DCU Movies

[manwhohaseverything]

I'm a left-wing Democrat myself, but I know that that is wrong. Superman does not punch down. He does not hurt people who are, by nature, significantly weaker than himself. He knows better.

That's the thing..Superman can be wrong.He isn't meant for you to follow as some right ideal guy.

If he doesn't punch down..The people who do punch down will.Besides,he is not punching down..he is just protecting things what matters to him.Therefore is defensive.Rebel with a cause.Emphasis on the bold.There is no question of enforcing his will.He is just counter balancing the will of those that did enforce and cause violence.He's gonna do whatever it takes if some jackass doesn't care for worker safety and someone gets killed.

Sounds very budget conscious .

It would cost less than whatever the eff these guys spend on superman movies..i suppose mechanical tar monsters are would cost sone penny

Ultimately, the Siegal/Shuster Superman was more a vigilante rather than some kind of radical political revolutionary. Like Batman, he wasn't trying to transform society - he was just helping out by taking down criminals the system failed to take down. I remember an early Superman comic (was it Action Comics # 1?) where a bunch of police and government leaders are having a meeting where they talk about how dangerous Superman is but "Thank God he appears to be on the side of law and order". So it was less that Superman was some big challenge to the socio-political status quo and more that he was a vigilante whose actions alarmed the authorities, but who was also grudgingly admired by them.

You never know..radical changes and status quo shifts can happen just like that,without intention.I remember clark also taking on a corrupt chief or commissione(i don't exactly remember).

The difference between batman and superman is plain and simple.Bruce has declared a war on crime due to trauma and with his many contradiction (criminals are cowardly and superstitious..while wear bat costume because he saw a bat as an omen).he works with police and even though gets time to time ,vigilante/ outlaw status.He doesn't know what's it like being the little guy.(sure chris nolan did the whole wandering beggar nonsense).Clark on the other hand is one of em.If a hungry child steals food then clark ain't gonna throw the book on em.Clark is intimately familiar with people,their problems and if bruce's war comes to metropolis.Clark more than likely would be on the other side.Clark has no gim gordon,he isn't working with any cops.He can be on the side of uncorrupted execution of law ..

[dswynne]

Can't even do a "black Superman film" without the woke = broke response.

That's because the idea was to race swap, not come up with a "new" Superman who happens to be a person-of-color, like Calvin Ellis or Val-Zod (characters that Michael B. Jordan would play, rather than a "black" Clark Kent).

[Holt]

Edit delete

[Refrax5]

That's because the idea was to race swap, not come up with a "new" Superman who happens to be a person-of-color, like Calvin Ellis or Val-Zod (characters that Michael B. Jordan would play, rather than a "black" Clark Kent).

Calvin Ellis is just an alternate universe version of our Superman, though. Exact same origin, same Kryptonian parents, Kryptonian names, etc.

[Refrax5]

If the movie cuts him off in mid sentence at a mundane point in the story, then yeah it’s anticlimactic and insulting. But spoilers:

it sounds like he gets a heroic death or finds some happiness so that’s a good sendoff. When Barry first meets Keaton-Batman he’s apparently in pretty bad shape and has been reclusive for years. If he gets a chance to put on the Batsuit and save the world one last time that’s a good way to end his story.

end of spoilers

Who knows, maybe Gunn has a Elseworld story in mind for him.

Yeah, but it isn't done in a way that's meaningful because that's not supposed to be the end of his storyline is my point.

[Frontier]

I wouldn't mind it if Gunn's Superman is like Tomorrow-verse Superman, just minus being ineffectual against the main villain of his own movie.

[manwhohaseverything]

I wouldn't mind it if Gunn's Superman is like Tomorrow-verse Superman, just minus being ineffectual against the main villain of his own movie.

Depends on what you view as the villain..parasite certainly wasn't.

[Frontier]

Depends on what you view as the villain..parasite certainly wasn't.

Didn't he go power mad and start deliberately absorbing people at some point in that film? He was starting to get off on his powers?

