Making SUperman a deadbeat dad is a lot more manufactured than exploring a world in which SUperman is rejected by society and exploring what would happen if he were to lose Lois.
You and your ridiculous definition of "deadbeat dad". Singer never brought this angle into play.
There’s no attributes in Superman’s character to get him into the situation presented in SR. It is completely wrong.
Untrue. Superman has almost always been unsure about his Clark/Superman element around Lois. He was always hesitant to tell Lois the truth about his secret identity or to reveal his true feelings for her, even as Superman. So don't give me this "no attributes in his character" nonsense.
What you’re missing is that in KC he’s losing everything that has meaning to him, his life with Lois AND his role in society as its protector b/c they are rejecting him.
So...Superman loses his desire to protect people because of the current social attitude about killing criminals and the fact that Lois and his parents are dead? That's just absurdly stupid. Superman has always been a character who did what he could do regardless of how people viewed him and his actions. He's not going to stop protecting people because Lois died. If anything, he'd want to do even MORE. I'm sure Lois would appreciate him giving up on the world because she's dead and society wasn't happy that he wouldn't kill criminals.
Yeah, she'd be real, real proud of him for quitting like that.
His emotional connection with humanity is already gone.
Because The Kents and Lois equal all of humanity? That's just nonsense. What about Lana? Jimmy? Perry? Any friends he's made, any friends he could make? Superman is a HOPEFUL character. Hopeful symbols don't just quit like that.
It is taking everything away from Superman and then like any other human he reacts, not Alien.
Here's the thing. People don't tend to give up on the entire world around them because they lose their parents and wife. Sure, they grieve, and they may despair, but they go on. The average person doesn't lock themselves up in the Arctic and renounce his/her humanity like Superman does. His reaction is clearly meant to show him becoming more "alien", while the fact that he's there farming proves he can't let go of his humanity entirely.
His isolation is not due to being or feeling ‘alien’ it’s because he when stripped of EVERYTHING meaningful to him, he goes somewhere he can find meaning.
That's just it. If Waid thinks all that matters to Superman is Lois, The Kents and whether or not Metropolis wants him to be their number one...then Waid doesn't get Superman. And neither does anyone else who agrees with this portrayal as "correct". It's an illogical progression for the character, and very forced.
In SR, HE abandons a world that accepts him and needs him and a woman that loves him (supposedly) and he neversays goodbye to either.
Does she love him? She may be infatuated with Superman, but does she love HIM? She doesn't even seem to know him, and that's partially his fault for not telling her he's Clark and allowing her to choose, but again, that's a large part of the mythology.
That is something that doesn’t make any sense and is completely out of character.
He has no reason to not say goodbye to Lois.
Yes he does. An all too human reason. Because it's painful for him to leave her, and he knows that if he goes there, she might not let him go to Krypton, which was obviously very important to him. These are very human reasons not to do something. Is it what he should have done? Probably not. But since when has Superman always done what he should do to be emotionally healthy? He hasn't. This is a man who lied about his identity for years and admired Lois from afar without letting her in on his secret.
In SR, he himself breaks the connection because he is an immature and irresponsible jerk. He isn’t the one being rejected and losing all that has meaning for him, he is rejecting Earth and Lois by failing to say goodbye. THAT is completely out of character.
See, you keep saying words like "immature and irresponsible" as if Superman exemplifies maturity and responsibility in the first place, which he, in fact, doesn't (care to argue this point?). It's not like he left for Krypton because he and Lois had a fight and he wanted to hurt her. That would have been immature. And he's not rejecting anything. Leaving your homeland does not mean you are rejecting it.
What you are missing is that Superman cannot control others.
No, but as is shown in KINGDOM COME, other heroes did and will follow his example. After he quit, so did they. Diana made this clear in the beginning of KINGDOM COME, that if he came back, so would they.
All he can do is lead, and if a people don’t want to be lead, he is totally helpless.
No, that is not all he can do. He can still do what he does best, which is to use his powers and his attitude about life to save lives and foster hope. He can stop disasters. Protect people in many ways. Bring hope to the world, and inspire many with his actions.
