Worst versions of Superman?

[superduperman]

Worst would have to be Act of God. Clark does nothing but ope and sit around until Lois divorces him, then he goes to Wonder Woman for comfort. I like the story overall, but it's treatment of Superman and its veneration of Batman (that's why he was always the best of us) were poor decisions.

Honorable mention to Superman Returns. They have to choose between keeping Superman a symbol of moral authority and making him a deadbeat unmarried father. They can't have it both ways. Made even worse for reminding me of the Scott-Jean-Maddie fiasco.

Haven't seen Supergirl version since I quit that terrible show early on, but if their treatment of Superman is consistent with the overall quality of the show then he probably sucks.

DCEU Superman: I like what they're going for, but the execution fell completely flat.

Nu-52-Had a lot of squandered potential and really fell flat once Morrison's run ended. Would be interesting to see what could have been done with this version without the editorial mandated crossovers and events.

Post-Crisis, Lois and Clark, and DCAU Superman are all great. Season 1 of Justice League was problematic, as was season 4 of Lois and Clark, but overall these versions were very well written with good character work and interesting stories.

I had completely forgotten about this! Which goes to show how pointless it was. It wasn't even trying to make a "point" about how vulnerable Superman is or what not, it was just another "Batman is better than everyone else!" fanfic all over again. Basically everybody loses it but Batman. Which is completely ridiculous given that half the team were once ordinary humans. It wouldn't be that hard to re-adjust to normal life. And wasn't this the post-Crisis version of Superman anyway? Didn't he spend the first half of his life without powers? Superman becomes an alcoholic, Wonder Woman becomes a drug addict and tried to commit suicide. The whole thing reads like it was written by a Marvel fan!

[Soubhagya]

I have to defend 'Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow?'.

He gave up his Superman career. He gave up fighting. But why? I don't agree with Luthor in BvS. But he makes one point which if taken indirectly makes sense. 'If someone is all-good he cannot be all-powerful, and if someone is all-powerful he cannot be all-good.'

I disagree with him. But that would be a philosophical discussion. The point i am making is that Superman of the Silver Age who continued into the Bronze Age is a different kind of hero. He could move planets, travel through time by himself and calling him extremely powerful is an understatement. He was not someone like the Superman of today.







These feats are just a sample. He can't just change the course of mighty rivers.

Consider this much powers and you can see that Superman tries to be all good. If he fails morally it sets an improper example for the world. Further, he himself might turn dangerous. Such a fear makes sense for him. No one has the right to kill. Especially Superman. He has to be at the highest moral standard. Thus, i can understand why he left being Superman. It is rather a courageous and morally upright decision. He could do lot of good. But he could do lot of bad too. A lapse in morals is a much bigger lapse for him then us. Yes he saved everyone in the universe by unwillingly killing someone. But from his viewpoint he is right. People at powerful positions shall be more strict in regards to morality then those not powerful. They set examples for everyone.

I don't think he would turn into someone like Injustice. But if he fears so it is logical. No one can stop him if he turns evil. He will never turn evil by killing someone to save people. But who knows? He might turn less strict then before. But even that is too much for Superman. It is a valid fear.

And there were heroes who could take up his work. The likes of Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman were shown in the book. He set a great example for them and for all future heroes to come. Only when it is the last resort one may take a life. But even then it is not a good thing to do.

[superduperman]

Should Regime / Injustice Superman even count?

Because, in-story, doesn't he get his ass kicked by "the real / our" good Superman?

Doesn't that make Regime Superman less a worse version of Clark and much more an evil doppelganger of his, just like Ultraman?

And doesn't Ultraman top Regime Superman for worst ?

It wasn't the mainstream Superman, if that's what you're asking. It was more a "good" version of the Injustice Superman. One who hadn't lost Lois. So the...Justice universe, I guess? I personally don't count Ultraman since he was never technically "good". Supposedly the Injustice Superman was a good Superman who became corrupted. Even though the way they handle it is kind of ham-fisted.

[superduperman]

I genuinely cannot comprehend how anyone could say that Christopher Reeve's Superman is anything but one of the best ever - let alone one of the worst. That's like saying Batman from the Animated Series is one of the worst versions of Batman ever.

