Superman Returns Would Reeve's Superman do what Routh's version did in SR?

[afan]

its all been said in above posts..now for my take..

who the hell cares? its a movie..

i will apologise for singer right now..we are all sorry for trying to make superman more human by showing that he too is ruled by his emotions..

With all due respect......apparently you care, else why the hell, like all the rest of us, would you be on the boards.

And should anyone be ruled by their emotions, i.e, should a strong dislike for someone be the sole impetus to act against them?

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

yes, i admit i care..but i just didn't want to say that i did.

 

[X-Maniac]

People's fondness for the Reeve films yields a horrible double standard. What I find also VERY VERY FUNNY is how people refer to Reeve's Superman not as Donner's Superman, but as Reeve's Superman and then refer to Routh's Superman as Singer's Superman. There lurks a sort of overwhelmingly outdated and nauseating sentimentality and doulbe-standard in there that is very apparent in many people's post.

I used the phrase Reeve's Superman in the post because that is more visual and more identifiable with the character than the 'invisible' director who cannot be recalled visually in most people's minds when envisaging Superman. When people think of the earlier Superman, they think of Christopher Reeve not Richard Donner. If you talk about the Donner Superman to the average person in the street, they'd wonder what the hell you were on about - mention Christopher Reeve and they know straight away. Also, Reeve has come to embody Superman for many. Whereas newcomer Routh is not yet a household name. Most people here don't even know how to pronounce it! I've heard most people say it as 'ruth' not 'rowth' but then again British English would favour that - for instance we pronounce 'route' as 'root' and not 'rowt'.

And X-Maniac, stop the innocent "I didn't now what I was doing act." I've seen you march around telling others, " did you need to start another of these threads." I know you employ double standards when looking at movies, but please refrain from using the same laziness when dealing with people.

You are straying from accusatory to paranoid. I was not aware of seven or however-many other threads saying exactly the same thing. I'm not a daily visitor to this area of the Hype. Regardless, this thread has stirred some good debate, which was what I had hoped to see. I wouldn't bother to post if it were not going to provoke a response. All sides of the argument are welcome. If someone can allow me to see what I didn't see before, then great; and I hope I might do likewise.

 

[buggs0268]

I believe the Reeve Superman would have announced to the world he was leaving, or leave a tape for the world to know he left to be sent to the media after he left. That is if he did it.

 

[mego joe]

I believe the Reeve Superman would have announced to the world he was leaving, or leave a tape for the world to know he left to be sent to the media after he left. That is if he did it.

I think he would too. I think he would have tied up all the loose ends before leaving. He would have let Lois know. He would have made sure he had worked with the DA and prison system to ensure that Lex could not get out of jail legally. He would have appologized to the world ahead of time and the world would understand. He's supposed to be a friend to the world that has already given plenty. The world would understand why he was going, but he would certainly announce it. THey're going to figure it out anyway, let the authorities be prepared, let Lois know why he is leaving. That is what a responsible individual does. Superman is supposed to be responsible and SInger's SUperman just comes off as irresponsible most importantly by failing to be honest with Lois and by tying up any other loose ends. I also think that he would do the same in the comics if he were leaving for years. If it were a shorter trip he would probably only tell those who were most important to him. THe details of his departure would also be of importance as to his specific actions before leaving.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think he would too. I think he would have tied up all the loose ends before leaving. He would have let Lois know. He would have made sure he had worked with the DA and prison system to ensure that Lex could not get out of jail legally. He would have appologized to the world ahead of time and the world would understand. He's supposed to be a friend to the world that has already given plenty. The world would understand why he was going, but he would certainly announce it. THey're going to figure it out anyway, let the authorities be prepared, let Lois know why he is leaving. That is what a responsible individual does. Superman is supposed to be responsible and SInger's SUperman just comes off as irresponsible most importantly by failing to be honest with Lois and by tying up any other loose ends. I also think that he would do the same in the comics if he were leaving for years. If it were a shorter trip he would probably only tell those who were most important to him. THe details of his departure would also be of importance as to his specific actions before leaving.

