Free will(b) vs Determinism(s):Does superman stories value Determinism more?

[manwhohaseverything]

Pardon me for being pretentious.Batman vs superman thread.
"No, no. Now, you listen to me. When you first came to us, we thought people would come and take you away because, when they found out, you know, the things you could do... and that worried us a lot. But then a man gets older, and he starts thinking differently and things get very clear. And one thing I do know, son, and that is you are here for a *reason*. I don't know whose reason, or whatever the reason is... Maybe it's because... uh... I don't know. But I do know one thing. It's *not* to score touchdowns. Huh?"
"You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is"
As said,Is superman stories making a case for determinism being a good thing?If that is the case,How does choice play a role?

Moreover,how does it compare when his counter part is about man's struggle in the phase of tragedy and the unknown?

"There is a difference between you and me. We both stared into the abyss. But when it stared back... you blinked."
"Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They’ll hate you for it, but that’s the point of Batman, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice."
“It’s not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.”
"You sold us out, Clark. You gave them the power that should have been ours. Just like your parents taught you. My parents taught me a different lesson... lying on this street... shaking in deep shock... dying for no reason at all. They showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to."

[Myskin]

Dude, what the heck.
It's just a bunch of vaguely "deep" dialogues with no real meaning at all just to make this stuff sound a bit less shallow than it really is.
For the most part - and sure is the case of Zack Snyder's movies - superheroes are cardboard characters whose characterization is vaguely sketched, even if from time to time, and if we are lucky, someone successfully give them something more interesting to do and to say.

[manwhohaseverything]

Dude, what the heck.
It's just a bunch of vaguely "deep" dialogues with no real meaning at all just to make this stuff sound a bit less shallow than it really is.
For the most part - and sure is the case of Zack Snyder's movies - superheroes are cardboard characters whose characterization is vaguely sketched, even if from time to time, and if we are lucky, someone successfully give them something more interesting to do and to say.

It is.It doesn't need to.it is a medium of entertainment at the end of the day .But doesn't mean someone can build something of from it,as you said.Nor does it mean that people don't take positions knowingly or unknowingly.Moreover,throwaway lines don't become a recurring unless it makes an impact on the writers or readers to come and affect directions to come,since these characters are managed by a committee rather than a person with a restriction of sales and popularity being constraints.The evolving nature leads me to believe it will be the same down the road .Which is my point.That's how a thow away line from donner became something used by frank miller in a different context.Donner movie does go for religious iconography and batman under atleast(and some other writers) frank miller goes atleast for the nietzschean shtick.From what i know,nietzscheam philosophy tilts towards favouring free will and most religions does the opposite.

Also,when i notice and talk about something deeper that gets put in whatever capacity in these stories for sounding deep or whatever purpose.People say its too dumb and run away from it.When i talk entertainment and how boring somethings like powerset,powerlevels,feats,stunts,action choreography..etc.People say superman,batman..etc are too deep for that.So which is it?are these stories just dumb or deep or pretending to be deep?if it's pretending,why do it?Pretend i mean,Why not have a cool action comic like action comics #1 or have a cool adventure comic like supersons?(beats anything that comes out these days btw)Regardless these things are present in whatever manner or with whateverlevel of aptitude in execution by various writers who tackle these characters.So,i can call them "themes" sort of and ask the question i asked above.Is superman narrative an advocating voice for determinism and vice versa for batman and freewill?which you didn't answer,i might add.I believe people can talk about these things.Hence the thread.Also this has barely anything to do with zack snyder.Maybe,frank miller's dark knight returns.If people aren't interested they can just ignore.Also,naruto is dumb shonen manga about ninjas.Doesn't mean the author doesn't draw influence from shinto and taoism.Aptitude,experiences and luck of a person also plays a part in whatever a guy creates.I am removing those variables and talking from a potential stand point from what's been given so far.

[Quinlan58]

As it's built now, the Superman story assumes that humankind's natural qualities mean it will eventually lead to a glorious future, as inspired by Superman (whose role also seems to be destiny in some way, either explicitely stated as such or implicitely through the existance of the Legion of Superheroes). It does not assume that the same is true for individuals (hence, among other things, the constant theme of whether Lex can or cannot be redeemed). And Superman himself values free will a lot.

To use just the recent Bendis run, it's maybe pre-determined that universal unity in the form of the United Planets would happen eventually, and at the same time the Red Cloud damns herself through her own choices, despite her clear potential for good (and Toyman saves himself, despite his previous crimes).

