Is Superman typecast?

[jimmy]

What you have described here is a character that is herioc due to his circumstances not his actual actions. As Ben Sisqo put it, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise". There's a reason God is the character in the Bible whose perspective is focused on the least.

Hmmm...interesting phrasing but wouldn't the circumstances at hand dictate his actual actions? Just like being a leader, being a Superman is to see things differently and his perspective is always looking for the best least offensive way to do things failure would mean injury, death and/or destruction - as take a line out of the Superman movie when his father pass from a heart attack as Clark says and I paraphrase "All of these powers, and I couldn't save him" that hurts Superman at his very core.

[SiegePerilous02]

Define interesting.

Some fresh creative talent on the book and plots not having to do with the marriage* and the Spawn would be nice.

*Don't get rid of the marriage, but give Lois some interesting stuff to do on her own. Even as a couple, they were fun in the two parter over in Batman.

So how should his flaws be acknowledged? Because any time they're pointed out by anyone there's an uproar.

Anytime any DC character's flaws are pointed out, or are not perceived to be written well, there is an uproar. Superman's are just more pronounced because he's one of the biggest characters and has a relatively larger fanbase.

JAK pretty much already nailed it. His headstrong nature can result in him screwing the pooch in some scenarios; see the first pre-Crisis Mongul story where he screws up and has to fix his mistakes and J'onn totally (rightly) calls him out on it. Or his inability to let his walls down and let his closest friends in on his double identity despite the fact that he has close relationships with them in both lives; Lois pointed out how wrong it was of him to lie to her all that time in All-Star. His younger years and inexperience in them are particularly good vehicles to explore his lack of wisdom, such as his inadvertently poisoning Mon-El and needing to send him to the Phantom Zone, or his inabilty to save Lex from the lab fire without accidentally destroying the experiment and making Lex bald forever. His social justice crusader side, much like in the Golden Age and the New 52, should be more reckless and willing to bully back in his younger years. And of course there is the humbling experience of not being able to save his father from a heart attack despite all the power he has. Basically, how well his flaws are executed depends on the individual. The above examples work for me and others, whereas something like Sacrifice is a turd and the DCEU squandered the potential the flawed (but still very good IMO) MoS laid out.

Maybe they aren't exploring his flaws now, but they are not exactly writing him as the greatest there is either. Nothing too remarkable is happening right now. And while there can be an uproar when fans don't like his flaws, there is an uproar from other fans every time the slightest hint of Superman being the top dog in the DCU is made. As if he will float into other books and solve all the problems there at any given moment.

[Kuwagaton]

See the problem I have with New 52 becoming Rebirth is that they KILLED the natural progression of the Character Overwriting him with a false history. Post Crises Superman was allowed a natural progression starting from his Parents life on Krypton, that's why people fell in love with the character. A begat B, B begat C. New 52 also had a Natural Progressive Life Starting from his Parents on Krypton progression. You can't tell me you can kill the Kents before he becomes Superman and would still have Clark turned out exactly like a Character whose parent were still Alive well into his career. That is the ULTIMATE height of Bullshit hand-wavy nonsense.

The thing in the New 52 is that the ending revelations from the Morrison run change his parents' death from an accident to murder. In a sense I get that because he's not like Batman, that's not going to drive him up the wall for vengeance or really make him re-evaluate his life. But I just really don't remember it impacting the character. It gave us that great scene where he traveled to the past to talk to Pa which kinda just wrapped that whole thing up. I wouldn't be surprised that if the original death was the reason he decided not to date Lois, then by (how old was he supposed to be in Morrison's last arc?) years later he'd just kind of forget that and pursue a relationship with a human if he really thought that was what he wanted. According to Perez and Lobdell, by 27 he wasn't all that put off by the idea.

But the current Superman, and I keep saying Rebirth when I should say Reborn, looks like he'll be exploring the death of Kents trauma in Doomsday Clock, which is still a bit up in the air as to whether it was accidental or not. Because in either case, it would still give someone who can sense the sights and sounds of the world around him nightmares.

[The World]

They even had to go so far as to turn God into a human (Jesus) to make him interesting in the sequel. Sort of like how Clark Kent is more interesting than Superman.

