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

[dr collossus]

Please make up your mind. We either have progressed beyond that - as you suggested first - or we can not - as I suggested later.

I'm sorry but that makes you seem shallow. You actually think that whether or not Superman is going to do the right thing should come into question in every movie? Besides which, you were suggesting that the drama in the movie comes from this question itself, and I was trying to say that this sort of question is surely aimed more at an immature movie audience rather than a developed one. If you are going to sit and watch a movie and think to yourself 'Oooh, this is exciting, Superman may not do the right thing! I wonder how this will turn out!', then you really are more easily pleased than I would have imagined.

As it happens I personally think that this question does have the potential to be an interesting plot point in a Superman movie, but in more of the way it was done in Superman:The Movie (with the two missiles) than in the question 'Well he wants to save the plane but maybe he'll just let everyone die because he's not quite in an emotional place yet where he wants to appear in public as Superman.' I mean, seriously, did you actually wonder at this point whether he was going to save the plane?

So, either we cannot progress beyond that as an audience and that is what the film is about, or we have progressed beyond it and the film is about Superman facing something he has never faced before; fatherhood. (Which, according to you, is the only thing he's never faced before). If that is the case, I'd like to point out that he didn't actually face up to fatherhood at all, he just walked away, and that is mine and everyone else who doesn't like it's problem, that he didn't face up to fatherhood, he went to see his kid and then just left.

How much less absolutist than calling someone "narrow-minded" without any back up for such statement just because you disagree with an opinion?

Still avoiding the question then? What you said was narrow-minded, I agree with him on that. You said that fatherhood is the only thing left for us as an audience to see Superman tackle. What I want to know is, are you actually that narrow-minded? Or was it just an off-the-cuff comment? Do you acutally believe that there is nothing else left to challenge Superman in a movie?

 

[sithgoblin]

Thanks, dr collossus, you said exactly what I was going to.

 

[El Payaso]

I think you should have learnt by now what a smiling amoticon is about.



...


like this one, .

 

[dr collossus]

oooh, nice dodge.

 

[El Payaso]

I'm sorry but that makes you seem shallow.

I'm sorry, I was just exposing your own contradiction. How is that shallow?

And well, nice dodge not addressing the point.

You actually think that whether or not Superman is going to do the right thing should come into question in every movie?

I have never said that. I just said that audiences have not progressed beyond that necessarily as any issue can be treated again and again.

Which leads to two alternatives: you can make it the question of the movie or you can choose not to.

See? Different things. It doesn't necessarily have to be the question of the movie, but my point is that is not ruled out absolutely as you suggested.

Besides which, you were suggesting that the drama in the movie comes from this question itself, and I was trying to say that this sort of question is surely aimed more at an immature movie audience rather than a developed one.

Oh please explain me how so. Because if that is so, then most people that saw STM and SII were immature since that was the question at certain point in both movies.

If you are going to sit and watch a movie and think to yourself 'Oooh, this is exciting, Superman may not do the right thing! I wonder how this will turn out!', then you really are more easily pleased than I would have imagined.

I find doubting is the hero is going to do the right thing not only exciting but the biggest conflict a hero could have.

But please suggest something better.

As it happens I personally think that this question does have the potential to be an interesting plot point in a Superman movie,

Oh?

So you don't actually really think that question is "surely aimed more at an immature movie audience rather than a developed one" or that liking it is makes you "more easily pleased than you would have imagined" as you just said.

But let's see why you contradict yourself so quickly and essentially:

but in more of the way it was done in Superman:The Movie (with the two missiles) than in the question 'Well he wants to save the plane but maybe he'll just let everyone die because he's not quite in an emotional place yet where he wants to appear in public as Superman.' I mean, seriously, did you actually wonder at this point whether he was going to save the plane?

Of course not. It's just that he realized Superman had to make his first public apparerance for the first time since he's back. That said, I never asked myself that. It was more what was he going to do about Lois and his son. You know, not reversing time or giving amnesia to everyone involved this time. Just facing things up.

But you said you liked the question "is he going to do the right thing" in STM. So we have to agree it depends on how's written. Wait! wasn't it me who said that?:

All the same, for me it's not the question of "Is Superman going to do the right thing?", but the way it's written. Therefore you can't totally 'progress' beyond that

Jesus Christ, who would have said you were contradicting me just to end up unwillingly admitting I was right. Mh.

So, either we cannot progress beyond that as an audience and that is what the film is about, or we have progressed beyond it and the film is about Superman facing something he has never faced before; fatherhood. (Which, according to you, is the only thing he's never faced before). If that is the case, I'd like to point out that he didn't actually face up to fatherhood at all, he just walked away, and that is mine and everyone else who doesn't like it's problem, that he didn't face up to fatherhood, he went to see his kid and then just left.

