Superman Returns Ugh! Watched STM then SR....

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Cool. Let me recommend Volume 1 of Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told, The Man of Steel, Birthright and Superman in the Fifties, Superman in the Sixties and Superman in the Seventies and Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow? and Peace On Earth. Hope you are enjoying the comics, I'd be interested to know what you think of them compared to SR.

Thanks for the recommendations, i'll check some of them out, i'll probably buy TGSET: Vol 1 next, i've nearly finished Sacrifice now. The one's i've read so far have made me enjoy SR even more actually! I also plan on getting The Death Of Superman and The Return Of Superman, and i've heard Kingdom Come is a good read also.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

it's really nice that Sm3 will have 5 fight scenes, I'm grateful for that because SR had 0 fight scenes, maybe Singer will let us have at least 1 in the next movie.

You just don't throw a fight scene into a movie unless it fits. Singer wanted to do a story about Lex, not Doomsday, not Brainiac, not Zod, not Bizarro, etc. It would have been a little odd to have a fightscene when nobody in the movie can take Superman's punches.

 

[dark_b]

You just don't throw a fight scene into a movie unless it fits. Singer wanted to do a story about Lex, not Doomsday, not Brainiac, not Zod, not Bizarro, etc. It would have been a little odd to have a fightscene when nobody in the movie can take Superman's punches.

i agree. its not like someone writtes the story. this really happened. an you cna not have a fight in a superman movie after 20 years because there was really no fight.
i get it singer.


now the truth. if they would writte a super villain we could have a fight. if they would writte that there are rockets on the yach we could see some action with superman. they could writte a lot of action in the movie that would fit.
but fact is that singer doesnt want this in hes superman movie. i respect that. the problem is that this is superman. and fact is that he had 200 milions.

 

[Showtime]

I guess it all depends on how the Kryptonite took to Superman. Lex could have roled up his sleeves and him and Superman could have gone one on one, if Superman had only mortal type powers. That might have been cool, but it doesn't fit with the way Kryptonite effects Superman.

 

[mego joe]

Well we are never going to agree on this because i dont see him as an absentee father when he didnt and couldnt know of Lois' pregnancy. Also, i've already explained why i found all of Supes' action in SR understandable. I dont think he is out of character, i just think he is in a new situation.

I don't think you can argue absentee father, he's Jason's father, he wasn't there for whatever reason. That makes him absent from Jason's life and he will continue to be absent until Jason finds out the truth.

He wasnt being mind controlled, he was being manipulated IMO, he wasnt told to do anything by Max Lord, he did out of his own free will because he thought his loved one's were being killed, bit of a difference from being mind controlled IMO. Remember, he was trying to KILL Brainiac, Darkseid and Doomsday because of what he thought they had done to his loved one's. AND he nearly did a lot of damage to innocents when dealing with Blackrock, and, as far as i remember, he wasnt being manipulated then.

This is going to sound hipocritical, but I haven't read Sacrifice. I only know of it and it's relationship to Infinite Crisis. What I got from that was that Max Lord was mind controlling Supes and that's why Wonder Woman killed him. Let me do a little bit of research and I'll get back to you on this story.

But anyway, even in the case you present, he is acting out of love and caring for his friends/ family and in SR he hurts Lois b/c he is only thinking of himself when he chooses to say nothing before leaving. I know we've been round the bend on this many times, but that to me is what's wrong with SR. Superman thinks of himself first, not Lois the woman he loves and that part is not understandable. THe extraordinary situation presented in your synopsis of Sacrifice, bowever, is a story that explores what happens when someone else strips away all that SUperman cares about, whereas in SR, he's not being manipulated (as presented on film) he just chooses not to be honest with Lois, there's no good reasoning or explanation to get the viewer to the point of understanding why he left w/o telling her. "I was afraid it would hurt too much" is just not adequate for SUperman in this position.

 

[mego joe]

Thanks for the recommendations, i'll check some of them out, i'll probably buy TGSET: Vol 1 next, i've nearly finished Sacrifice now. The one's i've read so far have made me enjoy SR even more actually! I also plan on getting The Death Of Superman and The Return Of Superman, and i've heard Kingdom Come is a good read also.

Kingdom Come is good. So is The Kingdom. These books involve the whole DCU, not just Superman. I would also recommend the Superman/ Batman books: Public Enemies, Supergirl, Absolute Power and the 4th one, I got it in single issues so I can't recall the name of the collected edition.

SUperman for All Season is also very good.

After seeing the Superman/ Lois relationship in SR, how is it for you to see it so differently portrayed in the comics, especially the newer stuff where they are married?

I remember reading the whole Death/ Return of Superman when it first came out and it just kind of drug on and on. I think you will enjoy it much more as a set of collected editions. At the time I also felt it was a ploy to generate interest in the character, b/c you knew he was going to come back, he wasn't REALLY dead.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't think you can argue absentee father, he's Jason's father, he wasn't there for whatever reason. That makes him absent from Jason's life and he will continue to be absent until Jason finds out the truth.

Yes but if he had found out Lois was pregnant with his baby, he definately would not have left IMO.

This is going to sound hipocritical, but I haven't read Sacrifice. I only know of it and it's relationship to Infinite Crisis. What I got from that was that Max Lord was mind controlling Supes and that's why Wonder Woman killed him. Let me do a little bit of research and I'll get back to you on this story.

But anyway, even in the case you present, he is acting out of love and caring for his friends/ family and in SR he hurts Lois b/c he is only thinking of himself when he chooses to say nothing before leaving. I know we've been round the bend on this many times, but that to me is what's wrong with SR. Superman thinks of himself first, not Lois the woman he loves and that part is not understandable. THe extraordinary situation presented in your synopsis of Sacrifice, bowever, is a story that explores what happens when someone else strips away all that SUperman cares about, whereas in SR, he's not being manipulated (as presented on film) he just chooses not to be honest with Lois, there's no good reasoning or explanation to get the viewer to the point of understanding why he left w/o telling her. "I was afraid it would hurt too much" is just not adequate for SUperman in this position.

Sacrifice was excellent you should read it. But, in it, he is acting irresponsibly before he is being manipulated, when he is fighting Black Rock, and he uses his heat vision on him, he mealts nearby cars, etc because he wont stop, someone could have been seriously hurt.

Also, i dont think Superman left for selfish reasons, and i have explainesd why, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Kingdom Come is good. So is The Kingdom. These books involve the whole DCU, not just Superman. I would also recommend the Superman/ Batman books: Public Enemies, Supergirl, Absolute Power and the 4th one, I got it in single issues so I can't recall the name of the collected edition.

SUperman for All Season is also very good.

