In S:TM, there was an arranged meeting for Superman to talk with Lois and she has that open terrace where Superman can just land on easily and they speak. Contrast that with SR, where Superman is essentially "forced" to land in the bushes(as he doesn't have this open invite) to look in on Lois inside of a house as opposed to the open terrace in S:TM.

 

[El Payaso]

I agree with this as well but, and I'm sure you know this, this was the irony that Singer was going for. Here is this man that can literally stop bullets with any part of his body, who can outrun trains, who can save crashing planes etc.., yet is still effected by "simple" emotions and feelings. Singer is showing us that this is his weakness outside of a physical threat.

And now that I think about, Superman "spying" in on Lois with her family was key to what Singer was trying to do in showing the contrast and and how downhill everything went from S:TM to SR for Superman. In S:TM, there was an arranged meeting for Superman to talk with Lois and she has that open terrace where Superman can just land on easily and they speak. Contrast that with SR, where Superman is essentially "forced" to land in the bushes(as he doesn't have this open invite) to look in on Lois inside of a house as opposed to the open terrace in S:TM.

I agree and then I agree.

 

[afan]

If I may be so bold.....

A humble attempt to re-write the controversial "spying" scene…….maintaining the intent of the scene and Superman's ethical nature.

Richard and Lois' discussion re. her past with Superman would accur after Superman leaves.


Superman flying, stops over a waterfront home hovers momentarily than begins his descent.
Cut to the homes interior where Lois and Richard are preparing dinner, while Jason plays in the family room.
The front doorbell rings.
Richard stops his dinner prep and says, “I’ll get it.” And heads for the door.
He opens the door to find Superman standing at the door. Naturally he is taken aback by the visitor.
The meeting is awkward in nature.
Superman senses this, “Ah…..Goodevening……… Is Ms. Lane here?”
Richard, “Yes, yes she is…uhm…She’s in the kitchen. I’m Richard White.”
Jason looks up….
Superman, “Nice to meet you Richard.” Superman offers his hand to Richard, “I’m……S”
Before Superman can speak Jason runs to the door gleefully yelling “Superman!!!!”
Richard says, “This is Jason.”
Superman, “Hi Jason, how are you?”
Jason excited beyond belief, “Fine….Mommy come quick, he’s here and he is real!!!!!.”
Lois comes out of the kitchen looks at Jason then Superman, “I know Jason……”
Superman, looks up from Jason to Lois,”Good evening Ms. Lane. Since I’ve been away quite a while I thought perhaps you could help me catch up on any developments that occurred while I was gone, but I can see you’re just getting ready for dinner, and I apologize for interrupting. Perhaps at some other time?”
Lois says, “Yes, sure….why not.....of course…..”
Superman, “Great….Well, it was nice meeting you Richard, and very nice meeting you Jason….,” after a very brief glance at Lois,” Goodnite all.”
Superman turns and lifts up into the sky.