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

[Angeloz]

So you can film them playing twister in Superman and Batman costumes? Just imagine the capes.

Angeloz

 

[El Payaso]

No. In SII he HELPS Lois the only way he can at that poin. In SR he HURTS her. Diametrically opposed intentions.

In SII he hurts her too, don't be so blatantly blind.

And manipulating her memory is not, by a long shot, the only way to help her. He could have quit the Planet so Lois could deal with her pain in a more easy way, as every human being does.

Well, that's not something that's been discussed much, but it is really neither here nor there.

In fact it is pretty much there in the movie. Of course than ignoring those things allows you to reply.

If you care about somebody and love them, you say goodbye in that situation, period.

But if you care most for your duties, then you do what you have to do. Your girl is not the priority.

No just acknowledging that when I say apples you see oranges and when you say oranges I see apples.

When you say apples, I say Oranges because a, b and c.

Lately I say Oranges and you go "You're wrong, apples, period."

Proving he is being portrayed out of character, b/c Superman in ALL his incarnations is able to make the tough decision and overcome his fear and NOT hurt Lois.

In STM, Superman allowed her to die.

In SII, Superman hurt her by regaining his powers and re-embracing his mission.

So what you say is not true.

Apples.

Yeah, unable to reply.

SOmetimes, perhaps, apples and oranges you know.

No, I don't. I'm always able to reply properly.

After watching the Donner cut of Superman II I would say 'Yes.' LEster and co had to come up with a new ending for SUperman II and they just weren't up to the task to have a really fantastic ending (not that turning back time was fantastic, just better than the amnesia kiss.)

Now I'll be generous and assume you get the filmmakers are the ones who made changes, not Superman. And not inside the fiction certainly.

However, they effectively portrayed that Supreman amnesia kissed her to aleviate her pain and undo the damage he was responsible for. No utlerior motives, no hidden selfish reason. That is not Superman. The end of Superman II is just not really good writing.

They portrayed the amnesia kiss as Superman's best intentions because they relied on the fact that as long as you see Superman onm screen you won't be able to assume he was having bad intentions. Merely that.

Nevertheless the implications of Superman's actions remain intact in spite of what filmmakers intended.

That said, I see you don't apply the same trust in Singer, who portrayed Superman's mistakes as naive ones, things he really coudln't handle, but this time - in oprder to hate - it's a no. Sudedenly, implications are more valuable.

Quite inconsistent.

 

[El Payaso]

Duh, but he's also a character written by people sometimes really well and sometimes not so well. The itentions were good, it was just goofy and 30 years later raises a lot of questions that people wouldn't have asked when it was first released.

Meh. So in 30 years SR will be ok I assume?

Intentiuons or not, actions are there and this movie is based on a Superman able to do those very actions.

Yet he clearly knows it is wrong in SR to not say goodbye to Lois, otherwise it wouldn't have been 'difficult' to do.

As wouldn't have to manipulate minds in SII.

I have never denied he knew it was a mistake. I point out he has often knew when he was making something wrong.

But the fact it's difficult shows he cares, as opposite to the oblivious attitude you claimed he was having.

He had not bought into the mission yet.
THat's what Superman II is about.

[/quote]

Yes he is. Since he put that blue and red costume he is. Since he firstly saved Lois and the chopper, he is.

For Superman II everyone knows him and he's all into his mission. That's what SII is about. The adventure continues, not the adventure starts.

It's a point early in his career where he hasn't bought in wholesale to what Jor-El has been preaching.

Yes he has been bought, he started saving people, protecting the innocent and saving kitties from trees as Jor-El had told him to.

In fact by the point where he reverses time it's the first time he does NOT listen to Jor-El, as opposite as before.

And yes, if he wants to he can quit at any time and give up his powers and lead a normal everyday life, just as he did in "What Ever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?"

Of course he can. He can EVEN when he's warned it's not the right thing to do.

And time proved Jor-El to be right.

Without all the facts (Phantom Zone Villains running loose), it was a mistake, but otherwise there's no reason he can't give up his powers and live a normal life if that's what he wants to do.

