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

[afan]

^ So you agree

 

[SuperDaniel]

Same can be said about SII. Superman knew for a fact that he shouldn't quit his mission. He was warned and all, nevertheless he was weak and he chose his personal gratification. And as far as I can remember he didn't say good-bye to people or ti the President of the USA with whom he felt a commitment, since after the whole story he went before him to say "I'm sorry I made the wrong choice." Pretty much the same he did on SR.

LOL. That is totally different from what happened in SR.

 

[El Payaso]

^ So you agree

I agree that whatever Superman did or was in SR, he was in SII and thus it's the same vision of the character.

LOL. That is totally different from what happened in SR.

LOL, elaborate beyond the bare statement please.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

What i don't get is why people assume that he was in a committed relationship with her?

Richard asks Lois about the article entitled "My Night with Superman" and she says "It was just an article" She doesn't even seem to think that it is even possible for Jason to be her son; which you'd would assume she would think about if they had numerous sexual encounters.

As for him leaving her without saying goodbye? He made a choice; a selfish choice and he owned up to it and acknowledged that he made the wrong choice. He didn't turn back time or make her forget about it. He man'd up.

I'm never going to perfect; I will always make mistakes and selfish choices but I want to be a guy who owns up to them and doesn't hide from the consequences. That's the kind of man Superman is in Superman Returns, in the other films he makes everything perfect again; which is something I can't do, so how can I aspire to be like that?

 

[stargazer]

^^Well said!

How can you relate or follow the example of someone who Is Perfect in every way and incapable of falling?! It sounds absurd to me, even for Superman. That's why a lot of people think he is boring, too powerful and for children.

 

[mego joe]

Exactly.




Even good people make mistakes, even Superman. But of course, since you want him to be all around perfect and infallible, I see how SR was not 'your thing.' But I think, you have selective memory since the 'mistakes' Supes makes in other movies and Media, which he did/does, seem ok to you, and in character....I don't get it.. pretty wierd actually.

I've never said that I expect him to be perfect, but rather make mistakes that are in character. Not every mistake is in character. It's that simple. Deadbeat dad and 'baby daddy' are just not congruent with the character. Not every mistake is the same.

Yeah.

But I guess this way of thinking doesn't help Daniel's argument..

Besides, I read the comics, have seen lots of other Superman Media, and I still love SR.

That's great for you, it doesn't mean it's faithful to the essence of the character.

 

[mego joe]

^^Well said!

How can you relate or follow the example of someone who Is Perfect in every way and incapable of falling?! It sounds absurd to me, even for Superman. That's why a lot of people think he is boring, too powerful and for children.

He's not perfect. He makes mistakes, but as afan has pointed out by it's not about a mistake in SR, it's about a character flaw- a flaw which is incongruent with his character.

 

[mego joe]

I agree that whatever Superman did or was in SR, he was in SII and thus it's the same vision of the character.

Clearly afan was alluding to the difference between the situations- SII- a choice he made, clearly a mistake and SR- an inability to do the right thing, the character flaw.

 

[El Payaso]

Clearly afan was alluding to the difference between the situations- SII- a choice he made, clearly a mistake and SR- an inability to do the right thing, the character flaw.

Clearly El Payaso was alluding to the difference between the situations- SR- a choice he made (not to say good-bye to Lois so he could go to Krypton), clearly a mistake and SII- an inability to do the right thing and say no to Lois and yes to his mission, the character flaw.

 

[afan]

Clearly El Payaso was alluding to the difference between the situations- SR- a choice he made (not to say good-bye to Lois so he could go to Krypton), clearly a mistake and SII- an inability to do the right thing and say no to Lois and yes to his mission, the character flaw.

Really,........... what is his "mission"? Is he abandoning his mission to be with Lois?

Classically it's "To fight for truth, justice, and the American Way". Specifically related to S:TM and hence SII it's stated in exactly that manner: it is what he is here for.

Now does one need super-breath to accomplish that mission. Does one need to fly to speak out for truth. Does one need heat-vision to call out injustice. Couldn't and wouldn't Clark Kent in his role as reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper carry on the same "mission". In fact in many ways Clark Kent is more powerful in this regard than Superman.......The pen is mightier than the sword......after all. His personal mission is unaltered and he can be with the woman he loves.

That being said I prefer that all Superman adventures steer clear of an intimate Lois Clark connection it needlessly opens a can o worms that baits the stories away from the correct action adventure / sci fi mix for the character.

Now if you define his mission as the "saviour of mankind" (a definition I abhor) that's another discussion altogether.

 

[El Payaso]

Really,........... what is his "mission"? Is he abandoning his mission to be with Lois?

Oh yes. In the Donner's version this is even more explicit:

Jor-El: The people of your planet are well pleased with you Kal-El... you have served them faithfully... and they are greatful for it. And yet you have returned to reason with me once again. My son i have tried to anticipate your every question, this is one... i had hoped you would not ask...

Superman: My attachment... umm... the feelings which i have developed for a certain human being have deeply effected me father...

Jor-El: You cannot serve humanity by investing your time and emotion in one human being at the expense of the rest... the concepts are mutually exclusive.

