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

[Zing79]

Recently I’ve brought myself around to watching this movie again. I still don’t like the film in any way shape or form, but I’ve come to realize it’s because of what I’m expecting from it.

Someone somewhere could take the story of Hamlet; re-imagine it so that Hamlet doesn’t die in the end. The story itself could be amazing, and garner critical acclaim, but if you’re a fan of Hamlet it’s not something you expect, and it might not be something you’re interested in reading.

That’s sort of my thought pattern at this point when it comes to Superman Returns. I’m sure many people like it. I’m just as equality sure that the vast majority of critics seemed to like it. But myself, and many of the ticket buying public just wasn’t into this interpretation of the character. It wasn’t what they expected or wanted, and that was reflected at the Box Office.

Again, it’s not that SR HAS to be a bad movie for it to fail the way it did - it just wasn’t what the general public expected.

 

[CGHulk]

I expected it to be in the tone of Superman the Movie, you know humorous, a brighter pallet, alot more fun, now that I've realized that, and with all my expectations of what it should of been like (SM:TM) I can now enjoy and accept it for what it is, despite it's flaws.

 

[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.

I'm glad they liked it. But you didn't mention this in the post I responded to and it had a very negative slant on things. If you want competing parents I know my Mum liked it and Brandon but I didn't get detailed thoughts about it. Then I know of a few people on the 'net that became Superman fans because of the film. That also may or may not have been comic book fans. One person here is AVEITWITHJAMON (a Spidey fan I believe). I'd just like to add it was by the way you slanted the criticism which was more negative than constructive I thought.

Angeloz

 

[Thespiralgoeson]

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

Not good enough.

Because he returns.

Well, after this mediocre film, maybe it would have been best if he hadn't.

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

Uh, no.... we don't. We get a caption at the beginning of the movie saying in so many words; "Superman was great, then he left... Now he's back! YAY!!!"

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.

Whoopdie friggin do... You still don't get what I'm saying.. Yeah, so Superman saves some people in a bus, rescues a cat from a tree, whatever... The point is, we never see how the world feels about him being gone. I'm not saying I want to see more plane crashes and people die without him... I'm saying, I wanted to see how Superman dissappearing actually effects the lives of the people of the world emotionally. Superman supposedly inspires them, yes? Brings out the best in everyone? What impact does it have when he leaves? Apparently none... well, aside from a bus going off a cliff or something equally pointless.

If the world loves Superman as they did in the first two movies, and apparently in SR, then one would thing him vanishing without a trace would have some kind of an effect on them. I'm not talking about more people dying in plane crashes, or getting crushed by falling cranes, or even being the victim of an awkward little bald man's crazy real estate schemes. I'm talking about the people of the world losing something to believe in. Like maybe they feel like they're all on their own? Or maybe that they've lost part of themselves? Just pick one, but give us something.

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

Well, as far as story and character development? Yeah, pretty unimportant. Don't get me wrong, Supes saving the plane was a great sequence. But neither that, nor Supes lifting up the island at the end ever gave me any reason to believe that the world missed him when he wasn't around. That just seems like good timing. Try another one.

Quite unimportant things you see.

Well, Lois seemed better off with Cyclops raising his bastard child, so yeah, unimportant. She also never seemed all that broken up about the father of her baby and man she supposedly loves vanishing.

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

Superman's an emotional whuss in the movie. Okay, he can lift up an island after being stabbed by Kryptonite, but he can't at least tell the woman he's in love with that he's leaving the f**king planet for 5 years? I mean, really, he can't even run it by her at all? Not even a note? That's a coward. He comes off as whiny, and very, very insecure.

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

I'm not talking about Superman risking his life. I'm talking about the whole subplot of Superman supposedly leaving for Krypton before the film takes place. What dramatic purpose did that serve at all? It could be used to show us how the world has to adjust when their hero leaves them... but we never see it (okay, in a three second scene, Clark is watching the news and there's a forest fire, and some people burning a flag or something... not good enough.) All we know is that Lois is knocked up... Why did she have to write a piece called "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." Do the people care that he's gone? Do they even notice? (Actually, a better question would be, does the audience care? The world doesn't seem to have changed much, aside from Lois having a creepy little kid of course, so I found it hard to care.)

The subplot could've also been used to show Superman trying to discover more about his past, to really connect with his home and his people etc.... but we never see that either. We never see the desire in him to know more about his history than his little crystals offer, and we never actually see, or even hear much about him going on this 5 year long journey. All we (and Lois) gets is a "Astronomers thought they found Krypton. I had to see it for myself."

In the end, what purpose did it serve at all? If you're not going to explore something like that that would have such an impact of the world these characters live in, then why include it all?? It's sloppy writing.

Yeah, make it a surprise!

You're joking, but really, why not? Hell, that at least might've been interesting, and the movie sure wouldn't have been worse off for it.

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

I don't. Well they didn't seem to care much, so I don't see why I should, but I digress.

Sloppy, sloppy writing. Really, I'm surprised that movie did nearly as well as it did with such an awful script.

EDIT: Let us aslo not forget that the whole ordeal cleared the path for the one of the films most gaping plotholes. Can somebody tell my why nobody at the Daily Planet notices that Superman and Clark both left for 5 years and "return" on the exact same day? I mean, yeah I understand that this is the zany universe where all Supes needs are glasses and nobody recognizes him, but still, even in this crazy context, that's pushing it a little. Or what about at the end of the movie when Supes is comatose in a hospital. Does anyone ever even notice that Clark isn't around? I mean, wouldn't Perry White at least notice that one of his reporters isn't showing up for work?

