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

[SuperDaniel]

At one point you were just telling things about me, not the discusaion. I'm glad at least you're giving argments.

And even if it wasn't Donner's idea, it's included in Superman II, SR being a vague sequel to those, at least it would explain why Superman's decisions are not always 100% moral and ethical.

The mind manipulation, killing Zod and personal vendetta on the truckdriver prove you wrong about this.

Would have Superman in SII give up his powers in order to have Lois with another man if he knew she was going to be happy? I don't think so. Superman did this for her as much as for him. Selfishness respect to the rest of the Earth, who needed his help and he knew this.

He made a mistake and after that he realizes it and come back to fix things up.

Sounds a lot like SR.

It's quite known human can make more than 2 mistakes and very often the same mistake more than once.

Awful mistake, I myself have said that many times. I'd have never had the story with that.

That said, it's not as bad as minmd manipulation, killing Zod or having a personal vendetta on a human being abusing of super-powers.

Comics or not, in STM and SII, Superman has proven to make selfish decisions. In that order, SR is not the exception.

YOU SUPERMAN FANS ALREADY HAVE SEEN MOVIES WHERE SUPERMAN MAKES SELFISH DECISIONS AND AWFUL MISTAKES, SUDDENLY IT'S HORRIFYING.

AND CAPITAL LETTERS MAKES NO POINT HAVE YOU NOTICED?


Yes he should. But he didn't.

He should have respected Lois' mind and memories too, but he didn't.

He should have not killed Zod after de-powering him, but he did.

He shouldn't have get a personal vendetta on the truckdriver, but he did.

That said, it was his trip to Krypton what he puts over Lois AND over himself here.

If for him, he stays with Lois and his already stablished relationship. That wpould have been selfish: the hell with Krypton's possible survivors, I'll stay with my girl.

HOW IS THAT INCONSISTENCY IF IT TRIGGERS THE WHOLE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO MAIN CHARACTERS AND IT'S NEVER DENIED?

THE WHOLE PREMISE OF SUPERMAN II IS SUPERMAN MAKES A MISTAKE (SCREWS UP). SAME AS IN SR.

The reason for giving up his powers in SII is that Superman DOESNT HAVE THE BALLS TO DO WHATS RIGHT because he loves her too much so if he doesn't defy Jor-El or accept his mission forbids him to be with Lois, he HAS to just accept a relationship between him and Lois can't be. But he refuses to.

It's not the first time Supereman doesn't do what he should. How can you not see that.

Superman is purposely leaving the world defensless just to be with Lois and then he strips Lois of her mamories and rights over her body and mind. That's quite a damage too.

SUPERMAN HAS MADE THIS TYPE OF MISTAKE IN MOVIES; OUT OF THE CHARACTER OR NOT.

Or Superman. In movies.

Not according to Donner and Lester.

Well like i said, there are many things i dont like about STM and SII.
What you pointed was just examples of this.

However, the story of SII was the story any hero face. Can i have a normal life?

The point of the movie is that he cant be with Lois and yet devote his life to save people.

Yes he makes a mistake to give up of his powers but he is not hurting people. Yes, he`s being selfish but thats totally different from SR because his actions and motives are totally understable. He wants to be a husband to Lois. Its not out of character for him to desire a normal life. This is the core of Superman too. Or any hero. This what SII is all about to me. To show the hero`s quest.

THATS WHY I HATE THE ENDING TOO.

I think its absurd because i believe they can find a balance. I`m more of a post-crisis type of fan so i love Lois & Clark. There they found a balance.

I think that being a Superman fan, you are obviously aware of the Donner vs Lester problem.

So, the killing of Zod is not an argument. There is a scene the villains are captured by the artic police so Superman did not kill them. As it is in the movie, it looks like he did so i hate that. Just like i hate when he did in the comics too.

Bear in my mind, I hate the donner cut too. I hate the turn back time ending in the 2nd movie. I love Selutron`s work, though, like i said.

DONNER GOT MOST OF THE THINGS RIGHT and this is why like it better than SR. Singer didnt.

