Superman Returns What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[Human Torch]

Kidder's Lois worshiped Superman because he didn't leave her for six years without explaining why or saying good-bye when Kidder played the character. The rest of what you think she would have done is just your personal conjecture.

Lois seemed pretty out of character with the Kidder version.If you want to agree with Singer's conjecture,that's fine.I can't see Kidder's version ever acting like that...then again Jimmy Olson was never a goofball the likes of which we see in this film either.I guess,I really don't see ANY of the cast acting like their counterparts in all honesty.

Rules are that kryptonite works by presence. When it's in the room or close, it affects Superman. When it's not, it doesn't, right?

So, all of a sudden the addition of tar makes the whole kryptonite work differently, as in SIII Superman was affected by kryptonite when it was NOWHERE near him.

Rules changed right there! Kryptonite doesn't need to be near Superman anymore.

Nah,you're reaching a bit there.The Tar-Kryptonite was "loosely" influenced by Red Kryptonite in the comics,which doesn't need to stay in contact with him to effect him.

Green Kryptonite,however has never been shown to change it's effects on Supes."This substance is lethal".If you like Singer rewriting the Kryptonite rulebook,that's fine.But there was no precedent for the changes.They make no sense given the film's internal logic.You can spin it any way you want,but it won't make it fly.(so to speak t

And I don't remember him flying to the sun to re-charge his cells in STM.

Because he never needed to.Being in an atmosphere with a yellow sun gives him his powers,but he doesn't get stronger with exposure and weaker when in the dark.(like Nuclear Man,for example) The book.Rewriten.Again.

Just like if Batman had been stabbed by Talia and he couldn't fight anymore. Kryptonite weakens Superman the same way.

Not exactly.Bats was a flesh wound.Kryptonite is a type of "Specific radioactivity.""It's deadly.To him."
It doesn't function as a weakness in the same way.


I get you like the film and if you want to be it's lone apologist,that's fine.I probably spent more time discussing the movie than I did watching it,at this point.t: Love the film or hate it,there comes a time when you gotta move on.

All in all,I say it's just a "meh" film.I liked some of the actors (Routh & Spacey) the return of Johnny Williams score and some of the spectacle.Unfortunately,the story wasn't up to par and it remains one of those films that gather dust on the shelf.Truth be told MOS is only marginally better as a film.The best Superman film is still STM after all these years.

 

[charl_huntress]

You don't believe in watching movies a second time, remember? After long discussions I managed to have you agreeing with yourself on that.

Haha...there you go twisting words again. I love watching movies I enjoy a second, third...or even a fourth time. I don't like to re-watch movies I don't like, which is why I have only seen SR once.

You know though... At this point I think you should think about watching those movies again. You cannot seem to stick to the topic at hand, which is Superman Returns. You bring any and every other Superman movie (and non-Superman movies like the TDKT) into the equation, but it's clear you are not knowledgeable about them.

I freely admit to only watching SR once in the theaters seven years ago. I have not watched it again because I don't like it. Yet, I just re-watched STM, SII, and SIII. I watched MOS again yesterday too. However, you don't see me bringing them up all the time in this conversation. I stick to SR. You don't. So I think in this case you should watch all the movies again because you are the one that keeps bringing them up out of context to prove your points about SR. I, on the other hand, do not do that.

Now, broad generalization? When I gave an specific example? Lois was portrayed as superficial. She despised Clark and pitied him (according to you because he behaved clumsy) while adoring Superman for his looks and super-powers. But another woman in the same universe, that wasn't superficial, Lana Lang, appreciated Clark the way he was. Relevant example.

You are backtracking again by saying Lois despised Clark, and you are literally using anything you can to try and support this weak argument when there is no evidence to support you. You are not even sounding logical anymore because you're not being truthful. You are simply twisting facts.

Well, thanks to me you have admitted so many times that you were wrong (when you asked me to see movies again even though you don't believe it's necessary, when you realized there's action in SR after saying there wasn't merely because you personally didn't like it - difference between liking something and its existence - same thing with uplifting moments, when you realized you had actually liked the movie, when you realized you had haterphobia being an admitted hater yourself) that it brings some satisfaction that you stand corrected and learn about the movie and yourself.

Hehahahahaha....you are funny! You think you have achieved all that, and yet I still think Superman Returns is/was the biggest piece of garbage. You should pat yourself on the back and give yourself a hug if you can.

In fact, there wasn't a point. First time you get it without further explanation from me. Good.

Great! We might actually get somewhere today. t:

Because there are many people like yourself who bash the movie on the basis of wrong facts, wrong definitions, wrong recollections and pure hate that some light had to be shed on this thread.

LOL....well you have met someone that I'm sure you didn't want to meet because it's my duty to trash this movie whenever and however I can. I don't care if you don't like it.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Lois seemed pretty out of character with the Kidder version.If you want to agree with Singer's conjecture,that's fine.I can't see Kidder's version ever acting like that...then again Jimmy Olson was never a goofball the likes of which we see in this film either.I guess,I really don't see ANY of the cast acting like their counterparts in all honesty.

Well, SR is based on Donner's take, if you didn't like Kidder's Lois, then it's not about how SR continued that take, but only a matter of taste. And yes, Jimmy Olsen was something of a goofball in ST, but Sam Huntington's was funnier. And Routh's Clark and Superman were too close to the Reeve's version to deny it.

Nah,you're reaching a bit there.The Tar-Kryptonite was "loosely" influenced by Red Kryptonite in the comics,which doesn't need to stay in contact with him to effect him.

Green Kryptonite,however has never been shown to change it's effects on Supes."This substance is lethal".If you like Singer rewriting the Kryptonite rulebook,that's fine.But there was no precedent for the changes.They make no sense given the film's internal logic.You can spin it any way you want,but it won't make it fly.(so to speak t

I've read about red kryptonite but never heard that thing of not being in contact. not to mention that SIII's red kryptonite was... not red.

In this case, Singer proposed that the solar power, known to give Superman his strength (there's the precedent) can help him to resist a little longer. Plus, I also talked about how Superman's powers in the Donnerverse can grow when in certain extreme situations (which is a cliche to many characters, Batman included). That's why he can fly much faster in STM when Lois is dead.

Because he never needed to.Being in an atmosphere with a yellow sun gives him his powers,but he doesn't get stronger with exposure and weaker when in the dark.(like Nuclear Man,for example) The book.Rewriten.Again.

Or because he didn't know how his body worked in those first years. Again, Superman in the Donnerverse is not exactly the same as in comics. In fact, in some comics he is not the same as in other comics.

Not exactly.Bats was a flesh wound.Kryptonite is a type of "Specific radioactivity.""It's deadly.To him."
It doesn't function as a weakness in the same way.

Which makes Superman far weaker. Funny thing is that you complaint if Superman is to strong with kryptonite (so he lifts the island) and then you complain if Superman is too weak with kryptonite (so he's beaten).

I get you like the film and if you want to be it's lone apologist,that's fine.I probably spent more time discussing the movie than I did watching it,at this point.t: Love the film or hate it,there comes a time when you gotta move on.

What do you mean? If I get bored I'll move on.

All in all,I say it just a "meh" film.I liked some of the actors (Routh & Spacey) the return of Johnny Williams score and some of the spectacle.Unfortunately,the story wasn't up to par and it remains one of those films that gather dust of the shelf.Truth be told MOS is only marginally better as a film.The best Superman film is still STM after all these years.

I can agree with the last part (oh, and about Routh and Spacey).



***************************************

Haha...there you go twisting words again. I love watching movies I enjoy a second, third...or even a fourth time. I don't like to re-watch movies I don't like, which is why I have only seen SR once.

Then no problem, I've seen the Donner movies enough times.

You know though... At this point I think you should think about watching those movies again. You cannot seem to stick to the topic at hand, which is Superman Returns. You bring any and every other Superman movie (and non-Superman movies like the TDKT) into the equation, but it's clear you are not knowledgeable about them.

Well, if you refer to Kidder's Lois, then expect some reply about the Donnerverse. Be the change you want to see.

I freely admit to only watching SR once in the theaters seven years ago. I have not watched it again because I don't like it. Yet, I just re-watched STM, SII, and SIII. I watched MOS again yesterday too. However, you don't see me bringing them up all the time in this conversation. I stick to SR. You don't. So I think in this case you should watch all the movies again because you are the one that keeps bringing them up out of context to prove your points about SR. I, on the other hand, do not do that.

Yes, when you're talking about a movie that's a sequel to other two, then those two are going to be brought up. Other posters have brought Nolan's Batman and Raimi's Spider-man. Freedom of speech. You want to stick to SR yourself? Do it, but the rest will do as we please.

You are backtracking again by saying Lois despised Clark, and you are literally using anything you can to try and support this weak argument when there is no evidence to support you. You are not even sounding logical anymore because you're not being truthful. You are simply twisting facts.

Lois pitied Clark and never appreciated him but she did with Superman, in spite of being the same man. Fact. Other woman in the same universe wasn't like that. The point? Lois is more about the surface when it's about men, at least in the Donnerverse.

Hehahahahaha....you are funny! You think you have achieved all that, and yet I still think Superman Returns is/was the biggest piece of garbage. You should pat yourself on the back and give yourself a hug if you can.

I don't think you have admitted that. You have. "I stand corrected," "I take it back." Your words.

I don't intend you to like SR, just to be accurate when talking about it.

