Does DC only care about Batman?

[SiegePerilous02]

I'm a fan of the Superman who only uses his godlike power when necessary. The one who punches up, but never punches down.

The Superman who punches down isn't the Supergod yet. Once he increases in power, he is naturally going to reign himself in more. Like he did after the first arc in the New 52 once he started flying and being more powerful.

Just like the original Superman, who wasn't God-like yet. He didn't spring into existence exactly how you prefer him. He also didn't necessarily evolve or progress. I don't see how he could naturally when reboots are involved. And COIE involved a reboot and chucking 50 years of history to change him into something else that was perceived as being needed at that time.

And yeah, the generation after COIE is the current generation.

The generation that grew up with the Big Blue Boy Scout is no longer the current generation. There are younger generations out there now, and Superman needs to change with the times What worked back in the 70s and 80s might not work now.

If the Superman you like replaced other versions, why on Earth can't he eventually be replaced? Before the big Blue Boy Scout, there was the Champion of the Oppressed, and the Man of Action, and the bizarre Super God. There is no reason those things can't come back or even for a new take to emerge. You're just playing favorites, as all comic fans do, but a movie based on any of these takes would still be Superman.

I watched the movie and read the New 52 comics. It was New 52 Superman.

And with statements like this, you pretty much are proving that you didn't. Or are applying what you didn't like in MOS to the entire New 52 era, because it definitely doesn't show up in the main run that actually matters.

Except when talking about New 52 Superman, we're not just talking about Morrison's version. That is such a deflection from the issue. The DCU is a shared universe. So, when talking about New 52 Superman, we're also talking about the guy who was super-violent in Justice League and who was reduced largely to nothing but the team's muscle. The one who basically said he didn't "get" humans despite being raised in freaking Kansas.

Actually you're the only one who is deflecting way from that take, I think because it flies in the face of your arguments. Films usually draw inspiration from certain iconic stories and runs, they don't really draw inspiration from an entire era regardless of who wrote the content. Like STAS drew inspiration from the Post-Crisis era, but didn't copy every single detail. People suggesting a take like Morrison's New 52 run are necessarily suggesting filmmaker's take inspiration from EVERY comic from that five years. And if a filmmaker just looked at that run, they wouldn't use the "cannot relate to humans" bit because he was very human in that run despite his Otherness.

Also, it's not like contradictory takes between writers is a phenomenon that only exists in the New 52 era. it's all over DC and Marvel's histories.

[Restingvoice]

He has taken some donner influence as well. Its not pure post crisis.

I guess it's been too long since both. Donner in the 70s, Byrne in the 80s, MoS in the 2000s... people remember what they like.

[Konja7]

Something interesting I find in both parts of the debate is this:

When you ask each other why Superman could not act this way if Captain America/Batman act this way?

Both sides answered Superman is a lot more powerful than these characters.

[SiegePerilous02]

And yet the truely bizarre and crazy/fun elements of the Super mythos or the Golden Age themes (which are more relevant than ever) have never really made it to the big screen. In the post-MCU world, the former finally has a chance to work.

Time for a new(old) take on Supes that isn't just a rehash of what's come out since the 70s/80s.

[Agent Z]

And yet the truely bizarre and crazy/fun elements of the Super mythos or the Golden Age themes (which are more relevant than ever) have never really made it to the big screen. In the post-MCU world, the former finally has a chance to work.

The bizarre parts of the Super mythos were adapted in the Donner movies pretty much. I'd argue stuff like Snyder's Superman defending women from sexual harassment (which seemed to get about the same reaction as Morrison's Superman from certain people) and him focusing on Batman's human rights abuses are not too different from the Golden Age albeit with less hotheadedness.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

But that is actually what happens, and Clark starts to move away from this approach as the story progresses and works with the army and police towards the end of the arc. He is even given the key to the city by the mayor. He never completely loses the edge, but he had growth. He is even buddies with Batman in the Action run, as oppossed to choking the life out of him in their first encounter (which, as dumb as it was, was also pretty awesome).

Seriously, did you read the run in question or just react to scans and the SM/WW relationship?

No, I read it. Really didn't like it. Not just because of the characterization of Superman but also because Morrison tends to go off the rails in his more modern stories and sometimes it feels like he's not even following a linear plot. I remember feeling the same exact way when this run was coming out. There was that whole weird interlude with Superman and the Legion right in the middle of the origin story that really just robbed the story of its momentum...it just wasn't a good run.

