Superman Returns Was it really THAT bad?

[solidsnake86]

Well thats my point, I notice some posters here totally bash SR, and I really question how many comics they read when they say that he would never do something like that in the comics. I think the portrayal of the character was spot on, he apologized for leaving, he knew he made a mistake, he does make mistakes and thats what makes the character relatable. In terms of the ending, it would have been nice to actually see him punch something, but thats what sequels are for. Also, every first movie is a learning experience, so that is why I thought he did a good job, especially hearing about the script, it would have been wonderful to see the full movie.

 

[mego joe]

Well thats my point, I notice some posters here totally bash SR, and I really question how many comics they read when they say that he would never do something like that in the comics. I think the portrayal of the character was spot on, he apologized for leaving, he knew he made a mistake, he does make mistakes and thats what makes the character relatable. In terms of the ending, it would have been nice to actually see him punch something, but thats what sequels are for. Also, every first movie is a learning experience, so that is why I thought he did a good job, especially hearing about the script, it would have been wonderful to see the full movie.

Having read comics regulary for the past 28 years of my life, I've read plenty of Superman comics and I can't think of a single story in which Superman has done anything remotely similar to:

1. Being in a sexual relationship with Lois w/o her knowing he was also Clark.

2. Being in a sexual relationship with Lois and leaving her for and extended period of time without saying goodbye.

If you can point out a story which depicts something similar I'd be interested to hear it, b/c to me, these actions in SR are just completely wrong for the character, and have no basis in the comics OR stories from other media.

 

[Angeloz]

Agreed with everything but the first few comments, i didnt find SR, or its lack of a showdown, to be dissapoint at all. But you are right about the comics, I have read Superman stories from all era's, and he is never portrayed consistently from one to the other, and the comment about SR not adhering to the comics are false anyway, when i read Superman comics, i see the Superman in SR, and vice-versa, not to mention there were strong nods to 'Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow,' a story i annoyingly cant get my hands on.

Have you tried to get "DC Universe: The stories of Alan Moore" TPB? It's listed on Wikipedia as a way to read the story. I've got the other TPB, about ten years ago, so can't confirm it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever_happened_to_the_man_of_tomorrow

Angeloz

 

[Angeloz]

Having read comics regulary for the past 28 years of my life, I've read plenty of Superman comics and I can't think of a single story in which Superman has done anything remotely similar to:

1. Being in a sexual relationship with Lois w/o her knowing he was also Clark.

2. Being in a sexual relationship with Lois and leaving her for and extended period of time without saying goodbye.

If you can point out a story which depicts something similar I'd be interested to hear it, b/c to me, these actions in SR are just completely wrong for the character, and have no basis in the comics OR stories from other media.

I will also point out except for recently (from 1986+) he has had the attitude of "Ewwwww - Girl Germs - Must Run Away." Because they were written for children so his attitude was of a six year old rather than adult. Although there are and were exceptions. Including Imaginary Stories. So call me silly in liking the fact he is a sexual being. Whether in the comics or television or film.

As for the secret identity thing. I can't think of something offhand. That said I don't regard comics as sacrosanct and am glad the earlier films influenced the comics. Including making him more mature and able to have sexual relationships in the first place. I'm very grateful. But I will point out in "Smallville" he did have sex with someone and they didn't know he was an alien nor at the time a former alien. Nope he kept that secret because he was afraid to tell it and maybe didn't trust the person fully. That said I don't regard "Smallville" very highly either. I think it an insanely dumb concept if they want to have Superman without a mask and with a secret identity (or some deus ex machina reason why they don't recognise him). That said I think it enjoyable fun and can be great sometimes as well as stupid other times. My point is comics historically isn't exactly an example of mature relationships in the first place. Because being a commitment phobe isn't exactly mature.

Ironically I prefer him with Batman but am fine with it never being explicitly or officially written about because they'd probably screw it up like a lot of things.

Angeloz

 

[BareKnucklez]

I understand that people still dislike Superman Returns. Hell, I'm not it's biggest fan myself. (Although, there are some parts that I like.)