But that doesnt mean Donner is the end all be all of Superman movies. But that doesnt ignore the fact its is still the best interpretation of the character on the big screen.

I prefer the animated series, lois & clark and comics over the story of the donner movies.

 

[mego joe]

First of all, El Payaso, I`m not forcing anything. I`m trying to explain how i feel about the movie and trying to show arguments that prove my point of view.

I made a comment about the movies because obviously a person who devotes his life and has studied storytelling like myself and have watched thousand of movies can spot plotholes easily in movies. And i`m not even talking about plotholes in SR. I`m talking about Superman as a character and his morals.

Secondly, You keep bringing the amensia kiss since that wasnt even Donner`s idea. Its obviously a terrible scene but you seem to keep bringing this scene to back your argument thats been proven wrong many times by me and mego joe.

Thirdly, Me and mego joe never said the Donner movies were perfect. But the core of the character in those movies was intact. The good outweighted the bad, not the case with SR.

The point of SII is that he made a selfish reason to give up of his powers to be with Lois. However it wasnt THAT selfish because Lois loves him and he loves her. So the reason behind it was to make Lois happy and be a husband to her. However, he learned through the events of the movie that he cant be with her and be Superman at the same time. Thats the lesson. He has a duty with mankind. Not because his father said so. Because its his choice. He choses to go back to the fortress to get his powers back.

When SR starts, Superman already made 2 mistakes for pure selfish reasons and hurt everybody in the process and this is the point we`re trying to argue.

1)He never said Lois goodbye.

In all 70`s of history of the character of Superman, Lois has always been Superman`s one and true love. Its his Jane, Juliet, whatever u feel like it.

Now i`m not talking about comics. I`m talking about morals. Being in love with someone means putting her happyness over yours. Because to see her happy means makes you happy. This what being a husband means. He would never hurt on purpose. This is for everybody, men or Supermen.

Superman however is not the normal human being. He is above us. He is supposed to be an inspiration in every aspect of life. This is how Superman have been portrayed for 70 years and why he endured so long. Dont bring up stupid stories from the comics to back up your aguments. GET THIS. Many writers of the comics get Superman wrong too. Thats why those stories are long forgotten or will be someday. The ones that remain in every fan minds are the ones that will forever.

GET THIS. DONNER SUPERMAN IS THE BEST INTERPRETATION OF SUPERMAN IN THE BIG SCREEN TILL NOW BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THERE CANT BE BETTER ONES. THATS WHAT ME AS FAN WANT WHEN I GO TO THE THEATER
TO WATCH A SUPERMAN MOVIE.

In this case, with SR, Superman because of the estabilished relationship with Lois Lane in the previous movies OR comics (vague sequel), he would always put Lois above himself.

THe BIG INCONSITENCY in SR and the WHOLE PLOT OF THE MOVIE IS BASED IN THE IDEA THAT SUPERMAN SCREWS UP and doesnt SAY GOODBYE TO LOIS.

The reason for this in the movie is that Superman DOESNT HAVE THE BALLS TO DO WHATS RIGHT because he loves her too much so if he see her one more time, he wouldn`t be able to go.

THIS IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS and how can u not see this?

Superman is purposely hurting Lois Lane and everyone around him.

SUPERMAN DOESNT MAKE THIS TYPE OF MISTAKE AND THIS IS OUT OF THE CHARACTER.

Maybe Spider-man does. Or Indiana Jones. Or Wolverine. Or Batman. Or me and you.

But Superman is none of the above. He is more.

Yes, he has human emotions. But his emotions are still based on something that makes him more than us. His sense of right and wrong, his integrity.

Because the GA and Marvel fans who never read great stories from the comics have the stupid idea that Superman is boring and MR perfect, Singer came to Superman with the Marvel idea to humanize Superman by making him like every character in the Marvel Universe, like X-men.

A loner, a stranger, a reject of the society.

However, the basic idea of Superman is that even in the greatest tragedy that has ever happened to him, wich is Krypton exploding when he was baby, he still learned the lesson of hope, wich is his parents making the sacrifice to save him.

