It would depend. If he does not act consistently towards Lois from film to film it really wouldn't matter. Let's see where you're going with this.
I think you know this, but I completely disagree.
So they were probably in a close committed relationship? YEs? Then how can he not have revealed his Clark identity to her along the way and still be in a committed adult relationship?
I understand where you are going with this, but the circumstances that I see played out in the film tell me otherwise. If he REALLY was that committed and concerned and thoughtful he would have told her he was Clark and he would have told her goodbye. Singer gives us a Superman doing things that are questionable, so why wouldn't his attitude towards sex also be questionable since we are given no context? Unless you think that it is Ok that he didn't say goodbye or that he didn't reaveal his dual identity to Lois.
I despertely want to, but the details of the film don't indicate a scenario that's possible. The fact that there is doubt at all about whether Superman did the right thing in this situation pretty much proves that Singer was trying to show Superman doing the wrong thing. If he isn't doing the wrong thing in this situation, the movie doesn't make any sense thematically.
If Superman didn't do anything wrong why is Lois so upset? Why does he have to appoologize after the fact once he returns? Why does he make sure to say goodbye when he leaves the helicopter?
No, I think he's jealous of Richard. He tried to woo her back with the romantic nightime flight. He tried to one-up Richard when Lois told him that Richard takes her flying too and he said, "Not like this." He broke the picture when Jimmy gave him the update on Lois's life becasue he was hurt becasue Lois moved on. He's not trying to 'catch up.' He's trying to pick up where he left off when he left.
Then Jimmy's line about it being SUperman's fault is a pointless and useless line in the film.
I've said it before, but it's not the fact that he left, it's the way he left, he details of that matter.
I'm not trying to absolve Lex of anything. I'm interpreting the meaning of JImmy's line about SUperman being at fault for Lex going free. It's right there in the movie. It's not like he escaped as he did in Superman II. Jimmy Olsen, a guy who works at a newspaper, someone you would expect to be a credible source on news says that Lex got free b/c of a technicality due to Superman not being around to testify.
I'm not making this up. It's in the movie. No matter what you imagine might happen doesn't change the fact that that scene is in the movie and it has to be there for a reason, otherwise it would certainly have been cut.
Actually, I'll explain to you exactly what's in the movie. Jimmy says that Lex got out on his fifth (yes, FIFTH) appeal. Lex had already been tried, convicted, and was sitting in jail for a long time. Lois even tells us what his sentence was (double-life sentence). For Superman, he justifiably felt that Lex was no longer a threat. He had been brought to justice, and was sitting in jail. How you can hold Superman at all responsible for this is nothing short of astounding to me. 
Lex just waited until he knew Superman was gone and then called for him as a witness. The purpose of the line was stated in the film: "How much do you think that pisses off Superman?" His response: "A lot." It was meant to anger and frustrate him. Lex and the appeal's court are ultimately the ones responsible for him being back on the streets.
I've read so many that it's hard to narrow it down. THe early Action stuff is fun, the current comics especially the Superman title is great. "WHat Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" is also a classic, as is Alan Moore's 'other' Superman story- "For the Man who has Everything." The decade trades, "Superman in the Fifties," "....Sixties," "....Seventies," are all good. And at the time I enjoyed the Byrne revamp in the mid eighties.
THe fact that he got out on a technicality doesn't make this a strong case, though. If he simply escaped b/c he wasn't around I could by that, but the fact that it is based on a technicality to me indicates that SInger wants the viewer to believe that Superman is somehow at fault.
Maybe he liked it b/c it WASN'T like SUperman who he dislikes.
Then Jason isn't necessary to complete him, only any loving relationship, and Jason's character is nearly useless.
I agree, and I've tried to avoid it up to this point.
Since Lois is the one that's pregnant we don't really need to know. Lois's body is not going to change chemically or genetically b/c Jason is half Kryptonian. And if that were really important then Singer would have addressed it. He didn't so we don't have to invent stuff, we just have to know the basics of human pregnancy. Lois is human, she's pregnant. THat's all you have to know. My belief is that SInger didn't elaborate b/c he assumed that people would go with the most obvious answer. Lois had sex with both men close together and didn't think it COULD be SUperman's b/c of the DNA differences.
But where does he hurt Lois in those films?
In S:TM and SII, Superman is motivated to save Lois's life and aleviate her pain so that she can continue on. His methods may not be perfect, but his motivation is in her best interest.
If you can't understand this, then you are totally missing the point of the Donner Superman films.
In SR, Superman leaves w/o telling her goodbye while either being in the midst of a sexual relationship with her, or almost immediately after ending the relationship. This is not in her best interest, but by his 'too difficult' comment- his best interest.
In terms of his motivation when it comes to Lois, that is all you need to understand- his actions are motivated for opposite reasons between the STM/SII and SR.
STM/SII: Lois's best interests.
SR: His own best interests.
It's cut and dry.
I don't think it's so cut and dry...I'll discuss that at the bottom.
But at no point is he putting his own feelings before Lois.
No problem, but his actions have to be those of a good human, not a jerk.
Rag away. They are good, even really good at times, but they are far from perfect and far from being 'canon' Superman films.
Interestingly, I think deep down we believe in the same Superman we just interpret the material differently.
To me it boils down to this.
You don't get someone pregnant and miss 5 years of that child's life w/o the mother of that knowing where you are without doing something morally and ethically wrong. Whether it's entering into a sexual relationship w/o commitment or leaving that woman w/o saying goodbye b/c he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do what's right, either way he's done something wrong. That reasoning is what I find out of character for Superman.
He puts his own feeling before those of Lois. THat is not how good people act toward the perosn they love.