After seeing the Superman/ Lois relationship in SR, how is it for you to see it so differently portrayed in the comics, especially the newer stuff where they are married?

I remember reading the whole Death/ Return of Superman when it first came out and it just kind of drug on and on. I think you will enjoy it much more as a set of collected editions. At the time I also felt it was a ploy to generate interest in the character, b/c you knew he was going to come back, he wasn't REALLY dead.

Yeah the relationship is different in the comics, but thats because the scenario is different. In this new franchise, we have yet to see Superman and Lois together, so i cant really compare it to the comics at this moment in time.

It looks like there are a lot of Superman comics out there that are essential reading, but with them being £16 a pop, its gonna take a while before i get through them all! But thanks again for the recommendations.

 

[mego joe]

Yes but if he had found out Lois was pregnant with his baby, he definately would not have left IMO.

Definitely. But being in a sexual relationship with her he SHOULD have explained to her what he was going to do, if he really loves her. That is where it loses me and consequently the movie is based off of this premise, so the rest of the film is tainted by a poor set up. Additionally, we should have gotten to see the context of that relationship to understand WHY Superman would choose to leave w/o saying anything to her.

Sacrifice was excellent you should read it. But, in it, he is acting irresponsibly before he is being manipulated, when he is fighting Black Rock, and he uses his heat vision on him, he mealts nearby cars, etc because he wont stop, someone could have been seriously hurt.

Yeah, I am interested in getting it, at the time it just wasn't a priority, but as time has passed I do want to get it. As far as acting irresponsibly, I think the argument that is made in comic book world for this type of behavior is that if he doesn't act then people will definitely be hurt. Inaction is worse than action that may end up hurting others because inaction will definitely cause others to be hurt. I think it's a different situation with Superman Returns. WHat I deem to be irresponsible in SR is not similar to the situation in Sacrifice. THere is no 3rd party involved that he is trying to stop from hurting others. It's simply his inability to be honest with Lois about leaving Earth for 5 years. It is only about him and Lois. She is the only one that gets hurt by inaction, not countless people. I would expect him to think of Lois before himself in this type of situation. I think that's where SInger gets Superman's character wrong. HE's not the type to engage in a relationship casually or carelessly. He's certainly not the type to hurt the person that means the most to him, just to save his own feelings.

Also, i dont think Superman left for selfish reasons, and i have explainesd why, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't think he left for selfish reasons either. I think he chose not to be honest with Lois about leaving for selfish reason. I think leaving for Krypton is partly selfishly motivated, but also logically a responsible thing to do as the last surviving Kryptonian. I have not problem with him going to Krypton to investigate it's remains. I just think that when he leaves w/o telling Lois what he's doing because "It would hurt too much." That is selfish. Going to Krypton is not selfish, but leaving the way he did was motivated by a selfish reason, "It would hurt too much." He had no courage or intestinal fortitude to be honest with her. That was completely out of character.

 

[mego joe]

Yeah the relationship is different in the comics, but thats because the scenario is different. In this new franchise, we have yet to see Superman and Lois together, so i cant really compare it to the comics at this moment in time.

For me the scenario being different is why I see the characterization of Superman in SR as wrong. If SUperman in the comics is going reveal his identity to Lois before getting into a committed relationship and going to be married to Lois then he has certain values and ethics.

I think when you present a Superman that has not revealed his identity to her before having sex and is unable to be honest with her about leaving for 5 years, he has diametrically opposed values and ethics in this area of personal relationships. SR seems to ask you to infer certain things about SUperman and the relationship with Lois, things that are completely opposite from his characterization in the comics.

It looks like there are a lot of Superman comics out there that are essential reading, but with them being £16 a pop, its gonna take a while before i get through them all! But thanks again for the recommendations.

Yes there are a lot. THere are even more that have never been collected that I would recommend, but it would be quite expensive and difficult to track down a semmingly random list of old SUperman comics. I think you might enjoy the current comics that are coming out. Personally, I am enjoying the SUperman title more than Action, but being familiar with the movies I think you would enjoy Action more than me. However, the Action Comics Annual that came out last week was great. Be warned, though, it restores a lot of Silver Age concepts and themes that haven't been seen in 20 years, what's old is new again.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Definitely. But being in a sexual relationship with her he SHOULD have explained to her what he was going to do, if he really loves her. That is where it loses me and consequently the movie is based off of this premise, so the rest of the film is tainted by a poor set up. Additionally, we should have gotten to see the context of that relationship to understand WHY Superman would choose to leave w/o saying anything to her.

Well i liked the set-up, because for once Superman was put in a situation that he couldnt easily rectify, which is something i liked about the movie.

Yeah, I am interested in getting it, at the time it just wasn't a priority, but as time has passed I do want to get it. As far as acting irresponsibly, I think the argument that is made in comic book world for this type of behavior is that if he doesn't act then people will definitely be hurt. Inaction is worse than action that may end up hurting others because inaction will definitely cause others to be hurt. I think it's a different situation with Superman Returns. WHat I deem to be irresponsible in SR is not similar to the situation in Sacrifice. THere is no 3rd party involved that he is trying to stop from hurting others. It's simply his inability to be honest with Lois about leaving Earth for 5 years. It is only about him and Lois. She is the only one that gets hurt by inaction, not countless people. I would expect him to think of Lois before himself in this type of situation. I think that's where SInger gets Superman's character wrong. HE's not the type to engage in a relationship casually or carelessly. He's certainly not the type to hurt the person that means the most to him, just to save his own feelings.

But in Sacrifice, Blackrock has given up WAY before Superman stops burning him, he definately does act irresponsibly here as Jimmy's camera melts in his hand and he has to get away before he himself melts, so its not uncommon in the comics.

I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't think he left for selfish reasons either. I think he chose not to be honest with Lois about leaving for selfish reason. I think leaving for Krypton is partly selfishly motivated, but also logically a responsible thing to do as the last surviving Kryptonian. I have not problem with him going to Krypton to investigate it's remains. I just think that when he leaves w/o telling Lois what he's doing because "It would hurt too much." That is selfish. Going to Krypton is not selfish, but leaving the way he did was motivated by a selfish reason, "It would hurt too much." He had no courage or intestinal fortitude to be honest with her. That was completely out of character.

Well again, we'll have to disagree, i dont think he didnt tell Lois for selfish reasons, i just think he couldnt think of a way to tell her in a way she would understand. So IMO he didnt tell her because he didnt want to hurt LOIS. Plus you have to wonder, did Superman think he WOULDNT be returning from Krypton?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

For me the scenario being different is why I see the characterization of Superman in SR as wrong. If SUperman in the comics is going reveal his identity to Lois before getting into a committed relationship and going to be married to Lois then he has certain values and ethics.

