Superman Returns Was it really THAT bad?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

By reversing time he saved EVERYONE, not just Lois. So he saved Lois and everyone and endangered no one.

I dont how when he did it before he couldnt save everyone and Lois, by reversing time and doing things the same again he could save everyone and Lois as well, its a stupid plot point and a pathetic way out.

The difference in the situation is that Superman's power's are his to do with as he wishes. Once he and Lois were in a sexual relationship he is obligated to her. It's that simple and hugely different.

So his obligation to humanity stops? Not selfish at all that.

Erasing the problem or making it never exist is a perfect way of fixining it. It may be lazy writing but it is not grossly out of character like the way he's portrayed in SR as a deadbeat. If you understand the character you understand there is no way he would ever act as he's acted in the backstory to SR. Not in the comics, not in any incarnation. Period. If you can't see that, you can't see that. Nothing more I can do about it.

I understand the character plenty, and he has done similar things in both the comics and previous movies. Period

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

While there are a diversity of opinions, and they should all be respected, but it doesn't mean that they are all right.

While conversation and discussion will continue, I don't believe anyone is going to change anyone else's opinion. If someone doesn't understand the character and cannot see that Superman is a deadbeat in SR, then he's not going to change his world view by further discussion.

But he is only a deadbeat in your opinion Mega Joe, your Superman isnt everyone's. And after reading 28 Superman Graphic Novels, i think i know plenty about the character, many i have read twice, Godfall, For Tomorrow and Sacrifice i have read more than once.

 

[stargazer]

I understand the character plenty, and he has done similar things in both the comics and previous movies. Period

But he is only a deadbeat in your opinion Mega Joe, your Superman isnt everyone's. And after reading 28 Superman Graphic Novels, i think i know plenty about the character, many i have read twice, Godfall, For Tomorrow and Sacrifice i have read more than once.

Yes, same here!

 

[mego joe]

But he is only a deadbeat in your opinion Mega Joe, your Superman isnt everyone's. And after reading 28 Superman Graphic Novels, i think i know plenty about the character, many i have read twice, Godfall, For Tomorrow and Sacrifice i have read more than once.

Then you know he'd never leave Earth and screw Lois over like he did in SR. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the character. If you can find a similar instance then please show it to me. (Hint= you can't b/c there isn't one.) This story should have played out like Chaykin's "Son of Superman." That's the way in which this type of story could happen, not Singer's deadbeat dad Superman.

If you can't see how that's being a deadbeat, then you don't understand the full ramifications of being a deadbeat dad- caring more about yourself than your responsibilities of being in a sexual relationship. Period.

No. Superman in SR is not the same Superman from the comics or the Donner films. There's nothing more I can do to explain it to you. Double period.

 

[mojo-x]

Superman still quit his mission. And what worse; with Lester he became a mind manipulator.

Yah you are right Superman The Motion Picture and Superman II are way overrated IMO.

 

[stargazer]

Yah you are right Superman The Motion Picture and Superman II are way overrated IMO.

That's not what he meant, I think. The fact is that those 'overrated' movies as you called them, were extremely loved by the mainstream when they came out, hence why they did great $$$ at the BO. And people still remember them. It seems that the mainstream didn't care so much that Superman was not 'perfect,' like some fans do. And STM is considered a classic. I'm very confident that SR will be considered a classic and a masterpiece in the near future as well.

 

[El Payaso]

Yah you are right Superman The Motion Picture and Superman II are way overrated IMO.

You think so? I don't. But they're living proof of a fallible Superman that made controversial decisions who's the same version of the character Singer kept going on.

 

[El Payaso]

Then you know he'd never leave Earth and screw Lois over like he did in SR. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the character.

Same way he'd never quit his mission klnwing the consequences and screw Lois' mind only because he wants to himself. Comparable actions. Lacking of character's understanding thus.

If you can't see how that's being a deadbeat, then you don't understand the full ramifications of being a deadbeat dad- caring more about yourself than your responsibilities of being in a sexual relationship. Period.