Superman is not a Marvel character and shouldn`t be treated as so.

Singer made the character himself. A lone, strange, reject. However Superman is not himself, me, you, mego joe or anyone. This is great in every type of movie. NOT A SUPERMAN MOVIE. Because He is SUPERman.

He is more.

The 2nd mistake is obviously not telling the world where he is going.

Superman is the kind of the character that is a leader. He gives speeches to the world. See SIV, Lois & Clark, etc. He is the kind of character that is TRUTH AND JUSTICE personalized.

The Superman i know the moment he found about about the existence of Krypton would make a public conference, Or at least, he would say this to one of our famous reporters of the Daily Planet.

"People of Earth. I`ve always devoted my life to help as much as i can. With the possibility of Krypton being alive, there is a possibility that more superpowered people would come to Earth like what happened so i have to go back to see if theres any possible threats. I`m the one one who can do this."

He would leave and even if Lois published the article it would mean nothing because people would still think Superman did the right thing. And even her would think twice before publishing it because in the end, everybody would know that Superman made the right move, even if it hurts him and her in the process, to the fact they cant have a relationship.

Wich is, to be a hero. Put people first before himself.

In SR, he doesnt say goodbye to anybody, so, superman leaves to krypton because he is felling lonely and hurt lois.

2 inconsistencies that is a proof that Superman acted out of character IN THIS MOVIE AND that reflects that Singer doesnt know the character at all. At least not when he made SR. He humanized the character WAY TOO MUCH and forgot about his integrity.

Lets not even get into little problems like Clark asking Lois into a date, or saying "Not like this", or drinking beer, or Singer making Jason kill people out of self defence, or Superman killing the 3 goons in the island because he was saving Earth.

He can make Man of Steel a great movie we all can love and thats what me as a fan want and hope.

But he didnt do it with SR. He tried his best`m sure and made SR with all his best intentions. But that wasnt enough.

HE JUST NEEDS TO DO MORE.

Nice post SpiderDaniel, nice post.

 

[SuperDaniel]

He is still not convinced. ha ha ha.

How hard is for people to get that not the Donner movies nor Superman Returns aren`t perfect?

I feel like i`m going in circles. They keep bringing the same arguments. Oh. Superman in the Donner movie did this or that. Damn. I have patience.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

^Why wouldn't someone bring those same arguments in reference to Superman's actions in the Donner films or cite comic books (which are character canon for a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER, by the way) as references to back up claims. This is supposed to be pretty much the same Superman as in Donner's films, right? We only use that as ammunition because your view is very myopic of the character and because Singer, Harris, and Dougherty didn't stray from the source material like some nutballs would try to have me believe? You stated that "GET THIS. DONNER SUPERMAN IS THE BEST INTERPRETATION OF SUPERMAN IN THE BIG SCREEN TILL NOW BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THERE CANT BE BETTER ONES. THATS WHAT ME AS FAN WANT WHEN I GO TO THE THEATER TO WATCH A SUPERMAN MOVIE." Now I get the whole part about that, but why would you be naive enough to even go watch SR if you knew it was based on the same Superman in Donner's universe? I knew going in he was going to be the same guy making the same kinds of mistakes. You may not dig the characterization of Superman in SR, and that's fine, but the roots for it stretch back to 1978, my friend...like it or not it is consistent with them.

 

[DarkMajin]

^Why wouldn't someone bring those same arguments in reference to Superman's actions in the Donner films or cite comic books (which are character canon for a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER, by the way) as references to back up claims. This is supposed to be pretty much the same Superman as in Donner's films, right? We only use that as ammunition because your view is very myopic of the character and because Singer, Harris, and Dougherty didn't stray from the source material like some nutballs would try to have me believe? You stated that "GET THIS. DONNER SUPERMAN IS THE BEST INTERPRETATION OF SUPERMAN IN THE BIG SCREEN TILL NOW BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THERE CANT BE BETTER ONES. THATS WHAT ME AS FAN WANT WHEN I GO TO THE THEATER TO WATCH A SUPERMAN MOVIE." Now I get the whole part about that, but why would you be naive enough to even go watch SR if you knew it was based on the same Superman in Donner's universe? I knew going in he was going to be the same guy making the same kinds of mistakes. You may not dig the characterization of Superman in SR, and that's fine, but the roots for it stretch back to 1978, my friend...like it or not it is consistent with them.