Well in the beginning back when Action Comics was still an anthology book with many different characters in it Superman was the only super powered character in it with the rest being regular people like Pep Morgan or Hop Harrington and they all pretty much bit the dust while Superman has sole dominance of the book. Beyond that the ratio of Superman panel time to Clark Kent panel time has continuously slid into Superman's favor as time moves forward.

Frankly I always saw this as a simple question of who's accomplishments and defeats do you most vividly remember Clark Kent or Superman?

[Powerboy]

One issue I see with the way people seem to be reading some of these words...

"Not flawed" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect". For some "flawed" means an emotionally stunted character of some kind... mainly because that's the way Hollywood tends to use the term in descriptions...

True. "Flawed" can mean just a reasonable person who isn't always sure what the right choice is or simply makes mistakes. But there is a certain Jerry Springer definition where "flawed" does mean "dysfunctional".

I don't think Cavill or Routh fit that description. Arrowverse Oliver Queen, yes. But there are many ways to do a character or tell a story. In modern superhero stories, the preferred method is often the Deconstruction method where it's as if no story is a good story unless the hero breaks down, questions everything that he is, decides it's all a lie and maybe gets rebuilt as something similar to what he was before but never quite the same.

The problem is that, in terms of expectation and desire, there are some characters most audiences feel benefit greatly from that method and others that most audiences do not want to ever see subjected to that particular method of storytelling and Superman is definitely in the latter category for most people. That doesn't mean he has no character weaknesses. The early Golden Age Superman could at times be insufferably arrogant in his certainty that he knew what was best. The Silver Age Superman often feared how easy it would be to abuse his powers and so restricted himself in huge ways.

I liked the Cavill Superman but, from a studio point of view, I think they are realizing they have got to look at things from the point of view of what most audiences want and expect from the character.

[JAK]

HOW pray tell is Cavill ONE NOTE? Did you Listen to his talks with Perry AT ALL? The guy gives a ****. That's all a Superman really needs, Lex shook that faith a little but one talk from Pa Kent about actions and consequences set him straight again.

I never said he doesn't care - of course he does. I was never one of those who said he doesn't. But that's not the only thing necessary for a full character narrative. I'll get into the Pa part more in a bit.

I see Superheroing like dating, If you never ask someone out cause your afraid of being rejected you'll never go out. You gotta try. I don't think people want to see Superman at the try faze of his life, They want to avoid the try part and get straight to the dating as fast as possible. That's why some people are put off by MoS and not Superman the Movie.

In Superman the Movie Clark had Twelve years of simulated Dating experience under his belt before going on his first date and he nailed it. MoS Clark was still writing the Check yes or No note.

I've seen on multiple threads saying this in various ways by a few people ("they dont want a Superman who's less than god," etc), and it's not true for all who don't like the DCEU. For one, we already know the answer to him checking yes or no (in the film narratively early on, not just because he's Superman and we only have a story if he says yes) as MoS shows him as not being able to stand by when people are hurting and makes no bones about it (except when visual or one of Goyer's ideas overrides character - imo - but that's another thing). The movie doesn't present it as a question really even though it thinks it is - and his choice to come forward is taken away from him when Zod forces him out. Nuances aside, "but he had to" strikes me as a major theme in MoS.

As I've said before, I don't mind - and could even enjoy - seeing Superman grow over the course of the movies. But it's all in how it's presented. Show him as he learns, or his "green-ness" becomes just a plot/writing crutch instead of a thought out plot point. If "try" means failing as much or more than succeeding, then at best you have one movie for that, just due to the nature of how long movies take to make and how spread apart they are in release (TV is easier for showing a longer progression - see Smallville, for better/worse). Not that he has to have it all figured out.. but we need to see him getting better at it.

As to one-note.. it's not Cavill. It's the DCEU presentation. He does have brighter moments and moments of the greater Superman fortitude and some of those scenes are very good (first flight scene is one I love, in particular). But, action aside, the DCEU Superman up until JL will most likely be remembered more-or-less as Routh's Superman is: overly complicated but with a dour overall tone that's intended to be epic or "myth-like". Most won't put it in so many words, but the sentiment is shared by many. Also not shared by many, but box office % as the movies have gone on and a persistence of the overall sentiment regarding the DCEU speaks for itself. It's not that people want to skip "yes or no" or skip the growth. But growth means you'll actually get there, and if people don't think you'll ever get there... they check out. Even when they're given as hard a reversal as JL was (granted there's more to it than that, but that's the biggest chunk of it). And all future Superman endeavors in a cinematic DC will have to fight this.

