Superman Returns Was Superman Really Out of Character in SR?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The problem is that peole keep trying to put their lifes and beliefs into Superman in order to make him reletable. So Singer gives him a real-world problem that is tottally out of character and not proper in a Superman story.


Superman is not us. All this idea to Marvelize the characteres of Dc comics pisses me off.

So your saying Superman is not susceptible to human emotions or mistakes despite being raised as a human for most of his life?

Sorry but this just wrong. Though he is an alien, he is essentially human in the way he was raised. If he was raised as a cow, he would be eating grass all day. But he wasnt, he was raised as a human, therefore he acts like one.

 

[LexCorp]

So your saying Superman is not susceptible to human emotions or mistakes despite being raised as a human for most of his life?

Sorry but this just wrong. Though he is an alien, he is essentially human in the way he was raised. If he was raised as a cow, he would be eating grass all day. But he wasnt, he was raised as a human, therefore he acts like one.

He has got you there SpiderDaniel

 

[Angeloz]

Angeloz,

Did you think that SUperman and Lois were in a committed relationship in the comics in the 70's/ pre-Crisis?

I'm just curious.

You ask me? I'm flattered. But I'm afraid I only got the comics for a short period of time in the late nineties to two thousand. I did get back issues but concentrated on Post-Crisis. Pre-Crisis was too comprehensive and beyond my means. I did read "Superman in the Seventies" over five years ago. I've also read other Trades and sometimes have seen stuff posted on the internet. But not enough to have knowledge on this. So I'll admit I don't really know their relationship in the seventies. I know they weren't married. Also I know there were Superman's and Batman's sons for a time in "World's Finest" (or type book). But I don't know whom the mothers were. I also have read "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" But that was written in 1986 as the last (imaginary) story. As stated again I don't know enough. So don't claim to know.

So, do you think that Supes and Lois were in a committed relationship in the backstory of SR?

Good question. I don't know to be honest. I'm not sure I want it answered either because I'm afraid I won't like the answer. But you never know I might adapt. They obviously had a relationship (and I don't just mean sexual). They cared for one another. But what happened - I don't know. There may have been red kryptonite or other hijinks. Or there may have been a "Superman II" type scenario. Where he starts a relationship with her but something stuffs it up outside of it i.e. a disaster. So here he is just broken up with the love of his life (he thinks). He feels even more alone. And then news of Krypton being found breaks. He decides to leave to see if he can help or if he's truly alone. But still feels the pull of Lois and thinks if he sees her he won't be able to go. Also perhaps that he's stuffed her around too much already. I don't know. There's more than one possibility. I know most naughty of them. Especially not telling her goodbye.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

He has got you there SpiderDaniel

Well even though he has Godlike abilities and is deified by some, he is human in nature, so he acts human. I dont see how people cant get this. Glad you can though Lexcorp.

 

[LexCorp]

Well even though he has Godlike abilities and is deified by some, he is human in nature, so he acts human. I dont see how people cant get this. Glad you can though Lexcorp.

I have been on this thread for weeks now some for years....

The bottom line is that there are examples of all types of behavour for Supes. Good, bad whatever. So to say he acts out of character you really have to say he is acting out of your idea of that character.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I have been on this thread for weeks now some for years....

The bottom line is that there are examples of all types of behavour for Supes. Good, bad whatever. So to say he acts out of character you really have to say he is acting out of your idea of that character.

Exactly, and in my eyes, he was raised as a human, so he is flawed like a human.

 

[mego joe]

But you can't label casual sex as wrong

Sex is not wrong. There are situations and contexts when it is wrong however.

....as there are two sides to every story and some people have perfectly normal lives doing it casualy.

Can but not necessarily, and is it worth risking the responsibitlity of a child? What happens to a child conceived in an uncommitted relationship? Aren't you short-changing the child?

Sex will create a connection anyway. So together or not the people involved share a moment. Friends shag buddies are common. But there is a relation ship there in the first place so I guess that is not wrong.

But that's not what sex is for. It's not just for two friends. The intimacy created when two people become sexual involved goes beyond friendship. It is something competely different. It is not just about friends. It is supposed to be an expression of a deep meaningful intimacy that goes beyond friendship.

If they are two adults who can handle the no strings sex and not get attached it's fine.

I'm basing this on actual research and the work of psychologists. It may seem fine but it does end up affecting people negatively.

