Sequels "Going Wrath Of Khan":The Official MOS Action Thread

[C. Lee]

I can't argue with a Catholic. I used to be one, and pity stays my hand.

What's that mean? If you are referring to me...sorry, but I'm not Catholic.

 

[C. Lee]

These obvious links to the older Reeves movies certainly provides the connection one needs to identify with the past events of Superman. There are those such as Flawless who decided to do more searching beyond the info that was presented in the movie to make more sense of things. There is nothing stated in the movies before or after the credits that tells you to ignore or accept anything in relevance to this story so as you said you simply accept things for what they are and choose not to question it. Understandable. Now if you accept all of this as a mere direct sequel to the Donner films when you first watched it did you question anything such as the amnesia kiss and why she would remember sex with Superman after the kiss? And why she would not remember knowing his identity being Clark if she somehow recieved her memory? Of course let us say that she never remembered any of this at all and Supes somehow rekindled the relationship after all of this leading to her impregnation. Do you have a problem with him not being honest enough to tell her the truth to the woman he so loves and finds to be the most precious thing on this planet that he would reverse time to bring her back to life? That truth being the fact that he is Clark much like he was forced to reveal to her in SII that makes that relationship a special moment in both their lives? The whole reason for the amnesia kiss was to protect her from a total mental breakdown which she was suffering having to live with this knowlegde. So now he disregards all of this and sleeps with her. Out of character.


As you have stated many times on these debates that we have had for .......ummmm... ever that you can basically see the movie as a sequel to those events but as a fan of these films can you truly accept it for what it is and what was presented as one continuous story without asking yourself about certain scenes and elements that were introduced . It is quite clear to all of us that its vague now from what has been said in interviews and published articles that we post and read time and time again. So we all know but however you choose to accept it especially to the average movie goer who don't follow anything else said about these films but are fans of the Reeves films do indeed remember how those films ended and like you said sees it as a sequel for what it appears to be are asking these very questions. Once again there are many on these boards that enjoy it and chooses to ignore it for themselves which I guess you fit into this category but it does not truly make what we all have seen in this movie as well as the Reeves movies go away.

At times you seem to agree with me...at others you don't.....so excuse my confusion.

As to other stuff.....as terrible as the amnesia kiss is....I accept it because it was part of Superman II......but it was also used in Superman IV (Lois regains her memory and tells Clark/Superman that she remembers....and he takes her memory away again)......so, if it wore off once, it can wear off again. We don't know how quickly it wears off, or how much at a time she recovers....so it is possible to remember having sex with Superman, but not remember that he is Clark. You may say that scenerio is implausable....but some here say a lot of scenerios from the movies are implausable.

As to his not being honest with the truth.....to me that was one of the worst things about Superman II. I personally hated the amnesia kiss a million times more than turning the earth backwards in the first movie. Hiding your true identity from people to keep them safe is one thing.....having sex with them and then erasing their memory of it is quite another.

 

[C. Lee]

But SR does contradict/retcon III & IV just on the fact alone that in those films, Martha Kent had already passed away, but in SR, she's still alive and well.

What if.....in traveling to Krypton and back....the time space continuim was disrupted.....creating a time warp....and he returned to Earth before the events of III, or IV, or both of them. He has changed time events in the movies before.

You see....to me that was the biggest problem with SR....if you don't make it absolutely clear in that movie, which movies it follows the continuity of....everything is thrown off.

Do you follow the events of Supes I and II....or Supes I and Donner cut II....or Supes I, II, and III....or Supes I, Donner cut II, III, and IV....or.......?

That's why I I keep telling people to have an open mind and don't talk in absolutes....because to me there are way too many variables.

 

[Nixon]

Putting the first Donner film into a vague history isn't the problem. Superman arrives, stops Luthor, has a relationship with Lois, and eventually leaves when he thinks they've found Krypton. It's keeping the Lois/Richard/Jason stuff vague that seems to be tripping people up and this is something that I think that Singer needed to be much clearer about.

Personally I think Richard knows, but it'd be nice if that was out there and confirmed.

 

[X Knight]

nah.....the kid isn't really Richard's or Superman's.........he's BATMAN'S KID...........lol.