I'm in the need to reply the same since you conveniently ignored what I said:

If it wasn't Zod, it was Lex Luthor, who had fled from jail by the time. If not Luthor, Robert Vaughn character, etc. Common criminals, etc etc. The world will be needing Superman always.

CHicken and egg. World was going along fine until Superman arrived and Luthor pulled the nuclear missile gag.

Then Superman has always been uneeded, which makes the character pointless.

Great move, mego.

So why can't he quit if he wants to again?

Because innocent people will die if he does. Thought you knew something about the character.

The point is nobody's forcing him to quit or to regain powers.

I've always had some problems with the Donner films, but they are completely different from my problems with SR. I still see SUperman in character in the Donner films, but not in SR.

But that's just because you can condone Superman killing Zod, manipulating Lois' mind without her permission, having a personal revenge over a human and not doing his best to save people but only to save Lois.

And then you can't forgive he didn't say good bye. Hilarious.

WHen you see oranges in the Donner films you also see oranges in SR. I see apples in the Donner films, but oranges in SR.

I know. If the sky being violet helps you to make a point you will claim it to be violet. For the sake of filmmakers intentions when it's convenient to or for what Superman's actions implies, using one perspective or the other, depending on the convenience for your argumentation.

No, it's the script and the approach to utilize vacant stares in lieu of actual meaningful dialogue.

The explanations you claim are not there, are there in fact, I have quoted them. You chose to ognore Matha said she thought Superman will never come back. If Superman had known he was going to be back in 5 years he would have told Martha, therefore if she didn't know, he didn't know.

I'll glad SR didn't go into spoonfeeding.

Especially that part where he leaves for 5 years and doesn't say goodbye. That really shows how much he cares for her and the fruits of their relationship.

I thought we already know Superman cares for his mistakes AFTER he makes them?

YOu know, so my wife will know that I love her as much as SUperman loves Lois, I'll away for a week on business and not call or tell her anything. Then when I come home, I'll say, "I'm sorry. I couldn't have gone away for a week if I'd come to say goodbye first. Oh and I'm always around, so don't feel bad."

Until the day youi're Superman and Superman is married tio Lois, that example is pretty much pointless and useless.

 

[El Payaso]

Cares so much that in fact, he never tells Lois WHY it was so hard. He chickens out and lets Clark do it.

Yes, he did. In the roof.

Ironically, the average person would have no-brained the goodbye thing. And Superman blew it.

Because the average person wouldn't be going to a trip to space from which he didn't know if he was coming back or not.

Enough you have become tiresome!

As you replied to the rest I'll assume this is yet another incorrect statement.

THe difference is that the intentions of the filmmakes are diametrically opposed. Singer doesn't intend for his actions to be OK. He is purposely having Superman do the wrong thing and it is clear that Superman KNOWS it in the movie, thus the filmmakers knew. It is the opposite with the SUeprman II. It is not presented as a mistake, yet it is presented as a mistake in SR.

Even when I know you have never been inside Donner's, Lester's and Singer's mind or - for that matter - you didn't even had a chat with them via MSN, so you can't conclude what their intentions were but merely what your interpretation of those are, it's clear that Singer was more honest than Donner and Lester because where Superman made the same kind of mistakes, Singer didn't make him go for the mind manipulation or time reversing to make Superman satisfy himself by undoing what's done.

That's the problem. Singer didn't have any sugary intentions.

Meaning, you choose not to give Singer the benefit of the doubt you give Donner and Lester. You prefer filmmakers to be more hyprocitical about Superman's action. Donner and Lester had Superman hiding the dirt under the carpet.

Because that is what's there, the worst.

Man, if your life is so horrible that you can only see the worst in people, I feel truly sorry for you.

But I don't think they are comparable. Apples and oranges, remember.

Yes, don't bother to tell me why you think so. Instead use some fruit euphemism.

Wrong. He saves people. Mistakes are not a core part of his characer. And he didn't correct them in SR. His mistakes in SR are uncorrectable. Bingo! We have a winner!!

