CONTINUED...
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.
Not all heroes have to overcome flaws. That is only one particular kind of hero. Some heroes are heroes just becasue they are genuinely good caring and selfless people. And that's the kind of her SUperman is supposed to be.
Not all heroes are born out of mistakes. That is one kind of hero. Spider-Man is that kind of hero. Superman is not. Spider-Man learns tough lessons about responsibility and power and grows into being a hero after the tough lessons. SUperman is a hero b/c he was raised with the morals and values that allowed him to know what to do with his powers based. He didn't have to go through mistakes in order to learn tough lessons to grow into the role of a hero. He learned the same life lessons we all learn growing up, but his upbrining was special in that the Kents raised the right kind of person to be a her without having to go through the mistakes. Maybe you find the Spider-Man kind of hero more interesting, and that's fine, but you can't graft that characterization onto Superman and say that's Superman, because it is not. That's not who he is.
What? How is she selfish during the film?
SHe endangers her son by taking him on LUthor's boat. Putting her career ahead of the safety of her son. ANd according to you she wouldn't understand that Superman had to go to KRypton if he had come and told her the truth.
She treats Clark like crap. SHe is mean towards him.
And how is she remotely "****ty"?
THe only way that she could believe that RIchard was Jason's father was if she had sex with both RIchard and SUperman within a two week period of time. In that short of time she would not have even had a chance to figure out that Superman was not going to be around for a significant amount of time.
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.
The flaws given to SUperman in SR are not flaws that SUperman has in any medium. SInger incorrectly portrayed SUperman with these out of character flaws.
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.
Richard's real nobility and heroism came when Richard put Lois and Jason first when it came to taking them down to the hospital to see Superman. He was figuring it out and he realized Lois still had feelings for SUperman and that Jason was Superman's son. HE was more heroic in that moment than SUperman was in the entire film. He did the right thing and put Lois and Jason first, knowing he could possibly lose his family. Much more heroic than leaving Lois for 5 years w/o saying goodbye.
But who gives a damn? Who says Superman has to be portrayed as perfect compared to the other characters in the movie?
He doesn't have to be perfect, but his motivations must be from the hightest moral and ethical standards. That is part of the essence of who he is. That just wasn't in the film. The movie went completely against that essential element of his character.
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.
NOpe. SHe has time to slip off her shoes and get ready. THey've done this before, she knows what's going to happen. ANd while he's not wrong, his only reason for mentioning it is to compete with him- his motivation is that he is trying to win her back.
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.
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.
No, you've got it all wrong. He never actually lies. HE uses diversions and distractions to avoid directly answering the question and he comes up with ways to make it appear that he is in fact not Superman.
You know, God help anyone who interacts with your Puritan values.
Catholic values, Catholic values.
Richard didn't have half of himself ignored by a woman he cared for.
If Superman had told Lois that he was both Clark and SUperman before becoming involved with her she wouldn't have ignored any part of him. That's his own fault for getting involved with someone under false pretenses.
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.
The only reason Superman can't be with Lois is because he abandonned her emotionally and burned that bridge himself.
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.
Superman cannot measure up to RIchard as a man. SUperman may have all those powers, but the content of Richard's character is superior to SUprman's as depicted in SR. And that is he problem. The content of SUperman's character should never be in question. That is the problem. SR presents in an inconsistency between SUperman's pubic life and private life, and that is an incorrect characterization.
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.
You simply don't understand the KC story. You are not getting all the nuances.
Again, if you think that's all Superman cares about, then you don't get the character.
What you don't get is that the world has rejected Superman's values and that is what he cares about, making the world a better place and the world in KC doesn't want to be a better place, so much so that it has rejected Superman.
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.
He's not losing his humanity he's in mourning and trying to deal with the fact that he's lost EVERYTHING that has meaning for him. His family, his loved ones AND his mission.
See, the thing is...being afraid to show Lois his true feelings is in character.
The thing that is implied though is that they've already gotten beyond that and are in a sexual relationship. At that point they are already in a relationship. I don't think SUperman had Sex with Lois w/o reveling his true feelings (I love you).
Leaving for Krypton and his motivation for doing so...also in character.
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.
Quitting on the Earth? Not in character at all.
So SUperman is not suppose to be able to mourn the loss of everything and re-evaluate his life and place in the world? He is emotionally human after all , isn't he?
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?
You truly do not understand the story, it's not the first sign of emotional adversity, he lost everything in KC.
By the way that's exactly what he did in SR. AT the first sign of emotional adversity with Lois in SR, he abandonned her. Good job Singer.
WHAT? What about the six billion people whose lives he can impact?
You see sometimes, even Superman acts with human emotions.
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!
You aren't understanding the magnitude of the change in the world that is presented in the story.
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.
YOu can rescue them physically, but not emotionally unless they want to be resucued. THat is the real problem of society in the KC story.
You're missing the part where his loss of EVERYTHING has put him into a grieving mode which he must work through.
You're also missing the part where took loisng EVERYTHING for Supreman to go into isolation and mourning, most people would end up there after the first or second disaster. It took losing EVERYTHING for Superman to succumb.
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?
SInce they didn't mention it it's obviously an important part of the story is it.
Then why can so many other people relate to him?
I don't think that many can, and for those that do I, I hope things get better in their lives.
What? Waid may get Superman, but KINGDOM COME certainly doesn't indicate that.
No, you don't get Kingdom COme.
Prove he does, then. Specifically, prove he does with his portrayal of Superman in KINGDOM COME.
I think I already have.
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.
Superman has always had a human elemet. Singer interpretted that the human element makes him a screw up, selfish and irresponsible and immature. The human element makes him genuinely caring, honest, selfless and forthright. That is the difference between Singer's misinterpretation and the proper characterization of Superman.
EXACTLY. KINGDOM COME is not Superman's best moment. KINGDOM COME is Mark Waid's portrayal of a fallen hero and his redemption.
I never said it was his best moment, but it a great story that examines what happens when Superman loses everything and what it takes and how he is able to rise up from it.
SR is a steaming pile of excrement in a pretty box. ANd simply the worst Superman story ever.
He is from another planet. 
t:
