Superman Returns Was Superman Really Out of Character in SR?

[true316]

The reason many people on the Hype seem to give for their dislike (sometimes hatred) of SR is the idea that Superman was "out of character." Indeed the reason many feel that Singer should be removed from the franchise is because he portrayed Superman doing too many things he would not do. To me Superman is a character with a rich and diverse mythology in which he has been depicted in many different ways. In this thread, I'll list out some problems that people have with Singer's Superman and let you know some places in Superman's history where they have happened before or are happening now. Let me just say this isn't about saying some people are right or wrong, it is about opening things up for discussion.

1. Superman wouldn't be a stalker!

I wanted to start off with a scene that I personally don't like. I've never been comfortable with the idea that Superman would invade other people's privacy. But this isn't a thread for debating the right and wrong of it. The bottom line is Superman has done it before. I'll highlight instances from the tv series, "Lois and Clark." After a date (with Lex Luthor I believe) Lois returns to her apartment where she discusses her love life with her sister. It is clearly meant to be a private conversation but guess who is listening in? Clark floats outside her window eavesdropping. Also later in the series, when Lex is proposing to Lois at his place Superman is again floating outside looking in. I'm sure other people could list out different instances where Superman invade the privacy of others but these are just two examples from the tv series.

2. Superman wouldn't have a sexual relationship with Lois without telling her his secret identity!

One of the problems people have indicated with the story in SR is that you could interpret it as Superman having an ongoing sexual relationship with Lois without her knowing his secret identity. I freely admit this would seem a little creepy, moreso if you are using the post crisis interpretation where Clark Kent is who he really is as opposed to a disguise. My initial problem with this issue is that it is never clearly indicated that this is what happened in the SR story. We don't know that Superman had an ongoing sexual relationship with Lois. One person that many have called for as a replacement for Singer is Bruce Timm. Recently, a Bruce Timm written story was released on DVD, "Superman: Doomsday." I haven't had the opportunity to see it, but I have read reviews. Here is one:

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=122821

"One of the movie's most significant departures from the original comics is its rollback of the Superman/Lois/Clark triangle. They're not married, and Lois doesn't know the secret -- but she's still dating Superman. What's more, they're apparently close enough that she appears in the Fortress of Solitude wearing only a towel, and later a red bathrobe (to match the Man of Steel's). Still, she only calls him "Superman," although he reminds her about "Kal-El." While this smacks of classic Silver Age Superdickery (TM), it sets up a couple of plot points, including Lois' traditional investigation into Superman's alter ego. Lois also claims that Supes' familiar justifications for a secret identity really mask his fear of commitment."

Here it seems far more clearly indicated that the situation that supposedly happened in the SR back story is definitely happening in Superman: Doomsday. Yet somehow I doubt anyone will call for Timm's head like they have been calling for Singer's head.

3. Superman wouldn't leave Earth without telling Lois!

If you've read the comics you know that the answer is yes. One specific example comes from Superman:Exile (a great post-crisis Superman story ). Superman leaves with the intention of never coming back and as far as I know he doesn't tell Lois before leaving. In the Adventures of Superman #452 she says to herself, "Superman's been missing for weeks, how will I ever find him?" She doesn't know that he has left of his own accord. Even before Singer's involvement, Superman has been willing to leave the planet without telling Lois.


Where does all of this lead us? We can see that many of the elements that people complain about have been a apart of Superman's mythology. It is no question that Singer is under greater scrutiny than other Superman storytellers and rightly so because the story he told was told via a $200 million budget. But is it accurate to say that Singer's story is completely inconsistent with Superman's history. Imo it isn't, but I would really like to hear what others have to say. Enjoy the discussion folks.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Superman wasn't out of character in SR, he was a developed character, having changed over 5 years, well duh! lol.

 

[matthooper]

It simply wasn't any Superman that existed before Singer got his hooks into it. Singer truly created Singerman from his own experiences of isolation and loneliness. Singer has even spoken in interviews about these feelings, and about finding his place in the world.

It wasn't Superman in any way shape or form.

