Superman Returns Was Superman Really Out of Character in SR?

[Angeloz]

You two still at it?

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

You two still at it?

Angeloz

I think El Payaso and I are the 'never ending battle' that is part of the Superman mythos.

 

[Angeloz]

I think El Payaso and I are the 'never ending battle' that is part of the Superman mythos.

Heh.

Angeloz

 

[LexCorp]

I think El Payaso and I are the 'never ending battle' that is part of the Superman mythos.

I salute you battle

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't think it comes off that strongly in the movie though. THere's so much 'subtlety' that it doesn't fit with the extremes and depth of emotion that should be conveyed in this type of story.

Ha ha, then again we disagree . When Superman directly looks into Lois's eyes and says "I'm sorry i left you Lois...." i thought it was totally convincing and seemingly so did Lois in the movie, in fact i think it could be Brandon's best scene in terms of acting, and i loved his performance.

Ma Kent and I would think Lois especially.

He basically does admit to Lois though when he says sorry and then later when he says "Bye Lois."

[/I]

I still can't get over the fact that some people think that it matters that he didn't know she was pregnant, like it's an excuse or reason that absolves him from his responsibilities.

Are we only responsible for things we know about? Aren't we morally and ethically responsible based on right and wrong and not just if we know about it?

He knew he was having sex with her, and he knew it was wrong to leave w/o saying goodbye.

This is the most confounding thing about this situation to me.

Superman has a moral and ethical responsibility towards Lois based on the sexual nature of their relationship and it doesn't mean beans whether or not he knew she was pregnant.

Well i'm sorry i just dont see how he is responsible for something he doesnt know, as i have said before, did he even know he could conceive with a human?

And even that doens't matter because at the end of the movie he knew he had a kid and he still just walked away. This is not how Superman would have handled the situation at all, and this is why he was out of character in this film.

Plus the whole 'father-son' speech that he quotes from Jor-El from the Superman: The Movie was completely out of context and the fact that Singer even used it here just goes to show that he didn't understand it's actual meaning and significance in it's original context. PLUS Jor-El says it to his baby son as he places him into the spaceship, so Kal-El would never have heard this speech as an adult and would not have remembered it.

And, yeah yeah, I know, 'vague history'...whatever, that's just more excuse making if you ask me.

He never walked away, he told Lois he'll always be there, how is that walking away.

 

[mego joe]

Ha ha, then again we disagree .

We disagree? You've got to be kidding!!!

When Superman directly looks into Lois's eyes and says "I'm sorry i left you Lois...." i thought it was totally convincing and seemingly so did Lois in the movie, in fact i think it could be Brandon's best scene in terms of acting, and i loved his performance.

But to me it is a very superficial apology. They never delve into the WHYs and WHEREFOREs of his inability to say goodbye. That is the most non-sensical part of it. He apologizes and explains why he left, but not WHY he didn't say goodbye. If I was Lois that's what I would want to know. It just comes off as very superficial, two dimensional, shallow and unbelievable.

IT's not HOW it is said so much as the lack of what is said in such potentially emotional and revealing character scene.

He basically does admit to Lois though when he says sorry and then later when he says "Bye Lois."

Again, it's so minimalistic and 'subtle' in the interaction between the characters that the extremes of and intensity of emotions that SHOULD be apparent in a story with these themes are just not conveyed strongly or distinctly enough. THey just feel flat and superficial.

Well i'm sorry i just dont see how he is responsible for something he doesnt know,

Well, I've tried to make this point before, but I'll try again.

If you don't know you are someone's father does that absolve you from the responsibility? I don't see how it can. Sex involves certain obligations and responsibilities. Pregnancy is one of the inherent potential consequencs of sex. If you don't know you are the father, who is then responsible for the child?

Don't you see how wrong it is what you are suggesting ? If a man doesn't know he got a woman pregnant then he is not responsible for the child. That's turning the clock back hundreds of years. A child is not the responsibility of just the woman, but the man AND the woman. It's just basic, if you are the parent of a child, it is YOUR responsibility whether you know it or not. Not knowing might affect what actions you can take, but it does not absolve responsibility.

If a woman is unsure of the paternity of her child don't they do tests to determine responsibiltiy and to enforce child support payment?

I you injure someone while driving intoxicated but you don't realize you hurt them are you somehow not responsible? Don't the Police come to look for you?

as i have said before, did he even know he could conceive with a human?

