Worst versions of Superman?

[DochaDocha]

It's not just about the sanctity of her mind, it's about the entire way he has to treat her and think about her in order to make that decision. It's patronizing and creepy. The mental violation might not exist, but the attitude, the ability to treat people as less than people in order to make decisions they'd never want, "for their own good"? That exists, and it's horrifying that one of the most popular versions of Superman partakes in it.

However, it is also about the sanctity of her mind, and despite your claim that it doesn't apply to real life, gaslighting, drugging and other heinous acts all fall very much within the same range of violation, and all very much exist in real life.

By contrast, we have no reason to believe that time travel problems ever pose anything other than a curious thought experiment. Furthermore, since even within the binds of the thought-experiment, we have no reason to believe that Superman doesn't know how to do it (and in fact with twelve years of tutelage by his birth-dad's ghost, we've got every reason to believe he knows all the theoretical ins and outs) and more importantly we never see a single negative ramification, I don't see how you can possibly argue that that's a worse action.

I guess I don't see the specific way Superman alters Lois' memory along the lines of gaslighting, drugging, or other said heinous acts. IMO, they're just so different, both in intent and in execution, I don't want to make the comparison. It's changing her perception of reality. I guess you can blame some of this on editing, because IIRC, in the Donner cut the solution was supposed to be going back in time and actually changing reality, but since the theatrical release of Superman the Movie already did that, Lester had to come up with a plan B. Assuming my recall is correct here, if you asked me to do a thought experiment of what was worse, changing someone's memory of what happened vs. taking away the actual experience by warping space-time, I wouldn't have an answer for you, but I could make the argument that the space-time option is potentially worse because now you affect everyone whether they like it or not.

For various reasons, I'm just not bothered by the amnesia kiss other than the fact that it's one silly aspect of a movie filled with many silly things. I understand if people disagree.

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to say is that if someone invented a Men in Black style neuralyzer and used it wantonly on unsuspecting citizens, I might be troubled by it, but for the sake of the movie I just watch it and accept it as stuff characters in a movie do.

EDIT 2: Part of the reason I make the parallel to the time-travel and stuff is because as you say, for the sake of the movie, it's supposed to be a relatively harmless act. It doesn't become an ethical issue unless we put some heavy analysis into it and think about ramifications far beyond what the movie makers were trying to portray. I feel that kind of in-depth analysis of the amnesia kiss is required before it becomes a real ethical issue, otherwise it's just a quirky scene in a quirky movie.

[Adekis]

I should given III a rewatch. I haven't seen it since it was originally in the theaters.

I really think Superman III gets a bad rap. Sure, Gus Gorman's a goofy character, but I really think this is the movie where Jimmy, the Clark/Superman dichotomy, Reeve's acting and Superman's romance are all at their best.

This is a very fair and good point. As I've said before, given the contrived circumstances, I don't have an issue with his killing Zod. I have an issue with the contrived circumstances to force him to do that.

I think that's fair for the most part. It's accurate to say that Superman had little to no control over the fights he has in that movie, and generally barely manages to win. Personally, I don't have a problem with Superman killing in general, and ultimately I think we fans tend to worry about it too much.

As for the tone, I don't mind the story tone or the skies, but I'll admit, I'm not a huge fan of Superman's steel-gray-blue suit and rose cape.

I honestly do not think the Reeve[s] Superman intended that they die BUT you could argue that, subconsciously, he was pretty sure what the guy would do. But, as you say, it's one episode so you can ignore it. With Chris Reeve, it impacts the next movie so harder to ignore. I acknowledge that I don't think Cavill Superman "intentionally" did anything as bad as the Reeve and Reeves Superman did.

I don't think there's any way that Superman didn't know the criminals would die in Stolen Costume- maybe not immediately, but certainly within a pretty short period of time. It's not like he put them in a safe morally-dubious prison, he put them in a morally-dubious prison that they could conceivably but not realistically escape from. I read the situation as him manipulating them into suicide. I understand where you don't like that reading- I don't like it either- but I don't see a convincing alternative that doesn't make Superman out to be far less perceptive than he demonstrably is.

