Sequels Question for those who didn´t like the movie...

[FlawlessVictory]

People forget, but in 1980 it was a HUGE deal that Clark gave up on his powers for lois and slept with her. It was Earth-shattering. These days, I hardly find fans who complain too much about it (and Donner´s version has that too, only not in the same order).

At least Superman revealed himself to be Clark Kent as well in Donner's Superman before he slept with her. Singer has his Superman sleeping with Lois without her even knowing he is Clark as well. A little too sleazy for my liking.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i dont mind that supes hooked up without lois knowing he's clark. essentially because superman is the real personality and clark is just a fake disguise. and for some reason, if it were clark who hooked up with lois without her knowing he's supes, i couldnt imagine too many people being pissed with that. you never hear people complaining about batman hooking up with catwoman without her knowing he's bruce wayne. its the same thing, really.

 

[Lighthouse]

i dont mind that supes hooked up without lois knowing he's clark. essentially because superman is the real personality and clark is just a fake disguise. and for some reason, if it were clark who hooked up with lois without her knowing he's supes, i couldnt imagine too many people being pissed with that. you never hear people complaining about batman hooking up with catwoman without her knowing he's bruce wayne. its the same thing, really.

I don't think it matters that Superman is the real personality, its an issue of trust. And you really can't compare the Catwoman/Batman thing to this, as the situation is completely different. The situation between Batman and Catwoman could not be any more different then the situation between Lois and Superman.

 

[hammy]

i dont mind that supes hooked up without lois knowing he's clark. essentially because superman is the real personality and clark is just a fake disguise.

Or is he? Being Superman is his job. He spends more time living as Clark than Supes. And I even might dare to suggest he is happier as Clark, then as Kal-el.

 

[Matt]

i dont mind that supes hooked up without lois knowing he's clark. essentially because superman is the real personality and clark is just a fake disguise. and for some reason, if it were clark who hooked up with lois without her knowing he's supes, i couldnt imagine too many people being pissed with that. you never hear people complaining about batman hooking up with catwoman without her knowing he's bruce wayne. its the same thing, really.

And there is one of my fundamental problems with the Singer/Donner approach. I perfer the "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do" take on the character.

Furthermore, you can't compare Bats and Catwoman. Catwoman is on even playing field, she too know wears a mask and has a secret identity. Lois is a civilian. Plus you can argue that Bruce isn't really in love with Catwoman where as Superman claims to be in love with Lois. You don't use an alter ego that she idealizes to bed a girl you are "in love" with.

 

[Motown Marvel]

I don't think it matters that Superman is the real personality, its an issue of trust. And you really can't compare the Catwoman/Batman thing to this, as the situation is completely different.

so it'd be wrong for clark to get with lois without her knowing he's superman? or it'd be wrong for superman to get with wonder woman without her knowing he's clark? would it be wrong for superman to get with a chick who doesnt even know who clark kent is, without supes telling her he has a secret identity?

its superman lois trusts and loves and wants to be with, and she willingly gave herself to him, that was her business and decision. true, it might be a bit decieving on supes' behalf...but since clark is a fictional personality, its not who he is, its not what defines him...i can understand it. besides, imagine how much that'd have killed the moment! right before he's about to get some pu$$y he's gotta be like, "before we do this, theres something i gotta tell you..." lois woulda bolted for the door! ha.

but, i dont think it's so much wrong as it would just be a real awkward situation when lois finds out the truth...

SUPERMAN: okay, so heres the thing, now your gonna get a real kick out of this...maybe not right away, but in a few years your gonna laugh real hard over this...and i figure i should tell you now, what with us having a child and all....

And there is one of my fundamental problems with the Singer/Donner approach. I perfer the "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do" take on the character.

but thats a take on the character that didnt originate in the donner/singer films, nor is it exclusive to them. just saying, singer and donner cant be blamed for that existing. some people dig that, some people dont...any supes film is gonna lose with certian people no matter which way they go with that.

Furthermore, you can't compare Bats and Catwoman. Catwoman is on even playing field, she too know wears a mask and has a secret identity. Lois is a civilian. Plus you can argue that Bruce isn't really in love with Catwoman where as Superman claims to be in love with Lois. You don't use an alter ego that she idealizes to bed a girl you are "in love" with.

but bruce always knew catwoman was selina. her secret identity wasnt a secret to him. but selina never knew bats was bruce. so its not an entirely even playing field. they're just in the same profession of kicking ass.

 

[Thunder Emperor]

i dont mind that supes hooked up without lois knowing he's clark. essentially because superman is the real personality and clark is just a fake disguise. and for some reason, if it were clark who hooked up with lois without her knowing he's supes, i couldnt imagine too many people being pissed with that. you never hear people complaining about batman hooking up with catwoman without her knowing he's bruce wayne. its the same thing, really.

The flaw in that arguement, is one of the thing SR2 does not appeal to me. Superman has 2 not 3. Ther eis clark in smallville ? superman then ther eis clark in metropolis.Being superman is not a heritage for he, its a choic ehe made with the aid of his proper upbrings by the kent. Its qiuite simple, without the kents there would be no superman.