Plus, if you have a string of partners to whom you were not committed, but just friends- then what does that mean when you do meet someone to whom you are committed and with whom you have achieved a deep emotional intimacy. Don't the previous, meaningless experiences cheapen it? The more partners you have the less special it becomes and it is then just about having sex and it no longer is something special.

What I am saying is if the two people involved can handle the mental and physical issues with sex then there is no problem...

But people, especially young people, teenagers don't always know what handling it is. Can a teenager handle becoming a parent? Can two teenagers who aren't committed give a child what every child deserves? Too many teenagers are having kids before they are grown up enough to handle that responsibilty and the children are the ones who end up feeling the brunt of it. Is that right?

And mentally- it takes a certainl level of emotional maturity to comprehend the responsibilities and commitment when involved in a sexual relationship. Sex is about the other person, not one's self.

 

[mego joe]

That way we can make people to listen to specific ideologies before they can have the right to choose what to do with their lives, minds and bodies. The premise is they're wrong.

The premise is that ther is a responsibility that comes with being in a sexual relationship that extends beyond one's own body. The other person, and the REAL possibility of conceiving a child. And with that, the responsibility that comes with becoming a parent and that anything less than putting that child first is wrong. Every child deserves to be first in the lives of its parents. And that is the issue.

I have to agree. Everybody's doing ti doesn't make it. But having the right to decide about my life does.

You certainly do. But sex is not only about the individual, it affects your partner(s) and any children that you might conceive while being involved with a sexual relationship.

People's basic freedom to choose can't go against good of society in general.

So it's ok for me to drink and drive, and whoever I kill is just SOL? I can commit hate crimes and that's ok, because I have the right to do what I want? I can take things from other people and it's ok b/c hey, it's my basic freedom and the good of society be damned?

Please, links.

Scientist have been wrong so many times before it's not even funny.

I don't know where you live, but if you listen to Loveline with Doctor Drew Pinsky, he touches on a lot of what I'm talking about. As far as other research goes, if you are really interested, I'll have to search them out. They are not all online sources.

I don't know. What happens?

They all become mugs? Or do drugs? Because as far as we know, that happens to all kind of people. Not specifically those conceived outside a commited relationship.

Do the parents stay together and raise the child? Does the child even know who both his parents are? FOr specific research, I'll have to defer to the general info I can recall.

Emotional issues.
Attachment issues.
Self-worth issues.

For issues outside the person themselves: Who cares for that child if they are not being raised by two parents committed to each other?

Again, what is best for the child? It's being raised by two biological parents who are committed to being together and committed to doing what is best for that child.

What is best for that child cannot happen if the parents are not committed to being with each other and committed to the child.

Then you have issues that involve teenagers who can't afford children and they become a financial burden on the government. Is it REALLY the responsibiliity of the government to care for children? It is a gov't's responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves, but a child is the responsibility of it's parents FIRST. The gov't steps in when the parents are unable to care for that child.

Just imagine if the number of children who were cared for by the gov't were reduced by 1/2. Imagine the reduction in financial burden, and imagine the BETTER life those kids would have being raised by 2 parents committed to each other and the best interest of the child.

Also, you have teenagers trying to care for children who don't even know what's best for themselves let alone a helpless child.

You're spreading this kind of ideology where people's lives are pre-determined by moral factors you and some other people handle better. People are not free to choose what kind of people they will be, they're predetermined by moral behaviour of their parents. Lol at that.

And what I'm advocating is parents taking the time to teach their children what sex is really about and the responsibilities that come with it.

However, I disagree that they are pre-determined to be anything. Certainly their lives are shaped by their parents and event in their lives, but every person at some point has the power to change their own life for the better. If you couldn't there wouldn't be any point in living.

How ignorant and insulting it is to say that people cannot change their lives and that they can't make decisions for themselves. What about people that grow up in bad situation and manage to get out and make their life something to be proud of. It happens.

You are influenced by your parents and events in your life, but you, the individual have the ability to change your life if you don't like where it is headed. No one makes you do anything. Ultimately, it is your decision. Whether it is to have sex or not have sex, to go to college or not go to college, to take responsibility for your own actions or blame others for your lot in life, or make children a priority in your life or allow them to suffer your own desires- it's a choice up to you.

We all have seen commited relationships that goes directly into parents that mistreat children or fathers that beat wives. It seems like every person is a single case and people's lives and behaviours can't be confined to some specific morals.

