Superman Returns Was Superman Really Out of Character in SR?

[mego joe]

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?

It would depend. If he does not act consistently towards Lois from film to film it really wouldn't matter. Let's see where you're going with this.

But the bottom line is: he was. Singer gave us all the details we needed to know to understand the story.

I think you know this, but I completely disagree.

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.

So they were probably in a close committed relationship? YEs? Then how can he not have revealed his Clark identity to her along the way and still be in a committed adult relationship?

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.

I understand where you are going with this, but the circumstances that I see played out in the film tell me otherwise. If he REALLY was that committed and concerned and thoughtful he would have told her he was Clark and he would have told her goodbye. Singer gives us a Superman doing things that are questionable, so why wouldn't his attitude towards sex also be questionable since we are given no context? Unless you think that it is Ok that he didn't say goodbye or that he didn't reaveal his dual identity to Lois.

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 despertely want to, but the details of the film don't indicate a scenario that's possible. The fact that there is doubt at all about whether Superman did the right thing in this situation pretty much proves that Singer was trying to show Superman doing the wrong thing. If he isn't doing the wrong thing in this situation, the movie doesn't make any sense thematically.

If Superman didn't do anything wrong why is Lois so upset? Why does he have to appoologize after the fact once he returns? Why does he make sure to say goodbye when he leaves the helicopter?

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.

No, I think he's jealous of Richard. He tried to woo her back with the romantic nightime flight. He tried to one-up Richard when Lois told him that Richard takes her flying too and he said, "Not like this." He broke the picture when Jimmy gave him the update on Lois's life becasue he was hurt becasue Lois moved on. He's not trying to 'catch up.' He's trying to pick up where he left off when he left.

I'll cover some of that at the bottom.



And I interpreted the film as saying that Lex Luthor was a bad guy who manipulated the system for his own advantage.

Then Jimmy's line about it being SUperman's fault is a pointless and useless line in the film.

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.

I've said it before, but it's not the fact that he left, it's the way he left, he details of that matter.

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.

I'm not trying to absolve Lex of anything. I'm interpreting the meaning of JImmy's line about SUperman being at fault for Lex going free. It's right there in the movie. It's not like he escaped as he did in Superman II. Jimmy Olsen, a guy who works at a newspaper, someone you would expect to be a credible source on news says that Lex got free b/c of a technicality due to Superman not being around to testify. I'm not making this up. It's in the movie. No matter what you imagine might happen doesn't change the fact that that scene is in the movie and it has to be there for a reason, otherwise it would certainly have been cut.

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've read so many that it's hard to narrow it down. THe early Action stuff is fun, the current comics especially the Superman title is great. "WHat Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" is also a classic, as is Alan Moore's 'other' Superman story- "For the Man who has Everything." The decade trades, "Superman in the Fifties," "....Sixties," "....Seventies," are all good. And at the time I enjoyed the Byrne revamp in the mid eighties.

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.

THe fact that he got out on a technicality doesn't make this a strong case, though. If he simply escaped b/c he wasn't around I could by that, but the fact that it is based on a technicality to me indicates that SInger wants the viewer to believe that Superman is somehow at fault.

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)!

Maybe he liked it b/c it WASN'T like SUperman who he dislikes.

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

Then Jason isn't necessary to complete him, only any loving relationship, and Jason's character is nearly useless.

Are you wanting to discuss whether Lois was in character in SR? That's is a discussion for a different thread imo.

I agree, and I've tried to avoid it up to this point.

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?

Since Lois is the one that's pregnant we don't really need to know. Lois's body is not going to change chemically or genetically b/c Jason is half Kryptonian. And if that were really important then Singer would have addressed it. He didn't so we don't have to invent stuff, we just have to know the basics of human pregnancy. Lois is human, she's pregnant. THat's all you have to know. My belief is that SInger didn't elaborate b/c he assumed that people would go with the most obvious answer. Lois had sex with both men close together and didn't think it COULD be SUperman's b/c of the DNA differences.

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.

But where does he hurt Lois in those films?

