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

[DochaDocha]

I kind of joked about the "hobo" comments throughout the years, but something that relates to a prior comment of mine is that he jumps from job to job but doesn't seem to form any sort of relationship with anyone involved. It makes sense within the narrative, but was that a good idea for fleshing out his character?

[All Star Superman]

Yes, that's how I felt. Superman...just Batmanized. Superman seems to get either Marvelized or Batmanized, and I take issue with that. I love me some Batman, but that's why we have Batman. Superman is different.

Precisely, and this is why the MCU worked so well. Thor wasn't the same as Tony Stark nor was Steve Rogers. They were each unique characters who played off each other and the other characters added in The Avengers. WB doesn't understand DC enough to realize this.

Didn't like MoS and still don't. I think it was a poor take on Superman. Snyder or WB didn't have the foresight to understand that having the opening movie to your cinematic universe be so divisive was a massive mistake. For your opening movie you need to build up as much goodwill as possible, but the first movie out of the gate it felt like the fandom was immediately split in half and have been fighting with each other for a decade. Now I don't think the DCEU was immediately ruined because of MoS. I felt like they could easily course correct with the next movie, but then BvS happened and it felt like Snyder doubled down on all the things that split the fandom in the first place with MoS. Kills of Jimmy Olsen immediately, ruins the first on screen meeting between Batman and Superman, has the movie be overly dark and depressing, Robin is already dead, and even kills off Superman at the end. I couldn't believe what I watched.

In my opinion, there was no way to course correct. No Kents, no Superman, no Superman, no DC universe. However, I agree with you that WB yet again allowed a film intended to relaunch Superman to become a misfire of characterization and tone. Superman Returns, while still featuring Iconic Superman, was also a huge mistake in terms of trying to launch a new Superman franchise.

Overall, I think it was a boring, joyless slog of a movie. And the few good action scenes it had did not make up for or change that. It also has the worst depiction of Pa Kent put to screen

Amen! Goyer and Snyder's Pa Kent is a fear-mongering coward who seemed to want to die so he wouldn't have to deal with the "pressure" of raising his alien son.

I mentioned in another thread about this in the film section that this is my least liked solo Superman film the ones I like even less are BvS and Justice League. Yes, I can get through Quest for Peace before anything Snyder touched at least it had Christopher Reeve and at its core kept Superman true to the character I knew.

I honestly can only get through the Krypton scenes because they're cool from a Sci-Fi angle although it does bother me in this version poor Lara dies alone instead of with her husband. Truth is I always end quitting the film before it ends usually not long probably 20 minutes after Deadliest Catch the DC edition.

The Jonathan Kent death scene I've seen the explanations to why it's "good" how Jonathan's afraid how the world would react to Clark it's still stupid IMO.

My big issue is Zod's Death. It's not killing Zod that bothered me it was how it was done.

1: They never established that this version of Clark has an issue with taking a life. Saving lives and refusing to take one isn't the same thing. So, him taking a life doesn't have the same payoff as the filmmakers wanted.

2: Speaking of "saving" lives Clark's complete disregard for Collateral Damage. He got mad about the Kryptonians going after his mom and took the fight the heart of Smallville vs having it miles outside of town. I get it he's young and emotional and I could overlook it if he hadn't then had his ending battle with Zod in Metropolis destroying the city and never seeming to care about the people inside the city. Until a family is presented in front of him as being in direct danger now, he must kill Zod not when they were knocking over buildings full of people. Superman II's "Battle" in Metropolis might be small, anticlimactic, and hokey by today's standards but I'll take that where Zod realizes Superman's "Weakness" is his caring for people vs Snyder's Destruction Porn.

3: Then at the end he smashed a drone and tells the military he won't be spied on.

Jonthan thought the world would fear his son well it turned out they had every right to, and it only got worse with BvS.

Snyder's Superman has always felt more like a Hyperion movie than a Superman film to me.

Excellent points. This was Goyer and Snyder's intent; they wanted to make a movie about "their Superman," not the iconic version.

I kind of joked about the "hobo" comments throughout the years, but something that relates to a prior comment of mine is that he jumps from job to job but doesn't seem to form any sort of relationship with anyone involved. It makes sense within the narrative, but was that a good idea for fleshing out his character?

I've seen "Hobo of Steel" as a joke somewhere, maybe on Twitter or Facebook. It's certainly accurate, as Goyer and Snyder's Kent is directionless from the beginning. Goyer did the same with Bruce Wayne. Neither character are directionless before developing their superhero personas. Clark and Bruce know who they are and what their purpose is; their journey is discovering how to do achieve those purposes. As a result, we get a directionless "Bruce Wayne" who has no ingenuity and only becomes a vigilante (not hero) because his dad conveniently had a weapons division, and a "Clark Kent" who only becomes a brawler (not a hero) because he's forced into action. Superman and Batman are the ultimate men of action, their direction and drive formed at an early age.