Once again, deadbeat hero. You don't understand the full ramifications of being a deadbeat hero - caring more about yourself than your responsibilities of being humans' defender. No period, please everyone can still keep giving opinions.

No. Superman in SR is not the same Superman from the comics or the Donner films.

It's the same of Donner films except for one thing: he doesn't undo what he has done at the last minute with disregard for his mission, his father or Lois' body and mind.

Double period.

???

0 x 2 = 0

 

[SuperDaniel]

I agree with El payaso when he says that Superman made mistakes in STM and SII. However i think that the extent of the mistakes in SR are bigger and worse.

Singer had the chance to analyse everything and improve the ideas, eliminating the mistakes.

No matter what people says or how he is written in SOME stories in the comics or movies, Superman is supposed to be an ideal. A light to show the way. A guider to mankind. He is supposed to be an example.

He isnt in SR and that`s what is my beef. Richard acts more heroically, IMO.

 

[El Payaso]

I agree with El payaso when he says that Superman made mistakes in STM and SII. However i think that the extent of the mistakes in SR are bigger and worse.

Are at least comparable. The point remains, Superman is not a perfect man and thus that’s not a reason to disdain SR.

Singer had the chance to analyse everything and improve the ideas, eliminating the mistakes.

Mistakes from Superman the charcter or mistakes from the movies?

If for Superman the character, you eliminate the mistakes you have no other conflict than to fight a villain. Every character, superhero or not needs some personal conflict to keep the story interesting enough and moving. From Hamlet, to Spiderman, Hulk and Batman. Superman, naturally, doesn’t escape to this basic rule.

If for mistakes of the movies, this time Superman chose people and his race over Lois instead of quitting to them for her like he did in SII (he quit both his mission and his Kryptonian heritage back then).

And he didn’t magically undo what was done in the last minute.

So those mistakes are eliminated.

No matter what people says or how he is written in SOME stories in the comics or movies, Superman is supposed to be an ideal. A light to show the way. A guider to mankind. He is supposed to be an example.

If he’s only that then he remains a 2-D icon fated to teach people some values but keeping him out of being a developable character. An example, an ideal can be provided by a character but they can’t be the character itself.

No matter the mistakes in his personal life, the mere fact of devoting his life and time to save people makes him a hero worthy of imitation. After all, not even Jesus pretended to be an example of how no one can make mistakes.

He isnt in SR and that`s what is my beef. Richard acts more heroically, IMO.

Maybe it’s time for Superman to learn to be a better man this time. Nothing wrong or shameful about it.

 

[Wushuboy]

Yknow what's funny is that historically, DC has been the more bright optimistic comic book company while MArvel has been the one with heroes who have the problems normal people do. SR was more a marvel like movie than a DC movie.

I dont think anyone is saying the idea of him going to kyrpton to search for his race wasnt a good idea. It's how he went about it that irks people.
It's the character mistakes they've made and the inconsistencies that come with them.
Spying on lois,
Trying to steal lois away from Richard
Being depressed all the time
Susceptibility to kryptonite inconsistencies.

So after 20 yrs people went to see a superman movie where he has to learn to be a better hero from a supporting character.. someone from whom he was trying to seduce their fiance . Nice. Let's make a movie about Richard White and have him save superman again and again. Then they should have a scene where superman wonders and ponders why he isnt the hero that Richard is.

 

[El Payaso]

Yknow what's funny is that historically, DC has been the more bright optimistic comic book company while MArvel has been the one with heroes who have the problems normal people do. SR was more a marvel like movie than a DC movie.

Well, Batman's pretty dark. But I don't think Marvel has the monoopoly for troubled characters.

I dont think anyone is saying the idea of him going to kyrpton to search for his race wasnt a good idea. It's how he went about it that irks people.
It's the character mistakes they've made and the inconsistencies that come with them.
Spying on lois,
Trying to steal lois away from Richard
Being depressed all the time
Susceptibility to kryptonite inconsistencies.

The chartacter's mistakes are consistent with this specific vision of the character, started in 1978 and continued in 1980.

