Why do people say Zack Snyder doesn't respect comics?

[Dboi2001]

how does Asgard being a people not a place break the arc? I’d argue that is more of a cliche than the birthright. No it doesn’t negate the Thor trilogy arc and no Thor Ragnarok is vital to the Thor Trilogy. You are focusing on the superficial but in the end he fulfilled his destiny and became king. Thor was about learning to be a good man, Thor Dark World a good warrior and Ragnarok a good king which Odin believed he was not because of his failure to end Hela for good

No Avengers doesn’t really fit into the Iron Man Trilogy. Iron Man’s bear death in Avengers was the catalyst to Stark’s crisis believing he was nothing without his suit. Civil War is a captain America movie not an Iron Man movie and while Iron Man is the co star Cap is the main man

No Endgame should’ve been Thor at his peak in terms of character struggle. What should’ve happened is Thor gone into exile and the Avengers needed to find him and convince him he can still help. It’s undeserving because his arc in Endgame goes like this. Thor murders Thanos and walks off - Fat Thor - Big Lobowski reference - He cries and mopes about his mom and Jane when they get the Ether - Rocket calls him a fat ass and to pull himself together - Badass Thor at the end - decides to quit being King just because. Seriously Ragnarok Thor, IW Thor and Endgame Thor are all different people. And here is the kicker IW Thor was my favorite version of Thor in any of the MCU movies which is why i was heartbroken at him in Endgame. Seriously Thor in IW had a badass look, he was dead serious on killing Thanos after murdering Loki and half of the Asgardians AND in the end he ultimately failed. He should’ve been the best character in Endgame but ended up as the third wheel of the big 3

And you know what him being King would not only make more sense thematically but also we can see him develop and mentor Valk as a leader. I never said keep him king forever and do nothing but sit on his ass. He could’ve been a mentor and maybe even pass on Asgard to Valk but no screw that just have him become king for 10 minutes and go off to hang with the guardians

Yeah Odinson “still exists” just being literally unworthy while not explaining why he wasn’t worthy and again there is a reason they gave Thor his hammer back.

Oh stfu about your preachy “I don’t wike wamen” speech. Again I didn’t have an issue with a woman becoming Thor just why Jane Foster instead of any other Thor character? And despite that I gave FemThor a chance. Just like I gave Danvers Cpt Marvel a chance because hey Ms Marvel was always cool they just gave her a new suit and name. Mar Vell isn’t even my favorite Captain Marvel it was Quasar you know the lesbian one? Tbh Mar Vell was never even interesting to me and he died too much and I always liked Ms Marvel more despite technically being his sidekick. So don’t act like you know me or that just because i dislike a comic series featuring a woman means i’m sexist. I hate to break it to you but most people including me are bring going to spend 4-5 dollars every Wednesday to get a chapter to a story they can only hope gets better later on. Maybe i’ll pick up the first volume of FemThor run since you seem to like it but don’t give me this crap thinking i’m sexist because i don’t like an iconic hero of over 50 years being replaced by an inferior version

Just as an example why do you think people like Miles Morales? Because he was an interesting character and sure as hell a lot more than just the black peter parker. he had his own struggles and felt he needed to succeed Peter’s legacy. So how about you stop acting like the comic community has always rejected change or new minority superheroes

regardless this has gotten off topic and starting to become toxic which i don’t want

addressing your points about Jimmy and Superman i’ll concede that it was unnecessary to kill “Jimmy Olsen” in BvS. Again it doesn’t really matter because it could’ve been a fake name and Jimmy be introduced later especially since the theatrical cut didn’t name him. So i will concede it was unnecessary to kill off Jimmy. But don’t act Hela easily murdering the warriors 3 is any better

Moving onto your point about Superman’s ‘human life’ it’s just a front. The only reason he works at the Daily Planet is to get insight to the criminal world not to make a living. He is probably being a hero most of the time and on top of that probably understands the larger circle of friends the more people who could be hurt