All of that is irrelevant in the Morrison run since it doesn't appear, and he has an actual arc where he ditches the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. The original Superman is not a defender of the status quo, he will take action against the corrupt and defend the downtrodden and he doesn't care who he offends or what laws he has to break, because it's the right thing to do. That's Superman. I'd also like to point out that the very first published Superman comic had, among other things, him grabbing an abusive husband and throwing him through a wall. Which is referencesdas happening again in the New 52 run.

And Silver Age/Post-Crisis Superman was an agent of the status quo?? No he wasn't. Again, this is a Superman whose main enemy is a corrupt businessman who uses his money to buy power and influence. The idea that Pre-Flashpoint/Post-Crisis Superman was just some tool for the establishment is such a misunderstanding of the character.

Byrne's revamp ended with Clark declaring himself an American and not caring where he came from. That is pretty much a middle finger to Siegel and Shuster. That is NOT Superman. Any good the 90s books did happened in spite of his changes, not because of them.

Well, I haven't even mentioned Byrne throughout the discussion, but I think you're mischaracterizing his writing. His exact words are "Krypton bred me, but it was Earth that gave me all I am. All that matters. It was Krypton that made me Superman, but it is Earth that makes me human." So, yeah, that makes sense for someone who was raised his whole life on Earth. He sees himself as human. Is there an issue with Superman having humanity?

There is still a bit of difference in Nolan's Batman and the sadistic glee Burton's Batman displays. Even then, while allowing Ra's to die is criticizes by fandom, it's not as regarded as extreme as blowing up a dude with dynamite for no reason or gunning down the Joker's henchmen in the first film.

You're acting as if people don't call out Batman for being violent in film. One of the main criticisms of BvS was that the Batman in that movie was uber violent and killed a lot of people.

Cap is not all powerful the way Superman is. That is why you cannot completely compare them, it doesn't work.

Cap fills the role as the hopeful leader who inspires people by always doing the moral thing and being there to protect as many people as he can. That's the same role Superman should fill in the DC Universe. New 52 Superman did NOT do that. The DCEU Superman spent too much time equivocating on whether or not he should even bother.

One of the things people cite about Superman being so boring is that he's so "over powered" and also too much of a boy scout without flaws. Both of these perceptions are false and frustrating to people who actually know about the character, so it's time to break the perceptions. If he is synonymous with it, it is time to make it so he isn't. Batman was once synonymous with being a campy boy scout himself and that perception broke when other media returned to the darker beginnings of the character. It could happen with Superman too, all it takes is one good other media appearance that is built off of. And no, MOS is not proof on its own that it wouldn't work, that just tells us the GA won't readily embrace a flawed movie.

You don't prove those people wrong by basically caving to their preconcieved notions. You don't prove to them that Superman is actually cool by saying "you guys were so right; that old Superman was soooo lame. Here's a new edgier Superman who punches strangers before bothering to talk to them."

Also, Superman II is regarded as a classic and features a full powered Clark roughing that guy up in the diner at the end. By your logic, that is NOT Superman. And yet, people are fine with it. I'm pretty sure they could handle that if they can handle a dude who roughs up none powered individuals, wipes his girlfriend's mind without her consent, and in at least one cut of the film killed Zod. Superman needs to gain new fans in a younger generation, and the all powerful Big Blue Boy Scout white guy who is always right just might not appeal to the youth who have to live in Donald Trump's America.

Who said that stuff was okay? Those are some things people actually point out as wrong or dated about the films. Also, there's a reason they cut out the part of him killing Zod.

And, if Superman needs to be "edgier" and "cooler" to attract new fans, then why did both the New 52 and DCEU versions fail to attract a significant amount of new fans??? Like, you're acting as if these newer takes on Superman worked. They didn't. People shunned them. You liked it, so you're arguing for it. But the facts show that most people did not.

This wouldn't be the first time DC displayed a lack of knowledge of their own material. Anyone who has seen both the movie and read at least the Morrison run would come away thinking they weren't alike, only that both are a little more edgy than people typically think of Superman (executed in very different ways). The priest scene instantly brings to mind For Tomorrow, a post Crisis run with the "classic" Superman. Everything else almost all comes from Byrne. A Superman who kills Zod is more line line with Reeve and Byrne than Morrison's Superman, who never kills anyone. And Snyder's Superman had a better reason for killing Zod than those other two.