Manipulating Lois mind without her permission (far worse than spying on her).
Quitting his mission and Kryptonian heritage for a girl.
Destroying a cab as a joke and not caring a bit about it.
Abusing his super-powers on a human being.

Now, stealing Lois from Richard? I didn't know they were married.
And no, he wasn't deppressed all the time. As Clark you can see him living a normal life and as Superman you can see him saving people with a smile and pride.

Now, if you had to leave your life because of your commitment to your race and losing what you loved because of it must not be the happiest thing to live.

So after 20 yrs people went to see a superman movie where he has to learn to be a better hero from a supporting character.. someone from whom he was trying to seduce their fiance . Nice.

I think they went to see a movie whjere Superman's mission has once again had a very high price. Now if he can get one or two lessons out of it the better for him.

Let's make a movie about Richard White and have him save superman again and again. Then they should have a scene where superman wonders and ponders why he isnt the hero that Richard is.

^ That's pure Hollywood mind. To make 3 movies about the same thing to make a point the first one did.

Superman IS the hero Richard is. It's just that Richard doesn't have to sacrifice his life to protect humankind as Supes has. And thus he can be with Lois.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I dont think Superman is OR should be a conflicted character. The conflicts in Superman`s case should come from outside. How he deals with the problems is the interesting thing.

The world and the scenario around is the one that should be conflicted. NOT SUPERMAN. He shouldnt have doubts or hesitations. He ALWAYS does the right thing. Superman IS an ALMOST 2-D character AND SHOULD be understood as one. He is almost an archetype.

His conflicts are different than other heroes. It should be about" I have all these powers and cant save everybody. What do i do?" Something to that extent.

For example, Superman for all seasons, Superman Peace on Earth, Action Comics 775, Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow, etc.

Once u put Superman behaving badly like any human, he ceases to be Superman and becomes Spider-man.

This not humanizing Superman. This is changing the core of the character.

IF you cant write a Superman story and make it interesting and FAITHFUL TO THE CHARACTER, you shouldnt be writing one to begin with.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I`m taking this straight from Neal Bailey's SR review from Superman homepage:

" know families like this exist all over, that's why I resent it when people latch onto stuff like this and say it's politicizing Superman, showing how Singer wanted to "make the non-nuclear family shown as okay when it's really not," and "using Superman to do that bastardizes Superman." These criticisms fail fundamentally because there's NOTHING wrong with strange, untraditional families as long as there is a base of love. Lord knows I know that with the people I've known and the lives I've seen in poverty. But truth be told, what makes it bad for THIS film and THESE characters is the fact that THESE characters are MORAL ARBITERS. They are people who set the examples for others in the style of a greek myth (and not Dionysus, if you read me). So when they fail to make a family work, when they're in emotional chaos (even the bedrock, Superman), and it's readily acceptable about most viewers, the question is what that says about the viewership, number one, but on a fundamental level, it's a paradox, because Singer obviously knows these characters SO WELL with the dialogue and story he's made, but knows them NOT AT ALL because of this wrinkle he's added.

Yes. Families like that exist. They're the norm, not the exception. Mommies cheat on daddies with other lovers and still love another person when they're with another ALL THE TIME. And the reverse for daddies too. But fact one: It's always a result of someone's critical moral failing. And fact two: it hurts kids, so it shouldn't be glorified. Is it here? That's debatable. I say signs point to yes. It happens in movies.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People do drugs.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People beat each other up over insults.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People drink bud to unwind.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

This, above all, is the epoch of flaw in this film.

Richard actually is so weak he sends Lois to go and be with Superman, knowing she's cheating on him, knowing it's throwing his own kid into upheaval. It's awful.

Lois kisses Superman in front of the kid. The kid kisses Superman like he's his daddy, and later they laugh it off when Superman comes into his room at night and acts like his father before giving the mother attention without getting any physical response and flying off into the night (which, hey, if they're going to excuse it with "people are like this," why not show Superman demanding Lois' physical attention as men do in real life? BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPERMAN.)

Superman can NEVER be with Lois now without becoming NOT Superman. This universe has destroyed the Lois and Superman love. That's a BIG no-no. That's the focus of the whole shebang, next to the Lex/Superman rivalry. It'd be like a movie where Superman and Lex Luthor work together.