Singer didn't care about the mythology of Superman. He created his own version, right or wrong. Some loved it some hated it, but it wasn't any Superman we know.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The reason many people on the Hype seem to give for their dislike (sometimes hatred) of SR is the idea that Superman was "out of character." Indeed the reason many feel that Singer should be removed from the franchise is because he portrayed Superman doing too many things he would not do. To me Superman is a character with a rich and diverse mythology in which he has been depicted in many different ways. In this thread, I'll list out some problems that people have with Singer's Superman and let you know some places in Superman's history where they have happened before or are happening now. Let me just say this isn't about saying some people are right or wrong, it is about opening things up for discussion.

1. Superman wouldn't be a stalker!

I wanted to start off with a scene that I personally don't like. I've never been comfortable with the idea that Superman would invade other people's privacy. But this isn't a thread for debating the right and wrong of it. The bottom line is Superman has done it before. I'll highlight instances from the tv series, "Lois and Clark." After a date (with Lex Luthor I believe) Lois returns to her apartment where she discusses her love life with her sister. It is clearly meant to be a private conversation but guess who is listening in? Clark floats outside her window eavesdropping. Also later in the series, when Lex is proposing to Lois at his place Superman is again floating outside looking in. I'm sure other people could list out different instances where Superman invade the privacy of others but these are just two examples from the tv series.

Well, any other time i probably would have had a problem with this scene. BUT, IMO, under the circumstances of the movie, the scene is totally acceptable and expected IMO. Here are my reasons:

Superman was obviously feeling lonely or alienated before his mission to Krypton, you can tell this by little looks and lines of dialogue in the movie, so he goes looking for others like him. And IMO he feels there may be a chance his parents are still alive somewere in the ruins of Krypton. He wont know this until he checks it out and if he doesnt, he could be wondering for the rest of his life about this.

So, he goes, the place is "a graveyard" and he returns to earth feeling VERY lonely, only to find the one human he connected with wants nothing to do with (or so it seems). So, he MUST be feeling the lonliest he has ever felt at that point and that is why he went to Lois's house IMO. To see if he still had a place there. He left once Lois made inadvertantly clear to him that he didnt.

2. Superman wouldn't have a sexual relationship with Lois without telling her his secret identity!

One of the problems people have indicated with the story in SR is that you could interpret it as Superman having an ongoing sexual relationship with Lois without her knowing his secret identity. I freely admit this would seem a little creepy, moreso if you are using the post crisis interpretation where Clark Kent is who he really is as opposed to a disguise. My initial problem with this issue is that it is never clearly indicated that this is what happened in the SR story. We don't know that Superman had an ongoing sexual relationship with Lois. One person that many have called for as a replacement for Singer is Bruce Timm. Recently, a Bruce Timm written story was released on DVD, "Superman: Doomsday." I haven't had the opportunity to see it, but I have read reviews. Here is one:

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=122821

"One of the movie's most significant departures from the original comics is its rollback of the Superman/Lois/Clark triangle. They're not married, and Lois doesn't know the secret -- but she's still dating Superman. What's more, they're apparently close enough that she appears in the Fortress of Solitude wearing only a towel, and later a red bathrobe (to match the Man of Steel's). Still, she only calls him "Superman," although he reminds her about "Kal-El." While this smacks of classic Silver Age Superdickery (TM), it sets up a couple of plot points, including Lois' traditional investigation into Superman's alter ego. Lois also claims that Supes' familiar justifications for a secret identity really mask his fear of commitment."

Here it seems far more clearly indicated that the situation that supposedly happened in the SR back story is definitely happening in Superman: Doomsday. Yet somehow I doubt anyone will call for Timm's head like they have been calling for Singer's head.

This has happened in the comics also, in the 70's, Superman and Lois were dating without her knowing he was Clark. Plus, in Superman the movie, i'm pretty sure Superman goes to kiss Lois after saving her but Jimmy interupts.

[

B]3. Superman wouldn't leave Earth without telling Lois![/B]

If you've read the comics you know that the answer is yes. One specific example comes from Superman:Exile (a great post-crisis Superman story ). Superman leaves with the intention of never coming back and as far as I know he doesn't tell Lois before leaving. In the Adventures of Superman #452 she says to herself, "Superman's been missing for weeks, how will I ever find him?" She doesn't know that he has left of his own accord. Even before Singer's involvement, Superman has been willing to leave the planet without telling Lois.

Again, this has happened in the comics, and there have been other instances were Superman has left without telling the likes of Lois, The Kents, etc.