 

[wellsy]

If his strenth of will and determination is so weak, that he 'wouldn't be able to go,' then that's not SUperman.

...

It's two fold. It's not just society it's also loisng ALL his loved ones. THey are ALL dead, he's devastated. If you believe that SUperman has a human side, you have to allow him time to mourn and work through this emotional pain, he's not impervious to emotional pain.

...

Leaving for KRypton and his motivation for doind so ... in character. LEaving LOis, the woman he loves and with whom he's involved sexually? OUt of characte.



His motivation for doing so? "It's too difficult." Out of character.

So, he's not impervious to emotional pain, and yet, he must still say goodbye to the woman he loves despite it causing him so much emotional pain?

So... Superman can be human, but he can't come up against something he can't beat?

Wait, hang on a second, did I just say that Supes must be able to overcome anything? But then, he can't be human, right?

I'm sure you see my point here - he's either human (and thus flawed and prone to making mistakes, and LEARNING from them), or something else... and I'm not sure I want this something else.

In fact, I'm sure we both want a... errr, human Supes (for lack of better descriptions), but I feel obliged to point out that in KC, he lowers his moral standards to take control of the world in order to save it, becoming the very thing he despises most.

It might seem that Supes doesn't care about Lois by not saying goodbye, but perhaps he was afraid that he wouldn't be able to go on to Krypton. If we're talking about a human Supes here, then fear is a part of his emotional make up. So perhaps him not saying goodbye is more indicative of how much Lois means to him, rather than "I don't care about you" as you have said.

Though perhaps not polite, I think you ought to consider (and probably reject, but who says I can't try t: ) viewing it from that angle.

 

[Angeloz]

What's that mean? If you are referring to me...sorry, but I'm not Catholic.

I believe he meant mego joe because he said he was Catholic not a Puritan. And his stance on Superman and Lois having sex plus his disappearance (so was accused of being Puritanical).

Angeloz

 

[Nixon]

In both Superman Returns and Kingdom Come Superman makes mistakes and the story spins out from there. In Superman Returns Superman gives into a longing to live a normal life and belong and leaves Earth in search of Krypton without saying goodbye to Lois breaking her heart a little. In Kingdom Come Superman abandons a humanity that he feels has rejected him, not just by retreating to the Fortress of Solitude but also by refusing to work with them and instead choosing a more authoritarian approach once he does come back. It takes Superman longer to learn from these mistakes and they get alot more people hurt and killed.

Given this, it just seems kind of wrong to say that Waid gets Superman and Singer doesn't.

 

[El Payaso]

In both Superman Returns and Kingdom Come Superman makes mistakes and the story spins out from there. In Superman Returns Superman gives into a longing to live a normal life and belong and leaves Earth in search of Krypton without saying goodbye to Lois breaking her heart a little. In Kingdom Come Superman abandons a humanity that he feels has rejected him, not just by retreating to the Fortress of Solitude but also by refusing to work with them and instead choosing a more authoritarian approach once he does come back. It takes Superman longer to learn from these mistakes and they get alot more people hurt and killed.

Given this, it just seems kind of wrong to say that Waid gets Superman and Singer doesn't.

 

[Krug3r]

Off topic now..but didn't want to star a new thread.............
Just saw stardust...Henry cavill is maturing really well....he should be preparing to encarnate superman.

 

[Angeloz]

Off topic now..but didn't want to star a new thread.............
Just saw stardust...Henry cavill is maturing really well....he should be preparing to encarnate superman.

Photo?

Angeloz

 

[The Guard]

What's that mean? If you are referring to me...sorry, but I'm not Catholic.

Not you. I had like, a four page response that was just brilliant, but...

Alas.

 

[gimmen64]

After watching Live Free or Die Hard & Transformers, I know it will be possible to do a Superman Movie for 150-175 Mil. Those movies were loaded full of action and were pure popcorn. Superman is not a sad or dark character, he is proud to be the world's protector and knows his place in the world. I hope that I don't have to wait another 10-15 years to see another Superman movie.

 

[El Payaso]

After watching Live Free or Die Hard & Transformers, I know it will be possible to do a Superman Movie for 150-175 Mil.

