Superman Returns Was Superman Really Out of Character in SR?

[Super Kal]

but that doesn't make it right... Kal-El was brought up with high moral standards, so he shouldn't of done that.

 

[dark_b]

but that doesn't make it right... Kal-El was brought up with high moral standards, so he shouldn't of done that.

shouldnt have sex and use a condom?

i mena were there details in SR? we dont know exactly how it happened. or did we?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

with that i agree 100%.
different times.

Exactly, Singer was just updating Superman for modern times.

 

[Cyrusbales]

but that doesn't make it right... Kal-El was brought up with high moral standards, so he shouldn't of done that.

Even christ was tempted by the flesh, it's a nice parrallel, he was brought up AS A PERSON, so therefore he would give in to their desires at least once.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Even christ was tempted by the flesh, it's a nice parrallel, he was brought up AS A PERSON, so therefore he would give in to their desires at least once.

EXACTLY, even are gods are not perfect when raised with human morals.

 

[LexCorp]

Modern Superman, it's fine by me.

 

[scuba6580]

Singer's Superman has some faults -- which I welcome. Part of the problem with keeping up the Man of Steel's relevance is coming up with ways to make him interesting to a more sophisticated audience.

Think of anyone you know well. You can list what's great about them and you could, if you had to, list what they could improve on. Superman's a person. Yes, he was raised by a kindly couple in the Midwest who instilled good values in their boy, but there's no reason for Superman to be perfectly saintly. That's so boring. He's a young man in Superman Returns...he's still learning his way.

I like that Singer chose a personality for his Superman and went with it. His Superman is unsure of himself and his place in the world...he's lonely with an undercurrent of sadness, but he's as friendly as ever to people. He took his girl's love for granted (maybe because he knows he's a tough act to follow, as Lois once said) and expects her to come running back when he's ready. He's got to grow up in this movie, and in the end, they made a bold move by not letting him get the girl back.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Superman was out of character,and i still think..that because there has not been a Superman film in so long..that people latched onto the new Superman.Even if he was out of character..

I think WB and Singer are not thinking twice about giving Superman a sort of unwanted child,marrying off Lois and the excuse for Superman being gone in the first place.This is not what fans,or movie watchers wanted...the numbers show this is fact for the most part.

 

[El Payaso]

I think WB and Singer are not thinking twice about giving Superman a sort of unwanted child,marrying off Lois and the excuse for Superman being gone in the first place.This is not what fans,or movie watchers wanted...the numbers show this is fact for the most part.

Therefore Batman Begins didn't give people what they wanted since it made less money?

 

[mego joe]

Sorry Mega Joe, but i dont believe i am, sex was more taboo in the 70's than it is today, today, when people are in a relationship, they tend to have sex a lot earlier than couples developing a relationship in the 70's did.

IMO Singer just updated the same relationship from the 70's with a more modern sensibility to it. I dont see how thats wrong.

YOu said "It happened in the comics." And it clearly never has.

Updating it to a 'modern sensibility' doesn't make it in character for Superman, though. Based on his established character from the 'vague' history of the Donner films, he wouldn't do it. And don't forget. THe '70's were the decade of 'free love,' the women's equal rights movement and the beginning of the end of sexual stereotypes.

There's just something wrong about it whether it is a 'modern sensibilty.' SUperman is a character on the conservative and traditional side of the fence and it is anti-thetical to the essence and core of his character. Perhaps with a proper back story to fill in the gaps SInger could have pulled it off. However, he chose to just 'assume' that being in a relationship automatically equates to having sex and that Superman is just like everyone else when it comes to his morality and ethics. That is also incongruent with the character. He is an example of the best that we can be as humans. Superman operates from the highest moral and ethical standards in both his personal and public life. There are too many instances in SR where SUperman's motivations are based on selfishness and a weak moral fiber. Again, not SUperman.

 

[mego joe]

shouldnt have sex and use a condom?

I believe not having told Lois that he was also Clark points to a lack of real intimacy in their relationship and makes his commitment to her questionable, so no, he shouldn't have had sex with her.

i mena were there details in SR? we dont know exactly how it happened. or did we?

We don't really know, and that is one of the biggest faults of the film. Without the details it becomes impossible to accept it based on his later actions, not saying goodbye etc....

 

[mego joe]

Singer's Superman has some faults -- which I welcome. Part of the problem with keeping up the Man of Steel's relevance is coming up with ways to make him interesting to a more sophisticated audience.

There's nothing sophisticated about Singer's approach of using the most tired and overused Sopa opera plot. That's not a sign of 'sophistication,' but rather appealing to titilation and gossip material.

Think of anyone you know well. You can list what's great about them and you could, if you had to, list what they could improve on. Superman's a person. Yes, he was raised by a kindly couple in the Midwest who instilled good values in their boy, but there's no reason for Superman to be perfectly saintly. That's so boring. He's a young man in Superman Returns...he's still learning his way.

He's supposed to be older than you think. He left Earth at 26/27 and came back at 31 or 32. That's a little old to still be 'coming of age.' Additionally, the whole point of SUperman is that he is an example of the best of us, because of his moral and ethical upbrining. And as for Saintly, well, he may not be 'saintly', but he's darn close. He's supposed to be a big boyscout and REALLY believe in that type of ethic.

