Superman Returns Was Superman Really Out of Character in SR?

[LexCorp]

Oh yeah...flop

 

[El Payaso]

well, see....the problem with the vague continuity issue.....is that.....a year after the movie has been out........WE ARE STILL DEBATING ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES CONTINUITY FOR SR!!!

If anything that proves how idle fans could be. Fans discussing about something like this doesn't constitute a problem in a movie. It does constitute a problem in fans' lives (or lack of them).

Obviously, if Singer made it clear what parts of Supes 1 and 2 were in continuity, then there wouldn't be so much confusion.

In fact you can tell with little imagination. And the points that aren't clear aren't that important to follow the story.

For example, I don't think it is clear that Supes/Lois FOS sexual encounter from Supes 2 carried over into SR. It seems like Lex has been to the FOS, but we are left guessing.

It is absolutely clear that Lex has been in the FOS. And the Superman/Lois sexual encounter from SII is irrelevant (he erased those emmoriews from her anyways). The point is they had sex after what happened in SII.

We don't know for sure if SR happened after Zod and co ( the official novel seems to suggest that Superman had only heard of Zod but never met him yet ).

Which is irrelevant for SR. You can watch it thinking it happened or it didn't happen all the same. It doesn't change the story.

Also, as to the claim that the Superman in SR was fundamentally the same as the Superman from the Chris Reeves series.....I strongly disagree.

In Supes 1, Superman loved Lois so much, and he was so distraught at her death ( and his unability to save her )....that he defied his father's orders and turned back time.

Likewise, in Supes 2, Superman loved Lois so much that he willingly gave up his god-like powers so that he could spend the rest of his life with her as a normal man.

Now, in both cases, you could say that Supes acted selfishly and recklessly. And, that is true.....but he did those things FOR Lois......to be WITH her.

Being Lois his main treasure, all he does for her he is doing for himself.

He didn't reverse time to save regular people, just Lois. When he decided to be with Lois (SII) he didn't put people's lives first, just his own happiness.

Now, when he was Superman again and coudn't stand to watch what he did to Lois, he erased her memory without her permision; he did it for himself or he would have told Lois what he wanted to do and would have respected her natural right to choose about what's in her head or not.

Contrast that to the Supes in SR.......again, Supes acted selfishly and recklessly ( leaving earth for 5+ years ).....and more importantly.....not telling Lois.........a woman he was having a sexual relationship with.

I agree about not saying good-bye, that was too much.

But how is selfish to go to Krypton leaving his life maybe forever (he didn't know when was he coming back or even if he was able to come back one day)? Was he supposed to win something by doing that?

However, the reason Supes gave for not even saying goodbye to Lois was that he was afraid of HIS feelings and that HE wouldn't lose the courage to make the trip.

I agree, we could have had the same story with him saying good-bye. He had reasons enough to leave and Lois would have had reasons enough to be resentful.

So, the Supes in SR made the choices NOT TO BE WITH Lois, but to pursue his own goal. I see that as fundamentally different.

How is it 'not to be with Lois' = selfish?

As I said, Lois constitutes a personal gain for Supes. When he has to do something not putting Lois in the first place he's everything but selfish. In fact he SHOULD HAVE put people of Earth over Lois in both STM and SII, but he didn't. If for puriosm, he was way "out of character" in both ocassions.

Another MAJOR, FUNDAMENTAL difference between the Supes of S1 and S2 and the Supes of SR is this.........

The Superman in S1 and S2 had a romantic/sexual relationship with Lois AFTER she found out he was Clark. Even though he was forced to reveal his identity to Lois, Superman still had the decency to EXPLAIN to her who he was before he hopped into the sack with her.

Superman in SR CLEARLY DID NOT HAVE THAT BASIC DECENCY to tell Lois the truth about himself before he satisfied his sexual urges.

That applies to all of his life with Lois. He has never got the decency to tell her he lies to her every single day pretending he's a different person other than Superman when he's Clark. In fact Superman knows a lot of Lois becasue of Clark (a sort of internal spy) and therefore, much of the Superman's seducing power comes from a blatant secret. He has never been 100% honest with Lois to start with.

He also did not think much about the responsibilities and CONSEQUENCES of having sex with a woman before he made his 5+ year trip.

He didn't also in SII.

At most he solved the problem erasing Lois' memories about their sexual intercourse. Without her permission. Just his will.

So, for me, the Superman of yore was very different than the Superman portrayed in SR.

But it's not that much.

And we haven't spoken about the Zod killing.

And, please note, I am not including the silly Amnesia Kiss plotpoint in my analysis.

I did. It was quite selfish and unethical from Superman. You should have included it.

 

[El Payaso]

My point was that nothing in SII happened EXACTLY that was in the backstory for SR. The things the other poster mentioned were clearly debunked by Singer when talking about SR and not using the whole FOS satin bedroom bit.