Mh, by the end of the movie I saw Superman telling his son what Jor-El told him. That is, becoming his father even if in a untraditional way (since Superman's personal life never have and never could be, normal). But yes, he was assuming his fatherhood. But if he moves in with Lois then for sure people and villiains will know Jason is Superman's and therefore will put Jason in jepopardy all the time, so Superman had to assume that - once again, as everything in his personal life - fatherhood for him is doomed to be untraditional.

And when people just walk away they don't stop to say they'll be always around.

Still avoiding the question then?

What that would be again?

What you said was narrow-minded,

In fact it was a joke about the new things SR put on the table. I thought the smiling emoticon was sign enough of it.

 

[sithgoblin]

edit: beat me to it!

 

[El Payaso]

???

 

[mego joe]

To many.......it's not simply the fact that he is a father.....but how that situation was written.

Exactly, the circumstances of him becoming a father. Or in this case sort of a non-father.

 

[dr collossus]

And well, nice dodge not addressing the point.

My very next sentence addressed the point. You should try reading people's posts (and the follow ups) before you make comments.

Oh please explain me how so. Because if that is so, then most people that saw STM and SII were immature since that was the question at certain point in both movies.

That's the point - audiences have matured beyond this because we have seen it before. Also, I want to draw attention to your 'at certain point' remark. You were suggesting that this was the point of the film, despite your fervant denial, which you even go on to say:

I find doubting is the hero is going to do the right thing not only exciting but the biggest conflict a hero could have.

Well, I agree and I disagree. As someone else has already said, this is very much a teen-angsty, Marvel kind of angle on superheroes, but that said, it can be dealt with well, but a)not as the basis for the whole plot of the film, b)certainly not to the extent with Superman as with other heroes and c)not for something as silly as 'I'm not quite ready yet to appear in public as Superman so f**k it I'll let a plane full of people die. The point I'm trying to make is that yes that was an exciting rescue scene, but there was not even a seconds drama in it based on the conflict of whether Superman was going to do the right thing or not. If that's what you got from that scene, then you really don't know the character.

In short, if YOU can't progress beyond that question, then fine, be happy to see the same rehashed material (applied to a hero for which it's kind of irrelevant anyway) again and again, go watch the same movie disguised as something else over and over and be pleased by it. That's fine. Me? I've come to want and expect something more.

Mh, by the end of the movie I saw Superman telling his son what Jor-El told him. That is, becoming his father even if in a untraditional way (since Superman's personal life never have and never could be, normal). But yes, he was assuming his fatherhood. But if he moves in with Lois then for sure people and villiains will know Jason is Superman's and therefore will put Jason in jepopardy all the time, so Superman had to assume that - once again, as everything in his personal life - fatherhood for him is doomed to be untraditional.

Sorry dude, that's BS. First of all, the very fact that Singer even used that speech (the father-son thing) only serves to highlight the fact that he didn't understand its significance in its original context. Second of all:

And when people just walk away they don't stop to say they'll be always around.

Yeah they do, all the time. When people DON'T walk away, they sort through their issues rather than saying "I'll be around." But the main point here, is that you simply cannot say that Superman was facing up to his responsibilities rather than giving people amnesia (which was to protect her, btw) or whatever, because he didn't. I don't care what you think Superman's role as a ftaher should or shouldn't be. Superman would NOT have left it at that.

In fact it was a joke about the new things SR put on the table. I thought the smiling emoticon was sign enough of it.

Well forgive me for missing that one. I didn't realise you had a sense of humour, what with the way you went almost psychotic at the reductionist jokes from earlier.

 

[El Payaso]

My very next sentence addressed the point. You should try reading people's posts (and the follow ups) before you make comments.

Asking me a question about it is not addressing the fact you said two opposite things like if nothing.

That's the point - audiences have matured beyond this because we have seen it before.

So people have matured over impossible love stories because once they saw Romeo & Juliet?

Also, I want to draw attention to your 'at certain point' remark. You were suggesting that this was the point of the film, despite your fervant denial, which you even go on to say:

My 'at certain point' remark was about STM and SII.

At certain point of STM, people would ask 'Will Superman do the right thing and NOT reverse time just because Lois died?' And well, he didn't do the right thing and just abused his powers for personal reasons.

At certain point of SII, people would ask 'Will Superman do the right thing and NOT give up his powers just because he wants to be with Lois?' And well, he didn't do the right thing and left Earth defensless for personal reasons.

So, it seems people matured little between STM and SII, since there were points in both films where people would ask themselves the same question. You know, like they didn't have asked that before.