In S:TM and SII, Superman is motivated to save Lois's life and aleviate her pain so that she can continue on. His methods may not be perfect, but his motivation is in her best interest.

If you can't understand this, then you are totally missing the point of the Donner Superman films.

In SR, Superman leaves w/o telling her goodbye while either being in the midst of a sexual relationship with her, or almost immediately after ending the relationship. This is not in her best interest, but by his 'too difficult' comment- his best interest.

In terms of his motivation when it comes to Lois, that is all you need to understand- his actions are motivated for opposite reasons between the STM/SII and SR.

STM/SII: Lois's best interests.

SR: His own best interests.

It's cut and dry.

I don't 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.

But at no point is he putting his own feelings before Lois.

He thinks and feels as a human so I take his more human moments in stride.

No problem, but his actions have to be those of a good human, not a jerk.

Rag away. They are good, even really good at times, but they are far from perfect and far from being 'canon' Superman films.

Interestingly, I think deep down we believe in the same Superman we just interpret the material differently.

To me it boils down to this.

You don't get someone pregnant and miss 5 years of that child's life w/o the mother of that knowing where you are without doing something morally and ethically wrong. Whether it's entering into a sexual relationship w/o commitment or leaving that woman w/o saying goodbye b/c he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do what's right, either way he's done something wrong. That reasoning is what I find out of character for Superman.

He puts his own feeling before those of Lois. THat is not how good people act toward the perosn they love.

 

[mego joe]

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.

One final thought about acting consistently in his public vs. his private life. It is a little more complext and I realize I may not have been as specific as necessary to make my point.

In his public life he puts the public first, in his private life he puts those close to him first. Now this may mean he puts those closest to him before the general public, understandably since he was raised as a human. SOmetimes, for the greater good he will put the public before those closest to him even.

However, he would not put himself before those closest to him in his private life. Therefore, when he says in SR that he couldn't say goodbye to Lois b/c it was too difficult, he is putting his own feelings ahead of Lois's feelings. He knows it is the wrong thing to do, b/c otherwise it would not be difficult. Additionally, the very fact that he knows it is difficult shows that he's considered it and knows it to be the right thing he just chickened out and chose to hurt the one he loves. This is why Superman is out of character in SR.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

Give that a background, don't just say it. Just saying it is too easy.

If you can't understand this, then you are totally missing the point of the Donner Superman films.

"If you don't agree with me, you're wrong"

Please try something better if you're not using hypnosis, you're dealing with El Payaso.

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.

Yeah. His best interest is to have a good relationship with Lois and then lose it all in order to see a dead planet.

[sarcasm]You make a lot of sense. [/sarcasm]

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.

I see. All I have to remember is, forget the facts and implications, mego joe is just right in spite of the lack of argumentation.

STM/SII: Lois's best interests.

SR: His own best interests.

It's cut and dry.

I'm really trying to imagine the swinging watch... but still doesn't work.

I need some argumentation, some background.

As Emperor Joseph said "You are passionate - but you do not persuade."

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.

Yes.

Did I mention SR was about the Donner version and movies... not really comics...?

 

[mego joe]

Give that a background, don't just say it. Just saying it is too easy.

In STM LOis is dead. It is in her best interest not to be dead. SUperman uses his powers to bring her back to life. In SII, Lois is devastaed with the knowledge that she cannot be with Superman and is inconsolable feeling that there is no one else once she's been with Superman. In order to aleviate her pain and a chance at happiness with someone else Superman uses 'super-hypnosis' or the dreaded amnesia kiss
to make her forget.

"If you don't agree with me, you're wrong"

SOunds good to me.

Please try something better if you're not using hypnosis, you're dealing with El Payaso.

You're a CLOWN what do you wand a flower that squirts water and red rubber nose?

Yeah. His best interest is to have a good relationship with Lois and then lose it all in order to see a dead planet.

No he is avoiding doing the right thing because it is DIFFICULT- he says it in the movie. That benefits him. He doesn't have to be a man and face up to his responsibility.

[sarcasm]You make a lot of sense. [/sarcasm]

It's about time you noticed!