LOL....well you have met someone that I'm sure you didn't want to meet because it's my duty to trash this movie whenever and however I can. I don't care if you don't like it.

If you keep being wrong and inaccurate, I'll keep having this much fun as well showing you the way.

 

[charl_huntress]

Then no problem, I've seen the Donner movies enough times.

It would behoove you to watch them again if you're going to reference them in your arguments. Take that as a piece of friendly advice.

Well, if you refer to Kidder's Lois, then expect some reply about the Donnerverse. Be the change you want to see.

Donner was not instrumental in SIII and SIV. Most do not include SIII or SIV when talking about the Donnerverse. Obviously you do, which I won't debate. I still disagree Lois was superficial. Your argument of her only wanting the "blue prince" is not valid. The feelings between her and Superman are mutual.

Yes, when you're talking about a movie that's a sequel to other two, then those two are going to be brought up. Other posters have brought Nolan's Batman and Raimi's Spider-man. Freedom of speech. You want to stick to SR yourself? Do it, but the rest will do as we please.

They are generally brought up because you have brought them up, like you did with SIII and SIV earlier. No one had mentioned them. You did! You brought them up out of nowhere, and what's sad is the things you mentioned regarding them are invalid, incorrect, or wrongly interpreted, which is what you claim everyone else is doing with SR.

Lois pitied Clark and never appreciated him but she did with Superman, in spite of being the same man. Fact. Other woman in the same universe wasn't like that. The point? Lois is more about the surface when it's about men, at least in the Donnerverse.

This is pointless to whatever point you're trying to prove about SR. I don't even understand what the point is any longer. I think you are saying Singer had a reason to make SR's Lois a cold and unfeeling *****. I think that is what you are saying, but the examples you have used are from SIII and SIV, and those movies are not relevant to SR. Singer did not even consider them, and they are not considered sequels to SR. Only STM and SII are.

I refute outright in STM and SII Lois is superficial (I dispute this for SIII and SIV also, but they are not relevant to the discussion about SR...so who cares). I'll do you one better, Senator. Can you name an event that occurred in STM or SII where she is superficial? Don't just say she ignored Clark because she did not ignore him, and the dynamic of the "love triangle" necessitated how she treated him. What did she do that is so superficial?

I don't think you have admitted that. You have. "I stand corrected," "I take it back." Your words.

LOL...lol. Okay then. t:

I don't intend you to like SR, just to be accurate when talking about it.

I request you do the same when mentioning other movies. Also, what have I said that is inaccurate about SR? You frequently say this, and the only thing I can imagine you think is inaccurate is the amount of hyperbole I use in regards to the movie. I have said nothing inaccurate about the movie. You just don't like the fact that I think it sucks and is garbage.

If you keep being wrong and inaccurate, I'll keep having this much fun as well showing you the way.

lol...likewise, my friend... Likewise...

 

[BH/HHH]

I'm really confused what the argument is here.

Is one saying Bosworth's Lois was a continuation of Kidder's and vice versa? Because those two interpretations are like night and day. Routh continued what Reeve did in some respects whereas Bosworth's Lois was a colder interpretation than Kidder's was.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It would behoove you to watch them again if you're going to reference them in your arguments. Take that as a piece of friendly advice.

Same as you and SR, it would spare you some inaccuracies and corrections from me. But we both know what we think and do about it. It's not your goal to be accurate and truthful.

Donner was not instrumental in SIII and SIV. Most do not include SIII or SIV when talking about the Donnerverse. Obviously you do, which I won't debate. I still disagree Lois was superficial. Your argument of her only wanting the "blue prince" is not valid. The feelings between her and Superman are mutual.

Clark and Lois in SIII and SIV were dramatically different than in STM and SII? No. No matter the director, the characters remained portrayed similarly.

Superman loving Lois back doesn't mean she was not superficial.

They are generally brought up because you have brought them up, like you did with SIII and SIV earlier. No one had mentioned them. You did! You brought them up out of nowhere, and what's sad is the things you mentioned regarding them are invalid, incorrect, or wrongly interpreted, which is what you claim everyone else is doing with SR.

I assure you, if people are discussing TDKR, Batman Begins and TDK are often mentioned. Same as with any sequel.

And no one needs someone else to bring up a subject (specially if it's connected to the current one) to be the first one. Why would I need the permission or precedent of someone else?

If anything they say "SR was a carbon copy of STM!!!" That has happened many times: there you have it.

This is pointless to whatever point you're trying to prove about SR. I don't even understand what the point is any longer. I think you are saying Singer had a reason to make SR's Lois a cold and unfeeling *****. I think that is what you are saying, but the examples you have used are from SIII and SIV, and those movies are not relevant to SR. Singer did not even consider them, and they are not considered sequels to SR. Only STM and SII are.

No, STM and SII are enough.

But, as you know but pretend you don't, SIII and SIV was to make a counterpoint to a statement of yours. Your inability to reply to it makes you stretch this to the point where the point was made so long ago you pretend you don't remember now.

I refute outright in STM and SII Lois is superficial (I dispute this for SIII and SIV also, but they are not relevant to the discussion about SR...so who cares). I'll do you one better, Senator. Can you name an event that occurred in STM or SII where she is superficial? Don't just say she ignored Clark because she did not ignore him, and the dynamic of the "love triangle" necessitated how she treated him. What did she do that is so superficial?

Exactly that, what you for no reason forbid me no name, that's it.

LOL...lol. Okay then. t:

Stand corrected again.

I request you do the same when mentioning other movies. Also, what have I said that is inaccurate about SR? You frequently say this, and the only thing I can imagine you think is inaccurate is the amount of hyperbole I use in regards to the movie. I have said nothing inaccurate about the movie. You just don't like the fact that I think it sucks and is garbage.

There was no action, there was no uplifting moments. You said this, I corrected you and you admitted to have been wrong.


*****************************************

I'm really confused what the argument is here.

Is one saying Bosworth's Lois was a continuation of Kidder's and vice versa? Because those two interpretations are like night and day. Routh continued what Reeve did in some respects whereas Bosworth's Lois was a colder interpretation than Kidder's was.

Oh the discussion was over pages ago. Charl is only trying to avoid a direct answer and keep dragging this.

Much like the rest of SR, it's a sequel to STM and SII but it's not either visually or tonally the same. But I said that Lois Lane, the way it's portrayed as impulsive and reckless in this universe, would go with another man quickly after Superman leaves without saying good-bye out of spite.

 

[charl_huntress]

Same as you and SR, it would spare you some inaccuracies and corrections from me. But we both know what we think and do about it. It's not your goal to be accurate and truthful.

Again, you like to say I'm being inaccurate about SR, but you cannot point out one thing I have said that is inaccurate. You know who is really inaccurate and untruthful? YOU Senator Pleasury! You are inaccurate and untruthful.

Clark and Lois in SIII and SIV were dramatically different than in STM and SII? No. No matter the director, the characters remained portrayed similarly.

Lois is barely in SIII. Her role was reduced because she and Hackman took issue with the way the Salkinds treated Donner. SIII and SIV are not part of the Donnerverse. You're being untruthful and inaccurate by saying they are, but I know you don't care about the truth or accuracy when it comes to defending SR. It takes a pack of lies and falsehoods to do so. You have proven that quite sufficiently and will continue to do so it seems.

Superman loving Lois back doesn't mean she was not superficial.

Again, I asked for an example and you can't name one. All you can say is an untruth. You're not even willing to support your own words. You know you are lying. That's pathetic dude!

I assure you, if people are discussing TDKR, Batman Begins and TDK are often mentioned. Same as with any sequel. And no one needs someone else to bring up a subject (specially if it's connected to the current one) to be the first one. Why would I need the permission or precedent of someone else? If anything they say "SR was a carbon copy of STM!!!" That has happened many times: there you have it.

If you are going use other movies to bolster your arguments then at least be accurate with the examples you are using. It's clear you have limited knowledge of the movies you are citing. It would behoove you to become more knowledgeable about these movies, so you didn't say so many inaccurate and untruthful things.

No, STM and SII are enough. But, as you know but pretend you don't, SIII and SIV was to make a counterpoint to a statement of yours. Your inability to reply to it makes you stretch this to the point where the point was made so long ago you pretend you don't remember now.

Again, I asked you for an example from either of those movies. Your inability to reply with an example shows you don't have a point, and are just spouting words with no accuracy or logic behind them. You make bold statements like Lois is superficial, but cannot produce one example from either of the four movies you have cited. So it's hard to remember your point, Senator. You do so little to prove it. Again, you're filled with nothing but inaccuracies and untruthfulness, and will say anything to defend SR. I don't even think you really like the movie. You just enjoy talking to me...lol.

Exactly that, what you for no reason forbid me no name,that's it.

Then by your theory everyone in STM, SII, SIII and SIV is superficial because they also failed to recognize Clark Kent as Superman, and also fail for his clumsy, goofy act. You may call Lois superficial because she was just as blind as everyone else, but if you want to use that label then use it fairly.

Stand corrected again.

You're on a roll then I guess...lol. Good for you son!

There was no action, there was no uplifting moments. You said this, I corrected you and you admitted to have been wrong.

You corrected hyperbole, but if that makes you feel like a winner... Who am I to stop you?

SR is still a CBM failure. It's still piece of ****ing garbage. It's still the worse ever! It still sucks! I don't think the movie is uplifting and the action sucked!

