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

[mego joe]

Yes. The argument has been made many times how Superman, with his impervious hide, his squarness and what not, that he was a basically a one dimensional character. I'm fine with this. That's what I'd rather see. Not Dawson's Creek with French Riviera speedos and a cape.

YOu can have a depth of character without making him morally muddled and acts against the essence of his character.

You just have to show WHY he does what he does and that he is affected and troubled by things.

Show why he acts with unquestionable motivation.

 

[El Payaso]

But he is supposed to be a genuinely kind, caring, altruistic, forthright, self-sacrificing mature man with a strong sense of will and strong morals and good values.

You mean... a priest or a perfect guy. In STM and SII, he hasn't been always like that.

You are obvioulsy oblivious to the proper way to treat the woman you love when you are involved in a sexual relationship. SUperman's actions toward Lois are indefensible. It was wrong, period.

That's what they call it "mistake".

I'm not even worried they're defensible or not. I've always admitted he made mistakes in SR. Even Superman himself acknowledges that.

Of all people, I was sure you would be savy enought to catch the sarcasm.

Coincidence! I was thinking the very same.

Apparently, you need to go back and read some more SUperman comics,

Apparently, you need to go back and watch STM and SII again. Which SR is a sequel from.

Just b/c SInger said it was doesn't make it so.

Or Donner, or Byrne or whoever. You and me included. Those are visions about a fictional character who has had racist periods (War World II) and has been unable to fly (1939). Therefore, those are visions about him. They have different visions about real people in movies, go figure a fictional character.

THe essense is not contradictory either.

I'm not asking for one-dimensional, I'm asking for depth as in 3 dimensional. Give us why's and motivation to give us that depth of character. But that is not included in the film. Just simply giving us contradictory actio w/o plausible and believable motivation is just as shallow as not explaining why he is so good a person and has the values he does.

That I agree with. Not the first time - nor the second time - I say this.

There was absolutely no need for Superman not saying good-bye to Lois in order to make the action go. Superman should have told Lois he HAD to go to Krypton because his soul needed to know if there were survivors or any information about his roots there. Lois, of course can't agree with Superman reasons because she doesn't know if he will be back and she also knows that if he can come back, it will be in 5 years or more. Last night before the trip, they sleep together from where we have Jason's conception. Ta dah. Nice, simple and Superman doesn't go without saying a word. It's still going away after having sex with Lois, but I think many men, Superman included, would be able to explain those reasons before going away.

 

[mego joe]

You mean... a priest or a perfect guy. In STM and SII, he hasn't been always like that.

FOr the last time, no, not a priest or a perfect guy. I bet everyone on these boards woulds not do as SUperman does. Even at the bottom of your post you say it's wrong, yet you defend it as a mistake or he's not perfect, which is it? Is it in character or not? It's not about general perfection or mistakes, it's about a specific mistake which you seem to take umbrage with at the bottom of the post.

FOr me it's too out of charcter, the specific mistake. THat specific mistake does not fit.

That's what they call it "mistake".

See above.

I'm not even worried they're defensible or not. I've always admitted he made mistakes in SR. Even Superman himself acknowledges that.

Defensible as in 'explainable in a context which is both believable and plausible.'

Coincidence! I was thinking the very same.



Apparently, you need to go back and watch STM and SII again. Which SR is a sequel from.

I've seen them both tons of times and SUperman never hurts Lois in order to avoid pain himself. Before you start in with the 'amnesia' kiss thing, we've had that argument before. We differ in how we view SUperman's motivation for the 'amnesia' kiss, so that colors how we view his motivations.

Or Donner, or Byrne or whoever. You and me included. Those are visions about a fictional character who has had racist periods (War World II) and has been unable to fly (1939). Therefore, those are visions about him. They have different visions about real people in movies, go figure a fictional character.

But there are some things he will never do. His actions in SR with Lois fall into that category.

The biggest problem is that there is not a plausible or believable explanation for 'why' Superman does what he does. It is presented as if we just just 'get it' when clearly it's a radical departure from character.

There is the possibility if given a plausible or believable explanation that SR would have been better received by some of the 'haters.'

That I agree with. Not the first time - nor the second time - I say this.

There was absolutely no need for Superman not saying good-bye to Lois in order to make the action go. Superman should have told Lois he HAD to go to Krypton because his soul needed to know if there were survivors or any information about his roots there. Lois, of course can't agree with Superman reasons because she doesn't know if he will be back and she also knows that if he can come back, it will be in 5 years or more. Last night before the trip, they sleep together from where we have Jason's conception. Ta dah. Nice, simple and Superman doesn't go without saying a word. It's still going away after having sex with Lois, but I think many men, Superman included, would be able to explain those reasons before going away.