Man the budget for SR was ridiculous to start with. It could have been the same with a lower budget.

Superman is not a sad or dark character, he is proud to be the world's protector and knows his place in the world. I hope that I don't have to wait another 10-15 years to see another Superman movie.

He's proud to be thje world's protyector and knows his place in the world in SR. But I'm not sure how is this related to the budget.

 

[mego joe]

So, he's not impervious to emotional pain, and yet, he must still say goodbye to the woman he loves despite it causing him so much emotional pain?

I'm not saying it won't hurt him, but he's considering his feeling's over Lois's feelings and right to know that he's leaving. That sense of Justice for Lois and the fact that he has an indominable will and determination should override his selfishness when it comes to the woman he loves.

So... Superman can be human, but he can't come up against something he can't beat?

Just because he says goodbye doesn't mean he has to come back to a hunky dory world. He can still face a Lois/ Richard situation and a "I have a kid situation." It just doesn't make sense that he's going to leave and knowingly hurt Lois more and run like a coward.

Wait, hang on a second, did I just say that Supes must be able to overcome anything? But then, he can't be human, right?

Not at all. He's most certainly human. He shows that through his relationships and feelings. The difference is that he also operates from the highest ethical and moral standards. He's human and feels it, but he acts as the best of us, not joe less than average. We relate to his feelings but we marvel at his courage to make the right decision and his will and determination to overcome his own feelings of fear.

I'm sure you see my point here - he's either human (and thus flawed and prone to making mistakes, and LEARNING from them), or something else... and I'm not sure I want this something else.

Just b/c he's human doesn't mean that Superman is sexually irresponsible or selfish. Being human is about experiencing all those emotions. BEing SUperman is about having the courage to do the right thing no matter how much it hurts. It may not always work out perfectly, b/c he's not a god.

You're confusing simply being human with being a good human. Superman is he latter.

In fact, I'm sure we both want a... errr, human Supes (for lack of better descriptions), but I feel obliged to point out that in KC, he lowers his moral standards to take control of the world in order to save it, becoming the very thing he despises most.

At what point?

It might seem that Supes doesn't care about Lois by not saying goodbye, but perhaps he was afraid that he wouldn't be able to go on to Krypton.

But Superman would not give into his fear and allow Lois to think that he doesn't care.

If we're talking about a human Supes here, then fear is a part of his emotional make up.

So perhaps him not saying goodbye is more indicative of how much Lois means to him, rather than "I don't care about you" as you have said.

That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. The next time I want someone to know I care, I won't say goodbye. That's about the most immature explanation of this situation I can imagine.

Is SUperman supposed to be immature? Is Superman supposed to be an emotional wreck? Is SUperman supposed to be the type of character that gives into fear? Is Superman suupposed to be the kind of character that sabatoges his relationships?

Though perhaps not polite, I think you ought to consider (and probably reject, but who says I can't try t: ) viewing it from that angle.

I've heard it before, but it makes no logical sense to anyone who understands maturity, responsibilty and love.

I understand what you are getting at, but it is not Superman's character. It could be someone else's, but it's not SUperman's character, it is not who he is.

 

[mego joe]

I believe he meant mego joe because he said he was Catholic not a Puritan. And his stance on Superman and Lois having sex plus his disappearance (so was accused of being Puritanical).

Angeloz

That's me!

 

[mego joe]

In both Superman Returns and Kingdom Come Superman makes mistakes and the story spins out from there. In Superman Returns Superman gives into a longing to live a normal life and belong and leaves Earth in search of Krypton without saying goodbye to Lois breaking her heart a little. In Kingdom Come Superman abandons a humanity that he feels has rejected him, not just by retreating to the Fortress of Solitude but also by refusing to work with them and instead choosing a more authoritarian approach once he does come back. It takes Superman longer to learn from these mistakes and they get alot more people hurt and killed.

Given this, it just seems kind of wrong to say that Waid gets Superman and Singer doesn't.

Look deeper at the substance of the stories and not simply the cosmetic simialrities.

