You’ve some interesting points there, Mr. Hatcher. But there’s something else to consider – the current movie is just beginning a story, it’s not over yet. Not for Superman and Lois, poor Richard White (Talk about a dead man walking!), or the mysterious child Jason. Singer and company weren’t delivering a sealed package of story here, imo it feels very much like the beginning of something larger and longer, which is why there’s a lack of resolution to so many throughlines.

I’m not even sure that Jason is Superman’s son. Superman thinks he is, and so does Lois, but we don’t know anything for a certainty.

I don’t know that “Superman Returns” would’ve done “Pirates”-level business, simply because the latter had the benefit of a lot of goodwill from the previous installment. However, this weekend I saw “Pirates” for the first time and “Superman” a second time, and I know which of them is more likely to generate repeat business.

“Superman” has many fine qualities. It’s far better, I think, than the various abominations that would have sprung from the likes of Burton, Smith, Cage and McG. (I know some will disagree about Burton and Smith, and let’s leave it at that.) It’s a good film, but it’s not a great film. And it’s not nearly as fun–pitch-perfect Jimmy Olsen aside–as it needed to be to restart the franchise.

In the end, it suffered from the problem that killed The Hulk movie…they simply overthought the concept instead of embracing the spectacle and excitement inherent in both characters.

For my part, it’s not just that the resolution–if it really is that–of the Superman/Lois relationship is depressing. The whole damned movie is too dark by half: cinematography, production design and script.

The violence is unnecessarily grim. Lois is stalked by a killer who takes a moment to decide which weapon will cause her more pain. Superman is remorselessly beaten, not in the four-color manner of superheroes, but in a realistic, crime-drama style. And then there’s the gag with the damned dogs. The line “Didn’t there used to be two of them?” is funny because of what it implies; you don’t need to see the remaining dog sitting in a pile of fur and chewing on something grisly. (And no, I’m not being prudish. I’d be perfectly fine with this material in another context.)

Superman should be a good time. If you can’t have fun being freakin’ Superman, what’s the point? Yes, power equals responsibility and all that, but that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy your work. The Donner/Lester films threatened at times to turn him into a joke, but at least they approached the material with a lightness of spirit and a sense of wonder. For all of Singer’s slavish devotions to the Reeve films, he seems to have missed that. Superman isn’t Batman or the X-Men. He’s not about being screwed-up or screwed-over.

NOT SUSAN SILVERMAN! NOOOOOOOO!

Seriously, Greg, this is very insightful, and clarifies some of my own feelings on the film. An excellent job, as always.

All I wanted in the movie was the scene where Lois tells Superman that she loves and chooses Richard. Richard is awesome! End of story. I don’t need Superman the homewrecker.

But i would like a “Creepy Stalker Superman” action figure. Acessories could include a plastic bush and total lack of shame.

Second, I think the major problem with the Peter Parker/Mary Jane marriage is the fact that fans can’t get over that when they got married, Mary Jane was a supermodel. If the lovable loser next door marries a beautiful, wealthy woman, then most folks would think the schlub’s got nothing to complain about anymore.

I think in recent years, Marvel’s moved away Mary Jane away from her superstar status, which is a good thing. They could still craft interesting stories with them as a married couple. Fame is fleeting. What if Mary Jane finds it harder to get work as the modeling agencies demand fresher, “younger” faces, although she’s only in her mid-twenties? What if she becomes inspired by years of tending to Peter’s bruises, breaks and tears, and decides to burn through her remaining money going to grad school herself to join the growing field of metahuman physical therapy? This would require the sort of deliberative, mature decision-making and sacrifice that should be a hallmark of any adult relationship. You’re right, Greg, marriage shouldn’t be the end of anything, but should signify a change that offers numerous opportunities to any good storyteller.

That’s a statement that actually amps up the “creepy” factor a lot. Because Quesada (and many others) seem to think that marriage, in super-hero comics, is seen as a “problem” with the character that has to be fixed. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most comics fans and professionals are single males–because they see getting into a relationship with a girl as a mistake that has to be fixed, and you can’t do it with divorce, because it’s depressing to hang out with a divorced guy, so you can just bump off the wife because if she’s dead, hey, out of sight out of mind, right?

I mean, does anyone really think that it’s sensible to think of widowing a character as being less of a wrenching change than divorcing them?

All of this, of course, is gradually getting further away from Superman, because his relationship with Lois is currently a very solid one–the only other really solid husband/wife relationship I can think of in comics is Reed and Sue, and even that one’s being put through the wringer for ‘Civil War’.

Well there’s always retcons, reboots, and ye ole magical whammy if you really wanted it done away with. Killing a character off seems a bit too extreme to me, especially nowadays where it always seems to be done in the most over the top manner possible (particularly where female characters are concerned).

The thing about superhero stories is that a large part of the appeal lies not in the just in the personal drama, but in the time travel, space exploration, alien invasions, robots, giant monkies, and super villan battles. The level of those vs the level of drama/soap opera changes periodically but there seems to be a slight rift among fans who specifically prefer one over the other (i.e. adventure vs personal drama).