Like batman said in the early issues of the current Superman/batman comic series " thank God for the kents raising him, because the man is a God amognst men" just to paraphrase for you there. So him hooking up with tlois withou t knowing he is clark is just wrong. Plain and simple

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Its qiuite simple, without the kents there would be no superman.

Actually, it's the other away around. Without the Kents, there would be no Clark Kent. Superman was born Superman.

 

[Motown Marvel]

The flaw in that arguement, is one of the thing SR2 does not appeal to me. Superman has 2 not 3. Ther eis clark in smallville ? superman then ther eis clark in metropolis.Being superman is not a heritage for he, its a choic ehe made with the aid of his proper upbrings by the kent. Its qiuite simple, without the kents there would be no superman.

Like batman said in the early issues of the current Superman/batman comic series " thank God for the kents raising him, because the man is a God amognst men" just to paraphrase for you there. So him hooking up with tlois withou t knowing he is clark is just wrong. Plain and simple

well, the clark growing up in smallville is essentially what became superman. to put it differently, theres the clark disguise...then theres the real personality, call it what you will, kal-el, superman, whatever...

 

[hammy]

so it'd be wrong for clark to get with lois without her knowing he's superman? or it'd be wrong for superman to get with wonder woman without her knowing he's clark? would it be wrong for superman to get with a chick who doesnt even know who clark kent is, without supes telling her he has a secret identity?

its superman lois trusts and loves and wants to be with, and she willingly gave herself to him, that was her business and decision. true, it might be a bit decieving on supes' behalf...but since clark is a fictional personality, its not who he is, its not what defines him...i can understand it. besides, imagine how much that'd have killed the moment! right before he's about to get some pu$$y he's gotta be like, "before we do this, theres something i gotta tell you..." lois woulda bolted for the door! ha.

but, i dont think it's so much wrong as it would just be a real awkward situation when lois finds out the truth...

SUPERMAN: okay, so heres the thing, now your gonna get a real kick out of this...maybe not right away, but in a few years your gonna laugh real hard over this...and i figure i should tell you now, what with us having a child and all....


but thats a take on the character that didnt originate in the donner/singer films, nor is it exclusive to them. just saying, singer and donner cant be blamed for that existing. some people dig that, some people dont...any supes film is gonna lose with certian people no matter which way they go with that.


but bruce always knew catwoman was selina. her secret identity wasnt a secret to him. but selina never knew bats was bruce. so its not an entirely even playing field. they're just in the same profession of kicking ass.

My problem with it is that it's just not in his nature to be deceptive in that way. Yes, there is a part of him willing to carry on the whole Clark deception/facade, but that relates directly to his performance as Superman. I don't think he wants to lie, he just doesn't know what else to do to protect his calling. He has to maintain the ability to swoop in and save people, and though dishonesty is against his nature, he allows himself to indulge in it, in this particular case, and for a very specific purpose. Which he sees as serving the better good. But to carry deception into his relationship with Lois, that just seems to be something that goes against his nature in a very fundamental way, and with no over-riding "higher purpose," reason. It just doesn't seem like something that he would do.

 

[Lighthouse]

but bruce always knew catwoman was selina. her secret identity wasnt a secret to him. but selina never knew bats was bruce. so its not an entirely even playing field. they're just in the same profession of kicking ass.

The situation is different because Batman and Catwoman are two incredibly damaged people. There is some kind of creepy stuff between them, but its more acceptable to me because of who the characters are. Its less believeable to me when its Superman and Lois. If Superman and Lois's relationship was just that of a one night stand, then thats a big problem for me. If it was an intense and loving relationship, then its still a problem because he hid a very huge part of his life from her.

 

[Motown Marvel]

My problem with it is that it's just not in his nature to be deceptive in that way. Yes, there is a part of him willing to carry on the whole Clark deception/facade, but that relates directly to his performance as Superman. I don't think he wants to lie, he just doesn't know what else to do to protect his calling. He has to maintain the ability to swoop in and save people, and though dishonesty is against his nature, he allows himself to indulge in it, in this particular case, and for a very specific purpose. Which he sees as serving the better good. But to carry deception into his relationship with Lois, that just seems to be something that goes against his nature in a very fundamental way, and with no over-riding "higher purpose," reason. It just doesn't seem like something that he would do.

yeah, i totally understand the argument. and im not saying supes isnt guilty of anything. im just saying, i dont think its as big a deal as people make it out to be. i mean, essentially, since clark is a fake person, he doesnt really figure into the relationship with lois...outside the fact he's a guy she works with. i think people are mostly weirded out by it because its clear lois would never sleep with clark (the disguise). but if "clark" is just a ficticious disguise, then how much does that really matter.

 

[hammy]

essentially, since clark is a fake person,

You take that back!