She kisses Superman in front of the kid, and it's "romantic." What would a guy kissing a sleeping girl in a room without her permission be? Rape, outside of sleeping beauty. Lois flat-out cheats on her guy in front of the kid, and makes the kid complicit. The kid in fact imitates her, kissing him, though with differing intent. It just reminds me of people I see in life who make bad decisions, and then their kids end up adopting those bad decisions, and their life is ruined too. Sucks."

This is what I think and what ruins the whole movie for me.

 

[El Payaso]

I dont think Superman is OR should be a conflicted character. The conflicts in Superman`s case should come from outside. How he deals with the problems is the interesting thing.

The world and the scenario around is the one that should be conflicted. NOT SUPERMAN. He shouldnt have doubts or hesitations. He ALWAYS does the right thing. Superman IS an ALMOST 2-D character AND SHOULD be understood as one. He is almost an archetype.

You have just described the anti-character. An archetype instead of a character that has nothing interesting to deliver other than a cliché message that can be merely read. And you'b doing movies about him because... well, it'd be "cool" to watch the special effects.

His conflicts are different than other heroes. It should be about" I have all these powers and cant save everybody. What do i do?" Something to that extent.

I totally aghree with this point. I'd have Superman questioning this aspect. Like why does he bother with a regular job and pretending to be a regular human when accidents and crime are happening 24/7.

Of course, this inner conflict contradicts your own previous statement.

Once u put Superman behaving badly like any human, he ceases to be Superman and becomes Spider-man.

He doesn't act "badly" but "wrongly." Big difference. Making a mistake does not necessarily involve ill intentions.

And well, I think we need something like a radioactive spider to make anyone a Spider-man.

This not humanizing Superman. This is changing the core of the character.

This is - like the example that you put yourself about Superman self-questioning about why can't he save everyone - a way to expand his core.

IF you cant write a Superman story and make it interesting and FAITHFUL TO THE CHARACTER, you shouldnt be writing one to begin with.

The same if you can't write anything new or bigger than a 2-D cliché.

 

[El Payaso]

I`m taking this straight from Neal Bailey's SR review from Superman homepage:

" know families like this exist all over, that's why I resent it when people latch onto stuff like this and say it's politicizing Superman, showing how Singer wanted to "make the non-nuclear family shown as okay when it's really not," and "using Superman to do that bastardizes Superman." These criticisms fail fundamentally because there's NOTHING wrong with strange, untraditional families as long as there is a base of love. Lord knows I know that with the people I've known and the lives I've seen in poverty. But truth be told, what makes it bad for THIS film and THESE characters is the fact that THESE characters are MORAL ARBITERS. They are people who set the examples for others in the style of a greek myth (and not Dionysus, if you read me). So when they fail to make a family work, when they're in emotional chaos (even the bedrock, Superman), and it's readily acceptable about most viewers, the question is what that says about the viewership, number one, but on a fundamental level, it's a paradox, because Singer obviously knows these characters SO WELL with the dialogue and story he's made, but knows them NOT AT ALL because of this wrinkle he's added.

Yes. Families like that exist. They're the norm, not the exception. Mommies cheat on daddies with other lovers and still love another person when they're with another ALL THE TIME. And the reverse for daddies too. But fact one: It's always a result of someone's critical moral failing. And fact two: it hurts kids, so it shouldn't be glorified. Is it here? That's debatable. I say signs point to yes. It happens in movies.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People do drugs.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People beat each other up over insults.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People drink bud to unwind.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

This, above all, is the epoch of flaw in this film.

Richard actually is so weak he sends Lois to go and be with Superman, knowing she's cheating on him, knowing it's throwing his own kid into upheaval. It's awful.

Lois kisses Superman in front of the kid. The kid kisses Superman like he's his daddy, and later they laugh it off when Superman comes into his room at night and acts like his father before giving the mother attention without getting any physical response and flying off into the night (which, hey, if they're going to excuse it with "people are like this," why not show Superman demanding Lois' physical attention as men do in real life? BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPERMAN.)