And if SInger was hell bent on giving Superman a child then that's the way to go. I don't think it was all about exploring SUperman as a father, but finding a way to connect to the Donnerverse and the child angle is about the only way to push the end of Superman II forward thematically. But I think SInger was more interested in keeping Superman isolated, keeping him separate from Lois, child, etc.. than letting him come back to a situation that he could return to happily and suddenly be husband/ father. B/c if Lois knew SUperman was leaving, she wouldn't have been in RIchard's bed so soon, and even if she did eventually hook up with RIchard, she would have known it was Superman's son. WHen he comes back it's a completely different situation, even if the rest of the world had moved on, hopefully Lois would not have been an ice queen/ heartless etc.. and still had the hate on for him.

But that situation doesn't fit into the type of story Singer likes to tell. It's too norman and too happy and too traditional.

 

[El Payaso]

FOr the last time, no, not a priest or a perfect guy. I bet everyone on these boards woulds not do as SUperman does.

Since we can't prove that bet of yours, I guess we'll have to jump into the next point...

Even at the bottom of your post you say it's wrong, yet you defend it as a mistake or he's not perfect, which is it?

He's not perfect therefore he makes mistakes or 'wrong' things. That is it.

Is it in character or not? It's not about general perfection or mistakes, it's about a specific mistake which you seem to take umbrage with at the bottom of the post.

A specific mistake like killing Zod, to manipulate a human mind without permission and quit his mission for personal reasons. Is that in character or not? Singer's Superman is in character according to Donner/Lester movies.

FOr me it's too out of charcter, the specific mistake. THat specific mistake does not fit.

As should be all of those mistakes I named for you too.

Defensible as in 'explainable in a context which is both believable and plausible.'

I defend it in the context of STM and SII movies. See above.

You attack them in the wrong context of the comics which this movie is not directly based on.

I've seen them both tons of times and SUperman never hurts Lois in order to avoid pain himself.

Yes he does. At least partially. The right thing to do would be ask Lois whether she prefers to forget their romance forever or not. He doesn't ask, he just assume for her. EVEN if he thinks it's all for her, he's morally wrong manipulating minds without permission.

Before you start in with the 'amnesia' kiss thing, we've had that argument before. We differ in how we view SUperman's motivation for the 'amnesia' kiss, so that colors how we view his motivations.

Before I make a valid point, we've had that argument before?

Then it's okay if I say "before you repeat once again that Superman's action is out of character in SR, we've had this argument before"?

But there are some things he will never do. His actions in SR with Lois fall into that category.

As killing Zod, quitting his mission for personal reasons and manipulating minds as he wish.

The biggest problem is that there is not a plausible or believable explanation for 'why' Superman does what he does. It is presented as if we just just 'get it' when clearly it's a radical departure from character.

There is the possibility if given a plausible or believable explanation that SR would have been better received by some of the 'haters.'

I agree on that already. Looks like you didn't read.

And if SInger was hell bent on giving Superman a child then that's the way to go. I don't think it was all about exploring SUperman as a father, but finding a way to connect to the Donnerverse and the child angle is about the only way to push the end of Superman II forward thematically.

Exploring Superman as a father and finding a way to connect to the Donnerverse are not contradictory. On the contrary, it's the perfect way to make both things.

But I think SInger was more interested in keeping Superman isolated, keeping him separate from Lois, child, etc.. than letting him come back to a situation that he could return to happily and suddenly be husband/ father.

You think Singer thought.

Again, as with your 'bets' I can rely on that information. Just to say that if you enjoy more than you assume you could like more things.

The same, Donner and Lester didn't allow Superman to become 'happily and suddenly' a husband/father. Once again, with one you have problems, with the other you don't.

B/c if Lois knew SUperman was leaving, she wouldn't have been in RIchard's bed so soon, and even if she did eventually hook up with RIchard, she would have known it was Superman's son.

????

Superman saying Good-bye or not, if Lois was angry at him for going away and maybe never coming back, she still could have went into bed with Richard out of spite, or as a way to forget about Superman since she'd know Supes will take years and years, or maybe forever, before coming back. Lois could have been in bed with Richard as soon as she did in SR. No reason to suppoose the opposite IF she was angry at him for leaving her. Sure, it's more polite to say good-bye but hell, he's leaving her all the same.

WHen he comes back it's a completely different situation, even if the rest of the world had moved on, hopefully Lois would not have been an ice queen/ heartless etc.. and still had the hate on for him.

And why it should be any different? Superman leaves her all the same. She's left in there, all alone, maybe forever or for 20 years. She could have easily thought it was better to move on as soon as possible.