Well...if SR really had continued the story from Part II...it would have been a rather different story I'd say.

 

[majemma]

this movie was OVERLONG DRYYYY AND BORRRRRRIIING

 

[Dr. Fate]

He is still not convinced. ha ha ha.

How hard is for people to get that not the Donner movies nor Superman Returns aren`t perfect?

I feel like i`m going in circles. They keep bringing the same arguments. Oh. Superman in the Donner movie did this or that. Damn. I have patience.

No I get what you mean, Donner's Superman is still preferable over Singer's Superman but neither one is really a perfect.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Well...if SR really had continued the story from Part II...it would have been a rather different story I'd say.

How would it have continued a story that was wrapped up? And what relevance does that have on the fact that the title character was written to be the same flawed individual he was in the first two films, anyway? Superman is still Superman in all of the movies, for better or worse, depending on your preference.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

No I get what you mean, Donner's Superman is still preferable over Singer's Superman but neither one is really a perfect.

Exactly, Doc. That's what I've been trying to get through to people for the longest time. Puzo and Manck wrote him as flawed back then, but still some people will say that Donner's Superman is superior to Singer's when they both make some of the same mistakes.

 

[DarkMajin]

How would it have continued a story that was wrapped up? And what relevance does that have on the fact that the title character was written to be the same flawed individual he was in the first two films, anyway? Superman is still Superman in all of the movies, for better or worse, depending on your preference.

Well, personally I would say Superman I and II told a story and it was wrapped up...and would have been better off staying wrapped up.

But the SR Superman is apparently supposed to be the same character (Donner Supes).
So what you have is a character that goes through a bunch of growth in Part II...then in SR he makes all these mistakes, which are now quite out of character for him and which wipe out the growth he went through in the previous storyline.

As of such...if one had followed right where Part II ended...what you would have had is a Superman who would not have left the earth, and would have been wary of trying another relationship with Lois, and there would be no Jason.
And with Superman still around on the earth, the Fortress of Solitude isn't unguarded for Lex Luthor to break into...

And well...that pretty well eliminates SR's plot.

 

[mego joe]

^Why wouldn't someone bring those same arguments in reference to Superman's actions in the Donner films or cite comic books (which are character canon for a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER, by the way) as references to back up claims. This is supposed to be pretty much the same Superman as in Donner's films, right? We only use that as ammunition because your view is very myopic of the character and because Singer, Harris, and Dougherty didn't stray from the source material like some nutballs would try to have me believe? You stated that "GET THIS. DONNER SUPERMAN IS THE BEST INTERPRETATION OF SUPERMAN IN THE BIG SCREEN TILL NOW BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THERE CANT BE BETTER ONES. THATS WHAT ME AS FAN WANT WHEN I GO TO THE THEATER TO WATCH A SUPERMAN MOVIE." Now I get the whole part about that, but why would you be naive enough to even go watch SR if you knew it was based on the same Superman in Donner's universe? I knew going in he was going to be the same guy making the same kinds of mistakes. You may not dig the characterization of Superman in SR, and that's fine, but the roots for it stretch back to 1978, my friend...like it or not it is consistent with them.

Well, obviously many do not think it is the same Superman from Donner's universe. It is SUPPOSED to be, but there are significant differences which many of us see and others do not.

Not all mistakes are the same or in character for Superman.

Personally, I think it boils down to how we as individuals view the world, hence we view Superman being a deadbeat dad in SR differently.

It seems pretty clear though if Singer had made a great SUperman film, the fanbase would not be devided in the way that it is.

 

[mego joe]

Exactly, Doc. That's what I've been trying to get through to people for the longest time. Puzo and Manck wrote him as flawed back then, but still some people will say that Donner's Superman is superior to Singer's when they both make some of the same mistakes.