[dswynne]

Calvin Ellis is just an alternate universe version of our Superman, though. Exact same origin, same Kryptonian parents, Kryptonian names, etc.

You sure? Other than his Kryptonian origins, I thought that "Kal-El" was found by the Ellis Family, not the Kent Family, which is why Calvin's trajectory was different from Clark's (i.e. becoming the US President of his world, rather than a newspaper reporter).

[dswynne]

I wouldn't mind it if Gunn's Superman is like Tomorrow-verse Superman, just minus being ineffectual against the main villain of his own movie.

To be fair, this was early in Superman's career. You know, being a "noob" in the game of superheroics.

[godisawesome]

Ehhhhhh, from what I've seen, there is a significantly vocal sector that, yes, would be okay with Superman hurting people they saw as "corrupt" even when they're powerless. And again, that's wrong no matter who they are.

And here's the thing: yes, Superman does wrestle with having a temper and the constant monitoring of his own abilities to make sure he doesn't go too far is what makes him a fascinating character.

BUT, to be completely honest, the idea that Superman shouldn't hurt people and punch down isn't really something he should have to have an arc and development that takes years for adult Clark to learn. Um, it's very much common sense. If anything, he should have learned to modulate his abilities during childhood and adolescence and wrestle with the notion of how much is too much during that time in his life, before even becoming Superman.

And yeah, it would be interesting to see that side of his development but again, it's likely something he would have learned back in Smallville since that is when he's actually coming into his own and has his parents' influence and guidance to help him come to the right conclusion of how he should use his powers. That's what a lot of people forget sometimes: Clark was raised by good people. The Kents are not the type of people who would champion Clark to use violence against people that he knows are weaker than himself. It's a lesson that even Spider-Man (who is a child when he starts) learns in his very first appearance.

Personally, I'd prefer a Superman who is young and has to "grow" into his place in Metorpolis, but is otherwise already fully matured and realized in both personas as Clark and Superman, and showcases a lot of experience and wisdom for his age - in ALL things.

Like... when he was a kid, he sort of tackled how much power he had and what he could and couldn't do to change the world all be himself, and determined that he could solve short term problems and crises, but can't instantly solve all the worlds' problems with his powers even if he did try to take it over or something crazy like that. This resulted in him using his time as Clark to turn towards that by getting into journalism, at first only as a blogger and online columnist, and now he's trying to be an investigative journalist.

So he knows that there are limits to both being a journalist in modern media (though I'd expect him to be nerdy enough to argue that hasn't really ever not been the case - see: French Revolution newspapers and the Yellow Journalism of Hurst) and to being a super-powered demigod... but know that if he coordinates activities in both identities, he can effect swifter real change. Like... as Clark Kent, he'll write articles and support Lois in uncovering corruption, but as Superman he can protect witnesses, prevent destruction of evidence, and occasionally pursue justice by other means.

[Vordan]

Uh we might be getting a Weasel show I guess?

[Frontier]

To be fair, this was early in Superman's career. You know, being a "noob" in the game of superheroics.

Supes vs Lobo was more satisfying than Supes vs Parasite in my opinion.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

That's because the idea was to race swap, not come up with a "new" Superman who happens to be a person-of-color, like Calvin Ellis or Val-Zod (characters that Michael B. Jordan would play, rather than a "black" Clark Kent).

I'd be into a Val-Zod movie. You could make it a family drama between Val and his militant parents Dru and Ursa and radicalized brother Lor.

Unlike Clark he comes to Earth as an older teem which would lead to its own set of issues.

[80sbaby]

That's because the idea was to race swap, not come up with a "new" Superman who happens to be a person-of-color, like Calvin Ellis or Val-Zod (characters that Michael B. Jordan would play, rather than a "black" Clark Kent).

That's not why lol the people who unironically use "woke" as a pejorative don't care if it was a new character or a race swap. They'll complain just the same. We've seen this multiple times (Star Wars, for example.)