Superman: And... if i no longer want to serve humanity...

Jor-El: Is this how you repay their gratitude... by abandoning the week... the defensless... the needyfull... for the sake of your selfish pursuits...

Superman: Selfish??? After all i've done for them? Will there ever come a time when i've served enough? At least they get a chance for happiness... i only ask as much... no more...

Jor-El: Yours is a half happiness... the fullfillment of your mission... the insperation... you must have... you must have felt that happiness within you... my son... surely you cannot deny that feeling...

Superman: No... I cannot... anymore than i deny the other which is stronger in me father... so much stronger... Is there no way then father? Must i be denied the one thing in life that i truely desire?

Jor-El: If you will not be Kal-El... if you will live as one of them... love their kind as one of them... then it follows... that you must become one of them... This crystal chamber has in it the harnessed rays of the red sun of Krypton... once exposed to them all you great powers on Earth will disappear... forever... once this is done their is no going back... you will feel like an ordinary man... and you can be harmed like an ordinary man...

Think Kal-El... i beg you...

Superman: Father... I love her...

Jor-El: Think Kal-El...

Superman ignores him and enters the chamber.


Not only he does quit his mission but he did it on purpose.

Classically it's "To fight for truth, justice, and the American Way". Specifically related to S:TM and hence SII it's stated in exactly that manner: it is what he is here for.

Now does one need super-breath to accomplish that mission. Does one need to fly to speak out for truth. Does one need heat-vision to call out injustice. Couldn't and wouldn't Clark Kent in his role as reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper carry on the same "mission". In fact in many ways Clark Kent is more powerful in this regard than Superman.......The pen is mightier than the sword......after all. His personal mission is unaltered and he can be with the woman he loves.

I think Rocky the diner's bully would strongly disagree.

The very movie makes the point clear: without his super-powers, Clark Kent can't get through a couple of hours without his ass being severaly kicked.

Clark Kent can't stop the missiles, can't save Lois from the river, can't stop the bullet directed at Lois, can't reverse time, and I'm just picturing him running to fight Zod, Ursa and Non (after what we saw of him fighting Rocky).

That being said I prefer that all Superman adventures steer clear of an intimate Lois Clark connection it needlessly opens a can o worms that baits the stories away from the correct action adventure / sci fi mix for the character.

On the contrary, it opens the human side, the third dimension in this character and takes him away from the average CGI shallow fest.

Now if you define his mission as the "saviour of mankind" (a definition I abhor) that's another discussion altogether.

I think it has been Donner and many others in movies, cartoons and comic books who have done that long before me.

 

[stargazer]

I've never said that I expect him to be perfect, but rather make mistakes that are in character. Not every mistake is in character. It's that simple. Deadbeat dad and 'baby daddy' are just not congruent with the character. Not every mistake is the same.

.

.... Deatbeat dad? dude, there is nothing like that in SR. Many people have expleained it and argued with you on that but yet you insist.. Superman can't be 'that' if he didn't know he was going to be a father, as simple as that. But why I bother to reply to you, I don't know. I guess I'm bored..

And what's 'baby daddy?'

 

[stargazer]

On the contrary, it opens the human side, the third dimension in this character and takes him away from the average CGI shallow fest.

.

Exactly. Clearly, Superman is an interesting enough fictional character with potential for serious drama and character development. And to reduce him to just 'an action figure that punches things' is sad and a waste, especially for live-action. He can clearly do both things: serious drama and action, no? Like in SR.
But yeah, yeah, I agree that the sequel needs more action, right?

 

[Jack O Lantern]

In response to El Pasyso.

It's not just that. In Superman II when he learns of Zod he says {I'm parapharasing]

Kent: It's my fault.

Lane: It's not; you didn't know.

Kent: No, but they did and I just wouldn't listen.

This means that he was being shown the right way but wouldn't listen for selfish reasons.

 

[El Payaso]

In response to El Pasyso.

It's not just that. In Superman II when he learns of Zod he says {I'm parapharasing]

Kent: It's my fault.

Lane: It's not; you didn't know.

Kent: No, but they did and I just wouldn't listen.

This means that he was being shown the right way but wouldn't listen for selfish reasons.

He certainly didn't say "Meh, I'll wrote an article against them"

 

[Jack O Lantern]

The pen is indeed mightier than the super powered being when it comes to fighting missles and alien beings. Who needs super strenght when you have synonyms.

 

[afan]

The pen is indeed mightier than the super powered being when it comes to fighting missles and alien beings. Who needs super strenght when you have synonyms.

Just to remind.......with all his powers he was not able to stop the missle, and prevent Lois' death, and he failed to stop the alien beings with his powers. He defeated them through guile, an ability he would also possess as Clark Kent.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Just to remind.......with all his powers he was not able to stop the missle, and prevent Lois' death,

Then why isn't she dead. Of that right because he used his powers to travel back and time and then stop the missle with his powers.

and he failed to stop the alien beings with his powers. He defeated them through guile, an ability he would also possess as Clark Kent.