 

[Angeloz]

On the seeing peoples feelings about him being gone with the bus reference it sounds like you're talking about the original film not "Superman Returns" Thespiralgoeson. I thought the film did have reaction of the world or at least the people about his return. Through scenes of them cheering as well as the TV coverage of them being happy he's back. Then there's the Metropolis crowd scenes of various kinds including when he was in hospital. So I guess people are pretty happy mostly and want him around.

Angeloz

 

[Thespiralgoeson]

On the seeing peoples feelings about him being gone with the bus reference it sounds like you're talking about the original film not "Superman Returns" Thespiralgoeson. I thought the film did have reaction of the world or at least the people about his return. Through scenes of them cheering as well as the TV coverage of them being happy he's back. Then there's the Metropolis crowd scenes of various kinds including when he was in hospital. So I guess people are pretty happy mostly and want him around.

Angeloz

I agree about the parts of him in the hospital. I thought easily one of the best moments in the film was the people crowding outside the hospital praying for his recovery. But I guess I'm still not explaining myself very well. I understand that the world likes him, loves him even. I understand that the world is happy with him around. But we still never see just what the world is like without him.

And you know what? We don't even need to. My only point is, that the whole subplot of Superman going to Krypton seems unnesessary. I'm not saying that we need to see a world without Superman.

The whole plot device would seem to be useful for two things; showing us a world that really needs Superman, or showing us a Superman that desperately wants to find out more about his own history. But we never get a sense of that either. It's never given any weight. It's only vaguely hinted at. We never get a real feeling of Superman's motivation for leaving in the first place. So why have it in there at all?

It seems that the whole thing was written in just so they could give Superman an excuse for having a 5 year old son he didn't know about.

IMHO, it slowed the movie down and seemed terribly underwritten. The movie would've been better off (again, IMHO) leaving out the whole thing and just picking up right where Superman II left off (or wherever Bryan Singer feels his crazy, incoherent continuity should start)

 

[Angeloz]

I agree about the parts of him in the hospital. I thought easily one of the best moments in the film was the people crowding outside the hospital praying for his recovery. But I guess I'm still not explaining myself very well. I understand that the world likes him, loves him even. I understand that the world is happy with him around. But we still never see just what the world is like without him.

And you know what? We don't even need to. My only point is, that the whole subplot of Superman going to Krypton seems unnesessary. I'm not saying that we need to see a world without Superman.

The whole plot device would seem to be useful for two things; showing us a world that really needs Superman, or showing us a Superman that desperately wants to find out more about his own history. But we never get a sense of that either. It's never given any weight. It's only vaguely hinted at. We never get a real feeling of Superman's motivation for leaving in the first place. So why have it in there at all?

It seems that the whole thing was written in just so they could give Superman an excuse for having a 5 year old son he didn't know about.

IMHO, it slowed the movie down and seemed terribly underwritten. The movie would've been better off (again, IMHO) leaving out the whole thing and just picking up right where Superman II left off (or wherever Bryan Singer feels his crazy, incoherent continuity should start)

I see. I think it does more than just so he could have a child. Though I must admit I liked that part in the film. Which ironically I feared I wouldn't. But I think the film is a reintroduction to the character. Just like Superman came to film years ago and disappeared: he did in the film as well. Just as we had forgotten, missed or never knew him - he came back. Same as the film. So the film parallels the real world. It's why I don't think we need to know what the world in the film was like without Superman because we already know it ourselves but you seem to get that. On his trip to Krypton and his feelings the film did show he was rather upset that it was a "graveyard". Though I would not object to seeing the deleted scenes especially his return to Krypton as well as the other stuff. But because I'm curious plus I'd like to see more Brandon (as well as scenes without him). Add to that more bloopers too.

Angeloz

 

[CGHulk]

I'm glad they liked it. But you didn't mention this in the post I responded to and it had a very negative slant on things. If you want competing parents I know my Mum liked it and Brandon but I didn't get detailed thoughts about it. Then I know of a few people on the 'net that became Superman fans because of the film. That also may or may not have been comic book fans. One person here is AVEITWITHJAMON (a Spidey fan I believe). I'd just like to add it was by the way you slanted the criticism which was more negative than constructive I thought.

Angeloz

It was and I appologize.

 

[Angeloz]

It was and I appologize.

Accepted on my part.

Angeloz

 

[Angeloz]

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

Good thoughts and points. I'll admit I'd like to know myself what happened before he left with their relationship. But I didn't need it to care for them (especially him) or what happened in the film itself. As I said I kind of prefer a "Superman II" type situation but can accept something else. We may never know and you'll accept it or not. I can. And there are worse mysteries. For me it's what happened with Valen especially what happened at the end that made the Minbari have a legend that he may reappear (on the "Babylon 5" series). It may always be a mystery.

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.

You don't understand Lois choosing Richard when he seems so like Superman? Also that she can get single minded sometimes and perhaps it was those things combined plus more that did it. I'll admit speculation. But frankly it's not a priority of mine about the hows and whys of how Richard and Lois came together. They did. Though at least you cared enough to wonder. Of course the mystery was there in part because Jason was the reveal. So his origins and the past relationships were not spelt out because of this.

