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

[Jack O Lantern]

That's news to me.

If you're referring to your post.......



I actually couldn't make much sense out of it.

Exactly what argument did you "debunk"?

Well i see that you are acknowledgeing that I debunked your argument about him not saving Lois or are you simply ignoring that?

Are you arguing that it was Superman's powers that defeated Zod, Ursa and Non, and not his intelligence and cunning.

It's quite simple actually. When Superman's powers are taking away from him, the fortress and all it's power is destroyed. That tells us that the Fortress and Superman are linked; they share the same power. Therefore if he didn't have his power; the Fortress wouldn't have it's power, and he would be unable to use his intelligence and cunning.

Of course without his powers one would question how he would travel from Metropolis to the Fortress, even if it still existed. Not to mention his plan centered around his powers; if he has no powers, how does he trick them into believing that there is a machine that would take away his powers; which he doesn't have?

But the most pressing question is; if he has no powers what's stopping Zod from ripping him apart with no effort when he tries to resist?

 

[Wushuboy]

Well i see that you are acknowledgeing that I debunked your argument about him not saving Lois or are you simply ignoring that?



It's quite simple actually. When Superman's powers are taking away from him, the fortress and all it's power is destroyed. That tells us that the Fortress and Superman are linked; they share the same power. Therefore if he didn't have his power; the Fortress wouldn't have it's power, and he would be unable to use his intelligence and cunning.

Of course without his powers one would question how he would travel from Metropolis to the Fortress, even if it still existed. Not to mention his plan centered around his powers; if he has no powers, how does he trick them into believing that there is a machine that would take away his powers; which he doesn't have?

But the most pressing question is; if he has no powers what's stopping Zod from ripping him apart with no effort when he tries to resist?

This makes no sense at all. I think you are reading too much into when the fortress overloads itself when it takes his powers away. It's merely a visual representation of him losing his kryptonian self when the chamber takes away all his powers. Think about it. Superman doesnt get his powers magically from the fortress. There is no connection between him and the fortress. The fortress is merely a construct of the green crystal. Superman has his powers because he's kryptonian. That's all. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with teh fortress. Zod and Superman have the SAME powers because they're both kryptonian.

You make it sound like superman's intelligence is proportional to his superpowers. And that just does not make sense.

How would he get to the fortress? The same way he went back to the fortress after he got beat up at the diner. If Lex can do it so can Clark. Lex rode a friggin balloon to the fortress.

If he has no powers im sure he could find some kryptonite just like lex did.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

This makes no sense at all. I think you are reading too much into when the fortress overloads itself when it takes his powers away. It's merely a visual representation of him losing his kryptonian self when the chamber takes away all his powers. Think about it. Superman doesnt get his powers magically from the fortress. There is no connection between him and the fortress. The fortress is merely a construct of the green crystal. Superman has his powers because he's kryptonian. That's all. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with teh fortress. Zod and Superman have the SAME powers because they're both kryptonian.

Where did I say that Superman got his powers from the fortress? I said they were linked and they are; other wise why whould it be in ruins when he has no powers and then restored when he has his power? There's a connection there.

You make it sound like superman's intelligence is proportional to his superpowers. And that just does not make sense.

Where did i say that?

How would he get to the fortress? The same way he went back to the fortress after he got beat up at the diner. If Lex can do it so can Clark. Lex rode a friggin balloon to the fortress.

Yeah but Lex doesn't get beat up by a fat trucker. Where is Calrk going to get a ballon from? Notice how I said from Metropolis to the Fortress. The diner is not in Metropolis.

If he has no powers im sure he could find some kryptonite just like lex did.

I could find some Kryptonite; the President of the United states could have done that. Anyone could do that.

 

[Wushuboy]

how is zod's power any different from superman's? They are both kryptonian and they have the same exact power. If Superman has a connection to the fortress then so should Zod. There is no physiological difference between the two beings.

You want to know why the fortress of solitude is restored when he has his powers? More than likely it's oneof the many plotholes and oversights by the director and writers. There is no connection there. I mean what if superman lost his powers else where? Do you think the fortress would explode at the same time because it somehow senses he lost his powers? Doubt it. It'd just be there like it always is.

