Superman Returns Has anyone else here read 'Up, Up And Away?'

[Angeloz]

That Frued stuff is whacked. There's a lot more to psychology than Frued. You have behaviorism, physiological dysfunction etc...

Did you make a couple of Freudian slips?

By the way I wasn't arguing with what you said about the subconscious because it sounds about right. Though I only really encountered psychology from entertainment. So it's all Austrian to me.

Angeloz

 

[dr collossus]

Yeah, that Frued stuff is whack. It was Frued who originally came up with all that stuff you're saying, about the Ego and Id etc, which is basically what you're saying mega joe. There is nothing that operates 'below' the level of conscious thought apart from automatic functions.

 

[dr collossus]

So it's all Austrian to me.

Nice.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I have the original single issues and I know they changed some things for the collected edition, but I don't think they changed that. I think you have Superman: Infinite Crisis and just Infinite Crisis.

Yeah, i have Superman : Infinite Crisis, is this why i didnt see the Rao bit?

I think he genuinely lost his powers, but repressed them once they returned. Getting back to the point I was making, even though it was subconscious, he still essentially chose to keep Superman from the world.

So you are saying he acted selfishly by subconsciously repressing his powers? That was my immediate thought when reading it.

 

[Swordmaster]

Yeah, i have Superman : Infinite Crisis, is this why i didnt see the Rao bit?

Yeah, the Rao bit actually occured in Infinite Crisis, the DC mega event.

http://www.amazon.com/Infinite-Cris...2680765?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192921136&sr=8-1

 

[mego joe]

Yeah, i have Superman : Infinite Crisis, is this why i didnt see the Rao bit?

Yes. THat's in the separate Trade called simply "Infinite Crisis." It was originally in #7 of the mini-series when it came out as single issuses.

 

[mego joe]

Yeah, that Frued stuff is whack. It was Frued who originally came up with all that stuff you're saying, about the Ego and Id etc, which is basically what you're saying mega joe. There is nothing that operates 'below' the level of conscious thought apart from automatic functions.

I don't have a Psychology degree, but this article seems to indicate there is more to the 'subconscious' than the theories of Freud and Jung.

http://skepdic.com/unconscious.html

Excerpts:

It would be absurd to reject the notion of the unconscious mind simply because we reject the Freudian notion of the unconscious as a reservoir of repressed memories of traumatic experiences. We should recognize that it was Freud more than anyone else who forced us to recognize unconscious factors as significant determinants of human behavior. Furthermore, it seems obvious that much, if not most, of one's brain's activity occurs without our awareness. There is no question that we sense many things without being consciously aware of them (see clever Hans phenomenon, for example). There is also no question that unconscious factors can affect behavior or motor action (see ideomotor action, for example). There is little question that many unconscious factors drive such complex phenomena as language ability. Consciousness or self-awareness is obviously the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But most interest in the unconscious mind has been restricted to potentially harmful memories that might be stored or stirring there, memories of bad experiences that influence our conscious behavior even though we are unaware of their impact.

It is assumed that the unconscious is distinguished from the conscious by the fact that we are aware of conscious experience, but unaware of the unconscious. However, there is ample scientific data to establish as a fact that some conscious perception goes on without self-consciousness. It is possible to be unaware of having experienced something and unable to remember the experience, but still give evidence that one has had the experience. Several examples should suffice to establish this point.

1. blindness denial. There are cases of brain-damaged people who are blind but who are unaware of it.

2. jargon aphasia. There are cases of brain-damaged people who speak unintelligibly but aren't aware of it.

3. blindsight. There are cases of brain-damaged people who see things but are unaware of it.

4. oral/verbal dissociation. There are cases of brain- damaged people who cannot orally tell you what you just said, but they can write it down correctly. Furthermore, they can't remember what they wrote down or what it refers to.
5. sensing without seeing. There are many cases of people whose brains are not damaged who give evidence that they have seen or heard something even though they are not conscious of having seen or heard the item in question.

​

Neuroscience tells us that a memory is a set of connections among groups of neurons that participate in the encoding process. Encoding can take place in several parts of the brain. Neural connections go across various parts of the brain; the stronger the connections, the stronger the memory. Recollection of an event can occur by a stimulus to any of the parts of the brain where a neural connection for the memory occurs. If part of the brain is damaged, access to any neural data that was there is lost. On the other hand, if the brain is healthy and a person is fully conscious when experiencing some trauma, the likelihood that they will forget the event is near zero, unless either they are very young or they later experience a brain injury.


