true316 said:
So the motivation of a character's action are what defines the character? Could we apply that to SR as a whole? This thread is about trying to determine whether Superman was in character or out of character in SR. If we could determine what his ultimate motivation is for what he does would that gives us an answer to that question? The thing is, that SR does provide us with Superman's motivation. When he is speaking to Lois he states it in simple, eloquent fashion: "You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior, but everyday I hear people crying out for one."
Do those sound like the words of a self-absorbed, insensistive person? It gets to the heart of what sets Superman apart from every other hero out there.
But his actions in his private life are in direct contrast to this demonstrated public motivation.
Spider-man, Batman, the X-men, they've all been victimized in some way. Whether it was their uncle being killed, their parents being killed, being discriminated against, those moments are what provide them with their incentive to be a hero. With Superman its different. It isn't that he is a victim (although he is), it is the fact that others are being victimized. When he hears someone else in trouble that is enough motivation to do something about it. If your criteria are the measuring stick for how we define a character than I have to say that Superman looks pretty well in character.
I understand that part of Superman's motivation and I have no problem with that. Again I'm talking about his motivation in his personal life, not his public life. All your examples are concerning his private life. My belief is that Superman acts consistently in both his public life and his private life. If there is an aberation, then the story must carry an explanation, otherwise it doesn't make sense in the context of what we understand about the character. Specifically there is no real believable or plausible explanation that is in character for Superman that explains why he did not say goodbye to Lois. The reason this is so important to this story is that how he left greatly impacts what happens when he returns. Everything that happens in SR springboards off of his leaving. SInger wanted to tell the story of how he returns, but his set up is so bad that we don't know how he left. HOw can you tell a story of a return and it's consequences w/o knowing the circumstances of how he left. Additionally, the whole concept of the film originally was that the world moved on w/o him. Therefore, we sort of have to know what the world was like before. Audiences generally know enough about SUperman that they can use that knowledge to figure out what the circumstances of Superman's public life were like. That is consistent throughout his many incarnations. That's not rocket science. HOwever, the general knowledge of Superman's private life does not fit the same general knowlege paragigm. There have been many different interpretations of Superman's private life. Pre-Crisis comics, post-Crisis comics, current comics, Lois and Clark TV show and the Reeve films. We all know because we're geeks that he's basing the film on a vague history of Superman: The MOvie and Superman II. THe general audience doesn't know this. THe general audience probably has no idea that it's based on any previous version whatsoever. THerefore, the burden is on the filmmaker to explain enough so that we can understand why the characters act he way they do when Superman returns. Knowing the details makes a great difference. JUst imagine the circumstances to be a bit more extrememe than what we were given in SR. What if he returns and Jason is not his son. In that case, we wouldn't even know if Superman and Lois were in a sexual relationship. That detail changes a lot and it makes a big difference in how to view the events of the return.
Now of course I'm supposing something of course:
That Superman and Lois were in a relationship when he left. I'll expand on this later.
This would be inherently out of character for Superman. Everyone on the board agrees that it was wrong, however there is not proper explanation that is in character to make the viewer believe it. If he can't treat Lois the same as he treats the masses, it's out of character for Superman.
Additionally, Superman not revealing his dual identity before having sex with Lois. THere's something morally and ethically wrong about this and his the only thing that would explain this motivation is for selfish reasons. There's no altruistic reason or explanation that it would be in Lois's best interest not to know, it's purely motivated by something selfish. Plus, it indicates that while they are engaging in a physical intimacy, there is not the emotinal intimacy which should be part of a health adult sexual relationship. I think this is also out of character, because it suggests that his attitude towards sex is too casual to be in character for SUperman becasue we know his motivation is based on doing things for the right reasons and from a high moral and ethical perspective.
(By the way, if you look back to the example I mentioned from Lois and Clark, you'll find that those instances where he uses his powers to spy on Lois are not completely altruistic in nature. There are other examples from the Superman mythology that show him doing things that are insensistive or not altruistic. If you would like me to elaborate just ask.)