What does Lex getting beat up by a trucker have anything to do with anything? He escaped prison and floated straight there! If anything that's a testament to Clark's will to walk/hike back to the fortress. If he could do it beaten up, he can do it healthy too. Do you know how easy it is to rent a balloon. Clark's not exactly poor either. And where the hell do you think ms teshmacher got the balloon? The diner may not be in metropolis but it's in a populated area which means there is some transportation to that place and outside people can get to it which means he can take a plane to a city near by and make his way there. Besides.. how do you think they got from the fortress to the diner in the first place??? If they can get from the fortress to the diner, he can definately get back.

And dont' you think him finding a piece of kryptonite would be the first logical step for him to do to battle superpowered kyrptonians if he's not affected by it? He's done it in the c omics too. Sometimes the most pressing questions have the easiest answers.

 

[El Payaso]

Just to remind.......with all his powers he was not able to stop the missle,

Just to remind... he was able to stop the missile to New Jesrey, and in fact if he was aware, he could have stopped both missiles since he was able to surround Earth many times per second in order to reverse time. It’s just that he didn’t know he could until Lois died.

and prevent Lois' death,

And talking about Lois’ death, it wasn’t his super-powers what didn’t prevent her death, but his choice to save the most people. What his super-powers did do was... bring Lois back to life before it happened, which is technically the same as prevent Lois’ death.

Not to mention that Clark’s guile couldn’t have saved those people.

and he failed to stop the alien beings with his powers. He defeated them through guile, an ability he would also possess as Clark Kent.

I see you conveniently ignore that if he wasn’t super-powered, he wouldn’t have been able to use his guile against Zod. Zod and co would have crushed Kent’s head – with all his guile inside of it – in 0.2 seconds.

Apparently, you cannot connect all the facts together and there lie your flaws.

But I’ll prove my point further those flaws. SII not only depicts Clark as totally unable to fight one single human guy (and therefore totally useless to fight 3 Kryptonians) but the movie makes clear that’s only being Superman that Clark can fight that single human back. Once he got his powers back, Clark didn’t use much of his guile to fight Rocky back but, yes, his super-powers.

C'mon afan, you know to accept that would totally ruin their argument that SR is portrays the exact same Superman that's in SII.

C’mon afan, you know your flawed argumentation can be adopted by other posters as a valid argument as they lack of a real one.

But mego is right, both Superman are not the same. SR Superman is indeed less selfish that SII Superman.

 

[dasam12]

I agree that some people are reading too much into this.
There is no way that powerless Clark would have tried to take on Zod.
Superman's power is not linked to the Fortress. That is where he goes for guidance and also to escape. If the fortress were destroyed Superman would still have his power.
Superman HAD to use his wit to defeat the trio. There was no way he would have won slugging it out, especially when they had the advantage with Lois' life in their hands.
The fact that he got beat up by the trucker is neither here nor there.
He was human and Rocky kicked him in the back while he was walking out the door to fight like a gentleman.
He understands that he made a mistake by becoming human and the world needs him.
You can't fault his character for wanting love or trying to find Krypton.
If he was one dimensional he would be boring.
The fact that he is not perfect is what leads to his longevity as one of the most popular heroes over the last 50 years.
All the greats have flaws. Spidey, Batman, Hulk, etc.

 

[last_life]

I agree that some people are reading too much into this.
There is no way that powerless Clark would have tried to take on Zod.
Superman's power is not linked to the Fortress. That is where he goes for guidance and also to escape. If the fortress were destroyed Superman would still have his power.
Superman HAD to use his wit to defeat the trio. There was no way he would have won slugging it out, especially when they had the advantage with Lois' life in their hands.
The fact that he got beat up by the trucker is neither here nor there.
He was human and Rocky kicked him in the back while he was walking out the door to fight like a gentleman.
He understands that he made a mistake by becoming human and the world needs him.
You can't fault his character for wanting love or trying to find Krypton.
If he was one dimensional he would be boring.
The fact that he is not perfect is what leads to his longevity as one of the most popular heroes over the last 50 years.
All the greats have flaws. Spidey, Batman, Hulk, etc.

I think its funny you should say that because FLAWS are one of if not the major thing that defines us as humans.

And yet the mistake Superman made was wanting to be human?

Should it not be his humanity in his heart be the actual fuel for his power?

I cannot see anyone rooting for Superman that is not in some form human, then you might as well worship a god while your at it.

Oh wait. t:

 

[El Payaso]

Singer had this whole vague history thing set up. Some things happened.. some things didnt.. no one knows. Everyone here can assume what happened.. but the truth is none of you know and only the writers and Singer know.