OK.

Have you looked up slash fiction? Did it make you want to run away from the computer and yell, "My eyes, my eyes,"? Or to find some and read 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.

Does that mean you hate Red and Blue Superman? Red Son Superman? Godfall Superman (I haven't read it myself)? When he returned from the dead in a black outfit? Plus others I can't think of or don't know of? Though in general I agree but believe in exceptions.

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.'

What if it was like "Superman II" including the mind-wipe (or not). And Krypton is found a day or maybe more (not much) later. So he has a Lois that can't remember or maybe she can but he thought he'd hurt her too much that week (as they can't be together). So thought she'd be better off without him. And perhaps have another painful confrontation. If she didn't remember then she wouldn't know how close they were and it may make it complicated as well as more difficult (in more than one way possibly). Basically as you yourself said he thought she'd be better off without him (their memory together) in the film. So perhaps it's the case here. Even if she did remember he might have thought he'd hurt her too much and again she'd be better off without him. I'll acknowledge it could be entirely different.

On the essence of character as I said I have to read or see a version to judge it. Though in theory if he acted murderous or uncaring and the like I wouldn't like it. And would probably hate it or dislike it. Unless there was a twist and even then maybe not. That said I did find the "Superman Returns" version of Superman to be him. He made mistakes but it was still him. For me as well as others. But mainly for me. I'm sorry if you couldn't find that.

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

So you won't admit to him being a bastard to Lois in a comic. And that's just one of probably so many.

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.

He was young as well as inexperienced and admitted to his mistake. But as I said I prefer him with Batman.

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

I've liked them too. It's crap I don't read them more than I have. Although I have heard there's been problems there.

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.

Perhaps but him being a bastard to her is in his comic history as well as vice versa.

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.

I think if he's a sentient being then he's capable of making mistakes as well as doing something that will hurt someone or be inconsiderate or selfish. I don't think he usually does it. But he's capable of it. He thought it'd be better for him and maybe better for her that he left without telling her. I'll admit we don't know the full story why. But he admitted it was a mistake and apologised as well as applied that lesson later on.

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.

Which drives you crazy. I've answered this more than once. I think the mystery was there because Jason was the big reveal. As stated above.

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

Perhaps he should be stabbed with kryptonite because of it (and she can use pliers on it so it's very painful)?

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.

Birth control can and does fail. Also they may not have had planned sex. Also if she was taking the pill and had mixed them with anti-bacterial medication then that can make it ineffective I believe. There's so many possibilities and we don't know and it's ridiculous to damn them for it. But mainly he's an alien it should be the best birth control protection they had. 'Cos it's fiction it wasn't. But there is also another possibility that they'd had sex more than once and it hadn't happened. I know add in another (articulate) rant. It was the mystery so Jason could be a surprise (to some).

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.

He makes mistakes 'cos he's a sentient being. He even acknowleged it and apologised. The future is uncertain but assuming he can't turn back time then he can't change the past. And even if he could according to Jor-El he shouldn't (I doubt he can).

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.

I understand.

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.

I don't blame Superman for Lex being out of jail even if him not being there helped free him. As it was the human legal system that did it. Because even with Superman it could of happened. Though it might not have.

I still see this version of Superman as much as you describe above. Largely honest and compassionate and he did do the right thing. But as you said he's not perfect and he made a mistake for whatever reason. It happens.

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

I could write a mischevious comment to that (on the computer game). But I'll restrain myself for decency sake. Maybe not. I presume it wasn't Mrs. Cleaver's Jive Talking Lessons (see "Flying High" or "Airplane"). I hope you forgive the random silliness 'cos I don't mean to insult here. I just felt silly.

Angeloz

 

[mathhater]

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

Superboy Annual #1

Granted, it was an Elseworlds tale. But Kryptonite and its effects on Superman were the same in this story as they were in the actual continuity. And he was exposed to it for so long that it killed him.

Then Superboy took up the mantle.

 

[afan]

Recently I’ve brought myself around to watching this movie again. I still don’t like the film in any way shape or form, but I’ve come to realize it’s because of what I’m expecting from it.

Someone somewhere could take the story of Hamlet; re-imagine it so that Hamlet doesn’t die in the end. The story itself could be amazing, and garner critical acclaim, but if you’re a fan of Hamlet it’s not something you expect, and it might not be something you’re interested in reading.

That’s sort of my thought pattern at this point when it comes to Superman Returns. I’m sure many people like it. I’m just as equality sure that the vast majority of critics seemed to like it. But myself, and many of the ticket buying public just wasn’t into this interpretation of the character. It wasn’t what they expected or wanted, and that was reflected at the Box Office.

Again, it’s not that SR HAS to be a bad movie for it to fail the way it did - it just wasn’t what the general public expected.

I agree with your point regarding a re-working of a well known theme; West Side Story, one of the true greats is basically a reworking of Romeo and Juliet(tho as in your Hamlet example Juliet lives).

However the creators of SR did not do this. That is they didn't re-imagine the character creating their own original take on the tale. They instead chose to carry forward the mythos of STM, basing their film on an effort that accentuated the positive in Superman, creating an expectation for SR that the film failed to deliver. By promoting SR as a continuation of STM they were promising a film that should have been fun and uplifting. Instead they deliver a film that warps and twists the behavior of the characters and tones that inhabit STM to fit the tormented tone of SR.