But that's no reason to say that just b/c some committed relationships are bad that children don't benefit from being raised by a couple committed to one another.

I remember a specific study that we covered in college. The finding were that a child who was raised in a home by both parents, even if the parents fought and argued, those children were happier, did better in school and it was an overall better situation than children who were raised in a divorced family or single parent family.

Parents in a commited relationship, that got married before sex and everything often leave their children and put their own lives first or their jobs first. No reductionism as your should impose a specific (personal) moral behaviour dogma as the holy solution.

Perhaps they weren't really committed then. Marriage is not necessarily the definition of a committed relationship. That committment is something personal and special between the two people. I never defined committed relationship as marriage. Look at Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel. They were not married for years and had a number of children before they actually got married. But there's no doubt in my mind they were committed.

Defining committed relationship is a separate issue. However, I will say that committing to a relationship is a decision you make yourself, it is not a magical state of being that just happens. It is hard and takes work, but it is extrememly rewarding in many ways. (Feel free to insert love for 'committed relationship and the descriptors work for love as well. Love is more about commitment than anything else.)

Translation: Because I say so. And sounds great.

No. I am not arguing it b/c I say so. I am arguing based on the benefits to children and society as a whole. So far you haven't said anything to counter why it would not benefit society or be in the best interest of children to be rasied in a family with parents committed to each other and the children.

Sexual life is not confined to procreation.

I never said it was. However, it is the most significant consequence of a sexual life. Children conceived in a sexual relationship are the moral and ethical responsibility of the people who convceived the child.

It is a calculated risk you take everytime you enter into a sexual encounter. The moral and ethical responsibilties don't change if you actually conceive or not, just the consequences.

Every person has the right to decide how to live his life and sexual life.

But not at someone else's expense.

Now their commitment to children must come first when the procreation is a fact.

No. That commitment to children must come first b/c you can never know when you are going to conceive. People try for years and years and never conceive. Other people conceive the first time they have sex.

No contraceptive method works 100% of the time without fail. Just ask around and find out how many people you know who were conceived or became parents while a contraceptive method was in place.

Because conception is always a possibility people have to be committed to that child ahead of time, before conception, and people have to be committed to that partner so that both parents can together be committed to any potential children and give that child the best possible upbrining.

That is Superman's case.

Not knowing does not absolve you of your moral and ethical responsibilities to that child. It's still your responsibility.

As soon as he knew, he was there with him and I'm sure he won't leave him alone in the future. So far, Jason is having a great mother and father with Lois and Richard. One day he'll know the truth as many adopted children has to know truth and their lives are not ruined by that.

[/quote]

Jason is not like an adopted child, though. His biological dad didn't care enough about his mom or the moral and ethical responsibilities associated with being in a sexual relationship and abandonned mom for 5 years w/o a word.

And many childrens lives are damaged greatly when they find out the person they thougth was their natural father for their whole life turns out not to be and some other person, perfectly capable of being a parent just didn't care enough to do the right thing.

That is Superman's case.

 

[mego joe]

Well then sorry but we think differently on that issue..

And I fully expected that.

The thing is though, its not considered wrong anymore, why do you think so many advertisement or movies even use sex to sell to the audience? Because today it isnt taboo.

That doesn't make it morally right though, does it? Was it morally right for people in the South in the U.S to have slaves? Everybody did it. It wasn't taboo.

Morality is not an agreed upon set of laws at a given time, it is something universal and timeless.

As i have said before, Superman was raised as a human being, therefore is susceptible to the same emotions and therefore the same mistakes that we can make.

But is he capable of making EVERY mistake that has been made by humans?

Aren't there some mistakes he is incapable of making b/c of who he is as a person?

Aren't there somethings that he would never do?

Isn't there a difference between being a good human and a bad human?

Making fewer mistakes doesn't make one less human. Being human means that you are tempted to do the wrong thing at times, feeling that inner conflict. THat is what defines the state of being human.

What mistakes you make just puts you somewhere on the graph of morality or goodness.

WHere does SUperman lie on that graph? He supposed to be near the top b/c of the kind of person he is. Caring, altruistic, self-sacrificing etc....

He may make mistakes, but they are born out of good intentions, moral intentions.

