Superman Returns Why Don't Some Superman Fans Like Superman Returns?

[mego joe]

Well, I believe you are wrong. Simple as.

Superman is a kind hearted man that gets enjoyment out of saving others lives. Lois Lane is his true love. He disguises himself as Clark Kent. That's the point of the character. This was captured in SR.

That's a pretty superficial description of the character, though. IT says little about the content of his character.

If he is a kind hearted man who gets enjoyment out of saving other, why then did he leave those who likes to save w/o saying goodbye to show he cares? Why would he be in a sexual relationship with the woman he loves and leave for 5 years w/o a word? Is that your definition of love?

There is more to the depth of the character than you state, superficlially it may resemble the character, but once you look at the way he is charcterized in SR, it doesn't resemble SUperman at all.

Although the film is a continuation of the Donner franchise, there are influences from the Fleischer cartoons, George Reeves TV show, and a few scenes, imagery and plot lines borrowed directly from the comics. Singer describes it as an amalgamation of the essence of Superman. That's respecting the source material.

There are actually no plot lines with any substance borrowed directly from the comics in SR. I find the superficiality to be boring and condescending, as well as obviously shallow. I find they show a true lack of understanding of the essence of the characters.

Whether you think it is bad or not is subjective. But I think it is exaggerating to say SR is 'truly bad'.

Well, the very fact that SInger doesn't even bother to tell us why it was so hard for SUperman not to say goodbye this shows he doesn't undersand that it is an extrememly out of charcter moment and NEEDS a believable explanation. The whole fact that there's no context to the relationship is one of the poorest examples of storytelling I can think of in a movie. Everything that happens stems from this and yet he can't bother to explain. That equals bad, the lynchpin to understanding the motivations and rationales of the SUperman and Lois are ignored, that certainly can't equal good?

 

[mego joe]

Well, I believe you are wrong. Simple as.

Superman is a kind hearted man that gets enjoyment out of saving others lives. Lois Lane is his true love. He disguises himself as Clark Kent. That's the point of the character. This was captured in SR.

You're simple definition of who Superman is and what he does would then if extrapolated and applied to other comic character would include nearly all of your 'failed' list of comic adaptations.

Failed:
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Superman III
Superman IV
Fantastic Four
Fantastic Four 2
X-Men 3
Constantine
Catwoman

 

[Qwerty©]

Oh, I'm sorry that I didn't go into a massive in-depth character study I didn't know you people were unaware of what a summary is.

 

[mego joe]

Oh, I'm sorry that I didn't go into a massive in-depth character study I didn't know you people were unaware of what a summary is.

You're summary made it appear that that was the sum total of your criteria for 'who SUperman is.'

Sorry, if others of us actually define the essence of the character with greater depth.

To properly evaluate a movie's characterization of a comic book character, a summary is woefully lacking in depth.

 

[Qwerty©]

You're summary made it appear that that was the sum total of your criteria for 'who SUperman is.'

Sorry, if others of us actually define the essence of the character with greater depth.

To properly evaluate a movie's characterization of a comic book character, a summary is woefully lacking in depth.

This is a message board, not an editorial, buddy.

Please get off your high horse. Stop acting like I know less about the character than you just because I support a film you don't like. It's very clear that's what you are inferring.

 

[NUFFSAID2004]

Succeeded:
Batman: Yes
Batman Returns: No
Batman Begins: Yes
Superman: The Movie: Yes
Superman Returns: "NO"!
Spider-Man: Yes
Hellboy: Never have seen it
X-Men: Yes
X-Men 2: Yes

These movies, to me, show that there is a respect for the comic books in the minds of the creators and they 'get it', essentially. They also are high in quality.