What is the big doubt if I may ask.

It gave him the chance to wipe out the flaws of the previous movies.. which include superman giving up on his mission, amnesia kiss, reversing time.. yada yada yada.

The amesia kiss, time-reversing I think are flaws that didn't happen in SR. So consider your wish come true.

Now choosing Lois over his mission or choosing going to Krypton to look for survivors without saying a good-bye are falws of Superman the man, not the movies.

Yet some people like to cite than because superman did it in previous movies it's OK that he makes the same mistakes (in some people's view) in SR.

Yes, it's called consistency. It keeps the same vision of the previous movies. Something very valuable when you're doing a sequel.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Two wrongs keeps the character consistent with himself. And fallible and therefore believable. So yes, 2 wrongs = 1 right in this case. Now if Singer made a last minute solution like Donner/Lester did, that would have been unforgivable.

Now I liked boht S1 and S2 but even I cant gloss over those horrible plot points. But it seems quite popular that people like to say that since previous writers came up with bad plot points that it makes it alright for current writers to make them as well. Why not improve the plot and wipe out past mistakes rather than expanding on the mistakes from the past? I really abhor this line of thinking that it's ok for superman to make the same mistakes in SR because he made similar (in some people's view) mistakes in previous movies.

You don't like characters' consistency and humanity? Your choice.

But keeping Superman as a fallible character is the best they could have done instead of taking dimension and grey areas away from him.

Now Superman keeps doing the same kind of mistakes except the mind manipulation, unnecessary private property damage, time-reversing and amnesia kiss, which are indeed the bad and unnecessary plot points, but somehow you like the movies where he did that and you dislike the movie where he doesn't. And here I am wondering if you don't like consistency.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

how is zod's power any different from superman's? They are both kryptonian and they have the same exact power. If Superman has a connection to the fortress then so should Zod. There is no physiological difference between the two beings.

Well they do have different DNa. But Jor-El sent the crystals with Kal-El

You want to know why the fortress of solitude is restored when he has his powers? More than likely it's oneof the many plotholes and oversights by the director and writers. There is no connection there. I mean what if superman lost his powers else where? Do you think the fortress would explode at the same time because it somehow senses he lost his powers? Doubt it. It'd just be there like it always is.

When he lose's his powers the fortress is destroyed; when he get's them back it is restored. It's not rocket science here.

What does Lex getting beat up by a trucker have anything to do with anything? He escaped prison and floated straight there! If anything that's a testament to Clark's will to walk/hike back to the fortress. If he could do it beaten up, he can do it healthy too. Do you know how easy it is to rent a balloon. Clark's not exactly poor either. And where the hell do you think ms teshmacher got the balloon? The diner may not be in metropolis but it's in a populated area which means there is some transportation to that place and outside people can get to it which means he can take a plane to a city near by and make his way there. Besides.. how do you think they got from the fortress to the diner in the first place??? If they can get from the fortress to the diner, he can definately get back.

I'm not talking about the diner; I'm talking about Metropolis. And my point about Clark getting beat up is this: how can he successfully navigate a ballon [something we do not ven know he has the skill to do btw] brave the conditions etc if he can't even order diner without being beat up?

And dont' you think him finding a piece of kryptonite would be the first logical step for him to do to battle superpowered kyrptonians if he's not affected by it? He's done it in the c omics too. Sometimes the most pressing questions have the easiest answers.

Find it where? How do we know he knows where to look? He through it down the sewer; god knows where it could be.

 

[Wushuboy]

What is the big doubt if I may ask.



The amesia kiss, time-reversing I think are flaws that didn't happen in SR. So consider your wish come true.

Now choosing Lois over his mission or choosing going to Krypton to look for survivors without saying a good-bye are falws of Superman the man, not the movies.



Yes, it's called consistency. It keeps the same vision of the previous movies. Something very valuable when you're doing a sequel.



Two wrongs keeps the character consistent with himself. And fallible and therefore believable. So yes, 2 wrongs = 1 right in this case. Now if Singer made a last minute solution like Donner/Lester did, that would have been unforgivable.



You don't like characters' consistency and humanity? Your choice.

But keeping Superman as a fallible character is the best they could have done instead of taking dimension and grey areas away from him.