I like that Singer chose a personality for his Superman and went with it. His Superman is unsure of himself and his place in the world...he's lonely with an undercurrent of sadness, but he's as friendly as ever to people. He took his girl's love for granted (maybe because he knows he's a tough act to follow, as Lois once said) and expects her to come running back when he's ready. He's got to grow up in this movie, and in the end, they made a bold move by not letting him get the girl back.

HEy, if you like SUperman being out of character that's fine, but don't think that it's the same SUperman from any previous incarnation.

 

[roach]

1) Would Superman stalk???
To me I think Superman went to see how serious Lois and her boyfriend's relationship was. Superman easily could take Lois from him but would he be that selfish.
2)Would Superman have unprotected sex with Lois???
They had sex in Superman 2. Im pretty sure that at the point that he gave up his powers for Lois his relationship with her advanced beyond just dating. Had Zod and the other had not gotten free they probably woould have gotten married.
I didnt see anything out of character

 

[scuba6580]

HEy, if you like Superman being out of character that's fine, but don't think that it's the same SUperman from any previous incarnation.

I just want Superman to be interesting. If he's morally perfect, that leaves out any emotional drama beause he'll always do the right thing and that's bad story-telling. There's no arc for the character.

Physically, he can do just about anything, so that means the only way to challange him is with over-the-top action (which is awesome because its Superman, but it leaves his character one-dimensional).

James Bond is misogynistic and an egostical bastard. Batman is obsessive-compulsive. Spider-Man is neurotic. I get that Superman's the last Son of Krypton and his powers will only falter if the sun goes out or he's exposed to kryptonite, but there's no reason for him never to make the occasional selfish decision, especially if he's in love.

He's dedicated his life to helping the world, yet everyone here cannot accept that he used his x-ray vision and super-hearing to see where he stands with Lois. Yet even after he "snoops" on her, he flies away in tears, and then he waits for distress calls so he can go help people while he's falling apart.

 

[true316]

Many wrongs don't make a right.
Just to clarify for me are you saying by this that insensitivity exhibited by Superman, is in character?

I agree that many wrongs don't make a right, but that it isn't the point I've been trying to make. Although Superman's overall nature is extremely sensitive (imo) he has also demonstrated the capacity to be insensitive throughout his history. Just because it happens on rare occasion, it doesn't invalidate his basic nature. All I've shown is that similar stuff has happened before in the mythology.


[/quote]
Your example argues apples and oranges.

The story of "Exile" involves a Man of Steel who is so consumed with guilt, resulting from an un-characteristic taking of lives, that it drives him to the point of near mental illness. He convinces himself he must for the good of Earth, exile himself to deep space. A bit more drastic than the circumstance of Superman's disappearance in SR, don't you think, and even in his disturbed state of mind, his decision still considers the well being of others before his own.

Was Superman at the time of "Exile", involved with Lois in the level of intimacy that exists in SR? I don't recall. [/quote]

I don't believe it is apples and oranges. It isn't exactly the same by any means but I think the situation that Superman must have faced prior to SR, was quite drastic. If you had spent the first 25-30 years of your life believing that billions of people had died (including your biological parents who saved your life), and then woke up one day to find the possibility that they might still be alive what kind of emotions might it have stirred in you? How would you react knowing that you were the only person on Earth who could find out definitively whether the people of Krypton lived or died. Some might say that Jor-El informed his son that Krypton was destroyed so that should be enough. However, I've read post-crisis comic stories where Superman has encountered his parents from other dimensions. Other realities where Jor-El sent his son away with the information that Krypton was destroyed...only contrary to Jor-El's predictions Krypton didn't blow up. I don't know if the Superman from the SR universe has encountered something like that but I'm sure the possibility has entered his mind. Maybe his father was wrong and Krypton didn't blow up. Would you not feel compelled to find out the truth?

Also you wonder if Superman and Lois were involved in the same level of intimacy in the Exile story. I would say no from everything I know at the time. However what was the exact nature of Superman and Lois's relationship prior to SR? We know that they had sex at least once. But when he left, what was the nature of the relationship? It feels like this is the big question that provides the answer to many people's feelings surrounding the film. If they were still in an ongoing commited sexual relationship then he has definitely acted in the wrong. If they just had sex once and he decided to end the relationship at that point, then it doesn't seem as bad. Do you feel compelled to inform all of your ex-girlfriends of your future plans? We have to speculate about the backstory because Singer only wanted us to know that they had a past history together. He opted not to go into much more detail than that. Speculation about the backstory isn't enough of a reason for me to hate a movie the way some people here seem to do. Because within the film itself, as I've said, before Superman seems to act very selfless, particularly toward the end.



[/quote]
To clarify..... I only said the reason as stated in SR by Clark for not telling Lois, the emotional impact on self, is self absorbed in nature, and that is out of character.



