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

[superbaby]

I-do-not-understand-this-hate-of-SR. It is beyond me. Disliking some things well, yes, OK, "this was bad, this was poor", but hating a movie the way the so-called Superman fans do it, is beyond me.

it was like you seeing somebody beating your dad, your son or your love one. wouldn't you hate him?

 

[Thespiralgoeson]

Can someone explain to me why Superman fans seem not to like Superman Returns?

Why don't Superman fans like Superman Returns? Because it's NOT THAT FRIGGIN GOOD! It's not a terrible film, but it's just not that good either.

Personally, I think it's a great film, and one of the best superhero movies of all time, probably only behind Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2.

Great film? You and I have VERY different definitions of what a "great film" is then. Lawrence of Arabia is a great film. Superman Returns at very best is decent. But even in the scope of superhero movies, I think it falls quite short of Batman Begins or either of the first two Spider-Man movies.

What don't they like? The fact that it's a rehash/homage to Donner? Who cares? It's the start of the franchise, what better way to start out?

That's a HUGE part of what was wrong with the film. Superman The Move was great for its time. It was "a loving tribute to Superman's history as an American pop cultre icon" as one critic (I forget which one) put it. But Superman needed a new start for a new audience. The first two Superman films, while they may be classics, are more than a little campy, and frankly are a bit dated.

How to approach the revival of the Superman franchise was a tricky thing, because nobody really wanted to see another Superman origin story. But an incoherent, quasi-sequel to the first two movies that were made almost three decades ago? Totally wrong approach. A much better idea would've been a completely new continuity, that doesn't necessarily include Superman's origin, but refers to it, or briefly flashes back to it (quite similar to the approach Tim Burton took in Batman '89)

Not enough action? Call me crazy, but I think the airplane sequence is one of the coolest things I've ever seen a movie.

Yeah, that was a great sequence. But it was the only one of its kind in the whole film, and it took place almost at the very beginning. There were only a couple of action sequences in the whole film after that, and none of them were half as good as that one. So, yeah, exactly like you said, not enough action.

The suit? I mean, c'mon, it looks fine. Compare it to what Batman and the X-Men wear relative to the comics.

I for one will agree with you here. The suit looked fine. Anyone who actually believes that the reason Superman Returns didn't do as well as anyone might've hoped had ANYTHING to do with the new suit clearly knows nothing about movies. It's one thing not to like the new suit, but that suit, good or bad, had absolutely NOTHING to do with how well the movie performed at the box office. God knows I had a lot of problems with the way the Batsuit looked in Batman Begins, but that sure as hell didn't stop me from enjoying the movie.

So what is it? To me, other than Lois Lane (Bosworth sucks) the casting is great, the production values and effects are MAGNIFICENT and the story is a classic Superman story. What do people hate? That he has a kid?

Classic Superman story? Are you kidding? I don't know if they could've wrote a lazier, more boring script if they tried. The casting was great all around (I happen to think Kate Bosworth was one of the highlights of the film), as were the visuals, gloomy color scheme aside, but the script was just terrible.

One of the biggest problems about doing a sequel/rehash of the Donner continuity is the depiction of Lex Luthor. In the previous Superman movies, Lex was campy as they come, and that wasn't a bad thing at all. The movies were meant to be light hearted, and Gene Hackman's Lex provided quite a bit of comedy. We didn't mind that he was so corny (a maniacle real estate agent?) because he was SUPPOSED to be corny. That was the point. Everything in those movies was done with a wink. But in Superman Returns, Singer tried to "update" Lex by making him much more serious and sinister. The result is that you have an inherently corny character trying desperately not to be so corny. It didn't work. Not to blame Kevin Spacey at all for trying. He did the best he could with the material, and a lesser actor would've destroyed the film completely.

It also didn't help that the rest of Lex's plot was ridiculous. The evil real estate agent is back, steals one of Supes' crystals, and chucks into the ocean to create a big island, so he can sell it??? (nevermind that the new continent is made of baron rock and won't be able to sustain any kind of plant life for thousands of years) And Superman saves the day by lifting the island up?? (nevermind that it's made up, at least in large part, of kryptonite)

What hurt the film more than that was the so-called romance between Supes and Lois, or rather lacktherof. Most people seem to blame the actors. I don't blame them at all. The fact is, the dialogue was boring, stiff, and quite lazily written. What happened to the sassy, energetic Lois Lane we know and love? Or the reassuring, charasmatic Superman? The script didn't allow them to have anything that resembled chemistry.

Sorry, I'm not the hugest Superman fan in the world, but I loved this movie and it seemed like a fantastic adaptation to me. What don't people like about it?

I'm not a huge Superman fan myself, but I know a good story/script from a bad one. I'm not much of a Spider-Man fan either, but I can appreciate Spider-Man 2's masterfully written script.