 

[wellsy]

I'm not saying it won't hurt him, but he's considering his feeling's over Lois's feelings and right to know that he's leaving. That sense of Justice for Lois and the fact that he has an indominable will and determination should override his selfishness when it comes to the woman he loves.


Just because he says goodbye doesn't mean he has to come back to a hunky dory world. He can still face a Lois/ Richard situation and a "I have a kid situation." It just doesn't make sense that he's going to leave and knowingly hurt Lois more and run like a coward.


Not at all. He's most certainly human. He shows that through his relationships and feelings. The difference is that he also operates from the highest ethical and moral standards. He's human and feels it, but he acts as the best of us, not joe less than average. We relate to his feelings but we marvel at his courage to make the right decision and his will and determination to overcome his own feelings of fear.


Just b/c he's human doesn't mean that Superman is sexually irresponsible or selfish. Being human is about experiencing all those emotions. BEing SUperman is about having the courage to do the right thing no matter how much it hurts. It may not always work out perfectly, b/c he's not a god.

You're confusing simply being human with being a good human. Superman is he latter.


At what point?



But Superman would not give into his fear and allow Lois to think that he doesn't care.


That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. The next time I want someone to know I care, I won't say goodbye. That's about the most immature explanation of this situation I can imagine.

Is SUperman supposed to be immature? Is Superman supposed to be an emotional wreck? Is SUperman supposed to be the type of character that gives into fear? Is Superman suupposed to be the kind of character that sabatoges his relationships?



I've heard it before, but it makes no logical sense to anyone who understands maturity, responsibilty and love.

I understand what you are getting at, but it is not Superman's character. It could be someone else's, but it's not SUperman's character, it is not who he is.

RE KC - Supes lowers his standards, because instead of being a leader who is a guiding force, he is a leader who is a dominating force. He is prepared to kill and hurt others. For their own protection? Pfft, where've I heard that one before?

Re Supes and emotions - I don't think you're quite getting my point. Supes wanted to go to Krypton, but he also wanted to be with Lois and the world. He felt that seeing Lois could destroy his resolve to go to Krypton and carry out his mission in life. He knew Earth was in no immediate danger that couldn't be handled by its inhabitants, but he also knew that there might be no survivors. Still, he had to check, he had to see, but if he saw Lois, then he might just dismiss it as a "might have been" and have regretted it for the rest of his life.

RE maturity and responsibility - Supes does end up being mature, and responsible. He returns to Earth. He knows what he did was wrong, but he faces up to things. He doesn't run from it like he did in SII when he turned back time or wiped out memories (depending on the cut you watched). He faced up to it, and refused to repeat his mistake.

RE the character - maybe we just have very different views of the character.

Anyways, perhaps we're nitpicking too much.

 

[mego joe]

RE KC - Supes lowers his standards, because instead of being a leader who is a guiding force, he is a leader who is a dominating force. He is prepared to kill and hurt others. For their own protection? Pfft, where've I heard that one before?

Does he hurt and kill? Does he become Magog? If he had stooped to that level it would have been a completely different story. He does have to up the power in order to deal with the supercharacters running rampant. Remember he chooses to incarcerte them rather than be judge jury and executioner that Magog is.

Re Supes and emotions - I don't think you're quite getting my point. Supes wanted to go to Krypton, but he also wanted to be with Lois and the world. He felt that seeing Lois could destroy his resolve to go to Krypton and carry out his mission in life.

And that is completely out of character for Superman. His relationship with Lois never destroys his ability to do his job. A truly loving relationship builds you up and supports you, it does not deter you from doing what is morally right.

He knew Earth was in no immediate danger that couldn't be handled by its inhabitants, but he also knew that there might be no survivors. Still, he had to check, he had to see, but if he saw Lois, then he might just dismiss it as a "might have been" and have regretted it for the rest of his life.

SO what you are saying is that Lois doesn't really care about him or his mission, just what's in it for her. That is just a completely incorrect characterization of what Superman and Lois's relationship is. They are in love, not teenage lust. It is a completely immature and incorrect charactization of a relationship that is supposed to be about love.

RE maturity and responsibility - Supes does end up being mature, and responsible.