Having Superman do the wrong thing is the backstory for SR, just doesn't fit with his characterization- he put his own needs above those of the woman he loved and his responsibilty of being in a sexual relationship (potential of conception.) As genuinely caring and loving as he is supposed to be this mistake just flies in the face of that.

 

[mego joe]

You ask me? I'm flattered. But I'm afraid I only got the comics for a short period of time in the late nineties to two thousand. I did get back issues but concentrated on Post-Crisis. Pre-Crisis was too comprehensive and beyond my means. I did read "Superman in the Seventies" over five years ago. I've also read other Trades and sometimes have seen stuff posted on the internet. But not enough to have knowledge on this. So I'll admit I don't really know their relationship in the seventies. I know they weren't married. Also I know there were Superman's and Batman's sons for a time in "World's Finest" (or type book). But I don't know whom the mothers were. I also have read "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" But that was written in 1986 as the last (imaginary) story. As stated again I don't know enough. So don't claim to know.

You've been in the conversation and I genuinely wanted to know, as I genuinely want to know everyone's opinion on the subjects at hand and why.

You mentioned WEHTTMOT and I scanned this page in anticipation of using it. It sums up how Superman felt about Lois and Lana and his lack of committment to either of them and how he now feels like he led them on b/c he never made a decision and never committed to either one of them.

Good question. I don't know to be honest. I'm not sure I want it answered either because I'm afraid I won't like the answer. But you never know I might adapt. They obviously had a relationship (and I don't just mean sexual). They cared for one another. But what happened - I don't know. There may have been red kryptonite or other hijinks. Or there may have been a "Superman II" type scenario. Where he starts a relationship with her but something stuffs it up outside of it i.e. a disaster. So here he is just broken up with the love of his life (he thinks). He feels even more alone. And then news of Krypton being found breaks. He decides to leave to see if he can help or if he's truly alone. But still feels the pull of Lois and thinks if he sees her he won't be able to go. Also perhaps that he's stuffed her around too much already. I don't know. There's more than one possibility. I know most naughty of them. Especially not telling her goodbye.

Angeloz

I'm sure you are aware of this, but this to me is the crux of understanding the rest of the film. What I get from the clues and little that is given is that b/c we expect Superman to be committed to Lois that his inabilty is out of character and if he wasn't committed then he shouldn't have been having sex with her anyway. And the fact that she doesn't know he's Clark leads me to believe that he wasn't committed b/c he was unable to share that part of his life b/c there wasn't that trust and real emotional intimacy.

Either way adds up to out of character in my interpretation of the events.

 

[mego joe]

So your saying Superman is not susceptible to human emotions or mistakes despite being raised as a human for most of his life?

Susceptible to human emotions yes, making mistakes, yes.

But not any and all mistakes made by humans.

Sorry but this just wrong. Though he is an alien, he is essentially human in the way he was raised. If he was raised as a cow, he would be eating grass all day. But he wasnt, he was raised as a human, therefore he acts like one.

He acts like one, but like the best of us, the best of humans, not the average ordinary or bad human. He feels everything very deeply, but he doesn not necessarily give in to things he knows are wrong.

You've read "For Tomorrow" and we've discussed it before, and I think what he does in that is a perfect example of Superman feeling his human emotions and what kinds of mistakes he might make. He's trying to make things better, but misjudges what other deem to be happiness. His real mistake is giving too much credit to humans. His intentions are of the noblest- to provide a way of saving the Earth should it become engdangered by an event similar to the one that destroyed Krypton, but his device is misused and he learns that everyone is not like he imagines them to be upon 'vanishing' to paradise.

Nothing in that story bears any resemblance to his not saying goodbye to Lois.

 

[mego joe]

I have been on this thread for weeks now some for years....

The bottom line is that there are examples of all types of behavour for Supes. Good, bad whatever. So to say he acts out of character you really have to say he is acting out of your idea of that character.

Actually, I don't thing that except for Superman Returns there is any kind of 'bad' intended behavior. In my examples things may not turn out as he imagines they will, but there are no examples of bad intended behavior.

And I'm basing all my arguments on examples from comics and the previous films, so it's not MY ideas, but rather the amalgamation of the way the character's been presented over the years.

 

[mego joe]

Exactly, and in my eyes, he was raised as a human, so he is flawed like a human.

SO since some humans commit rape, SUperman would be capable of rape?

Capable of bigotry?

Capable of purposely hurting a child?


There have to be some standards, don't there?