I think when you present a Superman that has not revealed his identity to her before having sex and is unable to be honest with her about leaving for 5 years, he has diametrically opposed values and ethics in this area of personal relationships. SR seems to ask you to infer certain things about SUperman and the relationship with Lois, things that are completely opposite from his characterization in the comics.

Well i dont see how different is wrong. In that case, the characters presented in EVERY CB movie are wrong. Thats not true IMO. Changes are necessary IMO as long as they make sense, its just when they dont as in X3, that things go horribly wrong.

Yes there are a lot. THere are even more that have never been collected that I would recommend, but it would be quite expensive and difficult to track down a semmingly random list of old SUperman comics. I think you might enjoy the current comics that are coming out. Personally, I am enjoying the SUperman title more than Action, but being familiar with the movies I think you would enjoy Action more than me. However, the Action Comics Annual that came out last week was great. Be warned, though, it restores a lot of Silver Age concepts and themes that haven't been seen in 20 years, what's old is new again.

What decade was all the post-crisis stuff? That seems to be the era that SR is based on most from what i can make out. Thanks again, just bought Kingdom Come, think that'll be the last one for a month or so.

 

[mego joe]

Well i liked the set-up, because for once Superman was put in a situation that he couldnt easily rectify, which is something i liked about the movie.

That's a good idea, put SUperman in a situation not easily rectified, no problem. I just don't think that SUperman has ever shown a propensity for putting his feelings ahead of Lois's or acting irresponsibly in regard to his sexual activity. Depending upon the actual context that is not given, one of these two things happened.

Either he and Lois were not in a loving committed relationship and shouldn't have been having sex in the first place, or they were and he should have told her that he was leaving.

But in Sacrifice, Blackrock has given up WAY before Superman stops burning him, he definately does act irresponsibly here as Jimmy's camera melts in his hand and he has to get away before he himself melts, so its not uncommon in the comics.

REally can't comment anymore until I read it.

Well again, we'll have to disagree, i dont think he didnt tell Lois for selfish reasons, i just think he couldnt think of a way to tell her in a way she would understand. So IMO he didnt tell her because he didnt want to hurt LOIS. Plus you have to wonder, did Superman think he WOULDNT be returning from Krypton?

HOw can it not be selfish when he says "It would hurt too much." THat is completely selfish. He's only thinking of himself. Unless he there is something stated in the film about why he couldn't say goodbye, then the film itself shows he is being selfish.

How could she not understand "I'm going to Krypton to check if there's any chance of survivors and finding a connection to my heritage." If she doesn't understand the simple truth, then they obviously aren't in a mature understanding committed relationship. That is a story to tell in itself and not just a scenario covered by a casual remark. It's not something understood by a knowledge of basic SUperman mythos either.

It's ridiculous to say that he didn't tell he b/c he didn't want to hurt her. He's going to be gone for 5 years, she's going to realize that he's gone and wonder what happened. He completely disregards Lois's feeling and it makes no logical sense if we are to understand that they are in love with each other.

Soldiers that get deployed don't just disappear from base and not tell their wives/ girlfriends that they are shipping out. Men who go on business trips don't just disappear for a week w/o telling their wives that they are going to be gone. It just doesn't make sense, it is the most basic thing to say good bye to your loved ones when you are going on a trip. THere's no believable defense for this that makes sense within Superman's character, or any other common decent person. Even criminals tell their loved one's goodbye when they go to jail.

I think it would have been great if Superman had told Lois he might not even be coming back. THat would have really added some motivation to her moving on with someone else. Perhaps he misjudged his time away and she assumed that after the period of time he specified that he would not be coming back.

 

[mego joe]

Well i dont see how different is wrong. In that case, the characters presented in EVERY CB movie are wrong. Thats not true IMO. Changes are necessary IMO as long as they make sense, its just when they dont as in X3, that things go horribly wrong.

I guess I wasn't entirely clear, sorry. It's not that it's just different, I meant to say that in this case the particualr differences make it wrong.

To be succint.

In the comics, SUperman values marriage and commited relationship with Lois. He reveals his identity before they get too serious. They are in love they get married.

In SR, they don't get married. He doesn't reveal his identity to her. He doesn't seem to value the committed relationship, otherwise, why leave w/o being honest with her.

Becasue these two views are diametrically opposed, it makes the characterization wrong. The values presented in the two scenarios are opposites, if these basic things about the character are contradicted in the movie, then it makes the characterization wrong. SOrry I wasn't more clear.

What decade was all the post-crisis stuff? That seems to be the era that SR is based on most from what i can make out. Thanks again, just bought Kingdom Come, think that'll be the last one for a month or so.

KIngdom Come is good, I think you'll enjoy. I just reread it myself about a week ago.

The Crisis in question was in 1985/6. I'm not sure what era SR is suppposed to be based on, b/c to me it doesn't resemble enough any era I'm familiar with.

Pre-Crisis, SUperman chose not to be in a relationship with Lois b/c he wanted to commit himself to his responsibilities as SUperman. This is the situation that is being presented in Superman and Superman II the Donner Cut. The difference is that the films go through a different reasoning and motivation to get to this point. THe films use Jor-El's mandate to set up the situation and then Supreman rebels against his father's wishes only to end up realizing that his father was right in the first place. In the comics he just does it b/c he decides of his own free will that it is the best route to go so that he doesn't endanger those he cares about or divide his attention from being SUperman by having a family life. Hence when in "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?" when he decides he's crossed the line and depowers he then gets married to Lois Lane under an alias b/c his Clark Kent I.D. had already been exposed to the world.

Post-Crisis, SUperman is made more 'human.' His power levels have dropped significantly and there is a lot more attention paid to his relationship to his parents, now both still living. Superman is faced with more moral dilemas and his character is explored. The results in my opinion though are that both arrive at the same destination, just through slightly different means.

The two areas that are different are that post-Crisis he does choose to to kill Phantom Zone criminals from an alternate timeline and he chooses to go ahead and reveal his ID to Lois, have a relationship with her and marry her. I don't think there are any other significant differences. At least none come to mind right now. The difference are more in the journey to becoming the hero.

Personally, I don't think I see either of these in SR to say SR is based more on one than the other. I see elements of both, but the journey is completely different than anything we've seen before. I think it SR uses the concept of Superman being unable to be in a relationship w/ Lois ala pre-Crisis, but instead of it being a conscious decision to focus his responsibility on being Superman, it's becasue he made mistakes that make a relationship with Lois impossible. Also, b/c he was previously in a relationship w/ Lois within the SR continuity it seems that they are borrowing from the post-Crisis idea that he would be in a relationship if he could be and Lois was willing and available. SInce she's not, he is stuck in the no-relationship mode, but not becasue he chooses to be, but rather becasue he's behaved so poorly circumstances make it impossible. I see it as a blending that is not similar enough to either pre-Crisis or post-Crisis version and the actual essence of the character is lost because of the way the elements are blended into thie particular story told in SR.