Where does all of this lead us? We can see that many of the elements that people complain about have been a apart of Superman's mythology. It is no question that Singer is under greater scrutiny than other Superman storytellers and rightly so because the story he told was told via a $200 million budget. But is it accurate to say that Singer's story is completely inconsistent with Superman's history. Imo it isn't, but I would really like to hear what others have to say. Enjoy the discussion folks.

Well, it leads me to a point were i have been from the start. Superman isnt out of character in SR. IMO he cant be out of character, since he has never been in SR's situation before. Plus, i think his action are totally understandable in the context of the movie.

 

[Cyrusbales]

after four films of the same non-changing character, it was nice to have a more 3 dimensional and developed character, it was Superman, plus 5 years of isolation and a bad descision he had to try and live with. Brilliant.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

after four films of the same non-changing character, it was nice to have a more 3 dimensional and developed character, it was Superman, plus 5 years of isolation and a bad descision he had to try and live with. Brilliant.

Exactly, it tried something different, not from previous Superman movies, but from all previous CB movies as well, and i applaud them for it.

 

[Andy C.]

It simply wasn't any Superman that existed before Singer got his hooks into it. Singer truly created Singerman from his own experiences of isolation and loneliness. Singer has even spoken in interviews about these feelings, and about finding his place in the world.

It wasn't Superman in any way shape or form.

Singer didn't care about the mythology of Superman. He created his own version, right or wrong. Some loved it some hated it, but it wasn't any Superman we know.

....?

That sort of stuff has been touched on in the Superman mythology tons of times. Birthright, Smallville, and about half of Elliot S! Maggin's run on the comic all focused on Superman's loneliness at the top, and how he fits into the world.

As for him 'not caring about the mythology,' is that why the movie's chock-full of references to the original flick? Just because he didn't cram the movie full of post-Crisis MoS schlock doesn't mean that he ignored the conceptions of the Superman character. Keep in mind, the 'mythology' of the character is something that extends far beyond the comics alone.

So yeah, while he did add his own flavor to the mix, and you're more than welcome to dislike them if you want, it's hardly as if he pulled the elements for SR out of his butt.

 

[matthooper]

He uses the exact same themes in Superman Returns as he did for X-Men and he's called brilliant to all the defenders. How about something new from Singer. We get it. Singer feels isolated and alone and he is searching for his place so he uses the same themes in his films. These are superhero films not Merchant Ivory films. You can find a bit of everything in 60 years of Superman comics, but it doesn't mean that Singer captured the spirit of Superman because you can draw a little comparison to a box in a comic.


Superman is not the X-Men. Singer uses the exact same themes in every single movie he makes. You'll see the same theme in the Nazi film he's making now.

....?

As for him 'not caring about the mythology,' is that why the movie's chock-full of references to the original flick? .

References to the original flick? Too funny. It WAS the original flick!

 

[matthooper]

It's not about liking or disliking the film. I get it. Many people liked the film. However, I cannot believe for a second that anyone before the film would have anticipated the character we got in SR. Even the lovers usually concede that it was a different Superman. If you liked it great. That means you like the Singerman version. I think no less of anyone who did like that. However, that said, I find it hard to believe that anyone feels that the SR "Superman" was the embodiment of what they feel is Superman. That's what I wanted, the real Superman. I felt the Reeve Superman was more of that. Not the Clark Kent though. The SR Kent was non-existant so it was irrelevant.

It was a good looking production, I will give it that.

 

[hammy]

True316, the reasons you posted are only part of the reason I didn't like the movie. There were many other factors that led to my disappointment, as well. And I agree, there have been so many different variations on Superman, but as matthooper suggested, there are certain core principles that Superman embodies and everyone wants to see those, especially since we waited so long for this movie.

 

[CGHulk]

One of the things that bothers me about SR is Superman's character within the film is out of character in the film!! Because a whole subplot was taken out of it where he thinks nobody wants him around anymore. (Who the heck wouldn't want Superman around to save them?) So now that the film doesn't explain that inner struggle, Superman just comes across as confusing.

Oh and he's pretty dumb for not leaving a typed letter or video of himself telling Lois where and why he's leaving and will he be coming back! It takes someone with a brain to think of that, obviously in Singer's film...Superman doesn't have one!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

....?

That sort of stuff has been touched on in the Superman mythology tons of times. Birthright, Smallville, and about half of Elliot S! Maggin's run on the comic all focused on Superman's loneliness at the top, and how he fits into the world.