I mean, I know this is like uh just your opinion, man, but surely we have to draw the line somewhere.

I don't know how anyone can see the Reeves Superman as bad. Outdated, maybe, but not bad. There is some criticism of the way he went back to the bar at the end of Superman 2 and settled up with that guy who beat him up earlier. But other than that, the character seems pretty on model to me.

[Adekis]

I don't know how anyone can see the Reeves Superman as bad. Outdated, maybe, but not bad. There is some criticism of the way he went back to the bar at the end of Superman 2 and settled up with that guy who beat him up earlier. But other than that, the character seems pretty on model to me.

Actually I totally forgot about "Rocky" at the end of that movie, and frankly it's never bothered me. I'm more bothered by the fact that he doesn't know how to deal with Rocky without powers than the fact that he goes back and gets even. I even like the "callback" scene in Man of Steel where he wrecks an *******'s truck. It's morally unreflective, Golden Agey petty revenge, but it's fun, and dammit if Superman isn't fun then it's not worth having him.

No, what I dislike about the Reeve Superman is how his charm leads people to ignore his flaws. Sure the movies are charming. They're remarkably, undeniably, wonderfully charming. Charm oughtn't to forgive the fact that the first film's climax-as-shown doesn't make any sense. Charm shouldn't excuse the goofy Luthor pretending that Gene Hackman's real hair is a wig, or Otis (the hated one). It shouldn't excuse how terrible the "can you read my mind" poem is (it's seriously awful). Charm shouldn't excuse how the movies emphasis on Superman's humility created a cultural understanding of Superman as a character who's not badass at all.

I also don't like how easily Superman gives up his secret identity, or the way Krypton generally looks, or Lenny Luthor, or how Lois represents a straw "modern cynic" who instantly falls for Superman's old fashioned charm. I think old-fashionedness shows a remarkably wrong-headed understanding of the character, but the fact that that is how Superman woos Lois shows that the filmmakers did it all on purpose. The movie has to live or die on its charm, and personally I don't think charm is nearly enough.

Still, though I like to complain, I really do like the first and third movies. The first one is overrated, but it's not that big of a deal. I see why others like the movie without minding most of those elements.

But Superman II has the remarkably charming Superman mind wipe Lois. I straight up do not understand how people can ignore that. There was literally a whole crossover about whether it was okay to do that to a rapist murderer and it's one of the most controversial and disliked stories in the whole DC fandom! People still get mad to think that Zatanna, Green Arrow and Barry Allen were involved with mind wiping Dr. Light, but when Superman does it to a totally innocent woman, he's a good guy? No way! No way! That scene is absolutely unforgivable!

Like The Stolen Costume in Reeves' show, I can only move forward with Reeve's version of Superman by pretending that the offending scene doesn't exist.

[superduperman]

The Reeve movies were a bit too cartoony in comparison to future superhero fare but I chalk that up to it being the first. Given how bad the original script was, we're lucky that's the worst we got. A movie full of dated seventies references would not have had the influence that it very clearly had. I think people forget just how bad the seventies were in many ways. We're lucky a disco dance off wasn't thrown in for good measure! The producers had to fight to keep it from becoming a camp fest. The mind wipe was more ridiculous in my mind than the spinning the world back in time. For one thing, he could go back in time in the comics at that time anyway so it's not like it went against the character. There were also no other witnesses to it. Everyone at the Planet knew that Lois went out with Clark for, what I assume, was at least a week if not more and went away together. She's going to notice she's missing a HUGE chunk of time and everyone else in the office knew what was going on but her! No way he gets away with this!

[Ilan Preskovsky]

Actually I totally forgot about "Rocky" at the end of that movie, and frankly it's never bothered me. I'm more bothered by the fact that he doesn't know how to deal with Rocky without powers than the fact that he goes back and gets even. I even like the "callback" scene in Man of Steel where he wrecks an *******'s truck. It's morally unreflective, Golden Agey petty revenge, but it's fun, and dammit if Superman isn't fun then it's not worth having him.

