Man Of Steel Ten Years Later - What’s Your Thoughts On It?

[DABellWrites]

Fair point, but I wouldn't call it pointless. He was learning about himself, his heritage, the laws of the universe, etc. Maybe 12 years as the movie implied was a bit much, though.

I don't have an issue with the wandering issue, either. The wandering was actually an aspect I liked about the movie. I'm one of those guys who complain a lot about the Lois & Clark-style calling his parents whenever he encountered a dilemma. I do, however, question if it was good that he was such a loner he refused to/couldn't create real human bonds, or didn't have a clear endgame for his wandering. To the latter point, maybe it was indicated in the movie but the explanation is some unmemorable I forgot about it.

He could've learned most of it on his own, he didn't need Jor-El. Plus Krypton wasn't that interesting to begin with. I'm not against Krpyton, but there's no denying it could've waited until the second or third movie. Krpyton is very overrated. It's really that Bruce Wayne in the Dark Knight was a loner, I assume, and that's what WB wanted. If there's one thing I came to learn, what works for Batman, doesn't work for Superman. What works for Superman, doesn't work for Batman. That's why Batman was almost canceled because readers got sick of the Jack Schiff stuff. It's why the Superman and Wonder Woman revamps didn't become classics like Dennis O'neil's Batman. Love it or hate it, the majority of people enjoy the current Batman.

[DABellWrites]

It is not like good Superman comics don't have collateral damage. And they usually feature experienced Superman.



I seriously think that such ideas that Superman has to be taught to act good or that we need a 5 minutes powerpoint presentation explaining his views is one of the reasons why the character has been declining in relevance for few decades now.

Definitely killed the appeal.

MOS doesn't show us anything about who Superman is. The flashbacks don't actually tell us anything about Clark as a character beyond "it's hard being an alien" and we never get any actual development as to how he gets from that to "wanting to help people with what he can do". Were not even told why he likes to help people (he certainly didn't get that from either of his birth parents)

The movie never actually explains "when the time was supposed to be" for when Clark was supposed to reveal himself and it's a moot point anyway considering Clark could have rescued his dad with minimal risk of outing himself

Why does he needs specific moments for it? The whole point is that Clark is helping others. That's the whole point of the character.

A Superman who wants to help people because of some vaguely defined "innate desire" just isn't very interesting though. I much prefer the notion that because his adoptive parents raised him with old-fashioned values, It helped him develop a strong moral core and a desire to use his powers to help simply because it's the right thing to do. Again, I'm not against Jonathan Kent advising Clark to be cautious, I'm not against him being weary of how the world would react to Clark's powers. What I am against is his adoptive father (usually the source of his strong moral core) advising his son there are more important things than doing right by people. He'd never tell his son that letting a bus full of children die was maybe the right call and he'd never force his own Son to let him die a completely needless death when he could've saved him without using his powers.

Clark saving people needs to be something hes doing because he genuinely believes in it as the right thing to do. In Man of Steel, It's treated as though a burden for him, It's something he's doing reluctantly and he probably would have spent the rest of his life hiding from the world if Zod hadn't forced him to reveal himself. Hell, He never even properly reveals himself to the world, just the United States Military. His "choice" to reveal himself isn't even a choice because his only other alternative is "let Zod destroy the world". What else is he gonna do? It's his world too

Jor-El just dowloaded information into Clark's brain, he didn't "program" him to be anything. Everything he does as Superman is by his own choice in the Donner movie, he didn't need the threat of the world being destroyed to reveal himself, and in the end, He chooses to heed his adopted fathers advice over Jor-El's. The original Donner movie may not be perfect but it still gave me the notion that it's version of Superman chooses to help because its the right thing to do, not because he has some vague "innate desire".

Having watched Clark saving the school bus, one thing you've overlooked is Clark wasn't listening to Jonathan in keeping what he can do a secret. In fact, everyone in Smallville knew what Clark could do. Plus, if you look at Kevin Costner's body language, the maybe wasn't meant to be taken as "let the kids die", but as a controversial statement about why it's important to keep it a secret. Now, maybe if we'd gotten something showing why it's important, then yes, the maybe would work. Again, poorly executed and needed more drafts.

[HsssH]

I wonder when this idea that Clark needs a reason for why he is helping people started?