Now in MoS Superman isn’t conflicted about whether he should save humanity or not but if he can save both Krypton and Earth. he is also conflicted that he has to fight his own kind after feeling like an outsider his whole life. And all he does throughout MoS is hope. He hopes learning about his alien heritage will give him closure, he hopes he can be a good man and change the world like his father told him and he hopes he can unite Krypton and Earth like what Jor El told him. Jor El literally says he is his hopes and dreams. It isn’t Superman who has changed it’s the world he lives in which admittedly is more cynical. It’s not a world where answers are black and white despite what he thinks and it’s not a world of rational men. Zod was a genocidal maniac who was the exact opposite of Superman being bigoted and genocidal. Superman tried to negotiate with Zod believing he could change him but Zod refused because it was against his programming. It was literally nature vs nurture

His struggle in BvS is if he truly is making the world safer or not because despite saving people from burning buildings or floods or shipwreck he couldn’t stop crimes like sex trafficking or drug trade or even brutal vigilante justice. He isn’t unsure if humanity was worth saving but if he really was saving humanity. At the end he accepts that despite the bad Earth is his world and he will save it. Again the issue is not Superman’s characterization but the world he lives in

[Dboi2001]

Yes...and? All those stories are fucking terrible. The last thing we need is more of them. You're mistaken if you think it being done before is a defense I would agree with for this one.

so you think injustice in terrible?

[phantom1592]

so you think injustice in terrible?

A lot of people do. Something about Evil Superman turns a lot of people off. That's not too controversial

[Dboi2001]

and btw the problem was not just Absorbing Man and Titania being out of character but Thor herself also being out of character

[Dboi2001]

A lot of people do. Something about Evil Superman turns a lot of people off. That's not too controversial

really? I barely see people complain about evil Superman.

[manwhohaseverything]

really? I barely see people complain about evil Superman.

Go to superman forum. Put a poll about how many like batman's villain injusticeman or cliche evil Superman stories. The story takes huge leaps to make superman totalitarian and shoves the "lois died" crap. As if the parents or lois or any one person is the foundation of superman's morality. Superman became superman because of altruistic instinct and choice. Not lois. Batman is the manipulative conniving one. Yet, he is about liberty. What a load of baloney. Everyone complains, its just these aren't made for superman fans. Their target is batman fanboys.

[Dboi2001]

Go to superman forum. Put a poll about how many like batman's villain injusticeman or cliche evil Superman stories. The story takes huge leaps to make superman totalitarian and shoves the "lois died" crap. As if the parents or lois or any one person is the foundation of superman's morality. Superman became superman because of altruistic instinct and choice. Not lois. Batman is the manipulative conniving one. Yet, he is about liberty. What a load of baloney. Everyone complains, its just these aren't made for superman fans. Their target is batman fanboys.

mind you he not only lost Lois and his unborn child but also all of Metropolis and on top of that Joker's poison made Superman hallucinate Doomsday and caused him to murder his own wife.

[manwhohaseverything]

mind you he not only lost Lois and his unborn child but also all of Metropolis and on top of that Joker's poison made Superman hallucinate Doomsday and caused him to murder his own wife.

Does the story treat superman as sympathetic victim or villain of circumstance ?no it doesn't. It treats superman as punching bag for "hero" the great righteous batman to beat up. Heck! Even harley quinn is made into a hero in that disgusting story. She is a genocidal maniac and a mass murderer. Yet, superman is put into the whiny bratt and typical mustache twirling villain box. At best, it gives a throwaway line about Superman being a sentient gun which was a theme of goldenage comics and the iron giant. So, don't give me his lose count. The story only treats it as a plot device,not an active trauma that the antagonist(superman is the bad guy) has to get over. What a poultry excuse for a superman story, smh!
Granted injusticeman can be made interesting, if done right. But, the games don't do that. Taylor tries and gives some depth. But ultimately, is another example of dc and wb mishandling superman ip. Most of the time i wish the character was in public domain.