 

[BH/HHH]

SR is still a CBM failure. It's still piece of ****ing garbage. It's still the worse ever! It still sucks! I don't think the movie is uplifting and the action sucked!

Calm down dude its not that bad

And on the action sucked, my response is except the plane sequence

 

[charl_huntress]

Calm down dude its not that bad

And on the action sucked, my response is except the plane sequence

lol...at this point it has to be the absolute worse for me to keep talking about...lol. Seriously though, it's not a bad film. I have said that when I'm being more rational, but it's not a good Superman movie. It's especially not a good movie or story after a 20 year absence.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Again, you like to say I'm being inaccurate about SR, but you cannot point out one thing I have said that is inaccurate. You know who is really inaccurate and untruthful? YOU Senator Pleasury! You are inaccurate and untruthful.

Yes, you were inaccurate about saying there were no action or uplifting scenes in SR. I correctd you and you admitted you were wrong. So, technically you're wrong about not being wrong now. You've created 'Wrongception.'

Lois is barely in SIII. Her role was reduced because she and Hackman took issue with the way the Salkinds treated Donner. SIII and SIV are not part of the Donnerverse. You're being untruthful and inaccurate by saying they are, but I know you don't care about the truth or accuracy when it comes to defending SR. It takes a pack of lies and falsehoods to do so. You have proven that quite sufficiently and will continue to do so it seems.

Lol, SIII and SIV had the same actors, music and tone than STM and SII, and connects to the same story. There's still Brad and Lana from Smallville and the Lois knowing Superman's identity is hinted. All facts. Stand corrected.

Even more: Superman Returns has different actors, different tone and different visuals and is still considered part of the Donnerverse.

Lois barely being in SIII doesn't negate the fact that she still existed and is the same one as in STM and SII.

Again, I asked for an example and you can't name one. All you can say is an untruth. You're not even willing to support your own words. You know you are lying. That's pathetic dude!

1) She has one date (it wasn't even a date but an interview) with Superman, and she falls in love immediately and is ready to give him her love ("Here I am, like a kid out of school. Holding hands with a god. Wondering why you are... all the wonderful things you are. If you need to be loved... here I am.")

Really sounds like the type of girl who would bed Richard on their first date, does she not?


2) There's an a-bomb in Paris, hostages and all. But Lois trespasses the security perimeter and put the whole operation in jeopardy. Why? Yes, she's dreaming about her Pulitzer, so that's more important than everyone's lives.

3) Lois knows the way she is: "Yes, I am selfish when it comes to you. I am selfish. And I'm jealous of the whole world." And not only that. At one poiint she loses it: "Would you stop? Don't you know that this is killing me? Do you know what it's like to have you come in here, every morning, and not be able to talk to you? Not be able to… show I have any feelings for you, not… be able to tell anyone I know who you are? I don't even know what to call you!"

Flash news, Lois: Clark is feeling the exact same. It's not all about you.

Selfish, irresponsible, superficial, reckless. That's Donner's Lois Lane. Get to know her before talking about her properly.

If you are going use other movies to bolster your arguments then at least be accurate with the examples you are using. It's clear you have limited knowledge of the movies you are citing. It would behoove you to become more knowledgeable about these movies, so you didn't say so many inaccurate and untruthful things.

On the contrary, you haven't provided any good example. You say "Lois is not like that" and there's not a hint of back-up for your random statements.

Again, I asked you for an example from either of those movies. Your inability to reply with an example shows you don't have a point, and are just spouting words with no accuracy or logic behind them. You make bold statements like Lois is superficial, but cannot produce one example from either of the four movies you have cited. So it's hard to remember your point, Senator. You do so little to prove it. Again, you're filled with nothing but inaccuracies and untruthfulness, and will say anything to defend SR. I don't even think you really like the movie. You just enjoy talking to me...lol.

I already gave you examples for Lois's superficiality, selfishness and recklessness in this very post. And you're fully aware of Lana and Clark, which enraged you so much that you had to dismiss SIII and SIV as part of the same franchise as STM and SII, which is wrong from every point of view.

Then by your theory everyone in STM, SII, SIII and SIV is superficial because they also failed to recognize Clark Kent as Superman, and also fail for his clumsy, goofy act. You may call Lois superficial because she was just as blind as everyone else, but if you want to use that label then use it fairly.

I don't remember everybody in love with one and not the other. That's because it didn't happen.

You're on a roll then I guess...lol. Good for you son!

I've been in a roll for the whole thread when it's about you.

Now, "son"? My mother is 80 and senile. Which explains your liking for MOS.

You corrected hyperbole, but if that makes you feel like a winner... Who am I to stop you?

Nobody, in fact.

SR is still a CBM failure. It's still piece of ****ing garbage. It's still the worse ever! It still sucks! I don't think the movie is uplifting and the action sucked!

A failure? What, it got 56% of good reviews only?


**************************************

Calm down dude its not that bad

And on the action sucked, my response is except the plane sequence

Hey, charl doesn't react well when she's corrected.

 

[BH/HHH]

lol...at this point it has to be the absolute worse for me to keep talking about...lol. Seriously though, it's not a bad film. I have said that when I'm being more rational, but it's not a good Superman movie. It's especially not a good movie or story after a 20 year absence.

I think its a decent film, not great, not bad just above average but it has some great moments in it.

Hey, charl doesn't react well when she's corrected.

Lol come on we're all friends here t:

 

[charl_huntress]

Yes, you were inaccurate about saying there were no action or uplifting scenes in SR. I correctd you and you admitted you were wrong. So, technically you're wrong about not being wrong now. You've created 'Wrongception.'

I think the action in SR sucked, and there were no uplifting scenes for me because the movie is so depressing and boring. So technically you haven't corrected anything because I still think that way. You have taken your wrongheadedness to a new level of wrongness. You have created your own 'wrongception' and are now completely confused.

Lol, SIII and SIV had the same actors, music and tone than STM and SII, and connects to the same story. There's still Brad and Lana from Smallville and the Lois knowing Superman's identity is hinted. All facts. Stand corrected. Even more: Superman Returns has different actors, different tone and different visuals and is still considered part of the Donnerverse. Lois barely being in SIII doesn't negate the fact that she still existed and is the same one as in STM and SII.

*shakes head* If that is the way you wish to view it...fine by me. I will not correct you even though I think you are wrong. The fact here is SR is not related to SIII and SIV in anyway story wise since Singer said he did not include them.

1) She has one date (it wasn't even a date but an interview) with Superman, and she falls in love immediately and is ready to give him her love ("Here I am, like a kid out of school. Holding hands with a god. Wondering why you are... all the wonderful things you are. If you need to be loved... here I am.") Really sounds like the type of girl who would bed Richard on their first date, does she not?

In STM she's flying with him after he invited her to go flying. He's handsome and a god. He's depicted in the movie to be a god with God-like powers. He's already saved her life. She falls in love with him. Big deal. He was a god. That's not superficial. That's reasonable.

Now I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up Richard and their sleeping together on the first date. I think SR's Lois was a ***** and she was cold. I don't care what happened with her and Richard. So I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

2) There's an a-bomb in Paris, hostages and all. But Lois trespasses the security perimeter and put the whole operation in jeopardy. Why? Yes, she's dreaming about her Pulitzer, so that's more important than everyone's lives.

What does that have to with being superficial? That is a woman who wants to succeed so bad she is willing to put her life at risk to achieve it. She's willing to put her life on the line to get the story. That in fact is the opposite of superficial because she is so driven and dedicate she goes that extra mile.

3) Lois knows the way she is: "Yes, I am selfish when it comes to you. I am selfish. And I'm jealous of the whole world." And not only that. At one poiint she loses it: "Would you stop? Don't you know that this is killing me? Do you know what it's like to have you come in here, every morning, and not be able to talk to you? Not be able to… show I have any feelings for you, not… be able to tell anyone I know who you are? I don't even know what to call you!" Flash news, Lois: Clark is feeling the exact same. It's not all about you.

She's hurting and feeling deeply. I fail to see superficial here either since she's clearly expressing her hurt and frustration. It's a difficult situation, and it's causing her emotional pain which she's expressing. How is that superficial? She's not trying to make it about her. She's trying to understand, and is clearly not able to do so. She's trying to rationalize being in love with a god, and she can't. That's not superficial. If it were superficial she would act like everything was A-Okay, but she's not doing that because she's not superficial.

Selfish, irresponsible, superficial, reckless. That's Donner's Lois Lane. Get to know her before talking about her properly.

*shakes head* You need to get to know her properly and maybe get to know some other women while you're at it. It would help in your understanding and perceptions. It seems you have a limited viewpoint, which cannot be helped, but maybe someday you'll get there, Senator. Maybe...

On the contrary, you haven't provided any good example. You say "Lois is not like that" and there's not a hint of back-up for your random statements.

Lois genuinely does try to help Clark come out of his shell. Let's face it. His goofy act makes everyone around him treat him like a boob. She tries to help him sound a bit less goofy, and she puts her life on the line to save them from a mugger. These are not the actions of a superficial woman. She cares deeply for Clark, and she frequently tries to talk to him to get him to open up more. She's being genuine in her concern because she considers him a friend and wants to help him better himself. She does this in STM and SII. Watch the scene when she's juicing oranges. Watch the scene just before and when they are being mugged.

I already gave you examples for Lois's superficiality, selfishness and recklessness in this very post. And you're fully aware of Lana and Clark, which enraged you so much that you had to dismiss SIII and SIV as part of the same franchise as STM and SII, which is wrong from every point of view.