That doesn't seem to be a part of the story. The ony thing I can go on is from S:TM when he says that 'all his body functions are normal.' Plus, wouldn't it be strange for him to give up all his powers and abilities to live a 'normal' life as a human and not be genetically compatible?

But it just seems like you are reaching there. THere's nothing in the film to indicate that he's would think that.

He never walked away, he told Lois he'll always be there, how is that walking away.

It just doesn't sound very convincing. It's just another example superficial characterization and minimal use of dialogue and expression to convey something that should be deeply meaningful and obvious.

"I'm always around." just doesn't sound very committed. Especially, considering that he WASN"T around for the past 5 years.

If he had just said something like,

"Lois, I know I've been gone, but since coming back my responsibilities seem much clearer. I will ALWAYS be here for you and Jason, should you ever need anything."

That would have been much more convincing.

 

[Angeloz]

Bugger sex with human looking aliens can result in pregnancy? Although I've never seen them in the real world either. Bugger again. Is nothing safe?

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

We disagree? You've got to be kidding!!!

No seriously, we dont, i couldnt believe it either .

But to me it is a very superficial apology. They never delve into the WHYs and WHEREFOREs of his inability to say goodbye. That is the most non-sensical part of it. He apologizes and explains why he left, but not WHY he didn't say goodbye. If I was Lois that's what I would want to know. It just comes off as very superficial, two dimensional, shallow and unbelievable.

IT's not HOW it is said so much as the lack of what is said in such potentially emotional and revealing character scene.

Well maybe you problem is with the acting and not the story then?

IMO he does explain in the scene why it was hard for him to say goodbye, when he says "Maybe Clark's right" and then the look he gives her, she seems to accept that explanation as well judging by the quick smile she gives him.

Again, it's so minimalistic and 'subtle' in the interaction between the characters that the extremes of and intensity of emotions that SHOULD be apparent in a story with these themes are just not conveyed strongly or distinctly enough. THey just feel flat and superficial.

Well i have said this before, and it did take a few re-watching for me to catch on to every aspect of this, but a lot of emotions and story in the movie are told by looks on the character's faces instead of words, which is a unique way to tell the story IMO.

Well, I've tried to make this point before, but I'll try again.

If you don't know you are someone's father does that absolve you from the responsibility? I don't see how it can. Sex involves certain obligations and responsibilities. Pregnancy is one of the inherent potential consequencs of sex. If you don't know you are the father, who is then responsible for the child?

Don't you see how wrong it is what you are suggesting ? If a man doesn't know he got a woman pregnant then he is not responsible for the child. That's turning the clock back hundreds of years. A child is not the responsibility of just the woman, but the man AND the woman. It's just basic, if you are the parent of a child, it is YOUR responsibility whether you know it or not. Not knowing might affect what actions you can take, but it does not absolve responsibility.

If a woman is unsure of the paternity of her child don't they do tests to determine responsibiltiy and to enforce child support payment?

I you injure someone while driving intoxicated but you don't realize you hurt them are you somehow not responsible? Don't the Police come to look for you?

Well i agree you are responsible for concieving the child, but again, if he doesnt know, how can he be responsible for how it is raised? I'm sorry i just dont see how he can be blamed for it.

And killing someone while driving intoxicated is different again IMO, because you should know if you are intoxicated you shouldnt get in the car.

I have been driving for nearly 3 years now, and have NEVER drove intoxicated.

That doesn't seem to be a part of the story. The ony thing I can go on is from S:TM when he says that 'all his body functions are normal.' Plus, wouldn't it be strange for him to give up all his powers and abilities to live a 'normal' life as a human and not be genetically compatible?

But it just seems like you are reaching there. THere's nothing in the film to indicate that he's would think that.

Again, see the look on his face when he first looks upon Jason in his room, his face shows confusion at first as if to say "How." It then turns to delight when he comes to the realisation that he has a son and isnt alone any more.




It just doesn't sound very convincing. It's just another example superficial characterization and minimal use of dialogue and expression to convey something that should be deeply meaningful and obvious.

"I'm always around." just doesn't sound very committed. Especially, considering that he WASN"T around for the past 5 years.

