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

[mego joe]

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.

See, the fact that we don't know what happened makes it almost impossible to really understand his motivation, and that to me is a failure of the filmmaking.

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.



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.

Whether or not he knew about the child is irrelevant, if you are in a sexual relationship with someone you have certain responsibilities, and I' know we've had this conversation before about time between Jason's conception and him leaving and when Lois realized she was pregnant, so I'll not rehash it all, except to say that since we don't the context, it's another example of poor filmmaking by not making the context clear so that the character's motivations are understandable.

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



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

No, don't have a lot of free time.

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

Do you at least understnand why we say "he's not Superman?"

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.

I think the context of a story is what is reveals a character's motivations and intentions and the true nature of his actions.
Without reading the story above it's obvious it was one of the types of stories in which Superman concocts an elaborate scheme in order to convince Lois he's really not Clark Kent. In the context of those stories Superman and Lois are not in a sexual relationship, they are not in a serious dating relationship and Superman and if she discovered that Clark was Superman it would pose a danger to her (Lois) as well as the integrity of his mission as Superman. Part of the context of the stories of that era was that Superman was a confirmed batchelor and would not entertain the notion of a serious relationship b/c he chose to be 100% commited to his 'job' as Superman and any deep entanglements would compromise his ability to perform his 'job' as Superman.

Now in that context, is it really malicious? Was Lois hurt in anyway? Wasn't he protecting his ability to be SUperman and keep Lois at bay from discovering his identity and putting herself in danger. Certainly you don't think that Superman was just being mean to Lois on purpose for the sake of being mean?

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.

See, I think the public actions and private actions go hand in hand to fully develop the character and you can't have one without the other and be consistent.

He can have an almost non-existent private life or be married, but he should always act in a certain way towards the people he cares about and he loves. If he is depicted in a relationship with Lois he should act a certain way based on the fact that he is a good person that cares for other people and who is not selfish. If he is in a sexual relationship with Lois then he would certainly explain his actions for leaving Earth. If he was not in a committed relationship of any sort he might not. But the context of the relationship would determine the actions. But in any circumstance if he thought he would hurt her by not saying goodbye, he would certainly make the effort to explain himself b/c he is not selfish. But in SR the only explanation that is given for him not telling Lois is that is difficult, not what other explanation is there for him not saying goodbye except that he is avoiding his own pain and responsibility. Why would a person that is unselfish do this? That is out of character,is it not?

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.

But as a man in is personal life he is a complete bastard to Lois and unable to fulfill his moral and ethical obligations as a father. How does that fit in with the character? And SR is certainly no place for young kids to get their first exposure to the character. Besides being wrong(ha ha) it is not appropriate for young children.

But the majority of people are going to have their first exposure to Supreman via comics where he doesn't act the way he does in SR.

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.

See, that's what I get from SR. In SR in his private life he is a complete bastard to Lois and there is not that dichotomy in his character. He is consistently good, caring and thougtful in both his private and public life. If you change that you are changing the fundamental characterization of the man.

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.

There are mulitple versions, but in my experience, which is quite varied, the only version in which he comes off as a complete bastard is SR. I'm not being extreme to make a point, but since SR came out, I've gone back and re-read ALL my Superman comics and bought new Trade Paperbacks to explore more versions of the character and I haven't found anything to change my mind.

In all my experience, his motivations are pure, his intentions are of the highest ethical standards and he cares more for others than he does about himself, and he would do anything to protect Lois from harm and would never intentionally harm her or wrong her. To me that is exactly what he does though in Superman Returns by doing one of the things:

1. Entered into a sexual relaionship with Lois when he was not truly committed her.

2. Emotionally abandonned Lois and any child he may have conceived with her.

3. Chose to not say goodbye in order to avoid his own pain and knew it was the wrong thing to do, otherwise he wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it was difficult.