I dismissed SIII and SIV because they had nothing to do with SR. You were responding to a point about SR's Lois and I responded the characterization she was based on (STM and SII) defied your description of her being superficial. I agreed on the impulsive and recklessness. You then later brought up SIII and SIV to say she was superficial, which was not even the point of the discussion in the first place. We were talking about SR's Lois, and she is based on STM and SII.

I wasn't enraged. I was confused because SIII and SIV were not what was being discussed. You just pulled them out to support your "she's superficial" claim. Yet, that doesn't really support that claim either, but again SIII and SIV had nothing to do with what we were originally talking about until you brought them up. Go back and read your posts, Senator.

I don't remember everybody in love with one and not the other. That's because it didn't happen.

The point is no one was "in love" with Clark. Everyone treated him like a boob. There are plenty of scenes in STM and SII where he's frequently ignored and cast aside by everyone. It's part of the whole schtick of his disguise. It seems unfair to put the onus just on Lois when everyone treats him this way, and the movie itself wants to highlight that everyone does treat Clark that way.

I've been in a roll for the whole thread when it's about you.

Haha...you seems like the type of person to believe your own hype...so I won't dispute that.

Now, "son"? My mother is 80 and senile. Which explains your liking for MOS.

"Son" is like another word for dude. I have a lot of friends from the East coast and they say "son" a lot. I mean nothing personal by it, and it's not meant to be an insult to you or your mother.

Now, I could respond with some little quip about your mom since you're obviously trying to say I'm "senile" for liking MOS, but I won't because I don't need to. Like I've said, you will say anything to defend SR, and I know you've already tried to report me for insulting you when I actually didn't, so I won't take that bait easily. I will say your mother must be a cool person even though she is senile (that's what you called her by the way).

A failure? What, it got 56% of good reviews only?

And a sequel...let's not forget that!

Hey, charl doesn't react well when she's corrected.

If only you could actually correct me on something, but you haven't.

 

[charl_huntress]

I think its a decent film, not great, not bad just above average but it has some great moments in it.

LOL...I was telling one of my friends about this convo I've been having, and she's telling me I have to watch SR again since I've spent so much time talking about it...lol. I think she may be right. I may give it one more shot. Not to determine if I still hate it, but to see if I can watch it objectively.

Lol come on we're all friends here t:

lol...pretty sure that's not true...lol

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I think the action in SR sucked, and there were no uplifting scenes for me because the movie is so depressing and boring. So technically you haven't corrected anything because I still think that way. You have taken your wrongheadedness to a new level of wrongness. You have created your own 'wrongception' and are now completely confused.

You said there was no action or uplifting scenes. Then I corrected you and you admitted there were but you didn't like them.

*shakes head* If that is the way you wish to view it...fine by me. I will not correct you even though I think you are wrong. The fact here is SR is not related to SIII and SIV in anyway story wise since Singer said he did not include them.

I was talking about the connection between STM-SII and SIII-SIV as I was making a point within those movies. You can't correct me because you'd be wrong.

In STM she's flying with him after he invited her to go flying. He's handsome and a god. He's depicted in the movie to be a god with God-like powers. He's already saved her life. She falls in love with him. Big deal. He was a god. That's not superficial. That's reasonable.

He is not a god. Stand corrected.

And many people have religions with gods and few women actually fall in love with them.

He saw handsome, muscles and super-powers and she thought "I'm all for it." It's the kind of woman she is and that's my point.

Now I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up Richard and their sleeping together on the first date. I think SR's Lois was a ***** and she was cold. I don't care what happened with her and Richard. So I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

So you see it's the same Lois, even when the tone is different. She acts the same.

What does that have to with being superficial? That is a woman who wants to succeed so bad she is willing to put her life at risk to achieve it. She's willing to put her life on the line to get the story. That in fact is the opposite of superficial because she is so driven and dedicate she goes that extra mile.

So you decided to ignore when I said "Selfish, irresponsible, reckless"? Don't ignore it just because you have to admit it's true.

Of course she is dedicated, but when you put in danger a whole city just because you want to have personal glory that makes you selfish, irresponsible and reckless.

Superficial has to do, as I explained to you, with how she gets nuts about men that look good.

She's hurting and feeling deeply. I fail to see superficial here either since she's clearly expressing her hurt and frustration. It's a difficult situation, and it's causing her emotional pain which she's expressing. How is that superficial? She's not trying to make it about her. She's trying to understand, and is clearly not able to do so. She's trying to rationalize being in love with a god, and she can't. That's not superficial. If it were superficial she would act like everything was A-Okay, but she's not doing that because she's not superficial.

Both Lois and Superman are hurting and feeling deeply. But she is all about herself and her own personal suffer. Not once does she take Superman into consideration and she only demands answers and compensations:

"Don't you know that this is killing me?" Yes, dear. It's killing Superman too, don't you know? If you stopped thinking about yourself only, you'd do.

"Do you know what it's like to have you come in here, every morning, and not be able to talk to you? Not be able to... show I have any feelings for you," Yes, dear. Again, Superman feels the same so he does know.

*shakes head* You need to get to know her properly and maybe get to know some other women while you're at it. It would help in your understanding and perceptions. It seems you have a limited viewpoint, which cannot be helped, but maybe someday you'll get there, Senator. Maybe...

I know plenty of superficial women. And they behave similarly to Lois Lane in the Donnerverse. Superficiality is not a hard concept to grasp or to recognize.

Lois genuinely does try to help Clark come out of his shell. Let's face it. His goofy act makes everyone around him treat him like a boob. She tries to help him sound a bit less goofy, and she puts her life on the line to save them from a mugger. These are not the actions of a superficial woman. She cares deeply for Clark, and she frequently tries to talk to him to get him to open up more. She's being genuine in her concern because she considers him a friend and wants to help him better himself. She does this in STM and SII. Watch the scene when she's juicing oranges. Watch the scene just before and when they are being mugged.

Yes, she is compassionate. Being superficial, irresponsible and reckless is just a side of her.

And she did nothing to save anyone from the mugger. In fact she made things worse. Because her selfishness, irresponsibility and recklessness made her feel she had to prove she was better, no matter if the guy shot his gun, which he did.

I dismissed SIII and SIV because they had nothing to do with SR. You were responding to a point about SR's Lois and I responded the characterization she was based on (STM and SII) defied your description of her being superficial. I agreed on the impulsive and recklessness. You then later brought up SIII and SIV to say she was superficial, which was not even the point of the discussion in the first place. We were talking about SR's Lois, and she is based on STM and SII.

I wasn't enraged. I was confused because SIII and SIV were not what was being discussed. You just pulled them out to support your "she's superficial" claim. Yet, that doesn't really support that claim either, but again SIII and SIV had nothing to do with what we were originally talking about until you brought them up. Go back and read your posts, Senator.

Yes, I brought SIII only when it's about how other women that are not selfish and superficial as Lois react to Clark Kent, goofy and all.

The point is no was "in love" with Clark. Everyone treated him like a boob. There are plenty of scenes in STM and SII where he's frequently ignored and cast aside by everyone. It's part of the whole schtick of his disguise. It seems unfair to put the onus just on Lois when everyone treats him this way, and the movie itself wants to highlight that everyone does treat Clark that way.

Not everybody did. Lana Lang was actually attracted to this shy guy. Stand corrected.

Haha...you seems like the type of person to believe your own hype...so I won't dispute that.

Hey, it was you who told me I was on my roll and "Good for you." Again you shoot in your own foot.

"Son" is like another word for dude. I have a lot of friends from the East coast and they say "son" a lot. I mean nothing personal by it, and it's not meant to be an insult to you or your mother.

None taken.

Now, I could respond with some little quip about your mom since you're obviously trying to say I'm "senile" for liking MOS, but I won't because I don't need to. Like I've said, you will say anything to defend SR, and I know you've already tried to report me for insulting you when I actually didn't, so I won't take that bait easily. I will say your mother must be a cool person even though she is senile (that's what you called her by the way).

You made the same kind of jokes. Are you reacting bad to your own kind of jokes? It's what a hater who hates haters does?

And a sequel...let's not forget that!

Yes, a Batman movie.

If only you could actually correct me on something, but you haven't.

A piece of advice: if you don't want me to feel I have corrected you, then don't say things like "I stand corrected," "I take it back," and such.

LOL...I was telling one of my friends about this convo I've been having, and she's telling me I have to watch SR again since I've spent so much time talking about it...lol. I think she may be right. I may give it one more shot. Not to determine if I still hate it, but to see if I can watch it objectively.

Mission accomplished.

 

[charl_huntress]

You said there was no action or uplifting scenes. Then I corrected you and you admitted there were but you didn't like them.

That was hyperbole that you corrected. Good for you.

I was talking about the connection between STM-SII and SIII-SIV as I was making a point within those movies. You can't correct me because you'd be wrong.

I can't correct you because you don't make sense.

He is not a god. Stand corrected.

The man was able to reverse time by spinning the world around. Donnerverse Superman is a god without a religion.

And many people have religions with gods and few women actually fall in love with them.

Tell that to the millions of Christian women in love with their God.

He saw handsome, muscles and super-powers and she thought "I'm all for it." It's the kind of woman she is and that's my point.

What kind of woman does that make her?

So you see it's the same Lois, even when the tone is different. She acts the same.