SR Superman's mistakes are as uncorrectable as the ones from STM or SII. The only reason why Superman didn't correct them in SR is because he didn't reverse time or give some amnesia kisses.

One good time reversing and he wouldn't have gone to Krypton in the first place.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

He might sometimes. As he was raised as one and might forget. I think it might be complicated for him (psychologically and emotionally).

Angeloz

Well i think it depends on what 'costume' he is in so to speak, Clark or Superman, he acts more human as (edit) Clark, but sometimes human nature does creep through into Superman as well.

For the sake of discussion don't we need to define the term.

Certainly he is not of this Earth, and his physiology is not of this Earth, hence the effect of the yellow sun. Are you limiting your definition of human purely to that aspect?

If so you are correct, argument is pointless; the facts speak for themselves, however he was raised by humans(damn good ones in fact) in an environment that is the classic American rural setting of Smallville a rural and bucolic environ, the breeding ground of strong "human" ideals.
Do you espouse that he conciously rejects any notion or concept of the influence of his upbringing, and that he in no way(intellectually) considers himself human?
Is nature that dominant over nurture?

Oh he acknowledges his upbringing often definately, hence why he feels he owes an obligation to earth, but i dont think he looks in the mirror and sees a human. He knows he is different, that is obvious. Thats my personal take on it.

 

[buggs0268]

I just saw the flying shots in the Ironman trailer. Even unfinished, it kicks a$$ over anything in SR.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I disagree, as i believe it is much harder to render a realistic flying human than it is a flying 'Ironman' so to speak, but to each his own.

 

[buggs0268]

^I disagree, as i believe it is much harder to render a realistic flying human than it is a flying 'Ironman' so to speak, but to each his own.

Well since I do special effects, and especially with the global radiostiy they were using for the effects in SR, yes they could have. Sony just did a bad job.

 

[Angeloz]

I'll admit I was disappointed by the "Iron Man" trailer. The visual effects look alright but not the rest of it (writing mainly). I hope the clips improve but fear they'll be worse.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

OK, I'll bring the camera

I've got the script! Dr. Collosus, you bring the costume!

 

[mego joe]

In SII he hurts her too, don't be so blatantly blind.

DOn't be so blatantly rewriting the intentions of the filmmakers!

And manipulating her memory is not, by a long shot, the only way to help her. He could have quit the Planet so Lois could deal with her pain in a more easy way, as every human being does.

But he's not EVERY human being, he's Superman, he has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, so his solutions are not going to be your run of the mill solutions.

In fact it is pretty much there in the movie. Of course than ignoring those things allows you to reply.

Too bad it's a throw away line ...

But if you care most for your duties, then you do what you have to do. Your girl is not the priority.

If you really love her, you don't do it at her expense...

When you say apples, I say Oranges because a, b and c.

Lately I say Oranges and you go "You're wrong, apples, period."

I've given my reason over and over, unfortuntately you're wearing glasses with oranges etched into them!

In STM, Superman allowed her to die.

He didn't know she would die, but as you recall he righted that situation and saved her life.

In SII, Superman hurt her by regaining his powers and re-embracing his mission.

So what you are unable to see is that he RIGHTS the situation with the amnesia kiss. Duh!

So what you say is not true.

I guess I should have been more specific, he ALWAYS finds a way to right the situation.

Yeah, unable to reply.

El Payaso, you can't be so dense as to not see that I'm not spoonfeeding you and simply refering to an argument I've already made concering the fact that we see S:TM and SII completely differently.

No, I don't. I'm always able to reply properly.

I guess you really do need to be spoonfed.

Now I'll be generous and assume you get the filmmakers are the ones who made changes, not Superman. And not inside the fiction certainly.



They portrayed the amnesia kiss as Superman's best intentions because they relied on the fact that as long as you see Superman onm screen you won't be able to assume he was having bad intentions. Merely that.

I think you're starting to get it...

Nevertheless the implications of Superman's actions remain intact in spite of what filmmakers intended.

ONly as we view it now, not within the context of the movie or the world at that time.

That said, I see you don't apply the same trust in Singer, who portrayed Superman's mistakes as naive ones, things he really coudln't handle, but this time - in oprder to hate - it's a no. Sudedenly, implications are more valuable.