But the point is that many don't see the mistakes as THE SAME.

At no point in STM or SII does he knowingly choose to do something wrong to avoid his own pain and in turn hurt Lois instead.

In a sentence that's it.

 

[Angeloz]

I'm in the middle of drought conditions here....how about a pillow fight?

Great. But if it's hot there wouldn't a water pistol fight cool things down?

By the way we're not exactly overflowing with water either although north of my location is (in some places).

Angeloz

 

[KaptainKrypton]

So what you have is a character that goes through a bunch of growth in Part II...then in SR he makes all these mistakes, which are now quite out of character for him and which wipe out the growth he went through in the previous storyline.

As of such...if one had followed right where Part II ended...what you would have had is a Superman who would not have left the earth, and would have been wary of trying another relationship with Lois, and there would be no Jason. And with Superman still around on the earth, the Fortress of Solitude isn't unguarded for Lex Luthor to break into...

And well...that pretty well eliminates SR's plot.

He actually makes a mistake in opposite terms when it comes to Lois. He puts others (Krypton) before her instead of the mistake he did before where he put her before Earth. The difference this time around is that it is a choice made to potentially seek out survivors of a dying world (basically to help people supposedly in distress). The first mistake he made in S:2 was that he shrugged off responsibility altogether to land Lois and no reason whatsoever. This is where Luthor was intelligent in playing him like a fiddle this time and duping him into checking out for five years playing off his good nature and a lesson Superman had already learned.

Granted, Superman probably wouldn't have left if it were in the comics because in the DC universe there are supervillains shooting out the wazoo, but in the instance of the films, he probably felt safe knowing that Lex was in jail and that the Kryptonian threat Zod posed had been safely neutralized as no other major villains were ever discussed.

When it comes to his relationship with Lois, it was never one kept on the old school ground, so I wouldn't expect his responses to be different from anything done before. That's part of the deal with their relationship in the films. He ignores rules and even breaks them for her. In S:TM he played games with time because he couldn't save her ("never to interfere with human history"). In S:II he nearly handed Earth to Zod on a silver platter because he was in love with her. He loves her no matter what. Even if a relationship is doomed, with the kind of love he displays for her, any semblance of mathematical rationality is wishful thinking at best. The writers realized that with his lessons learned from the first two films, he'd make the tough choice and go "save" Krypton. The kind of love he's displayed for her would definitely indicate that if anyone could talk him out of anything...let alone a trip halfway across the cosmos, it'd damn sure be Lois Lane.

As for Jason, it's a judgment call on whether or not you like where he's concerned. I personally am intrigued to see how this whole thing plays out. The only thing that'll really upset me is if they don't expand upon it in the sequel. I'm of a different mindset than others who'd like the character whacked, for lack of a better word. If they handle it in a fashion that I like, then I'm cool with it. I'll have to see the sequel to make that call, though.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Well, obviously many do not think it is the same Superman from Donner's universe. It is SUPPOSED to be, but there are significant differences which many of us see and others do not.

Not all mistakes are the same or in character for Superman.

Personally, I think it boils down to how we as individuals view the world, hence we view Superman being a deadbeat dad in SR differently.

It seems pretty clear though if Singer had made a great SUperman film, the fanbase would not be devided in the way that it is.

You may be right. Everyone has their own specific view of things they like to see in a character (Superman being no exception). That's why some people love Smallville and I've loathed it for so long that I've become numb to it, really. Regardless of what has happens with the franchise, I hope that the next outing pleases you, joe. Mainly because I know what it's like to be bummed about something that is Superman related (for me it's Lois and Clark or Smallville). Also, because typing this stuff takes awhile, sometimes, man.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

But the point is that many don't see the mistakes as THE SAME.

At no point in STM or SII does he knowingly choose to do something wrong to avoid his own pain and in turn hurt Lois instead.

In a sentence that's it.