So if Superman came on T.V and said he was leaving for 5 years, you dont think every criminal around the world woul think 'Hey, with Superman gone for 5 years, there is less chance of us getting caught doing a crime, so over the next 5 years we'll do some heists that will set up for the rest of our lives, and by the time Superman comes back, we'll be made and so wont need to committ any more crimes!' It would be totally stupid and would put many lives in danger were Superman to announce he was leaving for 5 years to the world. Criminals would be a lot more cautious and hesitant to perform a crime if they didnt know whether Superman was gonna turn up or not as opposed to knowing he wont show up, dont you think?

 

[Hunter Rider]

It has nothing to do with what Reeve's Superman would do it was simply something the character as written for 50+ years wouldn't do

 

[Zen Ith]

Your friend is very wise, and I agree with him.

Translation: Your friend is very wise, because I agree with him.

 

[El Payaso]

I just watched Spiderman 2 again on tv last night, and it seems SR's Supes could really use a talk with Aunt May.

Superman has chronic insomnia?

The pivotal point in the movie was when Aunt May gave Peter her "hero speech." Essentially, she was saying that.......

Essentially it was the biggest, most well-worn and crappiest set of clichés about the subject ever glued toghether. Like anyone doesn't know being a hero is about sacrifice, gimme a break. You don't need ten minutes to say that again with the exact same old words always used for that.

 

[afan]

So if Superman came on T.V and said he was leaving for 5 years, you dont think every criminal around the world woul think 'Hey, with Superman gone for 5 years, there is less chance of us getting caught doing a crime, so over the next 5 years we'll do some heists that will set up for the rest of our lives, and by the time Superman comes back, we'll be made and so wont need to committ any more crimes!' It would be totally stupid and would put many lives in danger were Superman to announce he was leaving for 5 years to the world. Criminals would be a lot more cautious and hesitant to perform a crime if they didnt know whether Superman was gonna turn up or not as opposed to knowing he wont show up, dont you think?

Sigh.........once more.....

Yes it's been discussed many times....I don't buy it.

Firstly and foremost humans were quite capable of running an orderly society before Superman, are responsible for that operation during Superman's stay, and would be equally capable to maintain order without him.

Secondly nowhere in SR is this given as a reason, so is it valid to discuss it at all in relation to the film. The only rationale stated in the film was his lack of personal fortitude in his relationship with Lois.

Bottom line whether he announces his intent or not......Superman is gone.
Just how long do you suppose it would take the world to realize something was amiss and for criminals to dismiss the threat of Superman. No public appearances or sightings of Superman in the Metropolis skies might be a clue. I dare say no involvement by Superman in any emergency or natural disaster would be a hint and a half.
__________________

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Sigh.........once more.....

Yes it's been discussed many times....I don't buy it.

Firstly and foremost humans were quite capable of running an orderly society before Superman, are responsible for that operation during Superman's stay, and would be equally capable to maintain order without him.

Secondly nowhere in SR is this given as a reason, so is it valid to discuss it at all in relation to the film. The only rationale stated in the film was his lack of personal fortitude in his relationship with Lois.

Bottom line whether he announces his intent or not......Superman is gone.
Just how long do you suppose it would take the world to realize something was amiss and for criminals to dismiss the threat of Superman. No public appearances or sightings of Superman in the Metropolis skies might be a clue. I dare say no involvement by Superman in any emergency or natural disaster would be a hint and a half.
__________________

Yes Superman is gone, but by not announcing how long he'll be gone, there would still be that lingering fear in criminals minds that he could return at any moment, every criminal would be thinking this, its natural.

And yes we have a police force, but its safe to say that Superman stops more crimes than they do and without him the crime rate rises. Therefore criminals would become bolder, and less worried about being caught if they knew Superman wasnt gonna turn up. Take the bank robbery scene as an example, if Superman hadnt turned up, the guards would be dead, and the police were incapacatated, they would have gotten away without Superman's intervention.