What don't people like about it? Bottom line, the script was awful. There was nowhere near enough action, the villain and his scheme were both just stupid, and most of all the characters, especially the two main ones, Superman/Clark and Lois, were sorely, sorely underdeveloped. Throw in James Marsden as the weasly boyfriend, and the creepy illegitimate son, as well as several gaping plot-holes and you have a downright mediocre film.

EDIT: Another aspect of the story that was handled quite poorly is the whole idea of Superman being gone to begin with. After all, the title of the movie is "Superman Returns." So shouldn't we feel that the world is falling to pieces without him, and that it's great to have him back? Yet, the movie begins with Superman's so-called return. Supposedly he's been gone for five years, but we never see the world without Superman. So, we never get the sense that the world really needs him because we never get the sense that he was gone in the firstplace. That's sloppy, lazy writing. So if they weren't going to show us a world without Superman, then what's the point of writing in this whole subplot of Superman leaving for five years? Why not just pick up right wherever Singer seems to think the previous movies left off? I know Singer wanted to show us a Superman that had to adjust to changing times, but it was just poorly written.

What saved the film from complete failure was the special effects (which were top-notch even though there needed to be more of them), the actors themselves doing the best they could with the material, and the simple fact that it's Superman. Really, think about it. Wasn't that the sole reason to see the movie for the vast majority of the audience? The mere fact that it's a Superman movie? If this were a movie about a lesser-known hero it would've bombed completely.

 

[Angeloz]

Ironically the writers did write into the credits newspaper headlines exploring what the world was like when he left. But they decided on different credits late into the process. So much so the documentary on the second disc has them as it's opening credits. But the film is called "Superman Returns" not "Superman Leaves" nor "Superman Isn't Here".

Angeloz

 

[Thespiralgoeson]

Ironically the writers did write into the credits newspaper headlines exploring what the world was like when he left. But they decided on different credits late into the process. So much so the documentary on the second disc has them as it's opening credits. But the film is called "Superman Returns" not "Superman Leaves" nor "Superman Isn't Here".

Angeloz

You missed my point completely. Why in the holy f**king hell would you write in a subplot of Superman leaving, then Returning if you're not going to show us what the world is like without him? Why call the movie "Superman Returns" at all?! It's supposed to be a big deal that Superman leaves. The world is supposed to have to learn to live without him. But we never see it. So, the world doesn't seem any worse at all without him, or better off now that he's "returned." The result is that Superman ends up looking terribly unimportant and inconsequential in the scheme of things. The only thing that comes of Superman's "return" is that he finds out Lois gave birth to his child that he didn't know existed, and she hooked up with another guy almost immediately afterward. Not to mention that Superman ends being a whuss. It's just a cheap, silly, rather pointless plot device.

My point is, if you're not going to show us a world without Superman, then don't tell us he "left" in the first place. Don't bother calling the movie "Superman Returns" if his absence has no real significance at all.

 

[Angeloz]

Since we live in a world without Superman, except in fiction, I surprisingly enough don't find it that taxing imagining a world without him. Funny that. So I think everyone pretty much knows what it's like without him. By the way since Richard is a nice decent guy unless you have a bad boy hang-up I don't find it surprising she would hook up with him. Since it seems she has a good guy hang-up seemingly.

Angeloz

 

[buggs0268]

I do want to point out according to Perry Lex was yesterdays news so probably news of his inheritance didn't make the news at all it seems. So slight problem there.

Angeloz

So is O.J. Sinmpson, but his getting kicked out of a restaurant made the top news for a few days last week. And that is O.J. Who is accused but never proved of killing two people. This is a guy who hijacked two nuclear missles and sent one into the San Andreas Fault. It almost killed millions of people and caused billions in property damage. That is not comparing apples to apples. I think him taking a dump in a jack in the box would be news worthy. That guy wouldn't be able to get any media attention off of him for the rest of his life.

 

[El Payaso]

it was like you seeing somebody beating your dad, your son or your love one. wouldn't you hate him?

Yeah if I saw that I could bake a strawberry pie in less than a week.*



*continuing thew superbaby logic

You missed my point completely. Why in the holy f**king hell would you write in a subplot of Superman leaving, then Returning if you're not going to show us what the world is like without him?

Scene of Clark at the farm watching the mess the world have been when he was gone. Every Lois scene.

Why call the movie "Superman Returns" at all?!

Because he returns.

It's supposed to be a big deal that Superman leaves. The world is supposed to have to learn to live without him. But we never see it.

We do, just not as much as if you were directing. Which didn't happen.

So, the world doesn't seem any worse at all without him, or better off now that he's "returned."

Instead of the terrorist scenes on tv in the Clark at the farm scene, we start seeing Superman rescuing people, saving lives and preventing accidents and robberies later. Hence, your difference. I know it wasn't spoonfed but oh well, I like that way.

