Superman Returns did superman regret that he left for krypton?

[Showtime]

I agree. I liked what Christopher Reeve did in STM and SII but for example I hate how after the amnesia kiss, Clark just smiles and bam, it's like once Lois forgot about the problem, Superman has no grief inside him anymore because he can't be with Lois. Being Superman, being restricted of a normal life is not an easy thing. SR is the first film where I actually see Superman's grief and loneliness about this. Or at least the first time it hits me.

You hit the nail on the proverbial head right there. His actions in Returns bring consequences, that is the difference.

 

[mego joe]

I think he was humanized in the potrayals in STM and SM2, but I think they really took it to the next level. I liked to see Superman making mistakes, but I also like to see that he has paid for them, and will learn from them.

Didn't he pay for his mistake in SII after becoming human? He realized that he let the world down by not being there and had to carry that guilt. How many died b/c he wasn't there to stop Zod? And ultimately, he has to give Lois up to return to being Superman to ensure that it never happens again. Sounds like he's paying for it in Superman II as well. It also sounds like it's another example of SInger re-hashing the same ideas from the Donner films.

The only thing they took to the next level was making Superman's mistakes in SR be about making SUperman's morals and values incongruent with all previous treatments in all media. In the Donner films, I don't think you question Superman's morals or values, but in SR you do.

 

[mego joe]

I think that is the point of the story, time doesn't stand still, even for Superman. "Even you can't stop the world from spinning".

I think he made mistakes, regrets them, but is paying for them. He has redeemed himself to Lois and the people of the world. I like that Superman was humanized but at the same time made into a God among men. I personally don't mind this potrayal, I know some have a problem with it. He was raised by the Kents therefore he has human tendencies, making mistakes is one of them.

While making mistakes is part of being human, not all mistakes are the same. The mistakes in SR seem to be incongruent with the values and morals that the Kents would have instilled within him. Furthermore, the traits that we consider so essential to Superman are the areas in which Superman makes these mistakes in SR.

His mistakes are about : Caring for others (wasn't honest with Lois), acting responsibly(he's unable to fulfill his moral and ethical obligations to raise Jason as his own son) and protecting the innocent (he will bring pain into Jason's life once Jason has to deal with the fact that Richard is not his real father).

It's not simply about the mistakes, it's about the type of mistakes that are so against character.

 

[mego joe]

You hit the nail on the proverbial head right there. His actions in Returns bring consequences, that is the difference.

So in SII, there were no consequences? He certainly had to have felt guilty over all the people that were hurt or killed on Zod and co.'s rampage. Plus, he knew he had to give up the normal life with Lois. It obviously was a tough decision and a consequence of making a mistake. He will live with the knowledge that they had something and now it's gone. I don't think you can say there were no consequences.


For me they don't deal with the consequences of SUperman's mistakes in SR seriously enough or at enough length to really impress upon the gravity of not being able to live up to his moral and ethical responsiblity as a parent to his son.

 

[superbaby]

will you now open a new thread for any new question that you wil make up?
do you really want to know this or is it all a big plan do bash SR?

scare? hehe... ya, just wanna bash singer another round for not really explore the impact of superman leaving and returning. he only concentrated on his stupid, 'soap opera' idea of the son and the father, the rest he was just copying scenes by scenes and words by words from donner's without really care the context. bravo.
s.s.s.

 

[El Payaso]

While making mistakes is part of being human, not all mistakes are the same. The mistakes in SR seem to be incongruent with the values and morals that the Kents would have instilled within him.

I don't think anyone makes mistakes "according to or in disagreement with" certain values. You just blow it and that's it (please no pun.)

I can't think how mistakes could have a 'congruence' (the quality of agreeing; being suitable and appropriate) when they're specifically incongruencies. Hence, mis (prefix that shows that the action referred to by the verb has been done wrongly or badly)-takes.

Furthermore, the traits that we consider so essential to Superman are the areas in which Superman makes these mistakes in SR.