[Jack The Tripper]

how does Asgard being a people not a place break the arc? I’d argue that is more of a cliche than the birthright. No it doesn’t negate the Thor trilogy arc and no Thor Ragnarok is vital to the Thor Trilogy. You are focusing on the superficial but in the end he fulfilled his destiny and became king. Thor was about learning to be a good man, Thor Dark World a good warrior and Ragnarok a good king which Odin believed he was not because of his failure to end Hela for good

No Avengers doesn’t really fit into the Iron Man Trilogy. Iron Man’s bear death in Avengers was the catalyst to Stark’s crisis believing he was nothing without his suit. Civil War is a captain America movie not an Iron Man movie and while Iron Man is the co star Cap is the main man

No Endgame should’ve been Thor at his peak in terms of character struggle. What should’ve happened is Thor gone into exile and the Avengers needed to find him and convince him he can still help. It’s undeserving because his arc in Endgame goes like this. Thor murders Thanos and walks off - Fat Thor - Big Lobowski reference - He cries and mopes about his mom and Jane when they get the Ether - Rocket calls him a fat ass and to pull himself together - Badass Thor at the end - decides to quit being King just because. Seriously Ragnarok Thor, IW Thor and Endgame Thor are all different people. And here is the kicker IW Thor was my favorite version of Thor in any of the MCU movies which is why i was heartbroken at him in Endgame. Seriously Thor in IW had a badass look, he was dead serious on killing Thanos after murdering Loki and half of the Asgardians AND in the end he ultimately failed. He should’ve been the best character in Endgame but ended up as the third wheel of the big 3

And you know what him being King would not only make more sense thematically but also we can see him develop and mentor Valk as a leader. I never said keep him king forever and do nothing but sit on his ass. He could’ve been a mentor and maybe even pass on Asgard to Valk but no screw that just have him become king for 10 minutes and go off to hang with the guardians

Yeah Odinson “still exists” just being literally unworthy while not explaining why he wasn’t worthy and again there is a reason they gave Thor his hammer back.

Oh stfu about your preachy “I don’t wike wamen” speech. Again I didn’t have an issue with a woman becoming Thor just why Jane Foster instead of any other Thor character? And despite that I gave FemThor a chance. Just like I gave Danvers Cpt Marvel a chance because hey Ms Marvel was always cool they just gave her a new suit and name. Mar Vell isn’t even my favorite Captain Marvel it was Quasar you know the lesbian one? Tbh Mar Vell was never even interesting to me and he died too much and I always liked Ms Marvel more despite technically being his sidekick. So don’t act like you know me or that just because i dislike a comic series featuring a woman means i’m sexist. I hate to break it to you but most people including me are bring going to spend 4-5 dollars every Wednesday to get a chapter to a story they can only hope gets better later on. Maybe i’ll pick up the first volume of FemThor run since you seem to like it but don’t give me this crap thinking i’m sexist because i don’t like an iconic hero of over 50 years being replaced by an inferior version

Just as an example why do you think people like Miles Morales? Because he was an interesting character and sure as hell a lot more than just the black peter parker. he had his own struggles and felt he needed to succeed Peter’s legacy. So how about you stop acting like the comic community has always rejected change or new minority superheroes

regardless this has gotten off topic and starting to become toxic which i don’t want

addressing your points about Jimmy and Superman i’ll concede that it was unnecessary to kill “Jimmy Olsen” in BvS. Again it doesn’t really matter because it could’ve been a fake name and Jimmy be introduced later especially since the theatrical cut didn’t name him. So i will concede it was unnecessary to kill off Jimmy. But don’t act Hela easily murdering the warriors 3 is any better

Moving onto your point about Superman’s ‘human life’ it’s just a front. The only reason he works at the Daily Planet is to get insight to the criminal world not to make a living. He is probably being a hero most of the time and on top of that probably understands the larger circle of friends the more people who could be hurt

Now in MoS Superman isn’t conflicted about whether he should save humanity or not but if he can save both Krypton and Earth. he is also conflicted that he has to fight his own kind after feeling like an outsider his whole life. And all he does throughout MoS is hope. He hopes learning about his alien heritage will give him closure, he hopes he can be a good man and change the world like his father told him and he hopes he can unite Krypton and Earth like what Jor El told him. Jor El literally says he is his hopes and dreams. It isn’t Superman who has changed it’s the world he lives in which admittedly is more cynical. It’s not a world where answers are black and white despite what he thinks and it’s not a world of rational men. Zod was a genocidal maniac who was the exact opposite of Superman being bigoted and genocidal. Superman tried to negotiate with Zod believing he could change him but Zod refused because it was against his programming. It was literally nature vs nurture