Why at the end?
He had already made his move at mid-point, on the roof of the Daily Planet. Just to inform, in sci-fi / fantasy literature a male carrying a female in flight is allegorical for intercourse.[/quote]

I've got no comment regarding the allegorical intercourse thing as I didn't know about it and don't even know if that is what Singer himself had in mind so I'm not going to speculate on that. At the end, Superman acting selfless is of great importance to me because it shows character development. Prior to SR, this was a guy who decided not to say goodbye. In the film, after seeing how much Lois was hurt by his decision, he made a point to say goodbye to her at a pivotal moment when he was expecting that he might die. This is a guy who earlier in the film tried to rekindle his relationship with her because that's what he wanted. But by the end, it was more important to him what she wanted. He knows it is compilcated situation but he is content to let Lois know that he will always be there for both her and Jason. And he gives her space to decide for herself what she wants. In the future she may decide to break up with Richard. She may also decide to stay with him. In any case, Lois's happiness is more important to him than his own. That's selfless.

I hope this helps you see where I'm coming from with this.

 

[true316]

I think that it's about his motivation in that scene. He is peeping into her life for purely selfish reasons that is what makes it 'stalking.' He's not checking on her to see if she's OK. As far as the scene from the T.V. series, it may just be a borderline incident, but when taken with the rest of Singer's version it just comes off as another example of Singer not getting it.

Mega Joe, I think you are missing the point I'm making. The bottom line is, Superman has used his powers to spy on people prior to Singer's involvement.



What you say is true. There was no clear context for the relationship. But wouldn’t it be worse behavior and even more out of character if it was a one-night-stand, or just a casual sexual relationship instead of a committed sexual relationship?

This is probably my biggest gripe with your point of view. You accuse me of "complete guesswork" later in the post and yet to me that seems like exactly what you've done with the backstory to SR. You seem so ready to embrace all the worst possibilities about him. We're debating the sexual ethics of a movie that didn't even have sex in it. How do you know that Superman had a casual attitude about any of this? Everything he demonstrates in the film itself, seems to indicate that he cares deeply about Lois.

Don’t be too sure. The situation in the animated movie could be completely innocent. Without seeing the details of the situation you don’t known if they got doused with mud and had to shower off at the fortress. The details will give a context for the scene.

Also, I doubt that this situation will be the driving factor for all the conflict in the film. Remember, in SR it is Superman acting like an irresponsible jerk that creates ALL the conflict in the story. It is central to every plot line. It really depends on how integral to the story it is as to whether people call for Bruce Timm’s head. However, knowing what I know now, I will be wary of the animated film. I will now rent before immediately buying and probably check out spoilers before renting.

I'm not just guessing in terms of the situation in the animated movie. I'm going off a review from someone who saw it. He seems to indicate a sexual relationship is alluded too. You're right however, in that, I'll reserve final judgement for when I see it for myself.

You say that Superman acting like an irresponsible jerk creates all the conflict in the story and I think that is completely off base. We can't fully say that Superman is an irresponsible jerk if we don't have the complete context of his leaving. Also a huge portion of the conflict in this story came from Lex's evil scheme. It isn't like Superman just left the crystals sitting in his backyard in Metropolis. The fact that they were so well hidden was the defense. They were so well hidden that the governments of the world were absolutely clueless to where they were or even that they existed. It took the "greatest criminal mind of our time" (who was supposed to be in prison) to find them. Lex stole them. Lex chose to misuse them. I won't hold Superman responsible for Lex's evil ways.


It’s all about context. Before Superman left he said goodbye to Ma, Pa, Lana and Matrix who were the 4 most important people in his life at the time. Superman and Lois were not dating on any level. Lois was dating Jose Delgado. Check out this page from Action Comics #644.

It is clear that Superman has explained himself to Ma, Pa, Lana and Matirx.

The context of SR shows that they at some point had sex. This is clearly a different situation than Superman: Exile. You have to look at the story in context. In the comics at the time after he Byrne reboot, Superman and Lois had yet to become anything more than celebrity/ media acquaintances. Clark certainly had developed a working relationship with Lois, but she was not close with Superman, and while she may have been infatuated with him, she certainly was not in any sort of dating relationship with him.



In the context of SR one would expect that the person Superman was having sex with would be one of the most important people in his life, if not the most important. The question is not “Would Superman leave without saying goodbye to Lois,” the question is “Would Superman leave without saying goodbye to the most important people in his life, including Lois if they were in a relationship, especially one of a sexual nature.”

And it is clear in SR, that Superman informed his mother that he was leaving. Unless you can say with conviction what the exact nature of Lois and Superman's relationship was at the moment he left, you are just wasting your time. There are plenty of reasons I could list from the movie as to why I don't think they were in a commited relationship at the moment he left. If you want me to elaborate just ask.




I think it is clear that the opposite is true. The specific details of the situations in SR make it very different contextually from all the examples you present. In comics, Superman has never ‘stalked’ Lois and peered into her private life because of selfish reasons, especially in the context of Lois having a family.