But, seriously. Was it THAT bad? Would you REALLY put it on the level of something like this:

I'd rather watch Superman 4 then Superman Returns anyday!

Superman Returns was just that bad... At least in 4 we have Chris Reeve as Superman! He makes even the worst movie good.

Chris was simply the perfect embodiment of Superman..t:

 

[Angeloz]

I'd rather watch Superman 4 then Superman Returns anyday!

Superman Returns was just that bad... At least in 4 we have Chris Reeve as Superman! He makes even the worst movie good.

Chris was simply the perfect embodiment of Superman..t:

I loved Chris as Superman and he was the one that introduced the character to me and I loved him (i.e. Superman). But even he couldn't save that film for me. It was the first one I was majorly disappointed with to say the least (as I was still a young child for the third film in the cinema run i.e. not even a teenager).

Angeloz

 

[solidsnake86]

Having read comics regulary for the past 28 years of my life, I've read plenty of Superman comics and I can't think of a single story in which Superman has done anything remotely similar to:

1. Being in a sexual relationship with Lois w/o her knowing he was also Clark.

2. Being in a sexual relationship with Lois and leaving her for and extended period of time without saying goodbye.

If you can point out a story which depicts something similar I'd be interested to hear it, b/c to me, these actions in SR are just completely wrong for the character, and have no basis in the comics OR stories from other media.

I understand where your coming from and were just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, him sleeping with lois is not a big deal, first because realistically who would think a kryptonian and human could actually produce a child, obviously in the movie it does, and its reckless on supermans part. At the same time you hold superman to a very high moral standard and that is intergral to the character, but I don't see what he did as wrong, he thought there were survivors on his planet, I'm sure most would do the same thing and leave.

 

[Nightwing1977]

I loved Chris as Superman and he was the one that introduced the character to me and I loved him (i.e. Superman). But even he couldn't save that film for me. It was the first one I was majorly disappointed with to say the least (as I was still a young child for the third film in the cinema run i.e. not even a teenager).

Angeloz

You know he is banned right now, eh? I figure he would with his rude & immature behavior recently. Not to mention confusing opinions with facts & shoving his belief down on our throats. Guess that was his downfall. But thankfully no more of this immature behaviors. Anyway, back on topic.

 

[StylishHokie21]

You know he is banned right now, eh? I figure he would with his rude & immature behavior recently. Not to mention confusing opinions with facts & shoving his belief down on our throats. Guess that was his downfall. But thankfully no more of this immature behaviors. Anyway, back on topic.

I also think it had to do with his avatar. It was one of the leaked Joker photos, which I think is ban worthy.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Have you tried to get "DC Universe: The stories of Alan Moore" TPB? It's listed on Wikipedia as a way to read the story. I've got the other TPB, about ten years ago, so can't confirm it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever_happened_to_the_man_of_tomorrow

Angeloz

I cant seem to get hold of that either, i'm sure i will get hold of the story at one point, in the meantime, i'll just have to keep watching SR .

 

[Nightwing1977]

I also think it had to do with his avatar. It was one of the leaked Joker photos, which I think is ban worthy.

I thought the leaked pics would give someone few months off from SHH. Not a permanent ban.

 

[X-Maniac]

Well thats my point, I notice some posters here totally bash SR, and I really question how many comics they read when they say that he would never do something like that in the comics.

You question how many comics people have read but fail to mention any comics that DO justify his behaviour.

If we go by the movies, at the end of Superman 2, he told the president: 'I'll never leave again." Look how that promise turned out.

I understand where your coming from and were just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, him sleeping with lois is not a big deal, first because realistically who would think a kryptonian and human could actually produce a child, obviously in the movie it does, and its reckless on supermans part. At the same time you hold superman to a very high moral standard and that is intergral to the character, but I don't see what he did as wrong, he thought there were survivors on his planet, I'm sure most would do the same thing and leave.

Would there be survivors thousands of years later? (Remember, thousands of earth years passed in the first Superman movie during baby Kal-Els's voyage to earth; Superman must have used wormhole travel to prevent a similar amount of time passing in SR).