Without going into a long discussion of whether or not the writers of Up Up and Away are really aware of how the mind works, it seems that this article touches upon information that might indicate how SUperman could lose his powers and not be able to access them until he is forced to re-experience them by some other similarly significant event, especially considering he was in the presence of the red sun.

 

[Angeloz]

Very interesting mego joe.

That blindness denial seems potentially dangerous. Does that mean they imagine a room or area and what it looks like?

Also he seems to maybe have something like blindsight. Where he does have his powers but can't feel them or access them.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

Very interesting mego joe.

That blindness denial seems potentially dangerous. Does that mean they imagine a room or area and what it looks like?

I guess they are 'seeing' something in their mind's eye they've already experienced and they can't distinguish it from what is really going on.

Also he seems to maybe have something like blindsight. Where he does have his powers but can't feel them or access them.

Angeloz

That's what I was thinking. Something like that. Of course, it really depends on the writers and their understanding of concepts like 'subconscious,' 'unconscious,' 'repression,' and the like.

However, this page from Action # 839 seems to give the most insight as to what is happening in the story.

He genuinely seems not to know. He questions whether or not it was 'repression,' suggesting that he may have wanted to be able to live as an ordinary man but he also hopes it wasn't that but does not come to repression as the ultimate conclusion. Instead, he claims, 'he may NEVER know.'

This would indicate the phenomena does not have a definite explanation, but at the very least Superman and by default the writers believe that it is possible for people to surpress things w/o their conscious mind being aware. It could also indicate that the phenomena is something unexplainable by normal psychological/ physiological stanadards.

I think it is clear enough to say that SUperman did not

essentially chose to keep Superman from the world

or

( act) selfishly by subconsciously repressing his powers

At the very least, whether or not it is possible to 'subconsciously' repress something in real life, in the story any sort of repression would be a subconscious act based on what is in the story itself.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I guess they are 'seeing' something in their mind's eye they've already experienced and they can't distinguish it from what is really going on.


That's what I was thinking. Something like that. Of course, it really depends on the writers and their understanding of concepts like 'subconscious,' 'unconscious,' 'repression,' and the like.

However, this page from Action # 839 seems to give the most insight as to what is happening in the story.

He genuinely seems not to know. He questions whether or not it was 'repression,' suggesting that he may have wanted to be able to live as an ordinary man but he also hopes it wasn't that but does not come to repression as the ultimate conclusion. Instead, he claims, 'he may NEVER know.'

This would indicate the phenomena does not have a definite explanation, but at the very least Superman and by default the writers believe that it is possible for people to surpress things w/o their conscious mind being aware. It could also indicate that the phenomena is something unexplainable by normal psychological/ physiological stanadards.

I think it is clear enough to say that SUperman did not



or



At the very least, whether or not it is possible to 'subconsciously' repress something in real life, in the story any sort of repression would be a subconscious act based on what is in the story itself.

I think the story strongly suggests that it was Supermans own doing, the bit with the GL ring showed he sees himself as Clark Kent, a human, rather than Superman. And Superman even suggests it himself during the story.

 

[mego joe]

I think the story strongly suggests that it was Supermans own doing, the bit with the GL ring showed he sees himself as Clark Kent, a human, rather than Superman. And Superman even suggests it himself during the story.

Because he believes himself powerless at that time.

The point was that we were talking whether or not he is conscious of it, repressing his powers. My point was that the story suggests that it is possible he repressed them but that he was UNAWARE of it, that it was not a conscious decision he made to repress his powers and deprive the world of Superman.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Because he believes himself powerless at that time.

The point was that we were talking whether or not he is conscious of it, repressing his powers. My point was that the story suggests that it is possible he repressed them but that he was UNAWARE of it, that it was not a conscious decision he made to repress his powers and deprive the world of Superman.

But you could still claim it was a selfish act even if he does it subconsciously, its obvious in the terms of the story that he just wants a normal life with Lois rather than being Superman.

Which i have absolutely no problem with of course, just like i have no problem with the events in SR.

 

[mego joe]

But you could still claim it was a selfish act even if he does it subconsciously, its obvious in the terms of the story that he just wants a normal life with Lois rather than being Superman.

Which i have absolutely no problem with of course, just like i have no problem with the events in SR.