I see. All I have to remember is, forget the facts and implications, mego joe is just right in spite of the lack of argumentation.



I'm really trying to imagine the swinging watch... but still doesn't work.

I need some argumentation, some background.

As Emperor Joseph said "You are passionate - but you do not persuade."



Yes.

Did I mention SR was about the Donner version and movies... not really comics...?

Argumentation? Background? I've been arguing for nearly a year these same points for why his actions are out of character. I've been giving argumentation for a year, where have you been?

You see the same events in the movies in a different context than I do. Singer gave little background so the viewer has to fill in the gaps. THere are pages of argumentation but the simple fact is that you don't see Superman as the same character that I do.

 

[X Knight]

mego joe, as always, you make very good points. I, of course, share pretty much the same views with you regarding SR.

I do, however, disagree with you somewhat on the Amnesia Kiss thing from S2.

While Superman's intentions may have been to alleviate Lois' "pain," giving Lois that mind-erasing kiss....without her consent.....is just as bad.....even worse....than anything that Supes did in SR.

That is akin to sleeping with a girl....then realizing your mistake.....and slipping her a "drug" that will erase her memory of that act ( not to mention miraculously abort the baby ).

It's also cowardly and a very irresponsible power for Superman. And, that is one thing I DID NOT like about the Donner movies.......be it Amnesia Kissing or Spinning back the world........Superman was not shown to have to live with the aftermath/consequences of events......he could just "wave a magic wand" so to speak........and make everything go back to where they were before.

I'm sure other heroes like Batman, Spiderman, and Wolverine would love to have that ability.

To Singer's credit, at least he DID NOT give Supes the luxury of simply "erasing" all of his mistakes.....

 

[mego joe]

mego joe, as always, you make very good points. I, of course, share pretty much the same views with you regarding SR.

I do, however, disagree with you somewhat on the Amnesia Kiss thing from S2.

While Superman's intentions may have been to alleviate Lois' "pain," giving Lois that mind-erasing kiss....without her consent.....is just as bad.....even worse....than anything that Supes did in SR.

I've never liked the amnesia kiss or spinning back time either. However, upon rewatching SII I paid close attention to make sure I understood his motivation in that scene. I am thinking of it now as Superman using his 'Super-Hypnotism' instead of it being an 'amnesia kiss.'

The thing about the movies then is that they weren't really looking to change the status quo and it was supposed to be SUperman's first mission as Superman to show how he got the established status quo.

Toss in the fact that the original ending for SII was used on STM and you've really got a disaster brewing. It's sort of amazing they came off as good as they did.

That is akin to sleeping with a girl....then realizing your mistake.....and slipping her a "drug" that will erase her memory of that act ( not to mention miraculously abort the baby ).

And that is a very modern concept. Understanding the motivation at the time though, one can see that he is clearly not benefitting from this action and only Lois has any benefit. Realize, he was going to live with it until he saw how distressed Lois was over the situation.

I also think you have to put the character in the context of the time. Superman was not viewed as nearly as capable of mistakes or not saving the day. They couldn't leave him at the end of SII with Lois knowing his identity and an emotional wreck.

It's also cowardly and a very irresponsible power for Superman. And, that is one thing I DID NOT like about the Donner movies.......be it Amnesia Kissing or Spinning back the world........Superman was not shown to have to live with the aftermath/consequences of events......he could just "wave a magic wand" so to speak........and make everything go back to where they were before.

Which is why I find neither of those movies to be great, only really good and good, or worthy of being the source material for any other Superman films. Oddly however, S:TM is still the best live action Superman film.

I'm sure other heroes like Batman, Spiderman, and Wolverine would love to have that ability.

Possibly, but that's a discussion for another forum.

To Singer's credit, at least he DID NOT give Supes the luxury of simply "erasing" all of his mistakes.....

But at the same time he changed the essence of the character by making his motivation incongruent with the content of his character and showed a Superman that is more boy than man. I don't think I can really give credit to Singer for that. It's more about him being unbelievably uncreative in his approach to the story.