Most people possibly would do the same thing and leave. But I doubt most people would disappear across space, for at least five years (maybe longer, if they found survivors or relatives) without saying goodbye to someone with whom they were having a sexual relationship? Lois's reaction to Superman's absence tells us it was a loving relationship, or she wouldn't be so hurt.

What was done for the sake of drama ended up making him look cold and heartless.

Also, if Richard believes the boy is his son, she must have met and slept with Richard very quickly. Otherwise the pregnancy time would indicate to Richard that he wasn't the father.

 

[mego joe]

I understand where your coming from and were just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, him sleeping with lois is not a big deal, first because realistically who would think a kryptonian and human could actually produce a child, obviously in the movie it does, and its reckless on supermans part. At the same time you hold superman to a very high moral standard and that is intergral to the character, but I don't see what he did as wrong, he thought there were survivors on his planet, I'm sure most would do the same thing and leave.

But why would it be in character for him not to say goodbye? If it is integral to hold SUperman to a high moral standard, shouldn't we judge his actions on HIS moral standard and not mine or yours? Even if you don't see what he did is wrong doesn't it still go against that high moral standard?

Also, my issue is not that he left, but that he didn't say goodbye- It seems that if he really loved Lois and was in a real relationship withe her he would feel it right to say goodbye whether or not he believed they could conceived a child together, just based on the fact that he loves her and wouldn't want to hurt her any further.

I think first you have to think of Superman as a genuinely good caring person who considers himself a human in all areas that matter. Can you really judge his actions and say that not saying goodbye and being in a sexual relationship under certain false pretenses are the actions of a genuinely good caring person?

 

[mego joe]

You question how many comics people have read but fail to mention any comics that DO justify his behaviour.

If we go by the movies, at the end of Superman 2, he told the president: 'I'll never leave again." Look how that promise turned out.



Would there be survivors thousands of years later? (Remember, thousands of earth years passed in the first Superman movie during baby Kal-Els's voyage to earth; Superman must have used wormhole travel to prevent a similar amount of time passing in SR).

Most people possibly would do the same thing and leave. But I doubt most people would disappear across space, for at least five years (maybe longer, if they found survivors or relatives) without saying goodbye to someone with whom they were having a sexual relationship? Lois's reaction to Superman's absence tells us it was a loving relationship, or she wouldn't be so hurt.

What was done for the sake of drama ended up making him look cold and heartless.

Also, if Richard believes the boy is his son, she must have met and slept with Richard very quickly. Otherwise the pregnancy time would indicate to Richard that he wasn't the father.

It never ceases to amaze me how simple it is to see the improper characterization of Superman in this film be dismissed by fans of the comics.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I thought the leaked pics would give someone few months off from SHH. Not a permanent ban.

I don't think so.That guy was just embarrassing himself anyways.

 

[El Payaso]

But why would it be in character for him not to say goodbye?

Because in Superman II he quit his mission and commitment to protect people of Earth and didn't say good-bye either so people would at least know they didn't have a protector anymore.

 

[mego joe]

Because in Superman II he quit his mission and commitment to protect people of Earth and didn't say good-bye either so people would at least know they didn't have a protector anymore.

But he WOULD say goodbye to Lois. Lois came first in STM and SII. That's the problem, that's why it's out of character for him to not say goodbye to Lois.

 

[El Payaso]

But he WOULD say goodbye to Lois. Lois came first in STM and SII. That's the problem, that's why it's out of character for him to not say goodbye to Lois.

I'd say his commitment to protect people of Earth came first than even meeting Lois for the first time. Protecting Earth was a mission given to him at the FoS before he went to Metropolis.

That's the problem. Superman didn't become Superman to save Lois from the falling helicopter.

Superman has a commitment to Earth's people the same he has it to Lois in SR. In SII he didn't say good-bye to people of Earth, in SR he didn't say good-bye to Lois. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. But they make a consistent behaviour and thus the in-character condition.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'd say his commitment to protect people of Earth came first than even meeting Lois for the first time. Protecting Earth was a mission given to him at the FoS before he went to Metropolis.

That's the problem. Superman didn't become Superman to save Lois from the falling helicopter.