Well, I agree and I disagree. As someone else has already said, this is very much a teen-angsty, Marvel kind of angle on superheroes,

Yeah, it seems people give Marvel too much credit. Marvel is not the only one able to make 3 dimentional characters with realm conflicts, opposite to the black & white concept of good guys vs evil guys.

but that said, it can be dealt with well, but a)not as the basis for the whole plot of the film,

Why not if it's such an interesting question? Superman can still save people in between and in the end will do the right thing. He'll go to his son and will tell Lois he will be there for them without exposing them to the world.

b)certainly not to the extent with Superman as with other heroes

Oops, they already did it with STM and SII. Damn Donner and Lester. In their defense I'll say they didn't know about this theory of yours.

And don't be mean and give us the entire list of superheroes that are not appliable to this conflict.

c)not for something as silly as 'I'm not quite ready yet to appear in public as Superman so f**k it I'll let a plane full of people die.

Mh. Didn't he did the exact opposite?

The point I'm trying to make is that yes that was an exciting rescue scene, but there was not even a seconds drama in it based on the conflict of whether Superman was going to do the right thing or not. If that's what you got from that scene, then you really don't know the character.

Lol. All I got from the scene was a fantastic action sequence. I'm not obssessed in finding Superman's flaws where there aren't any. He thought for a second about the significance of the moment. He never doubted about going to rescue the plane or not.

In short, if YOU can't progress beyond that question, then fine, be happy to see the same rehashed material (applied to a hero for which it's kind of irrelevant anyway) again and again, go watch the same movie disguised as something else over and over and be pleased by it. That's fine. Me? I've come to want and expect something more.

Yeah, you want more action movies? What for, we have seen that. You want any more Shakespeare plays? What for, they all are already done. Any more Batman sequels? What for, we have seen Joker more than once.

Fascinating.

Sorry dude, that's BS.

Naturally, it doesn't help your points.

First of all, the very fact that Singer even used that speech (the father-son thing) only serves to highlight the fact that he didn't understand its significance in its original context. Second of all:

Or maybe it's a sign that Singer can use the same words in a different context so they can reach a new meaning. And at the same time you're unable to get it.

Yeah they do, all the time.

Maybe people have told you "I'll be around" and then they just walk out on you?

Because aside of that, "I'll be around" means "I'll be around."

Fathers who don't want to assume fatherhood don't come to their sons and talk to them with love.

When people DON'T walk away, they sort through their issues rather than saying "I'll be around."

That's when you're not Superman and recognizing your son doesn't mean to put him in constant danger. There are certain things wioth Richard and Lois to be fixed before putting the kid in the eye of the hurricane.

As far as I saw, Superman is planning to take care for them without exposing to the world their bond. Untraditional? Sure, Superman has never been able to get a normal life. But it's the way to take his responsibility. He can't quit and get a normal family life. That would be yelling to the world, "here is my son, the one I love the most in this world; You want to hurt me and defeat me? Come for him" THAT would be irresponsible.

But the main point here, is that you simply cannot say that Superman was facing up to his responsibilities rather than giving people amnesia (which was to protect her, btw) or whatever, because he didn't.

Since he knew he was a father in the last 5 minutes there's not much he could specifically do.

That said, so far we have:

I'll be around = I'll walk away
Mind manipulation = Lois' protection

in your dictionary.

I don't care what you think Superman's role as a ftaher should or shouldn't be.

Fantastic way to discuss.

"I don't care what you think"

Maybe now you could adopt a little consistency and stop replying? I mean, IF you reaally don't care.

Well forgive me for missing that one. I didn't realise you had a sense of humour,

You don't realise a lot of things, this is no surprise at this point.

 

[sithgoblin]

So people have matured over impossible love stories because once they saw Romeo & Juliet?

That has been my point the entire time. Your whole argument has been that Superman having a son is a good idea because it's something that we haven't seen before. Way to do a 180.

 

[El Payaso]

That has been my point the entire time. Your whole argument has been that Superman having a son is a good idea because it's something that we haven't seen before. Way to do a 180.

Superman in a tutu hasn't been done before. Bad idea.

If you'd dare to read right, I said it was a good idea because fatherhood has been an inherent subject since STM. And it would have been there in SII too if they didn't take Brando's scenes out.

 

[sithgoblin]

Superman in a tutu hasn't been done before. Bad idea.

If you'd dare to read right, I said it was a good idea because fatherhood has been an inherent subject since STM. And it would have been there in SII too if they didn't take Brando's scenes out.

That doesn't mean giving Superman a son is the right direction to take. Like you said, some ideas are bad.

 

[El Payaso]

That doesn't mean giving Superman a son is the right direction to take. Like you said, some ideas are bad.