It really lies in our views of what the standards are.

 

[LexCorp]

Actually, I don't thing that except for Superman Returns there is any kind of 'bad' intended behavior. In my examples things may not turn out as he imagines they will, but there are no examples of bad intended behavior.

And I'm basing all my arguments on examples from comics and the previous films, so it's not MY ideas, but rather the amalgamation of the way the character's been presented over the years.

I can not take that SR is the one and only example of that over 60+ years. SR was not about intending to do bad behavior to anyone.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Superman is capable of human emotions, obviously! But the reason behind them makes him better. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, decency, intergrity to us in every aspect of life, not be like us.

For example, Superman feels sadness, love, hate but he is just more than us in a way he is an example.

Even Lois & Clark, wich was shown a more human side of Superman, still got it right portraying him as an inspiration to us, no like us.

He is not Spider-man, you or me. He is the best of all human qualities into one person.

 

[mego joe]

I can not take that SR is the one and only example of that over 60+ years.

You're welcome to try and find examples of it.

SR was not about intending to do bad behavior to anyone.

He did not tell Lois that he was leaving, b/c it was too difficult, knowing full well that telling her was the right thing to do. He knew it was wrong, otherwise, it would not have been difficult, right? THerfore his motivation and intention for not telling her was to avoid his own pain in lieu of telling her and himself carrying the burden of the pain. He's got to know that Lois is going to figure it out eventually, and then it's really going to hurt Lois, even more than if he had told her.

His intention was to avoid his own pain instead of doing the right thing in being honest with Lois.

That is certainly intending to 'do bad behavior' towards Lois.

He knew it was wrong and he did it anyway.

 

[mego joe]

Superman is capable of human emotions, obviously! But the reason behind them makes him better. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, decency, intergrity to us in every aspect of life, not be like us.

For example, Superman feels sadness, love, hate but he is just more than us in a way he is an example.

Even Lois & Clark, wich was shown a more human side of Superman, still got it right portraying him as an inspiration to us, no like us.

He is not Spider-man, you or me. He is the best of all human qualities into one person.

I can't argue with that. It's not about not having those emotions or being tempted to give into them, it's about being SO caring and 'human' that he operates from the highest degree of nobility, decency to inspire us. That's why the Christ metaphor is supposed to work in a film like SR or STM.

 

[Angeloz]

SO since some humans commit rape, SUperman would be capable of rape?

Capable of bigotry?

Capable of purposely hurting a child?


There have to be some standards, don't there?

It really lies in our views of what the standards are.

Since he's a sentient being he would be capable of all those things. It would depend on which universe he was in on whether it would happen eg. evil. It would depend how he was raised and brought up. Though he might also be able to overcome some of that. But really if he had free will then he's capable of anything a human could do plus more and worse (with his powers). He could also be capable of good and great things too. Let's not just concentrate on the negative aspects of free will.

Angeloz

 

[Angeloz]

You've been in the conversation and I genuinely wanted to know, as I genuinely want to know everyone's opinion on the subjects at hand and why.

You mentioned WEHTTMOT and I scanned this page in anticipation of using it. It sums up how Superman felt about Lois and Lana and his lack of committment to either of them and how he now feels like he led them on b/c he never made a decision and never committed to either one of them.

You realise the last panel could be used in "Superman Returns" and what happened in the film when he didn't explain before he left?

I'm sure you are aware of this, but this to me is the crux of understanding the rest of the film. What I get from the clues and little that is given is that b/c we expect Superman to be committed to Lois that his inabilty is out of character and if he wasn't committed then he shouldn't have been having sex with her anyway. And the fact that she doesn't know he's Clark leads me to believe that he wasn't committed b/c he was unable to share that part of his life b/c there wasn't that trust and real emotional intimacy.

Either way adds up to out of character in my interpretation of the events.

I'll admit (and I've said it in another thread) I love your thoughts on loving relationships. But it's not always that perfect in the real world. Plus I guess in the film. I guess you got your ideals squashed. It can be hard the first time it happens. Actually not necessarily just the first. It hurts a lot. I know. I'm sorry it happened here.

Angeloz

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I dont think he was out of character, but he was out of action

 

[mego joe]

You realise the last panel could be used in "Superman Returns" and what happened in the film when he didn't explain before he left?