Superman has a commitment to Earth's people the same he has it to Lois in SR. In SII he didn't say good-bye to people of Earth, in SR he didn't say good-bye to Lois. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. But they make a consistent behaviour and thus the in-character condition.

Well said El Payaso, in SII he didnt even consult Martha about giving up his powers, but he did when leaving in SR, and judging by Martha's reaction to how long Superman was away, it makes you wonder if he had told Martha he wouldnt be gone long, but miscalculated or something happened on the trip.

Even though i believe 90% of Superman II isnt in continuity with SR, you point about character consistency still stands.

 

[mego joe]

I'd say his commitment to protect people of Earth came first than even meeting Lois for the first time. Protecting Earth was a mission given to him at the FoS before he went to Metropolis.

That's the problem. Superman didn't become Superman to save Lois from the falling helicopter.

Superman has a commitment to Earth's people the same he has it to Lois in SR. In SII he didn't say good-bye to people of Earth, in SR he didn't say good-bye to Lois. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. But they make a consistent behaviour and thus the in-character condition.

I think in understanding the human condition of being in love it is consistent not say goodbye to Earth, but he would say goodbye to Lois, especially under the circumstances.

THe relationship he has with Earth is different from the relationship indicated in SR. If he was not in a personal, sexually intimate relationship with Lois, I wouldn't expect him to say goodbye. HOwever, he is, and that makes the relationship different from his relationship to Earth.

Do you see how they are different and would elicit different behaviors? THey are not the same.


Also, I don't think he should have to say goodbye to Earth as a whole in the context of Superman II, nor do I think it was a mistake for him not to say goodbye to Earth in Superman II. THere is no obligation on his part. He is not a public servant employed by the government. He is a private citizen acting on his own volition to help people. He can stop anytime he wants without an explanation.

However, not saying goodbye to Lois in the context of SR IS expected b/c he is in an intimate sexual relationship with her. This is a specific situation that obligates one to be responsible and communicative with one's partner. Especially if you really love that person. There is nothing to indicate that he would act otherwise.

As far as his mission placing Earth above Lois (or any one person for that matter), that is how you know he is human. Eventhough Jor-El WANTS him to place his mission to protect Earth above any one human, the fact that he IS emotionally human causes him to place Lois first. THat is simply the actions of a man in love. It is inconsistent for him not to suck it up and tell Lois goodbye and spare her feelings what he can instead of placing his feeling first.

 

[mego joe]

Well said El Payaso, in SII he didnt even consult Martha about giving up his powers, but he did when leaving in SR, and judging by Martha's reaction to how long Superman was away, it makes you wonder if he had told Martha he wouldnt be gone long, but miscalculated or something happened on the trip.

Even though i believe 90% of Superman II isnt in continuity with SR, you point about character consistency still stands.

If you're going to talk consistency, where in S:TM or SII does Superman consider his own feeling ahead of Lois's feelings?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^When he turns back time to resurrect her, going against his father's wishes, also when he gives up his powers, does he consult Lois MJ? No, he makes the decision on his own based on his own feelings. He didnt know how Lois would react to him doing it, he just did it anyway. Doesnt consider Lois' feelings on the matter does he?

 

[El Payaso]

I think in understanding the human condition of being in love it is consistent not say goodbye to Earth, but he would say goodbye to Lois, especially under the circumstances.

I think in understanding what a commitment is, it is consistent to say goodbye to both Earth AND Lois, especially under the circumstances. If Earth has some threat coming over, they should at the very least know they shouldn’t wait for Superman to come. Watching Superman II we can see how desperate and devastated people of Earth were, as wondering “Where is Superman? Why isn’t he here to defend us from Zod?”

How is consistent not to say good-bye to people of Earth that trust Superman will be there to protect them just because he’s in love? Being in love inhabilitates him to at least communicate he’s retiring?

THe relationship he has with Earth is different from the relationship indicated in SR. If he was not in a personal, sexually intimate relationship with Lois, I wouldn't expect him to say goodbye. HOwever, he is, and that makes the relationship different from his relationship to Earth.

A commitment is a commitment. If he’s going to leave alone someone he’s commited to, he should at the very least tell them. Not to mention that he should not quit his commitment to start with.