I disagree because SR's Lois was cold and a *****. I didn't find Kidder's Lois to be that way, and she especially wasn't that way with Superman. I also find the characterization of Lois to be off because of the vague history. Why is she cold to Superman? She was never cold to Superman, and it didn't make sense. She forgot about their time together in SII when he kissed her. So the characterization doesn't follow. Why is she acting like a cold ***** if she doesn't remember what happened?

So you decided to ignore when I said "Selfish, irresponsible, reckless"? Don't ignore it just because you have to admit it's true. Of course she is dedicated, but when you put in danger a whole city just because you want to have personal glory that makes you selfish, irresponsible and reckless. Superficial has to do, as I explained to you, with how she gets nuts about men that look good.

I admitted she was reckless and impulsive. I might even go so far as to say she is irresponsible because she is reckless. I don't know about selfish that may be your interpretation of events and that's you, but I disagree whole heartedly with superficial. If that is the case then everyone who doesn't recognize Clark as Superman is superficial, so it's unfair to level that accusation just at her character.

Both Lois and Superman are hurting and feeling deeply. But she is all about herself and her own personal suffer. Not once does she take Superman into consideration and she only demands answers and compensations: "Don't you know that this is killing me?" Yes, dear. It's killing Superman too, don't you know? If you stopped thinking about yourself only, you'd do. "Do you know what it's like to have you come in here, every morning, and not be able to talk to you? Not be able to... show I have any feelings for you," Yes, dear. Again, Superman feels the same so he does know.

I can't believe you're complaining about that maudlin scene after you've spent pages and pages highlighting how much you love the more mature themes of SR and it's relationship. She's distraught. He's distraught. They are both distraught and he makes the ultimate sacrifice of his love to put things back to rights. You should be loving that scene.

I know plenty of superficial women. And they behave similarly to Lois Lane in the Donnerverse. Superficiality is not a hard concept to grasp or to recognize.

This actually sounds like the crux of the issue. I hope you find some better people to associate with.

Yes, she is compassionate. Being superficial, irresponsible and reckless is just a side of her. And she did nothing to save anyone from the mugger. In fact she made things worse. Because her selfishness, irresponsibility and recklessness made her feel she had to prove she was better, no matter if the guy shot his gun, which he did.

You have a very different take on that scene then I would say most other people have. I'm not sure why, but I think your interpretation of that scene is a bit off then how it was meant be viewed. Yet my point is someone who is superficial would not have the gumption to throw themselves into danger like she did. You may have a point about irresponsible and reckless, but not superficial.

Yes, I brought SIII only when it's about how other women that are not selfish and superficial as Lois react to Clark Kent, goofy and all.

But what was the point of doing that when the discussion at hand was about SR's Lois and SIII and SIV were not relevant. We were and are talking about Lois' characterization in SR, which is based off STM and SII, so again why mention SIII and SIV at all?

Not everybody did. Lana Lang was actually attracted to this shy guy. Stand corrected.

*shakes head* You haven't corrected anything. We weren't talking about that. Your wrongness led you down another wrongheaded direction to "pointless" land. You brought up a point that was pointless. Please go and correct yourself of that.

Hey, it was you who told me I was on my roll and "Good for you." Again you shoot in your own foot.

I am glad my words inspire you so much. Truly I am.

You made the same kind of jokes. Are you reacting bad to your own kind of jokes? It's what a hater who hates haters does?

I never brought up anyone's mother, but if I offended you by calling you "son" then I apologize for that since it obviously caused you to bring up your own senile mother.

As for my haterphobia... What can I say? I never hated anything before Superman Returns, which was coincidentally when I started attracting a lot of haters to my "internet" person. I was hate-free up until that point...then this movie happened. I shall never be the same.

Yes, a Batman movie.

You're wrong. Stand corrected.

A piece of advice: if you don't want me to feel I have corrected you, then don't say things like "I stand corrected," "I take it back," and such.

I didn't know it would give you such joy to correct my hyperbole, or that you would keep mentioning that over and over and over again. Had I know I would not have said those words. Notice I won't say them again.

One thing is for sure. I realize my words must give you extreme pleasure because you keep repeating them over and over and over again.

Mission accomplished.

And you even quote my sig line. It's flattering...really.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

That was hyperbole that you corrected. Good for you.

Why thank you.

I can't correct you because you don't make sense.

I don't make sense or I am wrong. I can only be wrong if I make sense. Need five to agree with yourself?

The man was able to reverse time by spinning the world around. Donnerverse Superman is a god without a religion.

No, he's not a god. He doesn't create life, he's only the survivor of another plant.

In any case, that's irrelevant as to Lois's superficiality.

Tell that to the millions of Christian women in love with their God.

As selfish, reckless, irresponsible and superficial as Lois is, I don't think she's one of those nutcases you mention.

What kind of woman does that make her?

The same kind that would get involved in a new relationship as soon as Superman leaves her.

I disagree because SR's Lois was cold and a *****. I didn't find Kidder's Lois to be that way, and she especially wasn't that way with Superman. I also find the characterization of Lois to be off because of the vague history. Why is she cold to Superman? She was never cold to Superman, and it didn't make sense. She forgot about their time together in SII when he kissed her. So the characterization doesn't follow. Why is she acting like a cold ***** if she doesn't remember what happened?

Kidder's Lois wasn't that way because Superman didn't leave her without saying good-bye. That's why she's cold to Superman in SR and that's explicitly said in the movie.

And even when she forgot what happened in SII, they might have started their relationship again before he left. But that wasn't well explained , which is one of my criticisms of SR.

I admitted she was reckless and impulsive. I might even go so far as to say she is irresponsible because she is reckless. I don't know about selfish that may be your interpretation of events and that's you, but I disagree whole heartedly with superficial. If that is the case then everyone who doesn't recognize Clark as Superman is superficial, so it's unfair to level that accusation just at her character.

No, only those who fall immediately in love with him only because of how he looks and how powerful he is, even when they don't know the real man behind the surface.

I can't believe you're complaining about that maudlin scene after you've spent pages and pages highlighting how much you love the more mature themes of SR and it's relationship. She's distraught. He's distraught. They are both distraught and he makes the ultimate sacrifice of his love to put things back to rights. You should be loving that scene.

Yes, and while Superman doesn't talk about his personal grief and is worried only about Lois's feelings, Lois does not do the same and keep rubbing her suffering on Superman and talking like she were the only one that's suffering.

I love the scene, but I can see who's being selfish and who is not.

Now, SR didn't go down to amnesia kissing or any last minute deux ex machina of the sort.

This actually sounds like the crux of the issue. I hope you find some better people to associate with.

I know many women like that, it doesn't mean I stick to them. I know the other kind too. Which is why I can tell the difference.

You have a very different take on that scene then I would say most other people have. I'm not sure why, but I think your interpretation of that scene is a bit off then how it was meant be viewed. Yet my point is someone who is superficial would not have the gumption to throw themselves into danger like she did. You may have a point about irresponsible and reckless, but not superficial.

It's what happened. She dropped her purse on purpose so she could kick him. After doing it she just turns around without caring if the guy could shoot her (reckless) or whether Clark was going to react well or not. She just didn't care for Clark (cold and irresponsible).

And I quote myself: "Superficial has to do, as I explained to you, with how she gets nuts about men that look good."

But what was the point of doing that when the discussion at hand was about SR's Lois and SIII and SIV were not relevant. We were and are talking about Lois' characterization in SR, which is based off SIII and SIV, so again why mention them at all?

We were exactly at the point where you stated that Lois's behavior towards him was natural given that Clark was clumsy and goofy. Lana disproves this.

*shakes head* You haven't corrected anything. We weren't talking about that. Your wrongness led you down another wrongheaded direction to "pointless" land. You brought up a point that was pointless. Please go and correct yourself of that.

Yes, we were. In fact it was you who was talking about how the goofiness in Clark defined the way Lois treated him. My point is that it's Lois's nature that does this.

I am glad my words inspire you so much. Truly I am.

They haven't inspired me. They've informed me that you think/feel I have corrected you.

I never brought up anyone's mother, but if I offended you by calling you "son" then I apologize for that since obviously caused you to bring up your own senile mother.

Jokes like "You're like this, that explains why your like this movie."

As for my haterphobia... What can I say? I never hated anything before Superman Returns, which was coincidentally when I started attracting a lot of haters to my "internet" person. I was hate-free up until that point...then this movie happened. I shall never be the same.

Not as long as you hate the kind of person you admit you are. Allow yourself to heal.

Your wrong. Stand corrected.

You're***

I didn't know it would give you such joy to correct my hyperbole, or that you would keep mentioning that over and over and over again. Had I know I would not have said those words. Notice I won't say them again.

As long as you keep denying what you said, I'll keep bringing what you said up.

One thing is for sure. I realize my words must give you extreme pleasure because you keep repeating them over and over and over again.

Nothing gives me more pleasure than having people learning from discussions they've had with me.

Well, money gives me more pleasure, I admit.

And you even quote my sig line. It's flattering...really.

When you keep contradicting yourself to the point of even contradicting your own signature, then that must come up as it might show you the way out.

 

[charl_huntress]

Why thank you.

I am glad correcting my hyperbole gave you such joy. You are very welcome to that.

I don't make sense or I am wrong. I can only be wrong if I make sense. Need five to agree with yourself?

I see you still don't make sense, and if you can't see how that's wrong... You're beyond help. *shakes head*

No, he's not a god. He doesn't create life, he's only the survivor of another plant. In any case, that's irrelevant as to Lois's superficiality.