But that situation doesn't fit into the type of story Singer likes to tell.

You think Singer thinks?

But it sure does. Superman knows he's not human, he knows from SII that's impossible for him to be with Lois, Lois would have a kid with another man so, even if Lois would be like "I'm sorry, I'm with Richard now" he'd feel alone - as he should have felt at the end of Superman II, but Lester prefered to barefacedly avoid that part of the story so families and kids wouldn't complain. So Singer would have his story anyways.

It's too norman and too happy and too traditional.

The same way if you have Gertrude not to marry Claudius too soon, we don't have Hamlet. Lack of complex conflict, lack of interest.

We can also critizese Lester for not letting Lois and Supes to be together at the end. Too sad. *shakes fist*

I don't know troubles you more, when people disagree with you or when they agree with you.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I still think this thread title is messed up.

It should be "Why don't SOME Superman fans like Superman Returns?"

Because there are a lot of Superman fans who do like it. Some of us just except it's flawed however. People just can't find a good balance I suppose.

 

[buggs0268]

The division is split on those who liek the movie and those who hate it. So "some" does not apply.

 

[mego joe]

Since we can't prove that bet of yours, I guess we'll have to jump into the next point...

Reasonable.

He's not perfect therefore he makes mistakes or 'wrong' things. That is it.

SO any mistake is acceptable for Superman to make in your estimation? There are no mistakes that would be out of character?

A specific mistake like killing Zod, to manipulate a human mind without permission and quit his mission for personal reasons. Is that in character or not? Singer's Superman is in character according to Donner/Lester movies.

We've discussed this before, but we really don't view the events of Superman II in the same way, so we're not really getting anywhere going that direction.

But, was it a mistake to make Lois forget? Is that your opinion or the way it is portrayed in the movie?

I believe that while it is a stupid and bad resolution, within the movie it is not supposed to be a mistake where as in SR his mistakes are supposed to be mistakes.

Also, I think Zod's fate is left unresolved as portrayed in the final cut of the film. But we've had this argument before.

As should be all of those mistakes I named for you too.

I don't think those are truly mistakes as portrayed in the movie. Even giving up his powers for Lois. It only becomes evident that he made a mistake after he finds that the phantom Zone villains are loose. He had no reason to think that could ever happen. However, in SR, it was a mistake to bail on Lois w/o saying goodbye and he knew it before he did it.

I defend it in the context of STM and SII movies. See above.

Well, we just disagree with his portrayal in STM and SII as well as SR. I don't see those events as equivalents.

You attack them in the wrong context of the comics which this movie is not directly based on.

And I also think they don't line up with STM or SII, a discussion we've already had. But it's a damn shame he didn't reference the comics as the source instead of the earlier films.

Yes he does. At least partially. The right thing to do would be ask Lois whether she prefers to forget their romance forever or not. He doesn't ask, he just assume for her. EVEN if he thinks it's all for her, he's morally wrong manipulating minds without permission.

MOrally wrong perhaps, but acting in her best interest, which is certainly not the case in SR. In SR it is all about his feeling and inability to do the difficult thing.

Before I make a valid point, we've had that argument before?

Yep, at least I think it was you.

Then it's okay if I say "before you repeat once again that Superman's action is out of character in SR, we've had this argument before"?

But of course!!

As killing Zod, quitting his mission for personal reasons and manipulating minds as he wish.

It's all about motivation. In SR he is motivated by selfish reasons.

1. No proof Zod was killed. DEleted scenes on SII:TRDC show otherwise.
2. Quitting his mission is his perogative, freewill, ya! Only after discovering the Phantom Zoners does it become apparent that it was a mistake. LEaving Lois high and dry is a mistake and wrong whether Lois was pregnant or not.
3. Motivation- he did it to help her and relieve her pain. NOt saying goodbye is all about relieving his pain, he actually hurt her more by not saying goodbye.

I agree on that already. Looks like you didn't read.

OH, I know, I was just expanding on the idea.

Exploring Superman as a father and finding a way to connect to the Donnerverse are not contradictory. On the contrary, it's the perfect way to make both things.

I meant from a narrative angle. But Superman's character is not going to be revealed as a father. He already acts as a surrogate father to everyone, protecting them, caring for them, sacrificing for them, it's just redundant and all done at the expense of Superman's moral and ethical character.

BUt connecting the film to the Donnerverse was perhaps the seed of the problem with SUperman Returns in the first place.

You think Singer thought.

Of course, I don't think he's an idiot, I just think he doesn't know diddly about Superman or what makes a good Superman story.

Again, as with your 'bets' I can rely on that information. Just to say that if you enjoy more than you assume you could like more things.