What's the difference with that scene, Superman made Lois to forget about that, and didn't even consult her if she wanted.

That's only b/c you think the Superman from S:TM and SII is selfish and motivated by selfish reasons in those films as well.

And I think that based on what happenes in both movies.

Remember, you're the only one on this board that doesn't understand that SUperman was motivated to aleviate Lois's pain when he planted the amnesia kiss on her.

And how does that make me wrong about it? And then again, I'm not sure if I'm the only one.

I believe you also thought it was a mistake for SUperman to turn back time and save her life at the end of Superman: The Movie.

Mistake or not, it showeed that Superman only goes to the extreme of his strenght when it's about Lois, not the rest of humans' lives.

And you also think that the secret Identity thing is the same thing as lying and is proof that Superman is dishonest.

And it is. What's your actual point?

You just don't get the underlying motivation and characterization that is used for Superman in S:TM and SII.

I get it: it nis to be with Lois and if he can't, to be with Lois without problems (she crying).

 

[El Payaso]

I would say he believes he can do anything at times and sometimes they don't turn out well ala "FOr TOmorrow." I wouldn't really say that it's lazy, it's just that SUperman is supposed to be a straight forward type of character. What you see is what you get, he's just a great guy with the powers of a god and he uses them in the best interest of mankind.

More like in the best interest of Lois Lane if we talk about the movies.

He's been developed over the years to have a more fallible human side, but never to the point that his motivations are questionable.

There's always the first one. In comics and in movies. If there's not, there's no development. About questionable motivations, Singer was not the first one though.

And what is the ramifications from this?

That we know now if there's no dead Lois, Superman won't do everything to save people. (Or if he wants to be with her)

Becasue Jor-El says it's wrong, it's wrong? I always took it as at that point he chose humanity,

Don't fool yourself: He chose Lois.

When mountains were falling over people he didn't reverse time; he did only after Lois died.

using his powers to save someone he loved, as opposed to falling in line with Jor-El's controls on him.

Jor-El was representing the good beyond personal reasons. People over Lois. For Superman it was all Lois over people.

Hence he 'hears' both his fathers in his head "you are forbidden to interfere with human history" and "you have these powers for a reason."

And both points to the same.

Jonathan always told him to use his powers for the greater good, not for personal reasons. The complete quote: "You´re here for a reason and it is not to score touch downs." In reversing time only to save Lois, Superman scored his personal touch down.

It's not simply so he can sleep with Lois, he is choosing a regular human life w/o powers instead of being Superman.

Yeah, opposite to serve humanity.

And while he has to eventually go back to being Superman, he had no idea that Zod and co. would show up. At that point he realized that the world needs a Superman for those jobs that are only doable by Superman.

He didn't need to know about Zod. Lex Luthor and a series of criminals in STM already showed him he was needed. Superman knows about humankind goodness but also its evilness. Luthor could be in jail by the time, but there will always be a next Luthor. Not to mention that Luthor escaped while he was romancing Miss Lane.

Superman already knew the world needed a Superman.

The difference here is that common sense would tell you that it was wrong to do this, where as in SUperman II, there is no way he could even have an inkling that Zod and co. could escape the PHantom ZOne , let alone arrive on Earth.

He had a mission, he didn't need to know that. He was warned by Lara or Jor-El, depending on the version. And he admitted later that it was his fault because he didn't listen. His common sense failed too in SII.

I don't think that's the case for either Superman: The Movie or SUperman II. I don't think there's anything wrong with him turning the world back to save Lois and I don't think there's any fall out from it.

The implications of it show us there's much of selfishness in Superman's actions, independanmt from the consequences of them.

As for SUperman II, I believe he considered it enough to know under regular circumstances he would be able to live a norman person, but because of the extraordinary situation with Zod, he realized that there are always going to be jobs for SUperman, so he had to change his plan based on this new information.

If it wasn't Zod it would have been Luthor, who escaped from prson and was free to act since Superman was on permeanent vacations. Luthor's a man who can deviate missils; as we already had seen, not a job for any man.

FOr me, SUperman RETurns is different from the above becasue common sense tells you that this is a bad idea to leave w/o saying goodbeye.

Maybe that will bring a rupture, but it's not the end of the world, nor it puts in jeopardy thousands of lives as Superman's actions and decisions did in SII.

WIthin the conext of the other films, theres nothing to make Superman believe that anything so bad will occur for his choice to save Lois or become human.

Yes, there is.

Superman already knows people like Luthor and others can kill people. His mission was to save them, not to have a personal life as a human.

He just decided to ignore the possible dangers.

 

[LexCorp]

While I agree that his actions can be for his benifit. Why is that such a problem? Why is he never allowed to be less than perfect? He is not perfect his powers have limits and even he can't be in two places at once. If he is saving someone on one side of Earth someone else has just died on the other. Superman can't save everyone so we should cut him some slack.