His struggle in BvS is if he truly is making the world safer or not because despite saving people from burning buildings or floods or shipwreck he couldn’t stop crimes like sex trafficking or drug trade or even brutal vigilante justice. He isn’t unsure if humanity was worth saving but if he really was saving humanity. At the end he accepts that despite the bad Earth is his world and he will save it. Again the issue is not Superman’s characterization but the world he lives in

You don't understand what I'm saying: As much as Ragnarok ends an arc, it begins a new one. You may not see it that way, but you're too focussed on this idea of a trilogy and no possibility of character arcs in the team movies. If had a goal my whole life to get a degree in medicine, and then I succeed in that goal, that is the end of that phase - the next phase is what I do with that degree. Phase ends with the degree, phase 2 begins with it. Just because you don't like where it went, doesn't mean it wasn't an arc. Ragnarok was Thor becoming king, IW was Thor's failed attempt at vengeance, Endgame was his realisation that just because he chased something and was told what he should be his whole life, doesn't mean he has to be that. It infinitely sets up an open road for new stories to tell, even one in which where he does end up on the throne for the end. The creators just want to give him his due as a character. Also Ragnarok ends with Thanos' ship, essentially tying it into the next movie from the get go, it was all on purpose boss.

You literally just pointed out that the team movies introduce new arcs. It is a character beat that informs his decisions in Iron Man 3, him having to overcome his panic attacks is an arc that starts in Avengers because that is the moment which gives him panic attacks. Just because the team movies focus on a team doesn't mean there aren't any individual arcs being formed/evolved/completed. In Civil War, Iron Man still gets character moments that build to an arc. By the end of the movie he's split from Captain America, feeling hurt and broken by the fact that someone he considered a friend lied to him and broke his trust. He is in a different place by the end of the movie. GotG is another example of this - team movies where (especially in volume 2) every character has some sort of arc.

But that is basically what happened - yeah he played fortnite and got fat, but that's because it's a side effect of grief and guilt, which you can't deny. You're forgetting that it wasn't Rocket who made him pick himself up, it was his mother. He decides to quit being king because he has been an alcoholic for 5 years doing nothing and felt like he had failed his people, whereas Valkyrie had not, she stuck around whilst he wasted away. I maintain that him giving up the throne is more interesting in itself as opposed to him being King, and they've opened up infinite possibilities with how weird and strange the movies can be now. Well Captain America and Iron Man were always gonna have the most screen time because it's mainly been their stories up til Endgame - they knew Thor was coming back and so didn't need to spend time giving him a full on ending.

They explain why, man. And no, he was bought back because the writer planned this **** out years before - this is what I'm telling you when I say it's not just about Jane Foster, it features Odinson's story, as well as Odin's, as well as Frigga's, as well as Volstagg. Ypu're letting your bias inform your opinion on astory you haven't read or even read up on.

Why not Jane Foster though? She was a fairly inoffensive character that hadn't done much in years. I actually can't imagine anyone refusing to check out a story just because she's in it because she was so inconsequential. Not to mention she wasn't revealed as Thor until issue 8 (I think). They made a non essential/one note character important and interesting in her own right whilst also adding to Odinson's story. She's not an inferior version though!! This is what's annoying me! You're making assumptions without actually reading it. it's like me saying that Kurt Busiek's Avengers is bad because some people online scanned a few choice pages that I didn't like on to the internet. You can't say something is terrible or inferior until you've read it. If you do end up reading it, just make sure you read Thor: God Of Thunder beforehand to get everything you can out of the run.

[Jack The Tripper]

Le Part deux

But Jane Foster also has her own struggles, that's why she worked so well too. It was a human carrying the power of the name Thor, what it means to be a God, and what it means to help people even though you sacrifice a bit of yourself each time you do it.

I never did say it was any better, I was linking jimmy to your Absorbing Man problem. As I said, Warrior's Three deaths were no problem for me because it was clearly done for a pacing reason, and it led to a the movie getting started quicker.