He's got to be the only person in the world that thougth the best story for a new Superman movie was "Paternity Test for Superman."

 

[SuperDaniel]

^Exactely. Mego Joe wins. I dont have to say anything.

 

[Angeloz]

What if both Lois and Supes got slipped Poison Ivy's sex pollen? Or is that only fan fiction? It could explain how they had sex without Lois finding out who he is.

Angeloz

 

[X Knight]

again, mego joe, you make really good points. and, again, I pretty much agree with everything you say. I guess I am just not as "forgiving" towards the Amnesia Kiss plot as you are.......lol.

Indeed, things like the Amnesia Kiss and Turning Back the World are reasons why I don't regard the Donner movies as perfect. Really, the only thing I liked about the original Superman movies was Chris Reeves as Clark/Superman.

That is also why I wanted a complete, fresh restart of the series.......not a vague pseudo-sequel like SR........

 

[LexCorp]

I've never liked the amnesia kiss or spinning back time either. However, upon rewatching SII I paid close attention to make sure I understood his motivation in that scene. I am thinking of it now as Superman using his 'Super-Hypnotism' instead of it being an 'amnesia kiss.'

The thing about the movies then is that they weren't really looking to change the status quo and it was supposed to be SUperman's first mission as Superman to show how he got the established status quo.

Toss in the fact that the original ending for SII was used on STM and you've really got a disaster brewing. It's sort of amazing they came off as good as they did.


And that is a very modern concept. Understanding the motivation at the time though, one can see that he is clearly not benefitting from this action and only Lois has any benefit. Realize, he was going to live with it until he saw how distressed Lois was over the situation.

I also think you have to put the character in the context of the time. Superman was not viewed as nearly as capable of mistakes or not saving the day. They couldn't leave him at the end of SII with Lois knowing his identity and an emotional wreck.



Which is why I find neither of those movies to be great, only really good and good, or worthy of being the source material for any other Superman films. Oddly however, S:TM is still the best live action Superman film.


Possibly, but that's a discussion for another forum.


But at the same time he changed the essence of the character by making his motivation incongruent with the content of his character and showed a Superman that is more boy than man. I don't think I can really give credit to Singer for that. It's more about him being unbelievably uncreative in his approach to the story.

He's got to be the only person in the world that thougth the best story for a new Superman movie was "Paternity Test for Superman."

Good points, but as the world moves forward, the ideas of wright and wrong change. Superman as a character will change too. In 50 years when Superman films are being made you take a look at the them do you think that they will change the character?

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Yeah. His best interest is to have a good relationship with Lois and then lose it all in order to see a dead planet.

[sarcasm]You make a lot of sense. [/sarcasm]

But when Superman left Earth to see Krypton he thought there was a chance there was life on the planet. He wasn't going to Krypton to see a "dead planet". He was hoping to see more. So yea, he abandoned Lois for his best interests.

 

[LexCorp]

But when Superman left Earth to see Krypton he thought there was a chance there was life on the planet. He wasn't going to Krypton to see a "dead planet". He was hoping to see more. So yea, he abandoned Lois for his best interests.

But his best interests are not what he is known for putting first. He helps others first then himself later. S2 was a great example of that. When fighting Zod and gang he tries to win but can't he is out numbered 3 to 1 so he retreats. Which is now in his best interests.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

But his best interests are not what he is known for putting first. He helps others first then himself later. S2 was a great example of that. When fighting Zod and gang he tries to win but can't he is out numbered 3 to 1 so he retreats. Which is now in his best interests.

I still just find it so dumb that he was unable to tell Lois he was going to Krypton to see if there were survivors. What's Lois going to say, "How dare you?". 1. Are they/were they not in a loving relationship? 2. Singer made Superman lack the testicular fortitude to say this to Lois. It was a lame plot device(not saying goodbye) to create tension when he returned. The creative team could have found a better way to create the drama for Superman's return.

