Worst versions of Superman?

[Powerboy]

Dark, brooding, and even pitiful sure I can see of Cavil's Superman but I don't see the self absorbed stuff. Honestly the Lois bit from Hoechlin!Supes made me see that guy as much closer to self concerned than any of the recent Supermen baring Superman Returns Superman. Frankly Hoechlins too much of a nothing character anyways to be a gold standard Superman. He's a vapor of a character that exist to prop up another one. He a powerful piece of furniture or an electrical appliance. All we really know is that he sucks at actually being Superman.

Self-absorbed was maybe one step too far though it was based on his just leaving the rescue because he was preoccupied wanting to know something.

Hoechlin starts out being the one who shows up and rescues Supergirl and who put Lex Luthor away. Then he gets taken out so Supergirl can be the star. To my knowledge, it's the first version of Superman who is not the main character of the story.

The failings of the tv show Superman are independent of the failings of the movie Superman. Frankly I think it's much more prudent for DC to build a Superman that's representational of the best of the comics Superman and stop relying on vague "feelings" from the public. They need to start building a more concrete image of who Superman is rather than who he is being either general ideas or even worse stereotypes based on elements of his mythos. His character needs to step back from how generic he's become.

It's unfortunate in a way because every attempt to do that moves him far away from how people perceive what he should be. I actually thought "Superman Returns" had some guts and was willing to take some risks though it had many failings.

People keep tossing this thing about how Superman was just Batman with flight and heat vision. Since the 60's Bruce has run a gauntlet of different characterizations and set ups. But that's because Bruce seems to be a dynamic character compared to the increasingly diluted and starched approached that DC has given to Superman. Where as Bruce's existence overtime has become people coming up to the plate to experiment and do exciting new things Superman has been people coming up to slowly whittle the character down to increasingly vague concepts. Postive, good, and country are all that seems to be left of a character that once expanded a great range of possibilities.

Well, I think the approach to MoS was hugely driven by the success of the Dark Knight movies and the idea that that approach is the only one that sells. So even the attempt to cast Superman in that mold was rather generic and not really thinking out how to make the character come alive again.

Probably more than any other comic character, people are locked into images of what he should be. To a large degree, attempting to break too much from that image doesn't change people's image of what he should be but just results in people deciding this or that rendition is simply a bad take on Superman. Whether the problem is insurmountable, I don't know. Certainly something that incorporates his best qualities and doesn't go out of it's way to go against them would be a good start. MoS actively goes against what I think most people think of as Superman.

[The Whovian]

Lois & Clark: This entire series just seems like it was poking fun of the Superman mythos. We get it, a pair of glasses isn't a good disguise. And as the series went on, they just went more and more off the rails (frog eating clones, anyone?). I kind of liked it at the time but it hasn't aged well.

Are you referring to the recent series with Jon in it? I really like that series.

[Ascended]

Are you referring to the recent series with Jon in it? I really like that series.

No he means the tv show from the 90's staring Terri Hatcher and Dean Cain.

[Kuwagaton]

For the longest time, I thought the long hair was the worst. I mean I liked the hilarious impression of Superman walking around with a mullet, but it just wasn't may favorite visual for the character at all. Ultimately I made peace with it through Stuart Immonen and Kieron Dwyer.

[The Whovian]

No he means the tv show from the 90's staring Terri Hatcher and Dean Cain.

Oh, that one. Wow, that was a long time ago. But yeah, I didn't like it either. Smallville was great though.

[Osiris-Rex]

And what are these qualifiers for being a good Superman besides being positive? You're boiling these characters that span decades down to a few traits and seemingly little more. Frankly the ideal Superman would probably have knocked Hoechlin's
block off

In what universe is the ideal Superman a Superman that goes around beating people up just because he feels someone is inferior to him. Anyone who has that opinion of Superman knows nothing about what
Superman is supposed to be.

[superduperman]

For the longest time, I thought the long hair was the worst. I mean I liked the hilarious impression of Superman walking around with a mullet, but it just wasn't may favorite visual for the character at all. Ultimately I made peace with it through Stuart Immonen and Kieron Dwyer.