Failed:
Batman Forever: 2 and 1/2 stars
Batman & Robin: One and 1/2 stars
Superman III: 2 stars
Superman IV: 1 and 1/2 stars
Fantastic Four: 1 and 1/2 star
Fantastic Four 2: No desire to see it
X-Men 3: 2 Stars
Constantine: Never have seen it
Catwoman: Never have seen it and never will



Thse movies, to me, miss the point of the characters, weren't made with respect in mind, but rather a way to make a quick buck. Most of them are pretty bad.
P.S. Here's a few other bad hero flicks you left out...
Daredevil
Electra
Captain America
Spider-"SHAM" 3

 

[mego joe]

This is a message board, not an editorial, buddy.

Please get off your high horse. Stop acting like I know less about the character than you just because I support a film you don't like. It's very clear that's what you are inferring.

No, I was just saying my definition of the essence of the character is more involved than your's appears to be.

Are you interested in DISCUSSING that?

 

[Qwerty©]

No, I was just saying my definition of the essence of the character is more involved than your's appears to be.

Are you interested in DISCUSSING that?

As a baby Kal-El was rocketed to Earth from the doomed planet Krypton, sent by his parents Jor-El and Lara who wished to spare him from the same miserable fate.

Landing in Smallville, Kansas, baby Kal-El was adopted as Clark Kent by kindly farmers Jonathan and Martha. He grew up stronger and faster than all the other kids, but his parents taught him the moral values he still upholds in his adult life. All life is sacred and should be preserved, you should help those in need and stand up for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

As an adult he moved to Metropolis, where he got a staff job at the Daily Planet, and met fellow reporter Lois Lane, young photographer Jimmy Olsen and editor Perry White. He also began his career as Superman. But at the same time Lois Lane fell for Metropolis' new saviour, Clark became attracted to Lois' spunky nature. For years Clark maintained his secret identity, working with Lois and trying to get her to know the man instead of the Super.

Happy now?

 

[mego joe]

As a baby Kal-El was rocketed to Earth from the doomed planet Krypton, sent by his parents Jor-El and Lara who wished to spare him from the same miserable fate.

Landing in Smallville, Kansas, baby Kal-El was adopted as Clark Kent by kindly farmers Jonathan and Martha. He grew up stronger and faster than all the other kids, but his parents taught him the moral values he still upholds in his adult life. All life is sacred and should be preserved, you should help those in need and stand up for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

As an adult he moved to Metropolis, where he got a staff job at the Daily Planet, and met fellow reporter Lois Lane, young photographer Jimmy Olsen and editor Perry White. He also began his career as Superman. But at the same time Lois Lane fell for Metropolis' new saviour, Clark became attracted to Lois' spunky nature. For years Clark maintained his secret identity, working with Lois and trying to get her to know the man instead of the Super.

Happy now?

Didn't know you were trying to make me 'happy.' I don't see where you're extending your definition into the content of SUperman/ Clark's character which is where I think we differ in opinion.

To me Superman/ Clark's character is such that he would NEVER get himself into the situation he finds himself in SR, no matter what the circumstances.

But to extend your longer summary, "He eventually dates Lois as Clark, they fall in love, he reveals his secret, he proposes marriage, they get married."

No, doesn't sound at all like SR.

 

[Qwerty©]

Didn't know you were trying to make me 'happy.' I don't see where you're extending your definition into the content of SUperman/ Clark's character which is where I think we differ in opinion.

I take it you skipped over the part where I described his moral values as taught to him by Jonathan and Martha?

To me Superman/ Clark's character is such that he would NEVER get himself into the situation he finds himself in SR, no matter what the circumstances.

And I disagree.

But to extend your longer summary, "He eventually dates Lois as Clark, they fall in love, he reveals his secret, he proposes marriage, they get married."

No, doesn't sound at all like SR.

I simply think Singer's approach is much more creative than that. "they fall in love... they get married" is not an interesting story. The parallel of Jason and Superman's childhood, where both are adopted by earth parents while the kryptonian can do nothing but watch over him for the greater good, is much more interesting to me.

 

[mego joe]

I take it you skipped over the part where I described his moral values as taught to him by Jonathan and Martha?

