Do people see captain america more as symbol of freedom than Superman today?

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

Superman's struggles as an alien living among humans are a key part of his character just as Steve living as a man out of time is to him. But there is such a thing as overdoing it. Snyder's Superman's almost constant moping about it and his other problems became just so miserable to watch. It just is. And Superman Returns is no better.
With Evans his pain is there and its done so much better. Seeing with old Peggy or losing Bucky or the aftermath of the blip, all of it is there. But unlike Snyder movies, it's not so unrelentingly miserable. And as others brought up Steve is allowed to have firm beliefs he stands for while also being flawed without constantly dwelling on insecurities. And Evans is not only a terrific actor but his Steve has a actual personality. Sad space jesus isn't a personality.

[Stanlos]

I think Marvel has done Cap more successfully because they didn't shy away from what he was but rather leaned into it rather than going all faux edge/mopey/goth like they did with Cavill. DCs characters are not interchangeable in approach. Dark and gritty is Bats but it is not Super or Wondy.

[Will Evans]

Cap has come to be known as a rebel with a cause.

It’s helped him a lot.

With Superman it’s hard to be a rebel with you’re the top guy on the food chain. And you’re trying to fight the good fight, just to keep the status quo.

[Stanlos]

Cap has come to be known as a rebel with a cause.

It’s helped him a lot.

With Superman it’s hard to be a rebel with you’re the top guy on the food chain. And you’re trying to fight the good fight, just to keep the status quo.

I don't think Superman's power is a hindrance at all. The movies they did undoubtedly showed off his powers (for the most part) but it was his characterization that was lacking. Top of the food chain would seem to be about power levels and this far no universe has mirrored the comics exactly. If we look at that Marvel kind of reeks especially looking at Infinity War (though the Whedon JL had its own WTF moment especially regarding W W and Batman)

[jackolover]

The thing is that Superman standing for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" was introduced in the 40s and 50s, it wasn't part of his character when originally introduced. And making Superman an embodiment of the "American Patriarch" and a substitute father figure for generations of young comics readers (many of whom grew up to become Dan Jurgens, Roger Stern, Mark Waid, John Byrne among others) has hampered the character rather than helped it. They approach the character (not all of them, some more than others, Waid above all) with too much reverence and that freezes the ideas one can have about Supes.

Captain America can embody that more honestly than Superman because of his ties to actual history, but Superman can't do that because there's no history to him.

To me Superman is interesting for his character. He's got a real interior dilemma to him. He spent his childhood thinking he was human (at least in more recent versions) then in adolescence, he learned he came from Krypton and that he had these powers. He has to navigate multiple different versions of himself, he has to control his powers, he's from Krypton but he got his powers thanks to the Yellow Sun on Earth, so Superman himself is not wholly Kryptonian or wholly Earth, because he would not have those powers on Krypton. That should be what Superman stories and movies should focus on, constantly asking "Who is Superman?" because the character himself would be asking that, and he did ask that all the time in the strongest stories in the Silver Age, Bronze Age, Post-Crisis era.

That’s also a good point about where does Superman stand? For Earth or for Krypton? I like those sorts of dilemma’s and would want DC to address that. I would have liked Superman to in his “old” age (he’s what, 100 years old now?) to have accepted who he is, and now, go after what’s wrong with his adopted planet. That would be challenging storytelling. Thor tried this in the early 2000’s bringing Asgard to Earth and allowing humans to worship Thor as a religion. Supes has the opportunity to do something similar.

[jackolover]

Superman's struggles as an alien living among humans are a key part of his character just as Steve living as a man out of time is to him. But there is such a thing as overdoing it. Snyder's Superman's almost constant moping about it and his other problems became just so miserable to watch. It just is. And Superman Returns is no better.
With Evans his pain is there and its done so much better. Seeing with old Peggy or losing Bucky or the aftermath of the blip, all of it is there. But unlike Snyder movies, it's not so unrelentingly miserable. And as others brought up Steve is allowed to have firm beliefs he stands for while also being flawed without constantly dwelling on insecurities. And Evans is not only a terrific actor but his Steve has a actual personality. Sad space jesus isn't a personality.

