Worst versions of Superman?

[Adekis]

Superman being controversial is one thing. He handles that often and keeps on being himself. The world completely rejecting the premise that heroes have to have moral boundaries and vocally rejecting his example? That's a different story. Combined with losing Lois, the world telling Superman they don't need him anymore makes sense as a reason for exile. Superman in that story was actively being told that his example was being rejected.

That is in no way what happened. What happened was that Magog killed the Joker and people were okay with it because it was the Joker. Then because Superman took his all-important "example" and went home, fifteen years later lunatics like Red White & Blue and Americommando fought without regard for innocent people getting caught in the crossfire, and civilians like Norman McCay struggled to keep hope. Superman didn't leave because Americommando became possible, Americommando became possible because Superman left!

I absolutely blame Superman for every single bad thing that happened between Magog's trial and Superman's return at the start of the book. Every single thing.

I wasn't at all implying Wonder Woman told Clark to take over the world. But force is always involved in superheroics. They're vigilantes who use superhuman strength to subdue criminals and other perpetrators of injustice. Superman wasn't trying to take over the world, just bring order to a decaying violent society with reckless superhumans running about. This created a dramatic tension in the story, but he didn't become despotic.

He imprisoned American citizens without trial, didn't he? That's despotic enough to me. I want to be clear I'm not trying to draw an equivalency between the horrid Regime Superman from "Injustice" and the KC Superman, just saying that if he went too far specifically because of Wonder Woman, then that's a parallel between the two versions already, and I don't like it in either rendition of the character.

Anyway, all Supermen might use force to stop criminals and perpetrators of injustice, but he still gives them to appointed officials for trial and imprisonment, like he did with Magog. It calls into question the entire American law system if we say the Gulag was a righteous action. Now that's not to say that the American law system shouldn't be questioned, and questioning it is absolutely within Superman's purview, but that isn't what the Gulag was about. It wasn't a well-articulated question to the law like I might expect from more hot-blooded versions of Superman, but a dismissal of it.

Well you have a point and i won't argue with it, but my problem with the turn back the earth ending is not necessarily the idea of him pulling that feat, but the fact that if Superman is that powerful that he can literally reverse time to stop his girlfriend from dying, and it seems there's no negative reprecutions physically or mentally to Superman for pulling such a feat, then why not do it again and again if things go really bad in the future. Hell, if one considers the Donner cut of II as canon ,he does exactly that! Both movies ended up ending with Superman pulling the mother of dues ex machina's out of his butt twice in two films! I know originally Superman I didn't have the time reversal ending, but it is what it is now. It pretty much undercuts any real stakes for future stories when you have that escape hatch omnipresent.

Definitely. I'm always quick to point out that Superman's time travel in the comics at the time was specifically designed so he couldn't alter his own past. It wasn't forbidden, it was impossible. Donner and the Salkinds put very little thought into their own treatment of Superman, as far as I can tell, but worse they paid so little attention to the comics that almost anything I recognize from Superman: The Movie in the comics was put in later to reference it, not extracted from the books for the movie.

Yes, actually. Cut through the nervous ticks and the quirks Eisenberg gave his Lex and at his core he's far closer to the Mad Scientist and master manipulator that is Lex Luthor. His Lex isn't perfect and to be frank, Eisenberg doesn't look the physical type and isn't my first choice, but the character as written on the page? Damn right that's Lex Luthor.
Just have Eisenberg go full bald and dial down the weird a bit and you'd have a solid Lex Luthor.


Still, both Hackman and Eisenberg pale in comparison to Michael Rosenbaum and John Shea's Lex Luthor.

Very well said. Agreed entirely. Eisenberg was a strange actor choice who made strange acting choices. That doesn't make him bad.

Still, Rosenbaum wanted to be in the movie. I wish they'd gone for it, his Luthor was easily the best part of Smallville.

[Jokerz79]

Yes, actually. Cut through the nervous ticks and the quirks Eisenberg gave his Lex and at his core he's far closer to the Mad Scientist and master manipulator that is Lex Luthor. His Lex isn't perfect and to be frank, Eisenberg doesn't look the physical type and isn't my first choice, but the character as written on the page? Damn right that's Lex Luthor.
Just have Eisenberg go full bald and dial down the weird a bit and you'd have a solid Lex Luthor.


Still, both Hackman and Eisenberg pale in comparison to Michael Rosenbaum and John Shea's Lex Luthor.

I don't find Hackman's Luthor that far off from a Silver Age Luthor he was just limited by the technology of film at the time to do anything too crazy. So to me I'd put Hackman's Luthor ahead of Eisenberg and I'd put Michael Rosenbaum, John Shea, and Kevin Spacey miles ahead of him. I'd even give Sherman Howard a honorable mention before Eisenberg.