If he had just said something like,

"Lois, I know I've been gone, but since coming back my responsibilities seem much clearer. I will ALWAYS be here for you and Jason, should you ever need anything."
That would have been much more convincing.[/QUOTE]

With regards to the highlighted part, again this is told with a look, IMO the look he gives her tells this. And when he says "I'm always around" this time, notice how he says it in a different tone to previously, as if he means somethign different this time, like "I'll always be around for you and Jason."

Honestly, looks tell most of the story in SR.

 

[Angeloz]

I agree AVEITWITHJAMON a lot of the story and what is felt and thought was through looks and not words. It's one of the things I love about the film. Because it's not just spoonfeeding with sometimes lame dialogue. Film is a visual medium and I like that Singer and the writers used that. And not as radio with pictures. It's also why I don't get the criticisms of Brandon's performance because I thought he was excellent at showing the character's emotions and thoughts through the way he looked and reacted. It said more than most words. At least I felt that way.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

No seriously, we dont, i couldnt believe it either .



Well maybe you problem is with the acting and not the story then?

No, it's the story overall, but the decision to tell the whole movie with 'looks' I think undermines the seriousness and depth of character which should be present. B/c w/o REALLY getting into the characters they just seem flat and superficial.

IMO he does explain in the scene why it was hard for him to say goodbye, when he says "Maybe Clark's right" and then the look he gives her, she seems to accept that explanation as well judging by the quick smile she gives him.

Again, a very superficial and two dimension execution of a scene that should be dripping with emotion. So Lois forgives him b/c he's spineless?

Well i have said this before, and it did take a few re-watching for me to catch on to every aspect of this, but a lot of emotions and story in the movie are told by looks on the character's faces instead of words, which is a unique way to tell the story IMO.

Unique, but not the most effective for a film that should convey a huge range and depth of emotion considering the subject matter. It just isn't the right type of film for that subtlety.

Well i agree you are responsible for concieving the child, but again, if he doesnt know, how can he be responsible for how it is raised? I'm sorry i just dont see how he can be blamed for it.

He still conceived it didn't he?

If he's responsible for conceiving it he's responsible for raising it. Morally and ethically the two go hand in hand. I understand the circumstances prevent him from raising Jason in the movie, but my issue is with the fact that he did not adhere to those obligations before he left and instead abandoned Lois and there by Jason when he didn't say goodbye.

And killing someone while driving intoxicated is different again IMO, because you should know if you are intoxicated you shouldnt get in the car.

And if you are in a sexual relationship you should know you need to be emotionally available/ committed to that person and not just disappear for 5 years. It's as much common sense as not driving while intoxicated.

I have been driving for nearly 3 years now, and have NEVER drove intoxicated.

GOod to hear it. But have you or anyone you know ever just disappeared on a girl after you were sexually intimate with her?

Again, see the look on his face when he first looks upon Jason in his room, his face shows confusion at first as if to say "How." It then turns to delight when he comes to the realisation that he has a son and isnt alone any more.

But he is alone. He isn't raising Jason and he will NEVER be the everyday father to him that actually brings the fulfillment of having a child.

With regards to the highlighted part, again this is told with a look, IMO the look he gives her tells this. And when he says "I'm always around" this time, notice how he says it in a different tone to previously, as if he means somethign different this time, like "I'll always be around for you and Jason."

But it isn't. It's too serious and deep a matter to be left soley to 'tone' and 'looks.' You have to convey a depth of character instead of reticence.

Honestly, looks tell most of the story in SR.

WHich is one of the reasons it comes off as shallow and superficial and genuinely uninteresting.

 

[mego joe]

I agree AVEITWITHJAMON a lot of the story and what is felt and thought was through looks and not words. It's one of the things I love about the film. Because it's not just spoonfeeding with sometimes lame dialogue.

However considering that the dialogue that was in the movie WAS lame, perhaps the story was just beyond the ability of the writer's skill in writing good dialogue.

Film is a visual medium and I like that Singer and the writers used that. And not as radio with pictures. It's also why I don't get the criticisms of Brandon's performance because I thought he was excellent at showing the character's emotions and thoughts through the way he looked and reacted. It said more than most words. At least I felt that way.

Angeloz

Becasue acting is also about delivering lines with meaning and depth of character and not just staring blankly or looking confused.

WHile this type of approach can be effective, it was the ONLY approach Singer used in the movie. There has to be a balance of visuals AND dialogue to effectively convey character depth and the intensity of emotions. There was no scene in SR that comes close to Reeve's scream at the end of S:TM or his argument with Jor-El in the DOnner Cut of SII. THose films used both dialogue AND 'looks' to convey emotion and depth of character.

