What I said is technically correct, he abandoned his pregnant girlfriend...who he didn't know was pregnant. Abandoning your girlfriend is wrong under any circumstances...break it up face to face is the mature adult thing to do. If he had spoken to her, he might have known she was pregnant. There is nothing excusing his cowardly behavior here. If someone in real world abandons his girlfriend to go back and visit his home country, is the excuse "I didn't know you were pregnant" really gonna cut it when Lois is raising a child on her own?
If you describe a plot as “guy abandons his pregnant girlfriend” you’re connoting a certain context as to the character’s knowledge and his dubious morality. Clearly, it’s incorrect to apply that description here. Likewise, a story about a soldier returning from war to discover that he’s a father could not be properly described as “guy abandons his pregnant girlfriend” – it misrepresents the factual details. Also keep in mind – while Jason’s paternity was confirmed to the audience with the events on Luthor’s yacht, Superman only got the news late into the third act. Whereupon, his
very next action was a visit to Jason and the issue of a promise: “...you’ll never be alone.” You’d be hard-pressed to call this “abandonment.”
Lifting up Lois for an embrace and almost kissing her isn't active wooing[?] What about all the constant stalking? Trying to save their lives while sneaking in a peak doesn't negate his attempt at interfering with their relationship. After all..."she's still in love with you know who."
Clearly, Superman and Lois have a history. Just as clearly, there continues to exist a strong,
mutual attraction between them – despite the years and Richard’s presence. That’s the point; this conflict is a central aspect of the story. But if you look at the film carefully, you’ll note that this conflict (as far as Superman is concerned) is resolved at almost
precisely the midpoint of the narrative (the DP rooftop scene). From there on, nothing that he does could be remotely described as trying to break up Lois and Richard. As I indicated before, Superman saves the Lois-Richard-Jason family unit. And when he undertakes the task of launching a kryptonite-infused NK into space, he has no expectation of surviving. Among the many families that will be saved is
Lois’s.
By “constant stalking” I assume you’re referring to the
single instance of Supes confirming Lois’s domestic contentment at her (and Richard’s) house. Stalking implies some sort of obsessive pleasure derived through the act of spying. And, obviously, there was nothing about the information that Supes gleaned from the overheard conversation that was pleasurable. Dramatically, it indicated to Superman that Lois had (ostensibly) moved on and that he was out of the picture. In another genre, this plot point might have been conveyed through the inadvertent discovery of a letter. In this (Superman) tale, different means were used – but the same ends were arrived at.
The bedroom scene was one of the worst conclusions I've seen in a blockbuster superhero film in last decade. You find out this enormous detail about who finally the father of kid is (big question trumped up in the movie)....and Lois and Superman stare at each other and walk off....leaving us waiting to find out what they're all gonna do about this in a never-to-happen sequel. You're gonna have to deal with all that "boring" parenting responsibility stuff eventually. There was no closure here and made all the anticipation of the reveal pointless to the movie's plot. We should be anticipating the next villain, not how Richard is gonna handle being thrown under the bus Lois and Clark.
I have no special insights on the proper way to end blockbusters. But I take the view that
SR is a good
drama and an interesting exploration of the superhero archetype. So from that perspective, the soliloquy at the end (and not wordy exposition about shared custody or new family arrangements) was the better dramatic closure to the narrative.