[Lightning Rider]

That is in no way what happened. What happened was that Magog killed the Joker and people were okay with it because it was the Joker. Then because Superman took his all-important "example" and went home, fifteen years later lunatics like Red White & Blue and Americommando fought without regard for innocent people getting caught in the crossfire, and civilians like Norman McCay struggled to keep hope. Superman didn't leave because Americommando became possible, Americommando became possible because Superman left!

I absolutely blame Superman for every single bad thing that happened between Magog's trial and Superman's return at the start of the book. Every single thing.

Not sure how that's different than what I asserted. Lois was killed-which no doubt impacted the character. No he didn't turn into an in-justass despot, but internally he had to feel a tremendous amount of pain. And then when Magog kills the Joker, and the public overwhelmingly rejects Superman (see panel below), it's too much for him to take, and he doesn't feel he's the hero anyone needs anymore. I don't think it's hard to imagine Superman reacting like that when he's both lost the love of his life and seemingly removed of purpose.



I think it's fine to blame Superman for what happened next, I just think that kind of mistake or negative consequence flows naturally from how the character could be expected to act. If he had taken Magog on right then and there, the public would have irrevocably turned on him. Or if he had kept operating as he normally did, he'd inevitably clash with this new breed of superhero with license to kill extrajudicially.

He imprisoned American citizens without trial, didn't he? That's despotic enough to me. I want to be clear I'm not trying to draw an equivalency between the horrid Regime Superman from "Injustice" and the KC Superman, just saying that if he went too far specifically because of Wonder Woman, then that's a parallel between the two versions already, and I don't like it in either rendition of the character.

Anyway, all Supermen might use force to stop criminals and perpetrators of injustice, but he still gives them to appointed officials for trial and imprisonment, like he did with Magog. It calls into question the entire American law system if we say the Gulag was a righteous action. Now that's not to say that the American law system shouldn't be questioned, and questioning it is absolutely within Superman's purview, but that isn't what the Gulag was about. It wasn't a well-articulated question to the law like I might expect from more hot-blooded versions of Superman, but a dismissal of it.

He was detaining them without trial, yes, but there are countless examples of superheroes doing that throughout history. I think his "clean up" act is a half step too far, but he's trying to apply it very carefully (if failing) and under the circumstances it was perhaps the right thing to do given the lives it would save. There was no apparently feasible alternative to housing so many super powered criminals. And having him act earlier in the story would be a preemptive use of force that brings us around to the same qualms you have with him.

I suppose I have to respect that Superman acting this way is simply not your taste, and would prefer to see him act otherwise. I just think that in this particular case, while I disagree with Superman's actions, I don't think they're so far removed from the character that I can't understand them or value the part they play in the story. There are other ways Superman could have hypothetically acted, but I think the way he acted in Kingdom Come is an acceptable (and for me enjoyable) characterization.

[Jokerz79]

How is the Gulag in Kingdom Come any different than the Phantom Zone? Superman isn't an appointed or elected representative of the former Kryptonian government. He does it because they're dangerous and he's protecting the public.

[manofsteel1979]

Very well said. Agreed entirely. Eisenberg was a strange actor choice who made strange acting choices. That doesn't make him bad.

People get hung up over the fact he's young and skinny with long hair rather than a bald stocky middle aged guy. They usually stop there and don't look at what he actually does as Lex and the things he says and his motivations , which is 100 percent consistent with the comics version of Luthor. Yes, Gene Hackman looked like what you'd expect of what PreCrisis Luthor​ but he was far from the mad scientist who hated Supes for making him bald. Other than the name and the fact he's a bald middle aged guy who takes on Supes, there is very little of Lex Luthor as he was conceived in the Donner film. I don't think it's Donner's or Hackman's fault. They essentially were having to work with what Mario Puzo and the later screenwriters wrote. Donner's script rewriter Tom Mankewitz (sp) could only do so much given the short time in preproduction.

Again Hackman did a great job and he and Ned Beatty played well off each other, and they are entertaining to watch. However he's just not playing Lex Luthor, IMO. It's a shame Hackman couldn't have played a version more like the source material. He would have aced it and given Chris's Superman a truly worthy villain.

Still, Rosenbaum wanted to be in the movie. I wish they'd gone for it, his Luthor was easily the best part of Smallville.

It would have been great, but honestly I can see why they didn't hire him. Snyder wanted his own Lex Luthor and even if Rosenbaum had done a completely new interpretation from what he did on Smallville, people still would have made that mental connection to Smallville automatically.

[marhawkman]

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.

Yeah, really, This is the same guy who slugged it out with THREE other Kryptonians at the same time! As Clark he seemingly forgets how to fight. Never made sense to me.

[dancj]

He does everything he can to charm her into sleeping with him, and then erases her memory of it.

It was a mutual attraction. It's not like he seduced her.

I'm not defending the mindwipe - that was typical Silver Age goofiness which turns out quite sinister in hindsight - but to frame that as "sexually violating Lois" is a hell of a stretch.

[dancj]

the duex ex machina of turning the Earth backwards to save Lois only works if you shut off your brain.

