Superman Returns Do you want a sequel, or start over from scratch?

[AgentPat]

...When did we stop being men?

Seems like a big problem with WormyT's opinions stem from good old-fashioned misogynism.

Um.... Oh jeeze, n'mind.

 

[Paradoxium]

Seems like a big problem with WormyT's opinions stem from good old-fashioned misogynism. Stop talking aobut feminism and chick-flick status of a movie as if you occupy the higher ground. Singer made a movie. It introduced content that some of us liked, and some of us disliked. Deal with it, and stop pretending like throwing words like 'chick-flick' and stuff like 'where have all the men gone?' is going to move mountains.

And yes, to the topic at hand, i would like a sequel - i liked what i saw in the first one, and i want to see if they can pull it off in part deux.

Singer said it was a chick flick. And yea, it was a chick flick, that happened to not appeal to women as well (what a brilliant combination). Batman Begins had a higher q-rating with females and it was not exactly a chick flick.

WormyT makes a good point, they did feminise Superman, because he is not very masculine in this film. Besides denouncing WormyT statement as politically incorrect, you haven't exactly refuted it.

You just said, "some of us liked, some of us disliked". Well no **** Sherlock ****ing Holmes.

Feel the power of my irrelevant logic.

 

[AgentPat]

Singer said it was a chick flick. And yea, it was a chick flick, that happened to not appeal to women as well...

Ironic, init?

Batman Begins had a higher q-rating with females and it was not exactly a chick flick.

Yeah

Begins had Bale!

 

[AmbientFire]

The point is, Watson, that the term chick flick and the other ones mentioned - because the movie had an emotional component and no real physical violence (other then death by piano) - seem to be thrown around as an implicit negative.

That having emotional content would automatically make a movie less than a good movie because it would be feminine. The implication there is that emotion is inherently tied to femininity and as such, less than desirable especially in a man movie - the stereotype of course being that men are feeling creatures only when absolutely necessary. It also further implies that feminism in and of itself is less than desirable in a situation like this too (aka what women feel and want is less than "whatever the majority wants").

Very simple term - "it's not a flick - it's just a chick-flick" - That's the kind of mentality i don't care for very much.
Furthermore, I think/it seems to me, you are working off the assumption, (as i think i stated earlier) that Superman showing emotion or being troubled is inherently feminine. At what point was he behaving less masculine (this is a serious question actually, and if it reeks of a viper rest assured i've defang'd it)?
Did i ever say i was trying to refute WormyT's opinion? I was gunning at the misogynistic undertones and the point that Superman showing emotion, the movie carrying emotions, would make it a chick-flick or feminine, therefore less than a Superman movie. THAT's what i was aiming for in my very own round-about way. That, and the things i stated earlier.

Does it now make sense why i used the term "some of us liked, some of us disliked?"

Btw, your logic isn't really irrelevant, and a Sherlock images is always good in a thread that's more like the trenches 1917, instead of a forum of Superman fans - brings some much needed levity (whether it was intentional or not)

 

[Pickle-El]

Singer said it was a chick flick. And yea, it was a chick flick, that happened to not appeal to women as well (what a brilliant combination). Batman Begins had a higher q-rating with females and it was not exactly a chick flick.

Take off your WB sponsered Batman 'batglasses' long enough to see that more men simply saw Batman than Superman....and not by a very large margin if you took the time to remove said glasses. You guys use Batman as this untouchable Holy Grail, yet even the best Batman could offer in 2005 was what? 205 Million dollars? Only slightly more popular in America than Superman Returns....the abortion of all things Superman. You fail to recognize that Batman had quite a strudy drop when compared its initial conception back in 89'.

By the way, I'll go ahead and say it, Spiderman wiped his.....with both Superman and Batman. That emo little spider kid (who cries like it's an hourly thing) did what Batman and Superman did COMBINED.

THAT's the bar, not Batman.

WormyT makes a good point, they did feminise Superman, because he is not very masculine in this film. Besides denouncing WormyT statement as politically incorrect, you haven't exactly refuted it.

Once again, pick and choose...As I recall, Bruce Wayne was shedding tears in the batcave when Alfred was around.

(tears in his eyes about to cross Bruce from badass, to softie)

"You never gave up on me'

'Nevah'.

Pansy. (And that's not counting the countless sniffles when he was a child)

I repeat, pansy.

Kinda harsh isn't it when I state it like that. Truth be told, both of these guys are orhpans and have some serious issues. But it's okay for Bruce to shed a tear because he's 'human'. Yet, Superman's mourning his only LOVING relationship that isn't his adopted folks, and he's some big ***** who should be shot.