One other point on the talk from Pa restoring his faith: the movie keeps his faith on pretty shaky ground, as after Lex's threats he admits to Lois that he might have to kill Batman. That doesn't seem like a Superman with his faith restored, imo. That's what the scene just before his death was meant for.

Convergence / Re-birth really equates to a giant pencil experiment (with an eraser) from DC as one wonders how long, will the Re-birth time line continue as we draw closer to Action 1000? Also, If there weren't such a out-cry in favor of the Post Crisis Superman would the N52 Superman still be around?

Just a pet peeve rant - You really need a compendium just to keep things straight as it really gets confusing and very convoluted with all of the changes to Superman and DC universe franchise(s) - I guess you can say it started when Sarah and Eben Kent became Martha and Johnathan Kent some 65 plus year ago as Superman, with the vast array of DC's re-boots,(soft and hard) that followed, along with TV and Movies versions that seem to either; make up, change out right or, use some sort of amalgam there of, to build both a foreground and, a background to fit their character narrative, then just call it either; Earth 19 or, Universe X, to explain away the differences - subtle or, significant.

Bottom line: One thing is for sure, that the DC universe has been in a continuous flux for over a half a century!

The changes between live versions are certainly understandable: especially when years or decades have passed, you need a re-intoduction - but just retelling the exact story again won't work, either. As for comic reboots, those changes are largely a sign of the times and mentality of the companies. Reborn is an attempt to do what should have been done in the first place - but none of those people were there then. They can't change what happened before, but they can try to correct it now. As long as they're careful, I applaud the effort - it's about time they at least try to focus on being inclusive instead of exclusive. It doesn't solve everything, but appears to be a decent faith effort.

Pretty much this - I want Superman to be very powerful while being able to traverse the Universe at will but, he has to temper his super-feats - at times, and fight the base level instinct to barrel into a situation because, there could be unfortunate or, even grave consequences (lives lost...property damaged etc) in doing.

Superman should be looking for BALANCE to the equation at all times, in the things that he does so, I want to see his mental process "gears turn" as Superman goes about his business of doing what needs to be done as he thinks through the most effective and efficient way to do it, and it is up to a competent writer to develop, layout and explain to help the reader understand process.

I want to see the gears turning, too. And I don't want to feel like I'm a better Superman than Superman. If that happens, the narrative has failed (for me, at least).

His headstrong nature can result in him screwing the pooch in some scenarios; see the first pre-Crisis Mongul story where he screws up and has to fix his mistakes and J'onn totally (rightly) calls him out on it. Or his inability to let his walls down and let his closest friends in on his double identity despite the fact that he has close relationships with them in both lives; Lois pointed out how wrong it was of him to lie to her all that time in All-Star. His younger years and inexperience in them are particularly good vehicles to explore his lack of wisdom, such as his inadvertently poisoning Mon-El and needing to send him to the Phantom Zone, or his inabilty to save Lex from the lab fire without accidentally destroying the experiment and making Lex bald forever. His social justice crusader side, much like in the Golden Age and the New 52, should be more reckless and willing to bully back in his younger years. And of course there is the humbling experience of not being able to save his father from a heart attack despite all the power he has. Basically, how well his flaws are executed depends on the individual.

The big thing that works about lot of these is that the narrative does not leave any doubt as to motive of character and goes to lengths to show that the outcome is unexpected for said character(s). That's also very important when framing these things: making sure the audience is put in the same mindset so they empathize and feel it themselves as it happens.

[JAK]

Beyond that the ratio of Superman panel time to Clark Kent panel time has continuously slid into Superman's favor as time moves forward.

Frankly I always saw this as a simple question of who's accomplishments and defeats do you most vividly remember Clark Kent or Superman?

Superman's exploits are most remembered, but panel time is definitely more in Clark's favor over time. Early on, Clark was just the setup to get to Superman doing stuff. By Post-Crisis it was pretty even. Live action was the opposite, though, you're right on that - and that was mainly for monetary reasons (special effects being expensive and all that).

True. "Flawed" can mean just a reasonable person who isn't always sure what the right choice is or simply makes mistakes. But there is a certain Jerry Springer definition where "flawed" does mean "dysfunctional".

