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

[mego joe]

$4.75? Dang, and here I thought $9.99 was too much for SR.

It's kind of funny b/c I walked past it many times at $5 and then when I saw 'Price Cut- $4.75', I thought- "that's ridiculous, you can't even rent it for that price!"

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

i regards to the leave of absence, the leaving part was not the real problem, it was the WAY Superman left.

There's nothing wrong with leaving to rediscover your heritage or find your birth parents, especially if you think you are the last of your kind.

HOWEVER, if you knew you were going to be gone for 5+ years with no way to be contacted, and if you had any sense of decency/respect, you'd tell your significant other/girlfriend of your plans, especially if you are already in a ( sexual ) relationship. At the very least, you'd say GOODBYE to her.

Yes, leaving to seek out your birth parents/race would be important to you, but would you do so at the expense of hurting your loved ones and making them worry?

I mean....look at what happens when someone goes missing in the news. Look how much pain and suffering it causes friends and family. Look how much stress and burden it places on society to try to find that person. Would you want to bring all that upon your loved ones ( and society ) because you VOLUNTARILY left but failed to notify anyone?

Also, if you were going to leave for 5+ years, you'd have to consider your present jobs/duties/responsibilities. If you were going to take any type of extended leave of absence for PERSONAL reasons ( not work-related ), you'd have to notify your boss/company/clients, etc. Failure to do so would be seriously irresponsible; you'd be ABANDONING your jobs and responsibilities.

Superman, in particular, has a very unique duty or responsibility in protecting/defending the entire world, not just rescuing people day-to-day, but also protecting the world from larger threats like Zod, Brainiac, etc. In the comics, Superman could have notified other Justice League members and asked them to fill in. In the movies, he could have at least notified the President.

I mean....if you had such a unique role in protecting the world, and then you suddenly left and disappeared for a really long time, you're in essence abandoning the entire world and leaving them defenseless. What if there was a disaster you could have helped prevent? What if some external threat ( like Zod, Darkseid, etc. ) attacked while you were away?

So, again, it's not the fact that Superman left; it was the WAY he left, which made him selfish, irresponsible, and insensitive. By leaving suddenly and without notifying anyone ( except his mom ), Superman hurt his loved ones ( namely Lois ), he abandoned his duties here on earth, and he put his own selfish interests and desires ( even if they are noble ones ) above everything else.

If anyone of us did that in the real world, we'd hurt our loved ones ( and would thus be shunned/rejected by them ); we'd be promptly fired from our jobs and labeled unreliable and irresponsible. In short, we'd be labeled as selfish, irresponsible jerks......not very Supermanly, imo.

See, the bolded is a common fault in this argument because people tend to think he knew how long he would be gone. Ma Kent's reaction to the length of the trip "...if your father was alive he never would have let you go, I almost gave up hope......I thought I would never see you again.....Oh Clark!"

Doesnt THIS tell you that Superman DIDNT know how long he would be? Or that if he did give his mother a time he took A LOT longer than that. This must be the case to warrant such a reaction from Martha, she was in tears, tears of happiness that she saw her son again when she didnt think she would.

Its another subtle thing that Singer did, and the fact is, some people like subtly things in movies, others dont. However, this proves that IF Superman did know how long he was going to be, he was wrong, and the trip took much longer than anticipated. SO, if he thought he wasnt going to be long on his trip, it makes it more understandable that he didnt tell Lois were he was going. Doesnt make it right, but understandable IMO.

Which he did in Superman II, a movie from which SR is a sequel.

And in SII he didn't leave for 5 years, he simply quit forever. And told no one about it.



Again, the same that happened in SII. Superman quits forever and tells nobody.

And in both SII and SR he did when Earth seemed safe.

Now it is weel explained that if Superman had talked to Lois before leaving he wouldn't have left. That's why he didn't do it. His mission and responsibility to any possible Kryptonian survivor was higher than Lois' (or anybody else's) pain.

Nevertheless Supes told his motehr about it.



Oh, like in every comic book for decades she hgasn't been able to see that Clark + glasses = Superman.

Suddenly, the same kind of traditional cluelessness is a problem. But it is well established that for Lois, Clark is almost unexistant. Many people in Metropolis went away one day and came 5 years later. Lois - as usual - never made the connection.