Chris Reeve cried like a schoolgirl in S:TM if I recall correctly when Lois died? So it's only okay for Superman to cry if someone actually dies? That wouldn't make him human in my book. It would make him less human. We live and we learn. I'll bet some of you guys never cried when it seemed like your world was caving in around you....

You just said, "some of us liked, some of us disliked". Well no **** Sherlock ****ing Holmes.

Feel the power of my irrelevant logic.

Relevent it can be actually....... in the most idiosyntric ways at times Para. Why not just go back to a time where 'teh puffy' was the thing to say. I'm sure you still have a few fans for that. Entertain them please, this Batman complex is silly. That film isn't the path those finding Christ are looking for.....I could pick that movie apart to hell and back, but it wouldn't get me anywhere. So please stop coming here with that 'Batman Begins is greater than you' attitude. It's no wonder that Batfans get the rap they do.

 

[Paradoxium]

A feminine woman is not the same as an effeminate man. I judge by actions, the entire film was about Superman putting Lois on a pedestal, and that is not very masculine.

If you want a more concise term, without political incorrectness... Superman in Superman Returns was a spineless nice guy and his reality consists of Lois Lane and the rest of the world. That better for you?

Why you ask?

1. The whole stalking Lois and using his super hearing because he was too much of a ***** to talk to her about their situation. Yea sure they do later in the film, but was that stalking scene necessary?

2. The fact he looked like he wanted to cry when Lois told Richard she did not like Superman (post stalking scene). Poor whittle Superman

3. The fact he was "afraid to tell" Lois he needed to leave Earth to find Krypton. Lois was right, what was so damn hard about that? What? He needed Lois’s permission and he was afraid of her response? Holy *****fication Batman!!

Finally the film ends with Lois "forgiving" Superman and seeing why he is needed. Wasn’t this movie about “why the WORLD needs Superman”? The world seemed pretty damn happy after the plane sequence. It was only Lois who was unhappy. Arriving at full circle on the fact this film was about

Superman

putting

Lois

on

a

pedestal.

His reality again consist of Lois's approval.

That is why Batman had a higher q-rating with females, not because it was Bale (although that helps), but he or his character has their own reality and a purpose greater than the approval of one women. Girls find no appeal in a spineless needy guy that caters to their ever whim and approval. So not only does this film not appeal to many women, it sends the wrong message to impressionable young men.

 

[Pickle-El]

Ironic, init?

So...who saw the flick? Of the 25+ Million that saw it in a America? 24 were males 30 and older?

Yeah

Begins had Bale!

And Superman Returns had an unknown. One, who's face is the hottest of all the newcomers in Hollywood. Not bad at all.

Unless of course, you go back to the brand names simply selling the movies....then it's all moot isn't it?

 

[HoratioRome]

Start Over!

 

[Pickle-El]

A feminine woman is not the same as an effeminate man. I judge by actions, the entire film was about Superman putting Lois on a pedestal, and that is not very masculine.

I'd hate to see your repoire with females in your life.....I pray you don't have a daughter. I hear my friends say some of most god-awful puppylove things to their girlfirends, wives etc. It doesn't make them less-masculine, it just means their hopelessly lost in that little sea of love.

Listen to Leykis 101 much?

If you want a more concise term, without political incorrectness... Superman in Superman Returns was a spineless nice guy and his reality consists of Lois Lane and the rest of the world. That better for you?

That's what Superman is. That's what he's always been about...Lois Lane AND:

'They can be a great people Kal-el they wish to be. They only lack the light to lead the way'.

How much more context were you looking for in a Superman movie? Superman isn't exactly an onion......you know exactly what he's about.

That 'spying' scene was just that. And was the most uncharacteristic thing about Superman in this movie. But what happens not 1 minute later? He's in space hearing the cries of the world....gutless and spineless, I know.

Why you ask?

1. The whole stalking Lois and using his super hearing because he was too much of a ***** to talk to her about their situation. Yea sure they do later in the film, but was that stalking scene necessary?

He's always been too much of a ***** to tell her he's really Clark...At least he lets her know he was wrong to leave.

'Goodbye Lois'

That was a forever goodbye. He thought he was never going to see her again. He didn't tell he her loved her in front of Richard and Jason. He could have, but didn't. That is 100x more inappropriate than 'spying'. Even though we know he should have because it might be the last time he saw her.