Except within the context of "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" he hasn't made any sort of commitment, he not been having sex with her. THey have that casual dating dating relationship where there's no commitment and plus he hasn't actually left for anywhere. That scene is in the FOS and he taken Lois, Lana, Jimmy, Perry and Perry's wife with him to protect them.

What he wished he'd done WAS commit either way and just take that leap instead of holding onto the idea that he couldn't commit b/c he had a job to do as SUperman or he just made it plain that there was never going to be a chance to be with him so 'Move on.'

Plus Lois, narration in the blue box at the bottom of that panel indicates that she feels he really hadn't done anything wrong b/c he didn't have a commitment to her (or Lana)- SUperman's over developed sense of responsibility and idealism makes him believe that he 'was a coward', even though Lois herself believes him to be 'the noblest' of people.

I'll admit (and I've said it in another thread) I love your thoughts on loving relationships. But it's not always that perfect in the real world.

That's kind of the point of Superman though isn't it? Superman is a character who is about living up to and modeling ideals and making the world a better place- at least that is what his intentions are.

And wouldn't it seem that SUperman WOULD be in a wonderful loving relationship and not some half-baked, selfish immature relationship? Isn't that how it was portrayed in SII?

Plus I guess in the film. I guess you got your ideals squashed. It can be hard the first time it happens. Actually not necessarily just the first. It hurts a lot. I know. I'm sorry it happened here.

Angeloz

I'm not naive, I know that in the real world ideal often get crushed by reality. But as above, that's not what Superman is about. It is essential that Superman believes in those ideals "Truth, JUstice, etc..." and actively works to make a better world based on those ideals and values instilled in him by the Kents.

My ideals weren't crushed, this essential elements of Superman was crushed in the movie, hence an essentially different version of Superman.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

And I fully expected that.

Ha ha i thought you would

That doesn't make it morally right though, does it? Was it morally right for people in the South in the U.S to have slaves? Everybody did it. It wasn't taboo.

Morality is not an agreed upon set of laws at a given time, it is something universal and timeless.

People having slaves is a bit different on scale to not saying goodbye to someone though isnt it MJ?

But is he capable of making EVERY mistake that has been made by humans?

Aren't there some mistakes he is incapable of making b/c of who he is as a person?

Aren't there somethings that he would never do?

Isn't there a difference between being a good human and a bad human?

Making fewer mistakes doesn't make one less human. Being human means that you are tempted to do the wrong thing at times, feeling that inner conflict. THat is what defines the state of being human.

What mistakes you make just puts you somewhere on the graph of morality or goodness.

WHere does SUperman lie on that graph? He supposed to be near the top b/c of the kind of person he is. Caring, altruistic, self-sacrificing etc....

He may make mistakes, but they are born out of good intentions, moral intentions.

Having Superman do the wrong thing is the backstory for SR, just doesn't fit with his characterization- he put his own needs above those of the woman he loved and his responsibilty of being in a sexual relationship (potential of conception.) As genuinely caring and loving as he is supposed to be this mistake just flies in the face of that.

In my eyes, he is capable of anything a human is capable of, he gets angry, therefore he make a bad decision through anger, like humans do, he can feel sad, lonely, etc, therefore he can make the same mistakes humans can through feelings. So the question isnt is he capable of them, of course he is, its whether he will do them or not. He knows the differences between right and wrong (thank god for the people of his world he does), BUT, as i have said before, who's to tell him what he does to Lois in SR is wrong. Again as i have said before, I beleive Superman thought the pain of him just leaving, would be easier to bear for Lois rather than telling her a reason she would not (IMO) understand.

Susceptible to human emotions yes, making mistakes, yes.

But not any and all mistakes made by humans.



He acts like one, but like the best of us, the best of humans, not the average ordinary or bad human. He feels everything very deeply, but he doesn not necessarily give in to things he knows are wrong.

You've read "For Tomorrow" and we've discussed it before, and I think what he does in that is a perfect example of Superman feeling his human emotions and what kinds of mistakes he might make. He's trying to make things better, but misjudges what other deem to be happiness. His real mistake is giving too much credit to humans. His intentions are of the noblest- to provide a way of saving the Earth should it become engdangered by an event similar to the one that destroyed Krypton, but his device is misused and he learns that everyone is not like he imagines them to be upon 'vanishing' to paradise.

Nothing in that story bears any resemblance to his not saying goodbye to Lois.

I'm glad you have finally read For Tomorrow, its a great read IMO.