As far as Lex is concerned, he's straight out of the Donner movies. Certainly, he owes a lot to the pre-Crisis version, but even at the time he was quite different from his prison-grey attired comic book counterpart. Hackman's Lex seems much more refined and aristocratic than the Lex of pre-Crisis comics, and that was something that was incorporated into the post-Crisis Lex. However, by making him the business tycoon who operates clandestine criminal operations while appearing to be a valued and respected member of society is completely new for the character and not found in the movie version.

The depiction of Clark is different in both eras as well. Post-Crisis Clark was a star high school athelte. Pre-Crisis, he was Superboy and had to mask his powers from others. Pre-Crisis he's already developing that mild mannered Clark Kent attitude as a teenager. He's never depicted as buffoonish as he is in the Donner movies, nor as inconsequential as he is in SUperman Returns. IN the post-Crisis comics he stands out a bit more, he's more physically imposing and Clark is developed as a real character. In pre-Crisis comics, Clark had real development as well. He had friendships with others, he was a TV news anchorman, so he had a personality and charisma, he was just not really forceful. HE would take a risk and step in to help, he just had to feing being hurt to keep up appearances. Post-Crisis, Clark could do similar things, but he had more vitality and could stand in a little longer before having to feign being hurt or overcome. It's really about degrees in the characterization of Kent. IMO, the SR version of Kent is just wasted film. He doesn't add anything to the film or the Superman character,he just seems like a throw away character that no one in the film takes seriously or even cares about, except maybe Jimmy. Lois treats him as if he weren't even there. Post-Crisis, there was a good rivalry built up between Clark and Lois over getting to the story first. Check out The Man of Steel mini-series to see this played out. Pre-Crisis, they were depicted as friends and co-workers, but she was never as dismissive of him as she is in SR. Even in the Donner films, there is a building chemistry and friendship.

You've read the Greatest Superman stories Ever Told, Vol.2, what do you think? What stories do you feel are more like the characters in SR?

 

[mego joe]

Well i dont see how different is wrong. In that case, the characters presented in EVERY CB movie are wrong. Thats not true IMO. Changes are necessary IMO as long as they make sense, its just when they dont as in X3, that things go horribly wrong.





What decade was all the post-crisis stuff? That seems to be the era that SR is based on most from what i can make out. Thanks again, just bought Kingdom Come, think that'll be the last one for a month or so.

FOrgot this in the last post, but current Superman comics are redefining SUperman right now and bringing back a lot of Silver Age facets. Notable are his having powers as a kid and not being the star athelete, but aleready developing the Clark identity as separate from the superpowered one. Also, classic Brainiac- city shrinker and rogue alien is back.

It's good stuff right now, interesting, too. THey havn't retconned his marriage to Lois or anything, but there is definitely a Silver Age pre-Crisis vibe to a lot of stuff going on in the comics right now.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That's a good idea, put SUperman in a situation not easily rectified, no problem. I just don't think that SUperman has ever shown a propensity for putting his feelings ahead of Lois's or acting irresponsibly in regard to his sexual activity. Depending upon the actual context that is not given, one of these two things happened.

Either he and Lois were not in a loving committed relationship and shouldn't have been having sex in the first place, or they were and he should have told her that he was leaving.

It is possible for people to be caught up in a moment of passion, maybe Superman wanted to tell Lois he was Clark before having sex with her, but things very rarely work out the way we want.

REally can't comment anymore until I read it.

Fair enough.

HOw can it not be selfish when he says "It would hurt too much." THat is completely selfish. He's only thinking of himself. Unless he there is something stated in the film about why he couldn't say goodbye, then the film itself shows he is being selfish.

How could she not understand "I'm going to Krypton to check if there's any chance of survivors and finding a connection to my heritage." If she doesn't understand the simple truth, then they obviously aren't in a mature understanding committed relationship. That is a story to tell in itself and not just a scenario covered by a casual remark. It's not something understood by a knowledge of basic SUperman mythos either.

It's ridiculous to say that he didn't tell he b/c he didn't want to hurt her. He's going to be gone for 5 years, she's going to realize that he's gone and wonder what happened. He completely disregards Lois's feeling and it makes no logical sense if we are to understand that they are in love with each other.

Soldiers that get deployed don't just disappear from base and not tell their wives/ girlfriends that they are shipping out. Men who go on business trips don't just disappear for a week w/o telling their wives that they are going to be gone. It just doesn't make sense, it is the most basic thing to say good bye to your loved ones when you are going on a trip. THere's no believable defense for this that makes sense within Superman's character, or any other common decent person. Even criminals tell their loved one's goodbye when they go to jail.

For one, Superman never said in the movie he didnt tell Lois because "it would hurt to much." Outside the Planet, as Clark, he says "Well maybe he didnt say goodbye because he HAD to go, and wanted to say goodbye, but, maybe it was too difficult for him."

To me that implies that he just couldnt find a way to tell in a way that would hurt her. Also, in interviews, Brandon stated that he doesnt say goodbye because he couldnt figure out how to, but maybe he should have figured out how to because it gets him in a lot of trouble. Thats the story of the relationship.

Plus, if Clark said to Lois "I'm leaving to go and find the remains of my home world, and it'll take me 5 years to get there and back, and there's a chance i may not be coming back at all." How do you think Lois would react to this? I think she'd go ape**** myself, telling Superman he doesnt care about her.

I think it would have been great if Superman had told Lois he might not even be coming back. THat would have really added some motivation to her moving on with someone else. Perhaps he misjudged his time away and she assumed that after the period of time he specified that he would not be coming back.

That would have been good yes, but IMO it is implied in the movie that he thought he might not come back.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I guess I wasn't entirely clear, sorry. It's not that it's just different, I meant to say that in this case the particualr differences make it wrong.

To be succint.

In the comics, SUperman values marriage and commited relationship with Lois. He reveals his identity before they get too serious. They are in love they get married.

In SR, they don't get married. He doesn't reveal his identity to her. He doesn't seem to value the committed relationship, otherwise, why leave w/o being honest with her.

Hmm i sort of see what you are saying, but IMO they are incomparable as the situations are totally different. I think its safe to say, that if the Krypton remains stories hadnt of surfaced, Superman would have revealed his identity to Lois and married her by now. But thats the tragedy of the story for me.