The result is that Superman ends up looking terribly unimportant and inconsequential in the scheme of things.

He saves a plane, lots of people and finally the planet. I can get if people don't find it important though.

The only thing that comes of Superman's "return" is that he finds out Lois gave birth to his child that he didn't know existed, and she hooked up with another guy almost immediately afterward.

Quite unimportant things you see.

Not to mention that Superman ends being a whuss.

How? Going back to save the planet and stop Luthor after being stabbed with Kryptonite?

It's just a cheap, silly, rather pointless plot device.

Yeah, Superman risking his life to save the planet. Did we need to see that once again? Pointless crap.

My point is, if you're not going to show us a world without Superman, then don't tell us he "left" in the first place.

Yeah, make it a surprise!

Don't bother calling the movie "Superman Returns" if his absence has no real significance at all.

Well, unless you count all of those people Superman saved in the movie...

 

[Cyrusbales]

Yeah if I saw that I could bake a strawberry pie in less than a week.*



*continuing thew superbaby logic



Scene of Clark at the farm watching the mess the world have been when he was gone. Every Lois scene.



Because he returns.



We do, just not as much as if you were directing. Which didn't happen.



Instead of the terrorist scenes on tv in the Clark at the farm scene, we start seeing Superman rescuing people, saving lives and preventing accidents and robberies later. Hence, your difference. I know it wasn't spoonfed but oh well, I like that way.



He saves a plane, lots of people and finally the planet. I can get if people don't find it important though.



Quite unimportant things you see.



How? Going back to save the planet and stop Luthor after being stabbed with Kryptonite?



Yeah, Superman risking his life to save the planet. Did we need to see that once again? Pointless crap.



Yeah, make it a surprise!



Well, unless you count all of those people Superman saved in the movie...

nicely put

 

[buggs0268]

As far as SR not being heavily advertised, here is a blog from a guy in Manilla, MANILLA, who not only says Superman is everywhere, but actually has pics of it being advertised everywhere:

http://azraelsmerryland.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html

They heavily advertised it and yet still it failed.

 

[Pickle-El]

A sequel with Singer and crew back is where this 'failure' is heading.....guess that WB really wouldn't know any better than to cut back on its losses, huh?

 

[El Payaso]

As far as SR not being heavily advertised, here is a blog from a guy in Manilla, MANILLA, who not only says Superman is everywhere, but actually has pics of it being advertised everywhere:

http://azraelsmerryland.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html

They heavily advertised it and yet still it failed.

WHOA. The movie was heavily advertised in Manila. In the name of everything that's sacred, then how could it possibly failed?

Well, failures like SR or BB, which made less than SR, are meant to be remembered by quality not quantity.

 

[Super Kal]

the movie industry is not one to hold quality over quantity these days... for them, it's all about the money.

 

[B]

The boots look stupid enough. And with the stamped S's over it, it looks really bad.

In fact, what the hell is it with Singer thinking that a superhero needs it logo stamped all over it's suit? Why. It is the same as just because X men starts with an X, there has to be X's everywhere in the damn film. God. Do something original.

I didnt have a problem with the boots looking like that, except that they arent believable for being able to wear under your normal shoes....which is the way Superman Returns had it, you needed to see him putting them on or something, then it would have been ok I feel...

The Color scheme of suit was another bad point...red was too dark & blue was too light/pale

 

[BareKnucklez]

As far as SR not being heavily advertised, here is a blog from a guy in Manilla, MANILLA, who not only says Superman is everywhere, but actually has pics of it being advertised everywhere:

http://azraelsmerryland.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html

They heavily advertised it and yet still it failed.

The movie had a very good Marketing campaign, and Singer only used "Bad Marketing" to cover up the fact that his movie SUCKED!
He knows it, Brandon knows it, and the entire planet knows it... Even this poor soul Pickle below this post knows it.
But sadly enough some people are blind to the truth, and fall in love with even the smelliest of horse droppings.
Remember we live in a world where Spice Girls sold how many millions of cds? The Backstreet boys, and N-Sync sold how many cds? So it doesn't shock me that there are fools out there who actually think this movie's good.

Like the saying goes... There's a sucker born everyday...

A sequel with Singer and crew back is where this 'failure' is heading.....guess that WB really wouldn't know any better than to cut back on its losses, huh?

So sad...

 

[El Payaso]

the movie industry is not one to hold quality over quantity these days... for them, it's all about the money.

Ah, you're absolutely right.

 

[El Payaso]

The movie had a very good Marketing campaign, and Singer only used "Bad Marketing" to cover up the fact that his movie SUCKED!

Mh, capital letters really make something look like it's more real. I bet capital and bold letters would make it even more real. IT DIDN'T SUCK!

Well, I knew typing can't change reality but had to try.

He knows it, Brandon knows it, and the entire planet knows it... Even this poor soul Pickle below this post knows it.