I don't think Cavill or Routh fit that description. Arrowverse Oliver Queen, yes. But there are many ways to do a character or tell a story. In modern superhero stories, the preferred method is often the Deconstruction method where it's as if no story is a good story unless the hero breaks down, questions everything that he is, decides it's all a lie and maybe gets rebuilt as something similar to what he was before but never quite the same.

The problem is that, in terms of expectation and desire, there are some characters most audiences feel benefit greatly from that method and others that most audiences do not want to ever see subjected to that particular method of storytelling and Superman is definitely in the latter category for most people. That doesn't mean he has no character weaknesses. The early Golden Age Superman could at times be insufferably arrogant in his certainty that he knew what was best. The Silver Age Superman often feared how easy it would be to abuse his powers and so restricted himself in huge ways.

I liked the Cavill Superman but, from a studio point of view, I think they are realizing they have got to look at things from the point of view of what most audiences want and expect from the character.

When I see the word "flawed", I definitely think of a character like Klaus Mikaelson from "The Originals"/"Vampire Diaries". Someone who does have good intentions overall and you feel for them at times, but they can't get past their own faults.

Overall, you're right - Superman is definitely in the latter category for many... but mainly because it's generally done by a hand that's not very careful about it. If they aren't careful, deconstruction looks more like demolition. I know that it CAN be done well - but aside from Exile, no good examples of it come to mind for Superman.

On the studio - agreed. Maybe this fiasco will have finally broken them of the "all things sell if they're 'dark' like Batman" fetish they've had for decades now. Regardless, I hope that they finally learn the right lessons for once. Often, it seems like there are 12 year olds with more insight than WB has.

[Lokimaru]

One other point on the talk from Pa restoring his faith: the movie keeps his faith on pretty shaky ground, as after Lex's threats he admits to Lois that he might have to kill Batman. That doesn't seem like a Superman with his faith restored, imo. That's what the scene just before his death was meant for.

Yes but look at his FACE when he says that, He look disgusted by the very thought of it. I love Cavill facial acting in these movies. The scene where Batman lands on his chest after the skylight fall, damn man. He look like he's in agony yet he still fights back. That's what I loved about Cavill's Superman he NEVER gives up.

Yet people want just Superman from the Comics. Look at the comments on the BvS fight on Youtube, people keep saying Superman should have put up a better fight even after the Kryptonite even when someone point out that this version of Superman really doesn't know how to fight. That like say a regular person should have put up a better fight against Bruce Lee.

[Agent Z]

Some fresh creative talent on the book and plots not having to do with the marriage* and the Spawn would be nice.

*Don't get rid of the marriage, but give Lois some interesting stuff to do on her own. Even as a couple, they were fun in the two parter over in Batman.



Anytime any DC character's flaws are pointed out, or are not perceived to be written well, there is an uproar. Superman's are just more pronounced because he's one of the biggest characters and has a relatively larger fanbase.

JAK pretty much already nailed it. His headstrong nature can result in him screwing the pooch in some scenarios; see the first pre-Crisis Mongul story where he screws up and has to fix his mistakes and J'onn totally (rightly) calls him out on it. Or his inability to let his walls down and let his closest friends in on his double identity despite the fact that he has close relationships with them in both lives; Lois pointed out how wrong it was of him to lie to her all that time in All-Star. His younger years and inexperience in them are particularly good vehicles to explore his lack of wisdom, such as his inadvertently poisoning Mon-El and needing to send him to the Phantom Zone, or his inabilty to save Lex from the lab fire without accidentally destroying the experiment and making Lex bald forever. His social justice crusader side, much like in the Golden Age and the New 52, should be more reckless and willing to bully back in his younger years. And of course there is the humbling experience of not being able to save his father from a heart attack despite all the power he has. Basically, how well his flaws are executed depends on the individual. The above examples work for me and others, whereas something like Sacrifice is a turd and the DCEU squandered the potential the flawed (but still very good IMO) MoS laid out.

Maybe they aren't exploring his flaws now, but they are not exactly writing him as the greatest there is either. Nothing too remarkable is happening right now. And while there can be an uproar when fans don't like his flaws, there is an uproar from other fans every time the slightest hint of Superman being the top dog in the DCU is made. As if he will float into other books and solve all the problems there at any given moment.