Precisely, that's why they're mistakes. And that's why they're mistakes that worths the while to show and work with. Otherwise, Superman forgetting Lois Birthday or such wouldn't have weight enough to buiold a good story.

If for Superman values and morals and what's congruent with them, he shouldn't make mistakes at all.

His mistakes are about : Caring for others (wasn't honest with Lois)

Maybe I'm not getting this too well but for what I know he's not honest with Lois every single day in order to keep his identity secret.

Other than that, Superman in SR as in other movies, pretty much cares for other people. But, as in Superman II, he faced something that forced him to leave his mission. Now in SR his plans considered to come back to Earth to be Superman again; in Superman II he was pretty much retiring forever.

acting responsibly(he's unable to fulfill his moral and ethical obligations to raise Jason as his own son)

That we don't know yet. Maybe he should have used a rubber, okay, but let's see how he raises Jason once he actually knows he is his son. Something not even the mother knew.

and protecting the innocent

Huh? He saved the Earth once again, and in the movie we see the plane and a sequence of accidents and crimes Superman saves on Earth.

(he will bring pain into Jason's life once Jason has to deal with the fact that Richard is not his real father).

It's not simply about the mistakes, it's about the type of mistakes that are so against character.

Yes, if we're going to have a good story we need some big mess around. Tiny mistakes most probably won't bring a worthy story.

Sadly, Superman is perceived by many as an icon and an icon only. And then any attempt to bring humanity and more dimensions is condemned to be judged under the vision that Superman is perfect and even his mistakes are somehow perfect.

 

[dark_b]

We have discussed this before DB, me and you have alot of good conversations and debate.

Jorel strictly forbade Superman from getting involved with the affairs of humans, but Superman fell in love with Lois. He now has a child with her, which Jorel would certainly not approve of. It's almost a microcosm of how some individuals feel about bi-racial relationships/marriages.

I agree in regards to the Superman and Lex dialogue, a meeting of the minds as they say ala STM. I beg for more of this in a sequel, because there wasn't nearly enough in Returns. I was hoping for a little more back and forth between Superman and Lex at NK, but it just didn't pan out.

amazing. i never thought about this. now that you mentioned it makes sense.

 

[mego joe]

I don't think anyone makes mistakes "according to or in disagreement with" certain values. You just blow it and that's it (please no pun.)

I am basing this notion off of the idea that mistakes are 'mis-takes' because there is a baseline for behavior above the individual. Each individual will have their own baseline in one's own morality, think of this as 'how someone tends to act.' Therefore, if someone makes a mistake in reference to this baseline above the individual, yet makes this type of error often, it would be viewed as how one tends to act. One might tend to make the same types of mistakes repeatedly. Only by referencing this baseline above the individual are right and wrong, mistake and correct behavior able to be discerned. My specific point is that these actions of Superman in SR when compared to this baseline above the individual are mistakes and when viewed versus SUperman's individual sense of right and wrong, they are not how he tends to act therefore they are not mistakes he would be expected to make, therefore he is acting out of character.

I can't think how mistakes could have a 'congruence' (the quality of agreeing; being suitable and appropriate) when they're specifically incongruencies. Hence, mis (prefix that shows that the action referred to by the verb has been done wrongly or badly)-takes.

Example in Superman: The Movie. He makes a mistake of keeping his word when promising Miss Tessmacher that he will stop the New Jersey rocket before stopping the West Coast rocket. Why is this a mistake versus the higher baseline? He is potentially sacrificing more people on the West Coast than the ones affected by the New Jersey rocket. Then he is unable to stop the West Coast rocket from exploding. Why is it a mistake that is in congruence with his character? He makes the mistake of being honest to a fault. Honesty is in his character. One expect Superman to be honest becasue it has been established that honesty is essential to his characterization. He would not even lie to Luthor's friend in order to have at least a glimmer of hope of averting the destruction caused by both rockets to save millions.

This is an example of making a mistake that is congruent with his characterization as honest, even to a fault.