[Agent Z]

I wonder when this idea that Clark needs a reason for why he is helping people started?

Ironically, the people making this criticism of Snyder's Superman are the same ones who resent the idea Clark needs a reason not to kill.

[bat39]

A Superman who wants to help people because of some vaguely defined "innate desire" just isn't very interesting though. I much prefer the notion that because his adoptive parents raised him with old-fashioned values, It helped him develop a strong moral core and a desire to use his powers to help simply because it's the right thing to do. Again, I'm not against Jonathan Kent advising Clark to be cautious, I'm not against him being weary of how the world would react to Clark's powers. What I am against is his adoptive father (usually the source of his strong moral core) advising his son there are more important things than doing right by people. He'd never tell his son that letting a bus full of children die was maybe the right call and he'd never force his own Son to let him die a completely needless death when he could've saved him without using his powers.

Clark saving people needs to be something hes doing because he genuinely believes in it as the right thing to do. In Man of Steel, It's treated as though a burden for him, It's something he's doing reluctantly and he probably would have spent the rest of his life hiding from the world if Zod hadn't forced him to reveal himself. Hell, He never even properly reveals himself to the world, just the United States Military. His "choice" to reveal himself isn't even a choice because his only other alternative is "let Zod destroy the world". What else is he gonna do? It's his world too

Jor-El just dowloaded information into Clark's brain, he didn't "program" him to be anything. Everything he does as Superman is by his own choice in the Donner movie, he didn't need the threat of the world being destroyed to reveal himself, and in the end, He chooses to heed his adopted fathers advice over Jor-El's. The original Donner movie may not be perfect but it still gave me the notion that it's version of Superman chooses to help because its the right thing to do, not because he has some vague "innate desire".

'Innate desire' is just a fancy way of putting it. I do tend to get carried away with words, being a professional writer (of sorts) My basic point is that Clark simply wanted to help people, the way a lot of people in the real world help people if they have the means to do so.

But I'm not a fan of the idea of Clark's adoptive parents either being saints who basically raise him to be a superhero, or who crush him with the weight of expectation that he needs to put the world before himself. Neither am I a fan of the idea of Clark's Kryptonian parents instructing him to become a superhero and telling him its his 'destiny' to serve mankind.

As far as Jor-El 'programming' Superman goes, well again that's just my way of putting it. But it's not too far off. IIRC, Clark really didn't have any idea what he wanted to do with life (apart from maybe wanting to play football and hang out with the cool kids, but being told he couldn't by Jonathan). Then he meets Jor-El, spends 12 years in the Fortress, and at the end of it he has become Superman, with his mission to serve humanity. The implication is very much that it is Jor-El who gave his son the mission to become Superman. This, combined with the whole plot-point in Superman II that Kal-El needs to give up his powers if he wants to be with Lois and no longer serve humanity (as if the two are mutually exclusive) makes it clear that in the Donnerverse at least, being Superman is something Kal-El was indoctrinated to do, and any deviation from that laser-focus of being a hero (such as falling in love) is a dereliction of duty. If you really dive into it, there's something pretty dark there. Or at least joyless.

Ironically, the people making this criticism of Snyder's Superman are the same ones who resent the idea Clark needs a reason not to kill.

Absolutely.

I think a lot of people have a certain moral rigidity about Superman and how they perceive him. There may be an ideological/political aspect to it too, who knows?

If you really think about it, Snyder brought Superman down to the basics and took a pretty common-sense approach to the character. He has powers, and he wants to use them to help people in danger. He also wants to know who he is, and where he comes from. Clark is a pretty simple character - the conceit of the film is that it takes this rather simple character and places him in an approximation of the 'real world' with all its complexities and shades of grey. Clark wants to help people, but Jonathan is right when he says that Clark's existence would terrify humanity and turn them against him. Clark finally finds his people, but they turn out to be genocidal tyrants who want to destroy earth and turn it into Krypton. Clark doesn't really want to kill anyone, any more than any normal person wants to, but he's forced into a situation where he has to, and it tears him apart.

[godisawesome]

I still argue that the film is sending very mixed signals about idealism, with most of the grimmer cynicism being largely stated but more substance actually behind a more optimistic and idealistic Earth and humanity. In fact, I kind of feel like if you cut out the wildly misguided speech they gave Pa Kent in the film, the film would pretty clearly be optimistic and idealistic, just somber about it.