Something tells me that if that Mongul story where written today, you'd get a bunch of people calling for the writer's head that they dared have "loser" like Martian Manhunter call Superman out.

As for his flaws now, you've got stuff like him attacking Luthor with no evidence of wrongdoing and the story just ignoring this. And given writers' habit of having him lecture other superheroes over even the most unjustified of reasons, there's a pretty good argument to knock him or any superhero off the pedestal since fans of other characters would rather not deal with repeats of Kingdom Come.

You're pretty reasonable as how you think the writing should be handled, but I can't say the same of much of his fan base

[marhawkman]

I don't actually see him as being flawless, more that he tries to be and comes closer to succeeding at it than most people can.

I guess part of why it's interesting to me is the subtle conflict that is presented by his desire to always do things just right and having things sometimes but not always work out.

For examples from TAS, you have when the Kents visit Metropolis. Kal-El tried to be Clark and Superman at the same time and mostly succeeded. Then you have Livewire, who managed to annoy Superman in ways most don't.

I personally see Kingdom Come as a scenario where he basically cracked under pressure.

[SiegePerilous02]

Something tells me that if that Mongul story where written today, you'd get a bunch of people calling for the writer's head that they dared have "loser" like Martian Manhunter call Superman out.

Maybe, maybe not. The story was written in a certain way to make both characters look good, which is not something we get all that often nowadays. Helps that Superman was the star of the book, so him being called out on his actions and his fixing it in the next issue with Supergirl's help was told from his perspective. If it happened now, it might happen in a JL book or Clark would guest star in a MM book that somehow managed to see the light of day and be made to look like an ******* so J'onn could call him out and get a boost. In which case, maybe the fanbase would be within their rights to take issue with it. And J'onn's fanbase would cry for the head of a writer who brought him into Superman's book to do the same, and might be justified in doing so.

As for his flaws now, you've got stuff like him attacking Luthor with no evidence of wrongdoing and the story just ignoring this. And given writers' habit of having him lecture other superheroes over even the most unjustified of reasons, there's a pretty good argument to knock him or any superhero off the pedestal since fans of other characters would rather not deal with repeats of Kingdom Come.

Thing is, it sometimes seems like Superman is put on that pedestal to lecture other heroes in the first place just so he can be knocked down and prop them up. TDKR is the most infamous example and it worked at the time due to the setting of the story and because it was brand new, but since then we get stuff like Sacrifice where he is a complete moron and we are meant to side with Diana at least in the Rucka issues. Which is why it seems most Superman fans wouldn't want Rucka touching the character again. Or his early appearance in Rebirth Aquaman, which is accompanied by Arthur and Mera knocking him around. Probably the latest issue of Titans as well, which was engineered to make the JL look like condescending jerks so that the Titans can eventually get their heads out of their asses and realize they are not teens anymore and can rebel against authority (which isn't a good look for the Titans either). If I'm wrong and he isn't as dickish as the others, please let me know as it will make that issue slightly less terrible.

Kingdom Come is bad in that it's on the other end of the spectrum, but it seems anytime there is an attempt to reinforce Superman as being the most powerful hero in the DCU or something along those lines, there is pushback from other fandoms about their feelings being hurt. But it seems like it's okay for Superman to be dragged in and be trumped either physically or philosophically for a lazy shorthanded way to prop up another character. They keep using him as a means to prop up other characters, but if they do it too much, he ceases to be a big deal, which is kind of a shitty way to treat the character who got the company (and the entire genre as we know it) started.

[Agent Z]

Maybe, maybe not. The story was written in a certain way to make both characters look good, which is not something we get all that often nowadays. Helps that Superman was the star of the book, so him being called out on his actions and his fixing it in the next issue with Supergirl's help was told from his perspective. If it happened now, it might happen in a JL book or Clark would guest star in a MM book that somehow managed to see the light of day and be made to look like an ******* so J'onn could call him out and get a boost. In which case, maybe the fanbase would be within their rights to take issue with it. And J'onn's fanbase would cry for the head of a writer who brought him into Superman's book to do the same, and might be justified in doing so.