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

I don't. Well they didn't seem to care much, so I don't see why I should, but I digress.

And why should you, for all intents and purposes the "people" in SR are non-persons; they are mannequinn like in their non-identity. The man falling from the rooftop crane may as well have been the "Mythbusters" oft abused dummy, Buster.

STM created an identity for the throngs by including memorable moments of movie magic featuring precious interractions between Superman and the "people" of the world. "Super-fly" on the street, the cat-burgaler, the street patrolmen, the little girl and her cat, the pilot of air force one, etc., etc.

SR in it's extreme incompitence is completey devoid of any attempt to give a living and breathing quality to the "people". Why should we care what they think when they obviously don't think at all.

 

[Angeloz]

Those bastards how dare they turn up to the hospital! Or cheer 'cos he's back.

Angeloz

 

[afan]

Those bastards how dare they turn up to the hospital! Or cheer 'cos he's back.

Angeloz

A swarm of locusts also makes a heck of a racket. Just exactly how does a noisy crowd create individual identity for the "little guy" in SR.

Here's a challenge to perhaps emphasize the point.........
From memory, give an identifying physical description of a member of the "people" in SR.

 

[Angeloz]

Which kind? In the hospital there was the nurse that looked Indian/Pakastani/Bangladeshi. There was also the youngish Doctor with lightish curly hair I believe. A large built tall black police officer. There was also a boy with a dog when he was falling. A boy with a mobile phone that took his picture. These are from the top of my head. I'll point out I suck at physical descriptions. If you asked me to describe Superman I'd be crap even though he's more noticeable.

Angeloz

 

[afan]

Superboy Annual #1

Granted, it was an Elseworlds tale. But Kryptonite and its effects on Superman were the same in this story as they were in the actual continuity. And he was exposed to it for so long that it killed him.

Then Superboy took up the mantle.

Another Elseworlds tale(when you think about it, where else would Superman's permanent death be possible), "Batman: Holy Terror", contains a green K death for Superman.
I've pasted the text relating to it which also contains a reference to Superman and the taking of a life, even advertantly, relevant to the casualties on NK in SR





"During the struggle, Erdel drew a gun. When "Matthew" was dead, he threatened me with it, promising to run his tests on my corpse if need be. Lashing out, I struck his arm, throwing off his aim. Dropping to the safety of the floor, I heard several shots ring out, saw the bullets strike the Green Man on his cross...

And ricochet off.

Erdel was hit high in the chest, in the heart, by one of the ricocheting shots. He must have died almost instantly. The poetic irony struck me hard, almost like a physical blow. Erdel had not stripped The Green man of all his power along with his life, after all. Instead, he had found his own sudden death. God's justice, if you will.

I looked upon the man hanging on his cross and a small, soft smile blossomed at the corners of my mouth.

Somehow, though, without being told, I knew that this was not the way he would have wanted it. To be the death of another person, I suspected, even adventently like this, would have shamed and horrifed, him, I think.

Gently, as if I feared to cause him further pain, I lifted him down from his cross of sorrow and woe. He was still warm to my touch. Death could not have come for him, taken him in her fierce embrace, very long ago.

Oh, God... If only I'd come sooner...I might have saved him. Oh, God... "

 

[afan]

Which kind? In the hospital there was the nurse that looked Indian/Pakastani/Bangladeshi. There was also the youngish Doctor with lightish curly hair I believe. A large built tall black police officer. There was also a boy with a dog when he was falling. A boy with a mobile phone that took his picture. These are from the top of my head. I'll point out I suck at physical descriptions. If you asked me to describe Superman I'd be crap even though he's more noticeable.

Angeloz

I applaud you Angeloz, I for one can't remember save for the main cast any details regarding individuals in SR.

 

[El Payaso]

Not good enough.

Why not? How much more repetition would you need?

Well, after this mediocre film, maybe it would have been best if he hadn't.

Haha?

Uh, no.... we don't. We get a caption at the beginning of the movie saying in so many words; "Superman was great, then he left... Now he's back! YAY!!!"

Then we got the airplane rescue when everybody saw Superman returning.

Again, how much more repetition would you need?

Whoopdie friggin do... You still don't get what I'm saying.. Yeah, so Superman saves some people in a bus, rescues a cat from a tree, whatever... The point is, we never see how the world feels about him being gone. I'm not saying I want to see more plane crashes and people die without him... I'm saying, I wanted to see how Superman dissappearing actually effects the lives of the people of the world emotionally.

So you wanted to see something and since you didn't see, it was a bad movie.

For the same sake I didn't see that much of people's reaction when Superman appeared for the first time in STM, just people cheering at the helicopter rescuing and then the news. Same as here.

Superman supposedly inspires them, yes? Brings out the best in everyone? What impact does it have when he leaves? Apparently none... well, aside from a bus going off a cliff or something equally pointless.

This is pure fanboy cliché. Superman inspires people... to what exactly? To be heroic on the base of personal invulnerability? To rescue people from helicopters? At most, Superman in his fictional world, would make people to want to have super-powers like him. But since they will never have them, I fail to see the actual inspiration inside the story.

I don't know if Superman, in his fictional world, inspires people the same as Superman, the fictional character in the real world, inspires us. Because in the real world we can see this guy is fictional and a metaphor.