The movie requires the viewer to invent story elements to make sense of motivation. There isn't a way around SUperman's mistakes for me to fit in with what I believe to be true about the character. From what's given it's either bad or worse, there is no 'good.' There's no way to go, 'Oh, If I look at it that way I can enjoy it.' There just isn't a way for me using the morality presented in the film.

The same, Donner and Lester didn't allow Superman to become 'happily and suddenly' a husband/father. Once again, with one you have problems, with the other you don't.

All about motivation, as I've said before, SII doesn't give us a selfish Superman who will hurt Lois as opposed to helping her, SR has Superman hurt Lois instead of bearing the pain. We don't see SII in the same light so it is different. HEnce, with one I have problems, with the other I don't.

????

Extending the events if Superman had said goodbye.

Superman saying Good-bye or not, if Lois was angry at him for going away and maybe never coming back, she still could have went into bed with Richard out of spite, or as a way to forget about Superman since she'd know Supes will take years and years, or maybe forever, before coming back. Lois could have been in bed with Richard as soon as she did in SR. No reason to suppoose the opposite IF she was angry at him for leaving her. Sure, it's more polite to say good-bye but hell, he's leaving her all the same.

But that's on Lois being a heartless ***** and selfish ice queen. Superman can't be responsible for her feelings. If she did do that then she really didn't love him. Love is about the other person, not your own selfish needs.

And why it should be any different? Superman leaves her all the same. She's left in there, all alone, maybe forever or for 20 years. She could have easily thought it was better to move on as soon as possible.

Then that is Lois's problem. SHe wouldn't do that if she REALLY loved him. SHe's just focussing on herself and not thinking of him and a real love for him, it's just about her. I don't think Lois is supposed to be like that, but from SR it certainly seems like she is.

You think Singer thinks?

Yep.

But it sure does. Superman knows he's not human, he knows from SII that's impossible for him to be with Lois,

Why? SII continuity does not exist in the SR universe. Why would he know it's impossible for him to be with Lois. IF that was so, why would he come back looking for love and to woo her away from Richard?

Lois would have a kid with another man so, even if Lois would be like "I'm sorry, I'm with Richard now" he'd feel alone - as he should have felt at the end of Superman II, but Lester prefered to barefacedly avoid that part of the story so families and kids wouldn't complain. So Singer would have his story anyways.

He did feel alone at the end of SII, his happiness came from knowing that the amnesia kiss aleviated Lois's pain and had nothing to do with his own feelings of loss.

SInger could have made any movie about SUperman he wanted. Unfortunately, all he knows and identifies with is STM and SII. HE wanted to write himself into that history. It did not work, it was a huge burden to overcome and it backfired. He was not hampered by anything but his own lack of creativity and vision for the character.

The same way if you have Gertrude not to marry Claudius too soon, we don't have Hamlet. Lack of complex conflict, lack of interest.

SUperman's not supposed to be a tragic hero, sorry.

We can also critizese Lester for not letting Lois and Supes to be together at the end. Too sad. *shakes fist*

By all means go ahead, but I'm not criticizing anyone for not allowing them to be together, I'm criticizing the details of SR and portraying Superman out of character and making Superman's motivation and mistakes as their reason for not being together. IN SII, they aren't together b/c of the stupid mandate from Jor-El.

I don't know troubles you more, when people disagree with you or when they agree with you.

Hey, I'm just having fun discussing a character I care a great deal about and enjoy.

 

[Lighthouse]

That I agree with. Not the first time - nor the second time - I say this.

There was absolutely no need for Superman not saying good-bye to Lois in order to make the action go. Superman should have told Lois he HAD to go to Krypton because his soul needed to know if there were survivors or any information about his roots there. Lois, of course can't agree with Superman reasons because she doesn't know if he will be back and she also knows that if he can come back, it will be in 5 years or more. Last night before the trip, they sleep together from where we have Jason's conception. Ta dah. Nice, simple and Superman doesn't go without saying a word. It's still going away after having sex with Lois, but I think many men, Superman included, would be able to explain those reasons before going away.

That would have actually worked for me. Much more convincing scenario.

 

[El Payaso]

Reasonable.

Of course. I wasn't going to buy your weak bet as an argument.

SO any mistake is acceptable for Superman to make in your estimation? There are no mistakes that would be out of character?

No. But after watch Superman manipulating minds and killing his enemies, leaving Earth doesn't seem too out of character.

We've discussed this before, but we really don't view the events of Superman II in the same way, so we're not really getting anywhere going that direction.

Mind manipulation and the killing are not a matter of agreement or interpretation. They're right there in the movies.

Your inability of accepting those facts is what is leading us nowhere.