Thing is, it sometimes seems like Superman is put on that pedestal to lecture other heroes in the first place just so he can be knocked down and prop them up. TDKR is the most infamous example and it worked at the time due to the setting of the story and because it was brand new, but since then we get stuff like Sacrifice where he is a complete moron and we are meant to side with Diana at least in the Rucka issues. Which is why it seems most Superman fans wouldn't want Rucka touching the character again. Or his early appearance in Rebirth Aquaman, which is accompanied by Arthur and Mera knocking him around. Probably the latest issue of Titans as well, which was engineered to make the JL look like condescending jerks so that the Titans can eventually get their heads out of their asses and realize they are not teens anymore and can rebel against authority (which isn't a good look for the Titans either). If I'm wrong and he isn't as dickish as the others, please let me know as it will make that issue slightly less terrible.

Kingdom Come is bad in that it's on the other end of the spectrum, but it seems anytime there is an attempt to reinforce Superman as being the most powerful hero in the DCU or something along those lines, there is pushback from other fandoms about their feelings being hurt. But it seems like it's okay for Superman to be dragged in and be trumped either physically or philosophically for a lazy shorthanded way to prop up another character. They keep using him as a means to prop up other characters, but if they do it too much, he ceases to be a big deal, which is kind of a shitty way to treat the character who got the company (and the entire genre as we know it) started.

I don't think Rucka was so unsympathetic to Clark in the Sacrifice arc especially if you look at how he handled it from Clark's point-of-view in Adventures of Superman. Clark (and Bruce) having a really immature reaction to it can be more blamed on Geoff Johns. As for Titans, I would say Bruce and Diana are the most unreasonable in that story. Though I'm pretty sure we're meant to agree with the League somewhat and ignore the League's screw ups both as individuals (see Metal for Batman) and as a team.

As I've stated before, I don't see how Superman loses anything by not being the most powerful hero in the DCU since that doesn't automatically make him the weakest. Yes he started the company and the genre but respect for him should only go so far before it looks like the inmates are running the Asylum. Believe me, I'd be just as annoyed if DC started treating WW this way (I've gotten into a few arguments with a certain other WW poster due to stuff like that). At the end of the day, acknoweldging these are characters first is not the worst thing of all.

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't think Rucka was so unsympathetic to Clark in the Sacrifice arc especially if you look at how he handled it from Clark's point-of-view in Adventures of Superman. Clark (and Bruce) having a really immature reaction to it can be more blamed on Geoff Johns. As for Titans, I would say Bruce and Diana are the most unreasonable in that story. Though I'm pretty sure we're meant to agree with the League somewhat and ignore the League's screw ups both as individuals (see Metal for Batman) and as a team.

Idk, Johns probably made it worse, but Rucka was the one who wrote the scene of Clark's immediate reaction of "ermahgerd, what did you do?!" after he had viciously beaten Wonder Woman while he was under mind control (which was a played out plot device even then). That interaction isn't gonna make Clark look like anything but an *******, and in the context of that scene, I was completely on Diana's side.

As for the Titans issue, it sounds as bad as I'd expect. Abnett really screwed the pooch on just about everything with Diana and Donna.

As I've stated before, I don't see how Superman loses anything by not being the most powerful hero in the DCU since that doesn't automatically make him the weakest. Yes he started the company and the genre but respect for him should only go so far before it looks like the inmates are running the Asylum. Believe me, I'd be just as annoyed if DC started treating WW this way (I've gotten into a few arguments with a certain other WW poster due to stuff like that). At the end of the day, acknoweldging these are characters first is not the worst thing of all.

Part of what makes these characters the characters they are is the gimmicks attached to them. Superman being the overall most powerful in the superhero community and being viewed as the de-facto leader was part of his gimmick for a long time, and it didn't seem to hurt anything for the mythologies of other characters. Powering him down to make him equal to everybody else hasn't actually consistently helped his popularity at all, and seems to have done the opposite because he's never been that popular again. And I reject the notion of him being treated as a character first and foremost and having his Silver/Bronze age power levels and trappings being mutually exclusive. Moore, Morrison, Maggin, Bates and Hamilton didn't write him that way, so there is no excuse for others doing it. It means they don't have the imagination necessary to write the character, and are better served writing somebody else.