Despite what you say about Superman and Lois’s dating relationship in the pre-Crisis comics they have never had sex without Lois first knowing that Clark and Superman were the same person. Your evidence from the forthcoming “Doomsday” animated film is complete guesswork on your part without actually knowing the details of those scenes.
And no, Superman has never left Earth for an indefinite or extended period of time without informing those closest to him. Your example in Exile does not apply because he does say goodbye to those most important to him, it’s just that Lois is not one of the most important people in his life and more importantly, he was not in a sexual relationship with Lois at the time.

You keep talking about "the sexual relationship at the time." But you also mentioned earler in your post that we don't know what the exact nature of their relationship is. Unless we know the exact specifics of what their relationship was when he left I'm not going to sit here condemning the character. It's just "complete guesswork" because we didn't see the part of the story where he left.

Mega Joe, I've read many of you're posts and I've seen you mention many of the same points again and again. But what I don't think I've ever seen you talk about are those moments in SR that are so quintessentially in character for Superman. Let me just ask you point blank, when Superman is ready to give his life to save billions of lives is that selfish or selfless? Is it out of character for Superman or is it in character?

I loook forward to hearing from you.

 

[mego joe]

I just want Superman to be interesting. If he's morally perfect, that leaves out any emotional drama beause he'll always do the right thing and that's bad story-telling. There's no arc for the character.

I think there are plenty of interesting Superman stories that have been told in the comics that have all you are suggesting, but they don't remove the essence of SUperman's character. If the best Singer could come up with to make Superman interesting was the plot to SR then it's pretty clear he has no real understanding of the character and a real lack of creativity in his approach to the character.

It's not always about doing the right thing, but rather that his motivation is from the right place, that whatever he's doing he's doing for the right reasons. Leaving Lois like he did was not for the right reason. Having sex w/ Lois without being honest with her about his Clark identity was not for the right reason.

It's all about his motivation which SInger did not touch upon at all in these character moments.

Physically, he can do just about anything, so that means the only way to challange him is with over-the-top action (which is awesome because its Superman, but it leaves his character one-dimensional).

Which is why the best SUperman stories and villains are not physical villains, they force Superman to use his mind to defeat those enemies. LUthor, Brainiac, Toyman, Prankster etc... none of them are physical. Even Darkseid, because he is SO powerful and requires Superman to really use his noggin to defeat him.

Getting Superman into a mulit-dimensional character comes when the whys and wherefores are explained in his stories, his beliefs and motivations. There just wasn't any of that in SR.

James Bond is misogynistic and an egostical bastard. Batman is obsessive-compulsive. Spider-Man is neurotic. I get that Superman's the last Son of Krypton and his powers will only falter if the sun goes out or he's exposed to kryptonite, but there's no reason for him never to make the occasional selfish decision, especially if he's in love.

How come for every character but Superman you gave personality/ psycological traits and SUperman you gave a physical traits?

If you think about SUperman's personality traits, I think you will find them quite incongruous with the character in SR. In SR he acted selfishly but hurt Lois in the process. How does that fit with being in love with her. He was clearly more concerned with himself than with her. Above all, even his selfish decisions are motivated by the best reasons. The "For Tomorrow" graphic novel is a great example of this. He made a mistake, a big one, but his motivation was for the right reasons. His motivations for his mistakes in SR are not for the right reasons.

He's dedicated his life to helping the world, yet everyone here cannot accept that he used his x-ray vision and super-hearing to see where he stands with Lois. Yet even after he "snoops" on her, he flies away in tears, and then he waits for distress calls so he can go help people while he's falling apart.

She already told him where they stood, he just didn't want to accept it. So, like a high school kid he went around to her place to try and catch a glimpse of her, but used his powers in a way which are certainly unethical and motivated for the wrong reasons.

IT's all about motivation.

 

[mego joe]

Mega Joe, I think you are missing the point I'm making. The bottom line is, Superman has used his powers to spy on people prior to Singer's involvement.

And what I'm saying is that the motivation of a characters actions are what defines the character. Think about this.

If they had chose to have a story where SUperman murdered a villain we would have a debate whether it was in character or not. SOme would say that he killed the Phantom Zone villains from the pocket Universe back in the eighties and that SUperman has killed in the comics before, so it's ok.

WHat I am saying is that you have to show the motivation of a character to determine if he is in character or not. Superman killing the PHantom Zone villains from the pocket Universe is understandable b/c his motivation was in character. If he just killed a non-powered street thug because he was trying to be judge, jury and executioner, then it is a totally different and out of character moment.

I'm saying the same thing about his invading Lois and Richard's privacy with his powers. His motivation is not altruistic. It is not in Lois and Richard's or the public's best interest. It is solely b/c he doesn't want to accept that she's apparently moved on.

This is probably my biggest gripe with your point of view. You accuse me of "complete guesswork" later in the post and yet to me that seems like exactly what you've done with the backstory to SR. You seem so ready to embrace all the worst possibilities about him. We're debating the sexual ethics of a movie that didn't even have sex in it. How do you know that Superman had a casual attitude about any of this? Everything he demonstrates in the film itself, seems to indicate that he cares deeply about Lois.

I agree that you are right. But IMO, SInger has only left the viewer guess work. I just don't see how you can reconcile the situation any other way than to think they were in a committed relationship at the time. IMO, SUperman would not ever be in a casual sexual relationship with anyone, so you can rule out that possibility.