A Superman who has to ask why humanity is worth saving is pretty close to a Superman who constantly mopes about being alone, despite the fact that he supposedly grew up in a loving home with several human friends. They're both indicative of somebody who views himself as inhuman and/or above us. That does not make him relatable. That does not make him someone people want to root for. Superman is one of us. That is what makes him Superman.

And the Morrison run doesn't disprove that. The Morrison run is not the only thing that came out of the New 52 and New 52 Superman was not just Morrison's Superman.

Clark is very similar to humans, but he is not one of us. He pretty can never be completely, he has different biology. He is an Other. And stripping the "Otherness" from him is very wrong, that is not a narrative that should be pushed in today's age. And the SM/WW comic was bad, but that isn't an attitude he expresses in every comic in the New 52.

Obviously, pushing Superman as "inhuman" is not a good way to go because that was one of the things people said didn't work in the Snyder movies.

[Sacred Knight]

Except the way he goes about it would qualify him as a sociopath with no cognizance of the repercussions of his actions.

If the way New 52 Superman goes about things classify him as a sociopath, then all versions of Superman is a sociopath. All versions have used very heavy scare-tactics before against normal humans. If you're a criminal *******, depending on his mood, he will absolutely do stuff like this. And it should be emulated, because it is very much in his character. Even the vaunted pre-FP Superman is capable of something like this if you catch him in the right mood. Hell he did something like this to a freaking reporter, not even a bad guy.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

The Superman who punches down isn't the Supergod yet. Once he increases in power, he is naturally going to reign himself in more. Like he did after the first arc in the New 52 once he started flying and being more powerful.

He's still got powers far beyond any human.

The generation that grew up with the Big Blue Boy Scout is no longer the current generation. There are younger generations out there now, and Superman needs to change with the times What worked back in the 70s and 80s might not work now.

The generation that grew up with boy scout Superman is, what, like in their 30s? That's...not old. That's the generation that is buying movie tickets right now.

If the Superman you like replaced other versions, why on Earth can't he eventually be replaced? Before the big Blue Boy Scout, there was the Champion of the Oppressed, and the Man of Action, and the bizarre Super God. There is no reason those things can't come back or even for a new take to emerge. You're just playing favorites, as all comic fans do, but a movie based on any of these takes would still be Superman.

You keep assuming I'm talking about Byrne. I'm not. I like Superman who existed Pre-Flashpoint, who yeah, had Pre-Crisis elements and character history, but still maintained a bright and hopeful demeanor. The one who sees himself as human. That's the one people related to. The one DC had to eventually bring back.

And with statements like this, you pretty much are proving that you didn't. Or are applying what you didn't like in MOS to the entire New 52 era, because it definitely doesn't show up in the main run that actually matters.

Except I did. Do you need me to show you my Comixology account? Just because I took a different takeaway from the Morrison New 52 run than you did (namely that I didn't like it) doesn't mean I didn't read it. Its not a bible for Superman. It was one writer's take. A take that, to many people, fell flat.

Actually you're the only one who is deflecting way from that take, I think because it flies in the face of your arguments.

Except I've posted scane from that run that show why I think its a bad look for Superman. Again, I don't think a Superman who uses his powers to bust into normal peoples' homes and dangles them off of balconies is a good look for Superman.

Like STAS drew inspiration from the Post-Crisis era, but didn't copy every single detail. People suggesting a take like Morrison's New 52 run are necessarily suggesting filmmaker's take inspiration from EVERY comic from that five years. And if a filmmaker just looked at that run, they wouldn't use the "cannot relate to humans" bit because he was very human in that run despite his Otherness.

To you. To me, he seemed like he felt like he was above the rules. And again, to me, he didn't feel human or relatable at all.

[Sacred Knight]

Except I did. Do you need me to show you my Comixology account? Just because I took a different takeaway from the Morrison New 52 run than you did (namely that I didn't like it) doesn't mean I didn't read it. Its not a bible for Superman. It was one writer's take. A take that, to many people, fell flat.

Very few people, more like. Morrison's Action run destroys both the Rebirth and Bendis Action runs, and sold better than Tomasi's Superman too. It was a very successful take, and the most successful singular run of the past decade at least. You're allowed to dislike it of course, but the insinuation that yours is a majority or even common take is dismissed by the evidence.