But, was it a mistake to make Lois forget? Is that your opinion or the way it is portrayed in the movie?

Yes. She has the right to preserve her memories. Memories defines us and some bad memories makes us stronger people. Lois could have learnt how to forget Superman and move on. Thanks to Superman, at the end of SII Lois is still in love with him, not knowing he's Clark and not knowing it's impossible for them to be together. Therefore she's unable to move on and find another man. Not because she wants that way, but because her mind has been manipulated so she can't learn from her experience.

The fact Lester doesn't adress those issues doesn't make them unexistant.

I believe that while it is a stupid and bad resolution, within the movie it is not supposed to be a mistake where as in SR his mistakes are supposed to be mistakes.

You just said it. It's not supposed to be a mistake in SII. And yet it is. It's mind manipulation even if the director conveniently (or negligently) decided not to assume the consequences of the characters' actions.

Singer is far better than that, assuming that the characters' actions have consequences and that things are not happy because it is "supposed" to be happy. Superman won't feel the happy hero just because he is "supposed" (as in a prefabricated concept whose one-dimentionality limits to immutability) to be.

Also, I think Zod's fate is left unresolved as portrayed in the final cut of the film. But we've had this argument before.

It is totally resolved. They fall into a precipice and they're not seen again. Not even mentioned again. They died. That's why even when there was a scene with the villiains being brought to jail, they decided to not include it, changing the core meaning of the villains' ending.

I don't think those are truly mistakes as portrayed in the movie. Even giving up his powers for Lois. It only becomes evident that he made a mistake after he finds that the phantom Zone villains are loose. He had no reason to think that could ever happen. However, in SR, it was a mistake to bail on Lois w/o saying goodbye and he knew it before he did it.

Far beyond finding out about od and co., Superman knew there were menaces to humanity like Luthor or common criminals (he faced them in STM so he knew they existed), so he knew that if he quit his mission, he put humanity in jeopardy. Even more, Luthor escaped from jail. even if Zod and co never arrived to earth, Luthor was free while Superman was minding his own romance alone.

And I already admitted that the non good-bye was a mistake of the movie, but your constant persistency in not addressing my admission shows what a flamer you can be in order to keep me as someone who is unable to admit things; what is actually what you are.

Well, we just disagree with his portrayal in STM and SII as well as SR. I don't see those events as equivalents.

In fact the killing in SII is worse than what hapens in SR so I agree about the not equivalence.

MOrally wrong perhaps, but acting in her best interest, which is certainly not the case in SR. In SR it is all about his feeling and inability to do the difficult thing.

In SII too. Given Superman leaves Lois just unable to decide about her memories and her decision to move on and find another man, I can conclude based on the movie's facts that Supewrman was more worried about HIS OWN problems with Lois; that is, to be forced to face consequences of HIS OWN actions. He's more worried about feeling guilty day after day because of having put Lois in such a situation. His inability to handle the situation is what led him to delete Lois' memories. Once again, something already done before SR.

 

[El Payaso]

Yep, at least I think it was you.


But of course!!

Then don't repeat it. But if you do, your posting frequency would fall down next to zero.

It's all about motivation. In SR he is motivated by selfish reasons.

In STM he reverses time not in order to save people, just Lois.

In SII, he quits his mission, not because he thinks people are safe without Superman, but because of his own interest in Lois.

Selfish reasons all over all the movies.

1. No proof Zod was killed. DEleted scenes on SII:TRDC show otherwise.

SII:TRDC only proves they decided to CHANGE the ending for the official release.

2. Quitting his mission is his perogative, freewill, ya! Only after discovering the Phantom Zoners does it become apparent that it was a mistake. LEaving Lois high and dry is a mistake and wrong whether Lois was pregnant or not.

Any criminal activity, including Lex Luthor - previous to Zod and co arrival - is also something that shows us that Superman left humanity alone and that people will die because he was too busy getting into bed with Lois.

Zod was just the most spectacular piece of news.

3. Motivation- he did it to help her and relieve her pain. NOt saying goodbye is all about relieving his pain, he actually hurt her more by not saying goodbye.

Same motivation: Superman is unable to handle his own feeling of guilt so he decides:

not saying good-bye

deleting Lois' memory so he don't have to assume what he did to her (make her believe they were going to be together when it's impossible since he had to protect the whole humanity).

Same motivation.

OH, I know, I was just expanding on the idea.

In fact it was the same idea in more words. That's insisting, not expanding.

I meant from a narrative angle. But Superman's character is not going to be revealed as a father.

Another bet of yours - this time a 'looking into the future' bet - I'll have to laugh at and ignore.

He already acts as a surrogate father to everyone, protecting them, caring for them, sacrificing for them, it's just redundant and all done at the expense of Superman's moral and ethical character.