He doesn't create life? I thought he did with Lois? Who's Jason?

*shakes head* Not making sense again. Please correct yourself, Senator.

As selfish, reckless, irresponsible and superficial as Lois is, I don't think she's one of those nutcases you mention.

I don't understand what you mean by nutcases? Who is a nutcase?

Anyhoo, Superman is a god in the Donnerverse without a religion. He can create life. He can reverse time, and he can mind-wipe people by kissing them. That's just a few of things he can do though. The list keeps going if you want to include SIII and SIV. I won't do that because it's not relevant to the conversation. I'm not like you.

The same kind that would get involved in a new relationship as soon as Superman leaves her.

*shrugs* What does that have to do with anything? I don't understand what you mean by pointing this out. Is that what you deem to be a superficial woman?

Kidder's Lois wasn't that way because Superman didn't leave her without saying good-bye. That's why she's cold to Superman in SR and that's explicitly said in the movie. And even when she forgot what happened in SII, they might have started their relationship again before he left. But that wasn't well explained , which is one of my criticisms of SR.

Yet they had no relationship, so why would Lois be upset? Considering Superman mind-raped her in SII, she barely interacted with him once that memory was removed. Sure, we don't know what happened in between, but if you have to guess "they might" have started a relationship that makes the entire premise for all the drama in the relationship questionable. How can you praise the dynamics of a relationship that is vague and unsure of it's own foundation? Seriously, what makes you think that's a good thing in SR? Answer that question and don't deflect it with some pointless ******** like you usually do.

No, only those who fall immediately in love with him only because of how he looks and how powerful he is, even when they don't know the real man behind the surface.

That would be the entire city of Metropolis, the president of the U.S., and the entire world in STM and SII. The only non-fan of Superman in that universe is Lex Luthor. I guess in your view he's the only one who is not superficial because he sees that Superman is just an act, and is a complete sham! Right?

That's what you're really saying, Senator? Isn't it? I should have know...

Yes, and while Superman doesn't talk about his personal grief and is worried only about Lois's feelings, Lois does not do the same and keep rubbing her suffering on Superman and talking like she were the only one that's suffering. I love the scene, but I can see who's being selfish and who is not.

She must have really hurt you...

Now, SR didn't go down to amnesia kissing or any last minute deux ex machina of the sort.

Is that what you love about it? That it didn't solve its problems?

I know many women like that, it doesn't mean I stick to them. I know the other kind too. Which is why I can tell the difference.

Again...she must have really hurt you.

It's what happened. She dropped her purse on purpose so she could kick him. After doing it she just turns around without caring if the guy could shoot her (reckless) or whether Clark was going to react well or not. She just didn't care for Clark (cold and irresponsible).

A person who is superficial wouldn't risk their life. They're too superficial for that. You should watch the part of the scene before the mugging. Lois is brassy, so she got spunk, but...I don't think you can see that because your perception is colored.

And I quote myself: "Superficial has to do, as I explained to you, with how she gets nuts about men that look good."

Quick tip: If you have to start quoting yourself something may be wrong. Anyhoo, this statement makes me think you know very few women, or have spent time looking at the wrong ones.

We were exactly at the point where you stated that Lois's behavior towards him was natural given that Clark was
clumsy and goofy. Lana disproves this. Yes, we were. In fact it was you who was talking about how the goofiness in Clark defined the way Lois treated him. My point is that it's Lois's nature that does this.

But that had nothing to do with the conversation because we were talking about SR's Lois, who you admit and recognize is only based on STM and SII. What did that have to do with what we were discussing at the time? Forget the fact that what you said is not true. The answer is it didn't have anything to do with it. You brought it out because it was pointless to the discussion, but proved some trivial point not relevant to the discussion.

They haven't inspired me. They've informed me that you think/feel I have corrected you.

I would certainly say they've inspired you since you cannot let it go...even now...pages later, and after I corrected you that you're wrong. You are still talking about this, so that's inspiration. Don't doubt it!

Jokes like "You're like this, that explains why your like this movie."

I still didn't bring up your senile mother. You did that, which further explains why you like the movie.

Not as long as you hate the kind of person you admit you are. Allow yourself to heal.

I have medicine for my SR hate now.... It's called MAN OF STEEL. I am hoping we can find some remedy for you...and your illness? I can't find any other explanation for why you would love Superman Returns so much.

You're***

What was that *******************? I didn't understand you... Please repeat yourself.

As long as you keep denying what you said, I'll keep bringing what you said up.

I guess we'll keep going through it then, but at least I know you're taking joy for erroneously thinking you corrected me. I have no joy in continuing to tell you the truth.

Nothing gives me more pleasure than having people learning from discussions they've had with me. Well, money gives me more pleasure, I admit.

Hmmm....I hope you have been making money while doing this I have... I would hate to think you were wasting your time with something fruitless.

When you keep contradicting yourself to the point of even contradicting your own signature, then that must come up as it might show you the way out.

But you can't come up with something original to say on your own? Can you? Just keep quoting me... yeah... I get it.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I am glad correcting my hyperbole gave you such joy. You are very welcome to that.

Why thank you.

I see you still don't make sense, and if you can't see how that's wrong... You're beyond help. *shakes head*

STM, SII, SIII and SIV all happens in the same universe. How does that not make sense?

He doesn't create life? I thought he did with Lois? Who's Jason?

Oh, so every human is a god because they can procreate. No, we're not. Stand corrected.

Superman might be powerful but he's not a god.

In any case, that's irrelevant as to Lois's superficiality.

I don't understand what you mean by nutcases? Who is a nutcase?

"The millions of Christian women in love with their God" you mentioned. If they're in love with god the way Lois is with Superman they're nutcases.

Anyhoo, Superman is a god in the Donnerverse without a religion. He can create life. He can reverse time, and he can mind-wipe people by kissing them. That's just a few of things he can do though. The list keeps going if you want to include SIII and SIV. I won't do that because it's not relevant to the conversation. I'm not like you.

No, he's not a god. Lois calls him that because he's far more powerful than humans, but he's not.

*shrugs* What does that have to do with anything? I don't understand what you mean by pointing this out. Is that what you deem to be a superficial woman?

Kidder's Lois and Bostworth's Lois are the same, only portrayed by different actors. Someone else (Human Torch) said Lois would never jump onto another man so soon. I say she would.

Yet they had no relationship, so why would Lois be upset? Considering Superman mind-raped her in SII, she barely interacted with him once that memory was removed. Sure, we don't know what happened in between, but if you have to guess "they might" have started a relationship that makes the entire premise for all the drama in the relationship questionable. How can you praise the dynamics of a relationship that is vague and unsure of it's own foundation? Seriously, what makes you think that's a good thing in SR? Answer that question and don't deflect it with some pointless ******** like you usually do.

Did I mention that the vagueness of the SR's premises weren't well explained and that's one of my criticisms towards SR? Yes, I did. If you could read properly you could have spared that paragraph.

That would be the entire city of Metropolis, the president of the U.S., and the entire world in STM and SII. The only non-fan of Superman in that universe is Lex Luthor. I guess in your view he's the only one who is not superficial because he sees that Superman is just an act, and is a complete sham! Right?

Yes, the President fell in love with Superman because of his muscles.

No, he actually didn't. Lois did.

She must have really hurt you...

Fortunately I didn't have a relationship with Lois, as she doesn't exist.

Is that what you love about it? That it didn't solve its problems?

He actually did. Superman doesn't have a relationship with Lois the way they wanted, but through Jason. And Lois will keep being next to Richard.

Again...she must have really hurt you.

Fortunately I didn't have a relationship with Lois, as she doesn't exist.

A person who is superficial wouldn't risk their life. They're too superficial for that. You should watch the part of the scene before the mugging. Lois is brassy, so she got spunk, but...I don't think you can see that because your perception is colored.

A person who is superficial wouldn't risk their life. A person who is reckless and irresponsible would though. And also risk another person's life (Clark's, as she didn't know he was super-powered)

Quick tip: If you have to start quoting yourself something may be wrong. Anyhoo, this statement makes me think you know very few women, or have spent time looking at the wrong ones.

And something is wrong, indeed: your ability to read properly.

But that had nothing to do with the conversation because we were talking about SR's Lois, who you admit and recognize is only based on STM and SII. What did that have to do with what we were discussing at the time? Forget the fact that what you said is not true. The answer is it didn't have anything to do with it. You brought it out because it was pointless to the discussion, but proved some trivial point not relevant to the discussion.

We were exactly at the point where you stated that Lois's behavior towards him was natural given that Clark was clumsy and goofy. Lana disproves this. Yes, we were. In fact it was you who was talking about how the goofiness in Clark defined the way Lois treated him. My point is that it's Lois's nature that does this.

I would certainly say they've inspired you since you cannot let it go...even now...pages later, and after I corrected you that you're wrong. You are still talking about this, so that's inspiration. Don't doubt it!

I doubt it, since the only reason I keep repeating them is because you want desperately to deny you said them.

I still didn't bring up your senile mother. You did that, which further explains why you like the movie.

Make the connection please.

I have medicine for my SR hate now.... It's called MAN OF STEEL. I am hoping we can find some remedy for you...and your illness? I can't find any other explanation for why you would love Superman Returns so much.

The medicine is not working as you keep posting here and admittedly hating the movie.