Then again, I never saw people inspired by Superman in any of the previous movies. People admiring him? Sure. People claiming for his help? Yeah. People terribly thankful to him? That's right. People inspired to follow his example? Dunno.

If the world loves Superman as they did in the first two movies, and apparently in SR, then one would thing him vanishing without a trace would have some kind of an effect on them. I'm not talking about more people dying in plane crashes, or getting crushed by falling cranes, or even being the victim of an awkward little bald man's crazy real estate schemes. I'm talking about the people of the world losing something to believe in. Like maybe they feel like they're all on their own? Or maybe that they've lost part of themselves? Just pick one, but give us something.

What you say is very interesting and they should have showed that long time ago.

People in the fictional Superman world without Superman would be exactly like us. Because we don't have a real Superman saving planes.

They should have started wondering if humakind has the right to claim for Superman help or Superman was just a generous superhuman being helping us for no other reason than being kind-hearted.

In fact, if we go this direction, people should have strongly wondered whether to trust in this invulnerable alien or not. But thing is, comic books have always avoided this questions. No one ever thought if Superman was just an alien trying to gain our trust in order to conquer us. Nobody felt fear about an alien between us. Movies as comic books avoided those questions in order to have a lighten up story to tell.

I'd really love to see a story of Superman with those realistic touches but if they try to enhanche the fictions dimensions with a son and everybody loses it because 'it was never done on comics' I fail to see how people would dig having such deep questioning about Superman between huimans and then Superman leaving us.

Now, as a follower of Donner movies tone, Singer did good showing us people being happy that he's back and people being desperate (Clark at farm watching tv scene) when he was gone.

Well, as far as story and character development? Yeah, pretty unimportant. Don't get me wrong, Supes saving the plane was a great sequence. But neither that, nor Supes lifting up the island at the end ever gave me any reason to believe that the world missed him when he wasn't around. That just seems like good timing. Try another one.

Well, we are waiting for the sequel, aren't we?

Well, Lois seemed better off with Cyclops raising his bastard child, so yeah, unimportant. She also never seemed all that broken up about the father of her baby and man she supposedly loves vanishing.

She's depicted as a emotionally void shattered woman, denying to be in love with Superman when she really is, avoiding marriage because she knows his true love is gone.

Superman's an emotional whuss in the movie. Okay, he can lift up an island after being stabbed by Kryptonite, but he can't at least tell the woman he's in love with that he's leaving the f**king planet for 5 years? I mean, really, he can't even run it by her at all? Not even a note? That's a coward. He comes off as whiny, and very, very insecure.

Yes, the way things turned made his insecurities to emerge. Of course, biog shots like you won't doubt to call that whuss to reaffirm your self-importance. But most people and characters have weak points. Superman has to face his own ones here.

But I agree, we could have had the same conflict with Superman saying good-bye and all. That was a bad unnecessary move.

I'm not talking about Superman risking his life. I'm talking about the whole subplot of Superman supposedly leaving for Krypton before the film takes place. What dramatic purpose did that serve at all? It could be used to show us how the world has to adjust when their hero leaves them... but we never see it (okay, in a three second scene, Clark is watching the news and there's a forest fire, and some people burning a flag or something... not good enough.)

Again, I'm sorry some of you didn't direct the movie, but it was good enough to show you the difference.

All we know is that Lois is knocked up... Why did she have to write a piece called "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." Do the people care that he's gone? Do they even notice? (Actually, a better question would be, does the audience care? The world doesn't seem to have changed much, aside from Lois having a creepy little kid of course, so I found it hard to care.)

Maybe watching Lois' article title is enough to know people was concerned about Superman's absence.

Noyt spoonfeeding enough as 13 scenes of people at home giving ud informative speeches about their lives without Superman, I know. But when superman tells Lois all he hears is people claiming for his help, we can get the picture.

The subplot could've also been used to show Superman trying to discover more about his past, to really connect with his home and his people etc.... but we never see that either. We never see the desire in him to know more about his history than his little crystals offer, and we never actually see, or even hear much about him going on this 5 year long journey. All we (and Lois) gets is a "Astronomers thought they found Krypton. I had to see it for myself."

In fact the 5 years trip was a giant attempt to know more about his story... but he failed since Krypton's remains had nothing else to offer.

In return, he realizes he has a son. So he start to stop being so worried about the past of his bloodline and get more interested emotionally about the future of his bloodline.

In the end, what purpose did it serve at all? If you're not going to explore something like that that would have such an impact of the world these characters live in, then why include it all?? It's sloppy writing.

No, it was shown but the whole movie wasn't devoted to that point due to the tone.

The same I could ask, why to write about an alien on Earth if people accepot him as a hero from minute one with no exploration of the natural human - and Governments - distrust about such an event. They don't even know where does he live or what he does when he's not in the public eye.

I don't. Well they didn't seem to care much, so I don't see why I should, but I digress.

Sure, people rescued from death shouldn't care according to you. At least you'd need this argument to bash the movie.

EDIT: Let us aslo not forget that the whole ordeal cleared the path for the one of the films most gaping plotholes. Can somebody tell my why nobody at the Daily Planet notices that Superman and Clark both left for 5 years and "return" on the exact same day?

I'll tell you the day someone explains me how does Clark wears the super-suit, cape and boots included, under his regular suit. Or how a pair of glasses works better than a full mask.

Most people think Superman has no secret identity, why should they suspect of Clark? Back in 1986 an aunt came to my house the same year comet Halley was coming to Earth, should I have thought she came in the comet because it happened at the same time?