No it's clear that in SR he knew it was wrong to leave w/o saying goodbye and explaining himself. He KNEW the difference, something that was not in S:TM and SII. It's completey different.

Quite inconsistent.

Yes SR is quite inconsistent with S:TM and SII and the comics.

 

[mego joe]

Meh. So in 30 years SR will be ok I assume?

No, b/c his character was not motivated by the same intentions as is in S:TM and SII.

Intentiuons or not, actions are there and this movie is based on a Superman able to do those very actions.

Unable to do what? Save Lois's life and aleviate her pain at the end of SII? No he does that. He's just not clairvoyant.

As wouldn't have to manipulate minds in SII.

I have never denied he knew it was a mistake. I point out he has often knew when he was making something wrong.

But the fact it's difficult shows he cares, as opposite to the oblivious attitude you claimed he was having.

But not cared enough to actually do the right thing. It's hard to distinguish between the two scenarios.

Yes he is. Since he put that blue and red costume he is. Since he firstly saved Lois and the chopper, he is.

Only superficially. He didn't really believe it until he saw the consequences of what would happen w/o him around as Superman. Otherwise he would never have given up his powers to be with Lois.

For Superman II everyone knows him and he's all into his mission. That's what SII is about. The adventure continues, not the adventure starts.

It's all one story. Part 1 and part 2.

Yes he has been bought, he started saving people, protecting the innocent and saving kitties from trees as Jor-El had told him to.

But he doesn't have an implicit understanding of it until he faces the decision between the mission and Lois and sees what happens when he is no longer Superman.

In fact by the point where he reverses time it's the first time he does NOT listen to Jor-El, as opposite as before.

IT's called foreshadowing and leads into part two, Superman II. It's the beginning of his doubt in Jor-El's plan.

Of course he can. He can EVEN when he's warned it's not the right thing to do.

And time proved Jor-El to be right.

Only within the context of that specific story. So in "WHat ever Happened to The Man of Tomorrow?" it's "wrong" for him to have given up his powers?

I'm in the need to reply the same since you conveniently ignored what I said:

If it wasn't Zod, it was Lex Luthor, who had fled from jail by the time. If not Luthor, Robert Vaughn character, etc. Common criminals, etc etc. The world will be needing Superman always.

Just like Singer, rehashing the same thing, over and over...

Then Superman has always been uneeded, which makes the character pointless.

It's the quirkyness of comic book characters. Rarely do the worthy villains come along first.

Great move, mego.

Yes it is one of the oddities in this type of fiction that ony an astute mind can pick up on.

Because innocent people will die if he does. Thought you knew something about the character.

He can't save everybody either- thought YOU knew something about the character. And if you really understood SII, you'd realize that the movie is about WHY his can never be with Lois and why he MUST have this mission as opposed to the notion that he is a selfish mistake prone character that is his own worst enemy.

The point is nobody's forcing him to quit or to regain powers.

Did I indicate anything different? The point is he has to totally understnad and buy into the mission to really be Superman. THe film tells a compelling but very different story from the comics to get the charcters to the same status quo.

But that's just because you can condone Superman killing Zod,

No, YOU think he killed Zod, I think it's a poor filmmaking sequence in which it is left inresolved. If you knew anything about the character, you would know he would not have been depicted killing at the time.

manipulating Lois' mind without her permission, having a personal revenge over a human and not doing his best to save people but only to save Lois.

You have to separate bad filmmaking from the actual intentions of the filmmakers and what is actually in the story.

And then you can't forgive he didn't say good bye. Hilarious.

Actually, what's hilarious is that you completley misunderstand the point of S:TM and SII.

I know. If the sky being violet helps you to make a point you will claim it to be violet. For the sake of filmmakers intentions when it's convenient to or for what Superman's actions implies, using one perspective or the other, depending on the convenience for your argumentation.

Well, you're the one who can't seem to figure out that Superman in S:TM and SII is actually the good guy.