As a mattef of fact I did. And that to me is the crux of why SR portrays SUperman out of character. I think with the moral values he learned growing up makes him a character that would not end up in the situation he's gotten himself into in SR.

And I disagree.

I understand, but would you care to explain why you think his character is capable of that?

I simply think Singer's approach is much more creative than that. "they fall in love... they get married" is not an interesting story.

Without the details it certainly doesn't sound itneresting, but it was certainly interesting in the comics, all 3 times they got married. (Earth-2 Superman/ Lois in Action #484, Earth-1 in "What Ever Happened TO the Man of Tomorrow?" and post-Crisis SUperman in the 90's, see issue #50 for the big reveal and the SUperman Wedding Album special from 1996.

The parallel of Jason and Superman's childhood, where both are adopted by earth parents while the kryptonian can do nothing but watch over him for the greater good, is much more interesting to me.

WHile it might be an interesting story to you, it is classic cliched soap opera plot and it is not a good SUperman story b/c it is not indicative of SUperman's charcter. He has to act contrary to the essence of the character to get himself into the dysfunctional family/ absentee dad mess and there is NO explanation of why he acted as such in the first place. This last bit comes across as just plain poor storytelling on SInger's part.

The part about the parallel that really doesn't work for me at all is that JOr-El could not raise his own son, it would have been impossible, but SUperman could have, except he acted like a jerk to Lois. THis completely changes the dynamic of the parallel.

 

[Qwerty©]

As a mattef of fact I did. And that to me is the crux of why SR portrays SUperman out of character. I think with the moral values he learned growing up makes him a character that would not end up in the situation he's gotten himself into in SR.

He was in outer space discovering his origins when Lois had Jason. In movies, pregnancies are a lot more unexpected than in real life. He simply couldn't be there for Jason, because there was no way of contact and as far as he was concerned, Jason didn't exist. He did not get himself into the situation. It was completely unexpected.

I understand, but would you care to explain why you think his character is capable of that?

Because Superman didn't actively abandon Jason. I don't see how it is out of character for Superman not to know about his child because he was in outer space when Jason was born. The pregnancy was unexpected.

Without the details it certainly doesn't sound itneresting, but it was certainly interesting in the comics, all 3 times they got married. (Earth-2 Superman/ Lois in Action #484, Earth-1 in "What Ever Happened TO the Man of Tomorrow?" and post-Crisis SUperman in the 90's, see issue #50 for the big reveal and the SUperman Wedding Album special from 1996.

Yeah, but for a movie?

WHile it might be an interesting story to you, it is classic cliched soap opera plot and it is not a good SUperman story b/c it is not indicative of SUperman's charcter.

In the comics, Lois Lane was in love with Superman, but realised she Clark Kent was the man for her, the very man she was working with all along, and what appeared to be the very antithesis of Superman. How is that not a soap opera plot?

He has to act contrary to the essence of the character to get himself into the dysfunctional family/ absentee dad mess and there is NO explanation of why he acted as such in the first place.

And similarly there is no indication he acted irresponsibly.

This last bit comes across as just plain poor storytelling on SInger's part.

I would've liked to have seen more of the story before his departure also. But, there's no point on dwelling what could've been.

The part about the parallel that really doesn't work for me at all is that JOr-El could not raise his own son, it would have been impossible, but SUperman could have, except he acted like a jerk to Lois.

Actually it's exactly the same because Superman was on his way to another planet, with no contact with Lois and Jason. He didn't even know Jason existed, actually.

THis completely changes the dynamic of the parallel.

What, you wanted Earth to blow up too?

 

[afan]

He was in outer space discovering his origins when Lois had Jason. In movies, pregnancies are a lot more unexpected than in real life. He simply couldn't be there for Jason, because there was no way of contact and as far as he was concerned, Jason didn't exist. He did not get himself into the situation. It was completely unexpected

.

Unplanned, yes......unexpected no!

A pregnancy is most definitely a predictable result of an intimate relationship.