Everywhere Clark goes before Zod and co. arrive, he encounters far more good people than bad; his “Second Deadliest Catch” crew are protective of him and just as willing it help the burning oil rig, the waitress has a soft spot for him and looks out for him in the bar, and the military actually figures out his alignment pretty quickly, and the Daily Planet staff is much more overtly heroic in hopeless situations than they are in the next film. Smallville itself is actually shockingly idealistic when it comes to his secret in the film, as the Smallville characters who learn what his secret is become either ashamed and friendly afterwards, actually praise him vocally to his parents, or keep their mouth shut once Zod makes his global demand when it’s implied a pretty decent number of residents know something of what’s going on (which is a logical twist given small town stereotypes; their insularity can make them protective just as much as prickly.)

There are scumbags in the diner, Clark does get bullied a bit for being different as a kid, the military is too quick to assume he’s an enemy at first… but overall, the film very much runs off the idea that humanity and the world around them react positively to the golden rule in MOS.

…But Pa Kent has that bullshit and unnecessary paranoia and cynicism underlying his entire DCEU characterization and theme, it’s that type of paranoia and cynicism that Zack Snyder seemed to prefer and reinforce or reintroduce in BvS while avoiding the more idealistic and optimistic stuff except in a melodramatically tragic way. Perry White kind for proves that to me just as much as Snyder’s Batman; MOS Perry seems cynical, but is actually very idealistic and hopeful, while BvS Perry comes off as a bitter indictment of modern news.

MOS ultimately has a message of “Hope will be rewarded” that I think the rest of Snyder’s stuff abandoned.

Which makes sense, as a “hope will be rewarded,” somberly idealistic set-up is consistent with how David Goyer wrote Batman with Nolan, and Goyer and his script was ultimately abandoned from the BvS plan.

[bat39]

I still argue that the film is sending very mixed signals about idealism, with most of the grimmer cynicism being largely stated but more substance actually behind a more optimistic and idealistic Earth and humanity. In fact, I kind of feel like if you cut out the wildly misguided speech they gave Pa Kent in the film, the film would pretty clearly be optimistic and idealistic, just somber about it.

Everywhere Clark goes before Zod and co. arrive, he encounters far more good people than bad; his “Second Deadliest Catch” crew are protective of him and just as willing it help the burning oil rig, the waitress has a soft spot for him and looks out for him in the bar, and the military actually figures out his alignment pretty quickly, and the Daily Planet staff is much more overtly heroic in hopeless situations than they are in the next film. Smallville itself is actually shockingly idealistic when it comes to his secret in the film, as the Smallville characters who learn what his secret is become either ashamed and friendly afterwards, actually praise him vocally to his parents, or keep their mouth shut once Zod makes his global demand when it’s implied a pretty decent number of residents know something of what’s going on (which is a logical twist given small town stereotypes; their insularity can make them protective just as much as prickly.)

There are scumbags in the diner, Clark does get bullied a bit for being different as a kid, the military is too quick to assume he’s an enemy at first… but overall, the film very much runs off the idea that humanity and the world around them react positively to the golden rule in MOS.

…But Pa Kent has that bullshit and unnecessary paranoia and cynicism underlying his entire DCEU characterization and theme, it’s that type of paranoia and cynicism that Zack Snyder seemed to prefer and reinforce or reintroduce in BvS while avoiding the more idealistic and optimistic stuff except in a melodramatically tragic way. Perry White kind for proves that to me just as much as Snyder’s Batman; MOS Perry seems cynical, but is actually very idealistic and hopeful, while BvS Perry comes off as a bitter indictment of modern news.

MOS ultimately has a message of “Hope will be rewarded” that I think the rest of Snyder’s stuff abandoned.

Which makes sense, as a “hope will be rewarded,” somberly idealistic set-up is consistent with how David Goyer wrote Batman with Nolan, and Goyer and his script was ultimately abandoned from the BvS plan.

I think it's less that the world is inherently good and more that the world is what it is. A cynic is as right about the world as an optimist is. If you dig deep enough, you will find the good in the world, but it's also wise to be vary of the bad. Now this isn't a message that sits very comfortably alongside the black-and-white morality and 'feel-good' vibes we usually expect from the superhero genre, but that's what makes it stand out.