But why wasn't he responsible from the beginning? Hasn't SUperman always been responsible and mature? Isn't that kind of his story- raised by the Kents he's instilled with the morals and ethics to carry out his mission from the beginning?

He returns to Earth. He knows what he did was wrong, but he faces up to things. He doesn't run from it like he did in SII when he turned back time or wiped out memories (depending on the cut you watched). He faced up to it, and refused to repeat his mistake.

I don't see him as running from it in Superman II. If he didn't erase Lois's memory or turn back time, he would be allowing others to suffer for his mistakes, which is what he does in SR. In SR, Lois, RIchard and Jason all suffer because of SUperman's sexual irresponsibility, a situation he could have reasonably avoided.

In SII, he could not have reasonable avoided what happened, yet still chooses to use his powers to make sure Lois, the woman he loves does not go on suffering. In SR, he is the cause of Lois and Jason's suffering. Do you see the difference?

RE the character - maybe we just have very different views of the character.

I think we have different understandings of the events in the films and what it means to be truly responsible. As for the character, I'm curious to find out why you think the development of Superman's character is somehow rooted in making errors and then learning from them. That is Spider-Man and other characters who start out as immature and then have a moment of growth. That is just not who Superman is. Though you may enjoy that kind of story, that is not who SUperman is.

Anyways, perhaps we're nitpicking too much.

I don't think so. I feel like I'm discussing the very essence of the character, not is the size of his s-shield wrong. That's nitpicking.

 

[Nixon]

Look deeper at the substance of the stories and not simply the cosmetic simialrities.

I have. In one Superman's mistake breaks Lois's heart, in the other he imposes his will on others and helps to start a war that kills a bunch of people.

I'm still not sure why you're willing to give Superman a free pass for one mistake, but not the other.

 

[Nixon]

Does he hurt and kill? Does he become Magog? If he had stooped to that level it would have been a completely different story. He does have to up the power in order to deal with the supercharacters running rampant. Remember he chooses to incarcerte them rather than be judge jury and executioner that Magog is.

He's not acting as executioner sure, but by deciding who gets locked up he's still acting as judge and jury and setting up his own rules that other people will have to play by or else.

Very un-Superman like.

And that is completely out of character for Superman. His relationship with Lois never destroys his ability to do his job. A truly loving relationship builds you up and supports you, it does not deter you from doing what is morally right.

So then why did he decide to be selfish and to give up his mission to be with Lois in Superman II? Shouldn't her love have built him up and supported him enough to take the morally right path of continuing to protect the earth?

Seems to me that in Superman II, something you seem to think is in character, shows love destroying his ability to do his job.

SO what you are saying is that Lois doesn't really care about him or his mission, just what's in it for her. That is just a completely incorrect characterization of what Superman and Lois's relationship is. They are in love, not teenage lust. It is a completely immature and incorrect charactization of a relationship that is supposed to be about love.

Well love can sometimes be selfish and Lois has certainly been shown to be selfish when it comes to Superman. IIRC one of her big problems at the end of Superman II was having to share him with the world.

Though really it's not one or the other. Lois can be selfish but overcome that and see that there are things bigger and more important than her's and Superman's feelings.

But why wasn't he responsible from the beginning? Hasn't SUperman always been responsible and mature? Isn't that kind of his story- raised by the Kents he's instilled with the morals and ethics to carry out his mission from the beginning?

The temptation to shirk responsibility can strike a man, even a Superman, at any age. The older Superman of Kingdom Come was just as susceptible to it as the younger Superman of Superman Returns.

don't see him as running from it in Superman II. If he didn't erase Lois's memory or turn back time, he would be allowing others to suffer for his mistakes, which is what he does in SR. In SR, Lois, RIchard and Jason all suffer because of SUperman's sexual irresponsibility, a situation he could have reasonably avoided.

In SII, he could not have reasonable avoided what happened, yet still chooses to use his powers to make sure Lois, the woman he loves does not go on suffering. In SR, he is the cause of Lois and Jason's suffering. Do you see the difference?

1) Again with the phrase "sexual irresponsibility" which really makes me think that the problem isn't Superman being irresponsible but Superman being sexual/ I mean it doesn't bother you so much in Kingom Come where his irresponsibility isn't sexual.