If he had previously been in a committed sexual relationship with Lois then you have the whole question of when it ended in temporal proximity to when he left Earth. If they had not been close for a while, then I can understand him not feeling saying goodbye. But I can't understand why Lois acts the way she acts. She acts as if he just disappeared in the middle of their relationship. He acts as if he's coming back to pick up where they left off, not to rekindle something between them that had already ended a while before he left.

Thirdly, if they had ended it, it couldn't have been that long. For Lois or RIchard to believe that Jason is biologically RIchard's child, Lois would have had to have sex with Richard within a two week period of also having sex with Superman. WHen he returns Superman doesn't know who Richard is, so he had to leave pretty soon after having had sex with Lois in order for Jason's paternity to be in question. So, if he had ended it with Lois just before he left, then there is still a huge moral obligation on his part to let the woman he's been involved with sexually that he's leaving town for 5 years.

So where does that leave us? IMO, it leads right back to where I started. They were in a relationship and he left in the middle of it and chickened out on telling her b/c he was more concerened with his feeling than his own.

I'm not just guessing in terms of the situation in the animated movie. I'm going off a review from someone who saw it. He seems to indicate a sexual relationship is alluded too. You're right however, in that, I'll reserve final judgement for when I see it for myself.

I found that review and read it after writing my post. IT's too bad that Timm picked up that idea to use. I now have no interest in owning or even seeing the movie. I never was a big fan of that storyline in the comics anyways, so after reading the review and all the spoilers within, I realized there's nothing in it for me.

You say that Superman acting like an irresponsible jerk creates all the conflict in the story and I think that is completely off base. We can't fully say that Superman is an irresponsible jerk if we don't have the complete context of his leaving. Also a huge portion of the conflict in this story came from Lex's evil scheme. It isn't like Superman just left the crystals sitting in his backyard in Metropolis. The fact that they were so well hidden was the defense. They were so well hidden that the governments of the world were absolutely clueless to where they were or even that they existed. It took the "greatest criminal mind of our time" (who was supposed to be in prison) to find them. Lex stole them. Lex chose to misuse them. I won't hold Superman responsible for Lex's evil ways.

Yet, Jimmy's comment to CLark about how Lex got out of prison clearly indicates that Singer and co. want Superman and the audience to believe that it is SUperman's fault that Lex got out of prison. That is what I was referring to. And if Superman knew LEx had already been to the Fortress once, don't you think it would have been the responsible thing to take some precautionary measures? If Lex could do it once, couldn't he do it again? That is where I am coming from on that aspect.

As far as the context of SUperman leaving, it really doesn't matter. If he had told Lois he was leaving it would have completly changed the situation when he returned irregardless of the context of his leaving. The very fact that he admits that "It was too difficult" is enough to indicate he knew it was the wrong thing to do, but he did it anyway.

And it is clear in SR, that Superman informed his mother that he was leaving. Unless you can say with conviction what the exact nature of Lois and Superman's relationship was at the moment he left, you are just wasting your time. There are plenty of reasons I could list from the movie as to why I don't think they were in a commited relationship at the moment he left. If you want me to elaborate just ask.

Please list the reason, b/c I see the opposite. The big one is the one mentioned above. If he thought about it enough decide it was "Too difficult" to say goodbye, then saying goodbye was the right thing to do, which indicates that to me that they were in a relationship when he left. Plus her reaction to his return and his actions upon his return as mentioned above also indicate this to me. Conversely, if the relationship had already ended, it wouldn't really be that necessary to say goodbye, would it? The relationship is already over what would be the big deal? Unless, of course the relationship ended so soon to his leaving. EIther way, this nor anything else seems to indicate that the relationship had ended more than a week or two at the most before he left, which would still obligate him to explain himself to her.

You keep talking about "the sexual relationship at the time." But you also mentioned earler in your post that we don't know what the exact nature of their relationship is. Unless we know the exact specifics of what their relationship was when he left I'm not going to sit here condemning the character. It's just "complete guesswork" because we didn't see the part of the story where he left.

I've presented my argument for why I believe happened as the backstory to SR. I am interested to see how you view it as well.

Out of curiousity, do feel that not providing a solid, specific backstory was bad storytelling and bad filmaking?

Do you also feel that it makes uderstanding the characters motivatin difficult to understand in the matters that surround that issue?

Mega Joe, I've read many of you're posts and I've seen you mention many of the same points again and again. But what I don't think I've ever seen you talk about are those moments in SR that are so quintessentially in character for Superman. Let me just ask you point blank, when Superman is ready to give his life to save billions of lives is that selfish or selfless? Is it out of character for Superman or is it in character?

It's certainly in character, but the problem is that Singer created a Superman who acts one way in his public life, selfless and self-sacrificing, but in his private life he's motivated by selfishness and seems to have no intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. To me this dichotomy in the character is the greatest 'out of character' aspect to the Superman in SR. Superman adheres to those beliefs and values in both his public and private life, hence why all those moments in his private life we are discussing in this thread are so out of character, becasue they are the exact oppposite of the way he acts in his public life. This is the clearest reason that I see this version of Superman as not resembling Superman except superficially. THe thing about SUperman is that he REALLY is motivated to do things for the right reasons in BOTH his public and personal life.