They were really pushing the suspension of disbelief with that one. Superman dies and comes back with a mullet, Clark is buried under a building and comes back with a mullet. The glasses were pushing his luck of not being recognized, he was asking to get caught with the mullet! Maybe it's an All Star Superman situation where everyone in the office already knows he's Superman and are just being polite!

[superduperman]

Oh, that one. Wow, that was a long time ago. But yeah, I didn't like it either. Smallville was great though.

Um...about that:

http://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_ar...a-sex-cult.php

We just don't get to have nice things.

[Kuwagaton]

They were really pushing the suspension of disbelief with that one. Superman dies and comes back with a mullet, Clark is buried under a building and comes back with a mullet. The glasses were pushing his luck of not being recognized, he was asking to get caught with the mullet! Maybe it's an All Star Superman situation where everyone in the office already knows he's Superman and are just being polite!

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.

[Adekis]

I didn't mention the Amnesia Kiss because it wasn't done for petty, vengeful reasons. If we accept the story as presented, she was having a nervous breakdown and he prevented it. Yes, I know. And by that logic, in story, MoS Superman had to kill Zod.

A minor problem with the Amnesia Kiss is again pulling a new power out of his cape that he never had before and never had again. The big problem is the mentality of the movie makers. He could have told her they would work through this and the 3rd movie could have dealt with this as a major subplot. But they just wanted to do away with the relationship and reset everything to Square One rather than furthering the story. In today's terminology, they hit the reset button. It seems that, in their minds, they had let the Clark/ Lois relationship go too far for dramatic reasons so, in the fashion of episodic television, they had to somehow cancel the situation so that they could have Superman with another woman in the next movie until that relationship also deadended.

The Amnesia Kiss is where the Reeve Superman series deadended for me because that scene told me the story would never evolve. It would just repeat.

As far as best Superman movie ever, I'd still go with the first Reeve Superman movie. What other Superman movie is there for greatest? I love the George Reeves Superman but I'm talking about movies. Again, I actually like a lot of MoS and I'm not even all that upset about his killing Zod given the contrived circumstances. And yes, it probably is the best Clark/ Lois relationship in a movie and it clearly is going to continue and go places, not reset. My issues with Cavill Superman are things like when he stops helping the victims because he's too anxious to find out what was behind the explosion and that takes precedence over saving the victims for him.

She wasn't having a nervous breakdown, and even if she was, treating it by erasing her memory is one hundred percent unconscionable. I recognize that they meant it to be "for her own good" but that's just disgustingly paternalistic and condescending bullshit, and if regarding morality as something that changes over time with cultural standards means we can't point out the horrors of our past stories, then I'm a flying fish.

Whether or not the "reset button" dead-ended the franchise is kind of a moot point for me, if only because I think that the relationship with Lana did not dead-end and in fact it was better than the romance with Lois had been in either of the two prior films, even ignoring the mind-wipe kiss.

I definitely agree that Cavill's Superman makes troubling mistakes, like leaving the courthouse after the explosion rather than staying to help, but he doesn't do anything horrific unless you've really got a skewed version of morality from reading too many morally simplistic Silver Age stories without considering them for what they are- children's stories- like folks who storm out of the movie theater because Superman killed a eugenicist fascist who wanted to commit genocide on a planetary scale. Not, you understand, that I'm accusing you of holding that attitude!

I think that to a certain extent, we're allowed to ignore the moral failings of versions of a fictional character that we like other elements of. I'll never like the fact that Reeve's Superman mind-wipes Lois, but similarly, I'll never like the fact that Reeves' Superman murders two defenseless foes in The Stolen Costume. There's enough other elements to their stories I like that I can, in fact, ignore the troubling bits in order to continue watching Superman III or Adventures of Superman without thinking, "this protagonist is a monster!" even though during the awful moments, he is 100% a monster.