Do you see how they are different and would elicit different behaviors? THey are not the same.

The nature of both commitments might be different, but a commitment is a commitment. He cannot think that he owes to his romantic commitment a good-bye and to his commitment to people of Earth an absolute nothing.

In fact, he doesn’t think that way. As soon as he defeats Zod he goes to the White House an offers an apology to the President for such a careless behaviour. Much like he did with Lois on SR.

He doesn’t go to the President and say “Well, I can quit whenever I want to.”

Also, I don't think he should have to say goodbye to Earth as a whole in the context of Superman II, nor do I think it was a mistake for him not to say goodbye to Earth in Superman II. THere is no obligation on his part. He is not a public servant employed by the government. He is a private citizen acting on his own volition to help people. He can stop anytime he wants without an explanation.

He is invested in this mission of defending Earth by Jor-El in this franchise. He’s not doing it for the fun of it or to spend a boring afternoon.

He cannot stop anytime he wants and that’s exactly what he learns in Superman II.

And that is why he goes back to the FoS saying he “failed.” Because he thought he could quit his mission and his commitment in order to have a normal life, but he realises that he can’t. He realises that his commitment to people of Earth is in fact more powerful than his romantic commitment and he acts consistently, he drops Lois and embraces his mission once again.

However, not saying goodbye to Lois in the context of SR IS expected b/c he is in an intimate sexual relationship with her. This is a specific situation that obligates one to be responsible and communicative with one's partner. Especially if you really love that person. There is nothing to indicate that he would act otherwise.

There is. Again, the fact that another commitment that proved to be stronger than his commitment to Lois provoked him no desire to say good-bye. The same his commitment to his original race made him noit to say good-bye to Lois. He was sure that if he told good-bye to her, he would have ended up not going to Krypton because of his love feeling towards her.

Sex or not sex with the people you’re commited to, a commitment forces you to at least communicate your quitting it if that situation happens.

As far as his mission placing Earth above Lois (or any one person for that matter), that is how you know he is human. Eventhough Jor-El WANTS him to place his mission to protect Earth above any one human, the fact that he IS emotionally human causes him to place Lois first. THat is simply the actions of a man in love. It is inconsistent for him not to suck it up and tell Lois goodbye and spare her feelings what he can instead of placing his feeling first.

He placing Lois over humanity is an action of a man in love.

And in Superman’s case it is a mistake and the wrong thing to do and he ends up learning this in Superman II. Which proves that Superman makes mistakes, just like in SR and mistakes of the same nature. Except that in SR he didn’t put Lois over his missions as Superman as he did on SII, but the other way around.

Now, placing Lois over humanity in NO case denies his obligation to communicate people of Earth he will be there no more to protect them. He might have to lose his powers but not the obligation to say “Now you shouldn’t wait for my help anymore. Anything that goes wrong, you are now by yourselves. Be warned about this. Good-bye. Superman.” He is not incapacitated to say this if he’s decided to quit his mission since people on Earth count on him and trust him immensely in case of danger. Sure, maybe people of Earth have no right to firce him to protect them, but at least he has to be thankful enough for all people’s love telling them he’s retiring.

 

[mego joe]

^When he turns back time to resurrect her, going against his father's wishes, also when he gives up his powers, does he consult Lois MJ? No, he makes the decision on his own based on his own feelings. He didnt know how Lois would react to him doing it, he just did it anyway. Doesnt consider Lois' feelings on the matter does he?

Superman to Dead Lois Lane: Do you want to stay dead or do you want me to reverse time and save your life?

Don't be ridiculous.

The situations are apples and oranges. By turning back time and saving Lois's life hurting her is not a side effect of the event.

Actually, he did tell Lois that he was going to give up his powers for her and she never says 'Don't do it,' or anything. She's just surprised that he would do that for her.

 

[mego joe]

I think in understanding what a commitment is, it is consistent to say goodbye to both Earth AND Lois, especially under the circumstances. If Earth has some threat coming over, they should at the very least know they shouldn’t wait for Superman to come. Watching Superman II we can see how desperate and devastated people of Earth were, as wondering “Where is Superman? Why isn’t he here to defend us from Zod?”