I did like Tony Stark saying Steve Rogers got his powers out of a bottle, in MCU Avengers. Who could argue with Superman that way? People tend to stand in awe when Superman is there, and the dialogue in the early TV series and first movies was, “Wow, (I hope you don’t kill us)”. With Captain America, people tend to be a little more down to Earth with Steve, and don’t give him any slack. Note Hawkeyes first run in with Steve at Avengers first training lesson, or Maria Hill in Civil War #1, telling Cap to do his job, or else.

[Powerboy]

I did like Tony Stark saying Steve Rogers got his powers out of a bottle, in MCU Avengers. Who could argue with Superman that way? People tend to stand in awe when Superman is there, and the dialogue in the early TV series and first movies was, “Wow, (I hope you don’t kill us)”. With Captain America, people tend to be a little more down to Earth with Steve, and don’t give him any slack. Note Hawkeyes first run in with Steve at Avengers first training lesson, or Maria Hill in Civil War #1, telling Cap to do his job, or else.

Someone already mentioned that Captain America: the First Avenger embraces who Captain America is from the first moment while Man of Steel shies away from it as if there needs to be some grand explanation for such a person. In fact, we never see Steve Rogers' parents or get any background as to why he is who he is. Unless you are a totally cynical and negative person, it didn't need to be explained. If someone is such a negative and cynical person,. they would never accept Cap or Superman to begin with.

I also liked the remark Tony Stark made about everything that makes Cap special came out of a bottle. We, the audience, just previously saw the Cap movie and we know everything that made him the one selected for that experiment came from who he already was.

They could first do a Superman movie where, maybe, Superman loses his powers for a short time and gets badly wounded saving people and still trying. THEN, in the team movie, someone could imply that Superman is nothing without his powers. The audience would be on Superman's side because they saw the previous movie.

But I get that, with Superman, you're not going to get a Maria Hill equivalent telling him to do his job or else as a real threat. You might get a military general blustering or people requesting he do what they say but, as with the satellite, Superman knows these are empty threats, they can't make him do anything.

[manwhohaseverything]

Someone already mentioned that Captain America: the First Avenger embraces who Captain America is from the first moment while Man of Steel shies away from it as if there needs to be some grand explanation for such a person. In fact, we never see Steve Rogers' parents or get any background as to why he is who he is. Unless you are a totally cynical and negative person, it didn't need to be explained. If someone is such a negative and cynical person,. they would never accept Cap or Superman to begin with.

Actually, that started with the donner movies that not only made fun of the strongman suit. But, also made the s some grandiose symbol of a dead world.

[Jim Kelly]

That's a pretty loaded interpretation of Donner's SUPERMAN. I never took that from the movie.

I've only yet seen the first CAPTAIN AMERICA movie from Marvel Studios, which I found a bit stupid in places. I liked the flag-waving patriotic montage scene--but I thought it was in the wrong place in the movie and too short. However, my understanding of Steve's character at that point in the film was that this embarrassed him and he felt wrong about it. Which is why he wants to go overseas and beat some Nazi skulls. In the end, the movie doesn't even allow him to do much of this either, as he gets on this sidequest with the Red Skull. It would be one thing if the Red Skull was Hitler's underling and Steve was fighting him to stop the mass killings of Jews, Romany and queer folk, as well as supporting the Allied troops, but instead the Red Skull is actually plotting against Hitler--so Steve is taken out of the real world drama of the time and into this fantasy drama to set up Hydra for future movies. The only reason I watched this movie was because people kept saying that WONDER WOMAN was a carbon copy of it--yet WONDER WOMAN is much more grounded and true to its period and it has a stronger philosophical point of view.