 

[LexCorp]

I still just find it so dumb that he was unable to tell Lois he was going to Krypton to see if there were survivors. What's Lois going to say, "How dare you?". 1. Are they/were they not in a loving relationship? 2. Singer made Superman lack the testicular fortitude to say this to Lois. It was a lame plot device(not saying goodbye) to create tension when he returned. The creative team could have found a better way to create the drama for Superman's return.

I agree, it made no sense to me that Superman had to even go anywhere! It wastes the first act of the movie going over why, where and when he returned.

 

[roach]

Superman 2 has all the answers to all your questions.
1)In SM2 Clark gives up his powers to be with Lois(pretty selfish of you ask me). To Jor-El it is a Superman or Lois thing. He cant do both. That is why he kisses her to make her forget. He cant be with her. Mandated from his father.
2) Zod and his gang come down and almost kill him. Scientists discover the remains of Krypton and Superman goes to see if anyone survived....because if a larger number of Kryptonians made it to earth could he really beat them???

 

[LexCorp]

Superman 2 has all the answers to all your questions.
1)In SM2 Clark gives up his powers to be with Lois(pretty selfish of you ask me). To Jor-El it is a Superman or Lois thing. He cant do both. That is why he kisses her to make her forget. He cant be with her. Mandated from his father.
2) Zod and his gang come down and almost kill him. Scientists discover the remains of Krypton and Superman goes to see if anyone survived....because if a larger number of Kryptonians made it to earth could he really beat them???

1. So he stays as Superman
2. When did that happen in S2?

 

[roach]

well 2 happened between SM2 and SR

 

[LexCorp]

well 2 happened between SM2 and SR

In theory it would work, a good excuse to go to Krypton but still to not tell Lois. Pretty crappy of him not to say anything. Not just Lois did he even say "Hey Earth, I'm off for a bit, be back in 5 years, just so you know. Stay out of trouble".

 

[El Payaso]

In STM LOis is dead. It is in her best interest not to be dead.

It's in everyone's interest not to be dead. But Superman didn't reverse time for everyone; it was Lois his only reason. The rest of people saved by the time reversing was only a (good) side effect. If Lois wasn't dead, those people would have remained unsaved/dead.

I haven't seen Superman reversing time in any other ocasion to bring other people to life. Not when Zod and co killed people in Superman II. He does that just for Lois, for the rest of us it's just his best effort.

In SII, Lois is devastaed with the knowledge that she cannot be with Superman and is inconsolable feeling that there is no one else once she's been with Superman. In order to aleviate her pain and a chance at happiness with someone else Superman uses 'super-hypnosis' or the dreaded amnesia kiss
to make her forget.

Without telling her. And that changes it all.

I can be a doctor and think a clinical abortion - or any other intervention in the person's body - is the best in order to save the mother's life. But I won't do anything without letting the person - or a rewlative - know about it. It is not just my decision, that's immoral and unethical.

If he doesn't tell her it's not right. Quite like if he doesn't tell her he's leaving.

SOunds good to me.

When you decide to ignore the ethical implications of things, they might sound good.

You're a CLOWN what do you wand a flower that squirts water and red rubber nose?

And since you're a mego toy, should I expect a plastic gun?

Using nicknames to fight you battles... you better back to hypnosis. Or going back to valid argumentations would do it even better.

No he is avoiding doing the right thing because it is DIFFICULT- he says it in the movie. That benefits him. He doesn't have to be a man and face up to his responsibility.

Wooo, big benefit. To lose Lois but at least not say good-bye.

It's about time you noticed!

Sarcasm tags. It's always about pointing out the obvious with you.

Argumentation? Background? I've been arguing for nearly a year these same points for why his actions are out of character.

And suddenly you think that to say 'cut and dry' will make it?

I've been giving argumentation for a year, where have you been?

Refuting successfully every point you make.

You see the same events in the movies in a different context than I do. Singer gave little background so the viewer has to fill in the gaps. THere are pages of argumentation but the simple fact is that you don't see Superman as the same character that I do.

And you see but choose to ignore the implications of past movies' Superman actions. Quite convenient. I don't choose to ignore the same about SR, big difference.