And I agree...BvS is a lot more cynical in its outlook. Then again, I suppose BvS, for better or worse, works better as a 'Part 1' for a two-part story that includes JL. BvS is a film that really dives deep into the darker side of humanity than Jonathan warned Clark about, embodied best by Lex Luthor, but really, even by Bruce Wayne (a heroic figure acting from a sense of righteousness convinced that Superman is a threat and that he needs to kill him to save humanity). And the film literally ends with the hope represented by Superman dying. But a spark of that hope remains in Bruce's decision to form the Justice League, leading into the next film with the return of hope, quiet literally with Superman's resurrection and more broadly speaking with humanity having protectors who repel Steppenwolf's invasion.

[Spencermalley935]

'Innate desire' is just a fancy way of putting it. I do tend to get carried away with words, being a professional writer (of sorts) My basic point is that Clark simply wanted to help people, the way a lot of people in the real world help people if they have the means to do so.

But I'm not a fan of the idea of Clark's adoptive parents either being saints who basically raise him to be a superhero, or who crush him with the weight of expectation that he needs to put the world before himself. Neither am I a fan of the idea of Clark's Kryptonian parents instructing him to become a superhero and telling him its his 'destiny' to serve mankind.

As far as Jor-El 'programming' Superman goes, well again that's just my way of putting it. But it's not too far off. IIRC, Clark really didn't have any idea what he wanted to do with life (apart from maybe wanting to play football and hang out with the cool kids, but being told he couldn't by Jonathan). Then he meets Jor-El, spends 12 years in the Fortress, and at the end of it he has become Superman, with his mission to serve humanity. The implication is very much that it is Jor-El who gave his son the mission to become Superman. This, combined with the whole plot-point in Superman II that Kal-El needs to give up his powers if he wants to be with Lois and no longer serve humanity (as if the two are mutually exclusive) makes it clear that in the Donnerverse at least, being Superman is something Kal-El was indoctrinated to do, and any deviation from that laser-focus of being a hero (such as falling in love) is a dereliction of duty. If you really dive into it, there's something pretty dark there. Or at least joyless.

I like the idea that Clark's desire to help people comes from the fact that he was raised right by good, honest, hard-working people.. The Kents are supposed to be part of the reason why Clark becomes Superman but in MOS, It feels like their impediments to that.

As I've said before, Raising Clark with old-fashioned, traditional values does not make the Kents "saints" just like them being paranoid lunatics discouraging him from doing the right thing makes them "normal" or "realistic". The Kents never "raised Clark to be a superhero", They simply raised him to be a good man, a man whose natural inclination is to help people for no other reason than simply because it's the right thing to do. In MOS, They raised Clark to be paranoid and distrustful of people, to be a man who reluctantly saves people out of circumstance so he won't feel guilty about doing nothing, a man who probably would have spent his entire life as an aimless drifter if Zod hadn't outed him to humanity. MOS Jonathan also did a fair amount of crushing Clark by telling him about how he needed to prioritize keeping his secret above all else and forcing him to let him die a completely needless death. What exactly were the Kent's contribution to Clarks character in MOS? They certainly weren't the source of his morality.

"wanting to play football and hang out with the cool kids" is more motivation and characterization than MOS ever deigned to give it's version of Clark. The movie presents Clark as an entity with whom were never actually given a reason to like or to care about. It's not enough to just show him having a miserable childhood, It needed to present him as both an endearing and likable character. In MOS, Clark barely even speaks and it's not "show don't tell", It's because he's not really a character in it, He's a plot device, a symbol for other characters to react too and debate about. He has no agency, He doesn't make any actual choices that reveal anything about his character, He just goes through the motions while other characters monologue at him about who he is and what his purpose is.

Again, The Donner movies are not perfect, They are very much a product of their time in many ways and I'm not in love with every story choice they made but I never once got the sense that Jor-El "programmed" his son to be anything, given how at the end of the movie he chooses to heed Jonathan's advice over his. In MOS, Clark becomes Superman more or less the exact same way as in the first Donner movie (just without the 12 years of downloading), AI Jor-El gives a long exposition dump about Krypton, tells him how he sent him to earth with a specific purpose and gives him the suit. It's the same just with the frankly unneeded step of Clark going back to reluctant hero mode and only revealing himself because a madman has threatened to destroy the world if he doesn't.