[manwhohaseverything]

That's a pretty loaded interpretation of Donner's SUPERMAN. I never took that from the movie.

I do believe there is some embarrassment in admitting what he is.I don't think it's entirely from donner or the producers. But, from others involved.why?because other than snyder,i haven't seen anyone do an intensive reading of the superman books right from the goldenage. Singer basically aped donner and max fleischer. Superman returns had minimal elements from comics compared to man of steel or superman the movie.

That scene where superman goes to save the helicopter. Some guy says "that's a bad-outfit" before him being cutoff by Superman doing his thing. That can be interpreted as . Either they think his outfit is goofy but it doesn't matter because look at what he can do. Or that superman makes his goofy outfit look good. I am going to presume it's the former. Why? Cause, chris reeve didn't wear a padded suit that can show his muscle definitions better. I know the guy did hit the gym. But, still the outfit doesn't make you "woah! Dude is one buff guy".

Now,i know the s was made into grandiose thing due to marlon brando i believe. So, there were people that wanted to play up "silly" things as something extraordinary. Which at the end of the day is just a way to make one feel better doing it. The suit is a circus strongman suit. The s is just an s for either superman or strongman.snyder didn't have superman wear the suit entirely because "it's outdated and doesn't make sense. But, i respect its history ". (he casted henry because of how henry looked in it) . Donner just said "it doesn't matter what he wears and he does is what matters"

[Jim Kelly]

Donner's SUPERMAN went through several script developments. The foundational screenplay is Mario Puzo's. But then other script doctors put their own imprint on it. The writers from IT'S A BIRD . . . IT'S A PLANE . . . IT'S SUPERMAN! (the Broadway musical-comedy) were working on it for awhile. And they added more comedy than what's in the final product. I believe that when they were writing the musical, they were working off of what they knew from the Superman of their childhoods--there's a lot of the Kirk Alyn serials having an influence. Ultimately Tom Mankiewicz had to develop a script that worked within all these cross-influences.

The memory of the 1966 BATMAN was still raw. And everyone was trying to negotiate the right tone against that. They might have wanted to just repeat that with SUPERMAN, but it seems to me (from all the stuff I was reading at the time about the movie before it came out), they were trying to take the character more seriously and all their efforts were toward getting people to accept Superman as a character, without laughing at the whole thing. But a generous amount of comic relief stopped the whole movie from becoming bathetic. For myself, if a movie is too overly earnest then it's unintentionally laughable--some humour lets people laugh at the right moments, so they don't laugh at the wrong moments.

It might not go over for modern comic book movie fans, but I always try to view a movie in the context of its time, not mine. That's why I seem to have a lot more patience with all the Superman movies that have come out so far. I try to understand what the film maker is attempting to do with this iteration and I give it a pass or fail based on how well they accomplished their own goal.

And the incredible success of SUPERMAN at the time proves that Donner was right. If he had made the movie that some people now wish he had made--that could well have been a flop. People would not accept in 1978-79 a super-hero treatment that was unfamiliar. Donner had to push the envelope just enough for people to be on board with this version of the character. I'd say the same for BATMAN. Tim Burton set the right table for the time. And by making that movie, it made it possible for Christopher Nolan to make the Dark Knight Trilogy. But a movie like BATMAN BEGINS would not have passed muster in 1989.

[manwhohaseverything]

Donner's SUPERMAN went through several script developments. The foundational screenplay is Mario Puzo's. But then other script doctors put their own imprint on it. The writers from IT'S A BIRD . . . IT'S A PLANE . . . IT'S SUPERMAN! (the Broadway musical-comedy) were working on it for awhile. And they added more comedy than what's in the final product. I believe that when they were writing the musical, they were working off of what they knew from the Superman of their childhoods--there's a lot of the Kirk Alyn serials having an influence. Ultimately Tom Mankiewicz had to develop a script that worked within all these cross-influences.