2) For someone that goes on about how love is supposed to make one act, why you don't seem to see how tampering with one's mind without their permission isn't the most loving or respectful activity possible? It treats Lois Lane like a child at best and is kind of a creepy violation at worst. If people don't leave without saying good bye to the people they love, then they certainly don't tamper with the minds of the people they love either.

This also makes me think of that idea that's brought up often enough in the comics, most notably I believe in "Must there be a Superman?", which is that if Superman did use all his powers to solve mankinds problems for them that ultimately they'd become a child race, dependents who would never mature and never learn to stand on their own. I guess it explains why there's still hunger and war in a world with Superman but it's also appropo here. By erasing Lois's memory, by solving her problem for her in the most selfish way possible, Superman also denied her the chance to grow, to improve, to stand on her own.

But yeah, only Bryan Singer would have Superman behave out of character.


I

think we have different understandings of the events in the films and what it means to be truly responsible. As for the character, I'm curious to find out why you think the development of Superman's character is somehow rooted in making errors and then learning from them. That is Spider-Man and other characters who start out as immature and then have a moment of growth. That is just not who Superman is. Though you may enjoy that kind of story, that is not who SUperman is.

Did you enjoy Kingdom Come? Did you think that was a good portrayal of Superman?

Because in that story Superman makes alot of errors, errors that get people killed, and he learns from them and develops into a better character by the end.

If you answered yes to those questions, I wouldn't be so quick with saying "that is just not who Superman is" if I were you.

 

[Angeloz]

That's me!

I guess that means no burning of witches.

Although what about a Spanish Inquisition (I hope you know about "Monty Python")?

Angeloz

 

[The Guard]

In both Superman Returns and Kingdom Come Superman makes mistakes and the story spins out from there. In Superman Returns Superman gives into a longing to live a normal life and belong and leaves Earth in search of Krypton without saying goodbye to Lois breaking her heart a little. In Kingdom Come Superman abandons a humanity that he feels has rejected him, not just by retreating to the Fortress of Solitude but also by refusing to work with them and instead choosing a more authoritarian approach once he does come back. It takes Superman longer to learn from these mistakes and they get alot more people hurt and killed.

Given this, it just seems kind of wrong to say that Waid gets Superman and Singer doesn't.

EXACTLY.

I will agree that Superman should have said goodbye to Lois, depending on the circumstances of his departure from Earth. Had I written SUPERMAN RETURNS, I would have just written the story with her having moved on and play with that conflict, not with them being "estranged", though it did create some nice conflict.

However, The point of the character in SUPERMAN RETURNS is that he is portrayed as a more "human" Superman, and his actions definitely were.

To say that the comic book version of Superman would not have done what he did (for the most part) is one thing. But to say it's out of character for Superman, period, given his various interpretations, is debatable at best.

You can say Superman operates at the highest ethical and emotional standards, but clearly this version didn't, and was never meant to, as that was the point of the film's portrayal, that for all his abilities and nobility, he is not perfect.

Nor has he always been so in the comics. Keep in mind: Superman has killed, and he has hurt people, in situations where, had he considered his options, he probably could have found better ways. He has chosen to have a life when in reality, these "higher standards" would never allow him to rest or experience his humanity. His actions have led to problems, deaths, vengeance plots, the endangering of loves ones, etc, over the years.

Please. Don't give me this nonsense about the character being perfect.

Also, as I keep reiterating and condemners of Superman keep ignoring, we don't know WHY Superman didn't say goodbye to Lois. We're speculating. For all we know, they had a fling, and then they were done, and he knew it wouldn't work, and so did she, and maybe she didn't even want anything to do with him at the time. We don't know. If that's the case, then he's really under no obligation to say goodbye to her. And for all we know, she hated him at the time and "changed her mind" (because women never do that, right?)

I have. In one Superman's mistake breaks Lois's heart, in the other he imposes his will on others and helps to start a war that kills a bunch of people.

I'm still not sure why you're willing to give Superman a free pass for one mistake, but not the other.