4. Showed a weak moral and ethical character by believing he could not still go to Krypton if he was honest with her.

To me, there is no context that eliminates all these possibilities and therefore, leaves the character unrecognizable as Superman by this characterization.

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.



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.

It's all about context. You can explain actions differently be context. While there's no definitive version of the details of his private life, I think there is a definitive version of his characterization. And it's not the details of his private life, married or not married that matter but how he acts in that private life and the context in which events happen. Isn't having sex with Lois different depending on if they are in a committed relationship or not? WIth the lack of context, it is hard to make sense of his motivations, and the little explanation doesn't seem congruent with the way you would expect SUperman to act, so in order to make it believable there has to be that 'twist' you mention to make the story plausible and believable and SR doesn not do that. SImply saying it was too difficult for him is not part of the characterization for SUperman especially when the alternative is hurting the woman he loves.

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.

You are right. But it is valid b/c Superman is not Spider-Man. Their characters are very different. From the very beginning Spider-Man's character has always revolved around his personal issues, but except for learning the lesson of 'with great power comes great responsibility' Spider-Man's issues were not due to him knowingly choosing to do the wrong thing. Superman learned his lessons of power and responsibility growing up with the Kents. He grew up learning about his power and he grew with it and learned his lessons as he matured. Peter had his power thrust upon him suddenly. The are two very different stories and they have always had different approaches

Must go.

Angeloz

Me too, my daughter's flipping out!

 

[Armand Z Trip]

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?

I think it is a terrible shame Warner Brothers are making a Superman sequel. I was really looking forward to Lady in the Water 2: Stuck in the Pool Filter, and The Ant Murderer: Bully Harder. Damn Hollywood beancounters!

 

[Armand Z Trip]

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

You know you want me.

 

[Angeloz]

See, the fact that we don't know what happened makes it almost impossible to really understand his motivation, and that to me is a failure of the filmmaking.

Or it allows the viewer to imagine it. Which I like 'cos I hate being treated like I'm stupid. Which can mean every plot point is spoonfed and massive anvils are dropped into the story because the audience is considered dumb.

Whether or not he knew about the child is irrelevant, if you are in a sexual relationship with someone you have certain responsibilities, and I' know we've had this conversation before about time between Jason's conception and him leaving and when Lois realized she was pregnant, so I'll not rehash it all, except to say that since we don't the context, it's another example of poor filmmaking by not making the context clear so that the character's motivations are understandable.

I will say we know enough to know he didn't know about the child before he left.

No, don't have a lot of free time.

Look up the term slash fiction in Wikipedia if you dare.

Do you at least understnand why we say "he's not Superman?"

Yes because you (theoretically) can't accept this version of Superman. I get that. But saying it doesn't make it true. It might be for you and some others in your heads (maybe). But he is Superman and that includes for other fans as well as non-fans. I happen to think it ridiculous and over-the-top to claim he isn't Superman. I don't object to people claiming he's not their favourite version. Because it at least acknowledges he is a version of the character even though it's not to their taste. I can understand that even if I disagree with it.

I think the context of a story is what is reveals a character's motivations and intentions and the true nature of his actions.
Without reading the story above it's obvious it was one of the types of stories in which Superman concocts an elaborate scheme in order to convince Lois he's really not Clark Kent. In the context of those stories Superman and Lois are not in a sexual relationship, they are not in a serious dating relationship and Superman and if she discovered that Clark was Superman it would pose a danger to her (Lois) as well as the integrity of his mission as Superman. Part of the context of the stories of that era was that Superman was a confirmed batchelor and would not entertain the notion of a serious relationship b/c he chose to be 100% commited to his 'job' as Superman and any deep entanglements would compromise his ability to perform his 'job' as Superman.

Now in that context, is it really malicious? Was Lois hurt in anyway? Wasn't he protecting his ability to be SUperman and keep Lois at bay from discovering his identity and putting herself in danger. Certainly you don't think that Superman was just being mean to Lois on purpose for the sake of being mean?