[Ascended]

He has taken some donner influence as well. Its not pure post crisis.

It's not. It's a weird fusion of post-Crisis and pre-Crisis. And those pre-Crisis elements, which are honestly a little fuzzy around the edges and harder to focus on for the most part, and probably why so many people think the New52 had such heavy influence on the book, since Morrison's run had so much pre-Crisis in its makeup.

But really, look at the timeline. MoS hit in mi-2013, and I forget the details but would've been filming and in production for at least a year prior to that (mid 2012) and the script and pre-production would've started before that. Work on MoS likely began before the first issues of the New52 were out. I very much doubt those comics had any significant impact on the film. Just a guess of course, if there's interviews where Zack Snyder talks about Morrison's Action being an influence I'm not aware of them.

Very few people, more like. Morrison's Action run destroys both the Rebirth and Bendis Action runs, and sold better than Tomasi's Superman too. It was a very successful take, and the most successful singular run of the past decade at least. You're allowed to dislike it of course, but the insinuation that yours is a majority or even common take is dismissed by the evidence.

Not even worth arguing about man. Like I've said in the past, people have a very firm idea of who and what Superman should be, even if their opinions aren't really supported by the history or the stuff that's in the page, even if they're just tunnel visioned on one single, narrow era. And even fewer people have a care for the journey that got us here, even though those early Superman comics are the entire reason we're discussing superheroes in the first place. That's the crisis Clark faces; so many people are so accustomed to the way DC has handled him in the last two-three decades, they refuse to accept any other idea....even though the way DC has handled him for the last two-three decades is largely why the character's popularity has fallen off. If the goal is to make Superman truly matter again, they need to get out of the mindset they've been in, and drag the fans along kicking and screaming. And that's no easy task for any business, much less a failing industry like this one, with people who have such a firm (if uninformed) concept of *what* Superman *has* to be.

[manwhohaseverything]

So, he becomes a bully in the process. And again, its not like the method is effective. That's basically like saying torture is effective. Yes, you could say that the people you're torturing are bad guys, but that doesn't mean you stoop to their tactics or tactics worse than theirs. Just because Superman doesn't like bullies doesn't mean he is suddenly robbed of his empathy and compassion.



That is not what Superman, at least the character Superman has evolved into over his many decades in media, would have done. The Superman here is acting more like Manchester Black, the guy who was created to serve as an antithesis of a superhero, than he is behaving like Superman.



Batman is an entirely different character. That's the point. Batman is supposed to be the antithesis of Superman in many ways: Superman is the light and Batman is the dark. The words of DCAU Batman exemplify this the best. He says that Superman showed him that "justice didn't have to come from the shadows." In other words, justice can be attained through peaceful methods of resistance. Superman is like MLK or Ghandi.

Its also worth noting that Batman isn't a god-like superbeing. There's quite a different standard applied to his behavior. But at the same time, I don't want Batman being an overtly violent dick who threatens to throw people off buildings before attempting to solve things another way. Batman should be the world's greatest detective who tries to first suss out the truth, and threatens violence only when necessary. After all, even examples of an overly violent Batman have been derided by fans and critics. Look at All-Star Batman and Robin.



That's the point. Superman should be smarter and more concerned with how his actions could be perceived as a hostile god attacking society.



Except its a thin line between Superman being a "champion of the people who breaks the rules for them" and Superman the god-like overlord who flouts the rules of our society and acts as a judge, jury, and executioner. I'm sure the Superman of the Injustice universe also thought the rules got in the way of a just society.



That doesn't necessarily mean he was reckless, but he was still acting reckless. He not only attacked people less powerful than himself, but he also attacked other heroes on first sight without even talking to them at first.



I'm a fan of the Superman who only uses his godlike power when necessary. The one who punches up, but never punches down.



In your opinion. IMO, Johns writes a damn fine Superman. And its ironic you bring up Mark Waid because Waid also hates New 52 Superman and is very vocal about it.



Superdickery is not what you think it is. Its a reference to Silver Age comics where Superman did insensitive things that definitely would've painted him as a jerk.

And yeah, the generation after COIE is the current generation.



I watched the movie and read the New 52 comics. It was New 52 Superman.