A race car driver never plans a catastrophic crash, but certainly anticipates and prepares as best he can for its occurance. Any other behaviour would be unacceptably negligent.

As was Superman's behaviour........

The entire crux of SR' thematic contrivance is not Superman's absence off world, it is his conscious decision based solely on lack of personal fortitude, to explain his motivations and declare his decision to leave. Send Superman on his mission, include a general announcement to the world and an intimate and personal farewell to the woman he loves, and every dramatic theme within SR dissipates.

This lack of fortitude and the aberrant decision not to declare his mission is completely out of character, and similarly, as have many other fictional heroes before him, Superman is punished for his uncharacteristic misdeed. Jason is the embodiment of his punishment, it is the intent of the character. There is no way to defend Superman's behaviour, it is the focal point of the story, and Jason is the dramatic consequence of his misdeed.

One can defend SR's premise, demoting Superman to the role of "weak human" whose ethical behaviors are sometimes flawed, in the interest of making the character more substantial and the story more emotional, but one cannot use the details of SR to support any argument that the film portrays the Man of Steel as an individual who possesses unquestionable ethical and moral fiber.

 

[mego joe]

.

Unplanned, yes......unexpected no!

A pregnancy is most definitely a predictable result of an intimate relationship.

A race car driver never plans a catastrophic crash, but certainly anticipates and prepares as best he can for its occurance. Any other behaviour would be unacceptably negligent.

As was Superman's behaviour........

The entire crux of SR' thematic contrivance is not Superman's absence off world, it is his conscious decision based solely on lack of personal fortitude, to explain his motivations and declare his decision to leave. Send Superman on his mission, include a general announcement to the world and an intimate and personal farewell to the woman he loves, and every dramatic theme within SR dissipates.

This lack of fortitude and the aberrant decision not to declare his mission is completely out of character, and similarly, as have many other fictional heroes before him, Superman is punished for his uncharacteristic misdeed. Jason is the embodiment of his punishment, it is the intent of the character. There is no way to defend Superman's behaviour, it is the focal point of the story, and Jason is the dramatic consequence of his misdeed.

One can defend SR's premise, demoting Superman to the role of "weak human" whose ethical behaviors are sometimes flawed, in the interest of making the character more substantial and the story more emotional, but one cannot use the details of SR to support any argument that the film portrays the Man of Steel as an individual who possesses unquestionable ethical and moral fiber.

Once again, afan, you have expressed my thoughts exactly on this issue. Bravo.

 

[mego joe]

He was in outer space discovering his origins when Lois had Jason. In movies, pregnancies are a lot more unexpected than in real life. He simply couldn't be there for Jason, because there was no way of contact and as far as he was concerned, Jason didn't exist.

Whether he knew or not he abandonned his moral and ethical responsibilities that come with being in a sexual relationship, plain and simple. He left LOIS w/o a word. THat is all it takes to go from being as you describe "the moral values he still upholds in his adult life" to a jerk.

He did not get himself into the situation.

He had sex with Lois, without telling him who he really was (Clark Kent) and he left Lois for 5 years w/o saying goodbye while being in a sexual relationship with her. That's "getting himself into the situation." It's not like he was abducted from the planet and had no way or opportunity to say goodbye, he CHOSE not to say goodbye to her.

It was completely unexpected.

I'm quite sure Superman and Lois know how babies are conceived. They therefore have a moral and ethical obligation to one another and any potential children if they are engaged in a sexual relationship.

As afan said, "Unplanned, yes......unexpected no!"

Because Superman didn't actively abandon Jason. I don't see how it is out of character for Superman not to know about his child because he was in outer space when Jason was born. The pregnancy was unexpected.

He did however abandon Lois, the love of his life and his sexual partner. COnsequently he is abandonning his moral and ethical obligations of being in such a relatinship. It is tantamount to abandonning a child.

Yeah, but for a movie?

If the story is about their love, the source material clearly shows that they are the marrying kind. Remember, traditional midwestern values- moral values, etc....