He was not creepy at all, and if you check the "stalker" definition, Superman in SR doesn't fit.

stalk (FOLLOW) Show phonetics
verb
1 [T] to follow an animal or person as closely as possible without being seen or heard, usually in order to catch or kill them:
The police had been stalking the woman for a week before they arrested her.

Not the case; it wasn't in order to catch or kill Lois.

2 [I or T] to illegally follow and watch someone, usually a woman, over a period of time:
He was arrested for stalking.

Not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.

3 [T] LITERARY If something unpleasant stalks a place, it appears there in a threatening way:
When night falls, danger stalks the streets of the city.

Not the case; he wasn't threatening Lois or anyone inside of Richard's house.


stalker Show phonetics
noun [C]
a person who illegally follows and watches someone, especially a woman, over a period of time:
Several well-known women have been troubled by stalkers recently.

Not the case; it wasn't over a period of time, just once.


What Jason did was to save his motehr's life. Ethicaly you can kill someone if he's threatening your or some innocent person's life.

And about the Jesus parallel, yes, Singer kept what has been a thing associated to Superman since 1939.




Terrible mum. Typical Lois behaviour.



Excuse me? That's the excuse?

If she wasn't making connections between Superman and someone who she couldn't care less (namely Clark) for, then it's plothole. But if she has been idiot enough to not to notice a simple pair of glasses then it's okay because it has been like that for too long?

Have you ever thought that Clark has traditionally been absent every time when Superman is there to be seen (sometimes for a long time when Superman has been in outer space) and yet Lois never made the connection? My man; that is "tradition" too.



So how many comics/movies have you seen with Lois being a mother so we can draw conclusions about her possible behaviour as a mum?

As far as we know, Lois puts always the news before everything and usually in an impulsive and irresponsible way. As far as she knows, it is an old lady who inhabits that house.



Superman in SR, as he did in SII and many heroes has done in many good stories, lost his way.

And Richard is precisely who shows him what he used to be; a hero beyond the super-powers. That's the function of Richard, who Superman thought at first would be the classic pedantic son of daddy.

I can add nothing to this, brilliant stuff El Payaso.

OK, so at the bargain basement price of $4.75 I bought "Superman Returns" yesterday. I thought that I would watch it and try to appreaciate it as a generic film instead of a Superman movie. So , what did I think upon finally viewing it for a second time after 2 1/2 years?

Y'know, it's really long. And almost nothing happens. I couldn't believe that the Luthor sub-plot moved even slower than I remembered. I still fee that visually it is great- the cinematography and production design are great. Really great. The story, since I knew exactly what to expect was more digestable. Some of the CGI shots are absolutely horrible though- they look like a video game. Oh, well.

Knowing what to expect, makes the story more digestable. And the story as is is well done. However, I still don't buy that Superman leaves Lois in the lurch w/o a goodbye b/c it is 'too difficult.'

It's nice knowing that this story will not be continued, b/c I still have zero interest in what comes next with Super-illegitimate-child.

Routh and Bosworth look so young too. Wow. I totally didn't buy that they were adults. 19 maybe. Especially Bosworth. And I still don't buy Routh as Superman. But overall it was much more wathcable than the first viewing. I'm raising my rating to a 3.5.

I understand why people like it. I understand why people find it intriguing. I just still don't find the characterization to be correct nor do I have any interest in what comes next. I still think it would work better as a Superman story if Superman died at the end.

Glad you gave the movie another chance MJ, as I have been saying all along it isnt as bad as you make out . But seriously this is a good post as its a much more honest thought out review.

Oh and the people having a go at SR for always being on sale? EVERY 2006 movie is always on sale here, because, they were out 2 years ago! I picked up Casino Royale for £4 about a month ago.

 

[C. Lee]

See, the bolded is a common fault in this argument because people tend to think he knew how long he would be gone. Ma Kent's reaction to the length of the trip "...if your father was alive he never would have let you go, I almost gave up hope......I thought I would never see you again.....Oh Clark!"

Doesnt THIS tell you that Superman DIDNT know how long he would be? Or that if he did give his mother a time he took A LOT longer than that. This must be the case to warrant such a reaction from Martha, she was in tears, tears of happiness that she saw her son again when she didnt think she would.