Except when talking about New 52 Superman, we're not just talking about Morrison's version. That is such a deflection from the issue. The DCU is a shared universe. So, when talking about New 52 Superman, we're also talking about the guy who was super-violent in Justice League and who was reduced largely to nothing but the team's muscle. The one who basically said he didn't "get" humans despite being raised in freaking Kansas.

Who cares if he becomes the bully. Bullying the bully is what goldenage superman did. It helped in a corrupt society. He needs effectiveness not moral platitudes that doesn't protect the weak. "Fear" works and superman can make it far more effective than bruce ever could. He did it before the bat ever did. Light and dark nonsense is from post crisis. Clark brings "fear" to the corrupt and "hope" to the oppressed. Batman does throw people from buildings before catching them.

As for being antithesis. Hello, batman was created because of superman. He is a vigilante too. They both are. So they are not as antithetic as you think.

So you think siegel and shuster's vision is worthless. The jewish guys who created powerful man that protected the weak. Your "evolution" is worth more. Nope! Goldenage superman is "the Superman" atleast for me. Everything else came later. Sure, it needs some modernisation. But, that's it.

Don't compare whatever you call "classic" superman to gandhi. If you don't know the history don't bring it in. if you want to have that debate fine. Did you know gandhi was ineffective many a times? .the execution of Bhagat singh. The partition and the masscre that followed on both sides.(keep in mind, i am not blaming him. It happened. He couldn't do damn thing) . So, if clark is like that then he will essentially letting bad things happen especially to good and innocent people . As for mlk,i haven't seen much of anything in post crisis to suggest that comparison. Clark's "dreams" speech doesn't even have the same context as the mlk's.

No, there is no line at all. Dude, superman is a vigilante. He takes the law into his own hand,every version of him. Law is meant to protect the innocent . If it doesn't clark takes law into his own hand. He is right or wrong That's for reader to decide. But the character is that. Your slippery slop argument is nonsense. So, is your hyperbolic "extreme" comparison. Golden age superman has every bit of morality as "classic" superman has. Keep in mind he didn't attack the guy. Only scared him. He doesn't kill. Manchester black or injustice superman are nothing like goldenage superman. Read goldenage books.

Again, i ask which superman does johns write nicely? Dude you haven't even answered what you mean by "classic" superman.?which version do you mean? Really, waid hates morrison's superman.i doubt it. He might hate new52 direction in general for the character. I hate it too. But, morrison's run is quintessential golden age superman.

I know whats "superdickery" is. It was just a fun poke. The point was boyscout thing is postcrisis thing.

So, superman should let corrupt guys do what they do just because they are weaker than him. That is exactly the thing that batman criticised superman for in Darknight returns. Clark would punch whomever is standing over others and oppressing them using their power.

Oh! Really tell me one attribute from morrison's new 52 superman that is like the dceu superman. I can and have given you details and specifics of influences zack snyder took like kelex, birthing matrix.. Etc.post crisis is one of major influences zack took.you don't even do that.you just say "they both edgy. So same".that's not enough man.

How does him being "current" generation superman make him superior to the vision the original creators had for the character?

That's you. Me, i am strictly talking about goldenage superman and the influenced version of the character morrison's superman. You said morrison's superman is'nt superman. He is. I have provided side by side panels of golden age superman with morrison's superman.

If you haven't read anything of the older stuff. I urge you to read it.read some silverage and golden age. Understand the differences.know that precrisis superman is every bit superman as yours is. Superman is beyond yours or mine notion of "classic".
You might be thinking i am a pre crisis fan. No, i am not. I love postcrisis guy. Rebirth was my favourite era. I didn't even like New52. But, what you are saying is wrong. Golden age superman has his place.

[SiegePerilous02]

The bizarre parts of the Super mythos were adapted in the Donner movies pretty much. I'd argue stuff like Snyder's Superman defending women from sexual harassment (which seemed to get about the same reaction as Morrison's Superman from certain people) and him focusing on Batman's human rights abuses are not too different from the Golden Age albeit with less hotheadedness.

I'd say the Donner movies are why people think he only fights Lex Luthor's real estate schemes or the Phantom Zone criminals. They didn't get nearly as crazy as the character can get. Not a sign of Krypto, the Legion, Mxy, Bizarro or Brainiac were there? We've barely scratched the surface of getting Superman's mythos on the big screen.