The stalking was inappropriate.....Superman f'd up. But lord knows all of us never screw up. God forbid Superman doesn't 1 inappriate thing in his life. He realized it by the end of the film...

2. The fact he looked like he wanted to cry when Lois told Richard she did not like Superman (post stalking scene). Poor whittle Superman

At this point in his life....what other female approval does he have in his life besides his mother?

Or any approval at all?

3. The fact he was "afraid to tell" Lois he needed to leave Earth to find Krypton. Lois was right, what was so damn hard about that? What? He needed Lois’s permission and he was afraid of her response? Holy *****fication Batman!!

That was just a bad plot point. There was no context to it whatsoever.

Finally the film ends with Lois "forgiving" Superman and seeing why he is needed. Wasn’t this movie about “why the WORLD needs Superman”? The world seemed pretty damn happy after the plane sequence. It was only Lois who was unhappy. Arriving at full circle on the fact this film was about

Superman

putting

Lois

on

a

pedestal.

His reality again consist of Lois's approval.

Pa Kent is dead......he has only 2 people in his life. And he has the consent of only 1. It's a human trait we all have. We want certain people to like us....family, friends, co-workers, lovers, etc.

Leads to a healther life when people actually care about you.

That is why Batman had a higher q-rating with females, not because it was Bale (although that helps), but he or his character has their own reality and a purpose greater than the approval of one women. Girls find no appeal in a spineless needy guy that caters to their ever whim and approval. So not only does this film not appeal to many women, it sends the wrong message to impressionable young men.

Two words.......Peter Parker.

And just so you know,that IS Superman's reality. Your problem is looking for human based relatabilty for a God. Superman isn't Batman. He never will be. Even then, how much can one relate to a billionare, really? Simple....his issues in daily life.

death, love, and responsibility.

The sooner all you guys get over 'oh, what a *****' to everything you see....the better off you'll be.

 

[romeogbs19]

GREAT response post, Pickle-el -- couldn't have said it better myself.

And for those who keep bringing up this crap about Superman being an emotional ***** in this film, may I remind you to reference the state of the DC Comics since a good number think the comics speak the holy truth about Superman. For instance, just take a read of the "Death Til Us Part" story arc where Supes feels he's losing Lois and makes a concerted, emotional appeal to win her back. Yeah, if you measure Superman by his lack of emotional drama, then the comic book Superman must be the Super-***** you're all looking for.

Supes has always measured his humanity against his love for Lois -- one part of it is love; the other is that it makes him feel human -- it's his one true connection to the human race. Singer, Routh, et al got that down perfectly. That is why you hear Brando say that line as he flies away from Lois' house. Supes spies on Lois, but stop using that as THE example of how Supes used his powers inappropriately. There are dozens of examples/moments in the comics where Supes does something we're not sure he should have. That's what makes him human and a god at the same time --that's what makes him INTERESTING, for heaven's sake.

Think about it -- how interesting would Batman be if he sat in the dark brooding all the time? What makes the Bat interesting is in many ways the same exact struggle we see in Supes in SR (and in the comics nowadays). I don't know why people go all crazy when Supes does anything "morally" wrong ... he's not perfect, and he shouldn't be.

 

[WormyT]

Seems like a big problem with WormyT's opinions stem from good old-fashioned misogynism. Stop talking aobut feminism and chick-flick status of a movie as if you occupy the higher ground. Singer made a movie. It introduced content that some of us liked, and some of us disliked. Deal with it, and stop pretending like throwing words like 'chick-flick' and stuff like 'where have all the men gone?' is going to move mountains.

And yes, to the topic at hand, i would like a sequel - i liked what i saw in the first one, and i want to see if they can pull it off in part deux.

SR IS a chick flick. How can you have a SuperMAN movie and not have the guy throw a single punch or fight a single bad guy. Thats superhero basics.

This movies isn't even an origin movie yet they somehow they manage to get the plot bogged down in boring drama (that didn't work) for 2 1/2 hours. Not to mention in all this boring time the hero hardly utters a single line of dialogue. And thats supposed to be good? Thats terrible! The movies about him!! Batman Begins managed to add an entire Origin story PLUS 4 villains from the books PLUS introduce another all in one movie packed with dialogue from the title character. It's obvious as hell Bryan had no faith in Brandons acting abilities hench the 8 lines of dialogue. Even Stallone had more dialogue written to mumble in Rambo.