Its another subtle thing that Singer did, and the fact is, some people like subtly things in movies, others dont. However, this proves that IF Superman did know how long he was going to be, he was wrong, and the trip took much longer than anticipated. SO, if he thought he wasnt going to be long on his trip, it makes it more understandable that he didnt tell Lois were he was going. Doesnt make it right, but understandable IMO.

They knew how long the trip would take (to go there and back with no long side trips to Disneyland)......she was worried by the unexpected....he could have been killed or stranded by something unforseen at any point along the way....and there would have been no way for her to find out what happened.

 

[El Payaso]

Which makes criticism of the act in SII understandable as it also is in SR.

It makes it consistent with this version of the character.

But his decision in SII was much more selfish than in SR.

However.......
There is a difference, in SII, Superman did not deliberate his decision to become "mortal". It was a spur of the moment, passionate, and yes somewhat selfish decision.

It was a passionate impulsive AND VERY MUCH DELIBERATE decision.

Superman wasn't tricked into it nor was it possible that he didn't consider the consequences of it.

He knows perfectly what Superman is to thw world and he quit his mission for a personal benefit. He coudln't have overlooked what would happen if he quit.

We cannot know if he, after his decision, intends to let the world know that he is "gone", because he very rapidly recognizes the mistake he made, and returns to "Superman-hood".

We can very much know that if he intended to let the world know about his decision he should have done it BEFORE giving up his powers. What's the alternative? Go as Clark and tell the world he was Superman all along and that he's quitting?

Nevertheless the first thing Clark did was to have dinner with Lois. Not once he talked about letting the world know.

And talking to return to "superman-hood," he was warned there was no turning back. Nevertheless he quit.

In SR he most certainly gave his decision a great deal of thought and planning before he acted. Therefore he had the opportunity to make a formal and informative announcement well before his departure, but intentinally and with premeditation, did not.

How much time exactly? Do we even know how much time passed between he knew about Krypton's remains and the time he took off?

It could have easily been a spur of the moment too.

But yes, he intentionally didn't tell Lois because he knew that if he talked to her, he wouldn't go to Krypton. And to avoid such a crossroads where he knew he could be strongly tempted by selfishness, he didn't.



The difference between both decisions is that whereas in SII quitting his mission means to have a benefit, a normal life with his girl, in SR his decision does nothing for him. Going back to Krypton is a duty with his original race; if there's a chnace there are survivors then he has to go there.

He gets no pleasure or direct benefit out of it as he was supposed to get in SII. It is then, a less selfish decision (if selfish at all). He's thinking in a bigger good when he goes to Krytpon, not just having his girl and a normal life for himself.

Exactly, if Superman had died, it would have given culmination to what could have been a tragic trilogy, involving S:TM, SII, and SR, featuring a flawed yet well meaning hero whose nature, actions and decisions cause his downfall.

But what we got is a much more Superman-like story. He makes mistakes but as any hero, he can redeem himself at the end and have a new chance.

See, the bolded is a common fault in this argument because people tend to think he knew how long he would be gone. Ma Kent's reaction to the length of the trip "...if your father was alive he never would have let you go, I almost gave up hope......I thought I would never see you again.....Oh Clark!"

Yes. He went to Krypton not knowing what would become of him. His trip was due only to what he thought was his responsibility to his original race, with no further considerations.

I can add nothing to this, brilliant stuff El Payaso.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

They knew how long the trip would take (to go there and back with no long side trips to Disneyland)......she was worried by the unexpected....he could have been killed or stranded by something unforseen at any point along the way....and there would have been no way for her to find out what happened.

Martha saying "5 years?" indicates to me that he didnt know how long it would take, or that it took longer than he told Martha it would. Otherwise Martha wouldnt have mentioned the amount of time it took, just the other stuff.

Yes. He went to Krypton not knowing what would become of him. His trip was due only to what he thought was his responsibility to his original race, with no further considerations.

Exactly, he didnt know what had become of Krypton, hell, his parents could still be alive, he wasnt to know, so it was more than just a duty to his original race/planet, it was a potential race against time to help any possible survivors.

 

[afan]

But his decision in SII was much more selfish than in SR.

As stated in the film and by yourself his decision is based solely on it's effect on himself. By definition, what can be more selfish than that.