 

[El Payaso]

While I agree that his actions can be for his benifit. Why is that such a problem? Why is he never allowed to be less than perfect? He is not perfect his powers have limits and even he can't be in two places at once. If he is saving someone on one side of Earth someone else has just died on the other. Superman can't save everyone so we should cut him some slack.

I agree. But somehow the bidimentionality from the comics has affected the public view of the character. He's not allowed to make bad decisions or even have sex. It's like he has been Ned Flanderized. But showing him as a fallible human is what have made him interesting.

 

[LexCorp]

I agree. But somehow the bidimentionality from the comics has affected the public view of the character. He's not allowed to make bad decisions or even have sex. It's like he has been Ned Flanderized. But showing him as a fallible human is what have made him interesting.

Yes this is a valid point. Love the reference.

 

[mego joe]

I agree. But somehow the bidimentionality from the comics has affected the public view of the character.

I think this is highly inaccurte statement. Do you read he comics?
He is portrayed as very human, just a good human. A human who makes decisions motivated for the right reasons, his choices may not turn out right but the motivation behind them is for the right reason. That is the difference that we are really discussing.

He's not allowed to make bad decisions or even have sex.

Certainly he can have sex, he's been married to Lois in the comics for almost 11 years now. They even had sex BEFORE they were married. It was part of a committed relationship however and she knew of his dual identity before hand as well. THat is called being human, but being a MATURE, RESPONSIBLE human instead of an immature and irresponsible human ala SR.

As for bad decisions, check out "For Tomorrow," "Sacrifice," read the current comics. "For Tommorow" is especially applicable: he is motivated for the right reasons, but he makes a decision that turns out horribly. He is fallible, but his motivation comes from the right place.

Not sure where your view of the character in the comic comes from, but you seems to be making him more 1 dimensional than he is actually portrayed.

It's like he has been Ned Flanderized. But showing him as a fallible human is what have made him interesting.

Ned Flanderized? Funny, but completely off base. He is shown as fallible at times in the comics but not every story revolves around it. His motivations are not questionable. If you change his motivations and have him do something for the WRONG reasons, then you have changed the essence of his character.

 

[LexCorp]

I think this is highly inaccurte statement. Do you read he comics?
He is portrayed as very human, just a good human. A human who makes decisions motivated for the right reasons, his choices may not turn out right but the motivation behind them is for the right reason. That is the difference that we are really discussing.



Certainly he can have sex, he's been married to Lois in the comics for almost 11 years now. They even had sex BEFORE they were married. It was part of a committed relationship however and she knew of his dual identity before hand as well. THat is called being human, but being a MATURE, RESPONSIBLE human instead of an immature and irresponsible human ala SR.

As for bad decisions, check out "For Tomorrow," "Sacrifice," read the current comics. "For Tommorow" is especially applicable: he is motivated for the right reasons, but he makes a decision that turns out horribly. He is fallible, but his motivation comes from the right place.

Not sure where your view of the character in the comic comes from, but you seems to be making him more 1 dimensional than he is actually portrayed.


Ned Flanderized? Funny, but completely off base. He is shown as fallible at times in the comics but not every story revolves around it. His motivations are not questionable. If you change his motivations and have him do something for the WRONG reasons, then you have changed the essence of his character.

Well that is point I am trying to make. He is human. Makes mistakes. Whether you take his motivations from any source it is still Superman making those choices. He is not always 100% perfect in the comics - by that I mean his motivation in the comics are not 100% right. Take Batman V Superman comics. Kara comes to earth and he does not accpet that this could be a trick. He ignores Batman and puts he in harms way. Selfish reasons there. To keep what he thinks at the time is his only family around.

 

[mego joe]

More like in the best interest of Lois Lane if we talk about the movies.

If that were true he wouldn't have stopped the rocket going to Hackensack first.

There's always the first one. In comics and in movies. If there's not, there's no development. About questionable motivations, Singer was not the first one though.

There's no questionable motivation in S: TM or Superman II. Sorry, but you can't twist the films to suit your viewpoint.

That we know now if there's no dead Lois, Superman won't do everything to save people. (Or if he wants to be with her)



Don't fool yourself: He chose Lois.

He chose to use his powers to the extremem to save the woman he loved in contrast to being ubable to save Pa's Kent. He realized at some point along the way that he would use his powers to save someone he loved if he could. The film shows the two views of both his fathers. He makes a decision based on his human father not his Kryptonian father. THat symbollically shows he is choosing his human side over his Kryptonian side.

When mountains were falling over people he didn't reverse time; he did only after Lois died.

I belive it is shown that he stopped nearly ALL the dissaster as they were occurring and thusly FAILED to save Lois. He put everyone else first and then saw the only way of saving Lois was to reverse time. It was the only way he could save everyone.

BTW, when he reversed time ALL the damage was reversed as well, so anyone that might have died would have been saved also.