 

[Angeloz]

However considering that the dialogue that was in the movie WAS lame, perhaps the story was just beyond the ability of the writer's skill in writing good dialogue.

I disagree with you there.

Becasue acting is also about delivering lines with meaning and depth of character and not just staring blankly or looking confused.

WHile this type of approach can be effective, it was the ONLY approach Singer used in the movie. There has to be a balance of visuals AND dialogue to effectively convey character depth and the intensity of emotions. There was no scene in SR that comes close to Reeve's scream at the end of S:TM or his argument with Jor-El in the DOnner Cut of SII. THose films used both dialogue AND 'looks' to convey emotion and depth of character.

Well I'll grant you the words are from the original films but there was the end with him and Jason. But if you want a scene that was original and had some good dialogue I thought Lex's speech to Kitty about Prometheus, worldly power and gods in little red capes was pretty good. Though again I disagree with you about the dialogue and the film (including looking blankly or confused unless it was meant to be those things). I also believe sometimes you don't need dialogue. As the images can convey so much more. Not that I object to dialogue. It's just sometimes it's unnecessary and also can be lame or pulls down a scene. Oh well. For instance the scream in the 1978 film (as you like it). Unless you count that as dialogue. Or how about at the end when he flies in space and smiles at us (into the camera) - no dialogue there. Was that lame in the original films? I don't think so.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

I disagree with you there.

WHat? You disagree? Does this mean we've averted the apocolypse?

Well I'll grant you the words are from the original films but there was the end with him and Jason.

That speech is also lso from S:TM.

But if you want a scene that was original and had some good dialogue I thought Lex's speech to Kitty about Prometheus, worldly power and gods in little red capes was pretty good.

ONe scene. One scene. OK, one scene.

Though again I disagree with you about the dialogue and the film (including looking blankly or confused unless it was meant to be those things). I also believe sometimes you don't need dialogue.

SOmetimes you don't, you are right. LIke the scream at the end of S:TM. Reeves expression and scream tell it all. But there is nothing remotely similar in SR that conveys that depth or extreme of emotion. My point is that there is too much subtlety for a film that is about a character who is the exact opposite of subtle. Batman is subtle. Superman is larger than life.

As the images can convey so much more.

It can, in the right situation, but that is just not the case with the majority of SR.

Not that I object to dialogue. It's just sometimes it's unnecessary and also can be lame or pulls down a scene. Oh well. For instance the scream in the 1978 film (as you like it). Unless you count that as dialogue. Or how about at the end when he flies in space and smiles at us (into the camera) - no dialogue there. Was that lame in the original films? I don't think so.

No, not lame, but appropriate. I just find so much of SR lacking in character that more dialogue to flesh out the intensity of emotions and depth of feeling would have made it a better executed film. I still wouldn't have liked the story, but I would have been more complimentary on Singer's execution of a bad story. Well made and bad story instead of under-whelmingly executed AND a bad story.


Angeloz[/quote]

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree AVEITWITHJAMON a lot of the story and what is felt and thought was through looks and not words. It's one of the things I love about the film. Because it's not just spoonfeeding with sometimes lame dialogue. Film is a visual medium and I like that Singer and the writers used that. And not as radio with pictures. It's also why I don't get the criticisms of Brandon's performance because I thought he was excellent at showing the character's emotions and thoughts through the way he looked and reacted. It said more than most words. At least I felt that way.

Angeloz

Agreed, i thought it was a great way to portray the story and emotions of the characters at each moment. Brandon's facial expressions told me EXACTLY what Superman/Clark was feeling at that moment. Brilliant IMO.

No, it's the story overall, but the decision to tell the whole movie with 'looks' I think undermines the seriousness and depth of character which should be present. B/c w/o REALLY getting into the characters they just seem flat and superficial.

I dont think it does undermine anything with the character, IMO it shows he is deeper than just words and sometimes looks can convey MUCH more than words.

Again, a very superficial and two dimension execution of a scene that should be dripping with emotion. So Lois forgives him b/c he's spineless?

Well i thought it was emotional, you cant say you didnt feel anything when he says "You wrote that the world doesnt need a saviour......but everyday i hear people crying for one."