Yes, Superman 2 has some pretty troubling notions about the "Superman having to give up his powers to be with Lois" stuff but it's nowhere near as "dark or joyless" as MOS is overall.

If you really think about it, Snyder brought Superman down to the basics and took a pretty common-sense approach to the character. He has powers, and he wants to use them to help people in danger. He also wants to know who he is, and where he comes from. Clark is a pretty simple character - the conceit of the film is that it takes this rather simple character and places him in an approximation of the 'real world' with all its complexities and shades of grey. Clark wants to help people, but Jonathan is right when he says that Clark's existence would terrify humanity and turn them against him. Clark finally finds his people, but they turn out to be genocidal tyrants who want to destroy earth and turn it into Krypton. Clark doesn't really want to kill anyone, any more than any normal person wants to, but he's forced into a situation where he has to, and it tears him apart

I never really got the sense that Clark actually wanted to use his powers to help people in the beginning of Man of Steel. Yes he does it, but it's something he's doing reluctantly. It's treated as a burden and an obligation for him to do this and he always goes back to trying to live in anonymity after he does it. If that's what he really wanted to do with his life, Why isn't he trying to find a way to do it out in the open or at least discuss this idea with others? (like wear some kind of disguise) If he wants to discover his origins, Why not show him researching instead of bumming around in fishing boats and bars?.

Superman facing a "complex world with shades of grey" is a fine idea but I really felt it wasn't executed with any kind of finesse or thoughtfulness in MOS. It just has it's characters mention these ideas in dialogue while never actually exploring them and providing empty symbolism and god porn instead. The idea of humanity fearing him isn't really hit home because we never see what the general publics reaction is to him, Clark "finding his people" doesn't register because they're presented from the very beginning as genocidal maniacs that he'd want nothing to do with and whom he already knows not to trust and him killing Zod feels like it's just their for shock value because it plays out like an afterthought and we never get a good sense of what kind of morals this guy has.

[godisawesome]

I like the idea that Clark's desire to help people comes from the fact that he was raised right by good, honest, hard-working people.. The Kents are supposed to be part of the reason why Clark becomes Superman but in MOS, It feels like their impediments to that.

As I've said before, Raising Clark with old-fashioned, traditional values does not make the Kents "saints" just like them being paranoid lunatics discouraging him from doing the right thing makes them "normal" or "realistic". The Kents never "raised Clark to be a superhero", They simply raised him to be a good man, a man whose natural inclination is to help people for no other reason than simply because it's the right thing to do. In MOS, They raised Clark to be paranoid and distrustful of people, to be a man who reluctantly saves people out of circumstance so he won't feel guilty about doing nothing, a man who probably would have spent his entire life as an aimless drifter if Zod hadn't outed him to humanity. MOS Jonathan also did a fair amount of crushing Clark by telling him about how he needed to prioritize keeping his secret above all else and forcing him to let him die a completely needless death. What exactly were the Kent's contribution to Clarks character in MOS? They certainly weren't the source of his morality.

"wanting to play football and hang out with the cool kids" is more motivation and characterization than MOS ever deigned to give it's version of Clark. The movie presents Clark as an entity with whom were never actually given a reason to like or to care about. It's not enough to just show him having a miserable childhood, It needed to present him as both an endearing and likable character. In MOS, Clark barely even speaks and it's not "show don't tell", It's because he's not really a character in it, He's a plot device, a symbol for other characters to react too and debate about. He has no agency, He doesn't make any actual choices that reveal anything about his character, He just goes through the motions while other characters monologue at him about who he is and what his purpose is.

Again, The Donner movies are not perfect, They are very much a product of their time in many ways and I'm not in love with every story choice they made but I never once got the sense that Jor-El "programmed" his son to be anything, given how at the end of the movie he chooses to heed Jonathan's advice over his. In MOS, Clark becomes Superman more or less the exact same way as in the first Donner movie (just without the 12 years of downloading), AI Jor-El gives a long exposition dump about Krypton, tells him how he sent him to earth with a specific purpose and gives him the suit. It's the same just with the frankly unneeded step of Clark going back to reluctant hero mode and only revealing himself because a madman has threatened to destroy the world if he doesn't.