Liking a movie (or anything) and sped time defending it is hardly an illness. But spending your time on hating... boy, that's serious.

What was that *******************? I didn't understand you... Please repeat yourself.

You misspelled "You're."

Anyways, MOS is getting a sequel. Transformers 2 also did.

I guess we'll keep going through it then, but at least I know you're taking joy for erroneously thinking you corrected me. I have no joy in continuing to tell you the truth.

Too bad you wrote that, if you were going to regret it so much.

Hmmm....I hope you have been making money while doing this I have... I would hate to think you were wasting your time with something fruitless.

You have stood corrected, now you're planning watching SR again. Time was not wasted.

But you can't come up with something original to say on your own? Can you? Just keep quoting me... yeah... I get it.

I have coming with new points, examples of Lois's irresponsibility and superficiality. So far so good. You have only quoted me and asking me to explain you things over and over.

 

[charl_huntress]

Why thank you.

Thank you for thanking me.

STM, SII, SIII and SIV all happens in the same universe. How does that not make sense?

*shakes head* You don't make sense... That's why it doesn't make sense.

Oh, so every human is a god because they can procreate. No, we're not. Stand corrected.

You said he can't create life? Stop making me try to correct you when you don't make sense...okay! That was your definition. Not mine. I can't correct something that makes no sense, but you stand corrected for still not making sense. Okay?

Superman might be powerful but he's not a god.

No, he's just someone like a god, but when you have little sense that may be hard to see.

In any case, that's irrelevant as to Lois's superficiality. "The millions of Christian women in love with their God" you mentioned. If they're in love with god the way Lois is with Superman they're nutcases.

How did you think Lois was in love with Superman? How do you think he was in love with her? How do you think Christian woman are in love with their God?

No, he's not a god. Lois calls him that because he's far more powerful than humans, but he's not.

What is he? What makes him different than a god in the Donnerverse? Please don't bring up some other silly ********. Just answer the question...if you can.

Kidder's Lois and Bostworth's Lois are the same, only portrayed by different actors. Someone else (Human Torch) said Lois would never jump onto another man so soon. I say she would.

Stop mentioning it to me. I don't care about that.

Did I mention that the vagueness of the SR's premises weren't well explained and that's one of my criticisms towards SR? Yes, I did. If you could read properly you could have spared that paragraph.

I can read properly, but in the same breath you mention you don't like the vagueness... You mention how you like the fact Singer progressed the relationship beyond the usual, and that he added something different from what is normally shown. However, you fully recognize at the same time this relationship is built on a vague and unfounded foundation, which frankly makes no sense to its current state.

So, frankly Senator Pleasury, I don't need to learn to read properly. You need to learn to speak proper English. You also need to learn how to express a full and complete point without bringing up irrelevant ********, and being able to express a point like a sensible person who is literate and observant.

Yes, the President fell in love with Superman because of his muscles. No, he actually didn't. Lois did.

What do you think the president wanted him for in the first place? He wanted protection. How do you think it was going to be provided...with happy thoughts and actions? *shakes head* Don't be fooled, Senator Pleasury, the president was in love Superman's muscles and god-like powers too. He was also superficial.

He actually did. Superman doesn't have a relationship with Lois the way they wanted, but through Jason. And Lois will keep being next to Richard.

It only ended that way because there was and will never be a sequel.

Fortunately I didn't have a relationship with Lois, as she doesn't exist.

I think there is a woman in your life...not named Lois who... made a difference. She clearly did.

A person who is superficial wouldn't risk their life. A person who is reckless and irresponsible would though. And also risk another person's life (Clark's, as she didn't know he was super-powered)

A person who's superficial can't be reckless and irresponsible because they wouldn't risk their life... You just said that. Stop trying to make sense, Senator. It only hurts you when you do.

And something is wrong, indeed: your ability to read properly. We were exactly at the point where you stated that Lois's behavior towards him was natural given that Clark was clumsy and goofy. Lana disproves this. Yes, we were. In fact it was you who was talking about how the goofiness in Clark defined the way Lois treated him. My point is that it's Lois's nature that does this.

Since you cannot make sense then I see how you thought we arrived at this point...even though we didn't. You obviously can't read if you cannot read your own posts. *shakes head*.

I doubt it, since the only reason I keep repeating them is because you want desperately to deny you said them.

Hyperbole is your best friend... I knew you would be familiar with him.

Make the connection please.

I think you know the connection. Why else would you bring up your own senile mother?

The medicine is not working as you keep posting here and admittedly hating the movie. Liking a movie (or anything) and sped time defending it is hardly an illness. But spending your time on hating... boy, that's serious.

I'm watching MOS now, and trying to help you with your illness. I would say that's progress. What's your excuse?

You misspelled "You're."

Did you catch that you **************! Thank you so much.

Anyways, MOS is getting a sequel. Transformers 2 also did.

I guess that means I can at least expect one more. By the way, what's up with your boy, Singer? What's he up to? Do you know? What's happening with Superman Returns 2?

Too bad you wrote that, if you were going to regret it so much.

I don't regret it. How can I? They'll always be people like you and SuperArk who will find my words from 7 years ago to repost them. I'm proud of everything I say. I have to be! Have no doubt about it!

You have stood corrected, now you're planning watching SR again. Time was not wasted.

I said I was thinking of watching it again. While I have to keep conversing with you that will never happen. I'll have to keep taking my MOS medicine... because of you!

You're like a fan in denial...

I have coming with new points, examples of Lois's irresponsibility and superficiality. So far so good. You have only quoted me and asking me to explain you things over and over.

Awww...even at the end...you have to keep quoting me... It's speaks to your devotion. Thank you!

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Thank you for thanking me.

No problem. Your admissions can go by any name. The important thing is that you made them.

*shakes head* You don't make sense... That's why it doesn't make sense.

Movies from the same franchise are connected. How does that not make sense?

You said he can't create life? Stop making me try to correct you when you don't make sense...okay! That was your definition. Not mine. I can't correct something that makes no sense, but you stand corrected for still not making sense. Okay?

Oh, so every human is a god because they can procreate? No, we're not. Stand corrected.

No, he's just someone like a god, but when you have little sense that may be hard to see.

Oh, so it's not a god, but "like a god."

Stand corrected.

How did you think Lois was in love with Superman? How do you think he was in love with her? How do you think Christian woman are in love with their God?

Because of his looks and super-powers. I'm not sure. If they're in love with god the way Lois is with Superman they're nutcases. Respectively.

What is he? What makes him different than a god in the Donnerverse? Please don't bring up some other silly ********. Just answer the question...if you can.

A survivor from another planet that's far more powerful than humans. I had already said it.

Stop mentioning it to me. I don't care about that.

Stop asking about that and I'll stop mentioning.

I can read properly, but in the same breath you mention you don't like the vagueness... You mention how you like the fact Singer progressed the relationship beyond the usual, and that he added something different from what is normally shown. However, you fully recognize at the same time this relationship is built on a vague and unfounded foundation, which frankly makes no sense to its current state.

Yes, because not mentioning what happened in between doesn't deny that Singer didn't solve everything by last minute deux ex machinas.

What do you think the president wanted him for in the first place? He wanted protection. How do you think it was going to be provided...with happy thoughts and actions? *shakes head* Don't be fooled, Senator Pleasury, the president was in love Superman's muscles and god-like powers too. He was also superficial.

The President didn't want to have a long-time relationship as Lois did. Fact.

It only ended that way because there was and will never be a sequel.

So, it did end that way.

I think there is a woman in your life...not named Lois who... made a difference. She clearly did.

No. Lois Lane doesn't exist. I didn't have a relationship with her.

A person who's superficial can't be reckless and irresponsible because they wouldn't risk their life... You just said that. Stop trying to make sense, Senator. It only hurts you when you do.

A person who is only superficial wouldn't risk their life. But Lois is also irresponsible and reckless.

Since you cannot make sense then I see how you thought we arrived at this point...even though we didn't. You obviously can't read if you cannot read your own posts. *shakes head*.

Yes we did arrive to this point: where you stated that Lois's behavior towards him was natural given that Clark was clumsy and goofy. Lana disproves this. Yes, we were. In fact it was you who was talking about how the goofiness in Clark defined the way Lois treated him. My point is that it's Lois's nature that does this.

Hyperbole is your best friend... I knew you would be familiar with him.

Denial is your best friend... I knew you would be familiar with him. "I hate SR, but I loved SR." "SR had no action." "Well, it did have action, it's just that I didn't like it." And so on.

I think you know the connection. Why else would you bring up your own senile mother?

Because senescence can make you like MOS.

I'm watching MOS now, and trying to help you with your illness. I would say that's progress. What's your excuse?

Liking a movie is not an illness. Spending your day hating who you are (an admitted hater) is.

Did you catch that you **************! Thank you so much.

Did you learn how to spell? Great!

I guess that means I can at least expect one more. By the way, what's up with your boy, Singer? What's he up to? Do you know? What's happening with Superman Returns 2?

It's not becoming a Batman reboot like MOS2, thanks.

I don't regret it. How can I? They'll always be people like you and SuperArk who will find my words from 7 years ago to repost them. I'm proud of everything I say. I have to be! Have no doubt about it!

I don't know how, I know you do try to deny them.

I said I was thinking of watching it again. While I have to keep conversing with you that will never happen. I'll have to keep taking my MOS medicine... because of you!

Contradiction, thy name is charl huntress.