It was mean as well as unwarranted in what he did. He made her live in a remote village for months. I didn't mention that she ended helping eskimoes in the village. I mean if he decided to do it for hours I'd understand though it's still cruel. Because he could of easily played the Clark didn't get hurt by the beams card much earlier. But he let her live in a remote village, change her lifestyle and job just to play a trick on her to prove he's not Clark Kent. Months!?!

Yep he's so understanding and considerate.

See, I think the public actions and private actions go hand in hand to fully develop the character and you can't have one without the other and be consistent.

He can have an almost non-existent private life or be married, but he should always act in a certain way towards the people he cares about and he loves. If he is depicted in a relationship with Lois he should act a certain way based on the fact that he is a good person that cares for other people and who is not selfish. If he is in a sexual relationship with Lois then he would certainly explain his actions for leaving Earth. If he was not in a committed relationship of any sort he might not. But the context of the relationship would determine the actions. But in any circumstance if he thought he would hurt her by not saying goodbye, he would certainly make the effort to explain himself b/c he is not selfish. But in SR the only explanation that is given for him not telling Lois is that is difficult, not what other explanation is there for him not saying goodbye except that he is avoiding his own pain and responsibility. Why would a person that is unselfish do this? That is out of character,is it not?

Possibly because he's not perfect and can make mistakes. He felt an overwhelming desire to see Krypton. It seems he hoped it wasn't destroyed and that maybe he can see his parents. Just like any adopted child might. It didn't work out.

But as a man in is personal life he is a complete bastard to Lois and unable to fulfill his moral and ethical obligations as a father. How does that fit in with the character? And SR is certainly no place for young kids to get their first exposure to the character. Besides being wrong(ha ha) it is not appropriate for young children.

But the majority of people are going to have their first exposure to Supreman via comics where he doesn't act the way he does in SR.

I think you're living in fantasy land if you think most people first encounter Superman from the comics. That's a small minority of people and getting smaller. I'll point out as an example I saw him at the cinema first (Christopher Reeve). Some might see him on television on one of the numerous shows. There's so many possibilities. By the way I did get into the comics for a little while. Unfortunately they're really expensive and the comic shops are too far away (I went for a couple of years). Though some newsagents carry them but not the special stuff nor all of them.

See, that's what I get from SR. In SR in his private life he is a complete bastard to Lois and there is not that dichotomy in his character. He is consistently good, caring and thougtful in both his private and public life. If you change that you are changing the fundamental characterization of the man.

I disagree. Especially about the history of the character because he has been a bastard to her in the comics. But also I accept he's not perfect and he might stuff things up. Can you at least see that he acknowledged his mistake and sought forgiveness? Then even learnt from it?

There are mulitple versions, but in my experience, which is quite varied, the only version in which he comes off as a complete bastard is SR. I'm not being extreme to make a point, but since SR came out, I've gone back and re-read ALL my Superman comics and bought new Trade Paperbacks to explore more versions of the character and I haven't found anything to change my mind.

In all my experience, his motivations are pure, his intentions are of the highest ethical standards and he cares more for others than he does about himself, and he would do anything to protect Lois from harm and would never intentionally harm her or wrong her. To me that is exactly what he does though in Superman Returns by doing one of the things:

1. Entered into a sexual relaionship with Lois when he was not truly committed her.

We don't know exactly what happened. It may have been tragic like the second film. They might have given into their feelings once and Lois might have decided it was a mistake. There's more than one possibility. Or maybe they gave into their feelings, then he found out about Krypton and he was torn. He had an overwhelming desire to see if his parents were alive but thought if he saw her again he'd not go. But he wanted to go. It lead him to do something that he wasn't planning on doing - leaving her without seeing her again.

2. Emotionally abandonned Lois and any child he may have conceived with her.

He's an alien and knows this. Scientifically it's impossible unless human like aliens colonised the Earth and they're from that stock (and even then it might not be possible). Lucky it's fiction so impossible things can occur.