KIngdom Come is good, I think you'll enjoy. I just reread it myself about a week ago.

The Crisis in question was in 1985/6. I'm not sure what era SR is suppposed to be based on, b/c to me it doesn't resemble enough any era I'm familiar with.

Pre-Crisis, SUperman chose not to be in a relationship with Lois b/c he wanted to commit himself to his responsibilities as SUperman. This is the situation that is being presented in Superman and Superman II the Donner Cut. The difference is that the films go through a different reasoning and motivation to get to this point. THe films use Jor-El's mandate to set up the situation and then Supreman rebels against his father's wishes only to end up realizing that his father was right in the first place. In the comics he just does it b/c he decides of his own free will that it is the best route to go so that he doesn't endanger those he cares about or divide his attention from being SUperman by having a family life. Hence when in "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?" when he decides he's crossed the line and depowers he then gets married to Lois Lane under an alias b/c his Clark Kent I.D. had already been exposed to the world.

Post-Crisis, SUperman is made more 'human.' His power levels have dropped significantly and there is a lot more attention paid to his relationship to his parents, now both still living. Superman is faced with more moral dilemas and his character is explored. The results in my opinion though are that both arrive at the same destination, just through slightly different means.

The two areas that are different are that post-Crisis he does choose to to kill Phantom Zone criminals from an alternate timeline and he chooses to go ahead and reveal his ID to Lois, have a relationship with her and marry her. I don't think there are any other significant differences. At least none come to mind right now. The difference are more in the journey to becoming the hero.

Personally, I don't think I see either of these in SR to say SR is based more on one than the other. I see elements of both, but the journey is completely different than anything we've seen before. I think it SR uses the concept of Superman being unable to be in a relationship w/ Lois ala pre-Crisis, but instead of it being a conscious decision to focus his responsibility on being Superman, it's becasue he made mistakes that make a relationship with Lois impossible. Also, b/c he was previously in a relationship w/ Lois within the SR continuity it seems that they are borrowing from the post-Crisis idea that he would be in a relationship if he could be and Lois was willing and available. SInce she's not, he is stuck in the no-relationship mode, but not becasue he chooses to be, but rather becasue he's behaved so poorly circumstances make it impossible. I see it as a blending that is not similar enough to either pre-Crisis or post-Crisis version and the actual essence of the character is lost because of the way the elements are blended into thie particular story told in SR.

As far as Lex is concerned, he's straight out of the Donner movies. Certainly, he owes a lot to the pre-Crisis version, but even at the time he was quite different from his prison-grey attired comic book counterpart. Hackman's Lex seems much more refined and aristocratic than the Lex of pre-Crisis comics, and that was something that was incorporated into the post-Crisis Lex. However, by making him the business tycoon who operates clandestine criminal operations while appearing to be a valued and respected member of society is completely new for the character and not found in the movie version.

The depiction of Clark is different in both eras as well. Post-Crisis Clark was a star high school athelte. Pre-Crisis, he was Superboy and had to mask his powers from others. Pre-Crisis he's already developing that mild mannered Clark Kent attitude as a teenager. He's never depicted as buffoonish as he is in the Donner movies, nor as inconsequential as he is in SUperman Returns. IN the post-Crisis comics he stands out a bit more, he's more physically imposing and Clark is developed as a real character. In pre-Crisis comics, Clark had real development as well. He had friendships with others, he was a TV news anchorman, so he had a personality and charisma, he was just not really forceful. HE would take a risk and step in to help, he just had to feing being hurt to keep up appearances. Post-Crisis, Clark could do similar things, but he had more vitality and could stand in a little longer before having to feign being hurt or overcome. It's really about degrees in the characterization of Kent. IMO, the SR version of Kent is just wasted film. He doesn't add anything to the film or the Superman character,he just seems like a throw away character that no one in the film takes seriously or even cares about, except maybe Jimmy. Lois treats him as if he weren't even there. Post-Crisis, there was a good rivalry built up between Clark and Lois over getting to the story first. Check out The Man of Steel mini-series to see this played out. Pre-Crisis, they were depicted as friends and co-workers, but she was never as dismissive of him as she is in SR. Even in the Donner films, there is a building chemistry and friendship.

You've read the Greatest Superman stories Ever Told, Vol.2, what do you think? What stories do you feel are more like the characters in SR?

To be honest i prefer the Clark that was presented in SR, he seems more interesting to me than what you have described above. With Clark being someone that fades into the background and is someone who no one misses when he isnt there makes it more plausible that people dont the connection that Clark and Superman are the same people, especially the reporters he works with!

As for TGSET Vol.2, Obviously the last story were Lois and Clark have a daughter is similar in parts to SR. As for the other stories non of them were similar to SR in terms of story, but i felt the characters were essentially the same. For example, when, in one story, some of Luthor's doctors are working on Metallo, and they say to Luthor "We cant extract the Kryptonite without killing him." And then Luthor just says "okay" and rips the Kryptonite out of Metallo. This is totallt something i could see Spacey's Lex doing.

 

[mego joe]

It is possible for people to be caught up in a moment of passion, maybe Superman wanted to tell Lois he was Clark before having sex with her, but things very rarely work out the way we want.

It's possible, but is it possible for Superman and is this what happened in the context of the movie? A one nighter with Lois? The complete lack of context makes whatever comes afterward harder to understand. Why not tell her afterwards? Were they in a relationship or was it just casual sex? WHy would Superman put himself in a position that could lead to a moment of passion? Wouldn't he be more thoughtful and careful in his actions? That is a complete story to tell in and of itself and worthy of more than 'vague history.'

For one, Superman never said in the movie he didnt tell Lois because "it would hurt to much." Outside the Planet, as Clark, he says "Well maybe he didnt say goodbye because he HAD to go, and wanted to say goodbye, but, maybe it was too difficult for him."

To me that implies that he just couldnt find a way to tell in a way that would hurt her. Also, in interviews, Brandon stated that he doesnt say goodbye because he couldnt figure out how to, but maybe he should have figured out how to because it gets him in a lot of trouble. Thats the story of the relationship.

For a character that stands for Truth and Justice, anything but being honest with Lois just doesn't ring true. If you love someone you tell them the truth in this situation, otherwise all you are doing is hurting them.

I don't understand not knowing how to say goodbye. THis implies either the relationship is not cut and dry and needs a lot more explanation, or he can't face her because he is gutless. That one throw away line is just not enough to base an understanding of the relationship on.

He doesn't know how to say 'good bye'? Like a psychological impediment to being able to speak those words or a physical condition that renders him unable to form the words 'good' and 'bye.' That's ridiculous. That's bad writing b/c SInger, Harris and Daugherty didn't have a real way to explain it and they don't understand the character enough to see the importance of prestenting a believable context for the relationship between Lois and Superman.