But also IMO, the fact that he leaves the earth without openly telling any of his loved one's about the fact that he is doing so, is relatable to the back story of SR IMO.

SO since some humans commit rape, SUperman would be capable of rape?

Capable of bigotry?

Capable of purposely hurting a child?


There have to be some standards, don't there?

It really lies in our views of what the standards are.

He is certainly capable of them yes, as i said he was raised as a human, so he is susceptible to the same emotions and mistakes as us. But as i said before, he KNOWS these things are wrong. With Lois, he has never been in love before, he is an amateur at relationships, so he doesnt quite know whats right or wrong when it comes to certain situations.

So, he makes a mistake, pays for it, and IMO learns from it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Superman is capable of human emotions, obviously! But the reason behind them makes him better. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, decency, intergrity to us in every aspect of life, not be like us.

For example, Superman feels sadness, love, hate but he is just more than us in a way he is an example.

Even Lois & Clark, wich was shown a more human side of Superman, still got it right portraying him as an inspiration to us, no like us.

He is not Spider-man, you or me. He is the best of all human qualities into one person.

But Superman is not a perfect being is he? He was raised as a human, so he is flawed like one, thats the only we relate to him IMO. If he was raised as a wolf, i guarantee you he would be hunting animals for food, in that situation would that be wrong?

 

[hammy]

Superman is not perfect, but he's pretty darn close. That's the Superman most people want to see, the one capable of discerning right from wrong and consistently choosing right, regardless of how difficult it may sometimes be. And yes, he was raised human, but he's not human. Everyone wants to see the Superman who is capable of falling in love like a human, but nobody wants to see him do stupid things like other humans often do .. such as hurt Lois. It's like, we want him to be Superman, the hero, while at the same time having just enough humanity that we can relate to him and him to us. But we only want the best parts of his human influence to come through. Everybody loves the boyscout in him.

 

[mego joe]

Ha ha i thought you would

People having slaves is a bit different on scale to not saying goodbye to someone though isnt it MJ?

Just trying to point out that morality is based on something other than what is popular or the 'in' thing.

In my eyes, he is capable of anything a human is capable of, he gets angry, therefore he make a bad decision through anger, like humans do, he can feel sad, lonely, etc, therefore he can make the same mistakes humans can through feelings. So the question isnt is he capable of them, of course he is, its whether he will do them or not. He knows the differences between right and wrong (thank god for the people of his world he does), BUT, as i have said before, who's to tell him what he does to Lois in SR is wrong. Again as i have said before, I beleive Superman thought the pain of him just leaving, would be easier to bear for Lois rather than telling her a reason she would not (IMO) understand.

And this is where we disagree (DUH!), I think he would know that it would be worse for Lois to not know why, and that if he said goodbye she would know that he did care and that he had a moral responsibility to tell her b/c of their sexual relationship.

I'm glad you have finally read For Tomorrow, its a great read IMO.

I've actually read it twice. It has some non-standard storytelling techniques that really require concentration to figure out.

But also IMO, the fact that he leaves the earth without openly telling any of his loved one's about the fact that he is doing so, is relatable to the back story of SR IMO.

I understand why you would think that, but to me the context is to dissimilar. He does tell the JLA, his friends and he can't tell Lois b/c she's one of the people he's trying to save. In SR, the mitigating factor to me that he's obligated to tell Lois is the fact that they were involved sexually at the time he left or just before he left.

He is certainly capable of them yes, as i said he was raised as a human, so he is susceptible to the same emotions and mistakes as us. But as i said before, he KNOWS these things are wrong. With Lois, he has never been in love before, he is an amateur at relationships, so he doesnt quite know whats right or wrong when it comes to certain situations.

So, he makes a mistake, pays for it, and IMO learns from it.

I don't think he's that out of it when it comes to relationships. I think the mistake he makes is really more lack of common sense and common decency than anything else. It's not really a complex issue. I also think that if they are supposed to really be in love they would be able to put the other persons feeling first, just as he does on a daily basis in his public life as SUperman does with the public at large, he would be able to do the same for Lois in his personal life. He certainly understands the concept as it relates to his public life as Superman so it just seems incongruent that he cannot do the same thing in his private life with the woman he loves.

And so our circle goes round and round again and again, haven't we had this same discussion before? Ha, ha!

BTW- also read Batman: Hush, have you read that?