It was a passionate impulsive AND VERY MUCH DELIBERATE decision.

Respectfully El Payaso you're confused regarding usage of "deliberate". As an adjective it does indeed mean, on purpose, however in my statement it is being used as a verb the meaning of which is to consider something for a length of time, i.e. " a jury deliberates their verdict."

How much time exactly? Do we even know how much time passed between he knew about Krypton's remains and the time he took off?

It could have easily been a spur of the moment too.

True enough it's not spelled out for us, more's the pity and shame on the filmmaker for not thoroughly explaining the facets of this plot driving element.

However is it not reasonable to imagine that it took lengthy time and effort to construct his ship and plot his course?

 

[El Payaso]

As stated in the film and by yourself his decision is based solely on it's effect on himself. By definition, what can be more selfish than that.

Superman makes two decisions; one in SII and one in SR. Both have an effect on himself.

SII decision's effect on Superman is that he gets the girl, he beds her, he gains a normal life. Quite pleasurable.

SR decision's effect on Superman is that he loses 5 years of his life, or maybe his entire life, he loses his chance to be with Lois. Quite a sacrifice.

Now please tell me what decision sounds selfish and which one doesn't. The selfishness of a decision doesn't reside on who's getting the consequences of it but what kind of consequences are we talking about.

It also has to consider the motivation of the decision. Getting the girl vs rescuing possible survivors.

Respectfully El Payaso you're confused regarding usage of "deliberate". As an adjective it does indeed mean, on purpose, however in my statement it is being used as a verb the meaning of which is to consider something for a length of time, i.e. " a jury deliberates their verdict."

When you have to decide whether kill or not to kill or in this case, whether to abandon the mission of your life or not, you don't need a whole day to ponder what the consequences are.

Lara: Your father and I tried to anticipate your every question, Kal-El. This is the one we hoped you would not ask.
Superman: But I have to, because… she's everything I want in life.

It's clear. Lois is all he wants in life and he knew that before he was asked.

And if Superman, knowing what his decision was about, didn't deliberate about it during a period of time and chose impulsively based on his immediate feelings, much more selfish from him.

True enough it's not spelled out for us, more's the pity and shame on the filmmaker for not thoroughly explaining the facets of this plot driving element.

No matter how much time passed, Superman knew that talking to Lois would lead him to quit his trip to Krypton, as he knows (as we do by now) that Lois means too much for him.

However is it not reasonable to imagine that it took lengthy time and effort to construct his ship and plot his course?

How lenghty. This is Superman we're talking about.

 

[Superark]

I always felt that some people started to "hate" or ridicule this movie simply because of it's underwelming box office performance.


Obviously I think there are those who genuinely did not like the film and had problems with it. I think many Superman fans are very very different in what they want to see and SR just did not meet those expectations.

However, I think once anything is not as successful as they expected, it suddenly becomes easy to want to criticize it and convince yourself its not as good as you originally thought.

Just go back and look at many of the initial rate and review posts and ratings of SR's and see what I am talking about.

I could be wrong, but I honestly believe that had SR made about $50 million more, heck even 20 million, some of the same posters all over the net that constantly hate on this movie would have a different tune.

 

[BH/HHH]

I always felt that some people started to "hate" or ridicule this movie simply because of it's underwelming box office performance.


Obviously I think there are those who genuinely did not like the film and had problems with it. I think many Superman fans are very very different in what they want to see and SR just did not meet those expectations.

However, I think once anything is not as successful as they expected, it suddenly becomes easy to want to criticize it and convince yourself its not as good as you originally thought.

Just go back and look at many of the initial rate and review posts and ratings of SR's and see what I am talking about.

I could be wrong, but I honestly believe that had SR made about $50 million more, heck even 20 million, some of the same posters all over the net that constantly hate on this movie would have a different tune.

 

[El Payaso]

I always felt that some people started to "hate" or ridicule this movie simply because of it's underwelming box office performance.


Obviously I think there are those who genuinely did not like the film and had problems with it. I think many Superman fans are very very different in what they want to see and SR just did not meet those expectations.

However, I think once anything is not as successful as they expected, it suddenly becomes easy to want to criticize it and convince yourself its not as good as you originally thought.