And Superman and Clark didn't came back at the same day. It's clear Clark showed up at the Daily Planet some days later.

I mean, yeah I understand that this is the zany universe where all Supes needs are glasses and nobody recognizes him, but still, even in this crazy context, that's pushing it a little.

You mean the same pushing Superman has been having for decades.

Or what about at the end of the movie when Supes is comatose in a hospital. Does anyone ever even notice that Clark isn't around? I mean, wouldn't Perry White at least notice that one of his reporters isn't showing up for work?

Maybe Perry - or somedoy else - also didn't noticed that Clark dissapeared the same day Superman send that missile to the space and rescued Jimmy, Lois and Los Angeles' coast in STM? Or that Clark dissaperared when Superman rescued Lois from the Eiffel Tower in SII or that Lois came back alone in SII from Niagara falls?

Again, I'd love to see a movie that deals with all those inherent mistakes. But we must point fingers to STM, SII and the comics first.

 

[mego joe]

Good thoughts and points. I'll admit I'd like to know myself what happened before he left with their relationship. But I didn't need it to care for them (especially him) or what happened in the film itself. As I said I kind of prefer a "Superman II" type situation but can accept something else. We may never know and you'll accept it or not. I can. And there are worse mysteries. For me it's what happened with Valen especially what happened at the end that made the Minbari have a legend that he may reappear (on the "Babylon 5" series). It may always be a mystery.

I feel something as important to the character's as Superman and Lois's relationship and the story of the conception of their sone should be explained so we understand their motivations. It's the most important aspect of the film and we the audience should know what happens, it matters.

You don't understand Lois choosing Richard when he seems so like Superman?

I don't understand how she could have moved on to Richard so quickly that the paternity is in question. Could she have even had enough time to have realized he was gone for good? If she was really in love with him could she move on so quickly?

Also that she can get single minded sometimes and perhaps it was those things combined plus more that did it. I'll admit speculation. But frankly it's not a priority of mine about the hows and whys of how Richard and Lois came together. They did. Though at least you cared enough to wonder. Of course the mystery was there in part because Jason was the reveal. So his origins and the past relationships were not spelt out because of this.

But it should have been slowly revealed and explained at the end in order to complete the story. It would have greatly improved the filmmaking and script.

Have you looked up slash fiction? Did it make you want to run away from the computer and yell, "My eyes, my eyes,"? Or to find some and read it?

Not yet, but I will.

Does that mean you hate Red and Blue Superman? Red Son Superman? Godfall Superman (I haven't read it myself)? When he returned from the dead in a black outfit? Plus others I can't think of or don't know of? Though in general I agree but believe in exceptions.

SUperman Red and Blue. I wasn't reading the comic at the time, but it is a story line that gives plausible explanations for odd behavior. SR didn't provide enough why to explain behavior.

Red Son is an Elseworlds story and as such is expected to be different than what we are used to, otherwise it wouldn't be considered out of continuity. But, I haven't read that.

Haven't read Godfall.

Black outfit. It's explained why he is wearing the outfit and it is a plausible explanation. Plus he doesn't act any different. It was a storytelling device, plus it was a transitional story that eventually got him back to his regular costume. It is a cosmetic change and didn't affect the way he acted. It was part of the story. He just didn't show up for no reason in a new outfit without an explanation of why or how he got it.

What if it was like "Superman II" including the mind-wipe (or not). And Krypton is found a day or maybe more (not much) later. So he has a Lois that can't remember or maybe she can but he thought he'd hurt her too much that week (as they can't be together). So thought she'd be better off without him. And perhaps have another painful confrontation. If she didn't remember then she wouldn't know how close they were and it may make it complicated as well as more difficult (in more than one way possibly).

LOis does remember in SR though, so it can't be like that. If it was like Superman II, I still think that a caring responsible person would take the time to say goodbye. It is only worse to not say goodbye, and I think it has been established in enough Superman stories that he would know this. He is caring enough for those he loves to make the hard decisions. I think he would want her to know why he had to go. If you love someone you tell them everything, you want to share. With such a life changing possibility, it would make sense for Superman to explain himself. LIke I said before, people do this all the time and real life, it's not that difficult to say goodbye to someone you love. If there are extenuating circumstances they need to be explained to make sense in a story.
Plus if they couldn't be together, why would he have come back to try and woo Lois immediately. Surely, he wouldn't come back thinking after 5 years everything would be hunky dory? If he had left with them being broken up and 'not able to be together' for whatever tragic reason, why would he come back almost expecting to be able to have her back?

Basically as you yourself said he thought she'd be better off without him (their memory together) in the film. So perhaps it's the case here.

Actually, I said that she was in pain and he was trying to relieve her of her pain. I failed to elaborate that in that scene since they know they can't be together so he erased her memory so that she would have a chance of moving on eventually since she would have no memory of a requeited love. It wasn’t about being better off without him, the situation in Superman II was that it was IMPOSSIBLE to be with and he erased her memory so she COULD move on eventually.

Even if she did remember he might have thought he'd hurt her too much and again she'd be better off without him. I'll acknowledge it could be entirely different.

I for one feel that it is essential to understanding why SUperman did what he did. It's possible with good backstory and motivation there would not be the division that there is on this film. I just find it to be lazy and bad writing.