Yes, Superman 2 has some pretty troubling notions about the "Superman having to give up his powers to be with Lois" stuff but it's nowhere near as "dark or joyless" as MOS is overall.



I never really got the sense that Clark actually wanted to use his powers to help people in the beginning of Man of Steel. Yes he does it, but it's something he's doing reluctantly. It's treated as a burden and an obligation for him to do this and he always goes back to trying to live in anonymity after he does it. If that's what he really wanted to do with his life, Why isn't he trying to find a way to do it out in the open or at least discuss this idea with others? (like wear some kind of disguise) If he wants to discover his origins, Why not show him researching instead of bumming around in fishing boats and bars?.

Superman facing a "complex world with shades of grey" is a fine idea but I really felt it wasn't executed with any kind of finesse or thoughtfulness in MOS. It just has it's characters mention these ideas in dialogue while never actually exploring them and providing empty symbolism and god porn instead. The idea of humanity fearing him isn't really hit home because we never see what the general publics reaction is to him, Clark "finding his people" doesn't register because they're presented from the very beginning as genocidal maniacs that he'd want nothing to do with and whom he already knows not to trust and him killing Zod feels like it's just their for shock value because it plays out like an afterthought and we never get a good sense of what kind of morals this guy has.

I think MOS actually, but confusingly, establishes pretty clearly that Clark wants to sue his powers to help people - but Pa Kent was so discouraging and weirdly against that that it’s his memory of his dad that’s holding him back. Little kid Clark clearly wanted to and did save the other kids in the school bus, wants to safe the guys on the rig, and wants to defend the waitress, but keeps thinking he has to remain incognito.

That’s the weird part; Clark still acts like a kid raised by altruistic and compassionate parents, but the parents they later focus on would rather people die than his son reveal what he can do - even himself.

It’s again why I’d argue the Superman part isn’t as messed up as the Pa Kent part - Jor-El seems to have more faith and compassion for humanity than Pa Kent.

[HsssH]

Well Jor-El probably knows less about us than Pa Kent

[DABellWrites]

I wonder when this idea that Clark needs a reason for why he is helping people started?

My theories on it: 1) It's just a where the paradigm shifted in writing. A character like Superman just can't have an inborn sense of heroism, to go good onto others, he had to learn it. Which basically he killed the appeal. 2) It's DC's long process of Marvelizing their characters. It's been this way since the 1970s. Peter Parker had the guilt over Uncle Ben death, so they writers came through with their own take. 3) It was a reaction to Superheroes that killed. Creators wanted to reaffirm what Superman is about. 4) It was an idea taken from the movies and TV shows. So somewhere along the 1990s and early 2000s.

'Innate desire' is just a fancy way of putting it. I do tend to get carried away with words, being a professional writer (of sorts) My basic point is that Clark simply wanted to help people, the way a lot of people in the real world help people if they have the means to do so.

But I'm not a fan of the idea of Clark's adoptive parents either being saints who basically raise him to be a superhero, or who crush him with the weight of expectation that he needs to put the world before himself. Neither am I a fan of the idea of Clark's Kryptonian parents instructing him to become a superhero and telling him its his 'destiny' to serve mankind.

As far as Jor-El 'programming' Superman goes, well again that's just my way of putting it. But it's not too far off. IIRC, Clark really didn't have any idea what he wanted to do with life (apart from maybe wanting to play football and hang out with the cool kids, but being told he couldn't by Jonathan). Then he meets Jor-El, spends 12 years in the Fortress, and at the end of it he has become Superman, with his mission to serve humanity. The implication is very much that it is Jor-El who gave his son the mission to become Superman. This, combined with the whole plot-point in Superman II that Kal-El needs to give up his powers if he wants to be with Lois and no longer serve humanity (as if the two are mutually exclusive) makes it clear that in the Donnerverse at least, being Superman is something Kal-El was indoctrinated to do, and any deviation from that laser-focus of being a hero (such as falling in love) is a dereliction of duty. If you really dive into it, there's something pretty dark there. Or at least joyless.



Absolutely.

I think a lot of people have a certain moral rigidity about Superman and how they perceive him. There may be an ideological/political aspect to it too, who knows?