If they made a Batman movie in which in his personal life had a homosexual relationship with Robin and still did all the public 'Batman things' we think of as 'Batman' would you think that was out of character or just a 'modernization' of the situation?

You can't get half the character right. YOu have to get the essence of the whole character right. IMO, Singer only got the public aspect of SUperman's character right. But when it came down to what kind of person he was, how he lived his private life, he just made up what he thought was interesting to him and what he related to instead of actually understanding the essence and core of the WHOLE character.

I loook forward to hearing from you.

Same here.

 

[CGHulk]

..Superman is just like everyone else when it comes to his morality and ethics. That is also incongruent with the character. He is an example of the best that we can be as humans. .

Those who like Superman Returns were they Superman fans before the film or after they saw this film? The quote above is who Superman really is, to billions of fans all around the world! Now to change such a depiction is wrong and irresponsible to many gnerations of writers and fans, who understood and admired this great character, and believe him to be a character that is a beacon of hope! A depiction of who we hope to be and strive to be! Now Superman Returns has given a new generation a depiction of the character that is out of character, now it may be to late to restore him * my heart breaks to think of such a thing*. Those who wouldn't watch or read his stories/movie/television shows before, but now like Superman Returns, if those that fit in this catagory because he's not acting like Superman, he's not Superman! To dislike him in the past but to like him now because he's not as admireable, he's not Superman. Donner didn't get the character 100% perfect, and there are past wrters that didn't get him right, but there are so many that have gotten him right, the positive depictions have out weighed the negative. Why so many love him to this day? He's the hero that will never give up, they ray of light when there is no more hope! He fights for Truth and Justice and the American way, and yes he'd have to fight every politician in America.

 

[mego joe]

Sorry Mega Joe, but i dont believe i am, sex was more taboo in the 70's than it is today, today, when people are in a relationship, they tend to have sex a lot earlier than couples developing a relationship in the 70's did.

IMO Singer just updated the same relationship from the 70's with a more modern sensibility to it. I dont see how thats wrong.

I would say that the 'modernization' of this idea though, does not work within the context of the '70's relationship. If that '70's relationship was one of casual and non-committed dating, I don't believe that SUperman in modern times would be in a 'casual and non-committed reatlationship' and have sex with anyone.

If you believe that SUperman operates from the purest of motivations then you can't believe he would have sex if he was not in a committed relationship, and I don't believe that he would be in a committed relationship without the emotional intimacy that would compel him to reveal his dual identity to his partner.

The only way Superman having sex works is if he is in a committed relationship, and he's not going to be in a committed relationship if he doesn't have that emotional intimacy and trust.

Just because 'modern' times have lost their way when it comes to the morality of sex it doesn't mean that Superman would also. In fact it would be more in keeping with the traditional and conservative values of Superman: Truth, Justice and the American Way, that he would in fact not reflect 'modern' sensibilities of morality. Otherwise, it trivializes sex and treats it far too casually.

He's not a high school student. He's an adult. Despite what anyone wants to believe about his feelings of lonliness and isolation, he's not a head case either. He should act like a mature adult and not an immature teenager.

Remember, it takes more maturity to say 'no' to sex than it does to say 'yes' to sex. The notion that sex is just 'something to do' is one of the greatest injuries society has suffered. Countless people have gotten hurt because of this casual attitude to sex. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is true and it has hurt society on a whole.

 

[mego joe]

with that i agree 100%.
different times.

It doesn't mean it isn't morally wrong though. The more casual the attitude towards sex is, the more problems that will arise from it.

 

[mego joe]

I know this a response to me, but I felt compelled to enter this fray.

I agree that many wrongs don't make a right, but that it isn't the point I've been trying to make. Although Superman's overall nature is extremely sensitive (imo) he has also demonstrated the capacity to be insensitive throughout his history. Just because it happens on rare occasion, it doesn't invalidate his basic nature. All I've shown is that similar stuff has happened before in the mythology.

However, in those previous stories, there is undoubtedly a plausible and believable motivation for such, insensitivity that you mention. SR does not provide a plausible or belivable motivation for Superman not saying goodbye to Lois. Not sure whay exact insensitivities you are referring to though.

I disagree with what you say about invalidating his basic nature though. Given the circumstance that I perceive to be surrounding his leaving, he is invalidating his basic nature. There is nothing that could possibly occur that would motivate Superman to do what he did, if he in fact truly loves Lois and places her well being above his own.

I don't believe it is apples and oranges. It isn't exactly the same by any means but I think the situation that Superman must have faced prior to SR, was quite drastic. If you had spent the first 25-30 years of your life believing that billions of people had died (including your biological parents who saved your life), and then woke up one day to find the possibility that they might still be alive what kind of emotions might it have stirred in you? How would you react knowing that you were the only person on Earth who could find out definitively whether the people of Krypton lived or died. Some might say that Jor-El informed his son that Krypton was destroyed so that should be enough. However, I've read post-crisis comic stories where Superman has encountered his parents from other dimensions. Other realities where Jor-El sent his son away with the information that Krypton was destroyed...only contrary to Jor-El's predictions Krypton didn't blow up. I don't know if the Superman from the SR universe has encountered something like that but I'm sure the possibility has entered his mind. Maybe his father was wrong and Krypton didn't blow up. Would you not feel compelled to find out the truth?