3. Chose to not say goodbye in order to avoid his own pain and knew it was the wrong thing to do, otherwise he wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it was difficult.

4. Showed a weak moral and ethical character by believing he could not still go to Krypton if he was honest with her.

To me, there is no context that eliminates all these possibilities and therefore, leaves the character unrecognizable as Superman by this characterization.

See above for my answer. You probably won't like it but basically he made a mistake. You find it unforgivable but not all do.

It's all about context. You can explain actions differently be context. While there's no definitive version of the details of his private life, I think there is a definitive version of his characterization. And it's not the details of his private life, married or not married that matter but how he acts in that private life and the context in which events happen. Isn't having sex with Lois different depending on if they are in a committed relationship or not? WIth the lack of context, it is hard to make sense of his motivations, and the little explanation doesn't seem congruent with the way you would expect SUperman to act, so in order to make it believable there has to be that 'twist' you mention to make the story plausible and believable and SR doesn not do that. SImply saying it was too difficult for him is not part of the characterization for SUperman especially when the alternative is hurting the woman he loves.

Then there's the possibility of seeing his parents. Or if it was blown up then what if there were survivors and they needed help? Could he live with those possibilities.

You are right. But it is valid b/c Superman is not Spider-Man. Their characters are very different. From the very beginning Spider-Man's character has always revolved around his personal issues, but except for learning the lesson of 'with great power comes great responsibility' Spider-Man's issues were not due to him knowingly choosing to do the wrong thing. Superman learned his lessons of power and responsibility growing up with the Kents. He grew up learning about his power and he grew with it and learned his lessons as he matured. Peter had his power thrust upon him suddenly. The are two very different stories and they have always had different approaches

My point was more general in that the personal life could be great but the public life could be crap. Or the other way around. There's always challenges or something or someone to overcome. Because it would be boring otherwise. As examples in "Superman II" he got a personal life but it ended in tragedy (the love affair). In "Superman III" he had been infected by kryptonite which caused him to misbehave so his image suffered (public). Not mentioning fighting himself (private). Basically I'm saying not everything will be going well for him. And I don't expect it too. Nor do I expect perfection.

Me too, my daughter's flipping out!

Wanting attention, to go somewhere, do something or the computer? You don't have to answer this.

Angeloz

 

[El Payaso]

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

You're clearly overestimating either the power of humor or your capacity of it.

You know you want me.

I know I want you... out of the movie, Mr. Cheese!

 

[TheCaptain22555]

I enjoyed Superman Returns. It made him see more human, something I didn't think many people outside of Christopher Reeve could do. I think the beef is the story revolved around him returning to Earth after such a long time etc. rather than him saving the world from a legitimate supervillain (ex: Metallo, Brainiac).

 

[CGHulk]

So after Lex destroys all the land in the western world and it's people, so who's gonna be able to afford to live on New Krypton, what's left are 3rd world countries! How the heck can Superman lift an island that big to be even be credible, and it doesn't even topple out of his hands! Superman lifts a whole island of Krytonite and he's able to lift it out to outerspace and also with a piece of Kryptonite in his side, pulease!

 

[Angeloz]

He's Superman and there was packed earth between him and the kryptonite which blocks radiation. Look it up in Wikipedia. I could point out in "Spider-Man 2" there was a mini-sun that didn't burn people to a crisp or irradiate them. There was a water vapourising machine in "Batman Begins" that didn't kill anyone despite people being largely made of water. It's a frikkin' comic book film.

Angeloz

 

[CGHulk]

Actually those were my parents complaints while watching the movie last night.
Oh and they also said that he's a peeping tom and a stalker and an eavesdropper, and that the CG Superman looks really really fake.

 

[Angeloz]

And this makes all the difference how? 'Cos I don't know your parents.