If you really think about it, Snyder brought Superman down to the basics and took a pretty common-sense approach to the character. He has powers, and he wants to use them to help people in danger. He also wants to know who he is, and where he comes from. Clark is a pretty simple character - the conceit of the film is that it takes this rather simple character and places him in an approximation of the 'real world' with all its complexities and shades of grey. Clark wants to help people, but Jonathan is right when he says that Clark's existence would terrify humanity and turn them against him. Clark finally finds his people, but they turn out to be genocidal tyrants who want to destroy earth and turn it into Krypton. Clark doesn't really want to kill anyone, any more than any normal person wants to, but he's forced into a situation where he has to, and it tears him apart.

Probably has to do many people grew up with Superman or has been reading for YEARS, so they're all really stuck in their ways. The current Superman fans are Donner/Reeves and post-crisis guys. So anything diverting from that is not Superman to them.

[KurtW95]

I really like Cavill as Superman but couldn't stand the movie. I feel like the only time he was ever given to properly play the character was in the Whedon reshoots of JL. And Cavill wants to play the character properly. But they won't let him do it. I do like Amy Adams, but she was miscast as Lois. At least have her dye her hair. She would have made way more sense as Lana. And there is no defending the infamous tornado scene. A) Clark could've easily gone in there and pretended like he was just a regular guy who wasn't going to get blown away. B) How old was the dog? Pa Kent is really going to give up his life so the dog can get a few more years. I know people love dogs and all, but a man who can live many more decades giving up his live to save a dog, which was in his last years of life as Clark was 17 and got the dog as a young kid. Stupid stupid stupid.

[bat39]

Well Jor-El probably knows less about us than Pa Kent

LOL. True enough. It's actually pretty true to life. A lot of times you study another country/culture, get fascinated by it, and have a very positive/optimistic outlook towards it. But that's because your understanding of that culture is largely theoretical and from a distance...you aren't aware of the ground realities that someone born into or at least living in that culture long-term would be aware of.

My theories on it: 1) It's just a where the paradigm shifted in writing. A character like Superman just can't have an inborn sense of heroism, to go good onto others, he had to learn it. Which basically he killed the appeal. 2) It's DC's long process of Marvelizing their characters. It's been this way since the 1970s. Peter Parker had the guilt over Uncle Ben death, so they writers came through with their own take. 3) It was a reaction to Superheroes that killed. Creators wanted to reaffirm what Superman is about. 4) It was an idea taken from the movies and TV shows. So somewhere along the 1990s and early 2000s.





Probably has to do many people grew up with Superman or has been reading for YEARS, so they're all really stuck in their ways. The current Superman fans are Donner/Reeves and post-crisis guys. So anything diverting from that is not Superman to them.

Well, I'm a 'post-crisis guy' (at least, Byrne's MOS and STAS shaped my early understanding of the character). And I actually think MOS is broadly true to the Post Crisis Superman. Where it differs is simply in terms of tone. While Byrne's reboot also tried to take a somewhat more 'grounded' approach to the mythos, at least compared to the Silver Age, it was still very much set in a comic-book world that operated largely on a black-and-white morality that children could comprehend. Whereas Snyder's film took the gloves off and placed Superman in an unvarnished 'real world' setting, which still retaining some degree of optimism.

Plus, let's not forget that Post Crisis Superman famously executed Zod (as in, literally executed him, not just killing him during a live combat situation where civilian lives were in danger).

The only key differences between the Post Crisis Superman and Snyder's Superman is the portrayal of the Kents (Byrne's Jonathan believed Clark had a patriotic responsibility as an 'American citizen' to use his powers to help people) and Superman's deference towards authority (Byrne's Superman is 'deputized' by Metropolis' mayor and ordered to arrest Luthor, he also has a problem with Batman's vigilantism). Both differences can be explained as Superman being transplanted to an even more 'realistic' setting, as well as Reagan-era patriotism being far in the rearview mirror.

[manwhohaseverything]

Mos still is pretty much mishmash of every postcrisis origin with the tone of for tomorrow ..

[bat39]

Mos still is pretty much mishmash of every postcrisis origin with the tone of for tomorrow ..

True enough. Admittedly, I haven't read For Tomorrow yet, so can't comment on that bit.

Even I'd forgotten that Secret Origins also included the idea of the military being hostile to Superman at first (as did Morrison's New 52 run). Let's not forget about the authorities in the earliest Siegal/Shuster stories. So even that's not something you can 'blame' on Snyder.