Unique, but not the most effective for a film that should convey a huge range and depth of emotion considering the subject matter. It just isn't the right type of film for that subtlety.

Well i thought it was a great way to tell the story, hence why i love the movie, as i said earlier, a look can convey much more than any number of words.

He still conceived it didn't he?

If he's responsible for conceiving it he's responsible for raising it. Morally and ethically the two go hand in hand. I understand the circumstances prevent him from raising Jason in the movie, but my issue is with the fact that he did not adhere to those obligations before he left and instead abandoned Lois and there by Jason when he didn't say goodbye.

But if he doesnt know he has a child how can he raise it? Sorry, but this is something that you will never convince me of.

And if you are in a sexual relationship you should know you need to be emotionally available/ committed to that person and not just disappear for 5 years. It's as much common sense as not driving while intoxicated.

These days thousands of people are in that type of relationship without being emotionally available or comitted.

GOod to hear it. But have you or anyone you know ever just disappeared on a girl after you were sexually intimate with her?

Is the question you're asking have i ever had a one night stand? If it is, then answer is yes, and my friends have done it a lot more than me also. Its expected and quite normal these days MJ.

But he is alone. He isn't raising Jason and he will NEVER be the everyday father to him that actually brings the fulfillment of having a child.

Him raising Jason is not the story in SR, it is a story for a sequel IMO.

But it isn't. It's too serious and deep a matter to be left soley to 'tone' and 'looks.' You have to convey a depth of character instead of reticence.

WHich is one of the reasons it comes off as shallow and superficial and genuinely uninteresting.

Again, i gained a lot more from the movie with looks instead of dialogue, sometimes words arent needed IMO.

 

[mego joe]

Agreed, i thought it was a great way to portray the story and emotions of the characters at each moment. Brandon's facial expressions told me EXACTLY what Superman/Clark was feeling at that moment. Brilliant IMO.



I dont think it does undermine anything with the character, IMO it shows he is deeper than just words and sometimes looks can convey MUCH more than words.

We just disagree, b/c I agree in theory with what you are saying, I just didn't find it to be true in the movie.

Well i thought it was emotional, you cant say you didnt feel anything when he says "You wrote that the world doesnt need a saviour......but everyday i hear people crying for one."

You're right, I felt "Then why the hell did you leave for 5 years you dumb ass without telling anyone. Actions speak louder than words."

Well i thought it was a great way to tell the story, hence why i love the movie, as i said earlier, a look can convey much more than any number of words.

But not enough in the case of SR.

But if he doesnt know he has a child how can he raise it?

That's not the point. By not saying goodbye he emotionally abandoned Lois AND the potential fruits of their relationship. It's about acting responsibly. Just like the driving while intoxicated thing. You have to act responsibly BEFORE something unintended happens in order to prevent the unintended from happening.

Sorry, but this is something that you will never convince me of.

I can see that, and don't take this the wrong way, but I don't know any other way to see this. I think this may be an issue of maturity or life experiences. I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing, very early 20's. I'm 37, have 2 kids 9 and 4, and a wife and I've seen too many children who have been brought into the world in a similar situation or worse as Jason's in SR. It's just irresponsible and wrong to do that to a child. I am not trying to be insulting, b/c we've had a lot of great discussions and I have enjoyed them, but it's the only thing I can think of.

These days thousands of people are in that type of relationship without being emotionally available or comitted.

But that doesn't make it right. REmeber my whole diatribe on sex and commitment a week or so ago? THat type of relationship is just not in SUperman's character and that's been part of my point all along.

Is the question you're asking have i ever had a one night stand? If it is, then answer is yes, and my friends have done it a lot more than me also. Its expected and quite normal these days MJ.

Normal and acceptable, but still irresponsible and morally wrong.

Him raising Jason is not the story in SR, it is a story for a sequel IMO.

I know, but how he gets to that point is what I find wrong. If SUperman had done everything right, saying goodbey etc.... and still come back to the world of SR, then I could have enjoyed the film much more than having a SUperman who is his own worst enemy and the villain in the love story.

Again, i gained a lot more from the movie with looks instead of dialogue, sometimes words arent needed IMO.

And unfortunately, SR suffered b/c SInger was a one-trick pony and ONLY used this approach for everything in the film.

 

[mego joe]

Is the question you're asking have i ever had a one night stand? If it is, then answer is yes, and my friends have done it a lot more than me also. Its expected and quite normal these days MJ.