Jor-El was representing the good beyond personal reasons. People over Lois. For Superman it was all Lois over people.

He never chose to save Lois while someone else died.

And both points to the same.

Jonathan always told him to use his powers for the greater good, not for personal reasons. The complete quote: "You´re here for a reason and it is not to score touch downs." In reversing time only to save Lois, Superman scored his personal touch down.

You really don't understand the character do you? Or S:TM? He had saved everyone first, INSTEAD of saving Lois first. Saving Lois is also for Lois's benefit, not his own. Maybe you think it's better to be dead, I don't know. Maybe you think it would be better for Lois to be dead w/in the context of the film, but I think Lois would disagree with you, as would EVERY other poster on this board.

The two fathers in his head at the end is obviously presented as a choice he is making. His powers are not for insignificant things like scoring touchdowns, but for SAVING lives and helping others. Saving Lois is a good thing.

Yeah, opposite to serve humanity.

So he absolutely positively HAS to be Superman and sereve humanity. He is not allowed to have freewill? Or make his own decisions? He can't give it all up if he chooses to?

He didn't need to know about Zod. Lex Luthor and a series of criminals in STM already showed him he was needed. Superman knows about humankind goodness but also its evilness. Luthor could be in jail by the time, but there will always be a next Luthor. Not to mention that Luthor escaped while he was romancing Miss Lane.

Luthor had been around before Superman arrived in Metropolis. The world got along and coped. His appearance makes for a better world. Superman is not a god, he is still just a man. I think it's clear that he had considered his decision for a while before just deciding to give up his powers.

Superman already knew the world needed a Superman.

Only b/c Jor-El told him so. Superman II is really about Superman learning that the world really does need a Superman. REmember, it's one big story but split into two films, parts I and II. It's supposed to work together as his first adventure on Earth. It's a Superman who has only just arrived, unlike SR where he is 5 years into his career when he leaves Earth. The context of his experiece is very different.

He had a mission, he didn't need to know that. He was warned by Lara or Jor-El, depending on the version. And he admitted later that it was his fault because he didn't listen. His common sense failed too in SII.

At that point in his career though, he NEEDED to learn it on his own. So far he had just been following orders without understanding WHY or really believing it fully. It all takes place within his first few weeks in Metropolis, at least that's the way it was originally conceived.

The implications of it show us there's much of selfishness in Superman's actions, independanmt from the consequences of them.

It would only be completely selfish is he were the only one to gain from this action. He's motivated by love and b/c he wants to use his powers to save a loved one unlike Pa Kent's death. Lois also benefits and the destruction casused by the Earthquake is also revesed. Not completely selfish.

If it wasn't Zod it would have been Luthor, who escaped from prson and was free to act since Superman was on permeanent vacations. Luthor's a man who can deviate missils; as we already had seen, not a job for any man.

Oddly enough, the world got along fine dealing with Luthor before Superman. It is clear that Luthor had been around for a while anyway.

Maybe that will bring a rupture, but it's not the end of the world, nor it puts in jeopardy thousands of lives as Superman's actions and decisions did in SII.

It's about motivation. He chose to hurt the woman he loved in SR by not saying goodbye. THat's what I'm going after here. His motivation is completely selfish. The only person that benefits is him in that situation. IT's not his first week in actions either, he's been around for 5 years, the context is completely different. Superman: TM and Superman II show a Superman at the outset of his career in a story in which he comes to fully realize his importance. SR takes place 5 years into his career. It's at a completely different time. YOu can't take a story out of context, otherwise it comes to mean something completely different.

Yes, there is.

Superman already knows people like Luthor and others can kill people. His mission was to save them, not to have a personal life as a human.

He just decided to ignore the possible dangers.

I think he believed Luthor to be safely locked away and saw that event as so extreme that it would not be possible again. Plus he's supposed to be somewhat naive in S:TM. Even though he's 30 he's still learning.

 

[mego joe]

What's the difference with that scene, Superman made Lois to forget about that, and didn't even consult her if she wanted.



And I think that based on what happenes in both movies.






And how does that make me wrong about it? And then again, I'm not sure if I'm the only one.

It's clear from the film that he is motivated to alieviate her pain. I don't know why you can't see that.

You are only person who voted that way in the poll I started in the Misc. Superman Films forum.

Mistake or not, it showeed that Superman only goes to the extreme of his strenght when it's about Lois, not the rest of humans' lives.

He didn't have to. In S:TM he saved everyone else by stopping the dissasters as they happened.

And it is. What's your actual point?

A person doesn't have a deep understanding of the character or the stories if he or she can't understand that this basic aspect of the character is NOT about being dishonest or selfish or contradictory to his motto of "Truth, Justice and the American Way." Therefore, further interpretaions of story elements would be colored to fit that view. That's my point.

I get it: it nis to be with Lois and if he can't, to be with Lois without problems (she crying).