He didn't turn the Earth backwards. I'm not sure why so many people think he did.

He flew in circles faster than light, which under Silver Age Superman rules sends him back in time. This was demonstrated by showing lots of things happening in reverse because they were being undone. One of those things was the Earth.

[dancj]

Ross didn't write the book. Waid did.

My understanding is that Alex Ross originally pitched the story and Waid came on as the scripter - and probably co-plotter. It was Ross's story first and foremost though.

[Jokerz79]

He didn't turn the Earth backwards. I'm not sure why so many people think he did.

He flew in circles faster than light, which under Silver Age Superman rules sends him back in time. This was demonstrated by showing lots of things happening in reverse because they were being undone. One of those things was the Earth.

Thank you! I never understand why people don't realize that.

[Jokerz79]

People get hung up over the fact he's young and skinny with long hair rather than a bald stocky middle aged guy. They usually stop there and don't look at what he actually does as Lex and the things he says and his motivations , which is 100 percent consistent with the comics version of Luthor. Yes, Gene Hackman looked like what you'd expect of what PreCrisis Luthor​ but he was far from the mad scientist who hated Supes for making him bald. Other than the name and the fact he's a bald middle aged guy who takes on Supes, there is very little of Lex Luthor as he was conceived in the Donner film. I don't think it's Donner's or Hackman's fault. They essentially were having to work with what Mario Puzo and the later screenwriters wrote. Donner's script rewriter Tom Mankewitz (sp) could only do so much given the short time in preproduction.

Again Hackman did a great job and he and Ned Beatty played well off each other, and they are entertaining to watch. However he's just not playing Lex Luthor, IMO. It's a shame Hackman couldn't have played a version more like the source material. He would have aced it and given Chris's Superman a truly worthy villain.



It would have been great, but honestly I can see why they didn't hire him. Snyder wanted his own Lex Luthor and even if Rosenbaum had done a completely new interpretation from what he did on Smallville, people still would have made that mental connection to Smallville automatically.

Ok I don't know if I'd say Mad Scientist but he was a Mad Genius. Eisenberg's Luthor had daddy and God issues while Hackman's Luthor was a Genius who hated this Alien getting in the way of his plans. Hackman's Luthor sounds more like Lex than Eisenberg IMO.

[Soubhagya]

Thank you! I never understand why people don't realize that.

That maybe because Earth also moves in reverse in that scene. It can create an illusion that he essentially reversed Earth's rotation and thus time was reversed. We set time according to Earth's movement. Don't we?

Thus, one might think: He reversed Earth's rotation, thus time was reversed. Instead of: Time was reversed, thus Earth's rotation was reversed.

[manofsteel1979]

He didn't turn the Earth backwards. I'm not sure why so many people think he did.

He flew in circles faster than light, which under Silver Age Superman rules sends him back in time. This was demonstrated by showing lots of things happening in reverse because they were being undone. One of those things was the Earth.

Still though, they don't bother showing Superman changing the course of events that causes the crevace to open up to swallow Lois' car. They don't even have him just show up earlier and grab Lois' car from danger. They just show him reversing time, then restarting it and then showing him land by Lois who is still trying to start her car. The movie leads us to believe that the mere act of him reversing the spin of the Earth or going back in time about 20 minutes with no other intervention saved Lois. Yes it's implied that MAYBE he , say stopped the missile from hitting the fault at full force which lessened the earth quake, but they never showed him doing that. Which honestly would have been kinda cool and sorta made sense. As it is, he just hits the rewind button and magically Lois isn't dead anymore.

[marhawkman]

It's an old-school practical effect that they used to use a lot for traveling back in time. Show the video rewinding fast.

[Kuwagaton]

It was a mutual attraction. It's not like he seduced her.

I'm not defending the mindwipe - that was typical Silver Age goofiness which turns out quite sinister in hindsight - but to frame that as "sexually violating Lois" is a hell of a stretch.

Consent doesn't nullify rape by deception in every case. Certainly she'd consider the danger of engaging under normal circumstances. He reveals his secret to her and "permanently" gets rid of his own powers to be with her. Once he's past that, though, he finds a way to repower himself. It wasn't actually his intention to be fair, but he immediately realizes that he wasn't going to really give up Superman, and wouldn't seek a way to repower if it were truly permanent. We really can't say that she would have been with him were it not for the actions he took. Actions he reversed by physically stealing her memory of the event without discussion. When they talk about the sadness lingering she even remarks, "I'll be fine."

And again, she ends up pregnant in one sequel, and that's a very major problem. If it sounds like I'm harping on this, sorry. I'll get off it. I just can't really say I thought about it much at all but now that I see it downplayed it feels kinda nuts. What he does, with or without sex (but clearly, sex makes it worse), is all kinds of messed up and just because in some ways he could probably avoid jail, that's still no less than a terrible spot for Superman. Better call Saul, or maybe Jacky Chiles.