The explanations you claim are not there, are there in fact, I have quoted them. You chose to ognore Matha said she thought Superman will never come back. If Superman had known he was going to be back in 5 years he would have told Martha, therefore if she didn't know, he didn't know.

SO that is some sort of absolution for Superman not being honest with Lois? OH yeah, I forgot, nothing says "I love you" like disappearing w/o a trace forever.

I'll glad SR didn't go into spoonfeeding.

Of course not, that way YOU can make up your own meaning to the movie.

I thought we already know Superman cares for his mistakes AFTER he makes them?

Actually, if he knows it is wrong before hand he DOESN'T do it. That's the point. And mistakes are not what drive the character.

Until the day youi're Superman and Superman is married tio Lois, that example is pretty much pointless and useless.

No doubt that you would think that, but people that actually REALLY love each other act that way. And that is the way they act. It's not about me and my wife it's about people that actually love each other and actually care more for the other person than themselsves. ANd if you can't see that that is the CORE of the Superman character, you are more dense than you let on.

 

[mego joe]

Yes, he did. In the roof.

He told he why he left, not why he couldn't say goodbye.

Because the average person wouldn't be going to a trip to space from which he didn't know if he was coming back or not.

Becasue no soldier ever leaves for war and thinks he may not come back. It's common sense and common decency there's no defense for it. Period.

As you replied to the rest I'll assume this is yet another incorrect statement.

YEs, almost everything you say is incorrect when it comes to Superman and the Suerman films.

Even when I know you have never been inside Donner's, Lester's and Singer's mind or - for that matter - you didn't even had a chat with them via MSN, so you can't conclude what their intentions were but merely what your interpretation of those are, it's clear that Singer was more honest than Donner and Lester because where Superman made the same kind of mistakes, Singer didn't make him go for the mind manipulation or time reversing to make Superman satisfy himself by undoing what's done.

No, Singer just didn't get that IF Superman made such mistakes he would never let them stand.

Meaning, you choose not to give Singer the benefit of the doubt you give Donner and Lester. You prefer filmmakers to be more hyprocitical about Superman's action. Donner and Lester had Superman hiding the dirt under the carpet.

No. How is not saying goodbye to Lois a sugary intention, when it's clear that SUperman KNOWS it was wrong in the film?

Man, if your life is so horrible that you can only see the worst in people, I feel truly sorry for you.

My life is actually wonderful and once again your inability to be creative in a response is underwhelming, just like SR.

Yes, don't bother to tell me why you think so. Instead use some fruit euphemism.

OK, Aristotle, I'll spoon feed you from now on.

SR Superman's mistakes are as uncorrectable as the ones from STM or SII. The only reason why Superman didn't correct them in SR is because he didn't reverse time or give some amnesia kisses.

No, the only reason he didn't correct them in SR is b/c the vision of the directors was diametrically opppsed in the approach to Superman and his character.

One good time reversing and he wouldn't have gone to Krypton in the first place.

All he had to do was say goodbye.

 

[mego joe]

Well i think it depends on what 'costume' he is in so to speak, Clark or Superman, he acts more human as (edit) Clark, but sometimes human nature does creep through into Superman as well.



Oh he acknowledges his upbringing often definately, hence why he feels he owes an obligation to earth, but i dont think he looks in the mirror and sees a human. He knows he is different, that is obvious. Thats my personal take on it.

So he's so human he's capable of making human errors, but he doesn't consider himself emotionally human?

He doesn't feel an obligation, he genuinely CARES for other people and uses his powers and abiltities to help them. It's not about obligation, he CARES! That is his motivation, not obligation.

 

[Angeloz]

I though you thought him nearly perfect mego joe?

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

I though you thought him nearly perfect mego joe?

Angeloz

JUst calling 'Jamon out on his inconsistency. He's posted numerous times about how 'human' and capable of 'human error' Superman is, but now he's 'not human.'

I don't thing he's perfect, just his that his motivations is always unquestionable. It may not always work out the way he thinks it will but that is becasue he's not perfect of God.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

So he's so human he's capable of making human errors, but he doesn't consider himself emotionally human?