No, what I dislike about the Reeve Superman is how his charm leads people to ignore his flaws. Sure the movies are charming. They're remarkably, undeniably, wonderfully charming. Charm oughtn't to forgive the fact that the first film's climax-as-shown doesn't make any sense. Charm shouldn't excuse the goofy Luthor pretending that Gene Hackman's real hair is a wig, or Otis (the hated one). It shouldn't excuse how terrible the "can you read my mind" poem is (it's seriously awful). Charm shouldn't excuse how the movies emphasis on Superman's humility created a cultural understanding of Superman as a character who's not badass at all.

I also don't like how easily Superman gives up his secret identity, or the way Krypton generally looks, or Lenny Luthor, or how Lois represents a straw "modern cynic" who instantly falls for Superman's old fashioned charm. I think old-fashionedness shows a remarkably wrong-headed understanding of the character, but the fact that that is how Superman woos Lois shows that the filmmakers did it all on purpose. The movie has to live or die on its charm, and personally I don't think charm is nearly enough.

Still, though I like to complain, I really do like the first and third movies. The first one is overrated, but it's not that big of a deal. I see why others like the movie without minding most of those elements.

But Superman II has the remarkably charming Superman mind wipe Lois. I straight up do not understand how people can ignore that. There was literally a whole crossover about whether it was okay to do that to a rapist murderer and it's one of the most controversial and disliked stories in the whole DC fandom! People still get mad to think that Zatanna, Green Arrow and Barry Allen were involved with mind wiping Dr. Light, but when Superman does it to a totally innocent woman, he's a good guy? No way! No way! That scene is absolutely unforgivable!

Like The Stolen Costume in Reeves' show, I can only move forward with Reeve's version of Superman by pretending that the offending scene doesn't exist.

While I think Reeves is unimpeachable, I wouldn't say that the films are perfect. They clearly have a bunch of issues but are are saved almost entirely just by the sheer force of Reeves' performance (and, of course, that score).

In terms of your actual problems, though, I kind of don't care that much. Yes, from our point of view they're very problematic but they were very reflective of Silver Age Superman who doesn't hold up at all if you think about him logically (see the many "Superman is a Dick" memes) but these stories and this version of the character were specifcially tackled with a childlike naivety and an unabashed logic-defying lunacy that OF COURSE solving everything by turning back time makes perfect sense and OF COURSE there's nothing wrong with using your magic powers to make your girlfriend forget that you're a superhero.

[Kuwagaton]

I tried a million excuses for Superman II, like blaming the era even though Taxi Driver and most movies from then are my favorites. I just have to say that it's a bad movie. Clark gives up the never ending battle, sexually violates Lois, and takes time out of his day to beat up a fifty year old man he couldn't scratch without his powers. I wish there was some disco dancing, actually. Zod was sure dressed for it.

[GreatKungLao]

Injustass. It was a mistake to begin with. Convergence had a much better plot for a fighting game that would have allowed all kinds of versions of various characters.

In defense of DCEU, that Superman should get credit for not having deus ex machina to reverse everything and make experience pointless, but rather he does tough choices and lives with it. DCEU has the guts to put him in that position with consequences rather then giving him some safe option that will release him from that responsibility. Reeves Superman was throwing Zod into buildings but it was never blown up out of proportion, because magically nobody got hurt after that I suppose. In defense of Pa Kent, he never said that Clark should let kids on the bus diefull, he said "maybe" which indicated that he doesn't have clear answer out of fear that if somebody found about him then Flashpoint Superman would have happened and if you remember that story then Pa Kent's fear is justified. To me DCEU is a universe where magic doesn't happen and despite that characters are able to find their way to the light no matter how gruesome and cruel reality can be. You can't always reverse Earth back and sometimes you have to make hard calls even if you are Superman. Just like Superman can't be everywhere at once, he can't always have the most perfect way out of every situation.

[superduperman]

Keep in mind, we were only about a decade out from the Batman TV show. That defined superhero adaptations up to that point. I'm surprised the Wonder Woman show isn't more campy given what people thought of superheroes then. I sometimes forget that younger generations come at these things a bit differently than I do. I saw those movies when I was a kid. They may not hold up as well for someone born after they came out. I see the scene where he wrecks a trucker's truck from the new movies to be no different than the bar fight.