SOmehow though, you don't see that the motivations presented in SR w/o telling Lois goodbye are completely different.

 

[LexCorp]

Still think there is no diff between the characters in the films and comics. Well not one that vast.

 

[mego joe]

Well that is point I am trying to make. He is human. Makes mistakes. Whether you take his motivations from any source it is still Superman making those choices. He is not always 100% perfect in the comics - by that I mean his motivation in the comics are not 100% right. Take Batman V Superman comics. Kara comes to earth and he does not accpet that this could be a trick. He ignores Batman and puts he in harms way. Selfish reasons there. To keep what he thinks at the time is his only family around.

I am aware of the story to which you are refering. It seems like a completely different context.

In the S/B he is going on his best guess from the information has. His motivation isn't selfish. He's acting on the knowledge he has, and it turned out to be right- Kara was his cousin. Besides, if he didn't take her under his wing, who's going to at least try and show her the ropes at first.

In SR, common sense tells anyone that leaving w/o saying goodbye is wrong and completely selfish, there's no mystery it's a no-brainer. The S/B is a could or couldn't be situation. It's cut and dry in SR.

THe other thing is tha the S/B story has an understandable and believable motivation for why he would feel or think the way he does. COnversely, SR doesn't give any other reason than 'it was too difficult.' That in itself is out of character. Superman doesn't shy away from things that are 'too difficult.'

Superman never does anything in the comics in which his motivation is not 100%. It just doesn't happen.

 

[superbaby]

i can't stand singer made superman play victim/submissive to beg for compassion and respect. that's pure awful. though some love that kinda idea. i wonder why. :rolleye:

Originally Posted by El Payaso View Post
But showing him as a fallible human is what have made him interesting.

 

[scuba6580]

But showing him as a fallible human is what have made him interesting.

Agreed, 1,000%.

 

[superbaby]

Agreed, 1,000%.

booo!!!
superman is an inspiring character. alienation, loneliness and depression ain't his tone. he is a happy man. because he gives and helps.

 

[scuba6580]

booo!!!
superman is an inspiring character. alienation, loneliness and depression ain't his tone. he is a happy man. because he gives and helps.

I agree with that also. I never said otherwise.

 

[El Payaso]

I think this is highly inaccurte statement. Do you read he comics?

Yes, and they have portrayed Supes good and black-and-white through 70 years.

He is portrayed as very human, just a good human. A human who makes decisions motivated for the right reasons, his choices may not turn out right but the motivation behind them is for the right reason. That is the difference that we are really discussing.

In movies though, his motivations has been questionable.

To quit his mission because of Lois... to let Zod die after de-powering him...

Certainly he can have sex, he's been married to Lois in the comics for almost 11 years now. They even had sex BEFORE they were married. It was part of a committed relationship however and she knew of his dual identity before hand as well. THat is called being human, but being a MATURE, RESPONSIBLE human instead of an immature and irresponsible human ala SR.

Superman quits his mission and have sex with Lois. It is gpoing to be a forever relationship so it's ok. Suddenly he has to become Superman again. Lois is shattered. Superman had sex with her but now he quit Lois. Superman erases her memory without letting her know about it so now she can't even remember she had sex with him. She was stripped of her right to know who has she had sex with. Really mature. Very responsible. You have a problem with a former girlfriend? You force her to forget all about it. Does she want to forget? Screw it, you're Superman, you can do it without her permission. Does she have the righnt to know what will happen to her memories? Who cares, no one will know/remember what you did; you're Superman.

I mean, even Agent Smith let Cypher know he was going to have his memory deleted.

As for bad decisions, check out "For Tomorrow," "Sacrifice," read the current comics. "For Tommorow" is especially applicable: he is motivated for the right reasons, but he makes a decision that turns out horribly. He is fallible, but his motivation comes from the right place.

Not in the movies.

Ned Flanderized? Funny, but completely off base. He is shown as fallible at times in the comics but not every story revolves around it. His motivations are not questionable. If you change his motivations and have him do something for the WRONG reasons, then you have changed the essence of his character.

That has happened in the movies since the 70's. It doesn't make it a bad story in spite of everything.

 

[El Payaso]

If that were true he wouldn't have stopped the rocket going to Hackensack first.

Good point. Even so, it's clear he wasn't going to reverse time for anyone else, Teschmacher's mum included.

There's no questionable motivation in S: TM or Superman II. Sorry, but you can't twist the films to suit your viewpoint.

I don't have to. You can't leap the mission quitting, memory deleting or Zod killing in a single bound.

He chose to use his powers to the extremem to save the woman he loved in contrast to being ubable to save Pa's Kent.

And in contrast with doing the same for the rest of humankind.

In fact, if time reversing is so valid, he should be doing it all the time. It's clearly even better than his super-speed and super-strenght. But he reserves that only for people he personally love. Not humankind.

He realized at some point along the way that he would use his powers to save someone he loved if he could.