Anyways, glad to be the reason you make decisions your life.

Awww...even at the end...you have to keep quoting me... It's speaks to your devotion. Thank you!

It speaks volumes about how you state something and are unable to live up to it.

 

[charl_huntress]

No problem. Your admissions can go by any name. The important thing is that you made them.

I'm glad you feel that way. I admit you make no sense.

Movies from the same franchise are connected. How does that not make sense?

Because they are not connected to SR, which was what the discussion was about.

Oh, so every human is a god because they can procreate? No, we're not. Stand corrected.

You said procreation limited Superman from being a god. He created Jason... ergo he is a god. You stand corrected.

Oh, so it's not a god, but "like a god."

I said that originally. You just confirmed again you cannot read properly.

Stand corrected.

Your senile mother must have taught you this phrase. I like it.

Because of his looks and super-powers. I'm not sure. If they're in love with god the way Lois is with Superman they're nutcases. Respectively.

Do you know someone like that?

A survivor from another planet that's far more powerful than humans. I had already said it.

What is god then?

Stop asking about that and I'll stop mentioning.

I never ask about it to begin with.

Yes, because not mentioning what happened in between doesn't deny that Singer didn't solve everything by last minute deux ex machinas.

And that's why you love it?

The President didn't want to have a long-time relationship as Lois did. Fact.

But he did what long term protection. Fact.

So, it did end that way.

Not in your mind... You are still keeping it going.

No. Lois Lane doesn't exist. I didn't have a relationship with her.

Are you sure?

A person who is only superficial wouldn't risk their life. But Lois is also irresponsible and reckless.

That's not what you said though. Can you properly express yourself or not?

Yes we did arrive to this point: where you stated that Lois's behavior towards him was natural given that Clark was clumsy and goofy. Lana disproves this. Yes, we were. In fact it was you who was talking about how the goofiness in Clark defined the way Lois treated him. My point is that it's Lois's nature that does this.

We were talking about SR's Lois. We did not arrive at this point. You brought this pointless topic into the debate for no reason because you frequently make no sense.

Denial is your best friend... I knew you would be familiar with him. "I hate SR, but I loved SR." "SR had no action." "Well, it did have action, it's just that I didn't like it." And so on.

So you admit you have been exaggerating. So how much do you really like SR? As for me...yes I was in denial about liking SR...until I realized I hated that piece of ****. I will admit that...denial was my best friend until I could come to grips with that.

Because senescence can make you like MOS.

So I guess your mom's senility explains why you like SR?

Liking a movie is not an illness. Spending your day hating who you are (an admitted hater) is.

I have admitted from the jump I hate SR. There's no shame to my game about it. My presence in this thread is 3 years old. Like I said...I'm on page two, so I never hid it. You on the other hand... I can't say... maybe it's because of your mother.

Did you learn how to spell? Great!

You were able to read that... I should have given you more credit when I said you couldn't read.

It's not becoming a Batman reboot like MOS2, thanks.

So what is it?

I don't know how, I know you do try to deny them.

Deny you correcting hyperbole..... NEVA. That's your calling card, buddy!

Contradiction, thy name is charl huntress.

Pointless and unobservant is your first and middle name.

Anyways, glad to be the reason you make decisions your life.

Aren't you bribing people? I thought that was your gig?

It speaks volumes about how you state something and are unable to live up to it.

This entire diatribe speaks highly of your senile mother.

 

[sf2]

Oops. Pointless and endless argument only lead to personal attack.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I'm glad you feel that way. I admit you make no sense.

That is, you deny so. And we know how much your denial is worth.

Because they are not connected to SR, which was what the discussion was about.

Yes, Donnerverse is connected to SR.

You said procreation limited Superman from being a god. He created Jason... ergo he is a god. You stand corrected.

No, I didn't say that. I just said he is not a god. And no one is a god because they have children.

I said that originally. You just confirmed again you cannot read properly.

No, you didn't: "Donnerverse Superman is a god without a religion." Your words.

Your senile mother must have taught you this phrase. I like it.

Well, you brought that phrase. I'll take it as an admission of your senescence.

Do you know someone like that?

No, you mentioned them, so you must know people like that.

What is god then?

I don't care. it doesn't have to do with Superman as he's not a god, as you claimed.

And that's why you love it?

Partially.

But he did what long term protection. Fact.

It wasn't a sexual attraction as was Lois's case, and that was the point.

Not in your mind... You are still keeping it going.

No. It ended in SR.

Are you sure?

Yes. Lois Lane does not exist. Google it.

That's not what you said though. Can you properly express yourself or not?

Yes, it's what I said.

We were talking about SR's Lois. We did not arrive at this point. You brought this pointless topic into the debate for no reason because you frequently make no sense.

Yes we did arrive to this point: where you stated that Lois's behavior towards him was natural given that Clark was clumsy and goofy. Lana disproves this. Yes, we were. In fact it was you who was talking about how the goofiness in Clark defined the way Lois treated him. My point is that it's Lois's nature that does this.

So you admit you have been exaggerating. So how much do you really like SR? As for me...yes I was in denial about liking SR...until I realized I hated that piece of ****. I will admit that...denial was my best friend until I could come to grips with that.

So, denial is your best friend... I knew you would be familiar with him.

So I guess your mom's senility explains why you like SR?

No, we're two different people.

I have admitted from the jump I hate SR. There's no shame to my game about it. My presence in this thread is 3 years old. Like I said...I'm on page two, so I never hid it. You on the other hand... I can't say... maybe it's because of your mother.

No, I admitted liking SR, which is much better than spend days of your life on hating something as you do.

You were able to read that... I should have given you more credit when I said you couldn't read.

You were wrong. You stand corrected.

So what is it?

It's not becoming a Batman reboot like MOS2, thanks.

Deny you correcting hyperbole..... NEVA. That's your calling card, buddy!

Yours is denying what you said yourself.

Pointless and unobservant is your first and middle name.

So do I have one or two middle names? Need five to agree with yourself?

Aren't you bribing people? I thought that was your gig?

Regarding you, it's teaching the difference between facts and your wishful thinking.

This entire diatribe speaks highly of our senile mother.

No, since senescence hasn't hit me. But denying your own words is right here right now.

 

[charl_huntress]

That is, you deny so. And we know how much your denial is worth.

I just told you I admit you make no sense. How did you read denial? Oh yeah...you can't properly read or speak English.

Yes, Donnerverse is connected to SR.

SR is not connected to SIII or SIV. So what is your point?

No, I didn't say that. I just said he is not a god. And no one is a god because they have children.

You said:

No, he's not a god. He doesn't create life

But he did create life. He created Jason. He is a god per your own words. Are you confused?

No, you didn't: "Donnerverse Superman is a god without a religion." Your words.

And you confirmed it because he can create life. What's your point?

Well, you brought that phrase. I'll take it as an admission of your senescence.

You keep flattering me by repeating my words. I thought it was yours...but I shouldn't have given you or your mother that much credit for being original.

No, you mentioned them, so you must know people like that.

I don't, but I know you have first hand experience with senility. I figured you have an inside track on all that.

I don't care. it doesn't have to do with Superman as he's not a god, as you claimed.

But you already confirmed he was because he can create life. Stop back tracking on your words.

Partially.

I wish you would elaborate. That is what this thread is about. You seem so passionate in defense of the movie, but cannot seem to offer any reasons why you like it. Tell me about it. Maybe that will help...

It wasn't a sexual attraction as was Lois's case, and that was the point.

But he still wanted him for his muscles didn't he? Doesn't that meet your superficial standard?

No. It ended in SR.

Unlikely.

Yes. Lois Lane does not exist. Google it.

You seem kind of personal about it all. I just wanted to be sure.

Yes, it's what I said.

But you said something else before that. That's why I can't take you seriously. Nothing but ******** comes out of your mouth.

Yes we did arrive to this point: where you stated that Lois's behavior towards him was natural given that Clark was clumsy and goofy. Lana disproves this. Yes, we were. In fact it was you who was talking about how the goofiness in Clark defined the way Lois treated him. My point is that it's Lois's nature that does this.

What did that have to do with SR's Lois though? What was the point you were trying to make when that wasn't the point of the conversation? Do you see or understand why that doesn't add up, or has the senility already started to claim your mind?

So, denial is your best friend... I knew you would be familiar with him.

I told you I wanted to like SR. No secret there. I wish I could still be in denial...but we became enemies instead. He did use to be my best friend though in regards to this movie.

No, we're two different people.

But I bet you're a lot like her and people tell you that all the time.

No, I admitted liking SR, which is much better than spend days of your life on hating something as you do.

I've spent 7 consistent years hating this movie... What's another day?

You were wrong. You stand corrected.

So you agreed with me????? I wouldn't have guessed. I called you a ******* *** *******. Good to know we're on the same page you ******* **** ****!

It's not becoming a Batman reboot like MOS2, thanks.

That still doesn't tell me what it is?

Yours is denying what you said yourself.

Well...I got you to repeat everything I say. Seems like you can actually be good for something.

So do I have one or two middle names?

Pointless is your first name and Unobservant is your middle name. I thought that was clear. Perhaps your last name should be Clueless.

Regarding you, it's teaching the difference between facts and your wishful thinking.

I would prefer the money... You're boring otherwise.

No, since senescence hasn't hit me. But denying your own words is right here right now.

OMG...my words are branded in your mind. Tell me what I said that really has you going? Tell me...

 

[Human Torch]