Superman Returns

[scryer41]

iswallowedabug wrote: scryer41 wrote: I also realize that Superman's character is always being upgraded. But the problem with ------ misconduct is that it shows kids (who are turning into young adults) that it's ok to do this. ------ Morality doesn't matter anymore. It is thrown out the window.

It used to be considered perfectly moral for a husband to abuse and
rape his wife because they were married; it used to be considered
perfectly moral and upright for thirteen year old girls to be married
to men in their fifties and then consummate the marriage. While
I agree with you that there's too much ------ misconduct in film
and it sends a bad message when you portray misconduct as
not only acceptable behavior, but as cool or desirable, I think we
might disagree on the what the definition of misconduct should be.

Actually the husband beating his wife was not exceptable. It was looked down upon by the towns people if it was widely known, but they couldn't do anything about it. There were no laws against it. People still didn't like the idea of a woman (and I would add, a child) being beaten.

The age of consent for children has changed over time. But they still waited to be married before having ---. You must also look at the average length of life for people back before the 20th century started. Most men didn't live past 50. Brides were taken at an earlier age so that the family blood line could continue.

Quote: I think showing a man who obviously loves a woman so much that
he hesitates to save the world if it means losing her having
con------- relations with that woman is not the same thing as
careless, casual ---.

What takes place between two adults is their own choice, of course. However, as I've said, Superman should have better standards. He may want to sleep with Lois (or in the case of Smallville, Lana) but he should refrain because it is not morally right. Superman is suppose to be a true hero. But he has been portrayed as a hero with feet of clay when it comes to films and that is what I find sad.

Quote: I do have a question -- it's been so long since I've watched
"Superman II: the Wrath of Zod" that I don't remember the
chronology; did Superman sleep with Lois AFTER losing
his powers, or before? Because if it was after, one could argue
that part of the loss was the superhuman will-power...
Okay, I'm obviously reaching there to try and find a win-win.

I believe he lost them before he slept with Lois. But how can this make a difference when, as a viewer of the film, you knew he would end up getting his powers back?

[scryer41]

invisiblesteph wrote: So oldfashioned. ------ Morality means being married before having a kid?! Ive known plenty of ppl who have had s---ty childhoods because their parents wernt hsappily married and known kids who were really happy and they didnt have two married parents... The morals should be that you love your family and treat everyone with respect.. not that u at least have a wedding ring.

I'm not sorry for being old fashioned. There's nothing wrong with being so. The subject, however, is how Superman is portrayed. He is suppose to have high values. He is suppose to be a good example for those who follow his adventures. For kids who read his comics and watch the films. How can we expect to have heroes if they end up having the same failings normal humans have?

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people whom we personally dislike." -- Oscar Wilde

"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
-- Isaac Asimov

"I find the doctors and the sages have differ'd in all climes and ages, And two in fifty scarce agree on what is pure morality." -- Thomas
Moore.

scryer41 wrote: However, as I've said, Superman should have better standards. He may want to sleep with Lois (or in the case of Smallville, Lana) but he should refrain because it is not morally right.

Why?

I ask, with all sincerity, what is morally wrong about it?

This may be my mental deficiency kicking in, but it seems to
me that such choices may be culturally questionable, but not
morally so. It may be unacceptable by one culture, but not by
another. It may even be required by one culture even if not
by another.

Indeed, one could even argue that --- before marriage is actually
an impossibility because --- itself is the ACT of consummating
marriage. Any action that has the potential to produce the lifelong
commitment to each other that is a child is by its very nature
a wedding vow of action not words. It's just that there's no piece
of paper or a ring and most people don't follow through. And that may
be where the irresponsibility and morality comes in.

scryer41 wrote: I believe he lost them before he slept with Lois. But how can this make a difference when, as a viewer of the film, you knew he would end up getting his powers back?

It can make every difference. If you want to invoke biology, then the
need/desire to procreate is more important when one is faced with
mortality/vulnerability. One could argue that losing his powers
and becoming human and mortal could have in and of itself created
an urgent need to ensure that his genetic material, at least, would
live on.

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

scryer41 wrote: I'm not sorry for being old fashioned. There's nothing wrong with being so. The subject, however, is how Superman is portrayed. He is suppose to have high values.