And certainly that isn't the problem. No one says Superman should never have left (well very few at least) just that when he chose to leave he did not act as we would expect him to act- that is like someone who genuinely loves Lois or who genuinely cares about the people of Earth. There is no plausible or believable motivation for why he would not tell Lois, or why he would not involve the people of Earth with his mission to Krypton.

Also you wonder if Superman and Lois were involved in the same level of intimacy in the Exile story. I would say no from everything I know at the time. However what was the exact nature of Superman and Lois's relationship prior to SR? We know that they had sex at least once. But when he left, what was the nature of the relationship? It feels like this is the big question that provides the answer to many people's feelings surrounding the film. If they were still in an ongoing commited sexual relationship then he has definitely acted in the wrong. If they just had sex once and he decided to end the relationship at that point, then it doesn't seem as bad.

Was Lois a one-nighter then? Or was it a one-time thing that was part of a larger relationship? I don't see how they could have been a one-nighter, but even having had sex once in the context of longer ongoing relationship one would still imagine some word of goodbye was necessary.

Do you feel compelled to inform all of your ex-girlfriends of your future plans? We have to speculate about the backstory because Singer only wanted us to know that they had a past history together. He opted not to go into much more detail than that.

Which equals bad storytelling becasue he's esssentially stripped his characters of any motivation?

I can't answer the question about the ex-girlfriends becasue I've been married for 13 years. However, there is a moral obligation to be around and available for contact if you have engaged in sex with someone. STD's and pregnancy don't tend to become apparent immediately after sex. I believe that Superman would/should be aware of this, if you don not agree, then we have differing views of moral obligations when it comes to sex and of the nature of Superman's moral and ethical values.

Speculation about the backstory isn't enough of a reason for me to hate a movie the way some people here seem to do. Because within the film itself, as I've said, before Superman seems to act very selfless, particularly toward the end.

And that's the main problem. His actions as a public figure in the end are not really congruent with his actions in his private life. It's becasue of this incongruence that he seems out of character. With a solid backstory and context Singer might have been able to convince me that it all fit together, but having to figure it out on my own and being unable to devise a backstory that makes sense in terms of the character has been impossible. I think this is mainly b/c SInger really didn't have anything beyond the 'vague' in mind. I don't think he considered Superman's motivations and moral character. I don't really think he understands the character beyond the particular aspects with which he identified from the Donner films. Additionally, I also believe he wanted to tell the returns story and didn't really plan what went before.

I've got no comment regarding the allegorical intercourse thing as I didn't know about it and don't even know if that is what Singer himself had in mind so I'm not going to speculate on that. At the end, Superman acting selfless is of great importance to me because it shows character development. Prior to SR, this was a guy who decided not to say goodbye. In the film, after seeing how much Lois was hurt by his decision, he made a point to say goodbye to her at a pivotal moment when he was expecting that he might die. This is a guy who earlier in the film tried to rekindle his relationship with her because that's what he wanted. But by the end, it was more important to him what she wanted. He knows it is compilcated situation but he is content to let Lois know that he will always be there for both her and Jason. And he gives her space to decide for herself what she wants. In the future she may decide to break up with Richard. She may also decide to stay with him. In any case, Lois's happiness is more important to him than his own. That's selfless.

If that's selfless, then it is also selfish of him to do what he did in the first part, not saying goodbye, etc.... And it clearly shows that the movie is trying to show that at the beginning SUperman IS selfish and self absorbed and learns a lesson that he should also be selfless in his private life as well as his public life. Thus confirming what many of us have said all along, that Superman does act out of character in the first part of the movie.

Now you might want to respond that it is a story about Superman learning about not being selfish and needing to be selfless all the time. But is that really a theme of a Superman story? WHen has Superman EVER had to learn that lesson? He pretty much appeared full blown in his morals and commitment to his values becasue they were instilled in him at an early age by his nuturing by the Kents. If he hadn't learned this lesson yet by the time he was in his mid-20's it certainly seems strange to me.

Additionally, the lack of back story gives no explanation of why SUperman would not be just as selfless and self-sacrificing in his private life as his public life. Everyone already knows that he is selfless, to portray him otherwise requires that often mentioned believable and plausible motivation/ explanation. It is particularly necessary in this case b/c SInger did not do an origin film, so the audience is going to use it's basic Superman knowledge about the character to make sense of things. What is basic is his selfless attitude toward all and his tradtional values and beliefs.

WHat is not part of basic Superman lore, or of any other kind of Superman lore is that SUperman at some point WAS selfish and self absorbed, or that he used to act like a jerk at some point in his life and had to learn a hard lesson about acting selfless in both his public and private life. SInger's lack of backstory assuems the audience knows certain things about the character in order to make sense of the context. Everyone knows that Superman and Lois are/ have been a romantic item, but no one knows or would even think for a moment that Superman would not be just as selfless in his private life as he is in his public life. THere's no explanation for why he would not be selfless in his private life.