[Agent Z]

You missed the whole point. It was not Superman throwing a fit and sulking. It was society wanting him to become something he was not and rather than impose his will on the people he left them with the type of hero they choose who would do things he would not do. I hate the whole "he was buthurt and ran away" bull. He had a reason for leaving. Not only was he grieving the loss of everyone he cared about but the people themselves said we don't need or want you anymore.

Except he did try to impose his will on them when he built that prison. And no one actually said they didn't want him around anymore. They just didn't think Magog should go to prison for killing the Joker of all people

[Lightning Rider]

You missed the whole point. It was not Superman throwing a fit and sulking. It was society wanting him to become something he was not and rather than impose his will on the people he left them with the type of hero they choose who would do things he would not do. I hate the whole "he was buthurt and ran away" bull. He had a reason for leaving. Not only was he grieving the loss of everyone he cared about but the people themselves said we don't need or want you anymore.

Yeah that's exactly how I see it. Society rejected him and instead of forcing his ideal of heroism onto a dissatisfied world, he bowed out.

Except he did try to impose his will on them when he built that prison. And no one actually said they didn't want him around anymore. They just didn't think Magog should go to prison for killing the Joker of all people

At that point things had gotten out of control and was convinced by Wonder Woman he had to do something.

[Adekis]

Yeah that's exactly how I see it. Society rejected him and instead of forcing his ideal of heroism onto a dissatisfied world, he bowed out.
At that point things had gotten out of control and was convinced by Wonder Woman he had to do something.

I don't understand the first point. It's not like the world asked for Superman in the first place. Despite what Mark Waid thinks, Superman doesn't actually need public support in order to operate. He fights to make the world a better place, he doesn't write up a proposal, take a poll and wait for official sanctions before doing it. He always tries to remake the world in his own image to a greater or lesser extent, just by being himself.

As to the second point, it just bothers me. It's true that Diana went to Kal and told him to wake the hell up, but Wonder Woman is no more a "take over the world" type person than Superman is. Even less so, I reckon. Yet given your interpretation, both Kingdom Come and Injustice 2 can be read as saying that when Wonder Woman and Superman get romantically involved, it involves taking over the world. I couldn't care less about the 'ship, but the idea that either of them would take over the world, together or separately, goes totally against their characters. They each work to subtly transform the world into their own image, but they'd never use force to do so.

Keep in mind, we were only about a decade out from the Batman TV show. That defined superhero adaptations up to that point. I'm surprised the Wonder Woman show isn't more campy given what people thought of superheroes then. I sometimes forget that younger generations come at these things a bit differently than I do. I saw those movies when I was a kid. They may not hold up as well for someone born after they came out. I see the scene where he wrecks a trucker's truck from the new movies to be no different than the bar fight.

The campiness isn't at all what bothers me about Reeve's movies. I've got nothing but love for Adam West and Burt Ward's Batman and Robin team, and Superman III is by far my favorite of the Reeve films. Plus, I think Lois & Clark, which often drips with camp, is the pinnacle of live-action Superman TV. That said, I have a really hard time summing up my problem with the Reeve movies succinctly. In some ways, I think the first two didn't understand Superman very well and made up the difference with charm. It demonstrably worked, as the first movie at least is clearly regarded as a Classic, but... Well, I don't need to go over that series of complaints again.

[dancj]

Kingdom Come is basically Waid being a cranky old man yelling about how much comics of today suck while using Superman as his mouth piece

I think you're being unfair to Waid her. Kingdom Come is basically Alex Ross being a cranky old man yelling about how much comics of today suck while using Superman as his mouth piece

[dancj]

Clark gives up the never ending battle, sexually violates Lois, and takes time out of his day to beat up a fifty year old man he couldn't scratch without his powers. I wish there was some disco dancing, actually. Zod was sure dressed for it.

"sexually violates Lois"??? That wasn't in any of the cuts I've seen.