Plus, if Clark said to Lois "I'm leaving to go and find the remains of my home world, and it'll take me 5 years to get there and back, and there's a chance i may not be coming back at all." How do you think Lois would react to this? I think she'd go ape**** myself, telling Superman he doesnt care about her.

Well, I'm sure that Lois would be hurt, but in the final analysis, wasn't she hurt more by not telling her? Isn't SUperman caring and insightful enough to figure this out?

Aren't you selling Lois a little short. The reaction you propose makes her seem like a one dimensional selfish *****. I'm sure it would be difficult for her to to hear and it would hurt, but if she loves SUperman, really loves him, and SUperman took the time to explain the reasons, I'm sure she would understand, and he would have the opportunity to show that he does care about her, no matter what happens becasue he took the time to be honest with her and consider how she might feel if he just disappeared without a word. If she has any insight into his character and his sense of responsibility she would understand.

So what does leaving w/o saying goodbye say to Lois, "I Love you?" Obviously not, and I think anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this.

Does a soldier deployed overseas just leave without telling his wife or girlfriend without saying goodbye? The fact that he may not return make it even more imperative to say goodbye. It may be the last chance they ever have to see each other. If Superman really loves and cares for LOis he would understand that and not be wrapped up in some perceived difficulty.

The movie never explains why it would be difficult for him to say goodbye. I think this is bad writing, becasue there is no good reason for it to be too difficult. It is plain common sense to say goodbye. Without any explanation, how can you understand the character's motivations. If they presented a compelling reason then perhaps it would be believable, but as presented, it's just ridiculously out of character.

That would have been good yes, but IMO it is implied in the movie that he thought he might not come back.

If it's implied I don't think it has any affect on the characters, though. It would naturally seem that the mission could result in him never returning, but I don't know if there is any implication in the film.

 

[mego joe]

Hmm i sort of see what you are saying, but IMO they are incomparable as the situations are totally different. I think its safe to say, that if the Krypton remains stories hadnt of surfaced, Superman would have revealed his identity to Lois and married her by now. But thats the tragedy of the story for me.

But what prevented him from revealing his identity in the first place? Even in SII she knows that SUperman and Clark are one and the same before they have sex. By doing this it indicates that in the comics and SII, the relationship was what was important to Superman.

In SR, by not revealing his identity it implies that the sex was what was important. Or rather, it mattered more to him to have sex with Lois than having a mature understanding relationship based on love and trust.

To be honest i prefer the Clark that was presented in SR, he seems more interesting to me than what you have described above. With Clark being someone that fades into the background and is someone who no one misses when he isnt there makes it more plausible that people dont the connection that Clark and Superman are the same people, especially the reporters he works with!

I felt that they spent no time at all developing Clark. Clark becomes a non-person. A big difference in the comics and the movies is that in the comics Lois falls in love with CLark and has a relatinship with him, not Superman. Even in STM and SII, Clark is the character that actively tries to pursue LOis. Clark wants Lois to love him as Clark, not Superman. The same is true of the comics. Lois is in love with the complete person.

In SR, Lois is in love with SUperman and SUperman only, and couldn't care less about Clark. It's just not a good basis for an honest and trusting relationship.

As for TGSET Vol.2, Obviously the last story were Lois and Clark have a daughter is similar in parts to SR. As for the other stories non of them were similar to SR in terms of story, but i felt the characters were essentially the same. For example, when, in one story, some of Luthor's doctors are working on Metallo, and they say to Luthor "We cant extract the Kryptonite without killing him." And then Luthor just says "okay" and rips the Kryptonite out of Metallo. This is totallt something i could see Spacey's Lex doing.

I think Spacey's Lex and Hackman's Lex certainly contain that ruthless evilness.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It's possible, but is it possible for Superman and is this what happened in the context of the movie? A one nighter with Lois? The complete lack of context makes whatever comes afterward harder to understand. Why not tell her afterwards? Were they in a relationship or was it just casual sex? WHy would Superman put himself in a position that could lead to a moment of passion? Wouldn't he be more thoughtful and careful in his actions? That is a complete story to tell in and of itself and worthy of more than 'vague history.'

Its possible he intended to tell Lois but just got caught up in a moment of passion as i stated earlier. Also Superman being Clark also is a big secret to tell someone, maybe Kal wanted to wait until he truly knew how she felt about him. You dont reveal a big secret like that unless you know you can completely and utterly trust someone, especially an eager reporter.

For a character that stands for Truth and Justice, anything but being honest with Lois just doesn't ring true. If you love someone you tell them the truth in this situation, otherwise all you are doing is hurting them.

I don't understand not knowing how to say goodbye. THis implies either the relationship is not cut and dry and needs a lot more explanation, or he can't face her because he is gutless. That one throw away line is just not enough to base an understanding of the relationship on.

He doesn't know how to say 'good bye'? Like a psychological impediment to being able to speak those words or a physical condition that renders him unable to form the words 'good' and 'bye.' That's ridiculous. That's bad writing b/c SInger, Harris and Daugherty didn't have a real way to explain it and they don't understand the character enough to see the importance of prestenting a believable context for the relationship between Lois and Superman.

Saying goodbye didnt seem to be the problem, HOW to say it was, he had to find a way to make Lois understand and not hurt her, obviously he thought he couldnt.

Well, I'm sure that Lois would be hurt, but in the final analysis, wasn't she hurt more by not telling her?

Isnt that the whole story of the movie?

Aren't you selling Lois a little short. The reaction you propose makes her seem like a one dimensional selfish *****. I'm sure it would be difficult for her to to hear and it would hurt, but if she loves SUperman, really loves him, and SUperman took the time to explain the reasons, I'm sure she would understand, and he would have the opportunity to show that he does care about her, no matter what happens becasue he took the time to be honest with her and consider how she might feel if he just disappeared without a word. If she has any insight into his character and his sense of responsibility she would understand.

So what does leaving w/o saying goodbye say to Lois, "I Love you?" Obviously not, and I think anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this.

Well you saw Lois' reaction to Superman telling her why he left, she gave him no sympathy at all. Superman telling her before he left would have left her feeling rejected amount other things, Superman didnt want that.

Does a soldier deployed overseas just leave without telling his wife or girlfriend without saying goodbye? The fact that he may not return make it even more imperative to say goodbye. It may be the last chance they ever have to see each other. If Superman really loves and cares for LOis he would understand that and not be wrapped up in some perceived difficulty.

Soldiers dont go away for 5 years or more at a time though.