I don't buy that, man. A big part of Superman is his humanity, and Clark Kent's life fits into that. Clark grew up on Earth, he should be juggling his personal life with his being a hero, just like Spider-Man, Hal Jordan, even Daredevil. If you take away Superman's humanity, then you're just turning him into Dr. Manhattan. Snyder's choice to get rid of a Clark Kent with a life damages his Superman's characterisation, only servicing to make him more dull and less likeable to the general audience and making him into a loner type of hero. Again this isn't a bad idea for Superman, but by the end of MoS we should have seen a considerable change in his attitude - in my opinion we didn't, and even if we did, it had regressed by BvS.

Sorry it's been a few years since i rewatched MoS so I'm sure I'm getting parts wrong, but it doesn't change how Snyder keeps Superman being portrayed as a man unsure about his heroics in BvS at the very least. In MoS he definitely struggles with being a hero too as Jonathan Kent is sure to keep telling him not to be saving kids in drowning school buses... I just don't buy that Snyder understands what makes Superman interesting and enjoyable to the general public and comics fans. He really does try to give him this dark, brooding demeanour that just makes him boring and one note to most people. So i think it's fair to say Snyder doesn't respect comics apart from the type he seems to like - as a commenter said above, it looks like the darker, edgier 80s stuff. He was never the right choice to direct Superman, let alone introduce The Justice League.

But he's still helping people? It's weird for him to literally be saving people from mass floods, explosions and stuff and wonder whether he's helping, because he clearly is. What would have made more sense is him maybe burning himself out by pushing himself to the limit trying to help people and stop the worst things. If he was really worried about that stuff he could absolutely stop them, it would just sacrifice his personal life. Instead he's sad that he can't stop trafficking, but instead of going out and stopping it, he just worries that he can't do it? He can do pretty much anything, so it makes no sense for him to just mope about it instead of actually doing it.

Thor wasn't out of character in that issue lol, you haven't read that run so you don't know what is in character for her.

[manwhohaseverything]

Dude, what? Clark kent and kal el is all that exists in these movies. It's all about lois, ma, pa and jor el. Clark was shown investigating and taking on the bat vigilante of gotham. Superman is at best a developing identity . Pa didn't tell him to not save drowing kids. That's a blatant mischaracterisation. There is such a thing as consequences. This is superman,Not a guy that uses ropes and crawls on walls.Spiderman's great power doesn't amount to much. Clark's mere existence makes every power structure on the planet irrelevant.Spiderman can be shot and killed. He cannot take on an entire army. Superman/boy can and cannot. The guy coming out could literally start world war 3,especially as a kid. The kid is a weapon . Religious fundamentalism is also a thing in this world. On top of that, the kid is an alien. Xenophobia is a thing. Moreover, pa is stuck with a powerful kid not knowing what to do. Ofcourse, things weren't hunky dory and straight . Clark being unsure was the arc set up. You might not like it or disagree with it. I certainly do(while i agree, that there is all these problems. Superman is a champion and a man of action. Him being bogged down by the world is uncharacteristic and uninspiring ) . But, it's not exactly illogical.

He helps people because its his instinct and then it became his choice. Also, he isn't professor x. He can't control people. Even if he could, he isn't in the business of controlling people. He doesn't want to be bogged down by "with great power comes great obligation". Superman isn't about obligation. It is about choice. Choice is morality,not obligation. Therefore people would need the freedom to make bad ones as well. Superman isn't here to fix the world.He is'nt divine savior. Obligation is a chain. He is only human and just a champion . Superman doesn't bow before any chain. He hates chains. Ben parker's morality is great for a kid with responsibility issue. Not a guy struggling with power and aftereffects of that power on the world itself. Clark isn't out there beating up flash Thompson for petty revenge or to show off. When clark bullies back its defensive, not offensive. Yes, he does do that. If superman sneeses something breaks.The world is made of cardboard for the guy. The guy is dangerous.he is a sentient gun. But, his sentience leads to his altruistic instinct and gives him choices that enable morality. Superman ain't spiderman. Period. Those two aren't built the same way.

[SiegePerilous02]

so you think injustice in terrible?