Precisely, that's why they're mistakes. And that's why they're mistakes that worths the while to show and work with. Otherwise, Superman forgetting Lois Birthday or such wouldn't have weight enough to buiold a good story.

If one is going to portray a character doing things incongruent with previous characterization, there must be plausible and believable circumstances and motivation for the viewer to believe that such a mistake would be congruent with one's character. Whenever someone 'acts out of character' people look for reasons to explain the behavior and make sense of it. There is never an attempt in SR to do any of these things to explain or make sense of Superman's mistakes.

If for Superman values and morals and what's congruent with them, he shouldn't make mistakes at all.

See above: personal morality/ values/ baseline of behavior versus morality/ values/ baseline of behavior from a higher source. I'm really talking about absolute morality. There may be things that are not governed by absolute morality, but I think that the mistakes made by SUperman in SR are certainly under the umbrella of absolute morality.

I would say that when you are involved sexually with another person you are required by an absolute morality to be honest with your partner about your actions if they will affect your partnere. With sex pregnancy is always a possibility, it is your responsibility to communicate leaving town, so that your partner is not abandonned emotionally. It is wrong, it is always wrong, and there is no way it can be seen as right. For Superman's case, there is no previous characterization to suggest that this is a mistake he would make that would be congruent with his behavior or 'the way he tends to act.' In fact it goes directly against the way one would expect him to act based on previous characterization in all media.

Maybe I'm not getting this too well but for what I know he's not honest with Lois every single day in order to keep his identity secret.

If he's involved with her sexually, then it is certainly a huge mistake and error on his part. He's also endangering her by being publicly known as her lover. The whole part of the secret identity thing is that it protects Clark's friends and loved ones. If people knew Lois was in a relationship with Clark, it is different than people knowing LOis is in a relationship with SUperman. Of course the previous use of this theme have always included Clark/ Superman either revealing his identity before getting in a serious relationship with Lois, or having his identity revealed to Lois by someone else, even Lois in SII. Again, it is the complete opposite in SR. SUperman is engaged in a sexual relationship with Lois w/o Lois knowing the truth of his identity or the protection that secret identity would give her.

Other than that, Superman in SR as in other movies, pretty much cares for other people. But, as in Superman II, he faced something that forced him to leave his mission. Now in SR his plans considered to come back to Earth to be Superman again; in Superman II he was pretty much retiring forever.

THere's isn't a plausible and believable reason for him not to have been honest with Lois. In SII, he was going to stop being Superman b/c he wanted to commit his life to Lois. He had no idea the phantom zone villains would be released. In SR, as an adult he would know the consequences of being in a sexual relationship. He knew he should have told her he was leaving, the fact that he said "It was too difficult" shows he knew it was wrong to leave w/o saying good bye. He had to have condsidered it to have come to the realization that "It was too difficult." If he could not tell her b/c it "was too difficult" it adds a selfish motivation for not telling her. Selfishness is not one of Superman's character traits. It is also irresponsible. The very fact that he is shown in all other media caring for so many makes it ubelievable and implausible that he would not extend that same courtesy to Lois, the woman he is in love with. That is out of character.

That we don't know yet. Maybe he should have used a rubber, okay, but let's see how he raises Jason once he actually knows he is his son. Something not even the mother knew.

Use of contraception is not the real issue. It's the fact that he left Lois w/o explaining himself while being invloved with her sexually.

By the time Jason knows he is Superman's son, it will be another 5 years at least in Jason's life that SUperman will not have been a father to his son. In that time Jason's bond with Richard will grow and become stronger and SUperman will continue to be on the outside.

The fact that Superman was not able to return to Earth and immediately be introduced to his son by Lois is also a problem. If Superman had been honest with Lois then Lois would not have jumped in bed with Richard so quickly. When she realized she was pregnant she would have know who the father was immediately. Upon Superman's return, there would have been no reason not to tell Jason who his father was or SUperman that he had a son. It all boils down to Superman not being honest with Lois about leaving.