The mistakes were polar opposites in actuality and he did indeed learn his lesson from his first mistakes where Lois ALWAYS came first. This time it was an extreme in the opposite sense. He understood that some, potentially MANY, people from Krypton could still be in existence and that he was the only guy around to make sure of them being or not being alive. In the first films, he shucked off his responsibilities and values set forth by Jor-El so he could first save her from dying, and then absconded from all his duties just to be with her. The only person who was noticeably dead during his absence was Norm Palmer. Martha, Lois, Perry, and Jimmy were all okay, so I guess Superman was right in terms of judging whether or not they'd be safe in his absence. And it wasn't about "avoiding his own pain" either. He had a larger responsibility and he understood that Lois could've taken about two minutes to probably stop him from going, because she has that ability with him. He'll break rules, bend time and put the Earth at risk for her. If anything, this Superman had learned from his past mistakes. What he didn't account for was that Lex was one step ahead of him and realized that he'd actually take off to check stuff out.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The mistakes were polar opposites in actuality and he did indeed learn his lesson from his first mistakes where Lois ALWAYS came first. This time it was an extreme in the opposite sense. He understood that some, potentially MANY, people from Krypton could still be in existence and that he was the only guy around to make sure of them being or not being alive. In the first films, he shucked off his responsibilities and values set forth by Jor-El so he could first save her from dying, and then absconded from all his duties just to be with her. The only person who was noticeably dead during his absence was Norm Palmer. Martha, Lois, Perry, and Jimmy were all okay, so I guess Superman was right in terms of judging whether or not they'd be safe in his absence. And it wasn't about "avoiding his own pain" either. He had a larger responsibility and he understood that Lois could've taken about two minutes to probably stop him from going, because she has that ability with him. He'll break rules, bend time and put the Earth at risk for her. If anything, this Superman had learned from his past mistakes. What he didn't account for was that Lex was one step ahead of him and realized that he'd actually take off to check stuff out.

Exactly, the mistakes he makes in SR are no worse or more wrong than the mistakes made in Superman or Superman II, or the comics or T.V series for that matter. IMO Superman was the opposite of selfish in this movie, practically everything he did in the movie and beforehand was for other being's benefits IMO.

Superman is meant to be the light that shows the way, not our saviour, so him leaving is not a big deal to me, Superman obviously felt that the world could still go on without him. Would it miss him? Yes. Would his absence plunge the world into turmoil? No. And so it is presented in SR.

 

[Angeloz]

Exactly, the mistakes he makes in SR are no worse or more wrong than the mistakes made in Superman or Superman II, or the comics or T.V series for that matter. IMO Superman was the opposite of selfish in this movie, practically everything he did in the movie and beforehand was for other being's benefits IMO.

Superman is meant to be the light that shows the way, not our saviour, so him leaving is not a big deal to me, Superman obviously felt that the world could still go on without him. Would it miss him? Yes. Would his absence plunge the world into turmoil? No. And so it is presented in SR.

Nice post and I thought it's not the first one for today.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Ha ha thanks.

 

[El Payaso]

^Why wouldn't someone bring those same arguments in reference to Superman's actions in the Donner films or cite comic books (which are character canon for a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER, by the way) as references to back up claims. This is supposed to be pretty much the same Superman as in Donner's films, right? We only use that as ammunition because your view is very myopic of the character and because Singer, Harris, and Dougherty didn't stray from the source material like some nutballs would try to have me believe? You stated that "GET THIS. DONNER SUPERMAN IS THE BEST INTERPRETATION OF SUPERMAN IN THE BIG SCREEN TILL NOW BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THERE CANT BE BETTER ONES. THATS WHAT ME AS FAN WANT WHEN I GO TO THE THEATER TO WATCH A SUPERMAN MOVIE." Now I get the whole part about that, but why would you be naive enough to even go watch SR if you knew it was based on the same Superman in Donner's universe? I knew going in he was going to be the same guy making the same kinds of mistakes. You may not dig the characterization of Superman in SR, and that's fine, but the roots for it stretch back to 1978, my friend...like it or not it is consistent with them.

Nice post, KaptainKrypton, nice post.

He is still not convinced. ha ha ha.

How hard is for people to get that not the Donner movies nor Superman Returns aren`t perfect?