But his powers are linked to the Fortress; so he wouldn't have had a fortress to take their powers. Nor would he have been able to lure them to the fortress. Nor wuld they have any reason tp put him in the machibe. Nor would they not have any reason to rip him apart as soon as they wanted.

 

[I Am The Knight]

What i don't get is why people assume that he was in a committed relationship with her?

Richard asks Lois about the article entitled "My Night with Superman" and she says "It was just an article" She doesn't even seem to think that it is even possible for Jason to be her son; which you'd would assume she would think about if they had numerous sexual encounters.

As for him leaving her without saying goodbye? He made a choice; a selfish choice and he owned up to it and acknowledged that he made the wrong choice. He didn't turn back time or make her forget about it. He man'd up.

I'm never going to perfect; I will always make mistakes and selfish choices but I want to be a guy who owns up to them and doesn't hide from the consequences. That's the kind of man Superman is in Superman Returns, in the other films he makes everything perfect again; which is something I can't do, so how can I aspire to be like that?

Bra-vo.

 

[Wushuboy]

Singer had this whole vague history thing set up. Some things happened.. some things didnt.. no one knows. Everyone here can assume what happened.. but the truth is none of you know and only the writers and Singer know. It gave him the chance to wipe out the flaws of the previous movies.. which include superman giving up on his mission, amnesia kiss, reversing time.. yada yada yada. Yet some people like to cite than because superman did it in previous movies it's OK that he makes the same mistakes (in some people's view) in SR. Two wrongs don't make a right. Now I liked boht S1 and S2 but even I cant gloss over those horrible plot points. But it seems quite popular that people like to say that since previous writers came up with bad plot points that it makes it alright for current writers to make them as well. Why not improve the plot and wipe out past mistakes rather than expanding on the mistakes from the past? I really abhor this line of thinking that it's ok for superman to make the same mistakes in SR because he made similar (in some people's view) mistakes in previous movies.

 

[mego joe]

Clearly El Payaso was alluding to the difference between the situations- SR- a choice he made (not to say good-bye to Lois so he could go to Krypton), clearly a mistake and SII- an inability to do the right thing and say no to Lois and yes to his mission, the character flaw.

YOu're a legend in your own mind.

 

[mego joe]

Just to remind.......with all his powers he was not able to stop the missle, and prevent Lois' death, and he failed to stop the alien beings with his powers. He defeated them through guile, an ability he would also possess as Clark Kent.

C'mon afan, you know to accept that would totally ruin their argument that SR is portrays the exact same Superman that's in SII.

 

[last_life]

What i don't get is why people assume that he was in a committed relationship with her?

Richard asks Lois about the article entitled "My Night with Superman" and she says "It was just an article" She doesn't even seem to think that it is even possible for Jason to be her son; which you'd would assume she would think about if they had numerous sexual encounters.

As for him leaving her without saying goodbye? He made a choice; a selfish choice and he owned up to it and acknowledged that he made the wrong choice. He didn't turn back time or make her forget about it. He man'd up.

I'm never going to perfect; I will always make mistakes and selfish choices but I want to be a guy who owns up to them and doesn't hide from the consequences. That's the kind of man Superman is in Superman Returns, in the other films he makes everything perfect again; which is something I can't do, so how can I aspire to be like that?

The problem is, we did not get enough of that or the imperfections he did get were barely a dent on him.

Also about the "pen over muscle" is right. You know what dictates your powers? Your mentality. No wonder why he is so weak under K, he has no will power.

What kind of hero is that? Even a limbless person tries to move by shear will.

Also, they had this great set up about the whole messiah complex his father puts him through and they missed a golden opportunity to give him a real fall and rise. t:

 

[Jack O Lantern]

The problem is, we did not get enough of that or the imperfections he did get were barely a dent on him.

Also about the "pen over muscle" is right. You know what dictates your powers? Your mentality. No wonder why he is so weak under K, he has no will power.

What kind of hero is that? Even a limbless person tries to move by shear will.

The can screamed "I'm Still Superman" when he was getting beat up; that's will power. His body is being flooded with posion.He can't fight that; he's effectively on his death bed. Also let us not forget that he went back

Also, they had this great set up about the whole messiah complex his father puts him through and they missed a golden opportunity to give him a real fall and rise. t:

What we saw was him actually risk something for human kind. When you are invunlerable it is easy to win into a burning building; when you are running towards a giant junk of the only thing that can kill you you are actually doing something heroic.

C'mon afan, you know to accept that would totally ruin their argument that SR is portrays the exact same Superman that's in SII.

Sorry I already debunked his arguments. Why don't one of you try a counter argument instead of high-fiveing

 

[afan]

Sorry I already debunked his arguments. Why don't one of you try a counter argument instead of high-fiveing

That's news to me.

If you're referring to your post.......

But his powers are linked to the Fortress; so he wouldn't have had a fortress to take their powers. Nor would he have been able to lure them to the fortress. Nor wuld they have any reason tp put him in the machibe. Nor would they not have any reason to rip him apart as soon as they wanted.

I actually couldn't make much sense out of it.

Exactly what argument did you "debunk"?

Are you arguing that it was Superman's powers that defeated Zod, Ursa and Non, and not his intelligence and cunning.