Yep. Not just in Its treatment of Superman either.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Dude, what? Clark kent and kal el is all that exists in these movies. It's all about lois, ma, pa and jor el. Clark was shown investigating and taking on the bat vigilante of gotham. Superman is at best a developing identity . Pa didn't tell him to not save drowing kids. That's a blatant mischaracterisation. There is such a thing as consequences. This is superman,Not a guy that uses ropes and crawls on walls.Spiderman's great power doesn't amount to much. Clark's mere existence makes every power structure on the planet irrelevant.Spiderman can be shot and killed. He cannot take on an entire army. Superman/boy can and cannot. The guy coming out could literally start world war 3,especially as a kid. The kid is a weapon . Religious fundamentalism is also a thing in this world. On top of that, the kid is an alien. Xenophobia is a thing. Moreover, pa is stuck with a powerful kid not knowing what to do. Ofcourse, things weren't hunky dory and straight . Clark being unsure was the arc set up. You might not like it or disagree with it. I certainly do(while i agree, that there is all these problems. Superman is a champion and a man of action. Him being bogged down by the world is uncharacteristic and uninspiring ) . But, it's not exactly illogical.

Superman should be mostly fully formed by B vs S, like Batman in TDK, except rather than being more developed he's less like Superman than he was in MoS. Pa Kent didn't tell him to save the kids, either, it was a very awkward conversation and one a child like Clark wasn't ready to come to his conclusions form how terribly it was presented by his father. Rather than simply telling Clark he did a good thing and that his abilities make him special he gave Clakr a confused message that was tainted by paranoia. He may be right that he should hide his abilities but the Kent's didn't invest in teaching him to look after others, it was himself first and mixed signals about rescuing people if he had the opportunity. I'm curious what Clark went through the years when he finally got around to wandering the earth rescuing people because we're not shown much in how he came to that view and how they wee the opposite of what the kent's taught him. Spider-man is an incredibly powerful individual, he may not be Superman class but he's a high end street leveller who can crush cars in his hands and manages to be a problem for entire groups of super-humans on his own.

The context for the Kents and young Clark was an intriguing idea except it wasn't given depth to explore fully. There was nuance there to show Clark becoming who he was but we didn't see it, all we did see was that they wanted him to his who he was and don't be a super-hero so why did he become a super-hero? Who inspired him? We don't know. This could have been a movie in itself about Clark becoming a super-hero and Snyder squandered the opportunity so he could get to Clark being Superman as an adult. Pa Kent's death is another thing which sends mixed messages about whether he should be a super-hero and unlike Donner's, which focuses on Clark feeling helpless because his powers were useless against a heart attack this death provided more questions about why did Clark just do more or why was that a scene in the movie? It didn't progress the character in any form other than make him sad. It did, however, give him another mental obstacle to why he should be a super-hero.

He helps people because its his instinct and then it became his choice. Also, he isn't professor x. He can't control people. Even if he could, he isn't in the business of controlling people. He doesn't want to be bogged down by "with great power comes great obligation". Superman isn't about obligation. It is about choice. Choice is morality,not obligation. Therefore people would need the freedom to make bad ones as well. Superman isn't here to fix the world.He is'nt divine savior. Obligation is a chain. He is only human and just a champion . Superman doesn't bow before any chain. He hates chains. Ben parker's morality is great for a kid with responsibility issue. Not a guy struggling with power and aftereffects of that power on the world itself. Clark isn't out there beating up flash Thompson for petty revenge or to show off. When clark bullies back its defensive, not offensive. Yes, he does do that. If superman sneeses something breaks.The world is made of cardboard for the guy. The guy is dangerous.he is a sentient gun. But, his sentience leads to his altruistic instinct and gives him choices that enable morality. Superman ain't spiderman. Period. Those two aren't built the same way.