If you want to add romance, cool! But make it work. Hire a real actor so he can interact naturally within these scenes. Brandon Routh couldn't do a good Clark Kent, he looked good as Superman but again, hardly spoke, never frowned, never acted assertive. The one oportunity we had to see Superman face his Nemisis after our 20 year wait and say or do something cool hes reduced to uttering 1 to 2 sentences. How utterly disapointing.
Kate Bosthworth was crap in this movie. insensitive, grumpy a basic emotional wreck. Where was the spunk? SHe had no charisma whatsoever and add that to Brandon and we have Queen Amidala and Anakin Skywalker part two. Ok not as bad as them, but not nearly as charming as Reeves and Kidder.

I don't know if you've heard but Superman is a bi weekly scifi/superhero comic book about a man from another planet. Theres romance, intrigue but more importantly to quote his mother in SR hes "..Put here for a reason..". Indeed. The reason is to to put the smack down on would be human/alien supervillains. Did he put a smack down on anyone in SR after 20 years. Eh...no my dear he got beaten like a wimpy drunk supermodel. Pathetic.
You need to watch the cartoons or read the books to know what I'm talking about. Get back to me when you do. And I don't mean Oprahs book club. It's mostly boys who read superman and so the stories are kind of geared that way. But women would definitely enjoy them too. Not all women love only romance, I know that. But the term 'Chick Flick' is a general term to suggest a cheesy predictable romance story involving love traingles and all that. Superman Returns had a lot of that and none of the 'Real Superman guy' stuff therefore it's a chickflick.

Bryan SInger is also quoted as saying he made chick flick BTW.

 

[ultimatefan]

Guys, there´s no way in hell WB would just start frpm scratch all over again, it´d mean getting back to all the multiple scripts/false starts all over again. If they decided it wasn´t worth making a sequel out of SR, it´d be the last time Superman´d be seen on screen for a long, long, LOOOOONG time.

 

[WormyT]

"You never gave up on me'

'Nevah'.

Pansy. (And that's not counting the countless sniffles when he was a child)

hahahaha!
He just got stabbed and his families house got burned down. And the final planning stages in destroying Gotham were taking place. I'm sure that allows for a littel sniffles. LOL.

And sniffles as a kid? Well his folks did get shot in front of him.

 

[Smegger56]

The whole 'chick flick' thing could be taken out of context with what Singer said. He could've meant that it could be seen as a chick flick, as it had a love story, stronger than the last SM films.

Hell, if you call SR a chick flick, lets call the spidey films pi$$ poor soap operas. I'm a huge Marvel fan, and spidey is my fav hero, but the films, IMO, are just over-rated. Spisey 1, good film, spidey 2, a yawn fest (with some nice action pieces).

 

[AgentPat]

The point is, Watson, that the term chick flick and the other ones mentioned - because the movie had an emotional component and no real physical violence (other then death by piano) - seem to be thrown around as an implicit negative.

Well, yeah, isn't it? Even Singer seems to know that fans wanted more action, otherwise why keep drilling the Wrath of Khan stuff?

To a lot of fans, SR was uneven at best, focusing more on a love triangle between the wrong characters (Superman, Lois Lane, and Richard White - not Clark Kent) and a young child (a plot point I doubt you'd EVER see in Spider-Man - and wasn't in WoK, for that matter) rather than the exploits of the greatest superhero the world has ever known.

It was a calculated risk that (obviously) didn't pay off as well as Bryan Singer and Warner Bros. had hoped. For the most part, the critics enjoyed it. It was a well made film, but it lacked a roller coaster like joy that a lot of people were apparently expecting. How much of that is a direct result of the focus of the story is debatable, but Singer didn't help matters by instilling the wrong perception when he himself described SR as a "chick flick."

That having emotional content would automatically make a movie less than a good movie because it would be feminine. The implication there is that emotion is inherently tied to femininity and as such, less than desirable especially in a man movie - the stereotype of course being that men are feeling creatures only when absolutely necessary. It also further implies that feminism in and of itself is less than desirable in a situation like this too (aka what women feel and want is less than "whatever the majority wants").

Did you see Titanic? Nothing wrong with emotional or feminine skewing films.

Did i ever say i was trying to refute WormyT's opinion? I was gunning at the misogynistic undertones...

I see that WormyT has already replied, but I have a hypothetical question for ya, AmbientFire: Would you still accuse WormyT of being misogynistic if WormyT were actually female and just wanted to see a more rough and tumble [read: masculine] representation of Superman? Just curious.

So...who saw the flick? Of the 25+ Million that saw it in a America? 24 were males 30 and older?