Angeloz

 

[afan]

He's Superman and there was packed earth between him and the kryptonite which blocks radiation. Look it up in Wikipedia. I could point out in "Spider-Man 2" there was a mini-sun that didn't burn people to a crisp or irradiate them. There was a water vapourising machine in "Batman Begins" that didn't kill anyone despite people being largely made of water. It's a frikkin' comic book film.

Angeloz

.....and Green K produces immediate debilitating weakness in Superman.
Only lead blocks K radiation!!!!!!

Respectfully Angeloz, it's one thing to voice an opinion, but quite another to be factually in error.

Might i suggest this site as a source for all things Superman instead of Wikipedia.

http://theages.superman.ws/Encyclopaedia/

 

[Angeloz]

As I said packed earth blocks radiation. Gamma radiation to be precise. It is also blocked by lead as well as other things. That's one of the reasons why bomb shelters tend to be underground. Also the other thing that would protect him would be the distance away from the radiation - it's a square rule which means double the distance away from it and there's only a quarter of the radiation from the source. Though I get kryptonite is a fictional radiation with fictional properties. 'Cos he also looks very nice for a radiation patient or any type of patient - not a complaint from me though. By the way because it's fictional the effects of the kryptonite vary especially with the plot and it seems packed earth protects him in the filmverse. The comics also have variable effects. I don't remember enough to give examples but have read them and people giving them.

If you want a fanwank then maybe that packed earth had lead in it which combined with the distance helped allow him to have superpowers but was getting painful from the splinter in his side which was sapping him.

Angeloz

 

[Cyrusbales]

superman has never died from Kryptonite though, so it weakens him, but doesn't destroy him, so it's like in a film where someone is badly beaten, but carries on fighting.

 

[afan]

superman has never died from Kryptonite though, so it weakens him, but doesn't destroy him, so it's like in a film where someone is badly beaten, but carries on fighting.

The weakening is so profound and immediate as to render him totally ineffective , and prolonged exposure to green-k is fatal.

 

[Cyrusbales]

The weakening is so profound and immediate as to render him totally ineffective , and prolonged exposure to green-k is fatal.

supposedly fatal

 

[afan]

supposedly fatal

Sigh......One can lead a horse to water..........

It is fatal.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Sigh......One can lead a horse to water..........

It is fatal.

what issue did it kill him then.....

 

[afan]

what issue did it kill him then.....

Bullets are fatal for Batman, right.........no wait according to the logic you are using they must not be fatal, as he has yet to die from a gunshot wound.


Green K causes immediate and debillitating weakness in Superman and is fatal if exposure is prolonged. It is what it is, there is no room for discussion.

 

[Lightning54SC]

i was very crushed by this film... ive watched it many times over and over trying to liek it but it doesnt do it for me.... i remember the first time walking out of the theatre to my car thinking WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!? NO RTK, NO ZOD, NO BADDIE!??????

ill say this if they add the deleted scenes in then the film will be better... i say someone or some people must attack the WB, stealthe lost footage and give us the movie we want cuz singer wont do it... there wil be no directors cut... also they need to brighten it up like the link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB1rllTGeHM

 

[Angeloz]

what issue did it kill him then.....

I know there was an imaginary story in the fifties I believe it's in "The Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told" TPB. But as I've said even the comics have variable reactions and I've heard he has sometimes used superpowers in a last attempt to survive. Funnily enough he survives those encounters.

Angeloz

 

[El Payaso]

Bullets are fatal for Batman, right.........no wait according to the logic you are using they must not be fatal, as he has yet to die from a gunshot wound.


Green K causes immediate and debillitating weakness in Superman and is fatal if exposure is prolonged. It is what it is, there is no room for discussion.

Then Superman died when Lex puit that Kryptonite in her neck and threw him to the pool for so long time (enough to let the missiles got launched and all)... or are you saying that Superman survived all that time without dying drowned (apparently he could hold his breathing as good as a professional swimmer, Kryptonite weakening and all)?