Those are basic ideas that the Snyder take was right to include, even if it didn't execute it in the perfect way. We do need more of that stuff.

And Silver Age/Post-Crisis Superman was an agent of the status quo?? No he wasn't. Again, this is a Superman whose main enemy is a corrupt businessman who uses his money to buy power and influence. The idea that Pre-Flashpoint/Post-Crisis Superman was just some tool for the establishment is such a misunderstanding of the character.

It's created the perception that Superman cannot be too macho, passionate, fantastical or tough or or be anything other than the Nice Dad or else people think he's acting OOC. People who have a wider knowledge of the character's history know better.

Well, I haven't even mentioned Byrne throughout the discussion, but I think you're mischaracterizing his writing. His exact words are "Krypton bred me, but it was Earth that gave me all I am. All that matters. It was Krypton that made me Superman, but it is Earth that makes me human." So, yeah, that makes sense for someone who was raised his whole life on Earth. He sees himself as human. Is there an issue with Superman having humanity?

When he thinks of himself chiefly as a human first, like "Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I do" it makes him conform more to human standards and makes him less unique. He should always have humanity, and Morrison's Superman humanity, but is not human. He is an alien with a different biology and perspective than ours. He is still a Person though, the human race shouldn't be propped up at the expense of his true heritage. He should love and value both. It's telling that post-Crisis authors tried to move away from that aspect of Byrne's writing.

You're acting as if people don't call out Batman for being violent in film. One of the main criticisms of BvS was that the Batman in that movie was uber violent and killed a lot of people.

And yet, there are still clear differences between the likes of Adam West, Michael Keaton and Christian Bale, and the DCAU and Arkham verse takes, and they are all beloved. I think they could handle multiple takes on Superman that don't all conform to one thing, because he's been many things in his 80 years.

You don't prove those people wrong by basically caving to their preconcieved notions. You don't prove to them that Superman is actually cool by saying "you guys were so right; that old Superman was soooo lame. Here's a new edgier Superman who punches strangers before bothering to talk to them."

Your continued mistake is declaring the edgier Superman as "new". He's actually older than the one your championing. All of this is at the core of the character. None of that should be off the table just because you don't care for it. Your "old" Superman was "new" at one time and replaced not one, but two others. Maybe his time will be up at some point.

Who said that stuff was okay? Those are some things people actually point out as wrong or dated about the films. Also, there's a reason they cut out the part of him killing Zod.

And, if Superman needs to be "edgier" and "cooler" to attract new fans, then why did both the New 52 and DCEU versions fail to attract a significant amount of new fans??? Like, you're acting as if these newer takes on Superman worked. They didn't. People shunned them. You liked it, so you're arguing for it. But the facts show that most people did not.

Actually, as SK pointed out, the initial New 52 sold well. MOS did very well for a non-Marvel solo film despite not reaching expectations, even in home media sales. it did well enough that WB thought they could have Snyder build up the DCEU, and the failures came after. Neither one of them was shunned right out of the gate. So who are these "most people" you speak of.

A Superman who has to ask why humanity is worth saving is pretty close to a Superman who constantly mopes about being alone, despite the fact that he supposedly grew up in a loving home with several human friends. They're both indicative of somebody who views himself as inhuman and/or above us. That does not make him relatable. That does not make him someone people want to root for. Superman is one of us. That is what makes him Superman.

Superman did often feel alone in the pre-Crisis era. His Clark Kent identity was putting up a wall around himself. He belonged to two worlds and didn't completely belong to either, but he didn't mope. He got was still the #1 inspiring superhero and got **** done. He just had some neurotic (and in some ways, self created) quirks and flaws that made him relateable. Everyone feels like an outcast at some point and so did he, but he still grew up with friends like Lana, Pete and the Legion. He was relateable in that he went through adversity and came out the other side of it. This is something that makes a lot of the post-Crisis era come off as phony because he just didn't have these experiences or stories, at least not as prominently at first. That is what makes him Superman, not just that he has humanity.

The post-Crisis era doesn't consist of one run either.

He's still got powers far beyond any human.

Somebody should go back in time and tell Siegel and Shuster how wrong they were for making him super powered and roughing up normal criminals. The tyrant.

The generation that grew up with boy scout Superman is, what, like in their 30s? That's...not old. That's the generation that is buying movie tickets right now.