I don't actually agree that Superman II impacts Superman III very hard if at all. If anything, I think you could watch the first and third movies and have everything seem extremely consistent and straightforward, allowing for the reading that Clark simply decided not to pursue Lois romantically. That's not necessarily great- it goes back to that reset button you were talking about- but again, that decision to ignore Superman II basically allows me to ignore Superman's heinous actions and pretend they never happened while watching Superman III, much the same as I do when watching Adventures of Superman.

Thanks for accepting the character's realities with regards to Cavill's Superman's actions compared to Reeve's and Reeves' Supermen.

I actually had thought about saying Superman and the Mole Men (alias "The Unknown People") was arguably a better rendition of Superman as primitive as it was. It actually dealt with his being an alien and how he felt about it, however briefly when he gets so furious about how these "aliens" (though they are not actually aliens) are being treated and reacted to and Lois says, "Superman, you're taking this awful personally" and even says to the chief bigot something along the lines of, "You don't even deserve to live."

Yeah, I honestly think it might be the best Superman movie. The storytellers weren't yet running up against with the artificial problem of making Superman appeal to adults while adhering to storybook morality, and lacking that false problem allowed them to create a Superman story where the Man of Steel's morals and actions are both internally consistent and fairly sophisticated, while also acting as a "man against society" story. In a lot of ways, I think they'd have done better to just remake that instead of making Superman II and Dawn of Justice. And again, I like Dawn of Justice.

[Powerboy]

This will sdound like one of those "I know a guy who knew a guy" stories. But a friend of mine worked with a guy who had just come back from Iraq in 2013. The guy's wife and some friends wanted to go see "Man of Steel". He went along but didn't really want to. He loved Superman and comics in general as a kid. But after having been in a situation where he had to kill, he wasn't interested in seeing a super hero movie. Although this Superman was darker than the norm, he still sat in the theater, not really interested. Even when Superman had his arms around Zod's neck, he just assumed that, at the last instant, Superman would pull some trick or new power or use his powers in some way as to avoidf having to deal with reality.
Then, when he snapped Zod's neck, that was when this guy became interested because he hated this idea that "heroes don't kill" because it's totally escapist fantasy and Superman never has to deal with a horrible decision that is the only one he can make and face reality and consequences. Even "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow" is a cheat because it's at the end of his career when all the big threats are gone and he can just hang it up. But for him, here was a Superman who had to face the realities he had to face and is still called a "hero".

I love me some Silver Age escapism. But you are right, that a tremendous amount of this anti MoS stuff is from people being overdosed on morally simplistic concepts for children or stories that, though more mature, still are steeped in those morally simplistic and child-based stories.

[HeroVladimir93]

I don't dislike the New 52 Superman, I only think he could have used some work. I see the Injustice Superman the same way I see Darth Vader; a villain defined by horrible circumstances beyond his control. The only version of Superman I genuinely dislike is the Clark Kent from Smallville. Years after the show ended, I still see Smallville as an example on how not to adapt Superman's story on any form of entertainment media. At first, I thought it was an okay show, but now that I look back on it, it was doomed from the start. The premise of "the adventures of Clark Kent before becoming Superman" was already of a tough sell, but by season 5, the show redid its whole premise and Clark ended up doing the things Superman does in his prime, but without the things that make him iconic (suit, flight, etc.). The finale doesn't even show Clark putting on the suit, just the House of El symbol underneath his shirt. This show effectively reduced what was supposed to be a major historical moment into something that just barely qualifies as a cameo. By the way, I don't dislike Tom Welling; he was only an actor doing a job and collecting a paycheck; much like Henry Cavill, Tom constantly rose above the material he was given and delivered an honest and emotional performance but Smallville is the one Superman adaptation I don't like.

[Ascended]

I mean they tackled it almost immediately. There was enough false evidence that would look beyond reasonable doubt to people in the comics who don't have the knowledge we do as readers.

Also, Clark was supposed to have long hair, not a mullet. I know a lot of artists drew it like a mullet, but it was just long hair that Clark had tucked behind his ears. That makes the whole thing a lot easier to deal with, because it's not such a well-defined haircut; you couldn't point to a photo of Clark and a photo of Superman and say "see, they have the hair short on the sides, cut in the exact same way" all you could do is say "they both have long hair and they both tuck it behind their ears."