THe point we're discussing though originally was did SUperman knowlingly repress his powers. Now of course even subconsciously it could still be consider selfish to do so, but the question I am answering no to and I believe is supported from the story is that he would not knowingly keep SUperman from the people of Earth. Perhaps subconsciously and unkown to himself he would repress his powers, but he would never consciously keep himself depowered by his own choice.

For the record, I don't think the selfishness in SR lies with him going to Krypton, but rather the way in which he chooses to go, knowingly hurting Lois in the process and failing to be honest with her.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

THe point we're discussing though originally was did SUperman knowlingly repress his powers. Now of course even subconsciously it could still be consider selfish to do so, but the question I am answering no to and I believe is supported from the story is that he would not knowingly keep SUperman from the people of Earth. Perhaps subconsciously and unkown to himself he would repress his powers, but he would never consciously keep himself depowered by his own choice.

For the record, I don't think the selfishness in SR lies with him going to Krypton, but rather the way in which he chooses to go, knowingly hurting Lois in the process and failing to be honest with her.

Your probably right, i dont think he would knowingly keep Superman from earth, perhaps only to have a normal life with Lois.

As for the way he leaves in SR, i still dont he did it for selfish reasons. As for UUAA, i do think he was suconsciously being selfish when he surpressed his powers.

 

[X Knight]

as mego joe said, Superman going to Krypton was not the problem itself. Going to Krypton to search for survivors, possibly including his Birth Parents, is not selfish. In fact, it is very noble and poignant.

It was the WAY Superman left, mainly without telling Lois.......THAT'S the problem.......and that's what made Superman look like an emotional coward....

 

[mego joe]

as mego joe said, Superman going to Krypton was not the problem itself. Going to Krypton to search for survivors, possibly including his Birth Parents, is not selfish. In fact, it is very noble and poignant.

It was the WAY Superman left, mainly without telling Lois.......THAT'S the problem.......and that's what made Superman look like an emotional coward....

Exactly, leaving Lois w/o saying goodbye only hurts her worse than if she knew the truth. It is completely out of character for Superman and is the single plot point in the story that drives the rest of the film. As stated above it characterizes him as selfish and an emotional coward. The only reason he did it was so that HE would not suffer. Lois was going to suffer anyway, he just made it worse.

Not Superman.

 

[mego joe]

Your probably right, i dont think he would knowingly keep Superman from earth, perhaps only to have a normal life with Lois.

I can buy this. He genuinely loses his powers for a time due to exposure to the red sun. He focusses on Clark's life and responsibilities and then he comes to see himself as only Clark Kent and believes that is all there is, so it takes some trigger event to get him to believe in his powers again.

As for the way he leaves in SR, i still dont he did it for selfish reasons.

I don't see how it can be any other way when he does it so HE doesn't have to see Lois again. It's all about him, not her- that is the epitome of being selfish, he's only considering what is going to affect him, not her.

As for UUAA, i do think he was suconsciously being selfish when he surpressed his powers.

I think it's quite possible, or he could just have believed that his powers were gone for good so he just focussed on Clark, got caught up in only living one life and 'lost sight' of his self-image of being SUperman.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I can buy this. He genuinely loses his powers for a time due to exposure to the red sun. He focusses on Clark's life and responsibilities and then he comes to see himself as only Clark Kent and believes that is all there is, so it takes some trigger event to get him to believe in his powers again.

Well i think he sees himself as Clark Kent in the first place, the exposure to Rao sapping his powers and then him (In whatever way) not having them for a year just made it easier for him to finally become 'human' IMO.

I don't see how it can be any other way when he does it so HE doesn't have to see Lois again. It's all about him, not her- that is the epitome of being selfish, he's only considering what is going to affect him, not her.

As i have said before, i dont think he didnt say goodbye to Lois to make it easier on HIM, i think he did it because he thought it would be easier on HER, and i dont see that as selfish.

I think it's quite possible, or he could just have believed that his powers were gone for good so he just focussed on Clark, got caught up in only living one life and 'lost sight' of his self-image of being SUperman.

Possibly, the comic didnt really give us enough to make a definate decision either way(as far as i remember, havent read it in a while), but it seemed to imply that Superman was subconciously repressing his powers because he wanted a normal life with Lois.

 

[mego joe]

As i have said before, i dont think he didnt say goodbye to Lois to make it easier on HIM, i think he did it because he thought it would be easier on HER, and i dont see that as selfish.

Doesn't he say he didn't say goodbye b/c it was 'too difficult' and if he did he wouldn't be able to go?