In the comics, Lois Lane was in love with Superman, but realised she Clark Kent was the man for her, the very man she was working with all along, and what appeared to be the very antithesis of Superman. How is that not a soap opera plot?

Which version of SUperman are you referring to? B/c none of those three actually fit the stories I mentioned.

And similarly there is no indication he acted irresponsibly. I would've liked to have seen more of the story before his departure also. But, there's no point on dwelling what could've been.

Not telling Lois he's also Clark is irresponsible, we know that from the movie, and not telling her he's leaving for 5 years when he's been in a sexual relationship with her is also irresponsible. We also know that from the movie. The point of the movie is that he screwed up and when he comes back he has to 'fix' it.

Actually it's exactly the same because Superman was on his way to another planet, with no contact with Lois and Jason. He didn't even know Jason existed, actually. What, you wanted Earth to blow up too?

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Jor-El sent his son away to SAVE him b/c he loved and cared so much for him. SUperman left w/o saying goodbye b/c he was more concerned with himself than for Lois and his moral and ethical responsiblities, b/c it was "too difficult."

 

[AgentPat]

.

Unplanned, yes......unexpected no!

A pregnancy is most definitely a predictable result of an intimate relationship.

A race car driver never plans a catastrophic crash, but certainly anticipates and prepares as best he can for its occurance. Any other behaviour would be unacceptably negligent.

As was Superman's behaviour........

The entire crux of SR' thematic contrivance is not Superman's absence off world, it is his conscious decision based solely on lack of personal fortitude, to explain his motivations and declare his decision to leave. Send Superman on his mission, include a general announcement to the world and an intimate and personal farewell to the woman he loves, and every dramatic theme within SR dissipates.

This lack of fortitude and the aberrant decision not to declare his mission is completely out of character, and similarly, as have many other fictional heroes before him, Superman is punished for his uncharacteristic misdeed. Jason is the embodiment of his punishment, it is the intent of the character. There is no way to defend Superman's behaviour, it is the focal point of the story, and Jason is the dramatic consequence of his misdeed.

One can defend SR's premise, demoting Superman to the role of "weak human" whose ethical behaviors are sometimes flawed, in the interest of making the character more substantial and the story more emotional, but one cannot use the details of SR to support any argument that the film portrays the Man of Steel as an individual who possesses unquestionable ethical and moral fiber.

Wow! Fantastic post. Kudos, Afan!

 

[X Knight]

mego joe and afan, you hit the nail right on the head. I agree with everything you two posted.

it would have been FAR different if Superman had been abducted by a villain, left mortally wounded, etc. In that case, supes had no choice and had no intention of leaving for such a long period of time.

As a secondary option, it would have been better if they LEFT IN the subplot of Lex planting the Krypton story and TRICKING Supes into leaving. But, for what ever reason, they LEFT THAT OUT!!!

I also realized 4 things that were lacking from SR. FUN, ACTION, FRESHNESS, and MAJESTY.

1, 2, and 3. FUN, FRESHNESS, and ACTION

SR was last year's July 4th summer movie. Transformer's was this year's. On the Hype home page, it seems Transformer's has already made $150 million in just 1 week! I don't recall exact SR numbers, but I do remember that it "struggled" to get to $200 million, over several months.

Now, I'm not a "hardcore" Transformers fan, but I absolutely LOVED the movie!

I believe it has been so successful, so far, because it treated the subject matter seriously, yet it was FUN, FRESH, and ACTION-PACKED!

Call it shallow, but ppl go to see summer blockbusters to be ENTERTAINED, not BORED to death. And, if it involves super-powered heros and villians, they want to see a BATTLE, powers flaring, punches flying.

Transformers, for me, delivered all that, SR did not.

4. Majesty

This may sound silly and weird, but I thought of this watching the Travel Channel. Over the holidays, they had programs about the Natural Wonders of the World.....places of majesty and grandeur like Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, etc.