Just go back and look at many of the initial rate and review posts and ratings of SR's and see what I am talking about.

I could be wrong, but I honestly believe that had SR made about $50 million more, heck even 20 million, some of the same posters all over the net that constantly hate on this movie would have a different tune.

As you say, not all of them, buy many fans feel personally offended that they can't brag about his favourite character movie's popularity and/or BO numbers.

 

[Superark]

As you say, not all of them, buy many fans feel personally offended that they can't brag about his favourite character movie's popularity and/or BO numbers.

I think that is a good point.

 

[Wushuboy]

I always felt that some people started to "hate" or ridicule this movie simply because of it's underwelming box office performance.


Obviously I think there are those who genuinely did not like the film and had problems with it. I think many Superman fans are very very different in what they want to see and SR just did not meet those expectations.

However, I think once anything is not as successful as they expected, it suddenly becomes easy to want to criticize it and convince yourself its not as good as you originally thought.

Just go back and look at many of the initial rate and review posts and ratings of SR's and see what I am talking about.

I could be wrong, but I honestly believe that had SR made about $50 million more, heck even 20 million, some of the same posters all over the net that constantly hate on this movie would have a different tune.

I don't think it has anything to do with how much the movie made and about bragging rights over box office numbers at all. I was a fan of the original star wars movies but when phantom menace and any of the prequels came out I totally found them quite horrible despite how much money they made. They had the cool moments but for the most part the bad far outweighted the good. And the same can be said with superman returns in my opinion. Even if it had made 100 million more I wuold not have liked it. The same can be said for those who loved this movie. No matter what, even if the movie made 50 million less they would still love and defend the movie like their lives depended on it. Just like how some stick to the notion that WB execs didnt want DC's flag ship character to make, at the time, spiderman like numbers at the box office. You gotta be kidding me with that one. You've got a brand that everyone knows and you're not oging to capitalize on it? yeah right. I'm just saying your notion can go both ways. If you think that the low box office take can be used by "haters" to ridicule the movie then it should also stand that the low office take can also be used by "defenders" to glorify the movie.

 

[afan]

I always felt that some people started to "hate" or ridicule this movie simply because of it's underwelming box office performance.

Hate is an emotion that I've never applied to a film. The emotional strength of the term just doesn't fit the import of any film.

My disappointment in SR began long before box office performance was known. It began at an opening day midnite viewing, as I watched Superman land in the bushes outside Lois' home, and used his super-powers to peer into her personal life. It increased from there as SR continuosly took the character down paths very un-Superman like.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Superman makes two decisions; one in SII and one in SR. Both have an effect on himself.

SII decision's effect on Superman is that he gets the girl, he beds her, he gains a normal life. Quite pleasurable.

SR decision's effect on Superman is that he loses 5 years of his life, or maybe his entire life, he loses his chance to be with Lois. Quite a sacrifice.

Now please tell me what decision sounds selfish and which one doesn't. The selfishness of a decision doesn't reside on who's getting the consequences of it but what kind of consequences are we talking about.

It also has to consider the motivation of the decision. Getting the girl vs rescuing possible survivors.



When you have to decide whether kill or not to kill or in this case, whether to abandon the mission of your life or not, you don't need a whole day to ponder what the consequences are.

Lara: Your father and I tried to anticipate your every question, Kal-El. This is the one we hoped you would not ask.
Superman: But I have to, because… she's everything I want in life.

It's clear. Lois is all he wants in life and he knew that before he was asked.

And if Superman, knowing what his decision was about, didn't deliberate about it during a period of time and chose impulsively based on his immediate feelings, much more selfish from him.



No matter how much time passed, Superman knew that talking to Lois would lead him to quit his trip to Krypton, as he knows (as we do by now) that Lois means too much for him.



How lenghty. This is Superman we're talking about.

Great posts, El Payaso

 

[stargazer]

I always felt that some people started to "hate" or ridicule this movie simply because of it's underwelming box office performance.


Obviously I think there are those who genuinely did not like the film and had problems with it. I think many Superman fans are very very different in what they want to see and SR just did not meet those expectations.

However, I think once anything is not as successful as they expected, it suddenly becomes easy to want to criticize it and convince yourself its not as good as you originally thought.