Mh, it seems it's a tradition that it takes very long for Superman to actually die from Kryptonite radiation exposure. At least a tradition in the Donnerverse, where SR is based on.

 

[afan]

Mh, it seems it's a tradition that it takes very long for Superman to actually die from Kryptonite radiation exposure. At least a tradition in the Donnerverse, where SR is based on.

Finally you're getting something right.
I've consistently included, prolonged exposure is fatal, in the explanation.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Superman fans don't generally like seeing Superman being gang banged then being shanked with a shiv of kryptonite.

 

[mego joe]

Or it allows the viewer to imagine it. Which I like 'cos I hate being treated like I'm stupid. Which can mean every plot point is spoonfed and massive anvils are dropped into the story because the audience is considered dumb.

I don't think every plot point has to be spoon fed, but their relationship is at the crux of the film. It seems that whatever the context of their relationship was it would be REALLY important to know. And I mean exactly. What happened in the past would go a long way for us to understand why the characters act the way they do. THink about this, and both are plausible from what we know from the movie.

1. SUperman and Lois were in a committed monogamous relationship and at some point it became sexual. Then after a significant period of time of being in the relationship the news of Krypton breaks and SUperman takes off.

2. They are just beginning a relationship and not sure where it is going, they have sex once, they break it off b/c of something tragic like in SUperman II as you suggested. The relationship is over. Then after a few months the KRypton news breaks and SUperman leave.

To me, these two situations are different enough to make a meaningful difference in how Superman and Lois react.

I feel Lois reactions to what happened are logical if looking at situation #1. I feel Superman's actions are more in keeping with situation #2. I like to know the why's of situations. SR doesn't give the why's. There are a lot of other possibilities for the context of their relationship that would genterate other actions and reactions as well. FOr such an important, perhaps the most important aspect of the film, it is essential to let the viewer know what happened. Every plot point doesn't have to be explained, ex.. Why LEx was in jail, nothing else in the film hinges on knowing that. However, understanding the context of the SUperman/ Lois relationship IS essential to understanding why the characters act as they do and making us care about what happens to the character in the rest of the film

I will say we know enough to know he didn't know about the child before he left.

Agreed, but it doesn't tell us why it was so difficult for him to say goodbye. It doesn't explain why Lois jumped in bed with Richard w/o significant time passing after Superman left. It doesn't explain why Lois was confused about the Jason's paternity. All those are essential to understanding the motivations of the main characters in the rest of the movie.

Look up the term slash fiction in Wikipedia if you dare.

OK.

Yes because you (theoretically) can't accept this version of Superman. I get that. But saying it doesn't make it true. It might be for you and some others in your heads (maybe). But he is Superman and that includes for other fans as well as non-fans. I happen to think it ridiculous and over-the-top to claim he isn't Superman. I don't object to people claiming he's not their favourite version. Because it at least acknowledges he is a version of the character even though it's not to their taste. I can understand that even if I disagree with it.

For me, the essence of SUperman goes beyond what you mentioned in your earlier post:

"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."

THat to me is the superficial description of Superman's character and not the substance that lies beneath it, the content of the character. Imagine a similar definition for Batman.

A young boy whose parents are murder and he vows on his parent's grave that when he grows up up he will fight crime in the streets.

That is a superficial description, but it says nothing of his methods or values, and neither does your description of who Superman is. If Batman used a gun and shot first and asked questions later would that be Batman? If he was a viscious brute who took more pleasure in hurting criminals than stopping them, would that be Batman?

I'm saying that there are certain ways in which a character must act to retain the essence of the character. That is why you can change some of the superficial aspects of characters when adapting them, but as long as the essence is reatained you have been true to the character.

Ex... You can darken Superman's costume and still have it look like SUperman, but you can't change his colors to green and yellow and have the character recognizable as Superman.