Lasty, for me, I CAN hate the movie b/c of the lack of the backstory, b/c w/o it those elements aren't congruent with the character. It's a movie w/o motivation for the main characters. The only character that has any real depth is Richard. Oddly enough, unlike SUperman Richard is portrayed to be selfless in his private life. No one questions it because it is understood b/c he is perceived as just a really good man. But isn't that who SUperman is suppposed to be? So then why wouldn't Superman also be just as selfless in HIS private life?

I hope this helps you see where I'm coming from with this.

 

[scuba6580]

1. It's not always about doing the right thing, but rather that his motivation is from the right place, that whatever he's doing he's doing for the right reasons. Leaving Lois like he did was not for the right reason. Having sex w/ Lois without being honest with her about his Clark identity was not for the right reason.

It's all about his motivation which SInger did not touch upon at all in these character moments.

2. How come for every character but Superman you gave personality/ psycological traits and SUperman you gave a physical traits?

If you think about SUperman's personality traits, I think you will find them quite incongruous with the character in SR. In SR he acted selfishly but hurt Lois in the process. How does that fit with being in love with her. He was clearly more concerned with himself than with her. Above all, even his selfish decisions are motivated by the best reasons. The "For Tomorrow" graphic novel is a great example of this. He made a mistake, a big one, but his motivation was for the right reasons. His motivations for his mistakes in SR are not for the right reasons.

1. Well, this is kind of my point. Superman always acts for the right reasons, which often makes him as bland and boring a hero as Captain America. There's a reason I listed those other three characters. Arguably, they're the three most popular cinematical heroes in the world right now and each has their issues to deal with. They struggle with death, money, identity, & love and that's why they smoked the box office and will endure for sequels to come.

2. The reason I didn't list Superman's personality traits with those other is because, aside from being heroic and selfless (which you could say they all are), he's got no defining characteristics or quirks.

With the exception of the animated Tim Daly-voiced Superman, who I will admit was a bit of a smart-assed, silent type.

 

[mego joe]

1. Well, this is kind of my point. Superman always acts for the right reasons, which often makes him as bland and boring a hero as Captain America. There's a reason I listed those other three characters. Arguably, they're the three most popular cinematical heroes in the world right now and each has their issues to deal with. They struggle with death, money, identity, & love and that's why they smoked the box office and will endure for sequels to come.

Have you ever thought that Superman has to deal with having the powers of a god but the emotions of a human? And that he can't force anyone to do what he would like them to because of his ethical and moral upbringing? That if his identity were ever made public his loved ones would be put in harms way from incalculable threats? And that because of this he chose for many years not to have any close relationships? And that this creates a sense of lonliness and isolation that is exacerbated by his being the last of his kind? And yet, his belief in people and positive outlook on life inspires him to overcome those feeling to be an inspiration to millions?

Does that sound simple, boring or one-dimensional? Is it any less interesting than the other characters you mentioned? It just doesn't contain a gritty dark element, b/c that is not part of his character.

Superman can smoke the box office too, he already did with Superman: The Movie, and he can again with the right story. SR was not that story.

Heroes like Superman and Capatian America are not boring, they challenge the audience to evaluate their own values and how strongly they believe in doing what is right as opposed to what is easy or popular.

Superman's greatest weakness is his humanity and his caring for others. Instead of using his personal life to portray contradiction, a story in which he is vulnerable becasue of his genuine caring and concern for others would be very moving and certainly not boring. "For Tomorrow" is a good example of a graphic novel and and old story called "The Day SUperman Couldn't Save" is an example of SUperman having to choose between to sets of people to save because he isn't a god or perfect or infallible, but he is motivated by the highest morals and ethics. This has been done recently in a comic that is in a similar vein as "The Day SUperman Couldn't Save" mentioned above. I can't remember the title, but in the story and elderly woman believes Superman to be an angel who is sent to help her whenever she calls. At first he is able to be there everytime, but then she gets in trouble and he's off averting a world crisis and he can't save her.

It is not necessary to change the essence of SUperman's character just in order to make him interesting. HE already is interesting, he's just not an easy character to write well.

2. The reason I didn't list Superman's personality traits with those other is because, aside from being heroic and selfless (which you could say they all are), he's got no defining characteristics or quirks.

His defining characteristics and quirks are as follows: He really is the ultimate boyscout. He really is the genuine nice guy he appears to be. There is no hidden skeleton or sordid history. He is the quintsential nice guy. That is who he is. He is the best of what a human can be and yet biologically he's not human. His other quirk according to the Donner movies is that he never lies.

With the exception of the animated Tim Daly-voiced Superman, who I will admit was a bit of a smart-assed, silent type.

Haven't seen it in a while, but I'll take your word for it. He was a bit of a smart ass way back in the thirties as well I believe.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

Singer truly created Singerman from his own experiences

lol the word singerman is still very lame lol