And they have kids of their own who may be old enough to buy tickets and go see these superhero movies without adult supervision. Nobody who bought the Byrne or saw the Reeve film at the ground floor can be considered the current generation. Hell I will be 30 in couple months, and the Byrne run is still older than me by a few years. I guarantee you that most of the younger kids who are buying tickets have never bought the post-Crisis comics and never will, because they're not buying comics in general. They don't have a Superman yet to call their own.

You keep assuming I'm talking about Byrne. I'm not. I like Superman who existed Pre-Flashpoint, who yeah, had Pre-Crisis elements and character history, but still maintained a bright and hopeful demeanor. The one who sees himself as human. That's the one people related to. The one DC had to eventually bring back.

Byrne is pretty much the equivalent of Morrison's run in the New 52, which is why they get compared a lot. For better or worse, it was the foundation that the post-Crisis Superman didn't really escape from. And even with the pre-Crisis elements back in place, the era from the 2000s to right up to Flashpoint is often considered one of the character's lowest points. After Death of Superman (which is a classic largely due to its attention grabbing gimmick and the last few iconic pages than its merits as a story) and the Return, there aren't many classic stories to come out of the mainline Superman comics. All the classics after that are elseworlds (All-Star, Red Son, For All Seasons, etc).

Yeah DC brought him back, but they will drop him like a sack of bricks the minute they think they can do something else to get attention and sales.

Except I did. Do you need me to show you my Comixology account? Just because I took a different takeaway from the Morrison New 52 run than you did (namely that I didn't like it) doesn't mean I didn't read it. Its not a bible for Superman. It was one writer's take. A take that, to many people, fell flat.

It's one thing to not like it, but you keep saying it was present in MOS and pulling details from thin air that are not actually in the run.

Except I've posted scane from that run that show why I think its a bad look for Superman. Again, I don't think a Superman who uses his powers to bust into normal peoples' homes and dangles them off of balconies is a good look for Superman.

Lol "normal people"? You make it sound like he barges into the homes of average civilians and instead of corrupt crime lords who have innocent people killed. Those are the exact type of people Superman should be putting the fear of god into. If it was such a bad look for him, DC comics wouldn't even exist because that's what caught people's attention and make him popular in the first plac.e

To you. To me, he seemed like he felt like he was above the rules. And again, to me, he didn't feel human or relatable at all.

Of course he feels he was above the rules. Because the rules and the system are broken and designed to keep the corrupt in power and oppress the weak. He is an ally and protector of the weak who says "**** the rules, I'm doing what's right." That's who his creator's designed him to be, nobody here is in a position to say he shouldn't be like that.

[Last Son of Krypton]

It's not. It's a weird fusion of post-Crisis and pre-Crisis. And those pre-Crisis elements, which are honestly a little fuzzy around the edges and harder to focus on for the most part, and probably why so many people think the New52 had such heavy influence on the book, since Morrison's run had so much pre-Crisis in its makeup.

But really, look at the timeline. MoS hit in mi-2013, and I forget the details but would've been filming and in production for at least a year prior to that (mid 2012) and the script and pre-production would've started before that. Work on MoS likely began before the first issues of the New52 were out. I very much doubt those comics had any significant impact on the film. Just a guess of course, if there's interviews where Zack Snyder talks about Morrison's Action being an influence I'm not aware of them.

Man of Steel started filming in August 2011: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/locations The script was probably written in 2010.

[Ascended]

Man of Steel started filming in August 2011: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/locations The script was probably written in 2010.

Which means there was one single issue of Action and Superman out on the stands when filming began. The odds of the New52 influencing the film seem pretty ridiculously low to me.

Honestly? If the movie had been inspired by the t-shirt and jeans Superman of Morrison's Action run.....the film probably would've been better.

[SiegePerilous02]

Man of Steel started filming in August 2011: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/locations The script was probably written in 2010.

Which means there was one single issue of Action and Superman out on the stands when filming began. The odds of the New52 influencing the film seem pretty ridiculously low to me.

Honestly? If the movie had been inspired by the t-shirt and jeans Superman of Morrison's Action run.....the film probably would've been better.

Yep, seems like we can definitively put the "MOS was based on the New 52 Superman" thing to bed now. Thank God.

God, it would have been soooooo much better. Provided it was directed by somebody other than Snyder. The basic idea of shaking things up with Superman was sound and exactly what the character needs, they just needed a defter hand behind it.