Posted on 07/06/2006 3:03:10 PM PDT by suspects
Since 1938, Superman has fought valiantly to preserve "truth, justice and the American way," battling beside American soldiers in WWII and frequently appearing in print, on TV and in film with an American flag. However, in the new film Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer and his scriptwriters, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, explicitly rejected the phrase "the American way" as "tainted."
"We were always hesitant to include the term 'American way' because the meaning of that today is somewhat uncertain," Dougherty told the Hollywood Reporter. "I think when people say 'American way,' they're actually talking about what the 'American way' meant back in the '40s and '50s, which was something more noble and idealistic .[emphasis added] … He's an international superhero."
MEANWHILE, BACK IN METROPOLIS...
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
The **** Superman is an international hero. Look at this cape and suit. Blue and red! (He's also white... if i wanted to take that flag color analogy to find white... lol).
I was angry when they left out "The American Way" in the movie. And i've never seen/read the Superman movies/comics (as an 18 year old, they never really get around to me...)
Leftist agenda?
I'll pass on this movie
There's been a lot of noise about the omission of the words "the American way" from the latest Superman movie, but, having seen the movie, this seems like a very poor choice of fight to pick.
The specific quote (no real spoilers, don't worry) comes from the Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Planet, in which he barks out, with his distinct New York cynicism, "Go find out if he still stands for the same things. You know, freedom, justice, all that stuff."
It is NOT a noticeable omission, does not break the rhythm of the movie, and, being delivered by an unsympathetic character, does not come off as representing the opinions of the movie-makers (even if it does).
This movie is a really good piece of film, and a very worthy sequel. Not only is the movie entirely apolitical, but it strongly, unashamedly embraces the Christian roots of the Superman mythos. This movie flat-out says it in several places: Jor-El, recognizing great capacity for good in the human race but also recognizing their tendency to succumb to the temptation of evil, sends his only son down from the heavens to live amongst them and show them the path to virtue by his own example. At one point (very mild spoiler), Lois Lane says to Superman, "The world doesn't need a savior!", to which he ultimately replies, "You say they don't need a savior, but every day I hear them crying out for one."
This is NOT a movie we should be attacking. Superman is an American hero, and in our pettiness for the lack of the line "the American way" in the movie, we would do more harm to Superman than we would by praising the movie as the virtuous work of art that it is.
Dougherty told the Hollywood Reporter. "I think when people say 'American way,' they're actually talking about what the 'American way' meant back in the '40s and '50s, which was something more noble and idealistic.
**
It is still noble and idealistic, no thanks to America-hating pigs like you.
This is NOT a movie we should be attacking.
&&
Sorry, your analysis notwithstanding, I would never see a film associated with anyone who said what this jerk said.
This is NOT a movie we should be attacking.
&&
Sorry, your analysis notwithstanding, I would never see a film associated with anyone who said what this jerk said.
My memory could be shady. :)
Precious...
I saw the movie on Monday. I noticed that they left "American Way" out of the phrase - they kind of used noise as an interruption - Perry White said something like "You know, that old 'Truth, Justice, and...'" then something in the scene (I forget what) interrupted them. From the way they did it I thought the director was trying to finesse the situation, but he made it more noticeable to me. Weasels. Mostly a good movie, although all the soul-searching that Superman does (He's Ronery) was a little too metrosexual for me. The best scenes (semi-spoiler): Bringing the jet down in the stadium, and walking straight into the bullets from a Gatling gun.
Superman Returns is such an obvious cry for help from the whole Hollywood industry. Honest, courageous, heroic, patriotic, heterosexual white males are a touchy subject in Leftywood.
It's blantant pandering to lost movie goers using a time-tested vehicle. Of course they had to 'liberalize it', but most of their customers have moved on anyway.
Yes, the producer IS a jerk, and an ignoramus and moron to boot. You'd do well to keep your money from him. Even so - in fact, especially so - I simply recommend to avoid bashing the movie outright. His creation ended up being a quality piece of work, even if he himself is a schmuck. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :)
Good and funny read. I listen to Graham in the Boston area, but somewhat infrequently.
The "ronery" scenes were bathroom-break opportunities!
I agree with you entire now that I have seen the film. I didn't think it was such a big deal in the context that it was delivered.
I don't think of someone who fathers a bastard (or puts himself in a situation to do so) and then takes off to be an "American Hero" of any kind.