No, there's nothing wrong with being old-fashioned. There is
certainly nothing wrong with having a code of conduct and living
by it. That's admirable. If you have achieved that, you rock!

I think the problem comes in when someone assumes that other
people should also feel and act the same way, and when they
don't to discredit them as being of poor values.

Just because the movie depiction of Superman does not live
by your code of values does not mean he is not of high values.

Of, course, there is that Jack Handey "Deep thought" that seems
almost relevant as well: "I believe in making the world safe for our
children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children
should be having ---."

scryer41 wrote: He is suppose to be a good example for those who follow his adventures. For kids who read his comics and watch the films. How can we expect to have heroes if they end up having the same failings normal humans have?

These are actually two different issues -- (1) is Superman a good
example, and (2) are heroes with normal human failings less able
to serve as role models than those without?

(1) I think may of us would disgree as to what constitutes moral
behavior; what you consider misconduct may not be such to others,
and what I consider appalling and base may not be so to you.

(2) This is a really interesting question. Is it better to present the
flawless, unquestioning, perfect hero as an inspiration? Someone to
inspire everyone, not just young kids, by perfect example? Or,
could the reaction be, "well, of course Superman does the right thing,
he's Superman, but I'm not strong enough, invulnerable, etc., so
I don't have a chance..." Whereas, if you show someone who makes
mistakes, has flaw, and STILL does the right thing when push
comes to shove, is that more inspirational, because a kid could
see that and say, "he's not so different from who I am, he makes
mistakes just like me, he was scared, but he did the right thing
when it was important anyway" ?

Or do we need both kinds of heroes?

[lucifer666 (deleted)]

Oh come on....... people here worried about Superman's morals having --- outside of wedlock .....I'd be more worried about your kids seeing a guy who uses his ex ray vision to spy on his ex's home life...... secretly peering into her home like a Super Peeping Tom .....

Yeah very high morals indeed

[scryer41]

lucifer666 wrote: Oh come on....... people here worried about Superman's morals having --- outside of wedlock .....I'd be more worried about your kids seeing a guy who uses his ex ray vision to spy on his ex's home life...... secretly peering into her home like a Super Peeping Tom .....

Yeah very high morals indeed

Yeah, I had forgotten that little bit of the film. He WAS being a peeping tom wasn't he. Well... there you go. Superman is officially unmoral. Hooray! Another long well loved hero of high moral standing has finally fallen to the levels of those he fights against.

[InNYC]

In Superman's defense, he didn't look through Lois' clothes.

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

michael wrote: In Superman's defense, he didn't look through Lois' clothes.

Duh. He has a thing for Batman, now...now wait a minute; the utility
belt isn't made of lead, is it?

[scryer41]

iswallowedabug wrote: michael wrote: In Superman's defense, he didn't look through Lois' clothes.

Duh. He has a thing for Batman, now...now wait a minute; the utility
belt isn't made of lead, is it?

Again... YUCK!

[lucifer666 (deleted)]

iswallowedabug wrote:
Duh. He has a thing for Batman, now...now wait a minute; the utility
belt isn't made of lead, is it?

Oh I don't know .......the Boy Wonder might get jealous of Super Stalker looking in under the Bat codpiece

[cooky37]

Did you hear who is playing the joker. Jake Gilenhall (you didn't think i would spell it right did you) poor supey will have another rival for Batty's affections {insert Brokeback Batman joke Here}

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

lucifer666 wrote: Oh I don't know .......the Boy Wonder might get jealous of Super Stalker looking in under the Bat codpiece

I'm sure Jimmy Olsen can keep the Boy Wonder entertained,
or at least distracted. (another fitting pairing, I think)

And just wait 'til you see the scene between Lois Lane and Catwoman....

[scryer41]

OK... that's all I can stands. I can't stands no more! Yuck Yuck and Double Yuck!

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

scryer41 wrote: OK... that's all I can stands. I can't stands no more! Yuck Yuck and Double Yuck!

Why, Scryer41, didn't you eats your spinach?

"I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history, in every culture, is the story of Popeye." -- a Deep Thought by Jack Handey

Okay, fine, but you started it...

[scryer41]