That doesn't include all humankind it seems. Just relatives and the girl he loves. Someone else's wife is not that important and life worthy as Lois for Supes.

The film shows the two views of both his fathers. He makes a decision based on his human father not his Kryptonian father. THat symbollically shows he is choosing his human side over his Kryptonian side.

You mean the "reason" of Jonathan was to save his girl no matter what? The "reason" is his personal loved ones, not humankind, which would be Jor-El's reason? Go on kid, it's your girl here, reverse time, interfere with human history or whatever for her.

I belive it is shown that he stopped nearly ALL the dissaster as they were occurring and thusly FAILED to save Lois. He put everyone else first and then saw the only way of saving Lois was to reverse time. It was the only way he could save everyone.

If it's the only way, why didn't he reverse time to delete what happened with Zod and co? Many people died while Superman was romancing Lois, having sex etc. But he didn't bother to delete that because... well... Lois wasn't dead so who cares about the rest.

And I don't know if he saved everyone in that earthquacke. They just showed us some examples.

BTW, when he reversed time ALL the damage was reversed as well, so anyone that might have died would have been saved also.

Yeah, too good Lois was dead. Otherwise those people wouldn't have been saved because Superman wouldn't have reversed time.

He never chose to save Lois while someone else died.

Exactly like in SR where he put Metropolis over Lois and Jason. Only thast in SR I didn't see time reversing or memory deleting to correct his mistakes.

You really don't understand the character do you? Or S:TM? He had saved everyone first, INSTEAD of saving Lois first.

As I said, exactly as in SR.

Saving Lois is also for Lois's benefit, not his own.

It is also, right... also.

But "not his own"? You kidding me?

Maybe you think it's better to be dead, I don't know. Maybe you think it would be better for Lois to be dead w/in the context of the film, but I think Lois would disagree with you, as would EVERY other poster on this board.

People would disagree... and what does that prove...?

No one's better dead. Not only Lois.

Superman should know. And that's why he shouldn't give better chances to being saved than anyone else.

The two fathers in his head at the end is obviously presented as a choice he is making.

You have imagination, I'll give you that.

You mean Jor-El was all against time reversing while Jonathan was all for it? like in 'yes, son, you should have reversed time to save ME. You didn'0t do so now do it for Lois. You have always do whatever is needed in order to save people that are important in your personal life. If it's the rest, just use super-speed and say you did everything that was possible'

His powers are not for insignificant things like scoring touchdowns, but for SAVING lives and helping others. Saving Lois is a good thing.

Then why didn't he used the time reversing in the first place... just after Lois died? Did Superman at THAT point need Jonathan's voice to tell him it was good to save lifes...? I doubt your theory is right about what the voices meant.

 

[El Payaso]

So he absolutely positively HAS to be Superman and sereve humanity. He is not allowed to have freewill? Or make his own decisions? He can't give it all up if he chooses to?

He can't go to Krypton if he wants? He can't leave Lois without a good-bye because if he did he wasn't going to be able to go to Krypton to see if there were survivors?

He can do whatever he wants. But if he quits his mission, people will die. People died when he quits in SII, but he won't reverse time to save them. They're not Lois. At most he'll go back to the Diner's to bully Rocky back. I mean, that guy bullied him so he had it coming. Unquestionable motivations, you know; very mature, very responsible.

Luthor had been around before Superman arrived in Metropolis. The world got along and coped. His appearance makes for a better world. Superman is not a god, he is still just a man. I think it's clear that he had considered his decision for a while before just deciding to give up his powers.

What while was that?

Lois finds pout Clark's Superman in that hotel. Right after that Superman carries her to the Fortress. I'd say he took the decision within 24 hours after she found out the truth.

Only b/c Jor-El told him so.

So... he didn't know. After the whole Luthor-California business, after all those criminals he had to stop... he just knew about that only because Jor-El told him.

Superman II is really about Superman learning that the world really does need a Superman.

He already could do the maths. No Superman = criminals like Luthor being able to act freely.

REmember, it's one big story but split into two films, parts I and II. It's supposed to work together as his first adventure on Earth.

What an excuse for a dumb Superman.

It's only one story so it's okay if I can't see the obvious.

It's a Superman who has only just arrived, unlike SR where he is 5 years into his career when he leaves Earth. The context of his experiece is very different.

Yeah he has only arrived.... like 30 years ago.

Sorry but it's not like he was a 30 y.o. alien just coming and learning the basics here. He already knew about his own importance on Earth. He wasn't some E.T. just learning about the magic powers of beer and how to watch Tv.

At that point in his career though, he NEEDED to learn it on his own.

Once he saved people from the consequences of the eartquacke, it's a no brainer he's very much needed. After that, he already learnt on his own he was very much needed. After that, if he wants to quit, he knows what humanbkind is exposed to if he quits. And if he let that happen because of Lois, it is selfish motivations. Understandable but selfish.