Superman can NEVER be with Lois now without becoming NOT Superman. This universe has destroyed the Lois and Superman love. That's a BIG no-no. That's the focus of the whole shebang, next to the Lex/Superman rivalry. It'd be like a movie where Superman and Lex Luthor work together.

She kisses Superman in front of the kid, and it's "romantic." What would a guy kissing a sleeping girl in a room without her permission be? Rape, outside of sleeping beauty. Lois flat-out cheats on her guy in front of the kid, and makes the kid complicit. The kid in fact imitates her, kissing him, though with differing intent. It just reminds me of people I see in life who make bad decisions, and then their kids end up adopting those bad decisions, and their life is ruined too. Sucks."

This is what I think and what ruins the whole movie for me.

Other than capital letters exposing his opinion there's not much of a background for it there (only descriptions of what people do and what happens in the movie).



People becomes parents.

SUPERMAN TOO.

 

[stargazer]

^^Excellent posts, payasito.

You seem like such a nice guy. You will make a great dad. Lucky kids!

 

[mego joe]

I`m taking this straight from Neal Bailey's SR review from Superman homepage:

" know families like this exist all over, that's why I resent it when people latch onto stuff like this and say it's politicizing Superman, showing how Singer wanted to "make the non-nuclear family shown as okay when it's really not," and "using Superman to do that bastardizes Superman." These criticisms fail fundamentally because there's NOTHING wrong with strange, untraditional families as long as there is a base of love. Lord knows I know that with the people I've known and the lives I've seen in poverty. But truth be told, what makes it bad for THIS film and THESE characters is the fact that THESE characters are MORAL ARBITERS. They are people who set the examples for others in the style of a greek myth (and not Dionysus, if you read me). So when they fail to make a family work, when they're in emotional chaos (even the bedrock, Superman), and it's readily acceptable about most viewers, the question is what that says about the viewership, number one, but on a fundamental level, it's a paradox, because Singer obviously knows these characters SO WELL with the dialogue and story he's made, but knows them NOT AT ALL because of this wrinkle he's added.

Yes. Families like that exist. They're the norm, not the exception. Mommies cheat on daddies with other lovers and still love another person when they're with another ALL THE TIME. And the reverse for daddies too. But fact one: It's always a result of someone's critical moral failing. And fact two: it hurts kids, so it shouldn't be glorified. Is it here? That's debatable. I say signs point to yes. It happens in movies.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People do drugs.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People beat each other up over insults.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

People drink bud to unwind.

BUT NOT SUPERMAN.

This, above all, is the epoch of flaw in this film.

Richard actually is so weak he sends Lois to go and be with Superman, knowing she's cheating on him, knowing it's throwing his own kid into upheaval. It's awful.

Lois kisses Superman in front of the kid. The kid kisses Superman like he's his daddy, and later they laugh it off when Superman comes into his room at night and acts like his father before giving the mother attention without getting any physical response and flying off into the night (which, hey, if they're going to excuse it with "people are like this," why not show Superman demanding Lois' physical attention as men do in real life? BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPERMAN.)

Superman can NEVER be with Lois now without becoming NOT Superman. This universe has destroyed the Lois and Superman love. That's a BIG no-no. That's the focus of the whole shebang, next to the Lex/Superman rivalry. It'd be like a movie where Superman and Lex Luthor work together.

She kisses Superman in front of the kid, and it's "romantic." What would a guy kissing a sleeping girl in a room without her permission be? Rape, outside of sleeping beauty. Lois flat-out cheats on her guy in front of the kid, and makes the kid complicit. The kid in fact imitates her, kissing him, though with differing intent. It just reminds me of people I see in life who make bad decisions, and then their kids end up adopting those bad decisions, and their life is ruined too. Sucks."

This is what I think and what ruins the whole movie for me.

NIce job!

 

[mego joe]

Other than capital letters exposing his opinion there's not much of a background for it there (only descriptions of what people do and what happens in the movie).



People becomes parents.

SUPERMAN TOO.