So, I'd say on a societal level it embraces some kind of determinism, but on an individual level it's more free-will based. To use quotes, it's humankind's destiny to "join him in the sun", but each individual must choose if they want to be there or be left behind.

[manwhohaseverything]

As it's built now, the Superman story assumes that humankind's natural qualities mean it will eventually lead to a glorious future, as inspired by Superman (whose role also seems to be destiny in some way, either explicitely stated as such or implicitely through the existance of the Legion of Superheroes). It does not assume that the same is true for individuals (hence, among other things, the constant theme of whether Lex can or cannot be redeemed). And Superman himself values free will a lot.

To use just the recent Bendis run, it's maybe pre-determined that universal unity in the form of the United Planets would happen eventually, and at the same time the Red Cloud damns herself through her own choices, despite her clear potential for good (and Toyman saves himself, despite his previous crimes).

So, I'd say on a societal level it embraces some kind of determinism, but on an individual level it's more free-will based. To use quotes, it's humankind's destiny to "join him in the sun", but each individual must choose if they want to be there or be left behind.

Sorry for the late reply,deeply apologise.

Can i ask?you said,people joining in him the sun is the destiny of mankind as a society or amalgum of societies.Considering not just lex, batman,green arrow..etc can be an outcast which in normal takes superman can't .they could easily fall out of that domain.Do you think that is why the conflict happens?Usually when man creates or imagines these glorious futures there is darker underbelly to it.Do you think the legion future explores that fully?

Considering at the end of donner movie clark actually defies determinism and destiny to save lois. I can attest to that clark indeed does value free will of individuals.But,it took lois's death for clark to say "nope! i am not having this.I am done obeying my parents".Also,Darkknight returns critices superman for the same and not intervening or acting when humanity took a drastically different course.Clark essentially says "it's their destiny",as a reasoning and takes humanities side to fit in.(i am simplifying ofcourse)That assumption(human society inherently leading towards a glorius future) can be very bad.

[Quinlan58]

Sorry for the late reply,deeply apologise.

Can i ask?you said,people joining in him the sun is the destiny of mankind as a society or amalgum of societies.Considering not just lex, batman,green arrow..etc can be an outcast which in normal takes superman can't .they could easily fall out of that domain.Do you think that is why the conflict happens?Usually when man creates or imagines these glorious futures there is darker underbelly to it.Do you think the legion future explores that fully?

Considering at the end of donner movie clark actually defies determinism and destiny to save lois. I can attest to that clark indeed does value free will of individuals.But,it took lois's death for clark to say "nope! i am not having this.I am done obeying my parents".Also,Darkknight returns critices superman for the same and not intervening or acting when humanity took a drastically different course.Clark essentially says "it's their destiny",as a reasoning and takes humanities side to fit in.(i am simplifying ofcourse)That assumption(human society inherently leading towards a glorius future) can be very bad.

Happy New Year!

I'm not much of an expert on the Legion, but what little I've read from them does portray the future as having a "dark underbelly" too. I guess that ties with the "never-ending" aspect of the Superman mission statement. Achieving the utopia they're seeking is impossible (at least during the course of stories that require their characters to sometimes punch some villains; in a distant, non-focused future it might very well be possible), but the stories assume the potential to always be there, with Superman and his ilk either guiding them there, safeguarding them against threats or outright leading them there (depending on how proactive they want the characters to be).

Reaching out to outcasts is part of Superman's whole MO at this point, though sadly not always well done. Lex, Parasite, Toyman, Red Cloud, several Phantom Zone Kryptonians, more one-off villains than I can mention here, some of the civilians spotlighted in those "Superman interacts with a regular person" issues, sometimes Batman, etc. Action Comics 1000 even had a story with him reaching out to the owner of the green car in Action Comics 1 (one of the better stories in that issue, though it would have been better if Supes wasn't flying like a god above a sinner).

You're right in that the assumption is dangerous and has been shown to lead to bad outcomes in some stories. But I'm reminded of that story in Superman 400 where a random person starts a revolution simply by wearing Superman's suit and realizing it allowed him to resist his oppressors (temporarily). The assumption is not that it'll always be on its way to a better future but that, even at the worst of times, humankind will always eventually aspire to it again (as facilitated by Superman, or maybe just the idea of Superman).