OK, let's play what if?

Pretend that this one-nighter resulted in a pregnancy you didn't know about.

Aren't you STILL morally responsible for that child? What happens to the girl, 'tough luck, guess you're stuck with a kid?'

How is that right?

WHat about that kid? 'Hey, I know you never asked to be born, but life sucks, huh, guess you'll never know who your dad is?'

You can't honestly tell me that you can't see how inherently wrong that is.

 

[Angeloz]

WHat? You disagree? Does this mean we've averted the apocolypse?

Hee.

That speech is also lso from S:TM.

I mentioned that.

ONe scene. One scene. OK, one scene.

Actually I think there's more. Like Luthor with Lois on the yacht. Superman telling Lois why he is needed as mentioned by AVEITWITHJAMON ("You wrote that the world doesn't need a saviour. Everyday I hear the cries for one." Or something like that ). There's Clark and Jimmy in Perry's office with Jimmy explaining what happened to Lex. I just loved how they used Clark to convey how Superman would feel over the situation. There might be more that I can't think of at the moment.

SOmetimes you don't, you are right. LIke the scream at the end of S:TM. Reeves expression and scream tell it all. But there is nothing remotely similar in SR that conveys that depth or extreme of emotion. My point is that there is too much subtlety for a film that is about a character who is the exact opposite of subtle. Batman is subtle. Superman is larger than life.

To you maybe. But I liked it. I love Christopher Reeve's portrayal so I won't knock it. But I also love Brandon's. I'll mention another controversial scene and that was when Lois denied to Richard her ever loving Superman. He flew up into the mesosphere. Let's just say you'd be blind not to be able to tell he was upset. I also like how when he got there he got to business and was just listening to see where he could help.

It can, in the right situation, but that is just not the case with the majority of SR.

Maybe for you. But I thought there was so much conveyed from the body and facial language of the actors. Particularly Brandon. As well as at least some beautiful images. Him flying into the sky to recharge in the Sun. Floating above the Earth in the mesosphere. Another powerful one (emotionally) was when he went to the Fortress and saw that it had been violated and the crystals were gone. Plus seeing the ocean floor split in two then stopping and having to decide to leave Lois and rescue Metropolis. Standing up defiantly to Lex after being beaten and stabbed. There was also a moment of horror with the wigs on the yacht when Lois realised how big her mistake was. Then there were comedy moments when he threw the ball and his dog went to fetch it and looked back at him. As well as when Lois came back from the roof and both Clark plus Jimmy eating the burritos (also reacting to what Richard was saying). There's so much more. And I'm not even getting to the subtle stuff.

No, not lame, but appropriate. I just find so much of SR lacking in character that more dialogue to flesh out the intensity of emotions and depth of feeling would have made it a better executed film. I still wouldn't have liked the story, but I would have been more complimentary on Singer's execution of a bad story. Well made and bad story instead of under-whelmingly executed AND a bad story.

I disagree again so the world is safe it seems for the moment.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

We just disagree, b/c I agree in theory with what you are saying, I just didn't find it to be true in the movie.

Just out of curiousity how many times have you watched it?

You're right, I felt "Then why the hell did you leave for 5 years you dumb ass without telling anyone. Actions speak louder than words."

But Superman is the light to show the way, he is not going to be there for us all of the time.

That's not the point. By not saying goodbye he emotionally abandoned Lois AND the potential fruits of their relationship. It's about acting responsibly. Just like the driving while intoxicated thing. You have to act responsibly BEFORE something unintended happens in order to prevent the unintended from happening.

As i have said before, things happen in the heat of the moment, especially with loved one's, plus we dont know how deep their relationship was at that point.

I can see that, and don't take this the wrong way, but I don't know any other way to see this. I think this may be an issue of maturity or life experiences. I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing, very early 20's. I'm 37, have 2 kids 9 and 4, and a wife and I've seen too many children who have been brought into the world in a similar situation or worse as Jason's in SR. It's just irresponsible and wrong to do that to a child. I am not trying to be insulting, b/c we've had a lot of great discussions and I have enjoyed them, but it's the only thing I can think of.

Well i'm 25 so thing i have experienced quite a lot, though not as much as yourself or some other older people.

And the thing is, Jason is living a good life, its not like he is in a home with foster parents he hates or who abuse him, he is in a loving family home were he will be raised correctly.