 

[afan]

Yes Superman is gone, but by not announcing how long he'll be gone, there would still be that lingering fear in criminals minds that he could return at any moment, every criminal would be thinking this, its natural.

And yes we have a police force, but its safe to say that Superman stops more crimes than they do and without him the crime rate rises. Therefore criminals would become bolder, and less worried about being caught if they knew Superman wasnt gonna turn up. Take the bank robbery scene as an example, if Superman hadnt turned up, the guards would be dead, and the police were incapacatated, they would have gotten away without Superman's intervention.

Thankyou..........for proving the futility of your argument.

The mentioned bank robbery occurred, under the threat of Superman that you put forth as the ultimate crime deterrent.

Risk of capture and even death is an occupational hazard for any criminal; be it from societal authority or from colleagues in crime. Superman would be but another of the risk factors involved in any crime. His presence, or the possibility of his presence, would not (as demonstrated by the bank robbery in SR) be the absolute deterrant you espouse.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Thankyou..........for proving the futility of your argument.

The mentioned bank robbery occurred, under the threat of Superman that you put forth as the ultimate crime deterrent.

Risk of capture and even death is an occupational hazard for any criminal; be it from societal authority or from colleagues in crime. Superman would be but another of the risk factors involved in any crime. His presence, or the possibility of his presence, would not (as demonstrated by the bank robbery in SR) be the absolute deterrant you espouse.

Well, of course you are still going to get the most boldest of criminals who will still commit a crime even with Superman on earth. Not to mention that robbery looked as if it needed significant cost and planning and i doubt they would abandon that at the last minute, also it was Supermans first day back and not everyone would have gotten the word he was back.

But i bet most criminals would be hesitant to perform a crime with Superman around and not just the police.

 

[X Knight]

that's why it's a tricky situation, and A HUGE GAMBLE Superman took.

yes, I do think that if Superman made a public statement announcing his departure....then that would be a godsend for every criminal/super-powered baddy. All the bad guys would know Supes would be gone for 5+ years, giving them free reign to commit crime. Naturally, that would just embolden the criminals and lead to an INCREASE in crime.

To me, that's kind of like the situation in Iraq. Some people are saying we should set a hard deadline and withdraw all of our troops.

But, if we were to publicly announce a firm deadline to the world, that would be like Superman announcing to the world he's leaving for 5+ years. We'd basically be saying to the insurgents and terrorists...."Hey, we're going to leave Iraq by such and such date.....so....y'know.....just hold out until that date and you can take over when we leave."

Just like Superman would basically be saying...."Hey all you criminals and bad folk, I'm going to be away from the PLANET for 5+ years........so feel free to loot and plunder and commit crime while I'm gone...."

 

[afan]

Aveitwithjamon, I'm curious.

This rationale (crime deterrant), for the lack of a public announcement on Superman's part, is absent from SR, why then do you feel the need to create it.

Do you find the existing rationale, that Lois' reaction to the disclosure would deter Superman from his chosen path(the journey to Krypton), somewhat un-Superman-like?

 

[afan]

that's why it's a tricky situation, and A HUGE GAMBLE Superman took.

yes, I do think that if Superman made a public statement announcing his departure....then that would be a godsend for every criminal/super-powered baddy. All the bad guys would know Supes would be gone for 5+ years, giving them free reign to commit crime. Naturally, that would just embolden the criminals and lead to an INCREASE in crime.

To me, that's kind of like the situation in Iraq. Some people are saying we should set a hard deadline and withdraw all of our troops.

But, if we were to publicly announce a firm deadline to the world, that would be like Superman announcing to the world he's leaving for 5+ years. We'd basically be saying to the insurgents and terrorists...."Hey, we're going to leave Iraq by such and such date.....so....y'know.....just hold out until that date and you can take over when we leave."