I still don't see how Lois could not have known. When you're pregnant you get an ultrasound to establish gestational age so a due date can be fixed. At this point in prenatal care Lois would easily have been able to figure out when Jason was conceived. Now unless Lois had sex with Richard within a 2 week period of having had sex with Superman, there might still be confusion. But Lois would have realized this and hopefully would have been honest with Richard that she had been sexually involved with someone else before she and Richard got involved.

Lastly, if Lois did have sex with Richard so soon after having sex with Superman, it doesn't really make sense. Lois would not really have been able to figure out that Superman was gone for an extended period of time to even think about moving on. She certainly couldn't have figured out he was gone, mourned and then moved on in such a short time to believe that Jason's paternity would be an issue.

Huh? He saved the Earth once again, and in the movie we see the plane and a sequence of accidents and crimes Superman saves on Earth.

I was referring to the fact that Jason is an innocent that will be directly hurt by Superman's actions once he finds out Superman is his father AND that Richard is not his father. Where Superman is dedicated to protecting the innocet, in this instance he is hurting his own son. Incongruent don't you think?

Yes, if we're going to have a good story we need some big mess around. Tiny mistakes most probably won't bring a worthy story.

I don't think that mistakes are what drive a Superman story. Mistakes are not necessary at all. W/o he mistakes, you can have a better story that is congurent with Superman's characte and still have basically the same plot. It would have been better, b/c Superman would not be the casue of all his own problems. Yet SR relies on Superman's mistakes to drive the story. Not only that but this particular plot is overused Soap Opera plot #1. Also, not the basis for good Superman stories. Good stories about Superman build up the character and show why he is a hero and a genuinely good person. Genuinely good people do not behave the way Superman did in SR. Genuinely good people do not behave in such a manner that they are uable to raise there own child.

Sadly, Superman is perceived by many as an icon and an icon only. And then any attempt to bring humanity and more dimensions is condemned to be judged under the vision that Superman is perfect and even his mistakes are somehow perfect.

Not perfect, just in keeping with his character and how he tends to behave. There is nothing wrong with humanizing a character, but there are plenty of ways to humanize a character w/o resorting to tarnishing his morals and values. SHowing how deeply caring Superman is brings humanity. Having him just not be fast enough to save someone shows his humanity. Showing how he reacts to situations that are beyond his control and how deeply he is moved by his inability to be perfect bring humanity. YOu don't have to lower someones morals and values to show humanity. That just makes that person not such a good person.

The past 20 years or so of SUperman comics have added a lot of humanity to the character yet not once compromised his morals or his values. In any story where these might have been appeared to be challenged there was a plausible and believable motivation for said actions. (I'm thinking of the Phantom Zone villains from the parallel universe that he killed.) However, even in that story, his motivations are based on the good of others, not personal reasons, and he takes into account the consequences and is perpared to face them. It was such a huge thing for him to break his code against killing that he left earth to find out if he was really a danger to others and if he should go on being Superman. That is how seriously he took breaking his code against killing. NOw that sounds like a story that builds up a character while providing a new and big problem and one that adds heaps of humanity. For those that think SUperman was ever supposed to be perfect, you are missing the point that SUperman is supposed to be a good and moral person, not perfect.

Sadly, Superman Returns was made. Period.

 

[Kalé]

He had to try. I don't know why the motivation for the travel, based on a science incredibly find, is not the beginning of the movie. I just can't understand, the scene of the discover of Kripton and the travel were filmed. What the hell happened in the "cutting room"?. That was part of the movie and I really hope that the secuel will show something about this. This cut is just stupid.

 

[superbaby]

He had to try. I don't know why the motivation for the travel, based on a science incredibly find, is not the beginning of the movie. I just can't understand, the scene of the discover of Kripton and the travel were filmed. What the hell happened in the "cutting room"?. That was part of the movie and I really hope that the secuel will show something about this. This cut is just stupid.

so is the movie.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

good point.

the first time he made a mistake. he made sure he will not make it again. what is good is that it would be more important to say goodbye when he left to krypton thn when he got to NK. but it was character development for me.

by lois. brandon said it very good.

but i never had problems with that part of the movie.

i ma praying for better use of CGI,more action and a brighter movie.