 

[LexCorp]

Lois is a big girl, she handled her self when Supes left. She got a kid and got married so she did just fine.

 

[El Payaso]

I've never liked the amnesia kiss or spinning back time either. However, upon rewatching SII I paid close attention to make sure I understood his motivation in that scene. I am thinking of it now as Superman using his 'Super-Hypnotism' instead of it being an 'amnesia kiss.'

Oh, could name changing could make it? It's like Snake from The Simpsons with a bullet wound saying "I just fell on a bullet". "Super" hypnosis sounds quite much as mind manipulation as amnesia kiss.

And that is a very modern concept. Understanding the motivation at the time though, one can see that he is clearly not benefitting from this action and only Lois has any benefit. Realize, he was going to live with it until he saw how distressed Lois was over the situation.

Exactly.

He was going to live with it untill he realised it was too difficult to live with that and decided he wasn't comfortable with that "new life".

Not watching Lois in pain because of him and his mission every day will surely eliminate his own stress and guilt.

More benefit than just not to have to say good-bye.

I also think you have to put the character in the context of the time. Superman was not viewed as nearly as capable of mistakes or not saving the day. They couldn't leave him at the end of SII with Lois knowing his identity and an emotional wreck.

So they went with Superman manipulating minds without the person's knowledge or authorization. Doesn't make it any better no matter in what decade it happened.

Which is why I find neither of those movies to be great, only really good and good, or worthy of being the source material for any other Superman films.

A-ha.

Now I'm seeing a little consistency. It took a year but it was worthy I guess.

Oddly however, S:TM is still the best live action Superman film.

Very odd indeed. It seems that taste is not about moral issues in movies.

But at the same time he changed the essence of the character by making his motivation incongruent with the content of his character and showed a Superman that is more boy than man.

It must be Superman's naiveness we know so well.

I don't think I can really give credit to Singer for that. It's more about him being unbelievably uncreative in his approach to the story.

Maybe he was basing his Superman in Donner's.

He's got to be the only person in the world that thougth the best story for a new Superman movie was "Paternity Test for Superman."

Again wrong.

I was another one and so are other people. You like to single out people as the 'only ones that...' too much in order to make a point (as if that is make a point).

 

[El Payaso]

But when Superman left Earth to see Krypton he thought there was a chance there was life on the planet. He wasn't going to Krypton to see a "dead planet". He was hoping to see more. So yea, he abandoned Lois for his best interests.

What more was he expecting to see? A better girl than Lois? What was that great interest he had in there other than the obligation to search for his roots?

I still just find it so dumb that he was unable to tell Lois he was going to Krypton to see if there were survivors. What's Lois going to say, "How dare you?". 1. Are they/were they not in a loving relationship? 2. Singer made Superman lack the testicular fortitude to say this to Lois. It was a lame plot device(not saying goodbye) to create tension when he returned. The creative team could have found a better way to create the drama for Superman's return.

I ask then what's the big deal with dealing with a relationship's break up in Superman II? What's the worst that could have happened?

People live that all the time and no one needs memory deleting in order to move on. It hurts like hell, then life goes on and people move on.

Supes and Lois weren't even married for a number of years and people who are can handle with divorce. The amnesia kiss - immoral and all - was also needless and selfish. Supes just didn't want to deal with that.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

No he is avoiding doing the right thing because it is DIFFICULT- he says it in the movie. That benefits him. He doesn't have to be a man and face up to his responsibility.

You're right he should have owned up to his responsiblities by either tuning back time or making her forget, what deal with the problem if you can make it go away.

 

[El Payaso]

You're right he should have owned up to his responsiblities by either tuning back time or making her forget, what deal with the problem if you can make it go away.

lol, can't believe you use two lines to say what I took paragraphs to.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Tis a gift.

Also in S:TM he only turns back time to save Lis the earthquakes still happen.. After he meets with Lois she is angry at him for not coming sooner and starts to describe what happened to her during the earthquake, also Jimmey comes running up complaining that Superman just left him in the middle of a road, meaning he had saved Jimmey, if there was no earthquake why would he need saving?