I don't know the breakdown, but I do know the film skewed male on opening weekend, just as it did for BB and X-Men, and for just about every other comic-book based film. It's the nature of the beast. I think Para's point in noting the irony was that Singer (apparently) *tried* to attract woman as well as men to see SR when he really (apparently) should have been more focused on just pleasing his male audience.

And Superman Returns had an unknown. One, who's face is the hottest of all the newcomers in Hollywood. Not bad at all.

Oh pish! That doesn't even deserve a response.

Unless of course, you go back to the brand names simply selling the movies....then it's all moot isn't it?

"Superman?" I dunno, you tell me. It sure *seemed* like it was a slam dunk, but I guess nobody knows anything in Hollywood. (My apologies to Mr. Goldman.)

Superman isn't exactly an onion......you know exactly what he's about.

We do? There's an argument that can be made from both sides here. Telling a tale about a character we know "everything" about is bow-RANG! The idea should be to peel away the layers of that onion and explore each facet. But there should be some tenets the writers adhere to in the characterization, and judging from the arguments made here an elsewhere, folks seem to have had a few *cough* problems with Superman's characterization in SR.

He's always been too much of a ***** to tell her he's really Clark

I thought it was because he wanted to protect her? Has anybody here ever argued Superman is a ***** for not coming clean to Lois?

The sooner all you guys get over 'oh, what a *****' to everything you see....the better off you'll be.

Can I quote you on this? It may come in handy in about a month or so.

 

[Venom71]

SR IS a chick flick. How can you have a SuperMAN movie and not have the guy throw a single punch or fight a single bad guy. Thats superhero basics.

This movies isn't even an origin movie yet they somehow they manage to get the plot bogged down in boring drama (that didn't work) for 2 1/2 hours. Not to mention in all this boring time the hero hardly utters a single line of dialogue. And thats supposed to be good? Thats terrible! The movies about him!! Batman Begins managed to add an entire Origin story PLUS 4 villains from the books PLUS introduce another all in one movie packed with dialogue from the title character. It's obvious as hell Bryan had no faith in Brandons acting abilities hench the 8 lines of dialogue. Even Stallone had more dialogue written to mumble in Rambo.

If you want to add romance, cool! But make it work. Hire a real actor so he can interact naturally within these scenes. Brandon Routh couldn't do a good Clark Kent, he looked good as Superman but again, hardly spoke, never frowned, never acted assertive. The one oportunity we had to see Superman face his Nemisis after our 20 year wait and say or do something cool hes reduced to uttering 1 to 2 sentences. How utterly disapointing.
Kate Bosthworth was crap in this movie. insensitive, grumpy a basic emotional wreck. Where was the spunk? SHe had no charisma whatsoever and add that to Brandon and we have Queen Amidala and Anakin Skywalker part two. Ok not as bad as them, but not nearly as charming as Reeves and Kidder.

I don't know if you've heard but Superman is a bi weekly scifi/superhero comic book about a man from another planet. Theres romance, intrigue but more importantly to quote his mother in SR hes "..Put here for a reason..". Indeed. The reason is to to put the smack down on would be human/alien supervillains. Did he put a smack down on anyone in SR after 20 years. Eh...no my dear he got beaten like a wimpy drunk supermodel. Pathetic.
You need to watch the cartoons or read the books to know what I'm talking about. Get back to me when you do. And I don't mean Oprahs book club. It's mostly boys who read superman and so the stories are kind of geared that way. But women would definitely enjoy them too. Not all women love only romance, I know that. But the term 'Chick Flick' is a general term to suggest a cheesy predictable romance story involving love traingles and all that. Superman Returns had a lot of that and none of the 'Real Superman guy' stuff therefore it's a chickflick.

Bryan SInger is also quoted as saying he made chick flick BTW.

:YAWN:

 

[Shawn Wayne]

Well, yeah, isn't it? Even Singer seems to know that fans wanted more action, otherwise why keep drilling the Wrath of Khan stuff?

To a lot of fans, SR was uneven at best, focusing more on a love triangle between the wrong characters (Superman, Lois Lane, and Richard White - not Clark Kent) and a young child (a plot point I doubt you'd EVER see in Spider-Man - and wasn't in WoK, for that matter) rather than the exploits of the greatest superhero the world has ever known.

It was a calculated risk that (obviously) didn't pay off as well as Bryan Singer and Warner Bros. had hoped. For the most part, the critics enjoyed it. It was a well made film, but it lacked a roller coaster like joy that a lot of people were apparently expecting. How much of that is a direct result of the focus of the story is debatable, but Singer didn't help matters by instilling the wrong perception when he himself described SR as a "chick flick."