It's the manner in which he becomes a parent that doesn't fit. Superman may become a parent but NOT in the way the movie depicts. That's the problem. That's what SuperDaniel is trying to show.

Example: WHatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?
Son of Superman
Last Son

These are all stories from the comics in which Superman becomes a parent. But the way, the manner by which he becomes a parent are all completely different from the way he becomes a parent in SR. The situation is so totally out of character in SR, that it is clearly NOT SUPERMAN. Read these comic stories. You will see how wrong SR is in it's depiction of Superman's character.

 

[El Payaso]

^^Excellent posts, payasito.

You seem like such a nice guy. You will make a great dad. Lucky kids!

Much to my own embarrassment I must confess I fear fatherhood a little more I fear death.

But thanks for your words. :heart:

 

[mego joe]

You think so? I don't. But they're living proof of a fallible Superman that made controversial decisions who's the same version of the character Singer kept going on.

Singer doesn't understand the character as depicted in S:TM and SII. If he did he would never have made SR.

 

[mego joe]

Same way he'd never quit his mission klnwing the consequences and screw Lois' mind only because he wants to himself. Comparable actions. Lacking of character's understanding thus.



Once again, deadbeat hero. You don't understand the full ramifications of being a deadbeat hero - caring more about yourself than your responsibilities of being humans' defender. No period, please everyone can still keep giving opinions.



It's the same of Donner films except for one thing: he doesn't undo what he has done at the last minute with disregard for his mission, his father or Lois' body and mind.



???

0 x 2 = 0

You clearly don't understand Superman II. It's time to admit is El Payaso. Just stop, you're only embarrassing yourself.

 

[El Payaso]

It's the manner in which he becomes a parent that doesn't fit. Superman may become a parent but NOT in the way the movie depicts. That's the problem. That's what SuperDaniel is trying to show.

Example: WHatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?
Son of Superman
Last Son

These are all stories from the comics in which Superman becomes a parent. But the way, the manner by which he becomes a parent are all completely different from the way he becomes a parent in SR. The situation is so totally out of character in SR, that it is clearly NOT SUPERMAN. Read these comic stories. You will see how wrong SR is in it's depiction of Superman's character.

I certainly have to read those. They might be very good.

Now the fact that they're good is not a reason to rule out the way it is done in SR just because "it didn't happen like that in the comics." Now if they actually are a far better story than SR I'd still appreciate SR for what it was, not in function of what otehr vision did with the concept of Superman being a father.

Singer doesn't understand the character as depicted in S:TM and SII. If he did he would never have made SR.

You know that is a statement lacking of a background.

You clearly don't understand Superman II. It's time to admit is El Payaso. Just stop, you're only embarrassing yourself.

Anotehr statement with no background.

Oh, and an attempt of intimidation. Future solid post from me will prove you your intimidation is far from being working.

In the meantime, you're welcome to keep posting since I don't fear you.

 

[mego joe]

I certainly have to read those. They might be very good.

Now the fact that they're good is not a reason to rule out the way it is done in SR just because "it didn't happen like that in the comics." Now if they actually are a far better story than SR I'd still appreciate SR for what it was, not in function of what otehr vision did with the concept of Superman being a father.



You know that is a statement lacking of a background.



Anotehr statement with no background.

Oh, and an attempt of intimidation. Future solid post from me will prove you your intimidation is far from being working.

In the meantime, you're welcome to keep posting since I don't fear you.

IT's not because it 'didn't happen in the comics' that SR is wrong, it's because the characterization is incorrect.

Didn't think I was trying to intimidate anyone. SOrry if you were feeling fearful or intimidated.

 

[stargazer]

Much to my own embarrassment I must confess I fear fatherhood a little more I fear death.

But thanks for your words. :heart:

Really? well, with time, you might change your mind. Who knows? Life is full of surprises that change the way we see life forever.

You clearly don't understand Superman II. It's time to admit is El Payaso. Just stop, you're only embarrassing yourself.

how self-centered. You know? The world doesn't turn around YOU. We are all different, what works for you, it might not work for others. Sheesh!