Now Superman keeps doing the same kind of mistakes except the mind manipulation, unnecessary private property damage, time-reversing and amnesia kiss, which are indeed the bad and unnecessary plot points, but somehow you like the movies where he did that and you dislike the movie where he doesn't. And here I am wondering if you don't like consistency.

Amnesia kiss didnt happen? So tell me this... in Superman 2, both versions, Lois figures out Superman and clark are the same person. Did this not happen too? This in itself was a major plot point for that movie showing Lois' reporter skills.

And yes I do like those movies up until the points I mentioned. Don't make it so black and white saying that I liked them 100%.

 

[Wushuboy]

Well they do have different DNa. But Jor-El sent the crystals with Kal-El


When he lose's his powers the fortress is destroyed; when he get's them back it is restored. It's not rocket science here.


I'm not talking about the diner; I'm talking about Metropolis. And my point about Clark getting beat up is this: how can he successfully navigate a ballon [something we do not ven know he has the skill to do btw] brave the conditions etc if he can't even order diner without being beat up?


Find it where? How do we know he knows where to look? He through it down the sewer; god knows where it could be.

the crystals dont give him any other special power than what he already has. They're just remnants and data on krypton. It's just like an AI that his father created to guide him.

And you are taking that scene too literally. It's a figurative scene as another person has said.

You dont think he can get from Metropolis to the fotress of solitude or to the diner area? He doesnt have to go on a straight path to the fortress of solitude y ou know. Dont you think he could first travel to the city where the diner is and then make his way from the diner to the fortress of solitude, which he has already done? For example... You cant straight to Iceland from California. You have to go to New York first and then from there you can go to Iceland. It's the same thing. Point A to point B to Point C. Seriously.. how do you think they got from the fortress to the diner in the first place without his powers?


What does him being a wuss without his powers have anything to do with a him navigating a balloon? One is physical.. one is mental know how. He's not physically weak... he just doesnt know how to fight. Braving conditions? He hiked from the diner to the fortress of solitude in only his jacket!

How cant he find kryptonite? Jeez.. sure was easy for Lex.. he found it thru an encyclopedia and in SR he just went to a museum. Superman knows all about kryptonite..AND he's an investigative reporter. You'd think he'd be resourceful enough to be able to find some.

 

[El Payaso]

Amnesia kiss didnt happen? So tell me this... in Superman 2, both versions, Lois figures out Superman and clark are the same person. Did this not happen too? This in itself was a major plot point for that movie showing Lois' reporter skills.

Ah, what I meant is that in SR there were no amnesia kiss-type of things.

I personally think that it happened. Either that or she never found out Supes' identity. Basically the amnesia kiss did undo what was done so in practical terms both things are the same.

And yes I do like those movies up until the points I mentioned. Don't make it so black and white saying that I liked them 100%.

I'm just making clear that you measure SR differently thatn you measure SII.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

the crystals dont give him any other special power than what he already has. They're just remnants and data on krypton. It's just like an AI that his father created to guide him.

And you are taking that scene too literally. It's a figurative scene as another person has said.

No i'm not you're just ignoring facts.

You dont think he can get from Metropolis to the fotress of solitude or to the diner area? He doesnt have to go on a straight path to the fortress of solitude y ou know. Dont you think he could first travel to the city where the diner is and then make his way from the diner to the fortress of solitude, which he has already done? For example... You cant straight to Iceland from California. You have to go to New York first and then from there you can go to Iceland. It's the same thing. Point A to point B to Point C. Seriously.. how do you think they got from the fortress to the diner in the first place without his powers?

No one knows; that's one of the problems of the film.

What does him being a wuss without his powers have anything to do with a him navigating a balloon? One is physical.. one is mental know how. He's not physically weak... he just doesnt know how to fight. Braving conditions? He hiked from the diner to the fortress of solitude in only his jacket!

I never said one affected the other. We don't know if he can navigate or not.

How cant he find kryptonite? Jeez.. sure was easy for Lex.. he found it thru an encyclopedia and in SR he just went to a museum. Superman knows all about kryptonite..AND he's an investigative reporter. You'd think he'd be resourceful enough to be able to find some.

Why would we think? We never see him doing any investiagting reporting and when he is hired his biggest strenght is typing fast. Superman didn't know about Kryponite until Lex showed him.

 

[afan]

We don't know if he can navigate or not.

What we do know is that Clark / Kal-el has been given the total acquired knowledge of Kryptonian society.