He doesn't feel an obligation, he genuinely CARES for other people and uses his powers and abiltities to help them. It's not about obligation, he CARES! That is his motivation, not obligation.

No i dont think Superman thinks he is human, I think he knows he isnt in fact BUT, he acts like one because he was raised as one, i dont see how thats an inconsistency.

Plus i think he thinks he owes human an obligation to protect them BECAUSE he cares.

If a human were raised by wolves, he would act like one, yet he still wouldnt be a wolf would he?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well since I do special effects, and especially with the global radiostiy they were using for the effects in SR, yes they could have. Sony just did a bad job.

Again i disagree, i also think it is much harder to render a realistic looking flying man, with hair and cape flapping with the wind, than it is to render what is essentially a human in a robot suit, hence nothing flaps, and no facial expressions are needed.

 

[El Payaso]

DOn't be so blatantly rewriting the intentions of the filmmakers!


But he's not EVERY human being, he's Superman, he has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, so his solutions are not going to be your run of the mill solutions.



Too bad it's a throw away line ...




If you really love her, you don't do it at her expense...



I've given my reason over and over, unfortuntately you're wearing glasses with oranges etched into them!



He didn't know she would die, but as you recall he righted that situation and saved her life.



So what you are unable to see is that he RIGHTS the situation with the amnesia kiss. Duh!


I guess I should have been more specific, he ALWAYS finds a way to right the situation.


El Payaso, you can't be so dense as to not see that I'm not spoonfeeding you and simply refering to an argument I've already made concering the fact that we see S:TM and SII completely differently.



I guess you really do need to be spoonfed.



I think you're starting to get it...


ONly as we view it now, not within the context of the movie or the world at that time.


No it's clear that in SR he knew it was wrong to leave w/o saying goodbye and explaining himself. He KNEW the difference, something that was not in S:TM and SII. It's completey different.

Yes SR is quite inconsistent with S:TM and SII and the comics.

No, b/c his character was not motivated by the same intentions as is in S:TM and SII.


Unable to do what? Save Lois's life and aleviate her pain at the end of SII? No he does that. He's just not clairvoyant.



But not cared enough to actually do the right thing. It's hard to distinguish between the two scenarios.




Only superficially. He didn't really believe it until he saw the consequences of what would happen w/o him around as Superman. Otherwise he would never have given up his powers to be with Lois.


It's all one story. Part 1 and part 2.



But he doesn't have an implicit understanding of it until he faces the decision between the mission and Lois and sees what happens when he is no longer Superman.


IT's called foreshadowing and leads into part two, Superman II. It's the beginning of his doubt in Jor-El's plan.



Only within the context of that specific story. So in "WHat ever Happened to The Man of Tomorrow?" it's "wrong" for him to have given up his powers?



Just like Singer, rehashing the same thing, over and over...



It's the quirkyness of comic book characters. Rarely do the worthy villains come along first.


Yes it is one of the oddities in this type of fiction that ony an astute mind can pick up on.


He can't save everybody either- thought YOU knew something about the character. And if you really understood SII, you'd realize that the movie is about WHY his can never be with Lois and why he MUST have this mission as opposed to the notion that he is a selfish mistake prone character that is his own worst enemy.


Did I indicate anything different? The point is he has to totally understnad and buy into the mission to really be Superman. THe film tells a compelling but very different story from the comics to get the charcters to the same status quo.


No, YOU think he killed Zod, I think it's a poor filmmaking sequence in which it is left inresolved. If you knew anything about the character, you would know he would not have been depicted killing at the time.


You have to separate bad filmmaking from the actual intentions of the filmmakers and what is actually in the story.


Actually, what's hilarious is that you completley misunderstand the point of S:TM and SII.



Well, you're the one who can't seem to figure out that Superman in S:TM and SII is actually the good guy.




SO that is some sort of absolution for Superman not being honest with Lois? OH yeah, I forgot, nothing says "I love you" like disappearing w/o a trace forever.


Of course not, that way YOU can make up your own meaning to the movie.


Actually, if he knows it is wrong before hand he DOESN'T do it. That's the point. And mistakes are not what drive the character.