The movie never explains why it would be difficult for him to say goodbye. I think this is bad writing, becasue there is no good reason for it to be too difficult. It is plain common sense to say goodbye. Without any explanation, how can you understand the character's motivations. If they presented a compelling reason then perhaps it would be believable, but as presented, it's just ridiculously out of character.

I think its made quite clear why he couldnt say goodbye, thats not to say he was right by not doing it though.

If it's implied I don't think it has any affect on the characters, though. It would naturally seem that the mission could result in him never returning, but I don't know if there is any implication in the film.

Well he was obviously hoped to find Krypton intact when he returned "Did you find what you were looking for?" "I thought....hoped....it might still be there.......that place is a graveyard....and i'm all thats left." And you have to wonder, would he have come back if it was still there?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

But what prevented him from revealing his identity in the first place? Even in SII she knows that SUperman and Clark are one and the same before they have sex. By doing this it indicates that in the comics and SII, the relationship was what was important to Superman.

In SR, by not revealing his identity it implies that the sex was what was important. Or rather, it mattered more to him to have sex with Lois than having a mature understanding relationship based on love and trust.

I think i answered this in the post above

I felt that they spent no time at all developing Clark. Clark becomes a non-person. A big difference in the comics and the movies is that in the comics Lois falls in love with CLark and has a relatinship with him, not Superman. Even in STM and SII, Clark is the character that actively tries to pursue LOis. Clark wants Lois to love him as Clark, not Superman. The same is true of the comics. Lois is in love with the complete person.

In SR, Lois is in love with SUperman and SUperman only, and couldn't care less about Clark. It's just not a good basis for an honest and trusting relationship.

Well the thing is, as Clark, he tries to talk to her throughout the movie, but she either ignores him, or just randomly changes the subject, meaning he never gets the chance to talk to her. If you notice, she barely even looks Clark in the face the whole movie. I think that makes it a lot more plausible that she never makes (or hasnt yet) the connection that they are one and the same.

I think Spacey's Lex and Hackman's Lex certainly contain that ruthless evilness.

Agreed.

 

[mego joe]

Its possible he intended to tell Lois but just got caught up in a moment of passion as i stated earlier. Also Superman being Clark also is a big secret to tell someone, maybe Kal wanted to wait until he truly knew how she felt about him. You dont reveal a big secret like that unless you know you can completely and utterly trust someone, especially an eager reporter.

So, you're saying that SUperman really wasn't sure how Lois felt and had sex w/ her anyways?

That sounds like someone thinking selfishly of himself and not treating sex as an expression of intimacy in a committed loving relationship. That sounds like he shouldn't have had sex with LOis in the first place. It also sounds irresponsible. He can chance getting Lois pregnant, but not revealing his identity as Clark Kent to her?

Don't get that at all. THat is completely the opposite of how Clark/ Lois are handled in the comics, and even in SUperman II. That is why this storyline is so out of character for Superman.

Saying goodbye didnt seem to be the problem, HOW to say it was, he had to find a way to make Lois understand and not hurt her, obviously he thought he couldnt.

Obviously, there must be some sort of complicated quality to their relationship that SInger is banking on that the audience already knows about. THere is no context given in the film to explain why it would be hard for SUperman to explain it. As I've said before, what's wrong with the truth?

THe only thing I can come up with that fits is that it was a one nighter, and there was no committed relationship and then he's confused, b/c he knows he loves her but he's got a mission to go on and she might be pissed so, since he really isn't sure (and shouldn't have had sex with her in the first place) better to not say anything, heck, if he doesn't come back at all, no harm done.

That scenario just doesn't fit w/ SUperman. IT's just not in his character to get caught up in a 'night of passion' with someone he's not in a committed relationship with. And if he's in a committed relationship with the person, there's no reason he can't be honest with her about why he's leaving.

Isnt that the whole story of the movie?

Unfortunately, so. But Singer doesn't explain how we get to that point. HOw do we get to SUperman having sex w/ Lois but not being able to be honest with her?

ONe nighter?

Casual sex?

What happened? That's a movie in and of itself. It's not an understood part of the Superman mythos that he and Lois have sex carelessly.

Well you saw Lois' reaction to Superman telling her why he left, she gave him no sympathy at all. Superman telling her before he left would have left her feeling rejected amount other things, Superman didnt want that.

So he wanted her to feel rejected by not saying anything at all. If SUperman explains himself and the importance of the mission, potentially saving lives or finding closure to the Krypton part of his life, she's not going to feel rejected, unless she is a selfish *****, who isn't really in love w/ Superman, but just infatuated and his attention makes her feel good. This is not about love, it's about being selfish.

Soldiers dont go away for 5 years or more at a time though.

Not sure what that means. They do go away for a year or more at times though. If you were going away for 2 weeks would you say goodbye to your wife or girlfriend? If you were going away for a year or more would you say good bye to your wife or girlfriend? If you were going away for 2 weeks would you say good bye to your wife or girlfriend?

In those 3 scenarios which good bye would be longer? WHich goodbye would be more emotionally charged? WHich would be more important to communicate your feelings?

The only way you don't say goodbye is when the person isn't that important to you, or there is no real relationship.

So the only way this scenario works in SR is that Lois and SUperman weren't really in a relationship. It was something else that Singer has failed to explain in the movie. WHatever it is, though, it is out of character for Superman.

I think its made quite clear why he couldnt say goodbye, thats not to say he was right by not doing it though.

But why would it be too hard. GIve me more than one dimenison. "It's too difficult" doesn't explain why it's so hard. It may be clear, but it doesn't sound real. It sounds like bad writing and a cop-out so that Singer can tell the story he wants to tell instead of telling a story that makes sense.

Well he was obviously hoped to find Krypton intact when he returned "Did you find what you were looking for?" "I thought....hoped....it might still be there.......that place is a graveyard....and i'm all thats left." And you have to wonder, would he have come back if it was still there?

If he really loved Lois and wanted to be with her he would have come back. If he loved his parents and valued his life on Earth in either role as Clark or Superman he would have come back. If that was the movie they wanted to tell, then that could have been interesting, but ultimately it was not the movie they wanted to tell. It never even crossed my mind b/c they spent so little time on Superman's reason for leaving. IMO, they tried to cram too many little ideas into the film and didn't give any of them enough attention to be meaningful.

 

[mego joe]

Well the thing is, as Clark, he tries to talk to her throughout the movie, but she either ignores him, or just randomly changes the subject, meaning he never gets the chance to talk to her. If you notice, she barely even looks Clark in the face the whole movie. I think that makes it a lot more plausible that she never makes (or hasnt yet) the connection that they are one and the same.