We don't see this in the movies, its heavily implied in MoS before Zod arrives yet we don't know why he does it other than because he's Superman in a Superman movie. After Zod arrives it stops being choice and becomes about survival. He has no choice. With B v S he does it as obligation but why is it an obligation? We aren't told because we 're not in his head. He's a stranger to the audience, unlike Batman. Superman has people to talk to in his life, like Lois Lane and Martha, and he should have more opinions and knowledge about what he should do since he's not a kid anymore, he's a grown adult who's been a super-hero for a while off-screen after MoS. Superman may not be the Authority but as a super-hero it's an occupation which is all about saving the world and people, it compliments his life as a journalist. Superman respects authority, and he does this in MoS. He willingly hands himself over to the US military and works with them against the Kryptonians. Superman works with authorities just like Batman does, he's done this for years in the comics and other media, and more than Batman. His association with STAR Labs, for example, and his relationship with Metropolis PD. He's not a loner who refuses to work with anybody, even Batman doesn't do that. Superman is able to control himself through support networks from scientists who analyse his biology at STAR labs, and knowledge left over Krypton and other sources. He's also known for making it a priority for being able to control himself with precision because he knows the danger he presents simply by not controlling his strength. Things Snyder's Superman isn't explored, he just shows up in B v S with full control of his abilities. How did he come to this? We don't know, what we do know is that he doesn't talk to anyone about it that much, and he has no allies anywhere in the government or sciences or leftover technology from Krypton and he has no presence or motivation to explain himself in the media. Superman is many things, what he shouldn't be is averse to the media - which Lex takes advantage of because Clark, despite being a reporter, lets Superman take every hit Lex throws at him and doesn't fight back in the press. Why? Who knows. Because unlike most media representations this Superman is an outsider to the audience, a stranger with godlike super-powers who won't explain himself and is too impulsive to burn people with his laser eyes the upset. He's a PR disaster, inside and outside the film.

[manwhohaseverything]

trucated due to size restrictions.

He didn't tell him to save the kids either cause he doesn't know the answer. That's a thing. People generally don't know how to handle larger than life situations. He is just a farmer from kansas. Saving the kid requires risking the world and his close one's to boot. You bet he doesn't know what to tell his kid. I wouldn't either. Clark did an act of altruism,that can have serious bad out comes.Bvs says it as it is Pa saved a farm from drowning by redirecting water. Only for it to drown the lang farm. These are larger than life structures. If you jump head first naively then you could cause hell of a devastation. Which superman does. These movies have devastation because its inevitable. A superman would bring that. Does that mean the guy is evil or he wants it? No. He is a sentient gun. Ofcourse, there will be repercussions. Ofcourse, there is paranoia. Its completely justified. You guys all clap for batman's paranoia about justice league going rogue and him creating contingencies. Yet, you want pa kent to be like "go kid. Save people and stuff".when that could blow up in his face. The kid atbest (i should'nt call it that) has to fight or face the world with out him being dead or captured. Yeah! If superboy fights the world there will be consequences. Atworst, he gets taken in by the government like in flashpoint. There is no victory. Your problem is you have built in notion of pa and ma being the ideal people . They are still that,it's just the world is a bit more murky,Like it's meant to be. That conversation is right from the original superman comics.Clark needs to be able to take care of himself to save others. It's that simple. Dude! Kents doesn't need to be Clark's moral compass. Superman helps people because of altruistic instinct and choice. Read if you can the original goldenage comics by siegel and shuster. You know kids throw tantrums. Right? Have you ever wondered what would happen an a kid that can break you like a pretsel throws a tantrum?Yet,ma and pa are perfectly alright. The kid is altruistic by nature. If you don't believe me ask batman
"If Clark wanted to, he could use his superspeed and squish me into the cement. But I know how he thinks. Even more than the Kryptonite, he's got one big weakness. Deep down, Clark's essentially a good person... and deep down, I'm not."
This idea that clark needs ma, pa, jor el, lara, lois... Etc to do good is bogus. Superman is essentially about personhood. What would happen if a gun attained sentience. It can go pretty awry. But, sentience is essentially altruistic. That's the message of superman. If that's not hopeful then i don't know what to tell you. Great,spiderman can crush a car. That's where superman started. If spiderman goes all in with out being ready he takes out a couple of thugs or police.if superman goes all in without him being ready, you have a world on fire. Road to hell is paved with good intentions. You are probably stuck with notion that a person cannot be good without being inspired. That's spiderman. He might need inspiration. Superman doesn't. Superman does the right thing, always. He doesn't need advice or inspiration for that.Even, with all the downer side to this clark. He does the right thing. Why? As said, instinct and choice. He is superman by choice. Therefore he is superman. A budding superman who is learning the rope. A superman isn't born in one day. Unlike the masked kid running around because of guilt that let his uncle die. Superman would have stopped that robber. Pa would have still repremended him for showing himself. Yet, deep down he would have been proud of the man he would become like he was in mos. Remember that scene with the kid wearing cape and pa looking on with pride. That's what the relationship is about. Clark doesn't jump in to save his father cause the samething. He would have blown his cover. He wasn't ready. Pa knew that, so asked to stay hidden. Pa didn't want to be saved,at the cost of some bad outcome. It isn't giving mixed signals. It's just not giving the signals of pure exceptionalism that you want.that's it. In your mind saving people is only natural thing. That your altruistic instinct . Pa has to worry about containig that same instinct in clark so that he doesn't cause bad outcomes with naive good intentions .