Clearly this indicates he is considering his own feelings. He doesn't say it would be too difficult for Lois, it is obvious it is too difficult for HIM to say goodbye to Lois.

Common sense tells you that it is only going to hurt Lois more not knowing why Superman has disappeared rather than knowing the reasons before it happens.

Lois not knowing doesn't benefit her, it only hurts her more and taken with the knowledge that he's thinking of himself and not Lois, clearly makes it selfish.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Doesn't he say he didn't say goodbye b/c it was 'too difficult' and if he did he wouldn't be able to go?

Clearly this indicates he is considering his own feelings. He doesn't say it would be too difficult for Lois, it is obvious it is too difficult for HIM to say goodbye to Lois.

Common sense tells you that it is only going to hurt Lois more not knowing why Superman has disappeared rather than knowing the reasons before it happens.

Lois not knowing doesn't benefit her, it only hurts her more and taken with the knowledge that he's thinking of himself and not Lois, clearly makes it selfish.

Yes, it was too difficult for him to see her in pain, IMO his motivations are totally understandable in that context. It doesnt mean he was right to not say goodbye, but i think Superman realises his error and corrects it later on.

 

[mego joe]

Yes, it was too difficult for him to see her in pain,

Isn't that selfish? He knows it's going to hurt her, so he just doesn't tell her, because he's thinking about himself, not her. He's going anyway and she's going to be hurt, right? He's only talking about his feelings, not hers. That is the definition of selfish.

IMO his motivations are totally understandable in that context. It doesnt mean he was right to not say goodbye, but i think Superman realises his error and corrects it later on.

But it's not understandable. WHy avoid telling Lois the truth? Why is he being selfish? There is nothing to give this any more meaning than portraying him as selfish which is completely anti-thetical to the essence of the character and completely out of character for him to do considering he LOVES this woman. SInger has characterized the nature of their relationship entirely. He's developed it with the maturity of a high school level relationship. THat's how Superman and Lois are portrayed. It' doesn't resound with the maturity of what Superman's character is supposed to be. Just like SUperman's characterization, the portrayal of the relationship is all wrong.

And he cannot correct his error, that ship has sailed and he's made a huge mess of a situation with Lois, Jason and RIchard. He does however not make it again. It seems paltry though, considering the mess he's already made.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Isn't that selfish? He knows it's going to hurt her, so he just doesn't tell her, because he's thinking about himself, not her. He's going anyway and she's going to be hurt, right? He's only talking about his feelings, not hers. That is the definition of selfish.

Not wanting to hurt someone else is selfish? Sorry i disagree.

But it's not understandable. WHy avoid telling Lois the truth? Why is he being selfish? There is nothing to give this any more meaning than portraying him as selfish which is completely anti-thetical to the essence of the character and completely out of character for him to do considering he LOVES this woman. SInger has characterized the nature of their relationship entirely. He's developed it with the maturity of a high school level relationship. THat's how Superman and Lois are portrayed. It' doesn't resound with the maturity of what Superman's character is supposed to be. Just like SUperman's characterization, the portrayal of the relationship is all wrong.

And again i dont find his characterisatio to be wrong, i just think it developed from one thing into another, IMO SR ws about him truly growing into manhood, and this is capped off at the end when he becomes a father.

And he cannot correct his error, that ship has sailed and he's made a huge mess of a situation with Lois, Jason and RIchard. He does however not make it again. It seems paltry though, considering the mess he's already made.

No he cannot correct his error, but at least he admitted he made one, and apologised and learned from it, which is what i find interesting about him in SR, despite having the powers of a God he still is able to act like a human, and by the end of the movie, he has truly developed IMO.

 

[mego joe]

Not wanting to hurt someone else is selfish? Sorry i disagree.

It's selfish b/c he chooses to hurt her worse and NOT lessen the blow and explain himself. Can you not see the difference? She's going to be hurt no matter what, why make it worse by not being honest with her?

And again i dont find his characterisation to be wrong, i just think it developed from one thing into another,

It developed from Singer misunderstanding the essence of the character.
The essence of Superman is that he REALLY is that selfless and a boy scout. Not a person who acts one way and public and another way in private. He doesn’t get that he does put Lois first. And that their relationship is real love, not an immature infatuation.

IMO SR was about him truly growing into manhood, and this is capped off at the end when he becomes a father.