Did you see Titanic? Nothing wrong with emotional or feminine skewing films.

I see that WormyT has already replied, but I have a hypothetical question for ya, AmbientFire: Would you still accuse WormyT of being misogynistic if WormyT were actually female and just wanted to see a more rough and tumble [read: masculine] representation of Superman? Just curious.

I don't know the breakdown, but I do know the film skewed male on opening weekend, just as it did for BB and X-Men, and for just about every other comic-book based film. It's the nature of the beast. I think Para's point in noting the irony was that Singer (apparently) *tried* to attract woman as well as men to see SR when he really (apparently) should have been more focused on just pleasing his male audience.

Oh pish! That doesn't even deserve a response.

"Superman?" I dunno, you tell me. It sure *seemed* like it was a slam dunk, but I guess nobody knows anything in Hollywood. (My apologies to Mr. Goldman.)

We do? There's an argument that can be made from both sides here. Telling a tale about a character we know "everything" about is bow-RANG! The idea should be to peel away the layers of that onion and explore each facet. But there should be some tenets the writers adhere to in the characterization, and judging from the arguments made here an elsewhere, folks seem to have had a few *cough* problems with Superman's characterization in SR.



I thought it was because he wanted to protect her? Has anybody here ever argued Superman is a ***** for not coming clean to Lois?

Can I quote you on this? It may come in handy in about a month or so.

All I can say is that Lois must have some great booty

 

[explode7]

Where's Marlon???

 

[Alonsovich]

I'd hate to see your repoire with females in your life.....I pray you don't have a daughter. I hear my friends say some of most god-awful puppylove things to their girlfirends, wives etc. It doesn't make them less-masculine, it just means their hopelessly lost in that little sea of love.

Listen to Leykis 101 much?

I don't know about Para... but I have 23 adult women in my family. Unfortunate comment there about the puppylove things by you there. I've seen a LOT of couples that were saying those puppylove things constantly that have lasted less than rabbit's coitus. Casually the most long-lasting relationships are normally those where both say the TRUTH, not matter how difficult it is many times. I'll comment on this further.

That's what Superman is. That's what he's always been about...Lois Lane AND:

'They can be a great people Kal-el they wish to be. They only lack the light to lead the way'.

How much more context were you looking for in a Superman movie? Superman isn't exactly an onion......you know exactly what he's about.

That's what DONNER'S Superman has been about. There are incarnations of Superman where Lois is close to a non-exsistant secondary character. There are incarnations where Jor-El doesn't appear for 99% of the time. There are incarnations of Superman where BOTH of those things happen at the same time. And there are others where NONE of those happen. You're commiting the same mistake that Bryan Singer did. You're ignoring everything outside of Donner's universe with that comment.

That 'spying' scene was just that. And was the most uncharacteristic thing about Superman in this movie. But what happens not 1 minute later? He's in space hearing the cries of the world....gutless and spineless, I know.

Hearing the cries of the world... and then he goes to stop a cool high tec robbery... instead of helping a wife getting beaten by one of those puppylove-saying cynical bastards? Instead ignore the cries of help of a little 5 year old girl being filmed in a pedophile snuff movie where she gets raped and killed in front of a camera? You guys are speaking about the boldness of SR's themes. THOSE I mentioned are hopeless people. The police can handle themselves in a robbery (gatling gun or not...SWAT teams exists, mind you). That's what we call a selfish act. But I guess Lois and cool 2 million dollars effects shots are what Superman cares about for you. So much for boldness.

He's always been too much of a ***** to tell her he's really Clark...At least he lets her know he was wrong to leave.

'Goodbye Lois'

That was a forever goodbye. He thought he was never going to see her again. He didn't tell he her loved her in front of Richard and Jason. He could have, but didn't. That is 100x more inappropriate than 'spying'. Even though we know he should have because it might be the last time he saw her.

This is where we arrive to the truth point. Not only Superman leaves 5 years without having the balls to tell the WOMAN OF HIS LIFE that he's going... he doesn't have the balls to tell him that he loves her when he's freaking ABOUT TO DIE. You know why Lois is mad with him during the whole movie? Because the man she loves never told her the TRUTH. And even at the face of his death he doesn't. Didn't Superman stand for "TRUTH, justice and the american way (or whatever the f**k they choose in place of that last one)?

The stalking was inappropriate.....Superman f'd up. But lord knows all of us never screw up. God forbid Superman doesn't 1 inappriate thing in his life. He realized it by the end of the film...