HOwever, you can't change the essence of a character's actions and have it recognizable as the character. Ex... In Superman II, Superman enters into a relationship with Lois and appears to be fully committed to being with her, and seems to be taking it seriously when he depowers. This is congruent with his motivation and characterization as a person, a good, honest caring person. Contrast that in SR, where he can't say goodbye to the woman he loves, b/c it is 'too difficult.' When has Superman ever shied away from a difficult challenge whether it be personal or public?

Intent is the same thing. What was Superman's intent in Superman II in that situation. He was so committed to Lois he depowered for what he thought would be FOREVER. In SR, his only intent by not saying goodbye was for selfish reasons. That is a direct contradiction to how Superman has always been characterized. Even the end of Lester's cut of Superman II when he erases Lois's memory it is to end Lois's pain, it may seem like a lame story element, but his intent is to end her pain and give her the chance to move on and meet someone else, someone like Richard perhaps.

It is in these ways and others that I feel SUperman in SR is out of character, and why I clain, 'It's not SUperman.'

It was mean as well as unwarranted in what he did. He made her live in a remote village for months. I didn't mention that she ended helping eskimoes in the village. I mean if he decided to do it for hours I'd understand though it's still cruel. Because he could of easily played the Clark didn't get hurt by the beams card much earlier. But he let her live in a remote village, change her lifestyle and job just to play a trick on her to prove he's not Clark Kent. Months!?!

Yep he's so understanding and considerate.

Without reading the story I don't feel I can adequately comment on it further.

Possibly because he's not perfect and can make mistakes. He felt an overwhelming desire to see Krypton. It seems he hoped it wasn't destroyed and that maybe he can see his parents. Just like any adopted child might. It didn't work out.

It's not about perfection, though. It can still have been a mistake to go even if he told Lois good bye. He could still have come home and lost her to Richard and Lois and Richard could still have a child. The difference is that he would have put Lois's feelings first. That is not about being perfect but rather treating someone you love respectfully and lovingly. Even if it hurts. Even if he risks losing he. It requires that type of behavior to make the audience believe that Supreman REALLY loves Lois and they were in a real mature adult relationship based on mutual love and respect. That is the type of relationship that would be congruent with Superman's character. SR doesn't give us that though. The relationship seems to be more like an immature high school relationship that is not based on mutual love and respect, but rather desire and possesiveness and jealousy.

I think you're living in fantasy land if you think most people first encounter Superman from the comics. That's a small minority of people and getting smaller. I'll point out as an example I saw him at the cinema first (Christopher Reeve). Some might see him on television on one of the numerous shows. There's so many possibilities. By the way I did get into the comics for a little while. Unfortunately they're really expensive and the comic shops are too far away (I went for a couple of years). Though some newsagents carry them but not the special stuff nor all of them.

You could be right, but my experience is rooted in comics first.

I disagree. Especially about the history of the character because he has been a bastard to her in the comics. But also I accept he's not perfect and he might stuff things up. Can you at least see that he acknowledged his mistake and sought forgiveness? Then even learnt from it?

I think there have been lots of stories about Superman over the years and while the character has developed and changed over the years there are somethings that are essential. Besides the story you mention, I don't think SUperman being a bastard to Lois is an essential element of the character. I also think that in those stories there is a deeper underlying motivation in which his intentions are noble and good. I also thing that a lot of those stories like you mention from the fifties and sixties depict Lois in a very unflattering way in a time when it would be considered OK for Superman to trick Lois to teach Lois a lesson. In the context of the world at the time, the story would not be viewed the way it is viewed now.

We don't know exactly what happened. It may have been tragic like the second film. They might have given into their feelings once and Lois might have decided it was a mistake. There's more than one possibility. Or maybe they gave into their feelings, then he found out about Krypton and he was torn.