As for him 'not caring about the mythology,' is that why the movie's chock-full of references to the original flick? Just because he didn't cram the movie full of post-Crisis MoS schlock doesn't mean that he ignored the conceptions of the Superman character. Keep in mind, the 'mythology' of the character is something that extends far beyond the comics alone.

So yeah, while he did add his own flavor to the mix, and you're more than welcome to dislike them if you want, it's hardly as if he pulled the elements for SR out of his butt.

Exactly, plus elements from the comics were included as well. Singer tried to fit as much of Superman from ALL mediums in as possible. And IMO he did a great job.

One of the things that bothers me about SR is Superman's character within the film is out of character in the film!! Because a whole subplot was taken out of it where he thinks nobody wants him around anymore. (Who the heck wouldn't want Superman around to save them?) So now that the film doesn't explain that inner struggle, Superman just comes across as confusing.

Oh and he's pretty dumb for not leaving a typed letter or video of himself telling Lois where and why he's leaving and will he be coming back! It takes someone with a brain to think of that, obviously in Singer's film...Superman doesn't have one!

Well thats the thing isnt it, it makes you wonder if Superman himself believed he was coming back to earth. Maybe he didnt intend to, ever think of that?

 

[Cyrusbales]

He uses the exact same themes in Superman Returns as he did for X-Men and he's called brilliant to all the defenders. How about something new from Singer. We get it. Singer feels isolated and alone and he is searching for his place so he uses the same themes in his films. These are superhero films not Merchant Ivory films. You can find a bit of everything in 60 years of Superman comics, but it doesn't mean that Singer captured the spirit of Superman because you can draw a little comparison to a box in a comic.


Superman is not the X-Men. Singer uses the exact same themes in every single movie he makes. You'll see the same theme in the Nazi film he's making now.



References to the original flick? Too funny. It WAS the original flick!

Themes are very different.

X-men= People hated by society, rejected, trying to find a place.

Superman=Someone hugely respected and reveered, who falls from grace due to a bad decision, now he's back, he has to try to retain his place, and superman is generally portrayed from the people's view, not SUPERMAN's view, so we get the feeling of the distance between them as we are looking up to him, not sypathising with him, like in X-men.

 

[Andy C.]

References to the original flick? Too funny. It WAS the original flick!

I don't recall Superman having a son in the original flick.

That's what drives me up the wall about most SR-haters. They can't seem to make up their mind about whether their demonized "Singerman" is too close to the old movies or goes too far in its own direction. Either way, there's no pleasing some folks, is there?

 

[ultimatefan]

I find it funny that people so often complain that Superman Returns is not "post-crisis" because it´s highly influenced by Donner´s movie, when in fact Donner´s movie took a lot of liberties with "pre-crisis" Superman continuity and tone. When the movie was made Clark wasn´t even a newspaper reporter.

When I look at For All Seasons, which is one of the most praised Superman "post-crisis", there´s a lot of elements there that clearly seem influential to SR, and ironically some that were very criticized by comics fans: the angstier, lonelier Clark/Superman is there, his superhuman attributes taking a toll on his personal relationships is there, Lex using his alien inheritage against him is there, Clark leaving his Superman persona for a while and getting back to his "roots" (only in this case it´s Smallville instead of Krypton), in the story Supes doesn´t even fight a supervillain, most of time he simply saves lives.

 

[afan]

3. Superman wouldn't leave Earth without telling Lois!

It's the reason given in SR for the action that is out of character.
Superman left without telling Lois because it would be too difficult for HIM to tell her.
It is that self-absorbed and self-centered insensitive attitude that is completely out of character. Not to mention the allusion to the lack of interpersonal fortitude.

 

[Super Kal]

to me, yes, he was out of character

 

[true316]

True316, the reasons you posted are only part of the reason I didn't like the movie. There were many other factors that led to my disappointment, as well. And I agree, there have been so many different variations on Superman, but as matthooper suggested, there are certain core principles that Superman embodies and everyone wants to see those, especially since we waited so long for this movie.

Interesting responses from both sides!

Casey, you mention certain core principles that you wanted to see from Superman. I'm curious to hear what those are.

 

[true316]

It's the reason given in SR for the action that is out of character.
Superman left without telling Lois because it would be too difficult for HIM to tell her.
It is that self-absorbed and self-centered insensitive attitude that is completely out of character. Not to mention the allusion to the lack of interpersonal fortitude.