I feel like i`m going in circles. They keep bringing the same arguments. Oh. Superman in the Donner movie did this or that. Damn. I have patience.

Yeah haha. You are like the same you critisize in others.

 

[mego joe]

He actually makes a mistake in opposite terms when it comes to Lois.

He puts others (Krypton) before her instead of the mistake he did before where he put her before Earth.

My issue is not that he left Earth. FOcus just on this part for a second. It's HOW he left. Not saying goodbye. THat is the part that is out of character. Characterizing him as a character who is so emotionally crippled by having to tell the woman he loves the truth about leaving which would create a feeling that he could then NOT go, is incorrect for ANY version of SUperman. It is against the core of his character. Just that aspect.

The difference this time around is that it is a choice made to potentially seek out survivors of a dying world (basically to help people supposedly in distress). The first mistake he made in S:2 was that he shrugged off responsibility altogether to land Lois and no reason whatsoever. This is where Luthor was intelligent in playing him like a fiddle this time and duping him into checking out for five years playing off his good nature and a lesson Superman had already learned.

Granted, Superman probably wouldn't have left if it were in the comics because in the DC universe there are supervillains shooting out the wazoo, but in the instance of the films, he probably felt safe knowing that Lex was in jail and that the Kryptonian threat Zod posed had been safely neutralized as no other major villains were ever discussed.

When it comes to his relationship with Lois, it was never one kept on the old school ground, so I wouldn't expect his responses to be different from anything done before. That's part of the deal with their relationship in the films. He ignores rules and even breaks them for her. In S:TM he played games with time because he couldn't save her ("never to interfere with human history"). In S:II he nearly handed Earth to Zod on a silver platter because he was in love with her. He loves her no matter what. Even if a relationship is doomed, with the kind of love he displays for her, any semblance of mathematical rationality is wishful thinking at best. The writers realized that with his lessons learned from the first two films, he'd make the tough choice and go "save" Krypton. The kind of love he's displayed for her would definitely indicate that if anyone could talk him out of anything...let alone a trip halfway across the cosmos, it'd damn sure be Lois Lane.

As for Jason, it's a judgment call on whether or not you like where he's concerned. I personally am intrigued to see how this whole thing plays out. The only thing that'll really upset me is if they don't expand upon it in the sequel. I'm of a different mindset than others who'd like the character whacked, for lack of a better word. If they handle it in a fashion that I like, then I'm cool with it. I'll have to see the sequel to make that call, though.

My reasons for not caring about Jason are that his storyline comes out of Superman leaving w/o telling Lois. Plus, as every other version has shown, SUperman wouldn't be having sex w/ Lois w/o her knowing he's Clark.SUperman should never be in this situation in the first place. Jason just comes across as a reminder of how little Singer understands the character.

 

[DarkMajin]

He actually makes a mistake in opposite terms when it comes to Lois. He puts others (Krypton) before her instead of the mistake he did before where he put her before Earth. The difference this time around is that it is a choice made to potentially seek out survivors of a dying world (basically to help people supposedly in distress). The first mistake he made in S:2 was that he shrugged off responsibility altogether to land Lois and no reason whatsoever. This is where Luthor was intelligent in playing him like a fiddle this time and duping him into checking out for five years playing off his good nature and a lesson Superman had already learned.

Granted, Superman probably wouldn't have left if it were in the comics because in the DC universe there are supervillains shooting out the wazoo, but in the instance of the films, he probably felt safe knowing that Lex was in jail and that the Kryptonian threat Zod posed had been safely neutralized as no other major villains were ever discussed.

Was that even put forth in the film, that his mission was to save potential survivors?
I had thought the deal was he had left under the idea that Krypton still existed in some form, and he wanted to check it out because he felt alienated and alone on earth (aka miserable Supes). He wasn't sure what he would find...but I suppose he was hoping to maybe find someone.

And while it's true Lex and Zod were gone...in Part II at the end Superman is shown fully embracing his mission to protect earth and its people...so I would imagine he'd be disinclined to leave it for years and years considering there'd still be plenty of things for him to do.
And of course...good thing no supervillains did pop up during his absence, or you know, Lex maybe getting out of jail 2 years into the absence.