IMO, no matter what the context, it isn't in character for him not to be considerate and honest with Lois, no matter how much it hurts him. He may make the mistake of having to leave and risk losing her, but he isn't abandonning her emotionally. I don't think it is in character for Superman to emotionally abandon the woman he loves. It doesn't make sense if you believe that essentially Superman is a good and caring person who puts others before himself, and that goes for his public as well as private life.

He had an overwhelming desire to see if his parents were alive but thought if he saw her again he'd not go.

WHy would he think that? He's SUperman, he spends all day risking himself for others and putting others first. He can't be considerate enough to tell Lois that he's leaving for 5 years? It just doesn't fit if you believe that Superman and Lois really love each other and they are mature adults. People are faced with this situation daily in real life. Business trips, military on deployment, going off to college etc.... It's the most common thing to say to someone you love. Why is this Superman in SR unable to do this? That question is not answered and w/o a believable and plausible explanation it is out of character.

But he wanted to go. It lead him to do something that he wasn't planning on doing - leaving her without seeing her again.

IT was his choice not to see her before he left and tell her goodbye.

He's an alien and knows this. Scientifically it's impossible unless human like aliens colonised the Earth and they're from that stock (and even then it might not be possible). Lucky it's fiction so impossible things can occur.

The fact that Superman is a caring and considerate person makes me believe that if he were going to have sex with someone he would still act as if it were possible to conceive instead of just assuming they wouldn't. It's just like having sex using birth control. Even if you use it and think it's not going to happen, it you are mature and responsible you still have to be prepared for the eventualaity even if it seems impossible. That's what mature responsible, genuinely good people do.

See above for my answer. You probably won't like it but basically he made a mistake. You find it unforgivable but not all do.

The only reason I find it unforgivable is that his actions have affected an innocent child who never asked to be born. It's one thing to have wronged Lois an adult who willingly entered into the relationship. Jason is a completely innocent child who had no chance to choose anything. I think it is wrong to have Superman act in such a way that would indirectly harm a child if Superman had the chance to act differently.

Then there's the possibility of seeing his parents. Or if it was blown up then what if there were survivors and they needed help? Could he live with those possibilities.

I understand why he went and how important it was to him, I don't understand why it was not important to tell Lois what he was doing beforehand if they were in Love and meant so much to each other. Going is not the problem, not saying goodbye is the problem.

My point was more general in that the personal life could be great but the public life could be crap. Or the other way around. There's always challenges or something or someone to overcome. Because it would be boring otherwise. As examples in "Superman II" he got a personal life but it ended in tragedy (the love affair). In "Superman III" he had been infected by kryptonite which caused him to misbehave so his image suffered (public). Not mentioning fighting himself (private). Basically I'm saying not everything will be going well for him. And I don't expect it too. Nor do I expect perfection.

Certainly not, but SUperman's problems are not the result of his own misdeed. Superman did nothing wrong in any of the scenarios that you mention. In SR he is the sole cause for all of his problems, including (as stated by Jimmy in the movie) why Luthor is out of jail.

To be congruent with Superman's character if SUperman knows what the right thing to do is, based on all available information then he chooses not to do it, that is wrong and out of character for SUperman. That's not the essence of his character. The essence is that he chooses what is right, but it doesn't mean he's perfect. He can't save everybody, and doesn't, but he tries. He may not have all the information, but he errs on the side of caution. His weakness is his honesty and compassion, and he may be manipulated by it, but his weakness is not that he's personally a wreck, but overcomes it to be a hero to the public.

Wanting attention, to go somewhere, do something or the computer? You don't have to answer this.

Angeloz

She was sitting on my lap drawing while I was typing and then wanted to play a computer learning game.

 

[CGHulk]

And this makes all the difference how? 'Cos I don't know your parents.

Angeloz

Well how about this, it's not an opinion of some immature fanboy whining about it not being in continutity with the comics or it's not like Superman the Movie, it's more contructive criticism from mature adults, btw they liked the movie.