No doubt that you would think that, but people that actually REALLY love each other act that way. And that is the way they act. It's not about me and my wife it's about people that actually love each other and actually care more for the other person than themselsves. ANd if you can't see that that is the CORE of the Superman character, you are more dense than you let on.

He told he why he left, not why he couldn't say goodbye.




Becasue no soldier ever leaves for war and thinks he may not come back. It's common sense and common decency there's no defense for it. Period.



YEs, almost everything you say is incorrect when it comes to Superman and the Suerman films.




No, Singer just didn't get that IF Superman made such mistakes he would never let them stand.



No. How is not saying goodbye to Lois a sugary intention, when it's clear that SUperman KNOWS it was wrong in the film?



My life is actually wonderful and once again your inability to be creative in a response is underwhelming, just like SR.




OK, Aristotle, I'll spoon feed you from now on.



No, the only reason he didn't correct them in SR is b/c the vision of the directors was diametrically opppsed in the approach to Superman and his character.


All he had to do was say goodbye.

Yes, but you're the guy who thinks Superman IV was good.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'll admit I was disappointed by the "Iron Man" trailer. The visual effects look alright but not the rest of it (writing mainly). I hope the clips improve but fear they'll be worse.

Angeloz

Now this I actually agree with.

 

[mego joe]

No i dont think Superman thinks he is human, I think he knows he isnt in fact BUT, he acts like one because he was raised as one, i dont see how thats an inconsistency.

Plus i think he thinks he owes human an obligation to protect them BECAUSE he cares.

He was raised to believe b/c he has powers he must use them for the good of all, not just humans or just Kryptonians. It's not an obligation to humans or Earth, but an obligation b/c of powers to help all sentient races.

If a human were raised by wolves, he would act like one, yet he still wouldnt be a wolf would he?

But he would act like a wolf and identify himself as a wolf, just like Tarzan always identified himself as an ape. A different kind of ape, but an ape none-the-less. And Tarzan returns ot the Jungle b/c it is his home and despite his genetics he is still an ape inside.

But the real answer with Tarzan as well is that he's both. Just like a child born in CHina and adopted by American parents is just as American as anyone else raised in America, but still has the DNA of a Chinese person.

He's both Kryptonian and human. Genetically Kryptonian, but in all the ways that matter he is also human.

 

[mego joe]

Yes, but you're the guy who thinks Superman IV was good.

It was certainly better than Superman III and SR. It's overall quality is still not that good, just better than the above mentioned films. It's basic concept was one of the best of ALL SUperman films, its execution was just lacking greatly.

 

[matthooper]

It was certainly better than Superman III and SR. It's overall quality is still not that good, just better than the above mentioned films. It's basic concept was one of the best of ALL SUperman films, its execution was just lacking greatly.

At least they tried to make a Superman film with Superman 4. It was terrible, but they tried. With Superman 3 and Superman Returns, they were not trying to make a Superman film. With S3, they wanted to make a comedy starring Richard Pryor and have Superman as a backdrop. In Superman Returns, we got Superman as an analogy for Bryan Singer's personal angst.

 

[afan]

But he would act like a wolf and identify himself as a wolf, just like Tarzan always identified himself as an ape. A different kind of ape, but an ape none-the-less. And Tarzan returns ot the Jungle b/c it is his home and despite his genetics he is still an ape inside.

OUCH!
I agree with your take on Superman's humanity, but Tarzan, as the character is written by Burroughs, is not a good model to support the argument. At a very early age he realized he was not an ape and searched for his true identity. In fact he began shaving purposefully to seperate himself from the apes.

I think Spock might fit the argument better. His father is Vulcan and his mother Human. He was raised on Vulcan and completely embraces his Vulcan side while subverting his human nature. He considers himself Vulcan and judges all his actions against proper Vulcan behavioral standards.

Now if he had been raised on Earth it only follows that he would then totally embrace his Human side while subverting his Vulcan.

 

[dr collossus]

In Superman Returns, we got Superman as an analogy for Bryan Singer's personal angst.

In fairness I must admit this is how I feel about the film too.