On the essence of character as I said I have to read or see a version to judge it. Though in theory if he acted murderous or uncaring and the like I wouldn't like it. And would probably hate it or dislike it. Unless there was a twist and even then maybe not. That said I did find the "Superman Returns" version of Superman to be him. He made mistakes but it was still him. For me as well as others. But mainly for me. I'm sorry if you couldn't find that.

Well, I think I explained fairly well why I thought the essence was not there in SR for me. To sum up, the essence goes deeper into the character and his motivations than what was presented in SR. He may have made a mistake but SR doesn't give a plausible or believable motivation for why he would do such a thing and have it be in character.

So you won't admit to him being a bastard to Lois in a comic. And that's just one of probably so many.

WIthout actually readin the whole story, no. Just like we wouldn't accept someone's opinion of SR if they came out and said 'No, I didn't see it, I just heard that .... .' Right? In the story you mention was his sole intent to be malicious? Was he just trying to hurt Lois? Was he preventing his own pain and chose to hurt her instead? Or was there a danger to Lois he was trying to prevent? Was he maintaining his secret ID for both the good of the world and Lois? I don't think he dreamed up that scheme just to hurt Lois. Maybe it didn't work out like he intended, but his intentions were good and he thought it would play out differently.

He was young as well as inexperienced and admitted to his mistake. But as I said I prefer him with Batman.

HOw young was he? According to the DVD extras he would have been 27 when he left, I believe. Is that really young? If he was 17 or 18 I could understand it. But he's almost 30. That's why it seems like the actions of a high schooler and not a mature responsible adult. So, are you saying that at 27, Superman should not behave like a mature responsible adult? Are you saying that Superman would not be responsible when he entered into a sexual relationship with the woman he loves? Remember, Lois is not just a girl, she is the woman in his life. It just doesn’t sit right to think that Superman would enter into a relationship he cannot take seriously or be committed in, or act accordingly if circumstances beyond his control force him to end the relationship. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t love Lois anymore, just that they can’t continue to be together as a couple, but it doesn’t mean he no longer loves her. I think his actions would still be consistent with someone who still loves Lois, and would

I've liked them too. It's crap I don't read them more than I have. Although I have heard there's been problems there.

What do you mean by problems?

Perhaps but him being a bastard to her is in his comic history as well as vice versa.

We'd really have to break that down story by story. You have to look at motivation and circumstance of the story to tell if he was really a bastard to her, I don't think you can make a blanket statement about that.

I think if he's a sentient being then he's capable of making mistakes as well as doing something that will hurt someone or be inconsiderate or selfish. I don't think he usually does it. But he's capable of it. He thought it'd be better for him and maybe better for her that he left without telling her. I'll admit we don't know the full story why. But he admitted it was a mistake and apologised as well as applied that lesson later on.

He can make mistakes, but as I've said his mistakes in SR are out of character. For him to act 'uncaring' and 'selfish' in respect to his love for Lois is out of character b/c he is known for his caring and unselfishness.

Which drives you crazy. I've answered this more than once. I think the mystery was there because Jason was the big reveal. As stated above.

But it needed to be explained to complete the story and make everything understandable. IT was bad writing and bad filmmaking. The audience should not be required to make up on their own the part of the story the precipitates all the conflict in the film, it is lazy.

Perhaps he should be stabbed with kryptonite because of it (and she can use pliers on it so it's very painful)?

Huh?

Birth control can and does fail. Also they may not have had planned sex. Also if she was taking the pill and had mixed them with anti-bacterial medication then that can make it ineffective I believe. There's so many possibilities and we don't know and it's ridiculous to damn them for it. But mainly he's an alien it should be the best birth control protection they had. 'Cos it's fiction it wasn't. But there is also another possibility that they'd had sex more than once and it hadn't happened. I know add in another (articulate) rant. It was the mystery so Jason could be a surprise (to some).

I believe that because Superman is a caring person who willingly sacrifices himself for others on a daily basis he would not enter into a sexual relationship lightly or without being fully committed to the woman, especially when it is Lois, the woman he loves and is the love of his life. Because of the content of his character he would not engage in that sexual relationship if he could not be committed to her. If something beyond his control, like Jor-El’s mandate from Superman II made him believe he couldn’t be with her, it should have been explained in SR. Otherwise, there is no context for why their relationship didn’t work out and why he would have entered into a sexual relationship in which he could not remain committed. It doesn’t necessarily mean the use of birth control, but rather being willing and prepared emotionally to be around for any consequence. No Superman movie or comic to my knowledge has ever shown Lois and Superman/ Clark discussing the incompatibility of their DNA. I believe that because of the content of Superman’s character he would have the foresight to investigate the possibility and the restraint to hold back in a moment of passion if he didn’t feel he could be committed. Superman would not put his sex life over the responsibilities of being in a committed monogamous sexual relationship.

He makes mistakes 'cos he's a sentient being. He even acknowleged it and apologised. The future is uncertain but assuming he can't turn back time then he can't change the past. And even if he could according to Jor-El he shouldn't (I doubt he can).

My take on that is that Superman is shown making mistakes that are out of character for him. Simply being capable of making mistakes doesn’t mean you are going to make them in every situation. I don’t think Superman would make a mistake as such that would impact the life of his child, whether he knew about it or not.

I understand.

OK.