But that doesn't make it right. REmeber my whole diatribe on sex and commitment a week or so ago? THat type of relationship is just not in SUperman's character and that's been part of my point all along.

As i have said before, i think Superman would have been committed to Lois if the bombshell that Krypton could still be intact had come along.

Normal and acceptable, but still irresponsible and morally wrong.

Well i dont see how it is morally wrong and irresponsible when both parties are adults and agree to the act. Its not like you are raping someone if both the man and woman agree to have sex.

I know, but how he gets to that point is what I find wrong. If SUperman had done everything right, saying goodbey etc.... and still come back to the world of SR, then I could have enjoyed the film much more than having a SUperman who is his own worst enemy and the villain in the love story.

Well IMO i have said this before, he makes a mistake, a bad one, but he is not perfect, he is human in nature.

And unfortunately, SR suffered b/c SInger was a one-trick pony and ONLY used this approach for everything in the film.

I dont think it suffered, i preferred it instead of corny lines like "I did want a stronger man Reed, but i wanted you to be that man." Or "Punch me i bleed!" or "No, not for them, for you.....for you."

OK, let's play what if?

Pretend that this one-nighter resulted in a pregnancy you didn't know about.

Aren't you STILL morally responsible for that child? What happens to the girl, 'tough luck, guess you're stuck with a kid?'

How is that right?

WHat about that kid? 'Hey, I know you never asked to be born, but life sucks, huh, guess you'll never know who your dad is?'

You can't honestly tell me that you can't see how inherently wrong that is.

If the girl told me she had a child that was mine, i would take care of it, but if she didnt, what could i honestly do?

 

[mego joe]

Just out of curiousity how many times have you watched it?

Once.

But Superman is the light to show the way, he is not going to be there for us all of the time.

So the light he showed us was when you have something difficult to do (tell Lois the truth) it's better to hurt someone else (Lois) than burden that pain for yourself.

As i have said before, things happen in the heat of the moment, especially with loved one's, plus we dont know how deep their relationship was at that point.

Ah, vague history strikes again.

Again, I don't see Superman in a sexual relationship that is not part of a committed relationhsip.

Things happen in the heat of the moment, but then you have a responsibility to be around for what comes next.

Well i'm 25 so thing i have experienced quite a lot, though not as much as yourself or some other older people.

And the thing is, Jason is living a good life, its not like he is in a home with foster parents he hates or who abuse him, he is in a loving family home were he will be raised correctly.

What comes next when he finds out the truth though. What if Lois hadn't found Richard? What about all the children in the world who aren't lucky like Jason? Where does that leave them, just 'tough, that's life.' Our children are more important than that.

As i have said before, i think Superman would have been committed to Lois if the bombshell that Krypton could still be intact had come along.

The thing was he SHOULD have been emotinally committed either way. By not saying goodbye he is essentially saying "I don't care about you."

Well i dont see how it is morally wrong and irresponsible when both parties are adults and agree to the act. Its not like you are raping someone if both the man and woman agree to have sex.

Because the consequences and repercussions go beyond just those two people. I understand that you can't see that, though. But trust me. It's not just about those two people. It's also about the next person you have sex with and the possibility of conceiving a child.

THe only difference is that you haven't conceived a child, but plenty of people do and that child is the one that ends up suffering.

Well IMO i have said this before, he makes a mistake, a bad one, but he is not perfect, he is human in nature.

But as I have said, not capable of every mistake under the sun. And basically sending LOis the message that he doesn't care about her is not in character.

I dont think it suffered, i preferred it instead of corny lines like "I did want a stronger man Reed, but i wanted you to be that man." Or "Punch me i bleed!" or "No, not for them, for you.....for you."

If your only option is bad dialogue then I can understand that, but it would have been more effective and a better movie with a balance of good dialogue and looks, expressions, etc....

If the girl told me she had a child that was mine, i would take care of it, but if she didnt, what could i honestly do?

NOthing. And isn't that sad. Isn't it wrong for a child not to know its parents?

Would you get married? Move in together? Or stay apart and deprive the stability in his/ her life that children need and just see the child every now and then?

What if she doesn't know how to contact you?

Are you going to be able to be the everyday father that the child needs when you hardly know the mother? Is that fair to a child?

It just goes way beyond you, that's why it's called responsibility.

Imagine that we STILL disagree, argh!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Once.