You respect your value system, I'll respect mine.
Well said! Those who skip this flick due to the omission are missing a very good movie and the nod to christian belief system. I was shaking my head when I read about the omission, but man, am I glad I still saw the movie.
Superman is, if anything, an illegal alien : ). Yes, he has most often represented America, but basically his job is to defend the entire world and represent the best of humanity. I'm not defending Hollyweird but this all sounds like nitpicking. It's not an overt anti-American reference. Just go and enjoy the movie for its entertainment value, as I plan on doing this weekend!
BTW Batman is cooler.
A&E had a reference to Superman as being a Christ-like figure in its biography of the character, as Superman's popularity experienced a revival in the Seventies. And in the graphic novel Kingdom Come, a preacher (?) starts a religious movement based around Superman. Also he gets pounded to a pulp by Doomsday and comes back, Christ-fashion. The Christianity theme is prevalent throughout much of Superman's history.
Does your value system include having enough consideration to put spoiler warnings above your comment to keep it from lessenning the experience for folks who maybe haven't seen the movie yet?
Anyway, yes, the whole son-of-Superman subplot was just plain weird, in many many ways. I really don't understand why it's there. However, I don't see it marring Superman's virtue in the slightest. Superman wasn't aware of the child's existence. In the time that Superman had been gone, Lois had married, and the husband, a decent man and loving father in his own right, didn't know that the child wasn't his. (Yes, Lois is in the wrong here for keeping this secret from both men, but we're not talking about Lois here, we're talking about Superman.) Superman was left to make some very difficult choices - in particular, the question of what kind of childhood would be best for his son - and chose the more painful of the options he had before him. While Superman couldn't exactly be this boy's father, he could be his guardian angel, and his role model. I don't believe that the situation was nearly clear-cut enough to simply argue that one choice was clearly virtuous while the other was clearly sinful.
I haven't seen the movie (nor do I intend to). I go that info from reviews of the movie. Since it is out there, I didn't know it was a spoiler.
However, I don't see it marring Superman's virtue in the slightest.
Extramerital sex is virtuous? Wow, we conservatives have backslidden more than a bit.
Those are the people who are still convinced we went into Iraq for oil, even though Iraq isn't producing any and oil has shot up to $75 per barrel.
The idea that we went there to end the Iraqi people's suffering and rid the world of the likes of Saddam Hussein and company, means nothing to them. The fact that the Iraqi government now joins us against terrorists instead of paying them, is also lost on them. The fact that Iraq won't be attacking it's neighbors is another issue the left will not recognize.
People on the left whine when the U.S. doesn't step in and do something that will help most of humanity, and then when we do they complain that we did.
I've seen six year old children with more ability to reason that today's leftists.
There's really not much more noble things humans can do, than what our men and women are doing in Iraq.
What about the girls who couldn't go to school? Doesn't the left champion women's rights?
Honestly, the left are nothing but knuckle dragging chumps...
Well stated and i agree with you. Now if they had changed it to "freedom, justice, and the liberal way" lol, then of course that would be worth getting riled up about. But this?
"Extramerital sex is virtuous? Wow, we conservatives have backslidden more than a bit."
Extramarital. "Extramerital" would be "outside the boundaries of merit"... which suggests all sorts of raunchy jokes that I don't have the creativity to determine right now. :)
Anyway... Dude, you not only haven't seen the movie under discussion, but you evidently haven't seen the rest of the Superman flicks either.
You ARE aware that, in "Superman II", Superman sacrificed his powers and married Lois Lane in a bittersweet ceremony overseen by Jor-El, right? And he had to sacrifice his life of happiness with Lois Lane when he saw that the world faced dire danger that only he could save it from.
Please stick to commenting on stuff you actually know something about.
People calling foul over this resemble the terminally offended libs we like to deride.
How droll. Supes had sex with LL without being married. And unprotected sex. You are endorsing this?
Anyway... Dude, you not only haven't seen the movie under discussion, but you evidently haven't seen the rest of the Superman flicks either.
I did see them. They went downhill after II. And that storyline is not part of this storyline.
You ARE aware that, in "Superman II", Superman sacrificed his powers and married Lois Lane in a bittersweet ceremony overseen by Jor-El, right? And he had to sacrifice his life of happiness with Lois Lane when he saw that the world faced dire danger that only he could save it from.