Yeah i pretty much agree with this, especially the point about character development, but i thought the CGI and lighting in the first movie were fine. Obviously CGI will have improved by 2009 though.

 

[afan]

Mego Joe deserves a standing "o"!!!!!!
Marvelous post!!!!!!

 

[Showtime]

I can't even respond to Mego Joe's posts anymore, because then his replys are to long and in depth. I hate that.

 

[El Payaso]

Same here. I'll try in my next vacations.

 

[mego joe]

Mego Joe deserves a standing "o"!!!!!!
Marvelous post!!!!!!

Thanks!

 

[mego joe]

I can't even respond to Mego Joe's posts anymore, because then his replys are to long and in depth. I hate that.

That's just how I see the issues raised in SR. For me there's just a lot more that should be going on than is actually addressed in the film, hence why it feels shallow and the characters seem 1-dimensional. The emotional levels that should be dramatized are not served by 'subtlety' and 'filling in the blanks.' It's a story about discovering you've missed the first 4 years of your son's life AND you can't be an everyday father to him and raise him because you screwed up. It's a story about losing the love of your life b/c you screwed up. Whatever 'super heroics' Superman may do in the movie, pale in comparison to the importance of failing as a man to the woman you love and your own child.

 

[Spiderine]

That's just how I see the issues raised in SR. For me there's just a lot more that should be going on than is actually addressed in the film, hence why it feels shallow and the characters seem 1-dimensional. The emotional levels that should be dramatized are not served by 'subtlety' and 'filling in the blanks.' It's a story about discovering you've missed the first 4 years of your son's life AND you can't be an everyday father to him and raise him because you screwed up. It's a story about losing the love of your life b/c you screwed up. Whatever 'super heroics' Superman may do in the movie, pale in comparison to the importance of failing as a man to the woman you love and your own child.

They now have to spend more time establishing their relationship in the next movie.

 

[matthooper]

Every movie that Singer makes has a central character who feels out of place. The only reason Superman left was so Singer could insert his own feelings of feeling out of place. From Wolverine to Dean Keaton, to the kid in Apt Pupil, every film he makes has the exact same theme. Superman would never have left for so long, so the question of his feelings about leaving are moot. This movie is a void, a footnote. It's a manipulative $200 million dollar fiasco made to put Singer's own feelings on the screen again, this time through Superman.

The reason Superman Returns was crap, was because Singer made his own view of a character that has existed for 60 years, with zero influence from any past incarnations. The movie itself had Donner influence, but only the story, not the character of Superman or his motivations. At least with a sequel, the themes of the first movie can be ignored. Now all we have to deal with is the kid.

 

[El Payaso]

Every movie that Singer makes has a central character who feels out of place. The only reason Superman left was so Singer could insert his own feelings of feeling out of place. From Wolverine to Dean Keaton, to the kid in Apt Pupil, every film he makes has the exact same theme. Superman would never have left for so long, so the question of his feelings about leaving are moot. This movie is a void, a footnote. It's a manipulative $200 million dollar fiasco made to put Singer's own feelings on the screen again, this time through Superman.

The reason Superman Returns was crap, was because Singer made his own view of a character that has existed for 60 years, with zero influence from any past incarnations. The movie itself had Donner influence, but only the story, not the character of Superman or his motivations. At least with a sequel, the themes of the first movie can be ignored. Now all we have to deal with is the kid.

Good lord, are artists still involving their feeling in what they do? What a sick world is this! They think they're too cool just because they're able to have have a vision and put it on the screen. But truth is they never listen to me and the way I would have directed it, considering I'm the one who gets the character here! Therefore I curse them!

 

[Angeloz]

Good lord, are artists still involving their feeling in what they do? What a sick world is this! They think they're too cool just because they're able to have have a vision and put it on the screen. But truth is they never listen to me and the way I would have directed it, considering I'm the one who gets the character here! Therefore I curse them!