So far he had just been following orders without understanding WHY or really believing it fully. It all takes place within his first few weeks in Metropolis, at least that's the way it was originally conceived.

Not an excuse. And even if Superman needs experience to learn the obvious (after 12 years learning about humankind with Jor-El at the fortress), SII doesn't happen 14 days after he gets to Metropolis.

It would only be completely selfish is he were the only one to gain from this action. He's motivated by love and b/c he wants to use his powers to save a loved one unlike Pa Kent's death. Lois also benefits and the destruction casused by the Earthquake is also revesed. Not completely selfish.

Selfish, but completely. Proves my point.

Oddly enough, the world got along fine dealing with Luthor before Superman. It is clear that Luthor had been around for a while anyway.

I guess Luthor hadn't used 2 missiles to blow away US coast before.

Still, people killed by him and their families would agree that a Superman was needed.

It's about motivation. He chose to hurt the woman he loved in SR by not saying goodbye.

Maybe he was thinking about amnesia-kissing her after that.

Is it established that Superman has hurt Lois before but after that he can delete everything.

THat's what I'm going after here. His motivation is completely selfish. The only person that benefits is him in that situation.

May I ask how is Superman at all benefited out of that? Because it sounds really a sillly thing to say.

IT's not his first week in actions either, he's been around for 5 years, the context is completely different. Superman: TM and Superman II show a Superman at the outset of his career in a story in which he comes to fully realize his importance. SR takes place 5 years into his career. It's at a completely different time. YOu can't take a story out of context, otherwise it comes to mean something completely different.

Maybe Superman going to Krypton happened 2 days after SII. If we accept he was naive enough to not to know he was necessary for humankind, he was still naive to know it was important to say good-bye.

But then the naive ones are being just us.

He knew it was wrong to quit as Superman. He knew it was wrong to not say good-bye. But he did both. He felt he was too much in love in SII, he felt he wasn't going to be able to got to Krypton if he saw Lois to say good-bye. He was wrong in both ocasions, but he did it anyway. Superman fails and sometoimes makes bad decisons in movies.

I think he believed Luthor to be safely locked away and saw that event as so extreme that it would not be possible again. Plus he's supposed to be somewhat naive in S:TM. Even though he's 30 he's still learning.

Really, you're stretching the naive theory too much. He's not supposed to be naive, I don't see why you say that other than to isolate Superman mistakes from SR from STM and SII.

No one needs special training to know that if you can save people and you stop from saving them, they'll die.

 

[El Payaso]

It's clear from the film that he is motivated to alieviate her pain. I don't know why you can't see that.

I can see that. I won't use it as an excuse to hide thew fact that Lois, as any human being, had the right to know when her mind is going to be manipulated. She has the right to know if she kissed and had sex with someone. To keep her memories.

No matter how you put it, deleting her mind not letting her know about it, is wrong. And it's far more selfish than not saying good-bye. Not saying good-bye is immature and silly. Deleting memory if unethical. Highly.

You are only person who voted that way in the poll I started in the Misc. Superman Films forum.

That makes me the only person being right. What's your point, majorities denominate truth?

He didn't have to. In S:TM he saved everyone else by stopping the dissasters as they happened.

We don't know if he saved everyone else.

We do know he wasn't going to reverse time for anyone else.

We do know he didn't save anyone else in SII, while he was out with Lois and Zod was ruling Earth.

But he didn't reverse time for them, even when it was his fault not to be there when he was needed.

A person doesn't have a deep understanding of the character or the stories if he or she can't understand that this basic aspect of the character is NOT about being dishonest or selfish or contradictory to his motto of "Truth, Justice and the American Way." Therefore, further interpretaions of story elements would be colored to fit that view. That's my point.

According to your point SR is not more wrong about Superman than STM; and SII. That's my point.

SOmehow though, you don't see that the motivations presented in SR w/o telling Lois goodbye are completely different.

In fact they're not as wrong as the ones in STM and SII. So yes, I guess they're different.

 

[mego joe]

El Payaso,

Let me boil it down real simply.

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.

Yes, and they have portrayed Supes good and black-and-white through 70 years.

If you think that he's always portrayed as 'black and white' you are both right and wrong.

His motivation is from a black and white viewpoint, but his decisions are often colored in grey areas. There are numerous stories that depict this. If it was all just 'black and white' there would be no interesting story to tell. What makes it interesting is finding out how a man with 'black and white' motivation functions in a grey world while maintaining his ethics and morals.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I agree 100% with mego joe.

 

[true316]

But his actions in his private life are in direct contrast to this demonstrated public motivation.

Ahh, this is a big crucial point right here, is it not? If I could explain to you how Superman has acted differently in his public and private life in the films before would it make a difference in how you viewed SR?


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.