When it comes to his relationship with Lois, it was never one kept on the old school ground, so I wouldn't expect his responses to be different from anything done before. That's part of the deal with their relationship in the films. He ignores rules and even breaks them for her. In S:TM he played games with time because he couldn't save her ("never to interfere with human history"). In S:II he nearly handed Earth to Zod on a silver platter because he was in love with her. He loves her no matter what. Even if a relationship is doomed, with the kind of love he displays for her, any semblance of mathematical rationality is wishful thinking at best. The writers realized that with his lessons learned from the first two films, he'd make the tough choice and go "save" Krypton. The kind of love he's displayed for her would definitely indicate that if anyone could talk him out of anything...let alone a trip halfway across the cosmos, it'd damn sure be Lois Lane.

Well, there just seems to be a gulf between the matured Superman in Part II and the immature one in SR.

He pretty well swears that he can't be with Lois and devotes himself totally to the earth.

SR's plot would at least make more sense if it wasn't supposed to be continuing from Part II...but it needs Part II for at least some of its background...so it's just really a mess. The writers should know better.

As for Jason, it's a judgment call on whether or not you like where he's concerned. I personally am intrigued to see how this whole thing plays out. The only thing that'll really upset me is if they don't expand upon it in the sequel. I'm of a different mindset than others who'd like the character whacked, for lack of a better word. If they handle it in a fashion that I like, then I'm cool with it. I'll have to see the sequel to make that call, though.

Well, I personally find the character unnecessary...but it's true if they continued on, well, they're going to have to expand on his story...cause he really doesn't have much of one.

 

[Angeloz]

DarkMajin "Superman II" may not be in direct continuity. As I've been explaining in another thread Kal-El had only heard of Zod in the novelisation. So it doesn't have to be (in continuity). As I've also said I like using the tragic romance as a reason for the relationship and break up. Also him feeling lonely and so taking the chance to see Krypton to truly see if he was alone. But there's so many other possibilities that may not involve such scenarios (with the relationship). And it doesn't have to be negative towards him.

Angeloz

 

[DarkMajin]

DarkMajin "Superman II" may not be in direct continuity. As I've been explaining in another thread Kal-El had only heard of Zod in the novelisation. So it doesn't have to be (in continuity). As I've also said I like using the tragic romance as a reason for the relationship and break up. Also him feeling lonely and so taking the chance to see Krypton to truly see if he was alone. But there's so many other possibilities that may not involve such scenarios (with the relationship). And it doesn't have to be negative towards him.

Angeloz

Well, as I said....SR needs at least parts of Part II to provide background for it...and without it the plot gets more messy.

I think SR's story could have been better had there been no connections to the other films, and they'd filled in more of the backstory before he left.
A tighter plot and more explanation for certain things.

That, and making it plain that this is a young Superman who doesn't quite know what he's doing yet.
An interesting idea that could have been played with is that before Supes left, he may also have been feeling that his relationship with Lois was empty, and that she loved him only for the mythical hero he is...and this could have spurred him further to leave.

 

[Angeloz]

Well, as I said....SR needs at least parts of Part II to provide background for it...and without it the plot gets more messy.

Not messy. A mystery. Something we're not sure about (that may or may not be imagined). I know it's a problem for some.

I think SR's story could have been better had there been no connections to the other films, and they'd filled in more of the backstory before he left.
A tighter plot and more explanation for certain things.

So you need everything explained. Or it's bad? Me, I like mysteries.

That, and making it plain that this is a young Superman who doesn't quite know what he's doing yet.
An interesting idea that could have been played with is that before Supes left, he may also have been feeling that his relationship with Lois was empty, and that she loved him only for the mythical hero he is...and this could have spurred him further to leave.

Interesting. You aren't typical. I approve (not that you need it).

Though you can't just accept he felt lonely (with or without Lois). And he took Lois for granted or her feelings for him (very naughty). But when he heard about Krypton felt the need to see it for himself. See if it was there or there were any survivors. Just a thought (probably futile).

Angeloz