Which makes no sense considering this story took place 5 years into his career when he left for Krypton. And that’s why it’s out of character. That is not Superman’s story. He isn’t a screw up that learns things the hard way. He already understands morality, right and wrong, which is why he can be Superman. What you are describing is a coming of age story for a teenager. That is not Superman’s story.

Additionally, at the end when he became a father was when he was away. He only found out about it at the end b/c he’d made such a mess of things. If he’d behaved responsibly and maturely, he would have found out when he first returned.

Lastly, he’s no more a father at the end than the beginning. HE’s not raising Jason, he’s only a genetic contributor at that point. He’s lost the chance to be Jason’s father.

No he cannot correct his error, but at least he admitted he made one, and apologised and learned from it, which is what i find interesting about him in SR, despite having the powers of a God he still is able to act like a human, and by the end of the movie, he has truly developed IMO.

And for me the whole thing is irrelevant b/c he should never be in the situation to begin with.

It all starts with him having sex with Lois and her not knowing about his dual identity beforehand, or at any other point in their relationship.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It's selfish b/c he chooses to hurt her worse and NOT lessen the blow and explain himself. Can you not see the difference? She's going to be hurt no matter what, why make it worse by not being honest with her?

Again, i think he just thought the pain of him just leaving would be less than then the pain of him leaving for a reason Lois would not likely understand. It is simply, a mistake, which Superman can make, and which he has made in all mediums.

It developed from Singer misunderstanding the essence of the character.
The essence of Superman is that he REALLY is that selfless and a boy scout. Not a person who acts one way and public and another way in private. He doesn’t get that he does put Lois first. And that their relationship is real love, not an immature infatuation.

And thats the point, Superman hasnt known real love before, so he doesnt know how best to act when the chance he may lose it arises.

Which makes no sense considering this story took place 5 years into his career when he left for Krypton. And that’s why it’s out of character. That is not Superman’s story. He isn’t a screw up that learns things the hard way. He already understands morality, right and wrong, which is why he can be Superman. What you are describing is a coming of age story for a teenager. That is not Superman’s story.

It wasnt 5 years into his career IMO, the end of Superman/the very beginning of Superman II is were the vague history stops from what i have heard Singer say.

Additionally, at the end when he became a father was when he was away. He only found out about it at the end b/c he’d made such a mess of things. If he’d behaved responsibly and maturely, he would have found out when he first returned.

And thats the irony of the story, he spent 5 years on a failed mission to find others like him, when one was here all along.

Lastly, he’s no more a father at the end than the beginning. HE’s not raising Jason, he’s only a genetic contributor at that point. He’s lost the chance to be Jason’s father.

There is really no basis for these claims IMO Mega Joe, because Superman getting the chance to raise Jason is a story yet to be told in a future movie.

And for me the whole thing is irrelevant b/c he should never be in the situation to begin with.

It all starts with him having sex with Lois and her not knowing about his dual identity beforehand, or at any other point in their relationship.

Which has roots in the comics .

 

[mego joe]

Again, i think he just thought the pain of him just leaving would be less than then the pain of him leaving for a reason Lois would not likely understand. It is simply, a mistake, which Superman can make, and which he has made in all mediums.

I think this particular mistake is completely not in keeping with who Superman is. THere is no reason to think what you are supposing, especially when in the film he says it's too difficult for him, he is not talking about her her, he is talking about himself. Additionally, why would Lois not understand?

And thats the point, Superman hasnt known real love before, so he doesnt know how best to act when the chance he may lose it arises.

Yet if he believes in 'truth and justice' it would make sense that the truth would work best. Lying or hiding the truth seems like it would be wrong if he wants to save his relationship.

What you are suggesting is not in the movie. You are making up a context that is not in the film.

It wasnt 5 years into his career IMO, the end of Superman/the very beginning of Superman II is were the vague history stops from what i have heard Singer say.

Extras on the DVD show that it was 5 years into his career. The Donner films are vague and thematic history, not exact historical chronicles of the events of his life.

And thats the irony of the story, he spent 5 years on a failed mission to find others like him, when one was here all along.

It may be the irony of the story, but it doesn't mean that this type of irony is appropriate for Superman.

There is really no basis for these claims IMO Mega Joe, because Superman getting the chance to raise Jason is a story yet to be told in a future movie.

Considering the circumstances of Jason's conception and first 4 years of life, Superman isn't going to get the chance.

Which has roots in the comics .

Nope. Superman and Lois have never had sex in the comics w/o Lois knowing his dual identity, nor did it happen in the previous Superman movies.