 

[Motown Marvel]

The situation is different because Batman and Catwoman are two incredibly damaged people. There is some kind of creepy stuff between them, but its more acceptable to me because of who the characters are. Its less believeable to me when its Superman and Lois. If Superman and Lois's relationship was just that of a one night stand, then thats a big problem for me. If it was an intense and loving relationship, then its still a problem because he hid a very huge part of his life from her.

i dont think it was ever suppose to be portrayed as a one night stand. i think it was more along the lines of they never got the oppertunity to follow through with their intentions due to the circumstances that surround them.

and the clark disguise is just something that allows him to operate amongst people, its not who he is...lois fell in love with and slept with who he really is. i think it'd be a greater disaster if she slept with clark not knowing he's supes.

but like i said in response to casey just above, i understand the argument against it...i guess it just doesnt bother me as much since clark isnt "real" and essentially doesnt figure into their relationship.

 

[Thunder Emperor]

Actually, it's the other away around. Without the Kents, there would be no Clark Kent. Superman was born Superman.

Are you freaking kidding me. When he was born he was not named superman. He was named Ka-el. Then clark kent. I grew up with superman type values. Where did he get those values from, the kents. You guys fail to see the point. that superman is the product of his up bringing not his DNA. yes he has superpowers but he chocie to be a force for good,. truth, justice and the American way. Where did he get his damn American way from the kent farm in Smallivlle, kansa. Not krypton. Lord help me.

 

[Thunder Emperor]

And there is one of my fundamental problems with the Singer/Donner approach. I perfer the "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do" take on the character.
.

Well said.

 

[GreenKToo]

Villain is back with another cryptic post.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=279810&page=3

 

[Super Kal]

I perfer the "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do" take on the character.

I never did like that take...

 

[Delete]

... Let´s say, hypothetically - and there are lotsa statements pointing in that direction - that the sequel to SR fills all or most of these items...

- It has more action and actual superhero/supervillain fight scenes
- It has a popular villain from comics that hasn´t been used on the movies yet, like Brainiac, Darkseid or Doomsday
- It´s shorter and tighter
- It has less emphasis on romance and the kid thing
- It has less scenes and plot points that pay homage to Donner

Before you say, "Singer´s not gonna do that", or "I want a reboot", remember that a lot of statements from Singer and the writers point in that direction and that a reboot in the short term is not a realistic scenario right now. Above it all, speaking just hypothetically, if the sequel has those elements, would you be open to give Singer a second chance and look at MOS without preconceived negativity?

Since the characterizations are already there which I did not like. Since I thought the acting was awful in the first and the same actors are coming back. Since I thought the writing was awful and the writers are coming back, I cannot say I will give it much of a chance just to see Superman maybe have a fight.

 

[Matt]

I never did like that take...

I do. It makes more sense. Children are products of their enviroment. Clark was raised by a good family and brought up to be Clark Kent, not Superman. His strong sense of justice and morals from this upbringing brought him to become Superman. He shouldn't have his personality entirely changed after 18 years of upbringing because he sees a hologram of his dead father.

The Batman being the real persona, Bruce a disguise makes more sense for him, as he was a product of his enviroment and seeing his parents killed infront of him consumed him. It made his desire for revenge the only thing that drove him.

I like the contrast between the two.

 

[Super Kal]

to me, Clark is just a mask... something for Kal El to use so he can hide who he truly is.

 

[Excel]

To me...their both fakes for Kal-el. Superman is what he feels compelled to be, but Clarks a disguise to protect the people around him.

 

[buggs0268]

The one thing I liked about Superman 4 the quest for peace, which critics did notice, was the scene where Clark reads the newspaper where it says "superman tells kid drop dead" or something like that and he goes up to the window. In that scene he is not Clark Kent, and he is not Superman, and he is not Kal El. He is who he is. All of them really are personas. Unlike Batman, who is really Batman adn Bruce Wayne is his mask. Superman is neither Superman nor Clark Kent. Those are personae's. He is something else that Reeve showed in Superman 4. In fact, he showed in in STM when he took off his glasses in Lois apartment before saying "Lois. When he says that he switches to a more comanding voice, which is more Superman. I have something to tell you. I'm really" Before he said that, and after he took off the glasses, that is who he is.

 

[Thunder Emperor]

I do. It makes more sense. Children are products of their enviroment. Clark was raised by a good family and brought up to be Clark Kent, not Superman. His strong sense of justice and morals from this upbringing brought him to become Superman. He shouldn't have his personality entirely changed after 18 years of upbringing because he sees a hologram of his dead father.

The Batman being the real persona, Bruce a disguise makes more sense for him, as he was a product of his enviroment and seeing his parents killed infront of him consumed him. It made his desire for revenge the only thing that drove him.

I like the contrast between the two.

Matt, these people won't get the fact that this simple different is a major building block in the DC universe as it is today. But are heroes on opposite sides of the spectrum. Ala the JLA movie scrit use omac story line, whihc started from batman paranoia.

 

[Thunder Emperor]

To me...their both fakes for Kal-el. Superman is what he feels compelled to be, but Clarks a disguise to protect the people around him.

I seriously don't even understand that logic . so when he was 4 -18 he thought of himself clark as a disgues? really is that what you think. Such a flawed think produced a poor product.