At least it led somewhere else than just a last minute deus ex machina as in STM and SII where he commited some moral and ethical mistakes too.

BUt connecting the film to the Donnerverse was perhaps the seed of the problem with SUperman Returns in the first place.

Just admit you didn't like any movie so we can finish this off.

Of course, I don't think he's an idiot, I just think he doesn't know diddly about Superman or what makes a good Superman story.

Exactly what I'm starting to think about you. So thinking that makes our thought right, wrong or irrelevant? I vote irrelevant.

The movie requires the viewer to invent story elements to make sense of motivation. There isn't a way around SUperman's mistakes for me to fit in with what I believe to be true about the character. From what's given it's either bad or worse, there is no 'good.' There's no way to go, 'Oh, If I look at it that way I can enjoy it.' There just isn't a way for me using the morality presented in the film.

Yes, there's your inability to see it in SR and your ability to see it - making up any excuse for it - in STM and SII even when there are the same problems.

All about motivation, as I've said before, SII doesn't give us a selfish Superman who will hurt Lois as opposed to helping her, SR has Superman hurt Lois instead of bearing the pain. We don't see SII in the same light so it is different. HEnce, with one I have problems, with the other I don't.

In SII he hurts Lois making her believe they'll be together when he was aware that the world needed Superman and he would probably be forced to become Superman again, and then again he hurt Lois by deleting her memory without even telling her.

Extending the events if Superman had said goodbye.



But that's on Lois being a heartless ***** and selfish ice queen. Superman can't be responsible for her feelings. If she did do that then she really didn't love him. Love is about the other person, not your own selfish needs.

And she doesn't really love him. Otherwise, he's love the man and not the suit and the man is around her every day but she doesn't notice because she's in love with the suit and the muscles and the super-powers.

When she firstly felt she was in love she barely knew Superman, she was just stunned by the fact he could fly.

That said, in real life people in love do things like that oput of spite. Then they might regret it, but they do it.

Then that is Lois's problem. SHe wouldn't do that if she REALLY loved him. SHe's just focussing on herself and not thinking of him and a real love for him, it's just about her. I don't think Lois is supposed to be like that, but from SR it certainly seems like she is.

What part of SR?

Yep.

Then I can laugh at it and not considering it. Again.

Why? SII continuity does not exist in the SR universe. Why would he know it's impossible for him to be with Lois. IF that was so, why would he come back looking for love and to woo her away from Richard?

Wrong once again. SII continuity is partially considered in SR since SR it's a vague sequel to both STM and SII.

He did feel alone at the end of SII, his happiness came from knowing that the amnesia kiss aleviated Lois's pain and had nothing to do with his own feelings of loss.

Lots to do with his own issues. But if you don't ignore that fact it won't support your points, so what can you do but ignore it?

SInger could have made any movie about SUperman he wanted. Unfortunately, all he knows and identifies with is STM and SII. HE wanted to write himself into that history. It did not work, it was a huge burden to overcome and it backfired. He was not hampered by anything but his own lack of creativity and vision for the character.

Oh haha. Your bets and thought about what other people think again. You can supposrt every point in mere assuming. Or pretending you have telepathy powers.

SUperman's not supposed to be a tragic hero, sorry.

In part he is. your inability to envision it doesn't change the repercussions of the myth.

 

[El Payaso]

By all means go ahead, but I'm not criticizing anyone for not allowing them to be together, I'm criticizing the details of SR and portraying Superman out of character and making Superman's motivation and mistakes as their reason for not being together. IN SII, they aren't together b/c of the stupid mandate from Jor-El.

The fact is that they don't end tohgether. According to you that shouldn't be because Superman is all happiness.

Hey, I'm just having fun discussing a character I care a great deal about and enjoy.

Your inability to enjoy is making me doubt about it. Or better said, your whimsical way to choose what to ignore in order to enjoy one thing and what to overact in order to hate the other, being both equally flawed.

 

[El Payaso]

That would have actually worked for me. Much more convincing scenario.

Thanks. I know. Much better.

 

[Qwerty©]

SUperman's not supposed to be a tragic hero, sorry.

His home planet blew up?

 

[X-Maniac]

That I agree with. Not the first time - nor the second time - I say this.

There was absolutely no need for Superman not saying good-bye to Lois in order to make the action go. Superman should have told Lois he HAD to go to Krypton because his soul needed to know if there were survivors or any information about his roots there. Lois, of course can't agree with Superman reasons because she doesn't know if he will be back and she also knows that if he can come back, it will be in 5 years or more. Last night before the trip, they sleep together from where we have Jason's conception. Ta dah. Nice, simple and Superman doesn't go without saying a word. It's still going away after having sex with Lois, but I think many men, Superman included, would be able to explain those reasons before going away.