Just like Superman would basically be saying...."Hey all you criminals and bad folk, I'm going to be away from the PLANET for 5+ years........so feel free to loot and plunder and commit crime while I'm gone...."

Really and what exactly is the presence of our troops doing to completely deter the violence in Iraq. It could just as easily be argued that the American presence there is escalating the insurgents efforts.
Bad analogy to prove the point.

 

[afan]

Well, of course you are still going to get the most boldest of criminals who will still commit a crime even with Superman on earth. Not to mention that robbery looked as if it needed significant cost and planning and i doubt they would abandon that at the last minute, also it was Supermans first day back and not everyone would have gotten the word he was back.

But i bet most criminals would be hesitant to perform a crime with Superman around and not just the police.

So exactly which criminals cease activity under the threat of Superman?

 

[X Knight]

well....you could also argue that Batman's presence in Gotham also leads to an escalation in "costumed crazies" ( Such an escalation was hinted at at the end of Batman Begins ).

Does that mean Batman should think...."Hey, my being Batman has actually led to an increase in costumed villians ( like the Joker )......endangering Gotham even more......therefore, I should quit being Batman."

No, if Batman quit because things got "too violent," then who would be there to oppose the bad guys in Gotham. IMO, that would just make the situation even worse.

as for Iraq.....Yes, I'll admit things haven't gone as smoothly as we would like. And, yes, it pains my heart every time I hear another soldier getting killed ( an old classmate of mine died from a roadside bomb ).

BUT, if we were to just withdraw, then the situation would just get even worse. The insurgents and terrorists wouldn't just magically disappear and mellow out. They would probably become even more emboldened, feeling as if they were victorious in driving out the "American Occupiers." And, without our troops to oppose them ( much more effectively than the Iraqi forces ), Iran, Syria, and Al-Queada would all try to exert more of an influence in the region.

 

[afan]

well....you could also argue that Batman's presence in Gotham also leads to an escalation in "costumed crazies" ( Such an escalation was hinted at at the end of Batman Begins ).

No hint about it at all in Millers "Batman:The Dark Knight Returns" Batman's re-appearance is directly responsible for the re-awakening of a dormant Joker.

Clearly crime would welcome Superman's abscence, but what I don't buy is the resulting amaggedon that would result from his announcement explaining his departure. Again how long would it take to be clear to anyone that Superman is no longer a risk factor.

Superman is a common sight in Metropolis, he makes frequent public appearances, unlike Batman he wants his visage to be commonplace, he is a publicity hound if you will. He wears a costume that demands to be noticed. He wants to be a symbol, a rallying post for all that is just and right. Wouldn't his total abscence for even a week raise an eyebrow or two. His lack of public appearances would in effect be an announcement to all that he is gone.

 

[Showtime]

The problem is that a public announcement would open the gates even further for criminal activity, similar to the United States occupation of Iraq opened the floodgates for terrorist activity in said country.

Reeve's Superman wouldn't have been stupid enough to make the announcement to the public or the media right away. He might have told Lois and given her the responsibility to reveal it to the world at a later date, but even that is iffy. This is a continuation of the Reeve Superman though.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

So exactly which criminals cease activity under the threat of Superman?

Some criminals are bolder(or more desperate) than others, this is a certainty, some even would be even more eager to commit a crime if Superman was there (the daredevil types). But most criminals would be scared off by the fact that Superman was around, non of them want to get caught or go to prison, but i bet it bothers some a lot more than others if they do.

Some people are bolder and more desperate than others, this is true of all of us.

 

[Rob-el]

It has nothing to do with what Reeve's Superman would do it was simply something the character as written for 50+ years wouldn't do

The character is an amalgamtion of interprutions that make up his history so in a way the character as portrayed in the Reeve's movies is part of that history. Having said that, Superman, as I know him, would most certainly have let the world know about his departure. In fact Dean Cain's Superman (or the Superman that he portrayed) did that when he was leaving to go to New Krypton. And people may say what they want about Cain's Superman, that action was consistant with what I think most people believe Superman would do.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

No hint about it at all in Millers "Batman:The Dark Knight Returns" Batman's re-appearance is directly responsible for the re-awakening of a dormant Joker.