Right. THAT was virtuous man who put the welfare of others before his own happiness. He married Lois (and they left any thinking about boffing silent, as a gentleman should do).
So, you are saying it is OK to have unprotected sex out of wedlock? And if Lois isn't sure who the father is, that reduces her to a common slut.
You keep your "edgy" Superman and slattern Lois who appeal to the denizens of DU. I'll stand by the one I was raised on. The one with Conservative values.
Its not "the American way" part I object to.
Saw the Richard Simmons video on that thread. I'm still in recovery after laughing my lungs out. I hold you partially responsible. You will hear from my attorney.
:-)
There was no wedding in Superman II, and Jor El didn't really even appear in the film except for some non-face shots during the opening credits. Superman gives up his powers and hits the sheets with Lois (off camera). They weren't married at all.
Obviously you're not keeping up. Let me help you out here.
In "Superman II", Lois Lane and Superman were married. During that interval, brief as it was, Superman impregnated Lois Lane. They didn't go into details about this, naturally - as you say, that wouldn't be gentlemanly. But, as a savvy audience, we are to infer that the timeframe corresponds to the age of the child in "Superman Returns". (Presumably, we are also to infer that the gestation period of the hybrid was much, much longer than that of normal human offspring, but comics never were too keen on math).
So, there was no extramarital boffing. There was no premarital boffing. There was no child conceived out of wedlock. Lois Lane was very acutely aware of the child's parentage but kept the information to herself - she didn't tell her new husband for fear that he couldn't love the child, and she didn't tell Superman because he had vanished by the time she knew she was pregnant.
YOu seem to be the only one coming to that conclusion.
Everyone else seems to think this movie happens in a Universe where the others never happened.
I kinda interpreted the whole revocation-of-powers thing as part of a de facto marriage ceremony (though I could've sworn Jor-El did his whole head-in-a-crystal thing and talked it over with Superman before his big step). In any case, I don't know what an official Kryptonian wedding is like, but I think sacrificing godlike powers trumps a marriage certificate in terms of a declaration of commitment. ;) (Lord, please save me from the trolls who will interpret that statement as an invitation to crack open the gay-marriage debate...)
"Everyone" seems to include a lot of people, yourself included, that haven't seen the movie. :P
Clark Kent wanted to give up his powers so he could be with Lois. His mother's ghost/recording gave her consent. To me that implied they got hitched.
Well if we reverse engineer the whole thing, this is a potential "out" for Supes.
It also explains why he didn't accidentally kill her when consumating.
So is there a link or reference back to S II in this pic?
That was his mother, Lara.
Fathering a child out of wedlock is a problem Supes will have to own up to, but in myths and other such larger-than-life stories, adultery happens A LOT. Let's see: Lancelot was an adulter, King Arthur was a bastard, Hercules was a bastard, Arthur's son Mordred was a bastard -- there's lots of bastardry going on. Ishmael was a bastard. King David slept with his best general's wife (boycott the Bible!).
Not that extra-marital sex in these stories doesn't come with a price. But dang, once the bastard is born after an impetuous moment, at least a real man will stand up and take care of the kid. I think that's one thing the film shows and hopefully will follow up on. Also, as the film shows, fathering a kid out of wedlock is a heartbreak that keeps on giving, 'cuz a family is meant to all be together, not an "I get to see my dad Supes every other weekend" type thing. We see Supes pain and the problems of a broken family. The life lesson IS there - Supes is a precautionary warning to all those other guys who think they got it all figured out.
I think sometimes films crack open the idea of marriage in order to show why it must NOT be meddled with. They also show that God can and often does make a silk purse (a human life) out of a sow's ear (a moment of irresponsible passion).
But no, there's no one-to-one relationship between this Supes movie and a Sunday School primer on marriage. Fiction usually doesn't do that, anyway.
For my money Luthor is a bastard - hah!
I guess I am just sort of old-fashioned. I like my Superman super and somewhat pristine.
People on the left whine when the U.S. doesn't step in and do something that will help most of humanity, and then when we do they complain that we did.
&&&
Ah, but you misunderstand the Left's attitude. Throwing our money at a problem even when the money is just misused by corrupt bureaucrats and/or leaders is good. Sending brave and noble men equipped with arms is bad.
Agreed...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.