Er, which is kind of a roundabout way of saying that I think Superman and the Mole Men and Superman III both have a pretty good claim to being the best Superman theatrical movie, despite both sharing their continuities with monstrous moments.

[DochaDocha]

She wasn't having a nervous breakdown, and even if she was, treating it by erasing her memory is one hundred percent unconscionable. I recognize that they meant it to be "for her own good" but that's just disgustingly paternalistic and condescending bullshit, and if regarding morality as something that changes over time with cultural standards means we can't point out the horrors of our past stories, then I'm a flying fish.

Whether or not the "reset button" dead-ended the franchise is kind of a moot point for me, if only because I think that the relationship with Lana did not dead-end and in fact it was better than the romance with Lois had been in either of the two prior films, even ignoring the mind-wipe kiss.

I definitely agree that Cavill's Superman makes troubling mistakes, like leaving the courthouse after the explosion rather than staying to help, but he doesn't do anything horrific unless you've really got a skewed version of morality from reading too many morally simplistic Silver Age stories without considering them for what they are- children's stories- like folks who storm out of the movie theater because Superman killed a eugenicist fascist who wanted to commit genocide on a planetary scale. Not, you understand, that I'm accusing you of holding that attitude!

I think that to a certain extent, we're allowed to ignore the moral failings of versions of a fictional character that we like other elements of. I'll never like the fact that Reeve's Superman mind-wipes Lois, but similarly, I'll never like the fact that Reeves' Superman murders two defenseless foes in The Stolen Costume. There's enough other elements to their stories I like that I can, in fact, ignore the troubling bits in order to continue watching Superman III or Adventures of Superman without thinking, "this protagonist is a monster!" even though during the awful moments, he is 100% a monster.

Er, which is kind of a roundabout way of saying that I think Superman and the Mole Men and Superman III both have a pretty good claim to being the best Superman theatrical movie, despite both sharing their continuities with monstrous moments.

Eh, I don't think of it much more than many of the other morally grey things Superman does, like lying about his identity or screwing with the space-time continuum. Choosing when to bring someone back to the dead is far more paternalistic. I guess we comic and sci-fi fans just like to take strong stands on weird issues that will never apply to us in real life?

[Adekis]

Eh, I don't think of it much more than many of the other morally grey things Superman does, like lying about his identity or screwing with the space-time continuum. Choosing when to bring someone back to the dead is far more paternalistic. I guess we comic and sci-fi fans just like to take strong stands on weird issues that will never apply to us in real life?

Why would bringing someone back from the dead be worse than a violation of mental privacy? Bringing someone back from the dead is an extreme extension of Superman's desire to save people's lives. Medics do it all the time, if in a less crap-SF-plot-device manner. By contrast, a mind-wipe is a drastic measure against the sanctity of Lois's mind, because he thinks he knows what's good for her so much moreso than she does that it never occurs to him to even ask her permission. Lois's mind, a good woman who trusts him implicitly! I've said before, this is horrifying when Zatanna does it to criminals in the comics, but we let Superman get away with doing it to an innocent civilian in the movies without question? No, absolutely not. It's utterly and completely immoral in every way.

Altering the timeline utterly lacks real-life applicability. Violating someone's privacy against their will and without their permission does not.

[DochaDocha]

Why would bringing someone back from the dead be worse than a violation of mental privacy? Bringing someone back from the dead is an extreme extension of Superman's desire to save people's lives. Medics do it all the time, if in a less crap-SF-plot-device manner. By contrast, a mind-wipe is a drastic measure against the sanctity of Lois's mind, because he thinks he knows what's good for her so much moreso than she does that it never occurs to him to even ask her permission. Lois's mind, a good woman who trusts him implicitly! I've said before, this is horrifying when Zatanna does it to criminals in the comics, but we let Superman get away with doing it to an innocent civilian in the movies without question? No, absolutely not. It's utterly and completely immoral in every way.

Altering the timeline utterly lacks real-life applicability. Violating someone's privacy against their will and without their permission does not.