How is consistent not to say good-bye to people of Earth that trust Superman will be there to protect them just because he’s in love? Being in love inhabilitates him to at least communicate he’s retiring?



A commitment is a commitment. If he’s going to leave alone someone he’s commited to, he should at the very least tell them. Not to mention that he should not quit his commitment to start with.



The nature of both commitments might be different, but a commitment is a commitment. He cannot think that he owes to his romantic commitment a good-bye and to his commitment to people of Earth an absolute nothing.

In fact, he doesn’t think that way. As soon as he defeats Zod he goes to the White House an offers an apology to the President for such a careless behaviour. Much like he did with Lois on SR.

He doesn’t go to the President and say “Well, I can quit whenever I want to.”



He is invested in this mission of defending Earth by Jor-El in this franchise. He’s not doing it for the fun of it or to spend a boring afternoon.

He cannot stop anytime he wants and that’s exactly what he learns in Superman II.

And that is why he goes back to the FoS saying he “failed.” Because he thought he could quit his mission and his commitment in order to have a normal life, but he realises that he can’t. He realises that his commitment to people of Earth is in fact more powerful than his romantic commitment and he acts consistently, he drops Lois and embraces his mission once again.



There is. Again, the fact that another commitment that proved to be stronger than his commitment to Lois provoked him no desire to say good-bye. The same his commitment to his original race made him noit to say good-bye to Lois. He was sure that if he told good-bye to her, he would have ended up not going to Krypton because of his love feeling towards her.

Sex or not sex with the people you’re commited to, a commitment forces you to at least communicate your quitting it if that situation happens.



He placing Lois over humanity is an action of a man in love.

And in Superman’s case it is a mistake and the wrong thing to do and he ends up learning this in Superman II. Which proves that Superman makes mistakes, just like in SR and mistakes of the same nature. Except that in SR he didn’t put Lois over his missions as Superman as he did on SII, but the other way around.

Now, placing Lois over humanity in NO case denies his obligation to communicate people of Earth he will be there no more to protect them. He might have to lose his powers but not the obligation to say “Now you shouldn’t wait for my help anymore. Anything that goes wrong, you are now by yourselves. Be warned about this. Good-bye. Superman.” He is not incapacitated to say this if he’s decided to quit his mission since people on Earth count on him and trust him immensely in case of danger. Sure, maybe people of Earth have no right to firce him to protect them, but at least he has to be thankful enough for all people’s love telling them he’s retiring.

Here's the difference to me.

Superman II is essentially the story of Superman OWNING that commmitment and not simply doing what Jor-El has told him to do. IMO, he doesn't own that commitment yet in the context of that film universe. He's disobeyed Jor-El already, so why not again? Having already chosen humanity, upon having his ID discovered by Lois, he tells her everything and commits to her. The only way to do this is by giving up his powers and living a normal life.

Additionally, even if after the events of SII Lois is unaware of Superman's love for her, it doesn't change the fact that he still loves her and will ALWAYS be looking out for her in a special way b/c he is human. She will always come first. That is an essential to the mythos of the character. All SII has done is give a more developed reason why the status quo in Superman's universe is what it is. It has expanded on the classic elements with a new story to set up the status quo.

In SR, you have the implied commitment to Lois already due to the fact that they were in a sexual relationship. THerefore, he IS obligated to say goodbye etc.... In terms of SR, I don't honestly know if he has yet OWNED that commitment to Earth in the continuity of SInger's film universe. That to me is undeterminable from what's in the movie. It could go either way. So, yes, he should say goodbye if he's owned that commitment, but if he hasn't, I can understand why he wouldn't say goodbye to Earth.

What is implied clearly IMO in SR is that he IS committed to Lois, otherwise he wouldn't be in a sexual relationship with her. There isn't enough information on it to view it any other way that makes sense in the context of the character.

That to me is the difference, SII is the story of his commitment to Earth and his role as Superman. SR just gets the Superman/ Lois relationship wrong and he is thusly portrayed out-of-character.