And the day came when mind-reading aliens arrived to the Earth.

Who'll be our Neo?

But sadly enough some people are blind to the truth, and fall in love with even the smelliest of horse droppings.

Ah, Spideman 3. I know what you're talking about. Sad indeed.

Remember we live in a world where Spice Girls sold how many millions of cds? The Backstreet boys, and N-Sync sold how many cds? So it doesn't shock me that there are fools out there who actually think this movie's good.

Oh. So it might happen that a bad product could sell millions no matter how bad it is? Like Spiderman 3?

Therefore it could be that a good product won't sell as much? Like SR.

Brilliant theory. I think you're quite right on this.

Like the saying goes... There's a sucker born everyday...

So I guess the day....

nevermind.

 

[Angeloz]

Yeah if I saw that I could bake a strawberry pie in less than a week.*



*continuing thew superbaby logic



Scene of Clark at the farm watching the mess the world have been when he was gone. Every Lois scene.



Because he returns.



We do, just not as much as if you were directing. Which didn't happen.



Instead of the terrorist scenes on tv in the Clark at the farm scene, we start seeing Superman rescuing people, saving lives and preventing accidents and robberies later. Hence, your difference. I know it wasn't spoonfed but oh well, I like that way.



He saves a plane, lots of people and finally the planet. I can get if people don't find it important though.



Quite unimportant things you see.



How? Going back to save the planet and stop Luthor after being stabbed with Kryptonite?



Yeah, Superman risking his life to save the planet. Did we need to see that once again? Pointless crap.



Yeah, make it a surprise!



Well, unless you count all of those people Superman saved in the movie...

Cool post.

Angeloz

 

[Angeloz]

So is O.J. Sinmpson, but his getting kicked out of a restaurant made the top news for a few days last week. And that is O.J. Who is accused but never proved of killing two people. This is a guy who hijacked two nuclear missles and sent one into the San Andreas Fault. It almost killed millions of people and caused billions in property damage. That is not comparing apples to apples. I think him taking a dump in a jack in the box would be news worthy. That guy wouldn't be able to get any media attention off of him for the rest of his life.

Yet there was a known terrorist that illegally entered the country (U.S) that the government refuses to deport or extradite to Venezuala (which has a treaty). Where he's convicted of killing 73 people on a plane (one of his names is Posada I believe). But because he worked for the CIA that makes him a good terrorist. Yet he rarely makes the news and I only heard of him through the internet and maybe once on TV. It's been awhile though since I've looked up the news on the internet because I prefer here and it's too depressing (so don't know what's up with him). And except that one time television thinks he's invisible. My point is for some reason Lex is one of those under the radar even though he's dangerous. Their bad.

By the way we are talking about a fictional world so if they decide that the press decide to ignore Lex then that's what happens. Just like in "Spider-Man 3" where he had his mask off near the press and crowds more than once and yet no-one took a picture of it. I find that more miraculous. But it's just a film.

Angeloz

 

[BareKnucklez]

Mh, capital letters really make something look like it's more real. I bet capital and bold letters would make it even more real. IT DIDN'T SUCK!

Well, I knew typing can't change reality but had to try.



And the day came when mind-reading aliens arrived to the Earth.

Who'll be our Neo?



Ah, Spideman 3. I know what you're talking about. Sad indeed.



Oh. So it might happen that a bad product could sell millions no matter how bad it is? Like Spiderman 3?

Therefore it could be that a good product won't sell as much? Like SR.

Brilliant theory. I think you're quite right on this.



So I guess the day....

nevermind.

Well someone's been eating their lipstick again I see...

 

[mego joe]

To me, he represents the fulfillment of Superman's wish for "another" like him, the completion of the father/son arc, and the fulfillment of a deep and unbreakable bond between he and Lois.

Then is seems completely illogical for him to have been unable to be honest with Lois about leaving if she means that much to him. And that he would have had that bond w/ or without a child if they were in a loving committed relationship.

And if he can't raise that son there is not going to be any 'fulfiment.' It's going to be a constand reminder of having royally screwed up as a man and being unable to fulfill the moral obligation of raising your own child.

Additionally, I think the wish to find 'another like him' was competely underplayed in the film and not developed enough to make this the meaning of Jason. Especially, with the bitter sweet ending for Superman, having a child he is not raising because of his own lack of intestinal fortitude and moral fiber and realizing he's missed the first 4 years of his childs life and realizing Jason will always see Richard as his father. How fulfilling. WHen he's sitting alone in the Fortress maybe that will make him happier.
[/quote]
SUPERMAN RETURNS goes to great lengths to establish Superman as the saviour of the world, so I don't think it's looking at him as a negative influence.
[/quote]
For Superman, the iconic boy scout superhero, to not be be able to fulfill his role as parent, to have to destroy a child's understanding of who his father is (which will eventually come) is certainly portraying a negative influence. The very notion that Jason is there to give Superman 'someone else like him' places the importance on SUperman instead of Jason. Children are the responsibilty of the parents, parents are fulfilled by raising their children and watching them grow. If the parent is absent it's just tragic and sad for both parent and child.

