More human or just not as good a human. That's what we're talking about. Because it's not like humans don't do both things in the situation we are discussing. Not doing the right thing doesn't make you more human, it just makes you not as good a human.
"Not as good as you could be". What a concept.
First, Superman is a guy who tends to hammer away at people when he gets mad or to solve his problems, so let's not go on pretending his morals are as high as they could be.
Second, if you're Catholic, then you know that humans are inherently flawed. That we "fall short of the glory of God". We screw up. I'm not saying it's ok to screw up all the time, or in certain ways, but to falter because of emotional reasons is a very, very human thing.
And if SUpeman is supposed to operate at the highest ethical and emotional standard and this (Singer's version) doesn't, then clearly it is out of character for SUperman.
I don't think Superman has ever operated at that level. This is where we differ. I think, even with Superman, there's room for improvement. Superman's a very good person. He's got a lot of compassion, and he understands his duty to the world because of what he can do...but he isn't perfect. He's got some flaws.
However, the stories in question give plausible and believable motivations for these actions. SR doesn't have this.
Debatable. The average person does not give up on those around them when their loved ones die, so why would Superman suddenly abandon all the good he can do because Lois is dead?
Re: RETURNS, it depeneds on if you believe doubt and fear are plausible motivations for not doing something. I'd say they are. I'm not saying letting doubt cause you not to do what would be harder is right, but this is a plausible and believeable motivation for someone to avoid a goodbye or updating someone about their whereabouts.
I'm not giving you anything about him being perfect.
True, but you seem to misunderstand Superman's level of morality. You seem to think he should operate at the highest standard. That tends to mean near-perfect actions, does it not?
No one says that b/c he would say goodbye means that everything works out perfectly for him. It just doesn't make sense in keeping with his characterization concerning his love for LOis and his willingness to move heaven and Earth for her that he would not say goodbye before leaving given the context of their relationship.
You don't know the context of their relationship, though. This is why I keep asking if you know the details of their relationship when he left. How did he feel about her when he left Earth? If they were in a relationship, isn't it logical that he'd have wanted to stay, or would have told her?
Him not telling her points to things "not working out". It tells me he was not happy with how things were going in relation to her. If he was so lonely that he sought out Krypton...it seems rather obvious that their relationship was not what you claim it must have been.
In the movie says it was ' too difficult' and that he 'didn't know how.' THat is just ridiculous.
Yes it is. The point of him doing this is to show that this version of Superman is flawed, imperfect, all too human.
What's not ridiculous is if Superman decided they weren't going to work out and moved on before this happened. Maybe Lois even KNEW they weren't going to work out, and they'd discussed it. Maybe she just wanted him to say goodbye, and he didn't.
Maybe they weren't even in a relationship when he left Earth.
There's no speculation there, that's right from the film. That is the reason the film gives. It just reeks of being out of character.
But the film never tells us the context of their relationship when he left.
SUperman always holds himself to high standards. THe difference is that in KC, it takes more than the average man would be expected to endure before giving in to his fears etc....
In SR, SUperman gives in when JOe average would easily be able to continue to do the right thing.
As I've pointed out before, the average Joe doesn't give up on life and those around them because their loved one dies or because someone likes one other person's methods more than they do the average Joe's. So basically, the Superman in KINGDOM COME does what you accuse the character of doing in SUPERMAN RETURNS. He doesn't do what COULD be done.
And once again, you don't know the context of his departure. Maybe they were fighting or something. Split up. Not together. We. Don't. Know.
That is where the two portrayals differ and why Superman is out of character in SR. SUperman is not less than Joe average guy. He is an example of the best of us.
True, he's an example of how hope, compassion and the proper application of great power can better the world. But he's not neccessarily an example of the best in relationships.
However, the film gives enough for the viewer to figure out that SUperman screwed up royally because he wasn't man enought to be honest with Lois. That's what the film suggests. It suggests that his emotional threshold is very low and that he is less than Joe average guy.
I'm sorry..."emotional threshold?"
It suggests that the actions in his personal life are inconsistent with the actions in his public life.
What a concept. A public figure who appears to have no issues having person problems...
At the end we are supposed to take away that 'now' both his personal and public life are in congruence and consisent, but that it is something new for SUperman. THis notion is also in direct conflict with the essence of his character.
I think you're reading way too much into the film.
But b/c he is bette than the average joe he doesn't give in to his human frailties until pushed to a limit far beyond that of the average joe.
What limit? His wife was murdered. People have loved ones murdered every day. It doesn't cause them to shut themselves away and pout about it.
Ok...I think I've beat that point to death at this point.
But it is in a completely different context. In SR, they are having sex! In those comics you mention, you forget that he is also constantly AVOIDING a deep relationship with LOis, because otherwise he WOULD have to reveal his dual identity.
That is not why Clark avoids a deep relationship with Lois. And it's not just Clark who avoids it.
Average people everyday get deployed in the military everyday to go fight in Iraq or Afganistan. Do they leave their loved ones w/o a goodbye? Superman told Ma Kent what he was doing and said goodbye- why not Lois, the person who means more to him than Ma?
Good question? Do YOU know why? Do you know the exact circumstances of their relationship before he left Earth?
IMO, there are no special circumstances.
What if they just wanted nothing to do with each other at that point?
Otherwise it would have been part of the story. Using 'vague history' and not being really detailed about the circumstance cinematically indicates that there is nothing special about the circumstances.
No it doesn't.
The simplest explanation suffices- they were in a sexual relationship and as he says "It was too difficult to say goodbye." So he left. I don't think Singer intended anymore than that.
Then why did Superman leave to find Krypton, instead of just leaving, period?
Do you see wyat I'm getting at above with what we do know, that the absence of details are a way of allowing the viewer to put the pieces of the puzzle together w/o getting bogged down in exposition? The intention is the simpleset anwer as stated above, the same with the paternity question- Lois had sex with Richard and Superman so close together that she assumed Richard had to be the father.
It's pretty clear that Lois knows Richard isn't the father in SUPERMAN RETURNS.
And if she had sex with him a while after Superman, so what? It's 2007.
While you may think this is a horrible thing to do, Lois probably doesn't. She's always been a pretty modern woman. And so it works for the character.
Even if you don't like the morality of it.
There's nothing else to suggest exceptionally long gestational periods or that Kryptonians reproduce by some other method than sexual reproduction.
True. The movies state neither thing. And all the comics really suggest is that Superman and Lois can't mate at ALL.
So...once again...we don't know. It seems silly to condemn someone for one element of something when you don't know the details of his situation.
Actually, not at all. It's a different context. At the time SUperman and Lois were not involved at all, instead the most important people in his life were Ma and Pa, Lana and Matrix. I believe Lois was dating Jose Delgado at the time and she and Superman in post-Crisis continuity had yet to become romantically linked, therefor he had no obligation to her, unlike SR in which he is involved in a sexual relationship with Lois. It isn't until after he returns from space that he begins to date her as Clark, not SUperman, and then he reveals his identity to her when it gets serious. (Superman #50)
They may not have been romantically linked. However, they were good friends at the time, and he cared greatly for her. So him not saying goodbye there doesn't help matters.
And since you think not being romantically linked in the comics means he has no obligation to his friend to say goodbye and update her on his whereabouts...then how do you know what their situation was in SUPERMAN RETURNS, and if he had any obligation toward her at that point?
You're putting your own sexual morality on Superman.
Exactly. And doing so without KNOWING ANY OF THE DETAILS.
.