It doesn't need to be spelled out. Lois basically says to clark "staying hidden isn't an option for you. Is it?". It's straight forward. When something bad happens superman flys in to help. Why? That's instinct. If someone falls, my instict would be to catch or give a hand. Clark helps because he can't help himself. As said, he isn't peter parker. He is a different beast altogether. Stranger to whom? This version of batman is as stranger to the audience as this version of superman. That isn't much of defence. Everything is laid out very straight forward manner. You were only expecting exceptionalism from these heroes. Superman is already exceptional. He needs to accommodate himself to the world. That's his struggle. What are you talking about? He talks with lois, ma, pa, jor el.. Etc. For example, he talks to ma about his struggle in the big city and asks why pa didn't leave smallville. You just didn't pay attention. He wasn't given enough screen time in second movie. That's it. But, that doesn’t mean he needs advice to be help people. It's his choice. Not either set of parent's or his wife or anyother person. Superman respects authority. Legitimate ones,even then he wouldn't bow to them. Notice what happens when the army trys to spy him? He breaks the satellite. Also, what happens during interrogation scene. That's right. He breaks the cuff and say "you will never control me. But, that doesn’t mean i am your enemy". Superman will always be the chain breaker who fights for freedom. just because you say superman shouldn't be averse to media.Does'nt mean the guy shouldn't. As said, clark is shy, introverted, unsure of himself. He is building himself up as superman one step at a time. You would be pretty wierded out too. One day you were a guy from kansas A farmer/reporter, next you are basically a figure of scrutiny. As if, that's something people ever get accustomed to. Also, superman never had a problem with controlling his ability. Where did you get that? His powers being out of control is not the cause of problems. Its his human side. He has the sins of a man. He can get angry and things like that. Superman getting pissed can be very bad thing. That's more of concern. As said, superman is a sentient gun.

This is a movie,mate.what do you want? Superman to write down why he does every single thing. So that you can understand it better. Superman isn't an outsider to the audience. You just weren't into him. That's alright. Superman will never be universally praised. He isn't supposed to. He was, is and always will be a controversial figure.

[Dboi2001]

Does the story treat superman as sympathetic victim or villain of circumstance ?no it doesn't. It treats superman as punching bag for "hero" the great righteous batman to beat up. Heck! Even harley quinn is made into a hero in that disgusting story. She is a genocidal maniac and a mass murderer. Yet, superman is put into the whiny bratt and typical mustache twirling villain box. At best, it gives a throwaway line about Superman being a sentient gun which was a theme of goldenage comics and the iron giant. So, don't give me his lose count. The story only treats it as a plot device,not an active trauma that the antagonist(superman is the bad guy) has to get over. What a poultry excuse for a superman story, smh!
Granted injusticeman can be made interesting, if done right. But, the games don't do that. Taylor tries and gives some depth. But ultimately, is another example of dc and wb mishandling superman ip. Most of the time i wish the character was in public domain.

Kinda yeah he is given some sympathy. He becomes a dictator to ensure no supervillains like Joker ever exist again. Even then it’s an elseworld story so don’t get your panties in a knot. Apparently you think after Metropolis being destroyed and his wife being murdered by his own hands he should just brush it off?

I hate to break it to you but DC has made Harley into an anti hero more in recent years because just as Dini and Timm envisioned Harley was simply manipulated by Joker