Where team couples like Sue & Reed Richards or the old Hawkman & Hawkwoman pair differ from Lois & Clark or Peter & MJ is that you can have bits on the relationship while you’re in the midst of robot punching and with the latter pairs that’s not usually the case (unless Superman is saving Lois from said robot). So often scenes that focus on the group B’s relationships are seen as detracting from the robot punching and that just doesn’t sit well with a segment of fans (and writers too, I’d imagine) who are into the genre specifically for the action. A couple of previous posters hinted as this as well (“but apparently he doesn’t punch enough shit” sums it up nicely even if said sarcastically).

Not that a balance can’t be achieved, it’s just a lot more difficult to do with modern mainstream comics having this odd desire to focus on every specific beat and moment that space limitations inevitabley make single issues lean more heavily towards one (drama) or the other (action). Hooray for customer dissatisfication.

I mean: Yes, comics are fantasy – and writers try and inject “reality-like” stuff to draw us into the story, make us invested in the characters. I am firmly of the belief that there is nothing wrong with some superheros getting married – AND – having a successful marriage, at that! Real people with dangerous jobs get married and *some* of them do manage to keep it together. Why is it so very foreign an idea that *some* superheroes could get married and, though it might get difficult, still manage to make things work? Answer: laziness on the writers part, narrow-mindedness on the writers part, and the idiotic marketer’s mindset that “successful relatonships that are working AREN’T what keeps viewers coming back next week – it has to be tension & heartbreak every other week to keep the masses interested (and the sponsors happy)” – again – this is just writer laziness. Apparently no one in comics is *skilled* enough to write a successful super-hero-involved realtionship thats good enough to kep us interested. Its just too hard. So let’s all just fall back on the old, tired cliche of “tension & betrayal & heartbreak” because its worked before and its just so darned easy to do…

*sigh*

Superman is not a “dead-beat dad” nor a “date-raper” – the writers were just not that good.

It’s been stated by Quesada and others that they don’t want to see super-heroes get divorced. So, if you as a fan wants to get rid of the wife, and divorce isn’t an option, then the only other option available in the comics vocabulary is death.

And honestly, I can sort of understand that. To me, a character like Superman is better off in that Archie/Silver Age/Simpsons frozen state. I don’t think it pays to age him all that much.

I mean it. It’s like all those loser guys who complain that their new buddy doesn’t hang out as much now that he’s married, and he should ditch his wife and hang out with the guys more…only added to it is the component of violent misogyny, that it’s not enough for Superman/Spider-Man to leave his wife, she has to die for the crime of “changing” her husband.

Unfortunately, it sounds like Joe Quesada, at least, is in that camp. (And even more unfortunately, it sounds like I might have just hi-jacked the topic a bit by involving Spider-Man. But all the parallels are there!)

BUT…

even by this intelligent standard of reading Superman Returns, I think Singer et al did a lousy job of it. Lois is supposed to be brilliant, agressive, relentless…and she pretty much is, except when it comes to Supes. Then she swoons and stomps her feet and lets the guy walk all over her–including KNOCKING HER UP, something she DOESN’T REMEMBER BUT JUST SHRUGS AND ACCEPTS.

wha–?!?!?!

i don’t think it’s being too attached to “realism” in a comic book movie to ask that it at least try to accept its own internal logic. which means they sure could have dealt with all this, but they HAVE to play fair with the audience and the story.

i don’t think you get to kiss Donner’s feet and make a pseudo-sequel, then turn around and ignore whatever parts of his story you like. that bothers me. it’s lazy and stupid.

That was the Superdickery site I mentioned above.

“I hate to say it, but it’s time to kill Lois. And Mary Jane. And Susan Silverman. And…”

And didn’t we just have this debate about killing off/divorcing super-wives?

Greg nailed right on the head the best argument against doing that. Life doesn’t end after marriage. It changes. That lets you tell other stories. It closes a few off, but it opens up many more.

The reasons you liked Clark & Lois getting married are the same reasons I liked Peter Parker & MJ getting married.

I loved Superman Returns, but I’ve heard a fair amount of complaints from other fans and friends, and I can’t deny most of them. Yes, Superman could be read as a “deadbeat dad.” Yes, it’s a little weird and creepy that Lois doesn’t remember the act of conceiving her kid (would’ve been nice to have a little clarity on that point, actually… I’ve got my own theory, but Singer and co. could have spelled it out). Yes, he acts like a super-stalker much of the time, and it comes off creepier than the creators probably meant it to.

And yet… I liked it, and I think you nailed why. Lois and Clark married is a potentially interesting story, but very few have managed to actualize that potential. Most people resort to cliched bickering, “will the marriage break up?” type stuff.

Lois and Clark as unhappy couple, not right for each other and having to deal with that, is also potentially interesting and I think Singer has tapped that potential. I’m not ready to say he was 100% successful yet, but if the sequel plays out well, I think it could be a fascinating new take on the Lois-Clark relationship.