I think there is a fine line between invading the privacy of a family at home b/c you are jealous and if you are trying to find out if you have a chance with a single unattached woman. I think that this apect has been blown out of proportion a bit because of the rest of the film.
Hey, I would like some of those other examples you speak of. I'm pretty well versed in SUperman lore and don't think he's ever really been insensitive or spiteful w/o motivated by the right reason.
If you freely admit that you are just guessing at Superman's character in the backstory, how can you say for sure that he is such a bad guy? Especially when you can acknowledge that he does act selflessly in the parts that you don't have to guess at. IMO, it leads us back to what I've been talking about all along...speculation. It is more important to me to see how the character acts in the story that we are seeing than the backstory that I can't see.
I'm basing my opinions and take on the film as I gleaned from the film. SInger doesn't give anything concrete so the viewer has to interpret what little is given. I interpret the film to be trying to show that SUperman was a bad guy, that he made mistakes b/c he had to go to KRypton b/c he was feeling so lonely and alone and unlike everyone else. That's how I think Singer was trying to portray Superman. That b/c he's 'so alone' that he acts contrary in his personal life than he does in his public life. To me that's no part of who Superman is. He doesn't do that. You are missing the essence of the character to believe so. His mistakes then lead to a mess with Lois and Jason and as Jimmy tries to show, Luthor got out of prison b/c he left. He made a mistake.
You have know idea how much I appreciate you saying that. I was really expecting people to just gloss over that and ignore it because it wasn't Singer. You're showing consistency with your viewpoint and I really admire that.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I'll tell you. Having read a lot of SUperman comics over the years I feel I know a lot about the character. I've made some bold and seemingly "know-it-all-comments" in the forums b/c of this. However, I haven't read so much in the past 10 years. Therefore, to make sure things I haven't read have developed Superman differently, I've made it a point to get a number of newer graphic novels to enhance my knowledge of recent SUperman history as opposed to the older stuff. I had already begun rereading the SUperman comics at the time of OYL so I was familiar with what was current when SR came out.
Again, who's truly at fault here? Is it Superman for putting trust in our justice system to keep dangerous criminals like Lex in prison? Or is it Lex's fault for finding a loop hole in the justice system that allowed him to escape? It has to anger Superman that Lex essentially used his absence has a means to help him escape. But I cannot and will not blame a victim for being victimized. Lex is the bad guy here, not Superman.
I understand what you are gettint at, but I think the purpose of that line in the story was to illustrate anothe mistake that SUperman made. Otherwise, the line is meaningless. I'm not saying that it is necessarily true, but I took it to mean that Superman knew before leaving that his presence and testimony would be needed, but he left w/o a word. That is what I took it to mean in the movie.
You're right in saying that the context of Superman's leaving doesn't matter all that much, but only because that isn't the story Singer was telling. The movie wasn't titled, "Superman Leaves." It was called "Superman Returns." I just don't think it is a big deal because Singer was more concerned with how Superman returned than with how he left. And I don't believe it is a big problem in terms of the quality of the movie. Look at what the critics had to say. These are people who are payed to be critical of movies, to point out the flaws. How come the majority didn't bother mentioning the backstory? I think it was simply a non-issue for them. It is only the hardcore fans that are obsessing over the details.
Maybe on this site, but like I've posted elsewhere, I've only met one person in real life that like SR. Everyone else either outright disliked it to ehh. In everycase, people who knew something about the character going in found the backstory to be lacking and that a lot did not make sense b/c of it. Addtionally, they all felt that Superman's out-of-wedlock child was out of character.
You asked me to elaborate on reasons why I feel Superman and Lois might not have been in a commited relationship when he left. Well start with this. Early in the movie when Clark is talking to his mother. The subject they are addressing is loneliness. Namely, his mother is trying to reassure him that he isn't alone. That seems to be part of the incentive for him to leave in the first place. His own sense of loneliness and not belonging.