When Superman brought Lois back from the dead in the first movie, he had to screw with the space-time continuum. That literally affected everyone on Earth. Would you want someone to be able to choose freely when to roll back the timeline? I think that could be a fun-filled discussion that, if it were actually possible, would have ethically ramifications.

The "sanctity of someone's mind" is a topic that really only applies to sci-fi and fantasy stories, because going into someone's head (figuratively speaking, anyway) and choosing what to weed out is pretty much on par with talking about traveling through time. Maybe it'll become an ethical dilemma in the future as technology improves, but for the sake of Superman II, I see it as just an extension of Superman's fooling her. We usually use lies and theatrics, and he uses Kryptonian super powers.

[Adekis]

When Superman brought Lois back from the dead in the first movie, he had to screw with the space-time continuum. That literally affected everyone on Earth. Would you want someone to be able to choose freely when to roll back the timeline? I think that could be a fun-filled discussion that, if it were actually possible, would have ethically ramifications.

The "sanctity of someone's mind" is a topic that really only applies to sci-fi and fantasy stories, because going into someone's head (figuratively speaking, anyway) and choosing what to weed out is pretty much on par with talking about traveling through time. Maybe it'll become an ethical dilemma in the future as technology improves, but for the sake of Superman II, I see it as just an extension of Superman's fooling her. We usually use lies and theatrics, and he uses Kryptonian super powers.

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.

Hell, aside from the fact that it's poorly portrayed and inconsistent with how time travel works in Superman comics, I have no problems with Superman traveling back to save Lois, and never in my whole life as a Superman fan have I ever once heard anyone trying to argue that it's somehow morally heinous or troubling. That's probably because, in contrast to the ending of Superman II, it's not.

[Powerboy]

She wasn't having a nervous breakdown, and even if she was, treating it by erasing her memory is one hundred percent unconscionable. I recognize that they meant it to be "for her own good" but that's just disgustingly paternalistic and condescending bullshit, and if regarding morality as something that changes over time with cultural standards means we can't point out the horrors of our past stories, then I'm a flying fish.

Oh it's absolutely sexist like she can't deal with this given time. Sure she won't be happey but is she going to be happy anyway? The makers of the movies of that time just didn't want the relationship to continue.

Whether or not the "reset button" dead-ended the franchise is kind of a moot point for me, if only because I think that the relationship with Lana did not dead-end and in fact it was better than the romance with Lois had been in either of the two prior films, even ignoring the mind-wipe kiss.

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

I definitely agree that Cavill's Superman makes troubling mistakes, like leaving the courthouse after the explosion rather than staying to help, but he doesn't do anything horrific unless you've really got a skewed version of morality from reading too many morally simplistic Silver Age stories without considering them for what they are- children's stories- like folks who storm out of the movie theater because Superman killed a eugenicist fascist who wanted to commit genocide on a planetary scale. Not, you understand, that I'm accusing you of holding that attitude!

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 don't have that much of an issue with the fights. Since they all had the same powers, he was effectively the equivalent of a normal human fighting dozens of other normal humans coming at him from all directions and they trained military people while he was not. I think it's the overall tone of the movie. The dull grey skies, the dull grey costume. I think Richard Ropier maybe said it best that he would welcome a realistic and even dark Superman movie but not a joyless one and this was a joyless one.

I think that to a certain extent, we're allowed to ignore the moral failings of versions of a fictional character that we like other elements of. I'll never like the fact that Reeve's Superman mind-wipes Lois, but similarly, I'll never like the fact that Reeves' Superman murders two defenseless foes in The Stolen Costume. There's enough other elements to their stories I like that I can, in fact, ignore the troubling bits in order to continue watching Superman III or Adventures of Superman without thinking, "this protagonist is a monster!" even though during the awful moments, he is 100% a monster.

I honestly do not think the Reeve 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.

Er, which is kind of a roundabout way of saying that I think Superman and the Mole Men and Superman III both have a pretty good claim to being the best Superman theatrical movie, despite both sharing their continuities with monstrous moments.

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."