To me the movie presents the notion that absentee parents, and the lack of obligation for fathers to their children is Ok, b/c darn it, it just happens sometimes and it's really no ones fault.

In my experience with the character, SUperman is smart enough and has enough intestinal fortitude and strong enough moral fiber that he would NEVER act in a way that would get him in this situation. He is far too thoughtful and caring to get into the situation in the first place.

And sure, Superman's made a few mistakes in SUPERMAN RETURNS, but they're hardly unforgiveable and incomprehensible.

Well, I don't think his motivation for not telling Lois he was leaving beforehand is both and implausible and unbelievable in terms of how one would expect SUperman to act.

Additionally, without a context for the SUperman/ Lois relationship it's hard to know if it is believable if their it is a situation that would lead to SUperman not saying goodbye and explaining himself beforehand.

As far as being unforgivable, there's no way he can ever make up to Lois for missing the pregnancy or to Jason for missing the first 4 years of Jason's life, or for destroying Jason's understanding of who his real father is. It's not a situation that was beyond Superman's control. It's not like SUperman just made the wrong choice not knowing what the right thing to do was. Superman chose to do the wrong things and the results of the mistakes are things that can never be changed nor is there an adequate way to 'make up' for them. We are talking about a child's life.

In those terms it really doesn't matter what Superman does in his public life as 'savior of the world,' in his private life he's a mess and not the same caring altruistic person he appears to be in his public life. Right there you have the crux of the problem, that is an incorrect characterization of Superman. He's supposed to be just as caring and altruistic in his private life as he is in his public life, he not an ironic character in that sense. He's not a charcter that's supposed to be a mess privately, but pulls it all together for his public persona. HE really is supposed to be THAT good and caring and altruistic. To have him treat Lois as he did in SR is a fundamental misunderstanding of who the character is.

 

[Angeloz]

Does that mean discovering about Jor-El negated Jonathan Kent for Kal-El/Clark?

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

I like our discussions too.



Interesting and I mean it. Jason represents to me him finding what he was searching for - someone like him and that he wasn't alone. From the way he looked at him at the end as well as the speech he gave he loves that little boy. Just for his existence. We don't know what happened in the past. It could be similar to "Superman II".

For me to have a good and believable story, you have to know what came before. The creators can be clever in how they reveal the past, but to really understand the motivations of the characters one needs to understand how they got to the point they are in. I just don't see any way in which Superman would not tell Lois goodbye before leaving Earth for 5 years and explaining the reasons for his trip.

Unless:
1. They were not in a relationship beyond casual acquaintance. This is clearly not the case.

2. Lois 'forgot' or got her mind wiped. This is also clearly not the case.

3. Superman is a jerk and is selfish when it comes to dealing with personal relationships and he chooses not to tell her b/c it is 'too difficult' and he doesn't want to be hurt. He would rather hurt Lois. This seems to be the case and it also seems to be an incorrect characterization for the essence of Superman's character. There will be many versions of comic charactrers, but you have to maintain the essence, otherwise it's just not the same character.

But I don't mind that he makes a mistake giving in to his curiosity and goes to Krypton. He's even done it in the comics (I believe) and the animated series. It was his right to make it and it's perfectly understandable.

Going to Krypton could be a great story and visually stunning. It is certainly a good idea for a movie and I have no problem with him going. My problem is he left Lois high and dry without an explanation. Why would he do this? The movie does a horrible job of explaining his motivation. THe reason the movie gives is underdeveloped and seemingly out of character for Superman, at least in the context of the miniscule amount of information that is given.

If he and Lois were not a couple, were not in a sexual relationship, were not more than acquaintances I would not have any expectation for Superman to explain himself to Lois. But it seems that She is supposed to be important to him, he is supposed to be in love with her and vice versa. With that as 'vague history' it doesn't make sense that he can't be honest with her. That is my problem. Without fleshing out the motivation and making it believable it is bad filmmaking. With what we are given in the film it is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Superman's character. That's not how Superman acts, in is completely inacurate.

He obviously pays for it. From what he finds as well as the situation when he comes back. I'll admit I care more for him than the world and am glad they focused on him. Also I liked the worldwide television coverage we got to see of his rescues. Which I'd prefer in news reports rather than the bad stuff we get. I liked that we got to see his heart. 'Cos meaningless action just doesn't cut it for me (I presume you wouldn't just want that too). I want more than that.