So why enjoy the movie - and defend it so much - if you acknowledge this fundamental flaw in its storytelling? Can you not see that such a flaw stops many from being able to enjoy it?

 

[afan]

His home planet blew up?

The explosion of Krypton does not make him a tragic hero.

Research the term.

 

[afan]

It is a possibility that Superman didnt know he whether he could reproduce with a human or not though.

Been thinking on this and my response is; no any doubt would be impossible.

SR' primer is STM.
In STM Supreman twice recieves an exacting and all inclusive education from Jor-el; in the space ship, and in the FOS. We know the knowledge given includes a complete discourse on human anatomy, any suggestion that the reproductive system was not included in those lessons would be argumentatively ludicrous. Surely the compatability of Human and Kryptonian, must have been revealed.

So that being said, Superman was not ignorant, either........
Superman knew he could impregnate a human, or he knew he could not, based on the knowledge he recieved from Jor-el.

Clearly and undeniably the reproductive capability of Human and Kryptonian in SR is fact.

If Superman's understanding is, he could not impregnate a human, it could only be due to misleading and incorrect knowledge from Jor-el. Which seems highly unlikely, and to me unsupportable in any discussion.
Hence my conclusion is that he knew that he could impregnate a human.

 

[El Payaso]

So why enjoy the movie - and defend it so much - if you acknowledge this fundamental flaw in its storytelling? Can you not see that such a flaw stops many from being able to enjoy it?

As much as I would love to embrace the bitter hater ideology, that mistake in the movie doesn't ruin big deal for me.

I can't take a "why the hell do you enjoy the movie, hate and join us into the dark side" invitation too seriously, since it's an invitation to stop enjoying and start the whining for technical reasons that don't overshadow the goodies of the movie. If anything, Superman in SII was unable to live with Lois knowing he was Clark and had her heart broken because of him and all the same he prefered not to live with that because he seemed to be unable to handle it, so I can bend it a little and accept he just didn't say good-bye for the same inability to handle certain heart-breaking-for-his-cause situations as he did before, even when I would have done it differently. If the director did differently from me is not a reason to hate the movie, in my case.

If it ruins the movie for you, that's, well.... I guess it's too bad.

 

[X-Maniac]

As much as I would love to embrace the bitter hater ideology, that mistake in the movie doesn't ruin big deal for me.

I can't take a "why the hell do you enjoy the movie, hate and join us into the dark side" invitation too seriously, since it's an invitation to stop enjoying and start the whining for technical reasons that don't overshadow the goodies of the movie. If anything, Superman in SII was unable to live with Lois knowing he was Clark and had her heart broken because of him and all the same he prefered not to live with that because he seemed to be unable to handle it, so I can bend it a little and accept he just didn't say good-bye for the same inability to handle certain heart-breaking-for-his-cause situations as he did before, even when I would have done it differently. If the director did differently from me is not a reason to hate the movie, in my case.

If it ruins the movie for you, that's, well.... I guess it's too bad.

You misunderstand.

1) I'm not a bitter hater
2) It was not an invitation to join the dark side
3) this flaw doesn't ruin the movie for me (but I do find the vision/story presented to be very flawed, it's like a bizarre 'what if...' elseworld tale)

When I first saw the movie, I was bitterly disappointed, having expected something that was more of a blockbuster and less sombre. I got the Superman box set sent to me for free, and SR holds up a lot better when watched at home. The production values are wonderful...but I believe several wrong decisions and wrong directions were taken with it. It surprised me because I didn't expect these flaws from Bryan Singer, especially considering the time it took to make, the money that was spent on it and the creative freedom given to the director. It confirmed to me that Bryan should never have left X-Men, and that Fox should never have let him go.

The problem with a sequel is the question of will it suddenly be the amazing success that the first one wasn't in box office/performance terms. The story in the first movie did put itself in a corner a little - Lois has Richard and a kid, Luthor is alive and at large on a desert island and without the crystals. It's going to take some clever writing to put some fizz into the sequel while dealing with Lois, Richard, Jason and Lex's story arcs.

Lex tried to kill billions with a new continent, and the EM pulse from his test run with the crystal caused the jet incident that nearly caused a terrible disaster. How does he suddenly become respectable corporate Lex? He is a fugitive and he has no crystals. And he still knows where the FoS is - what is Superman going to do about that? And what of Richard - is he going to get shoved aside, killed off horribly or turned into a villain just to move the story forward? What of Jason - does he die, get depowered, or do his powers grow? The movie now has all this as baggage to take into the next movie and anything that happens to Lex, Richard, Jason or Lois is going to look like a plot convenience. If this were down to logic, a decent Superman would leave Lois and Richard and Jason alone to get on with their lives and perhaps find a new soulmate - but the demands of a movie sequel mean it can't be that way. The characters have to be included, and in order to be meaningful, they have to be in conflict and drama, which means things will happen to them just for the sake of things happening to them.