I thought that would have been a factor of having been physically isolated for the past 5 years AND getting confirmation that he IS the last Kryptonian. This seems to explain why he is feeling that way, becasue as you point out below:
It is only truly answered and alleviated when he finds out that Jason is his son.
THis seems to confirm that other humans aren't doing it for him in anyway. NOt his mom, not Lois not Jimmy, ONLY someone else with some Kryptonian DNA.
But ask yourself, if Superman was in a commited relationship with Lois would he feel that way? Lonely, like he didn't really belong?
THat is what I get out of the movie. If any loving relationship would work, he wouldn't be so darned lonely, the movie to me suggests that he needs that connection to another Kryptonian. Otherwise, the end doesn't make any sense. You are suggesting that if he came back and everything was hunky dory with Lois then he wouldn't be so lonely and isolated. My take on the film was that his relationships with humans are not getting the job done and he needs that connection to another KRyptonain.
Now ask yourself this, if things hadn't worked out with Lois, would it not add to his sense of loneliness and isolation?
I would imagine so, but we have no details to really tell. KNowing why they broke up if that was the case would go along way in giving more backstory to explain what is going on. OK, here's my reasoning:
"Why Superman and Lois had to be in a relationship, or one that ended almost immediately before he left for 5 years."
1. Lois thinks Richard is Jason's father. This can only be explained one way. She had sex with both Superman and Richard within a two week period.
Why?
Well, no matter when Lois had her last menstrual cycle (just in case she was irregular), when you find out you are pregnant the doctor projects your due date based on the date of your last menstrual cycle. If a woman is irregular or unsure, they will do an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of the baby. ONce receiving this information, Lois would have been able to tell when she conceived the baby and who the father was. THe only way paternity could be in question would be if she had sex with both Superman and Richard within a two week period during the second half of her menstrual cycle. Why is this important?
2. Superman/ Clark does not know who RIchard is, he's never met him before when SR opens. This means that Richard joined the Daily Planet after Superman left.
The only scenario that works that explains both of these situations is that Lois and SUperman had sex and then he left shortly thereafter, then she met Richard shortly thereafter SUperman and then Lois had sex with Richard. I there had been months between LOis's sexual encounters with the two men, she would not have believed that Richard was the father, she would have realized, "Oh, I was having sex with Superman then, I hadn't even met Richard."
What it boils down to is that when she gets the due date, she'll know when she got pregnant and then be able to determine who the father is. THe only way she could be confused is if she had sex with both men close together.
There's no other way to explain it that fits with Lois's human biology. Any talk of Super-sperm or superstrong zygotes that withstand a menstrual cycle are ridiculous.
3. Even if Superman and Lois broke it off just after the encounter and just before he left, it still does not change his moral and ethical obligations towards Lois to make her aware of his where abouts. Plus, would she move on THAT quicky? We are talking less than two weeks. That to me doesn't fit Lois's character. IMO, it really makes her out to be ****ty.
However, I don't think this bothers Singer's characterization. I think fundamentally SInger is charcterizing SUperman as a person that acts one way in public and another way in private. Ultimately, that is my biggest reason for believing that Superman acted out of charcter in SR. THe other aspects we've been discussing are details that bear out this characterization.
I know there are going to be questions you have to this. I don't want to throw all my reasons at you it this post. I want to give you some space to ask the questions you have. Really appreciate the discussion!
Hey, me too. Really interested to see what you think of my analysis of the paternity question. I feel it is solid based on Lois's human biology. Plus, if there is some other reason Singer didn't include, we can't really count it, b/c it's not in the movie. Plus, I don't think Singer and his writers know enough about pregnancy, conception and birth in the first place. I'll fill you in why if you'd like. I'm eagerly awaitng you response to this post.
Just in case you are wondering about my credentials on pregnancy, conception and birth. I have a 9 and 4 year old. I have based my argument on how it went for my wife and every other person I know who has given birth. The things I mentioned are standard for anyone under care of a doctor throughout pregnancy.