I certainly do want more, and oddly I don't think the movie did enough with the characters, b/c I didn't care for anyone except Richard as a person. He's the only one I felt for. Going in one would have expected to care for Superman, but since he consciously chose to the thing he did, knowing it was wrong, I felt no empathy, and becasue Jason is the one who is going to suffer for it, I felt no compasion for SUperman. Superman made the mistakes and he should suffer, but it's not fair for Jason to suffer. It doesn't make sense for Superman to hurt his own child b/c he was not enough of a man to be responsible and honest with the woman with whom he was in a sexual relationship.

What about Lois dies and it's Richard/Clark?

I thought about that! Maybe not in a sexual way, but in a "My two dad's" way. Remember the old TV show with Paul Reiser and Greg Evigan?

Or better Lois/Richard/Clark then men and women can enjoy something.
OK I know it'll never happen but that's what fan fiction is for.

NOt sure what you are getting at, even in jest. Doh!!

Though I prefer Superman/Batman. If you can't tell I was being somewhat silly because I'm sick of the it wasn't Superman claim.

Still slightly confused. Are you saying that you are sick of people suggesting that the character is not characterized correctly in SR? Or do you mean people are suggesting that Jason is not SUperman's son?

It was and is. Just not to your taste. Which is fine (or not if it makes you unhappy). It was for me and others like me.

Guessing you mean the formere, that people are suggesting the character does not act like Superman.

If this "IS" Superman for you, would you mind sharing you background with the character and what other stories you find fit into this mold of Superman making mistakes that hurt the ones he loves by choosing to make a mistake that he knows is wrong?

Ironically I agree with the "Fantastic Four 2" comment that I too am looking forward to it and hope it'll be good as well as enjoyable. I saw a trailer for it in "Spider-Man 3" and liked it. As for the other films mentioned above I liked all of them (including "Fantastic Four"). But only saw them once in the cinema. 'Cos that was satisfying for me. "Superman Returns" I saw six times and wanted it to be more (it left). As I've said before - some people can't like some versions of Superman because of preconcieved prejudice (i.e. they like one actor) or ideals for the character. And can't get past them. So it prevents them liking this version.

YOu see, that's what I feel is missing, the essence that makes it Superman. To me the most important aspects of the character that make him recognizable by the content of his character aren't there. Instead there is something else there. This something else could be interesting, but it just doesn't ring true as Superman. An adaptation has to contain some basics and the only part that are there in SR are the window dressing, the images the superficial aspects of the character (the specific superpowers are part of that), but the substance of the character is lost. The substance of the character is not "man who overcomes own limitations as a person to be viewed as hero by the world at large, but deep down is a mess." That's who I see in SR, and that isn't Superman. Like I said before, it could be an interesting character, but it's not Superman.

Actually that's what people that aren't fans face too. Not preconceived ideas but the question of if they can like this version or not. You couldn't - I'm sorry. I can and did - which I'm glad.

Don't you think that viewers respond to a character like Superman based on what they already know about the character? Isn't that part of the appeal? They already know something about the character and they identify with it? If that is not in the characterization, something is wrong for them. I think that what is essential to Superman is identifying with the idea that he is a positive role model and tries to do the right thing and will always sacrifice his own well being for that of a complete stranger, but especially for those he cares about. The big blue boy scout. When you lose that you've lost the essence of Superman.

I want to see more because of the way it was as well as seeing more Brandon Routh. I don't know if I'll like it, or love it, as much if not more. We'll see (hopefully). I hope you can like it too (the sequel) but will understand if you can't.

Angeloz

I'll be honest. If the story of Jason is continued as it appears that it will be continued I will have no interest in the sequel, no matter how amazing and fantastic the effects and action might be. Jason is only a reminder of everything I didn't like about the first movie. Unless he turns out to be Mr. Mxyzptlk, or a mental construct of Brainiac, I won't be seeing it.

Why do you think there's such division amongst the fans?

I know you spoke about pre-conceived notions and such, but at what point is the characterization of Superman off? At what point would you say, "Oh, that's not Superman, it looks like SUperman, but the substance is just not there." I really would find that interesting to know.

I feel that what Superman does in his personal life is just as important as what he does in his public life and he has been characterized as such througout all previous versions. SR seemed to draw a line and say that, "No, he's not the same. The public life is one thing, but in his private like he is different." Do you feel this way? If so, why and if not, do you feel like his public life was portrayed congruently with his private life in SR?

 

[mego joe]

Does that mean discovering about Jor-El negated Jonathan Kent for Kal-El/Clark?

Angeloz

NOt quite sure what you mean?

But I'll try. In Clark's case, just the opposite. Jonathon will always be more important to Clark, b/c Jonathon is the man who raised him, loved him, and cared for him. Jor-El will always be somewhat distant, and eventhough Clark understands what happened and that Jor-El could not be there to be there for Clark Jor-El gave Clark a chance for life by sending him into space. Clark understand and I'm sure has an emotional attachment and love for Jor-El, but it will never be the same as the feelings and attachment he has for Jonathon.