And this was the 90's, when practically everyone had long hair. I have a lot of issues with how Clark maintained his secret identity and presented himself as "Clark" in the early post-Crisis era, but the long hair wasn't really much of a logistical problem at all. No worse than both Clark and Superman having short hair, anyway.

[JAK]

Also, Clark was supposed to have long hair, not a mullet.

Exactly. I hated how "Super-Mullet" got pushed around like it was fact. Most artists drew it as long hair. Dan Jurgens just talked about it on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/thedanjurgens/st...28736558088192

Jurgenstweet.jpg

[Kuwagaton]

It seemed to pass more through a game of telephone rather than a DC character guide. I'll always love Garcia Lopez and Gil Kane, at a time when older artists weren't fashionable at all for regular titles, coming along and making him look fresher than anyone.

[phantom1592]

I mean they tackled it almost immediately. There was enough false evidence that would look beyond reasonable doubt to people in the comics who don't have the knowledge we do as readers.

Yep, this is the stuff I like to point out too. There have been so much evidence that Clark and Superman were NOT the same person... that any reasonably thinking would logically believe it.

It's all falsified evidence of course... but Clark and Superman have frequently been seen in the same room with different wounds and with photographic evidence... that there's an insane amount of reasonable doubt.

Now, Bruce Wayne and Superman?? That's much more likely!!

[llozymandias]

Yep, this is the stuff I like to point out too. There have been so much evidence that Clark and Superman were NOT the same person... that any reasonably thinking would logically believe it.

It's all falsified evidence of course... but Clark and Superman have frequently been seen in the same room with different wounds and with photographic evidence... that there's an insane amount of reasonable doubt.

Now, Bruce Wayne and Superman?? That's much more likely!!

I imagine more people (in the DCU) thinking that Bruce Wayne was Superman. I doubt that most people would expect someone who has godlike power to work a job like an ordinary person. I also Imagine many people expecting Batman to be Clark Kent. Investigative reporter & detective would seem to make more sense than detective & billionaire playboy.

[Lightning Rider]

I imagine more people (in the DCU) thinking that Bruce Wayne was Superman. I doubt that most people would expect someone who has godlike power to work a job like an ordinary person. I also Imagine many people expecting Batman to be Clark Kent. Investigative reporter & detective would seem to make more sense than detective & billionaire playboy.

That would be a hilarious plot for a snooping supervillain, confusing the identities.

[Adekis]

I imagine more people (in the DCU) thinking that Bruce Wayne was Superman. I doubt that most people would expect someone who has godlike power to work a job like an ordinary person. I also Imagine many people expecting Batman to be Clark Kent. Investigative reporter & detective would seem to make more sense than detective & billionaire playboy.

There's a story in Superman # 400 where a spacefaring archaeologist discovers a time capsule from Earth 33 containing video footage of Adventures of Superman starring George Reeves, and discover from that footage that Clark Kent of Earth 1, where they hail from, was Superman!

The reporter they relay the information to is incredulous. After all, most historians agree that Superman was probably Bruce Wayne!

So I'm saying there's precedent, haha!

[LifeIsILL]

This guy.

Written by someone who doesn't care for Superman or most of DC in general it seems.

[Godzilla2099]

Worst .

Injustice Superman: There was potential but it was long gone. My biggest problem with Injustice Superman is that he's pretty much a big dimwit. Getting manipulated from all outside influences. He's also pretty weak and gets owned on a daily basis. Overall, a really poor representation of what would happen if Superman went evil

DCAU Superman: Too many dimwit moments to make other members look good. Far too many wtf moments where he's getting owned from circumstances should have been absolutely zero issues for him to deal with. Livewire? Seriously? Finally, his interactions with the team were pretty bad.

Kingdom Come: I can see why this Superman did what he did to a degree, but I just didn't agree with it.

Routh Superman: Particularly Lois Lane. Man, I found Luthor more likable than Lane. As for Routh, a watered down version of Reeve.

[marhawkman]

One thing to consider is that the bat-god came up with a way to make the regular humans super-strong in Injustice... :/ Then he screwed up and now pretty much every criminal who wants it has it.