But the bottom line is: he was. Singer gave us all the details we needed to know to understand the story. And he did it in a way that wasn't cheesy or overly obvious. For example, we can easily understand that Lois and Superman have a past history when she silently takes off her shoes and steps onto his feet on the Daily Planet rooftop. The fact that they do this without saying anything indicates one thing to me: they've done this before.

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.

Again, you don't know the specifics of the context. I think Singer justifiably assumed that fans would not immediately jump to the worst possible conclusions in terms of how Superman views sex. It could have been a spontaneous thing that only happened once. Superman and Lois may have had sex once with the full intention of entering into a commited relationship. However, Superman may have been called into action and he may have had second thoughts, thinking that as long as he remained on Earth his duties as Superman would always have to take precedence. You've chosen to take a decidely glass-is-half-empty approach to your speculations on Superman's character. For a guy who should us he is willing to lay his life on the life to protect others...I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.



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.

I like how you throw in the word jealous. We are talking about a man who can see through clothing, catch airplanes, and is bulletproof. If his jealousy had really gotten the better of him than I believe we would have seen far worse things from him (like maybe x-raying through Lois's clothes to see her body or chucking Richard into outer space). It is pretty clear from the context in the film that he was simply trying to catch up with her, to find out what her life was like now. I think this because he was trying to get her to come grab something to eat so they could talk. Since he couldn't find out as Clark he tried to find out as Superman.


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.

I'll cover some of that at the bottom.


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.

And I interpreted the film as saying that Lex Luthor was a bad guy who manipulated the system for his own advantage. I think the 'so alone' aspect was only a part of the reason why he left. I've mentioned before the importance of going and not soley for personal reasons. You're still hung up on the difference in his public and personal life. If I had a baseball bat my intention for the bat would revolve only around the game of baseball. I might even hide it to keep it safe. But what if someone stole it? And then they started going around hitting people upside the head with it. Is it my fault that people have been hit upside the head? Or is it the fault of the person who stole the bat? I just can believe you are so ready to absolve Lex of any wrongdoing.



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.

I have to admit, I'm not as up-to-date on Superman's recent comic history. When I got into high school a several years back I pretty much stopped reading comics. I almost got back into it when SR came out but I never got around to it. The last Superman comics purchase I made for a reprinted collection of Superman's earliest adventures in Action Comics. I think those old stories are nothing short of awesome! Do you have any personal favorites?



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.

I think the purpose of that line was to make Superman feel bad (and angry) knowing that Lex had taken advantage of his absence. But let's remember who the person is that is taking advantage of the situation: Lex. It's obvious from the film that Superman had know idea that his presence would be neccessary. For one, he was surprised when he found out that Lex had gotten out of prison, and also he didn't know how he had gotten out. If he would have known in advance that his presence was neccessary. then he simply would have been able to figure it out.

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.

It's funny because I've had pretty much the opposite experience. Everyone I know who saw the film liked it. Although I have to admit, that no one I know is a die hard fan of Superman. In fact, many of the people who said they liked it were not fans of the character going in. I do however, know many people who staunchly refused to see it simply because they don't like Superman. I was actually able to talk one guy into seeing it because it was from the guy who directed The Usual Suspects and X2 (he didn't know Bryan Singer's name)!


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:

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.


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.

The fact that he was so lonely suggests to me that he wasn't in a relationship at the time off his leaving.


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.

Are you wanting to discuss whether Lois was in character in SR? That's is a discussion for a different thread imo. One thing I would ask though. How in the world are you sure how a kryptonian-human pregnancy would work in Bryan Singer's imagination?

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.



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.

You do seem quite taken with the divide in Superman's public and private life. I'll go ahead and use some examples from the first two movies that show that divide being present. And in so doing I'll give you some examples of Superman being a little selfish and insensitive.

In S:TM, he turns back time to save Lois Lane. Do you see the slippery slope that we are on if this happens? Why will he turn back time for Lois Lane but no one else? It's not even like we could say no one ever dies in Superman's world because earlier in the film we saw a cop meeting a grisly end at the hands of Lex Luthor. Did Superman turn back time for him? Why did Lois rate the rescue and the cop didn't? Because of Superman's private feelings for Lois Lane. If Superman was truly going to be consisitent in his public and private life he would turn back time for everyone who died, not just Lois.

Also in SII, Superman gave up his powers in order to be with Lois. He gets what he wants but what happens to the rest of the world? He is being completely insensistive to all the people who might need him. At least in SR, he is trying to find out the fate of billions of lives. In SII he is just trying to have a relationship for himself. Bear in mind also, he didn't bother to inform the President that Superman would be gone. He gives Lois and himself exactly what they want. But the rest of the world is left high and dry.

I don't mean to sound like I'm ragging on these films (in fact I like them a great deal). It's just that I can recognize that Superman isn't always totally altruistic. He thinks and feels as a human so I take his more human moments in stride.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

Excellently put and i completely agree, a perfect Superman is just not interesting to me.