Funny considering what Jor-El says. Wasn't Kal-El the light that was supposed to guide us? Since when spying on a NORMAL family with a 5 year old kid is supposed to be the normal behaviour for a human being?

At this point in his life....what other female approval does he have in his life besides his mother?

Or any approval at all?

None, because he's a LIAR. And he's such a p***y that he can't accept like a man that he's screwed up the whole situation like a MAN. Instead he cries.

That was just a bad plot point. There was no context to it whatsoever.

Yes there is a context to it. It's what triggers the whole MESS of an anti-relationship that Lois and Superman have in SR.

Pa Kent is dead......he has only 2 people in his life. And he has the consent of only 1. It's a human trait we all have. We want certain people to like us....family, friends, co-workers, lovers, etc.

Leads to a healther life when people actually care about you.

Unfortunately Superman DESERVES to be alone in this incarnation. Because he's been a p***y, a liar and a person that can't get over his own screw ups. Casually all lonely people are like that. You can't expect people to like the way this Superman behaves. It leaves his image at the level of a true a**hole.

Two words.......Peter Parker.

And just so you know,that IS Superman's reality. Your problem is looking for human based relatabilty for a God. Superman isn't Batman. He never will be. Even then, how much can one relate to a billionare, really? Simple....his issues in daily life.

death, love, and responsibility.

The sooner all you guys get over 'oh, what a *****' to everything you see....the better off you'll be.

You mean... the human based relatability that a LOT of comics like "Peace on Earth" have been able to show without making him a bad person that whines about how people don't like him while he's s**ting on the trust they gave him? He does deal with "death, love and responsability", but he resolves them with TRUTH and JUSTICE, which he didn't in SR. It's not the issues that Superman deals with what make him relatable. It's the attitude with which he resolves them what makes him relatable. And there's where SR fails miserably.

 

[WormyT]

:YAWN:

I know, youre getting tired of being defeated over and over again. You don't even have an argument because you know nothing about superman and your taste in movies is like that of a 6 year old girl. You probably saw Ice Age2 seven times and cried during all screenings.
Come up with a new argument besides "i't's your opinion" and maybe you'll get some respect.
In the meantime educate yourself in the world of Superman. I think you'll get my points when you read the books and realise how Singer missed a great oportunity.
The box office proves hes way off.

 

[WormyT]

The whole 'chick flick' thing could be taken out of context with what Singer said. He could've meant that it could be seen as a chick flick, as it had a love story, stronger than the last SM films.

Hell, if you call SR a chick flick, lets call the spidey films pi$$ poor soap operas. I'm a huge Marvel fan, and spidey is my fav hero, but the films, IMO, are just over-rated. Spisey 1, good film, spidey 2, a yawn fest (with some nice action pieces).

I thought Spiderman 2 was better. But yes theres a 40 min yawn period in the middle( of spidey2). I still love it though, and it MORE than 'brings the noise' as far as action scenes.

 

[Venom71]

I know, youre getting tired of being defeated over and over again.

I haven't been.

You don't even have an argument because you know nothing about superman and your taste in movies is like that of a 6 year old girl. You probably saw Ice Age2 seven times and cried during all screenings.

I know about Superman..been watching the movies,tv shows & cartoons all my life..just because I don't read the comics doesn't mean I don't know Superman...and no I never saw Ice Age 2 and so what if I have..what movies you like don't determine your masculinity

Come up with a new argument besides "i't's your opinion" and maybe you'll get some respect.

When you stop telling guys who like SR that they are less of a man..then maybe I will show you some respect..most likely I won't..but it could happen.

In the meantime educate yourself in the world of Superman. I think you'll get my points when you read the books and realise how Singer missed a great oportunity.
The box office proves hes way off.

Yeah...all your opinion and still not fact...get a clue.

 

[explode7]

I know, youre getting tired of being defeated over and over again. You don't even have an argument because you know nothing about superman and your taste in movies is like that of a 6 year old girl. You probably saw Ice Age2 seven times and cried during all screenings.
Come up with a new argument besides "i't's your opinion" and maybe you'll get some respect.
In the meantime educate yourself in the world of Superman. I think you'll get my points when you read the books and realise how Singer missed a great oportunity.
The box office proves hes way off.

Venom71 just got owned.

 

[Venom71]

Venom71 just got owned.