[Agent Z]

Idk, Johns probably made it worse, but Rucka was the one who wrote the scene of Clark's immediate reaction of "ermahgerd, what did you do?!" after he had viciously beaten Wonder Woman while he was under mind control (which was a played out plot device even then). That interaction isn't gonna make Clark look like anything but an *******, and in the context of that scene, I was completely on Diana's side.

As for the Titans issue, it sounds as bad as I'd expect. Abnett really screwed the pooch on just about everything with Diana and Donna.



Part of what makes these characters the characters they are is the gimmicks attached to them. Superman being the overall most powerful in the superhero community and being viewed as the de-facto leader was part of his gimmick for a long time, and it didn't seem to hurt anything for the mythologies of other characters. Powering him down to make him equal to everybody else hasn't actually consistently helped his popularity at all, and seems to have done the opposite because he's never been that popular again. And I reject the notion of him being treated as a character first and foremost and having his Silver/Bronze age power levels and trappings being mutually exclusive. Moore, Morrison, Maggin, Bates and Hamilton didn't write him that way, so there is no excuse for others doing it. It means they don't have the imagination necessary to write the character, and are better served writing somebody else.

Superman is really only unsympathetic if you focus only on that scene. He was a lot more understanding than Batman or was trying to be later on.

I thought the whole point of Superman was that he was a good man trying to help as best as he can. And I'd argue attempts to up his powers to Silver Age levels haven't been anymore successful either.

[JAK]

Yes but look at his FACE when he says that, He look disgusted by the very thought of it. I love Cavill facial acting in these movies. The scene where Batman lands on his chest after the skylight fall, damn man. He look like he's in agony yet he still fights back. That's what I loved about Cavill's Superman he NEVER gives up.

Cavill is a great actor. He was born to play Superman. But, especially after Snyder talking about Zod's death in MoS being his way to show how Superman's code came to be, and Superman now returning to help after talking to Pa.. that's just wrong for the character arc. Regardless of facial expression, "no one stays good in this world" is something Superman should never say, imo. That's just totally against his character, no matter how broken. It also goes against the narrative of him not really fighting back in the Batman fight. It's a narrative and a character arc mistake, made so the writers can feel like they wrote something dramatic and deep to call back to Batman's words. It just falls flat, no matter how good the delivery. "The Bat is dead. Bury it. Consider this mercy" is still the most horribly clunky, character-narrative-breaking line in the film (it looks to me like Cavill just wants to get the line over with and I can't blame him), but that one's just about as bad from all respects other than Cavill's.

Yet people want just Superman from the Comics. Look at the comments on the BvS fight on Youtube, people keep saying Superman should have put up a better fight even after the Kryptonite even when someone point out that this version of Superman really doesn't know how to fight. That like say a regular person should have put up a better fight against Bruce Lee.

The first half of that fight is actually VERY well done. It's choreographed well and very dramatic. It doesn't fit Superman wanting Bruce's help very well, but setting that aside it's very good. Once Superman gets his powers back half-way through, it's frankly an insult to both characters' intelligence - just moreso Superman's. Superman isn't just a normal person; the fact that he doesn't fly head-first into walls by accident when he uses super-speed means his brain can keep up. So when Batman fires the gun the second time, Superman seemingly not even trying to dodge is sheer stupidity.

Even from a cinematic expectation standpoint, Superman *should* have put up a better fight, mainly because the movie is called "Batman v Superman" not "Batgod beats up Superwimp" - such a one-sided fight doesn't do that any favors, either.


I know all of this seems a bit off-topic, so I'll bring it back around with this: Superman shouldn't just stroll into any scenario and waltz away with victory in every scenario ever......... but power fantasy is a BIG component in Superman's draw as a character. Not the only, but it's a big part. So only feeding that in tiny amounts or in always compromised ways really doesn't help Superman at all. SR, MoS, and BvS have all (imo) failed to properly draw on this, albeit in vastly different ways. Some see this and think it means that people don't like a non-perfect or learning Superman.. but that's not it. If the balance is properly struck, the falls he takes will mean more as well.

Honestly, Superman's been the "whipping boy" for enough years - until the company REALLY tries to understand and appreciate the character.. no version of the ip will have lasting success, and WB will do what it's been doing for decades - blaming the character. It's a shame, but they keep proving me right every time. I'm honestly shocked Rebirth/Reborn has turned out as well as it has and I'm enjoying it. Imo, it's largely in spite of the company, not because of them.