I don't blame Superman for Lex being out of jail even if him not being there helped free him. As it was the human legal system that did it. Because even with Superman it could of happened. Though it might not have.

Then why does the film want us to believe it is Superman’s fault with Jimmy line to Clark about the reason Luthor got out. What’s the purpose of it if that wasn’t the intention of the filmmaker? Isn’t that not believing what the filmmaker wants you to believe? Wouldn’t that be like me saying “Well, I don’t believe Jason is really Superman’s child,” even though that’s what the movie wants us to believe?

I still see this version of Superman as much as you describe above. Largely honest and compassionate and he did do the right thing.

Did what right thing?

But as you said he's not perfect and he made a mistake for whatever reason. It happens.

IMO, though, his intentions for not telling Lois were not the right thing, he made a mistake he knew would hurt Lois. He realized how difficult it would be for him and he chose to hurt Lois instead of facing the challenge directly. That is not Superman to me and it is such a critical event in the story that everything follows from that. It makes it very difficult to overlook, especially in light of the fact that they were not only in a relationship, but in a sexual relationship. Because of his selfishness and fear of facing his own pain he instead has hurt Lois, the woman he loves, and his own son. That just doesn’t work as a mistake that fits with Superman’s character. He’s better than that. He’s not an immature kid. He supposed to be a mature responsible adult. Mature responsible adults don’t do that. B/c if they did they would be neither mature nor responsible.

I could write a mischevious comment to that (on the computer game). But I'll restrain myself for decency sake. Maybe not. I presume it wasn't Mrs. Cleaver's Jive Talking Lessons (see "Flying High" or "Airplane"). I hope you forgive the random silliness 'cos I don't mean to insult here. I just felt silly.

Angeloz

No prob on the silly, we act silly around the house all the time. BTW, it was Arthur’s First Grade computer game. Very innocuous, but not quite as funny as imagining Mrs. Cleaver’s Jive Taking Lessons, ha ha!

 

[Mattchew]

i loved it, but it was a bit too long.

next time they'll tighten up the story i think.

 

[NUFFSAID2004]

the reason people dont like it is because singer made superman into a *****

made clark kent a useless non existant character

made superman a "bastard" with an illegitimate child

made superman a stalker

made superman wear a "gayed" up costume with a tight neckline, brown maroon cape, victorias secret panties, and a stupid plastic s shield on the belt,

not only that, the story was rubbish, the action was non existant

superman was "gayed" up beyond recognition

Singer truly did FUBAR this movie

That about sums it all up..

 

[NUFFSAID2004]

I've posted my reasons before. However, the very first reason still remains the strongest>>"THAT INCREDIBLY AWFUL SUIT"!!!
Aside from that, here's a small list of a few other objections:
1) Teeny-bobber Lois...
2) "Supes the stalker"..
3) Lex and yet another "land scam". (*yawn*)
4) The bastard son of Superman..
5) Supes gone for 5 years without reason..
6) Kryptonite issues..
7) A Superboy instead of a Superman..
8) No new villians..
Just a few of my problems with this Super-Flop! As a side note, there was a fan made film made entitled "World's Finest". It shows like a trailer. Check it out on You Tube. The Superman in that is just the Superman we should have gotten in Singer's travesty.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Its not that Superman Returns is a bad movie. Its not. But really, the character of Superman has potential for much better than this. We`ve been waiting for a long time to watch a Superman movie in the theaters and really SR didnt come close to portray what Superman is to me. The episode Rosetta in Smallville did more than this movie to me and they kinda use similar themes. The fact that Singer still used the campy Luthor from the Donner movies(Yes it is the same character. You`d be fooling yourself to pretend its not) played for comedy instead of a serious threat, with an stupid plot about land and focusing way too much on the relationship with Lois instead on the character of Superman. The romance is just only a part of the story. The movie should`ve foccused on what makes Superman different from most heroes. Accept that u shouldn`t humanize him and make him like Spider-man. You should treat the character with respect and love. When i think of what the movie could`ve been, thats why i get depressed because i`ve read Peace on Earth, Superman for all seasons, Action Comics #775, whatever happened to the man of tomorrow, kindgom come. Those are great Superman stories. Superman Returns isnt. Its simple as that. Its a tribute of love to richard donner movie and to me that isn`t enough nor what i wanted to see. I guess the general public thought so too.

Continue with me on this. Just imagine if this movie was about Superman`s place on the world and the way society sees him. Imagine u keep the same plot from Superman Returns. He goes back to Krypton and when he comes back, he learns that society has learned to live without him. And foccus on this part not on the romance with Lois!!! Luthor, now is like the most important man in Metropolis. He created a supergroup called the Lexteam(or Elite) who kills the criminals instead of just bringing them to justice. Poeple love him for that. Then Superman comes back and show how heroes are supposed to act. This would be a GREAT reintroduction of the character and a great obstacle for Superman to overcome.

I get depressed just to think of what could`ve been...

SR has its moments like the plane sequence, the speech in the skies to Lois, the recharge in the sun but really, its not more than that. Singer had to do way more than this if he wants to prove himself capable of handling a franchise as big as Superman`s.

At least he said himself in the documentary: "Superman will live longer than me"

He is right. Thank god.

 

[Mattchew]

when a man is in a skin tight suit, the merits of that suit are left to women and gay men... and having said that, it was a very very effective suit.

 

[Angeloz]

You forgot fanboys and those obsessed about muscles.

Angeloz