Just a question, how is this any more insensitive than the times that Superman has been insensitive in the comics? Looking at the comic example I provided, would it have been too much to ask for Superman to write Lois a letter or call her on the phone to let her know he was leaving?

You describe Superman in SR as having a "self-absorbed and self-centered insensitive attitude." To me that just isn't what I saw on screen. Self-centered people aren't ready to give their lives to save others. That is exactly what Superman was ready to do in SR. A self-absorbed man would have certainly made a move on Lois at the end of the movie. If you remember, she actually mouthes the words: "I love..." She had just been through a very emotional circumstance and so had he. It would have been easy for him to take advantage of the situation. He is content to let her work out her feelings for herself because it is the right thing to do. You also mention "a lack of interpersonal fortitude" and again that isn't what I saw on screen. One of the most difficult things for many people to do is to recognize when they have messed up and to actually apologize. Superman was willing to do that. It takes fortitude to own up to your mistakes.

When looking at the characterization being good or bad I can look at the film and see (imo) that it was a pretty familiar characterization of Superman.

 

[El Payaso]

It simply wasn't any Superman that existed before Singer got his hooks into it.

Donner.

And now it seems every one of those bits have antecedents in comics.

Singer truly created Singerman from his own experiences of isolation and loneliness. Singer has even spoken in interviews about these feelings, and about finding his place in the world.

Only your personal biased assumption. Sorry if not all of us trust in your personal biased assumptions.

It wasn't Superman in any way shape or form.

It was Superman in looks and behaviour.

Singer didn't care about the mythology of Superman. He created his own version, right or wrong. Some loved it some hated it, but it wasn't any Superman we know.

It was Donner's and now we know those bits have antecedents in comics.

 

[El Payaso]

after four films of the same non-changing character, it was nice to have a more 3 dimensional and developed character, it was Superman, plus 5 years of isolation and a bad descision he had to try and live with. Brilliant.

I agree.

He uses the exact same themes in Superman Returns as he did for X-Men and he's called brilliant to all the defenders.

Many pictures use similar themes; they're not any less brilliant because of that. You should have realised already.

How about something new from Singer. We get it. Singer feels isolated and alone and he is searching for his place so he uses the same themes in his films.

Once again, many different directors use those same themes. Suddenly it's wrong. The reasons for that we don't know because you're not giving any.

These are superhero films not Merchant Ivory films. You can find a bit of everything in 60 years of Superman comics, but it doesn't mean that Singer captured the spirit of Superman because you can draw a little comparison to a box in a comic.

Of course these are superhero films. Does that mean they should be childish and/or dumb?

And yes, Singer based his movie on comics. Ouch, now you can't attack the movie because of that.

Superman is not the X-Men. Singer uses the exact same themes in every single movie he makes. You'll see the same theme in the Nazi film he's making now.

And for the third time, many great and not so great directors work on similar themes and that is what makes them artist and not mere artisans.

References to the original flick? Too funny. It WAS the original flick!

No, it was a different one with similar structure. Like Batman begins used a similar structure than STM.

 

[ultimatefan]

It's the reason given in SR for the action that is out of character.
Superman left without telling Lois because it would be too difficult for HIM to tell her.
It is that self-absorbed and self-centered insensitive attitude that is completely out of character. Not to mention the allusion to the lack of interpersonal fortitude.

It´s not out of character, even the most noble people can act on emotion, because someone is good and generous doesn´t mean they´re made of stone, I´m known for being a kind and generous person yet there were times when my feelings were stronger than me.

 

[SCLJ]

It simply wasn't any Superman that existed before Singer got his hooks into it. Singer truly created Singerman from his own experiences of isolation and loneliness. Singer has even spoken in interviews about these feelings, and about finding his place in the world.

It wasn't Superman in any way shape or form.

Singer didn't care about the mythology of Superman. He created his own version, right or wrong. Some loved it some hated it, but it wasn't any Superman we know.

It was about Singerman.

 

[Andy C.]

It was about Singerman.

*snore*

As said multiple times in this thread alone, EVERY "NEW" ELEMENT SUPERMAN HAS IN SR HAS A PRECEDENT IN THE MYTHOLOGY. Just because Superman didn't act the way you didn't want him to act doesn't mean that it was never part of the character.

 

[Super Kal]

the only things "new" was the kid and richard...




how original...