Well, its up to you of course, but i would watch it again at least twice. Its not a movie that can be fully taken in one viewing IMO. But again its up to you.

So the light he showed us was when you have something difficult to do (tell Lois the truth) it's better to hurt someone else (Lois) than burden that pain for yourself.

So do you honestly think that it didnt hurt Superman to not say goodbye to Lois? IMO it hurt him just as mich as it hurt her.

Ah, vague history strikes again.

I'll admit, their previous relationship could have been better explained, but on the same note, i do like it when they leave some things to your imagination.

Again, I don't see Superman in a sexual relationship that is not part of a committed relationhsip.

I can see a modernised Superman doing it.

Things happen in the heat of the moment, but then you have a responsibility to be around for what comes next.

What comes next when he finds out the truth though. What if Lois hadn't found Richard? What about all the children in the world who aren't lucky like Jason? Where does that leave them, just 'tough, that's life.' Our children are more important than that.

I know plenty of people who have been raised by a single mother and turned out just fine, for example, i recently met a cousin/nephew in law of mine (it was my brothers wife's nephew) who had been raised by a single mother and he is one of the most genuinly nice people i have ever met.

Its the world we live in today, the difference with Superman is though, if he knew Lois was pregnant, i am 110% confident he would have stayed with her.

The thing was he SHOULD have been emotinally committed either way. By not saying goodbye he is essentially saying "I don't care about you."

And this is what Lois thinks in the 1st half of the movie, until Superman proves otherwise and she forgives him.

Because the consequences and repercussions go beyond just those two people. I understand that you can't see that, though. But trust me. It's not just about those two people. It's also about the next person you have sex with and the possibility of conceiving a child.

THe only difference is that you haven't conceived a child, but plenty of people do and that child is the one that ends up suffering.

Well that is the fault of both the male and the female isnt it, if they didnt use a condom, it is both of their faults.

But as I have said, not capable of every mistake under the sun. And basically sending LOis the message that he doesn't care about her is not in character.

Not every mistake no, he would never knowingly commit rape or murder, but he is capable of basic human error.

If your only option is bad dialogue then I can understand that, but it would have been more effective and a better movie with a balance of good dialogue and looks, expressions, etc....

Again, i disagree, the way the stoyr was told was great and refreshing to me.

NOthing. And isn't that sad. Isn't it wrong for a child not to know its parents?

Would you get married? Move in together? Or stay apart and deprive the stability in his/ her life that children need and just see the child every now and then?

What if she doesn't know how to contact you?

Are you going to be able to be the everyday father that the child needs when you hardly know the mother? Is that fair to a child?

It just goes way beyond you, that's why it's called responsibility.

Imagine that we STILL disagree, argh!

It depends on whether the parents are worth getting to know though doesnt it, if was an only child, and my father was a murderur or rapist, i sure as hell would never want to get to know him.

Jason WILL get to know Superman, and very well i imagine, and when he is ready, he will be told who his real father is.

 

[Angeloz]

You haven't seen KalMart's version of super-sperm have you? I don't have it but it shows one with heat vision. So condoms may not work.

Angeloz

 

[LexCorp]

You haven't seen KalMart's version of super-sperm have you? I don't have it but it shows one with heat vision. So condoms may not work.

Angeloz

That's just wrong

 

[Angeloz]

I should add it didn't involve a condom either.

Angeloz

 

[SuperDaniel]

I just the fact that people are having this huge argument, it proves Singer`s Superman wasnt good. I dont see people complaining like that about Superman for all seasons or Kingdom Come. A GREAT Superman story should unite every fan, not split them in 2.

THE MOVIE JUST WASNT GOOD ENOUGH OR WORTH THE WAIT AND THIS IS WHAT SUCKS TO ME AS A FAN.

 

[Angeloz]

I just the fact that people are having this huge argument, it proves Singer`s Superman wasnt good. I dont see people complaining like that about Superman for all seasons or Kingdom Come. A GREAT Superman story should unite every fan, not split them in 2.

THE MOVIE JUST WASNT GOOD ENOUGH OR WORTH THE WAIT AND THIS IS WHAT SUCKS TO ME AS A FAN.

That's because not everyone has seen them. I have but it was so long ago I don't remember them completely (the comics mentioned). Nor do I feel the need to discuss them. I think most films wouldn't get complete consensus. As there's more than one type of fan and different generations involved.

Angeloz