No he didn't

 

[Paradoxium]

I'd hate to see your repoire with females in your life.....I pray you don't have a daughter. I hear my friends say some of most god-awful puppylove things to their girlfirends, wives etc. It doesn't make them less-masculine, it just means their hopelessly lost in that little sea of love.

Listen to Leykis 101 much?

Besides the ad hominem attacks, you have not explained how an effeminate Superman is better (or more justified) than a masculine one.

I do like the "hopelessly lost in the little sea of love" line. Puppy love is cute when a relationship starts. In the long run it’s substance-less. Puppy love does not paint the full picture of what holds strong relationships together.

In the long run, putting a woman on pedestal is boring and insulting to the woman. Some women see the "nice guy routine" as an act to get into their panties. At least that "jerk" and bad boy is forward with his intent. They detest this duplicity. Treating them as you would treat a good friend (i.e. other guy friends) is the correct stance. Be forward and honest with them as you would with any good friend. The reward is a strong relationship and it has to work BOTH ways.

Read Rousseau much? He originated Romance, and he hated the bourgouis' idea of love, he thought passion should not be defined by Truth and Honor, but by "Romance". From my experience of failures and success, it is the former values that held longest and strongest relationships.

That 'spying' scene was just that. And was the most uncharacteristic thing about Superman in this movie. But what happens not 1 minute later? He's in space hearing the cries of the world....gutless and spineless, I know.

What does he being in space hearing other people’s cries, have anything to do with his emo moment from Lois’s response? Oh wait it doesn’t. NEXT.

He's always been too much of a ***** to tell her he's really Clark...At least he lets her know he was wrong to leave.

'Goodbye Lois'

That was a forever goodbye. He thought he was never going to see her again. He didn't tell he her loved her in front of Richard and Jason. He could have, but didn't. That is 100x more inappropriate than 'spying'. Even though we know he should have because it might be the last time he saw her.

The stalking was inappropriate.....Superman f'd up. But lord knows all of us never screw up. God forbid Superman doesn't 1 inappriate thing in his life. He realized it by the end of the film...

Coulda woulda… you excuse his actions. Singer could have cut the stalking scene out and retain the "chat" in the rooftop.

The writers screwed up his characterization in that one scene, stop making up excuses for them. NEXT.

At this point in his life....what other female approval does he have in his life besides his mother?

Or any approval at all?

My question is why the hell does he need approval to do what he wants to do? Oh wait... that’s right, he doesn’t need anyone’s approval. NEXT.

That was just a bad plot point. There was no context to it whatsoever.

How is there no context. I point at Superman for being a ***** for not telling Lois he will be leaving, even Lois calls out on his BS. NEXT.

Pa Kent is dead......he has only 2 people in his life. And he has the consent of only 1. It's a human trait we all have. We want certain people to like us....family, friends, co-workers, lovers, etc.

Leads to a healther life when people actually care about you.

No it doesn’t, that’s my point.

You do not need anyone’s approval to do what you want. If you think having a woman in your life or getting her approval will make you more content, you need a serious reality check.

A content life is one etched by you, not by the approval of others. If you love writing music, make a career out of it. Not because your mommy said being an engineer or lawyer is better. A good relationship with another woman is a byproduct of a good life of your own design.

If Superman wanted the approval of people he would not have been Superman. He does what he does because knows it is right, even if the authorities do not "approve it" in the onset.

Two words.......Peter Parker.

And just so you know,that IS Superman's reality. Your problem is looking for human based relatabilty for a God. Superman isn't Batman. He never will be. Even then, how much can one relate to a billionare, really? Simple....his issues in daily life.

death, love, and responsibility.

The sooner all you guys get over 'oh, what a *****' to everything you see....the better off you'll be.

And I want to thank you Pickle-El for bringing your “Peter Parker”. This is a nice way to wrap things up.

I was never a fan of the Spidey films, but at the end of both films, Peter realized his reality cannot revolve around MJ. He moved on at the end of BOTH movies. Notice how MJ came to him AFTER he went his own way, be his own man, have his own life without her? The one time in Spidey 2 when he was obsessing over her, was when she was the most repulsed. This was no coincidence. That was Parker's most important lesson. MJ is not your reality, you have to make do and create your own.

And when did I say Superman is Batman? They happen to have a overlapping quality. That was what made the two heroic. In the face of disapproval, despite their difference approach to crime fighting, they did what was right.

There is nothing sacrificial about Superman’s actions like Spider-Man, nor was it for vengence like Batman, it was because of Superman's strong upbringing. He simply was a good guy, doing the right thing based on the ideas of Truth, Justice and the American Way.