I think that this makes Lois out to be an unlikable character. SHe can't even be nice and pleasant to a co-worker, supposedly a reporter she's teamed up with in the past. By having Lois focus so heavily on SUperman it makes her out to be shallow b/c she's only interested in the Superman side of the character, the larger than life aspect, and not the day to day part that is Clark. In the comics when this was the status quo, there was no sex w/ Lois. Superman wouldn't get seriously involved with her. He only got serious as Clark b/c he was winning her as a regular person and only got intimate with her after reavealing his ID to her. WHat's this movie Lois going to do when she finds out that SUperman's been there all along as Clark, someone she doesn't seem to like and finds rather annoying. How endearing.

My point here is that the movie treats this aspect of the relationship completely opposite to the comics and Superman II.

I wouldn't expect her to make the connection all on her own in the movie, I would expect Superman to reaveal himself if he was going to be in a serious relationship with her.

Agreed.

We agree on something! Woohoo!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

So, you're saying that SUperman really wasn't sure how Lois felt and had sex w/ her anyways?

That sounds like someone thinking selfishly of himself and not treating sex as an expression of intimacy in a committed loving relationship. That sounds like he shouldn't have had sex with LOis in the first place. It also sounds irresponsible. He can chance getting Lois pregnant, but not revealing his identity as Clark Kent to her?

Don't get that at all. THat is completely the opposite of how Clark/ Lois are handled in the comics, and even in SUperman II. That is why this storyline is so out of character for Superman.

I dont get whats so selfish about not revealing your biggest secret, and possibly THE biggest secret in the world, until you're sure someone truly loves you. If that secret ever got out Superman would be in big trouble, Lois, Martha, and everyone who knew him as Clark, so he has to sure he is revealing it to the right person/people.

Also, as someone else said in one of the sequel threads, Superman may have thought it was impossible for Lois to get pregnant with his baby

Obviously, there must be some sort of complicated quality to their relationship that SInger is banking on that the audience already knows about. THere is no context given in the film to explain why it would be hard for SUperman to explain it. As I've said before, what's wrong with the truth?

THe only thing I can come up with that fits is that it was a one nighter, and there was no committed relationship and then he's confused, b/c he knows he loves her but he's got a mission to go on and she might be pissed so, since he really isn't sure (and shouldn't have had sex with her in the first place) better to not say anything, heck, if he doesn't come back at all, no harm done.

That scenario just doesn't fit w/ SUperman. IT's just not in his character to get caught up in a 'night of passion' with someone he's not in a committed relationship with. And if he's in a committed relationship with the person, there's no reason he can't be honest with her about why he's leaving.

There is quite an easy explanation to it IMO, Superman loves Lois so much he doesnt want to see her in pain, it would be "unbearable" for him to see her in pain.

Unfortunately, so. But Singer doesn't explain how we get to that point. HOw do we get to SUperman having sex w/ Lois but not being able to be honest with her?

ONe nighter?

Casual sex?

What happened? That's a movie in and of itself. It's not an understood part of the Superman mythos that he and Lois have sex carelessly.

I mostly explained this earlier on but, i dont think it was just a casual one nighter. I think it was a night to show how much they loved each other and how comfortable they were with each other. And they got caught up in the moment like i said earlier.

So he wanted her to feel rejected by not saying anything at all. If SUperman explains himself and the importance of the mission, potentially saving lives or finding closure to the Krypton part of his life, she's not going to feel rejected, unless she is a selfish *****, who isn't really in love w/ Superman, but just infatuated and his attention makes her feel good. This is not about love, it's about being selfish.

Well i personally dont think its selfish, he obviously thought it would be easier on her if he just left, its a mistake, though not a selfish one IMO.

Not sure what that means. They do go away for a year or more at times though. If you were going away for 2 weeks would you say goodbye to your wife or girlfriend? If you were going away for a year or more would you say good bye to your wife or girlfriend? If you were going away for 2 weeks would you say good bye to your wife or girlfriend?

Leaving for 2 weeks or even 2 years is not the same as leaving to go to a distant planet that takes multiple years to get to, and there's a chance you might not be returning from.

In those 3 scenarios which good bye would be longer? WHich goodbye would be more emotionally charged? WHich would be more important to communicate your feelings?

The only way you don't say goodbye is when the person isn't that important to you, or there is no real relationship.

So the only way this scenario works in SR is that Lois and SUperman weren't really in a relationship. It was something else that Singer has failed to explain in the movie. WHatever it is, though, it is out of character for Superman.

I dont see whats so out of character about not wanting to hurt the one's he loves.

But why would it be too hard. GIve me more than one dimenison. "It's too difficult" doesn't explain why it's so hard. It may be clear, but it doesn't sound real. It sounds like bad writing and a cop-out so that Singer can tell the story he wants to tell instead of telling a story that makes sense.



If he really loved Lois and wanted to be with her he would have come back. If he loved his parents and valued his life on Earth in either role as Clark or Superman he would have come back. If that was the movie they wanted to tell, then that could have been interesting, but ultimately it was not the movie they wanted to tell. It never even crossed my mind b/c they spent so little time on Superman's reason for leaving. IMO, they tried to cram too many little ideas into the film and didn't give any of them enough attention to be meaningful.

Its simple he doesnt want to see her in pain, he thinks she loves him, they have just had sex together, probably for the first time, and he's hoping the relationship naturally progresses from there, but then this huge bomb drops in his lap and he has to leave.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think that this makes Lois out to be an unlikable character. SHe can't even be nice and pleasant to a co-worker, supposedly a reporter she's teamed up with in the past. By having Lois focus so heavily on SUperman it makes her out to be shallow b/c she's only interested in the Superman side of the character, the larger than life aspect, and not the day to day part that is Clark. In the comics when this was the status quo, there was no sex w/ Lois. Superman wouldn't get seriously involved with her. He only got serious as Clark b/c he was winning her as a regular person and only got intimate with her after reavealing his ID to her. WHat's this movie Lois going to do when she finds out that SUperman's been there all along as Clark, someone she doesn't seem to like and finds rather annoying. How endearing.

My point here is that the movie treats this aspect of the relationship completely opposite to the comics and Superman II.

I wouldn't expect her to make the connection all on her own in the movie, I would expect Superman to reaveal himself if he was going to be in a serious relationship with her.

Well i dont think it makes Lois unlikable, because, its obvious her head is battered by Superman's return, and she obviously has other things on her mind than Clark. If you notice she barely speaks to anyone throughout the movie but Perry, Jason and Richard. Her mind is occupied by other things which is understandable.

We agree on something! Woohoo!

Breakout the champaigne!!!!! This calls for a celebration!!!!t: