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

[mego joe]

"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.

I think you've got that one completely wrong. SUperman is known for using extremely controlled physical action to do his job and is certainly not known for using excesive force. He much more cerebral than you are giving him credit for.

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 I'm simply saying that Superman is not capable of certain mistakes- especially sexual irresponsibility.

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.

And that explains how you don't understand the character. There's not room for that much imprvement- especially when it comes to his motivation. If you miss that he's supposed to represent what is best in man then you've missed the essence of the character.

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?

As stated before, it's not simply that Lois is dead. HE's already lost the KEnts, and after Lois dies, Superman his methods and values are rejected by the society he's sworn to protect- it's an extreme situation, not simply Lois dying.

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.

What's he got to doubt? What's he got to be afraid of if he's a mature adult in a mature committed adult relationship with someone who REALLY loves him?
The real issue I think is that your definition of being human means that you are capable of giving into that doubt and fear for any reason. I think that being human makes you capable of feeling that doubt, fear confusion, but your strength of character and moral fiber determine whether or not you will give into it. NOt everyone is the same. SUperman is supposed to have a high strength of character and strong moral fiber.

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. Perfection would mean that whatever he does would always work out for the best. SUperman's mistakes tend to come from the highest of moral and ethical standards. Imagine... SR... if he says goodbye and goes...going is still a mistake. Why? Because he's still going to suffer losing Lois, he's still hurting Lois and he's still not raising Jason. He controls what he can to the best of his ability, but the fact that he can't control everything makes him imperfect. The fact that he doesn't know that going IS a mistake. He is far from perfect, but he follows the high moral and ethical standards.

He operated from the highest moral standards- He must go to check out Krypton, it's what is right, he must say goodbye- it's what is right... and yet...it doesn't work out perfectly. However, it is through no fault of his own...it makes him sympathetic and noble. Doing the wrong thing does not make a character sympathetic.

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?

Since SInger didn't expound I think based on vague history we are supposed to believe that he lvoed her and was in a relationship with her.

If they were in a relationship, isn't it logical that he'd have wanted to stay, or would have told her?

Yes, that's why it's out of character for him not to have said goodbye!!!

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.

No. Going to Krypton just shows that he feels a responsibility to help possible survivors and confirm or disprove what he already knows about Krypton. He would want to help survivors of any planetary destruction, not just KRypton, but since it's Krypton it is finally a chance to confirm what he's always believed, or open a new door to his past. That's why he's going, not b/c things with Lois were not working out. If they weren't working out why does he immediately come back and try to woo her? If things weren't working out why is he so hurt that she's moved on?

Yes it is. The point of him doing this is to show that this version of Superman is flawed, imperfect, all too human.

No. ALL version show his humanity, his flaws and imperfections. It's this version that differs in depicting him as NOT as good a person as Joe average guy and that he gives in too easily to his human flaws instead of fighting them.

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.

But that's way too much detail for 'vague history.' The method of vague history is a technique where detailed exposition is not necessary b/c the simplest answer is what is intended, not some complicated backstory that the audience has little chance of getting from context.

Maybe they weren't even in a relationship when he left Earth.

Then how'd she get pregnant?

But the film never tells us the context of their relationship when he left.

True, but it suggests certain things, they were in a sexual relationship and that they were in love...do you see that?

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.

No, the average Joe would not have lasted as long as Superman does in KC- he would have given in MUCH sooner than SUperman did.

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.

See above answers

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.

Certainly not in SR, but what about his comic appearance and the other Superman films?

I'm sorry..."emotional threshold?"

Limit your emotions can be pushed before giving in to them.

What a concept. A public figure who appears to have no issues having person problems...

Not that he doesn't have problems, but that he acts responsibly and not irresponsibly.

I think you're reading way too much into the film.

If that's not part of it then he learned nothing from his mistakes.

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.



That is not why Clark avoids a deep relationship with Lois. And it's not just Clark who avoids it.

Then what it is?

Because all the stories I've read about SUperman when he's not been involved with Lois is because he knows that if he were to get involved deeply he would have to give up being Superman so that she would not be in danger. Plus, you can't be in a deep meaningful relationship with such a huge deception at the center of your relationship. This is why Lois ALWAYS knows his dual identity when they are depicted in a serious relationship.

Good question? Do YOU know why? Do you know the exact circumstances of their relationship before he left Earth?

Unfortunatey, the only person who does is Singer. But he does suggest what it was.

What if they just wanted nothing to do with each other at that point?

Then Lois has no right to be upset at him for not saying goodbye, and doesn't make sense that he's so whiny and mopey when he finds that Lois has moved on.

No it doesn't.

Then SIngers film is even worse, because he's hiding a critical element from the audience when it comes to understanding the motivations of the main characters.

Then why did Superman leave to find Krypton, instead of just leaving, period?

To look for survivors and help if possible, and confirm or disproove what he's always believed about KRypton.

It's pretty clear that Lois knows Richard isn't the father in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

Not until Jason throws the piano. Up to that point she believes tha Richard is the father.

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.

What's a while? My concern is that for her to be unsure of Jason's paternity then she would have to have had sex with both men w/in the span of two weeks, othewise, her ultrasound would have made it obvious that Jason was conceived before she had sex with Richard.

And if she had sex that soon, she really didn't have a chance to realize Superman was gone if he hadn't said goodbye, did she? She wouldn't have realized that Superman wasn't going to be back any moment.

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.

It's a shame that 'modern' has to be equivalent with low morality and irresponsibility.

True. The movies state neither thing. And all the comics really suggest is that Superman and Lois can't mate at ALL.

Not entirely true. Son of SUperman and Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? show that they can mate.

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.

It seems even sillier to ignore what the film suggests about their relationship.

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.

They weren't good friends at the time. Go back and check. But in terms of SR, it's his obligations due to being in a sexual relationship that really matter.

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?

In SR they were having sex. If Superman is not going to engage in casual sex then they were necessarily involved and even if they broke it off just before he left, he still has an obligation to her b/c they were so recently in a sexual relationship.

Exactly. And doing so without KNOWING ANY OF THE DETAILS.

C'mon, use your head and you can figure out enough to know what was intended.

 

[CorpusBlack]

The film needs a real threat for Supes to face. Luthor was a waste in SR for the most part. Although he is a major part in the Superman franchise, we need some villains like Darkseid, Bizarro, Brainiac and Metallo to show up. Bring back Zod. Hell bring in Mongul or Eradicator.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Sex doesn't necessarily obligate him; it's not a contract. It's his feelings, if anything, that would make him do or not do something; not an attitude of "well, I slept with her so I guess that means I've have to go say bye to her".

You're putting your own sexual morality on Superman.

Not saying good bye or having sex with Lois are hardly the greatest sins in the world. He's done worse in the comics and the movies. The mindwipe kiss from Superman II comes to mind. . .

Agreed on both accounts.

 

[X Knight]

and I disagree on both accounts........lol!

well, except for the the Amnesia Kiss from Supes 2. that's one of the few points where I disagree with mego joe.

I think that the Kiss is just as bad as anything that the SR supes does, not to mention a really dumb plot point.

Indeed, I liken that to knocking a girl up, then slipping her a "mind-erasing" drug that makes her forget...............completely immoral, imo.

Now, if Smallville's Lana wanted to give me an Amnesia kiss.....well, my friends, that's an entirely different story...........Lana.........
mmmmmmm........sigh........

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

and I disagree on both accounts........lol!

well, except for the the Amnesia Kiss from Supes 2. that's one of the few points where I disagree with mego joe.

I think that the Kiss is just as bad as anything that the SR supes does, not to mention a really dumb plot point.

Indeed, I liken that to knocking a girl up, then slipping her a "mind-erasing" drug that makes her forget...............completely immoral, imo.

Now, if Smallville's Lana wanted to give me an Amnesia kiss.....well, my friends, that's an entirely different story...........Lana.........
mmmmmmm........sigh........

Totally agree about the amnesia kiss, it was far worse than anything he did in SR IMO.

As for your last paragragh, agree 100%

 

[X-Maniac]

I'm not a fan of the 'amnesia kiss' or the reversing time (which Donner absurdly added to his cut of Superman 2)...but those movies are 20-30 years ago, a different era of more fantasy-based movies, not the reality-grounded sci-fi of today's films.

I still think Superman leaving earth without telling Lois, and all that this entails regarding the relationship and pregnancy, is poor storytelling built on very shaky foundations. I expected Singer to deal with this aspect in a much better way.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I honestly dont see the problem with it, the character makes a mistake, and develops and learns from it rather than taking the easy way which he often did in the Donner movies.

 

[mego joe]

I'm not a fan of the 'amnesia kiss' or the reversing time (which Donner absurdly added to his cut of Superman 2)...but those movies are 20-30 years ago, a different era of more fantasy-based movies, not the reality-grounded sci-fi of today's films.

I think you have a good point here. We may find the amnesia kiss and turning back time 'stupid,' but their contexts within their stories makes sense and is understandable.

I also think they are so fantastical that they work on some level b/c they are so implausible in the real world. B/c the approach to SUperman's character was different in that the basic notion was that he DOES know better and he has the powers to execute such actions without other repercussions it is plausible and acceptable.

When you examine Superman's motivation within the context of the film and not through a world view 25 years later when date rape drugs are used in real life, it really changes the notion of what was presented. At the time, however, it was viewed very differently.

I still think Superman leaving earth without telling Lois, and all that this entails regarding the relationship and pregnancy, is poor storytelling built on very shaky foundations. I expected Singer to deal with this aspect in a much better way.

Exactly. I would go a step further and say the basic idea of 'Paternity Test for Superman' is just a stupid idea and that there's no way to execute it well or make it truly fit the character.

 

[mego joe]

^I honestly dont see the problem with it, the character makes a mistake, and develops and learns from it rather than taking the easy way which he often did in the Donner movies.

For me, the challenges and conflicts presented in Superman and Superman II were about what it was like to be Superman. He faced problems only Superman would face, problems that were unique to being Superman. In SR, he faced a problem (chickening out of telling Lois he was leaving) that is so mundane and average, that it isn't really about the nature of what it is to be Superman, but just what it is to be a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN.

The essence of SUperman's character is that he IS a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN. It is essential to his character that we understand that. If you don't get that then you are missing the most basic aspect of his personality. THen when you follow the logic with SUperman REturns it turns out that he is having a problem not with how to be SUperman, but how to be just a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN.

Now how is it that Superman is having a problem being a genuinely good, honest and caring man?

Now, 'Jamon, I know you like the 'he's human' response. But that really isn't enough. All people are human, but not all are capable of the same mistakes. If you believe they are then you are discounting the individual difference between people based on how they were raised and what the value and what personal beliefs they hold.

As a new born baby all humans basically have the same 'chance' to make the same mistakes, but once they begin learning from their parents and becoming who they are going to be, they are not the same and not capable of making the same mistakes.

It's not as if SUperman arrived in Metropolis as an adult with a blank slate and no sense of morality or how to use his powers. THe point of SUperman is that he's already a good, honest and caring MAN and he has to figure out how to be Superman.

If Superman had been raised w/o the guidance of traditional morality and ethics then I can see how he would be capable of this mistakes he made in SR, but the fact is he was raised to be a good, honest and caring man and he failed at that in the backstory for SR. He failed at something that is essential to the character.

 

[mego joe]

^I honestly dont see the problem with it, the character makes a mistake, and develops and learns from it rather than taking the easy way which he often did in the Donner movies.

For me, the challenges and conflicts presented in Superman and Superman II were about what it was like to be Superman. He faced problems only Superman would face, problems that were unique to being Superman. In SR, he faced a problem (chickening out of telling Lois he was leaving) that is so mundane and average, that it isn't really about the nature of what it is to be Superman, but just what it is to be a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN.



The essence of SUperman's character is that he IS a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN. It is essential to his character that we understand that. If you don't get that then you are missing the most basic aspect of his personality. THen when you follow the logic with SUperman REturns it turns out that he is having a problem not with how to be SUperman, but how to be just a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN.



Now how is it that Superman is having a problem being a genuinely good, honest and caring man?



Now, 'Jamon, I know you like the 'he's human' response. But that really isn't enough. All people are human, but not all are capable of the same mistakes. If you believe they are then you are discounting the individual difference between people based on how they were raised and what the value and what personal beliefs they hold.



As a new born baby all humans basically have the same 'chance' to make the same mistakes, but once they begin learning from their parents and becoming who they are going to be, they are not the same and not capable of making the same mistakes.



It's not as if SUperman arrived in Metropolis as an adult with a blank slate and no sense of morality or how to use his powers. THe point of SUperman is that he's already a good, honest and caring MAN and he has to figure out how to be Superman.



If Superman had been raised w/o the guidance of traditional morality and ethics then I can see how he would be capable of this mistakes he made in SR, but the fact is he was raised to be a good, honest and caring man and he failed at that in the backstory for SR. He failed at something that is essential to the character.

 

[mego joe]

^I honestly dont see the problem with it, the character makes a mistake, and develops and learns from it rather than taking the easy way which he often did in the Donner movies.

For me, the challenges and conflicts presented in Superman and Superman II were about what it was like to be Superman. He faced problems only Superman would face, problems that were unique to being Superman. In SR, he faced a problem (chickening out of telling Lois he was leaving) that is so mundane and average, that it isn't really about the nature of what it is to be Superman, but just what it is to be a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN.



The essence of SUperman's character is that he IS a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN. It is essential to his character that we understand that. If you don't get that then you are missing the most basic aspect of his personality. THen when you follow the logic with SUperman REturns it turns out that he is having a problem not with how to be SUperman, but how to be just a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN.



Now how is it that Superman is having a problem being a genuinely good, honest and caring man?



Now, 'Jamon, I know you like the 'he's human' response. But that really isn't enough. All people are human, but not all are capable of the same mistakes. If you believe they are then you are discounting the individual difference between people based on how they were raised and what the value and what personal beliefs they hold.



As a new born baby all humans basically have the same 'chance' to make the same mistakes, but once they begin learning from their parents and becoming who they are going to be, they are not the same and not capable of making the same mistakes.



It's not as if SUperman arrived in Metropolis as an adult with a blank slate and no sense of morality or how to use his powers. THe point of SUperman is that he's already a good, honest and caring MAN and he has to figure out how to be Superman.



If Superman had been raised w/o the guidance of traditional morality and ethics then I can see how he would be capable of this mistakes he made in SR, but the fact is he was raised to be a good, honest and caring man and he failed at that in the backstory for SR. He failed at something that is essential to the character.

 

[wellsy]

And here was me thinking we'd left that behind.

Oh well, it'll give me something to read before I go away at least.

 

[X Knight]

no, we've merely moved the argument from one thread to another.....lol.

 

[mego joe]

Around and around and around it goes, where it stops nobody knows!!

 

[VenomsMom]

Oh goody...something new to talk about.

 

[Stallion9979]

I am a huge Superman fan but lets face it Returns was garbage...Singer has no idea what Superman is about...you need a director that cares about the character he's responsible for...I would love to see a Raimi type to get behind the camera...

Personally they could easily translate SV to the big screen and churn out amazing quality movies once every year....they know the characters they are playing and I think it would be a huge success...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

For me, the challenges and conflicts presented in Superman and Superman II were about what it was like to be Superman. He faced problems only Superman would face, problems that were unique to being Superman. In SR, he faced a problem (chickening out of telling Lois he was leaving) that is so mundane and average, that it isn't really about the nature of what it is to be Superman, but just what it is to be a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN.



The essence of SUperman's character is that he IS a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN. It is essential to his character that we understand that. If you don't get that then you are missing the most basic aspect of his personality. THen when you follow the logic with SUperman REturns it turns out that he is having a problem not with how to be SUperman, but how to be just a genuinely good, honest and caring MAN.



Now how is it that Superman is having a problem being a genuinely good, honest and caring man?



Now, 'Jamon, I know you like the 'he's human' response. But that really isn't enough. All people are human, but not all are capable of the same mistakes. If you believe they are then you are discounting the individual difference between people based on how they were raised and what the value and what personal beliefs they hold.