And yes, he can do these things even if they don't want him to be their number one protector. Even if they don't like how he deals with criminals. Even if they don't like him.
But instead, he just gives up all that because of what happened with Magog. And the Earth suffers for it.
See the stories “Must There BE a Superman,” “Peace on Earth,” and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
If you read the above stories you’ll see how wrong you are about this, plus the thing KC offers that is different is that the WHOLE world has rejected Superman and his morals and values.
What am I wrong about now, based on what's found in these stories? Again, it doesn't MATTER that the world has rejected Superman and his values. He would still protect them, just because of who he is. The only time he would stop doing so is if he himself was posing a danger to the Earth, a la the EXHILE storyline.
That has to be one of the most absurd statements even seen on this board. I guarantee you Waid knows a lot more about Superman than you and Singer put together. For you to even say that shows you don’t know much about Waid.
Prove it. Because Waid's definitive Superman tale has him abandoning the Earth after people decide they want him to kill. Yeah, he gets the character in KC. Really well.
The point here is that no matter what amazing feats Superman performs to save people, it will never make up for his failure as a person in his actions toward Lois and Jason.
Are you freaking kidding me? A man cannot be forgiven leaving the Earth without saying goodbye to someone who essentially ignored him except when he was Superman...even if he saves the world and apologizes to her and seeks to make up for his mistakes upon his return, and takes steps to correct his mistake and to help everyone involved move on with their lives?
Wow, are you vengeful.
The content of Richard’s character was much stronger and mature than Superman’s. Don’t think super-feats, think who did the noble and mature thing in terms of personal relationships with others.
Richard was Richard, and I won't disagree that he came off as pretty noble. I'm not saying he made any mistakes during the film. But then, he's not the hero, and he didn't really need to have any real flaws to overcome, either.
I thought Lois was portrayed as a selfish, cruel and ****ty, as well as a bad mother who put her career ahead of the safety of her son.
What? How is she selfish during the film? How is she cruel? And how is she remotely "****ty"?
Superman’s character shouldn’t exemplify what not to do however.
It didn't. The movie never indicated that what he did was the correct move. But heroes have flaws. It's a part of writing. Even Superman has flaws. He overcame them and did the right thing in the end, and people should learn from that.
It’s just that Richard comes off as more noble and heroic b/c he doesn’t have powers and he was willing to risk his chance with Lois against Superman.
It's debatable. Superman sacrificed his life, knowing full well he was going to die from Kryptonite poisoning. Richard may have known he could die going back to rescue Superman, but Superman flat out knew he was going to.
But who gives a damn? Who says Superman has to be portrayed as perfect compared to the other characters in the movie?
Well when they go flying he tries to show Lois how much better flying with him is than Richard and he tries to kiss her. Sounds like he making a play for to me.
.
Nope. He simply surprises her with the fact that they are flying already, and he's not wrong about his assessment about her flights with Richard. Richard doesn't take her flying like that.
He's with a woman he loves in that scene, and most of the flight is meant to be him finding out her feelings and explaining to her why he left without saying goodbye, and how hard it is to be Superman sometimes. He doesnt exactly just try to kiss her on his own. They are drawn to each other, and they both almost kiss, and he holds back in the end. There's no "play" made, no plea for her to leave Richard, or anything along those lines. He just wants to know why she wrote the article, and find out how she feels about him. And he's allowed to. Superman is allowed to have feelings for people and to want to know where he stands with them, even someone with a boyfriend and child.
They aren’t enough to overcome what he got so grossly wrong however. The basic thing that he got totally wrong is that Superman is a good honest person through and through and that’s not what Singer gave us.
Boy, someone must have missed all the stories over the years where Clark Kent lies to Lois Lane about him being Superman and saves them both a lot of grief by just telling her who he is. He's a good person, but when it comes to Lois, the man is apt to make mistakes.
He gave us a Superman divided, one that publicly appears to be good, honest and selfless, but in his personal life he’s a selfish immature jerk.
You know, God help anyone who interacts with your Puritan values.
No, Richard would never have abandoned Lois w/o a goodbye for 5 years.
Richard didn't have half of himself ignored by a woman he cared for. Richard doesn't have to deal with the duty of being able to save the world and having the kinds of responsibility that Superman's powers carry. Richard is not the last of his kind, nor is Richard apparently someone who feels terribly alienated because he can't be with who he loves.
And don't be cute. I'm referring to what Superman did in terms of saving the day in terms of what Richard can/cannot measure up to.
He may have physically isolated himself, but it was the world that emotionally cut him off and made him believe he was irrelevant.
If that's the case, then Waid's Superman is stupid and gullible as well, with no sense of the reality of his presence on Earth, and Waid has gotten even more wrong about the character.
Without Lois, he had nothing left in the world with meaning.
Again, if you think that's all Superman cares about, then you don't get the character.
Lois as his love is his anchor, not because he’s an alien and she’s human, but because she represents to him all that is good in the world.
That doesn't mean he'd completely lose his humanity if she wasn't there. He was fine before he ever met Lois, why would losing her destroy everything good about him? Again, I'm sure she'd just be thrilled he gave up on the world like that.
Compared to physically and emotionally abandoning Lois without a word because he is an immature and irresponsible jerk, yes, KC does portray him in character.
See, the thing is...being afraid to show Lois his true feelings is in character. Leaving for Krypton and his motivation for doing so...also in character. Quitting on the Earth? Not in character at all.
NO….. he has been rejected and emotionally isolated. No matter how much you want to be somewhere, when the people there no longer want you to be there, you aren’t going to stay.
Where the hell is that written? Most people don't just give up on life if they are rejected by a particular group. What, do you want Superman portrayed as someone who simply abandons all hope at the first sign of emotional adversity?
He doesn’t forget to how to care, but there is left for him to care about.
WHAT? What about the six billion people whose lives he can impact?
The people have changed, they are not the same people anymore, the world is a different place, Lois is gone- there is nothing for him to care about anymore.
So because the world is a different place...Superman's just going to let people he can help suffer, and let people he can save die?
WAY TO GET THE CHARACTER MARK WAID! YOU NAILED IT!
It wouldn’t matter if he stayed around, the world has no use for him or his values any longer and he realizes that so he physically isolates himself where he can feel useful. You can’t save people that don’t want to be saved.
That's absolute nonsense. You most certainly can rescue people who don't want to be saved. Physically speaking, at least, and since when would Superman only save people who he can emotionally reach. He's not a psychiatrist. Superman can still stop disasters, save people from criminals and fires, stop bank robberies, etc, etc, etc.
Pretty sure he didn’t say anything to NASA etc…, it would make more sense for him to tell Lois than vice versa. How cold would that be, “Oh, yeah, the gov’t knew, but I’m such a loser I can’t tell the woman I love ‘goodbye.’ Yeah, that’s in character.
You can be "pretty sure" all you want, but you don't know. There were plenty of rumors about Superman using NASA to confirm Krypton's existence. Who is to say they they didn't know about his departure?
Singer misinterpreted the Superman of the Donnerverse and changed him into the character HE relates to.
Then why can so many other people relate to him?
He totally got Superman wrong. Waid is one of the best comic book writers of the last 20 years, and an internationally accepted authority on Superman.
What? Waid may get Superman, but KINGDOM COME certainly doesn't indicate that.
You’re welcome to believe that Waid doesn’t understand Superman, but it laughable to do so.
Prove he does, then. Specifically, prove he does with his portrayal of Superman in KINGDOM COME.
Singer misinterpreted the Superman of the Donnerverse and changed him into the character HE relates to. He totally got Superman wrong.
No, he didn't "totally" get Superman wrong. He added a human element that you believe doesn't belong there. He got a lot about Superman right.
Also what about the fact when he did come back did he, in the film, impose his will on anyone and lock them up unilaterally? Which caused a major disaster through what he did if I remember correctly in the comic story. It may be a classic story but Superman really did drop the ball. I guess he's not perfect in some stories (naughty naughty
EXACTLY. KINGDOM COME is not Superman's best moment. KINGDOM COME is Mark Waid's portrayal of a fallen hero and his redemption.
t: )