It makes the first movie look all the more flawed. Visually wonderful to watch, great production values....but it just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Too many flaws and vague histories and characters that are now going to be 'stumbling blocks' and plot conveniences.

 

[mego joe]

The fact is that they don't end tohgether. According to you that shouldn't be because Superman is all happiness.



Your inability to enjoy is making me doubt about it. Or better said, your whimsical way to choose what to ignore in order to enjoy one thing and what to overact in order to hate the other, being both equally flawed.

I think it is obvious that we view not only SR differently but S:TM and SII as well, to such a point that they are diametrically opposed and therefore it makes everything that follows from it viewed differetnly as well.

Unfortunately, for me, the 'flaws' in SR are so glaring in my understnanding of the character that they make it impossible to enjoy the movie, I felt like I was watching a train wreck. I still feel that way.

I'm sure we're done with this, but I do enjoy discussin the character and different viewpoints, whether we agree or not.

BTW, not a flamer, unless you are too.

 

[El Payaso]

You misunderstand.

1) I'm not a bitter hater
2) It was not an invitation to join the dark side

Obvipoulsy both my honesty-meter and your sarcasm-meter aren't working fine.

3) this flaw doesn't ruin the movie for me (but I do find the vision/story presented to be very flawed, it's like a bizarre 'what if...' elseworld tale)

Most superhero adaptations are like that. Things happening differently, etc. They went for a personal story instead another CGI supervillian punches the hero and vice versa average movie; they had to have Superman doing weird stuff; as they did in SII (Superman quitting his mission, revealing his identity etc).

When I first saw the movie, I was bitterly disappointed, having expected something that was more of a blockbuster and less sombre.

For me it was the exact opposite. No more cliché lines, chessy one-liners and predictable stories for a while. Some serious story with a serious look at the hero for once. Superman is from another planet and yet he never ever feels like a stranger? Can't buy it; let's see when he feels when he's alone, not saving planes with his fists on his hips. Doesn't mean he can't handle it or he's going to the shrink.

The problem with a sequel is the question of will it suddenly be the amazing success that the first one wasn't in box office/performance terms. The story in the first movie did put itself in a corner a little - Lois has Richard and a kid, Luthor is alive and at large on a desert island and without the crystals. It's going to take some clever writing to put some fizz into the sequel while dealing with Lois, Richard, Jason and Lex's story arcs.

Lex tried to kill billions with a new continent, and the EM pulse from his test run with the crystal caused the jet incident that nearly caused a terrible disaster. How does he suddenly become respectable corporate Lex? He is a fugitive and he has no crystals. And he still knows where the FoS is - what is Superman going to do about that? And what of Richard - is he going to get shoved aside, killed off horribly or turned into a villain just to move the story forward? What of Jason - does he die, get depowered, or do his powers grow? The movie now has all this as baggage to take into the next movie and anything that happens to Lex, Richard, Jason or Lois is going to look like a plot convenience. If this were down to logic, a decent Superman would leave Lois and Richard and Jason alone to get on with their lives and perhaps find a new soulmate - but the demands of a movie sequel mean it can't be that way. The characters have to be included, and in order to be meaningful, they have to be in conflict and drama, which means things will happen to them just for the sake of things happening to them.

It makes the first movie look all the more flawed. Visually wonderful to watch, great production values....but it just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Too many flaws and vague histories and characters that are now going to be 'stumbling blocks' and plot conveniences.

Opposite to you, the fact that I have no clue where things are "supposed" to go to makes me feel more eager to see what's next. But the histories that started in SR are not vague at all.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Obvipoulsy both my honesty-meter and your sarcasm-meter aren't working fine.
.

lolt:

 

[X-Maniac]

Obvipoulsy both my honesty-meter and your sarcasm-meter aren't working fine.

Sarcasm and irony often lose their meaning in the anonymous communications of cyberspace. But your computer spellchecker isn't doing too well either.

 

[El Payaso]

Sarcasm and irony often lose their meaning in the anonymous communications of cyberspace.

Anonymous? I'm El Payaso and not other.

But your computer spellchecker isn't doing too well either.

Spelling is for losers.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Anonymous? I'm El Payaso and not other.



Spelling is for losers.

you mean losres?

 

[El Payaso]

you mean losres?

Eaxctly!