Just go back and look at many of the initial rate and review posts and ratings of SR's and see what I am talking about.

I could be wrong, but I honestly believe that had SR made about $50 million more, heck even 20 million, some of the same posters all over the net that constantly hate on this movie would have a different tune.

BINGO!

You are very perceptive, superark.

As you say, not all of them, buy many fans feel personally offended that they can't brag about his favourite character movie's popularity and/or BO numbers.

WORD.

Great posts, El Payaso

Yes, indeed! El Payaso is the man! Happy New year, payasito.

 

[mego joe]

Hate is an emotion that I've never applied to a film. The emotional strength of the term just doesn't fit the import of any film.

My disappointment in SR began long before box office performance was known. It began at an opening day midnite viewing, as I watched Superman land in the bushes outside Lois' home, and used his super-powers to peer into her personal life. It increased from there as SR continuosly took the character down paths very un-Superman like.

I couldn't agree more, but my journey began a little sooner- I cringed when I read that it was going to be a pseudo-sequel and that Lois was going to have a kid. The writing was on the wall at that point. It only got worse as my fears were realized in the actual viewing of the film. I would actually dislike it more if had done a higher box office. At least the luke-warm reception has garned us a reboot/ restart/ reintroduction.

 

[copywrite]

I thought it was a great movie, but a poor Superman movie, if that makes sense. My only real qualm was Superman having a child, it seemed pointless and not thought out.

 

[mego joe]

I thought it was a great movie, but a poor Superman movie, if that makes sense. My only real qualm was Superman having a child, it seemed pointless and not thought out.

I think it makes a lot of sense, but I would go just 'ok' instead of great.

 

[afan]

I think it makes a lot of sense, but I would go just 'ok' instead of great.

So true, especially when judged against the "greats" of cinema.

 

[copywrite]

Trust me when I say I have an appreciation for cinema and true classics, I only used great because I thought it was better than just 'good' or 'ok.' Maybe not great, but I didn't know what else to call it. =\

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I personally think its both a very good movie and a very good Superman movie. Superman has had so many incarnations in the past, its hard to judge the character definatively IMO. Anything Superman did in SR, he has done just as bad or worse in the comics.

 

[El Payaso]

^I personally think its both a very good movie and a very good Superman movie. Superman has had so many incarnations in the past, its hard to judge the character definatively IMO. Anything Superman did in SR, he has done just as bad or worse in the comics.

Even more; everything Superman did in SR, he has done same or worse in STM and SII. Movies SR is a sequel from.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Even more; everything Superman did in SR, he has done same or worse in STM and SII. Movies SR is a sequel from.

Exactly, at least when he left humanity before SR, he did so for a non-selfish and genuine reason. I understand the complaints about how he left to an extent, but at the same time dont understand when compared to other things he has done in various other mediums.

 

[Double Down]

This is from a new column:

I remember back in 2006 when Superman Returns was released and the film scored a 77% Rotten Tomatoes ranking marking it “Certified Fresh” which means it joins the pantheon of films to have earned such a moniker including Citizen Kane, Toy Story, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story and, of course, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It’s a cornucopia of quality. Trouble is, I thought Superman Returns wasn’t all that good. Not that I hated it or anything, I just simply thought it was slow and it was boring. However, the more and more I heard how good it was — or how this was great and that was amazing — I began to argue against the film. Sooner rather than later I found myself almost loathing it, until suddenly I had to ask why.
Arguments for Superman Returns included adjectives such as “breathtaking” and “emotional”. My answer to this was simply, “No, it’s not,” but that didn’t change the fact that hearing about how great it was helped matters. To get to the point, the love some people had for the film created debates in which I found myself hating on the film far more than I actually did. The people I was talking to argued for the film on such a level that I felt I had to match it just in order to get my point across. However, as it inevitably would turn out, neither person arguing convinced the other as much as we simply reinforced our own conviction and actually enhanced them. There was a time I had to say to someone, “I actually don’t hate the film this much, but you are making me dislike it more and more.” They returned the same sentiment, but in reverse, and so it goes… a mini-backlash was born. Even though it was an entirely self-aware backlash.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/is-slumdog-millionaire-next-in-line-for-oscar-backlash

 

[Superark]

^^That's an interesting perspective. I commend the writer for giving such an honest pov.