Clearly crime would welcome Superman's abscence, but what I don't buy is the resulting amaggedon that would result from his announcement explaining his departure. Again how long would it take to be clear to anyone that Superman is no longer a risk factor.

Superman is a common sight in Metropolis, he makes frequent public appearances, unlike Batman he wants his visage to be commonplace, he is a publicity hound if you will. He wears a costume that demands to be noticed. He wants to be a symbol, a rallying post for all that is just and right. Wouldn't his total abscence for even a week raise an eyebrow or two. His lack of public appearances would in effect be an announcement to all that he is gone.

Yes but even with Superman not making a public appearance for a while, criminals would still be wary of him being out there, it could be their crime were he chooses to come back out.

It would take a lot of criminals to cotton onto the fact that Superman isnt returning for a while a long time IMO.

 

[X Knight]

my point is......it's generally not a good idea for the good guy to telegraph his next move to the enemy.

i agree, afan, even if Supes DIDN'T announce his departure, eventually the bad guys would figure it out. It might take longer, but, after awhile, Supes' extended absence would probably be an invitation to increased criminal activity.

Heck, in Spider-man 2, Peter DIDN'T announce his "retirement" as Spiderman. Yet, the crime rate DID go up, as the absence of Spidey probably led criminals to believe that he was gone. And, Spidey DIDN'T leave for 5+ years.

that's why, Supes voluntarily leaving the world for 5+ years is not a good idea, at least in the context provided in SR.

If they had provided a different context, then the idea might have worked better.

For example, they could have had Supes expecting to be gone for only a few weeks / months. With his "advanced" alien, Kryptonian space ship, I suppose it's conceivable that he could make the trip in that amount of time ( after all, we're talking about an alien who can fly and shoot heat out of his eyes ).

In that case, Supes would tell Lois and the ppl close to him where he was going, and assure them that he would be back as soon as possible. IOW, Supes would have NO INTENTION of leaving earth UNPROTECTED for such a long period of time, and he had EVERY INTENTION of coming back to earth ( and Lois ) as soon as possible.

The problem, though, is that the trip took longer than Supes expected. And, there are a number of ways they could have done this.

There's the "Rip van Winkle" scenario, where, from Supes' perpsective, it only took a few weeks/months. BUT, on "Earth Time," it actually took 5+ years.

Or, they could do the "Homer's Odyssey" scenario, where Superman, on his trip back to Earth, is delayed and veered off course. He could, for example, be abducted by Mongul and forced into combat on Warworld ( like in the videogame ), or captured by Braniac or Darkseid, etc. Superman's ship could also have been damaged in a meteor storm, or Supes himself could have fallen gravely ill due to Kryptonite poisoning from the radioactive remains of Krypton.

Regardless, the premise would be that Supes only intended to be gone for a short period of time ( a few weeks/months ). He had every intention of returning to earth and Lois as soon as possible. However, FOR CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL, his trip actually took much longer ( 5+ years ), and now he has to deal with a world ( including Lois ) who have indeed moved on.

If they had crafted a context such as that, it would have made Superman look less irresponsible. It would have also helped them avoid Superman looking like a "deadbeat dad," in that Superman had no intention of leaving Lois ( and his unborn child ) for such a long period of time. It's just that, his trip was unexpectedly delayed, for whatever reason......

 

[Rob-el]

Take the bank robbery scene as an example, if Superman hadnt turned up, the guards would be dead, and the police were incapacatated, they would have gotten away without Superman's intervention.

Keep in mind though that the bank robbery was set up as a distraction to keep Superman busy while Luthor was robbing the museum. The part was cut from the movie but the novelization from the script is clear on that. So in essence that over the top robbery would not have taken place if not for Superman's pressence in the first place. I'm not sure what that proves - I just thought I would throw it out there!