Did that answer your question? I'm not really sure what you are getting at? Were you even asking me?

 

[Angeloz]

For me to have a good and believable story, you have to know what came before. The creators can be clever in how they reveal the past, but to really understand the motivations of the characters one needs to understand how they got to the point they are in. I just don't see any way in which Superman would not tell Lois goodbye before leaving Earth for 5 years and explaining the reasons for his trip.

Unless:
1. They were not in a relationship beyond casual acquaintance. This is clearly not the case.

2. Lois 'forgot' or got her mind wiped. This is also clearly not the case.

3. Superman is a jerk and is selfish when it comes to dealing with personal relationships and he chooses not to tell her b/c it is 'too difficult' and he doesn't want to be hurt. He would rather hurt Lois. This seems to be the case and it also seems to be an incorrect characterization for the essence of Superman's character. There will be many versions of comic charactrers, but you have to maintain the essence, otherwise it's just not the same character.

I'll acknowledge we don't know exactly what happened in the past. When I was first watching the film I liked the thought of it being similar to "Superman II". So they had a brief time together but it ended tragically so it made him more lonely. Then when news about Krypton being found happened he leaped at the chance for him not being alone after all. I grant you it is probably wrong but I liked it.

That said if it turns out something else occured and he made a bigger mistake by something like your third option. Then I could be more forgiving. Though we don't know what happened before he left with his relationship with Lois. Sure they'd been intimate. But don't know the circumstances of it. Plus there's more than one possibility there. All we know is he wanted to see Krypton and felt he couldn't do that if he told her. It was a mistake he pays for in many ways. I don't think my condemning is needed. Especially as he learns from it later on.

Going to Krypton could be a great story and visually stunning. It is certainly a good idea for a movie and I have no problem with him going. My problem is he left Lois high and dry without an explanation. Why would he do this? The movie does a horrible job of explaining his motivation. THe reason the movie gives is underdeveloped and seemingly out of character for Superman, at least in the context of the miniscule amount of information that is given.

If he and Lois were not a couple, were not in a sexual relationship, were not more than acquaintances I would not have any expectation for Superman to explain himself to Lois. But it seems that She is supposed to be important to him, he is supposed to be in love with her and vice versa. With that as 'vague history' it doesn't make sense that he can't be honest with her. That is my problem. Without fleshing out the motivation and making it believable it is bad filmmaking. With what we are given in the film it is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Superman's character. That's not how Superman acts, in is completely inacurate.

I know for a fact in the comics he's done far worse to her than that and I don't even know 1% of it. In the Silver Age he'd do a whole lot of crap to Lois as well as Lana. But it's been too long since I've read them for me to give more recent examples.

I certainly do want more, and oddly I don't think the movie did enough with the characters, b/c I didn't care for anyone except Richard as a person. He's the only one I felt for. Going in one would have expected to care for Superman, but since he consciously chose to the thing he did, knowing it was wrong, I felt no empathy, and becasue Jason is the one who is going to suffer for it, I felt no compasion for SUperman. Superman made the mistakes and he should suffer, but it's not fair for Jason to suffer. It doesn't make sense for Superman to hurt his own child b/c he was not enough of a man to be responsible and honest with the woman with whom he was in a sexual relationship.

As I said before he didn't know he had a child and probably that he could have a child in the first place. And I'm sorry you couldn't care for him.

I thought about that! Maybe not in a sexual way, but in a "My two dad's" way. Remember the old TV show with Paul Reiser and Greg Evigan?

Hazily 'cos I don't think I ever watched it. Then there's that film "Three Men and a Baby".

NOt sure what you are getting at, even in jest. Doh!!

You've never read fan fiction? 'Cos you can read all sorts on the internet.

Still slightly confused. Are you saying that you are sick of people suggesting that the character is not characterized correctly in SR? Or do you mean people are suggesting that Jason is not SUperman's son?

People claiming he's not Superman. Hate that. But I get that not everyone likes the film.

Guessing you mean the formere, that people are suggesting the character does not act like Superman.

If this "IS" Superman for you, would you mind sharing you background with the character and what other stories you find fit into this mold of Superman making mistakes that hurt the ones he loves by choosing to make a mistake that he knows is wrong?

As I said before the comics have a history of him doing crap to Lois delibrately and more maliciously. Here's one example:

He shows Lois a box and tells her not to open it. She does (when he's not there) and touches a statue, it makes her eyes emit green beams. Superman acts weakened and so it's kryptonite. This makes Lois move to a remote part of Alaska for months. They discover a "cure" and Clark flys by helicopter to her with Jimmy I think. She decides to test to see if Clark is Superman; he doesn't react. She's cured and her eyes are back to normal. It turns out Superman did this to her deliberately and the green light was harmless to him (doesn't tell her too).