He's talking about Superman's reasoning for doing what he did. But even then...I don't agree with his conclusions. I do find bashing Singer's Superman and embracing Waid's to be a bit hypocritical. Either Superman holds himself to high standards when it comes to his major life events, or he doesn't.

1) Again with the phrase "sexual irresponsibility" which really makes me think that the problem isn't Superman being irresponsible but Superman being sexual/ I mean it doesn't bother you so much in Kingom Come where his irresponsibility isn't sexual.

Agreed. Which is why I keep saying "We don't know the exact circumstances".

Did you enjoy Kingdom Come? Did you think that was a good portrayal of Superman?

Because in that story Superman makes alot of errors, errors that get people killed, and he learns from them and develops into a better character by the end.

If you answered yes to those questions, I wouldn't be so quick with saying "that is just not who Superman is" if I were you.

Agreed.

 

[The Guard]

In both Superman Returns and Kingdom Come Superman makes mistakes and the story spins out from there. In Superman Returns Superman gives into a longing to live a normal life and belong and leaves Earth in search of Krypton without saying goodbye to Lois breaking her heart a little. In Kingdom Come Superman abandons a humanity that he feels has rejected him, not just by retreating to the Fortress of Solitude but also by refusing to work with them and instead choosing a more authoritarian approach once he does come back. It takes Superman longer to learn from these mistakes and they get alot more people hurt and killed.

Given this, it just seems kind of wrong to say that Waid gets Superman and Singer doesn't.

EXACTLY.

I will agree that Superman should have said goodbye to Lois, depending on the circumstances of his departure from Earth. Had I written SUPERMAN RETURNS, I would have just written the story with her having moved on and play with that conflict, not with them being "estranged", though it did create some nice conflict.

However, The point of the character in SUPERMAN RETURNS is that he is portrayed as a more "human" Superman, and his actions definitely were.

To say that the comic book version of Superman would not have done what he did (for the most part) is one thing. But to say it's out of character for Superman, period, given his various interpretations, is debatable at best.

You can say Superman operates at the highest ethical and emotional standards, but clearly this version didn't, and was never meant to, as that was the point of the film's portrayal, that for all his abilities and nobility, he is not perfect.

Nor has he always been so in the comics. Keep in mind: Superman has killed, and he has hurt people, in situations where, had he considered his options, he probably could have found better ways. He has chosen to have a life when in reality, these "higher standards" would never allow him to rest or experience his humanity. His actions have led to problems, deaths, vengeance plots, the endangering of loves ones, etc, over the years.

Please. Don't give me this nonsense about the character being perfect.

Also, as I keep reiterating and condemners of Superman keep ignoring, we don't know WHY Superman didn't say goodbye to Lois. We're speculating. For all we know, they had a fling, and then they were done, and he knew it wouldn't work, and so did she, and maybe she didn't even want anything to do with him at the time. We don't know. If that's the case, then he's really under no obligation to say goodbye to her. And for all we know, she hated him at the time and "changed her mind" (because women never do that, right?)

I have. In one Superman's mistake breaks Lois's heart, in the other he imposes his will on others and helps to start a war that kills a bunch of people.

I'm still not sure why you're willing to give Superman a free pass for one mistake, but not the other.

He's talking about Superman's reasoning for doing what he did. But even then...I don't agree with his conclusions. I do find bashing Singer's Superman and embracing Waid's to be a bit hypocritical. Either Superman holds himself to high standards when it comes to his major life events, or he doesn't.

1) Again with the phrase "sexual irresponsibility" which really makes me think that the problem isn't Superman being irresponsible but Superman being sexual/ I mean it doesn't bother you so much in Kingom Come where his irresponsibility isn't sexual.

Agreed. Which is why I keep saying "We don't know the exact circumstances".

Did you enjoy Kingdom Come? Did you think that was a good portrayal of Superman?

Because in that story Superman makes alot of errors, errors that get people killed, and he learns from them and develops into a better character by the end.

If you answered yes to those questions, I wouldn't be so quick with saying "that is just not who Superman is" if I were you.

Agreed.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Off topic now..but didn't want to star a new thread.............
Just saw stardust...Henry cavill is maturing really well....he should be preparing to encarnate superman.

My choice ever since the casting wars!