When they do the fly-by, arial shots, idk, I just got this majestic, inspiring, and UPLIFTING feeling.

And, that's what was lacking in SR. Supes should be an UPLIFTING / INSPIRATIONAL figure. I didn't feel any of that in SR. The ONLY time that it came close was the NK lifting scene, but even that is marginal..........

I now find myself eagerly awaiting future installments of the new Transformers franchise.............the same cannot be said about Singer's SR franchise....

 

[Hellion]

I've been getting into Superman recently and wanted to know...

...I haven't seen the film yet but I want to...Do you guys recommend it or should I pass it?

I also read that this film is a sequel to Superman II and ignores III and Quest For Peace...is that true?

 

[superbaby]

I've been getting into Superman recently and wanted to know...

...I haven't seen the film yet but I want to...Do you guys recommend it or should I pass it?

I also read that this film is a sequel to Superman II and ignores III and Quest For Peace...is that true?

what stopping you not to watch it?

 

[afan]

Thanks for the props all, mego joe, sorry for jumping in on your discussion with Qwerty©, you certainly do not need my help.

You know the more I think of it SR should conclude with the death of Superman. I realize it would have been a bit radical, but it would have been a more fitting end, given the presentation of Superman in SR as a tragic hero. It would have wrapped up the "Donner" universe very nicely in a complete trilogy of films which stand on their own, allowing for a re-start to procede unfettered; free of Donner / Lester / Singer baggage.

If, however, it was desirable to continue forward with the "Donnerverse" films Jason could grow into the next Superman, raised by Lois and Richard.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Great posts afan, mega joe and super-bats, couldn't agree with you guys more.

 

[Super Kal]

I've been getting into Superman recently and wanted to know...

...I haven't seen the film yet but I want to...Do you guys recommend it or should I pass it?

pass on it

I also read that this film is a sequel to Superman II and ignores III and Quest For Peace...is that true?

Superman Returns is a vague sequel to Superman The Movie and Superman II... Superman III and IV never happened in Superman Returns

 

[El Payaso]

...I haven't seen the film yet but I want to...Do you guys recommend it or should I pass it?

How can you know you like it if you don't watch it yourself?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

.

Unplanned, yes......unexpected no!

A pregnancy is most definitely a predictable result of an intimate relationship.

A race car driver never plans a catastrophic crash, but certainly anticipates and prepares as best he can for its occurance. Any other behaviour would be unacceptably negligent.

As was Superman's behaviour........

The entire crux of SR' thematic contrivance is not Superman's absence off world, it is his conscious decision based solely on lack of personal fortitude, to explain his motivations and declare his decision to leave. Send Superman on his mission, include a general announcement to the world and an intimate and personal farewell to the woman he loves, and every dramatic theme within SR dissipates.

This lack of fortitude and the aberrant decision not to declare his mission is completely out of character, and similarly, as have many other fictional heroes before him, Superman is punished for his uncharacteristic misdeed. Jason is the embodiment of his punishment, it is the intent of the character. There is no way to defend Superman's behaviour, it is the focal point of the story, and Jason is the dramatic consequence of his misdeed.

One can defend SR's premise, demoting Superman to the role of "weak human" whose ethical behaviors are sometimes flawed, in the interest of making the character more substantial and the story more emotional, but one cannot use the details of SR to support any argument that the film portrays the Man of Steel as an individual who possesses unquestionable ethical and moral fiber.

Well, its funny, in 'For Tomorrow' when Superman leaves for the Phantom Zone, the ONLY person he tells is Father Leone, he doesnt know how long he will be away (like SR), he doesnt know what he'll find there (like SR) and he doesnt even know if he will return (like SR, IMO), not to mention he makes no world announcement (like SR) or doesnt tell his loved one's (sort of like SR). And FT is considered one of the best Superman stories of recent years, so are you saying he acted out of character in that?

 

[Hellion]

what stopping you not to watch it?

A few people I know didn't really like it...

From what I have read its usually 50/50 on who enjoyed it/hated it...