To imagine that a person in possession of that wealth of information could not navigate is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

In fact to postulate that anything is beyond the reach and or ability of Clark Kent, given the vast resources of his Kryptonian education, is unsupported speculation.

 

[mego joe]

Just to remind... he was able to stop the missile to New Jesrey, and in fact if he was aware, he could have stopped both missiles since he was able to surround Earth many times per second in order to reverse time. It’s just that he didn’t know he could until Lois died.



And talking about Lois’ death, it wasn’t his super-powers what didn’t prevent her death, but his choice to save the most people. What his super-powers did do was... bring Lois back to life before it happened, which is technically the same as prevent Lois’ death.

Not to mention that Clark’s guile couldn’t have saved those people.



I see you conveniently ignore that if he wasn’t super-powered, he wouldn’t have been able to use his guile against Zod. Zod and co would have crushed Kent’s head – with all his guile inside of it – in 0.2 seconds.

Apparently, you cannot connect all the facts together and there lie your flaws.

But I’ll prove my point further those flaws. SII not only depicts Clark as totally unable to fight one single human guy (and therefore totally useless to fight 3 Kryptonians) but the movie makes clear that’s only being Superman that Clark can fight that single human back. Once he got his powers back, Clark didn’t use much of his guile to fight Rocky back but, yes, his super-powers.




C’mon afan, you know your flawed argumentation can be adopted by other posters as a valid argument as they lack of a real one.

But mego is right, both Superman are not the same. SR Superman is indeed less selfish that SII Superman.

So close, El Payaso and yet so far away. As stated previously to see Superman as 'more selfish' in SII is to misunderstand the character and the film completely. But yes, they are different. SII maintained the spirit and essence of the character, while SR threw that out the window in favor of something Superman is not.

 

[El Payaso]

As stated previously to see Superman as 'more selfish' in SII is to misunderstand the character and the film completely.

And as stated previously, it is not this way.

Now I bothered to include an explanation of why.

Anyone can state.

But yes, they are different. SII maintained the spirit and essence of the character, while SR threw that out the window in favor of something Superman is not.

I didn't know the essence of the character was to be a quitter, a private property destroyer for no reason, a vengeful man that abuses of his super-powers and a mind manipulator.

But in fact I do know it's not.

I also know that putting people from Metropolis over Lois is Superman's essence. The opposite of what he did on SII.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Dont u understand that the point of SII is that Superman finds out it is impossible to have a normal relationship with someone and be Superman? How is this out of character? This is part of the hero quest in any story.

The whole conflict of SR happened because Superman behaved out of character and thats the problem. Its just a conflict that writers cant use for Superman because him acting like that doesn't make him Superman.

SR was supposed to improve the ideas of the past Superman movies and didnt do it. IT FAILED in every aspect.

Singer with this Vague sequel crap created a mess that nobody understands the movie. Nobody knows what he took in consideration,etc etc. You cant just use whatever you want for the movie. Its bad storytelling.

And, finally, to me, The Donner movies aren't the holy grail for Superman storytelling.

That being said, It`s clear to me that you don't understand the character, El Payaso.

 

[Wushuboy]

What private property did he destroy in S2? And I would not call him a vengeful man in any sense of the word. It's not like he went back to the diner and gave him a superpunch or grabbed him by the shirt and threw him out the window in anger. He didnt even touch him. Rocky tried to sucker punch him. He spun his seat around to make him dizzy and pushed him down the counter into the pinball machine. No blood.. no broken bones. He was simply teaching the bully a lesson. A person who terrorizes the people around him with no respect for them at all. But I guess you just let bully's do wahtever they want and would never do anyhing to put them in their place. If Clark had done nothing, this guy would have gone on with his disrespectful ways. Look at the people's reaction in the diner. It's not one of disgust. They're pretty happy someone finally stood up to rocky. If I were there in that diner I would have the same reaction.. I'd be cheering. I would not be thinking "oh.. he's the guy rocky beat up.. he must be here for revenge.. what a vengeful person for standing up to him." As bruce lee put it.. it's the art of fighting without fighting.

Sure you all think him lifting the continent up was a great feat. I'll agree. But what about the ramifications of that? What do you think happens when you remove a large chunk of land from the ocean? Tidal waves? Tsunamis anyone? Yeah.. those wouldnt affect any city on the coast... ahem Metropolis.

 

[SuperDaniel]

^Well said.

 

[mego joe]

And as stated previously, it is not this way.