In art there are no right directions to take. It's all about execution. The way they handled it it was moving and well done. Superman, in no way, could be having a normal life, coming home after work, kissing the wife, playing with the son.

 

[sithgoblin]

In art there are no right directions to take. It's all about execution. The way they handled it it was moving and well done. Superman, in no way, could be having a normal life, coming home after work, kissing the wife, playing with the son.

Don't be silly. With an established literary character of course there are wrong directions to take. Or should they make a sequel to Romeo and Juliet where they both come back from the dead? I know! A sequel to Casablanca where Rick gets superpowers to fight the Nazi's! Or maybe a new Lord of the Rings film where it turns out that the boat they all took at the end of Return of the King actually took them to present day New York. After all, it's all art.

 

[El Payaso]

Don't be silly. With an established literary character of course there are wrong directions to take. Or should they make a sequel to Romeo and Juliet where they both come back from the dead? I know! A sequel to Casablanca where Rick gets superpowers to fight the Nazi's! Or maybe a new Lord of the Rings film where it turns out that the boat they all took at the end of Return of the King actually took them to present day New York. After all, it's all art.

Maybe Romeo and Juliet has nothing to do with coming back from the death, Casablanca has nothing to do with super-powers and Lord of the Rin gs has nothing to do with New York the way this Superman's franchise has to do with fatherhood since STM.

 

[mego joe]

Maybe Romeo and Juliet has nothing to do with coming back from the death, Casablanca has nothing to do with super-powers and Lord of the Rin gs has nothing to do with New York the way this Superman's franchise has to do with fatherhood since STM.

But it has nothing to do with being an absentee father who got that way b/c of immaturity and irresponsible actions. Which is Superman in SR.

 

[El Payaso]

But it has nothing to do with being an absentee father who got that way b/c of immaturity and irresponsible actions. Which is Superman in SR.

Absentee while he didn't know about the kid and even less about the kid being his. Which not even the mother knew.

Going to Krypton was his duties to his natal world. Nothing immature about it.

But being irresponsible as in reversing time when his father told him not to or quitting his mission because of personal reasons... yes, that is quite irresponsible too. And part of the same frnchise.

 

[LexCorp]

Absentee while he didn't know about the kid and even less about the kid being his. Which not even the mother knew.

Going to Krypton was his duties to his natal world. Nothing immature about it.

But being irresponsible as in reversing time when his father told him not to or quitting his mission because of personal reasons... yes, that is quite irresponsible too. And part of the same frnchise.

You see I hold by that too. However I do think he should have waited a few months before he left to see if Lois was pregnant...

 

[mego joe]

Absentee while he didn't know about the kid and even less about the kid being his. Which not even the mother knew.

He absented himself from Lois emotionally. ANd the only reason Lois didn't know SUperman was Jason's father was b/c she was acting ****ty.

Going to Krypton was his duties to his natal world. Nothing immature about it.

But leaving Lois w/o saying goodbye is immature and irresponsible. It's not the action itself, but how it is done.

But being irresponsible as in reversing time when his father told him not to or quitting his mission because of personal reasons... yes, that is quite irresponsible too. And part of the same frnchise.

It was not the intention of the filmmakers for turning back time, quitting his mission or amnesia kissing Lois to be irresponsible in the context of those films. It is YOUR opion, which while shared by some was not how those events were intended.

 

[mego joe]

You see I hold by that too. However I do think he should have waited a few months before he left to see if Lois was pregnant...

You know, in mature relationships, it's just easier to talk to that person and be honest with them.

 

[Angeloz]

How do we know she didn't know who's the father? I know what she told Lex but would you tell him the truth?

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

How do we know she didn't know who's the father? I know what she told Lex but would you tell him the truth?

Angeloz

So she lied to RIchard the entire time through the pregnancy and first 4 years of Jason's life?

Wow, I like the movie LOis even less and less.

But to answer, that's how it comes off in the movie to me.

 

[Cyrusbales]

People lie. Did she want to ruin her relationship with Richard and her family?

Did she want to risk people knowing she had supes' son?

Did she even know for sure it was his? If Richard believes her, maybe she believes too!

 

[LexCorp]

He absented himself from Lois emotionally. ANd the only reason Lois didn't know SUperman was Jason's father was b/c she was acting ****ty.


But leaving Lois w/o saying goodbye is immature and irresponsible. It's not the action itself, but how it is done.


It was not the intention of the filmmakers for turning back time, quitting his mission or amnesia kissing Lois to be irresponsible in the context of those films. It is YOUR opion, which while shared by some was not how those events were intended.

Yeah but you can flip that...

It was not the intention of the filmmakers having superman leaving, to be irresponsible in the context of the film. It is YOUR opion, which while shared by some was not how those events were intended