The memory of the 1966 BATMAN was still raw. And everyone was trying to negotiate the right tone against that. They might have wanted to just repeat that with SUPERMAN, but it seems to me (from all the stuff I was reading at the time about the movie before it came out), they were trying to take the character more seriously and all their efforts were toward getting people to accept Superman as a character, without laughing at the whole thing. But a generous amount of comic relief stopped the whole movie from becoming bathetic. For myself, if a movie is too overly earnest then it's unintentionally laughable--some humour lets people laugh at the right moments, so they don't laugh at the wrong moments.

It might not go over for modern comic book movie fans, but I always try to view a movie in the context of its time, not mine. That's why I seem to have a lot more patience with all the Superman movies that have come out so far. I try to understand what the film maker is attempting to do with this iteration and I give it a pass or fail based on how well they accomplished their own goal.

And the incredible success of SUPERMAN at the time proves that Donner was right. If he had made the movie that some people now wish he had made--that could well have been a flop. People would not accept in 1978-79 a super-hero treatment that was unfamiliar. Donner had to push the envelope just enough for people to be on board with this version of the character. I'd say the same for BATMAN. Tim Burton set the right table for the time. And by making that movie, it made it possible for Christopher Nolan to make the Dark Knight Trilogy. But a movie like BATMAN BEGINS would not have passed muster in 1989.

I know it was a way of making the character seem tangible to the audience. But, still the end result is basically the same as snyder. They both went for the grandiose and sometimes convoluted to explain something that's simple or distract from it.Granted, donner's movie was far more ground breaking than Snyder's could ever dream of.it's not a slight at either of these teams. But, i do believe modern audiences would be more receptive of the strongman from space for what he is. The character no longer needs the convoluted to explain something like his costume. Especially since, we are more into the information age and the Internet. Even the kids can get an idea why superman wears what he wear by simple button press. Just put a historical context to the costume, rather than a grandiose outthere one in story.

As for the humour, I don't believe the humour is misplaced. It's clark kent, the guy modelled after harold Lloyd. If he isn't supposed to be funny, I don't think there would be anyone else that could be.But, The superman isn't supposed to be funny. Especially, when he on duty. He can be charismatic and humourous. We can laugh with him. But, laughing at him should be minimised. Superman as a character should be an idealist with conviction. When people start laughing at the character it takes the strength out of the character. For eg, captain america in winter soldier vs captain america in age of ultron. Age of ultron's funny moments had undercuts cap as character in some instances. Ofcourse, i am not denying that scene with cap confronting tony wasn't good. But, still movie as whole for cap was subpar.

[Stanlos]

That scene where superman goes to save the helicopter. Some guy says "that's a bad-outfit" before him being cutoff by Superman doing his thing. That can be interpreted as . Either they think his outfit is goofy but it doesn't matter because look at what he can do. Or that superman makes his goofy outfit look good. I am going to presume it's the former. Why? Cause, chris reeve didn't wear a padded suit that can show his muscle definitions better. I know the guy did hit the gym. But, still the outfit doesn't make you "woah! Dude is one buff guy".

Um, I think you may have misinterpreted the slang used in the first Superman movie. The bad outfit comment wasn't a negative. It was older slang similar to how people today use badass. He was complimenting his suit. The emphasized a sound is a clue and could ask be observed in other 70S and early 80S fare

[manwhohaseverything]

Um, I think you may have misinterpreted the slang used in the first Superman movie. The bad outfit comment wasn't a negative. It was older slang similar to how people today use badass. He was complimenting his suit. The emphasized a sound is a clue and could ask be observed in other 70S and early 80S fare

Ok. My bad then thanks for the information.

[Powerboy]

Actually, that started with the donner movies that not only made fun of the strongman suit. But, also made the s some grandiose symbol of a dead world.

You are not wrong. The Donner movie started it though I do think MoS took it much further.