LOL.

It's my first post here even though I've been lurking since the night I saw "Superman Returns". I hope people don't mind me saying that.

Angeloz

 

[matthooper]

Good lord, are artists still involving their feeling in what they do? What a sick world is this! They think they're too cool just because they're able to have have a vision and put it on the screen. But truth is they never listen to me and the way I would have directed it, considering I'm the one who gets the character here! Therefore I curse them!

It's funny when people don't read or understand a post, and then mock it.

It is not the fact that Singer injected his feelings, it's the fact that he makes the same film over and over with the exact same theme. He made a story in which Superman feels out of place, so he leaves. A move that is completely out of character. He needs a main character that has no place in the world. It's the same story he made with Apt Pupil, X-Men, and The Usual Suspects. The Superman in SR bears no resemblance to any Superman incarnation. It's melodramatic garbage.

He needed to make a Superman movie , not a soap opera. No one was clammering to see Superman: The Bold and the Beautiful.

 

[El Payaso]

It's funny when people don't read or understand a post, and then mock it.

Is it anything simlar to when people don't get what is to direct a movie and then mock it?

It is not the fact that Singer injected his feelings, it's the fact that he makes the same film over and over with the exact same theme. He made a story in which Superman feels out of place, so he leaves. A move that is completely out of character. He needs a main character that has no place in the world. It's the same story he made with Apt Pupil, X-Men, and The Usual Suspects.

A writer always writes the same book. Everyone who has been involved in artistic creation knows that. Scorsese has his themes, Chaplin had them, etc etc. Hitchcock was always behind the suspense and fear of authority figues. What a bunch of losers.

Btw, he didn't leave because he felt out of place, he left because he thought there could be Kryptonian survivors.

The Superman in SR bears no resemblance to any Superman incarnation.

Donner movies.

It's melodramatic garbage.

No, it was compensated with Superman's traditional heroism, actiopn, humour etc. Nice try though, you sounded like a real relentless reviewer.

He needed to make a Superman movie , not a soap opera. No one was clammering to see Superman: The Bold and the Beautiful.

Too good we didn't have that.

 

[Angeloz]

My question is if Singer has made the same film. Then how come I loved "Superman Returns" and only liked "X-Men" and "X-Men 2"? I think it's 'cos they're different films and I like them in different ways.

Angeloz

 

[El Payaso]

My question is if Singer has made the same film. Then how come I loved "Superman Returns" and only liked "X-Men" and "X-Men 2"? I think it's 'cos they're different films and I like them in different ways.

Angeloz

Could it be that they're not actually the same movie?

Great to have you here Angeloz.

 

[matthooper]

Is it anything simlar to when people don't get what is to direct a movie and then mock it?



A writer always writes the same book. Everyone who has been involved in artistic creation knows that. Scorsese has his themes, Chaplin had them, etc etc. Hitchcock was always behind the suspense and fear of authority figues. What a bunch of losers.

Btw, he didn't leave because he felt out of place, he left because he thought there could be Kryptonian survivors.



Donner movies.



No, it was compensated with Superman's traditional heroism, actiopn, humour etc. Nice try though, you sounded like a real relentless reviewer.



Too good we didn't have that.

I won't continue because it's all opinion. If you like the movie that's fine. The fact is, he made a Superman movie specifically to fit his re-occuring theme. He didn't care about the history or the character, he wanted to make a Singerman film. It wasn't just leaving, but his angst about his life and his duty. The reasons for leaving were to find survivors, yes, but to find his place in the universe as well. If you like soap operas and superheroes, then damn, this is the movie for you. That's proabably why women liked it a lot. Again, I mock no one for liking the movie, I mock the movie itself.

By the way, I mentioned that Superman the character bears no resemblance to any incarnation, not the movie itself. Obviously, Singer copied much of the Donner movie. I mentioned that in an earlier post. Again, you probably didn't read that anyway.