Now I bothered to include an explanation of why.

Anyone can state.



I didn't know the essence of the character was to be a quitter, a private property destroyer for no reason, a vengeful man that abuses of his super-powers and a mind manipulator.

But in fact I do know it's not.

I also know that putting people from Metropolis over Lois is Superman's essence. The opposite of what he did on SII.

Your very post shows how you are confusing actions with motivation and characterization and the meaning of those actions. YOu don't understand the character or the Donner films if you think that he's portrayed as vengeful, a willful destroyer of private property, a quitter or abuser of his super-powers. The thing is you believe Superman is all those things based on your misunderstanding of SII, but he's not. Neither is he an emotional coward who would back down from anything b/c it's 'too difficult' for him, as in SR.

 

[Wushuboy]

Ah, what I meant is that in SR there were no amnesia kiss-type of things.

I personally think that it happened. Either that or she never found out Supes' identity. Basically the amnesia kiss did undo what was done so in practical terms both things are the same.



I'm just making clear that you measure SR differently thatn you measure SII.

No they are not the same by your very own logic. See you don't even know what happened. Only assuming what you think happened. If he did then he's your mind manipulator.. if he didnt then he's not. But you keep citing it for your own arguement for the justification of the mistakes for SR. And yet you ask what are people's doubts.

And again you are assuming that I measure SR differently than S2. I hold them up both to the same critque. It's just S2 did more right than SR. There are tons of plot points I abhor regarding S2. And really... who are you to tell me how I measure things.

 

[mego joe]

I also know that putting people from Metropolis over Lois is Superman's essence. The opposite of what he did on SII.

Sorry to break up the response to the above post, real life got in the way.

See, you don't get it. The point of S:TM and SII is that despite Jor-El's mandates, SUperman WILL put Lois first b/c he's human. It's simple. It's part of the character. Superman in every incarnation has ALWAYS had an eye out for Lois's well being, otherwise she would be dead by now. And how many times has he saved Jimmy's life? If he wasn't looking out for his friends and co-workers and essentially putting them first, they'd be dead. It's a basic part of the Superman mythos, not that he's selfish, but that he's human. The important aspect is that he's looking our for THEM not himself. In SR, he considers his OWN feelings above those of Lois. That's the incongruence. THat is what's out of character. It's so obvious you don't understand the character or the Donner films it's absurd.

S:TM and SII function as an explanation for the classic SUperman mythos- Why Lois and SUperman can't be together and lead a normal life, Why Superman is ALWAYS saving her and Why neither moves on to anyone else seriously, why they are destined to be together- the films give these themes which could be considered 'simple' in terms of the comics from the fifties and sixties a much deeper meaning and interesting story.

Singer admittedly tried to put Superman through the 'same journey' in as SR as was presented in S:TM (and aspects of SII, I believe) however, he chose details that don't work with the character and essentially changed the reasons for the above mythos. I know that it may not have been his intent to exlplain the classic 'whys' of the mythos, but nonetheless, by using the same 'journey' with details that are out of character for Superman, he's made a mess of it. Sure, we ended up in essentially the same place at the end of SR as we did at the end of SII, but the details of the story are different to the extent that it changes the content of Superman's character- Singer just didn't understand the character or the Donner films well enough to use the right story details, or he purposely tried to change them to alter Superman from who he's always been.

 

[stargazer]

I think he (Singer) understands the Donner film really, really well, and he also gets Superman, IMO. It's just that his vision of Superman is different to yours, I think.

 

[Wushuboy]

No he doesnt..... IMO. He understood some aspects but not enough. Just because someone's vision of a character is different doesnt make it right. That's a copout if I ever heard one. If that were true then everyone would have loved Batman and Robin. I wonder why so many people hated that movie. It's just a different vision right?

 

[Jack O Lantern]

No he doesnt..... IMO. He understood some aspects but not enough. Just because someone's vision of a character is different doesnt make it right. That's a copout if I ever heard one. If that were true then everyone would have loved Batman and Robin. I wonder why so many people hated that movie. It's just a different vision right?

I don't see your point here? People didn't dislike Batman and Robin because it was a different version; they hated it because it was a bad movie. I mean Batman and Robin is an accurate representation of the Batman comics of the 50s and 60s.

And mega joe I have a question; if in the Donner films Superman never put his own feeling above the people he loved; why did he leave his recent widowed mother to deal with her grief on her own?