As a new born baby all humans basically have the same 'chance' to make the same mistakes, but once they begin learning from their parents and becoming who they are going to be, they are not the same and not capable of making the same mistakes.



It's not as if SUperman arrived in Metropolis as an adult with a blank slate and no sense of morality or how to use his powers. THe point of SUperman is that he's already a good, honest and caring MAN and he has to figure out how to be Superman.



If Superman had been raised w/o the guidance of traditional morality and ethics then I can see how he would be capable of this mistakes he made in SR, but the fact is he was raised to be a good, honest and caring man and he failed at that in the backstory for SR. He failed at something that is essential to the character.

But again Mega Joe, there are plenty of people who were raised by good, honest parents and turn into criminals, and vice versa, being raised a particular way doesnt mean you shouldnt/cant make a mistake, its part of being human, we are flawed.

Again, he makes a mistake, a big one, pays for it and apologises and wont make that same mistake again, that is human in nature, just as Superman is.

 

[mego joe]

But again Mega Joe, there are plenty of people who were raised by good, honest parents and turn into criminals, and vice versa, being raised a particular way doesnt mean you shouldnt/cant make a mistake, its part of being human, we are flawed.

But the point of SUperman is that his upbrining DOES impact how he lives his life and who he is.

Again, he makes a mistake, a big one, pays for it and apologises and wont make that same mistake again, that is human in nature, just as Superman is.

But that is NOT Superman, somebody else, but not Superman.

 

[nintendo nerd]

But the point of SUperman is that his upbrining DOES impact how he lives his life and who he is.


But that is NOT Superman, somebody else, but not Superman.

NOT the superman of 30 years ago.

 

[mego joe]

NOT the superman of 30 years ago.

Nor any SUperman. Ever. 30 years ago, 10 years ago, 2 years ago. It just isn't.

 

[Smit84]

But again Mega Joe, there are plenty of people who were raised by good, honest parents and turn into criminals, and vice versa, being raised a particular way doesnt mean you shouldnt/cant make a mistake, its part of being human, we are flawed.

Again, he makes a mistake, a big one, pays for it and apologises and wont make that same mistake again, that is human in nature, just as Superman is.

The thing is the mistake he makes is nothing more than a contrivance to get him off the planet for five years. It's really hard to buy into any human being, much less Superman, being so weak not to tell people they care about most they have to leave for a long time. The movie does nothing to explore how he was feeling at the time either.

 

[mego joe]

The thing is the mistake he makes is nothing more than a contrivance to get him off the planet for five years.

Exactly, incredibly weak storytelling.

It's really hard to buy into any human being, much less Superman, being so weak not to tell people they care about most they have to leave for a long time.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

The movie does nothing to explore how he was feeling at the time either.

Exactly, more weak storytelling.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^And thats the reason it isn't a good film to me. I didn't feel for superman at all, it wasn't his story it was Lois Lane,s. That might have been okay if the right actress had been cast but alas, it wasn't to be.

 

[X Knight]

agreed.

The story revolved more around Lois and even Lex, moreso than it did Clark/Supes.

That's what I really liked about the Spidey movies and Batman Begins ( and hopefully TDK ). Both movie series focused not just on the heroics, but on the PERSON......the "man behind the mask." So, we got to know Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne......not just Spiderman and Batman.

In SR, we barely got to know Superman, and we HARDLY got to know Clark / Kal-el......y'know, the real person. Who he is......and what makes him the great hero that he is......

 

[El Payaso]

agreed.

The story revolved more around Lois and even Lex, moreso than it did Clark/Supes.

That's what I really liked about the Spidey movies and Batman Begins ( and hopefully TDK ). Both movie series focused not just on the heroics, but on the PERSON......the "man behind the mask." So, we got to know Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne......not just Spiderman and Batman.

In SR, we barely got to know Superman, and we HARDLY got to know Clark / Kal-el......y'know, the real person. Who he is......and what makes him the great hero that he is......

Since it is a sequel for STM and SII, we have plenty on those previous movies about that.