My point is there is a long and varied history when it comes to Superman.

YOu see, that's what I feel is missing, the essence that makes it Superman. To me the most important aspects of the character that make him recognizable by the content of his character aren't there. Instead there is something else there. This something else could be interesting, but it just doesn't ring true as Superman. An adaptation has to contain some basics and the only part that are there in SR are the window dressing, the images the superficial aspects of the character (the specific superpowers are part of that), but the substance of the character is lost. The substance of the character is not "man who overcomes own limitations as a person to be viewed as hero by the world at large, but deep down is a mess." That's who I see in SR, and that isn't Superman. Like I said before, it could be an interesting character, but it's not Superman.

He's an alien that has grown up on Earth and uses his powers to help the world. Not for selfish reasons. Sounds like the Superman I know and love. As for a personal life that has varied in history from having none to being married. "Superman Returns" has added to that history.

Don't you think that viewers respond to a character like Superman based on what they already know about the character? Isn't that part of the appeal? They already know something about the character and they identify with it? If that is not in the characterization, something is wrong for them. I think that what is essential to Superman is identifying with the idea that he is a positive role model and tries to do the right thing and will always sacrifice his own well being for that of a complete stranger, but especially for those he cares about. The big blue boy scout. When you lose that you've lost the essence of Superman.

On people that don't know - I'm thinking they have have to start somewhere to see or experience the character. Like kids for instance as well as others that haven't experienced him before. I think that he does do good things and even sacrifices for the world in the film. It nearly kills him and he knew it could. And he even had to choose between Metropolis and Lois at one point.

I'll be honest. If the story of Jason is continued as it appears that it will be continued I will have no interest in the sequel, no matter how amazing and fantastic the effects and action might be. Jason is only a reminder of everything I didn't like about the first movie. Unless he turns out to be Mr. Mxyzptlk, or a mental construct of Brainiac, I won't be seeing it.

Why do you think there's such division amongst the fans?

I know you spoke about pre-conceived notions and such, but at what point is the characterization of Superman off? At what point would you say, "Oh, that's not Superman, it looks like SUperman, but the substance is just not there." I really would find that interesting to know.

That's a difficult one to answer. Because I could say something and then find someone did a story that I liked and I was wrong. Because in theory if they change his powers and have him murdering the bad guys and being a general bastard. That comes to mind. But you never know someone might be able to write something that I could accept especially if there was an acceptable twist. See I think I am more accepting of different versions. I may have preferences but they're not absolutes for me. That said I can and do disagree with stuff. But I'd have to read or experience it to do so.

On the fans thing I've answered that - I think they are one-eyed about something. It could be thgey favour one actor above everything and can't accept anyone else. Or they have preconceived ideas on what Superman is and can't accept any version that differs from them. And some of us are more accepting of different versions. By the way I love the film so I don't think it's second best or less. And it's not the only version I love either.

I feel that what Superman does in his personal life is just as important as what he does in his public life and he has been characterized as such througout all previous versions. SR seemed to draw a line and say that, "No, he's not the same. The public life is one thing, but in his private like he is different." Do you feel this way? If so, why and if not, do you feel like his public life was portrayed congruently with his private life in SR?

As I've said his private life has varied so much in his history from being pretty non-existant to being married. There's no definative version. An even the comics have had him have personal problems. But I haven't read them for a long time and have only heard about most of them (vaguely). Then there's "Lois and Clark" that involved hijinks too (been too long again). It happens. In life too that things can be going well somewhere and disasterously elsewhere. Even the Spider-Man films have this but I guess you'll say that's not Superman. Oh well. Must go.

Angeloz

 

[Angeloz]

NOt quite sure what you mean?

But I'll try. In Clark's case, just the opposite. Jonathon will always be more important to Clark, b/c Jonathon is the man who raised him, loved him, and cared for him. Jor-El will always be somewhat distant, and eventhough Clark understands what happened and that Jor-El could not be there to be there for Clark Jor-El gave Clark a chance for life by sending him into space. Clark understand and I'm sure has an emotional attachment and love for Jor-El, but it will never be the same as the feelings and attachment he has for Jonathon.

Did that answer your question? I'm not really sure what you are getting at? Were you even asking me?

Yes I was asking you. Because you were implying Richard would be nothing to Jason seemingly. Now we don't know what he'll mean when he finds out the facts but I think ultimately he would mean something to him. He was his Dad even if not biologically. We don't know what the future will hold though. I think Superman will face very bad things and people because that's what he always does. But the personal stuff is up in the air. However I still think Jason will care for Richard. Unless of course the writers do something. Actually I think one thing Kal-El could tell him about is that he had two Dads too. Then there's being not completely human, as well, that they have in common. But I don't know the future nor how they'll handle it. I'm willing to give them a chance over it. I don't know if I'll like it. We'll see (I hope).

Angeloz