[Kuwagaton]

Batman in the comics has a strict no kill rule, but this isn't a rule other interpretation of the character has had in elseworlds or films like Keaton and Affleck.

This film tries to have the scene where he kills Zod as some moment that he broke a core belief by the fact he screams in agony of doing it.

He allowed his father to die for the "greater good" countless number of people died in Smallville and Metropolis in the collateral damage in his fight with Zod to save the Earth again needs of the many. Yet the person he shows the most remorse for their death in the moment in "Space Hitler".

In Batman Begins Bruce didn't get into the League of Shadows because he refused to take a life. Did he find a cop out to allow Ra's to die? Yes. but his no killing policy established in Batman Begins comes full circle in Dark Knight when he won't kill Joker. That's good story telling Man of Steel wasn't.

Yeah... between the deaths of Jason, Damian, Stephanie, and Alfred at the hands of his enemies and DKR Bruce getting saved by Selina's gun after all that lecturing, the last thing I'll ever think is "___ needs to be like Batman." I'll agree to disagree.

I kind of joked about the "hobo" comments throughout the years, but something that relates to a prior comment of mine is that he jumps from job to job but doesn't seem to form any sort of relationship with anyone involved. It makes sense within the narrative, but was that a good idea for fleshing out his character?

I guess if you really liked the Bixby Banner and also really dug the idea of traveling the world before he becomes Superman, lol

[manwhohaseverything]

Excellent points. This was Goyer and Snyder's intent; they wanted to make a movie about "their Superman," not the iconic version.

What of it?your "iconic" version is donner version i presume?you do know that's it's own thing..right?i mean,what eff is crystal fortress and father in the sky recordings?farmlands of kansas?where did they come from?farmlands thing might have had some degree of showing in comics prior..but the rest..yeah!

A director and writers job is to do their spin.That's why it's called an adaptation.they should have all the liberty to do what ever they want and express whatever they feel.

[Spencermalley935]

Precisely, and this is why the MCU worked so well. Thor wasn't the same as Tony Stark nor was Steve Rogers. They were each unique characters who played off each other and the other characters added in The Avengers. WB doesn't understand DC enough to realize this.



In my opinion, there was no way to course correct. No Kents, no Superman, no Superman, no DC universe. However, I agree with you that WB yet again allowed a film intended to relaunch Superman to become a misfire of characterization and tone. Superman Returns, while still featuring Iconic Superman, was also a huge mistake in terms of trying to launch a new Superman franchise.



Amen! Goyer and Snyder's Pa Kent is a fear-mongering coward who seemed to want to die so he wouldn't have to deal with the "pressure" of raising his alien son.



Excellent points. This was Goyer and Snyder's intent; they wanted to make a movie about "their Superman," not the iconic version.



I've seen "Hobo of Steel" as a joke somewhere, maybe on Twitter or Facebook. It's certainly accurate, as Goyer and Snyder's Kent is directionless from the beginning. Goyer did the same with Bruce Wayne. Neither character are directionless before developing their superhero personas. Clark and Bruce know who they are and what their purpose is; their journey is discovering how to do achieve those purposes. As a result, we get a directionless "Bruce Wayne" who has no ingenuity and only becomes a vigilante (not hero) because his dad conveniently had a weapons division, and a "Clark Kent" who only becomes a brawler (not a hero) because he's forced into action. Superman and Batman are the ultimate men of action, their direction and drive formed at an early age.

I think it worked a lot better with Bruce Wayne because he actually set out with a goal in mind (understanding criminals) but lost his way until he found a teacher whereas Clark just seemed to be going through the motions with no actual goal in mind until he randomly overheard two soldiers talking about a spaceship. Bruce even had a mission statement in Batman Begins "I seek the tools to fight injustice, to turn fear against those who prey on the fearful" which pretty clearly indicates that he knew what he wanted to do with his life and had to discover how to achieve that. It's honestly nothing like Man of Steel at all.

Also, to hell with the idea that Nolan's Batman isn't a "hero", he saved the entire city more than once. By that same logic, Traditional comic book Batman only became a hero because his dad left him a fortune.

[DochaDocha]

I've seen "Hobo of Steel" as a joke somewhere, maybe on Twitter or Facebook. It's certainly accurate, as Goyer and Snyder's Kent is directionless from the beginning. Goyer did the same with Bruce Wayne. Neither character are directionless before developing their superhero personas. Clark and Bruce know who they are and what their purpose is; their journey is discovering how to do achieve those purposes. As a result, we get a directionless "Bruce Wayne" who has no ingenuity and only becomes a vigilante (not hero) because his dad conveniently had a weapons division, and a "Clark Kent" who only becomes a brawler (not a hero) because he's forced into action. Superman and Batman are the ultimate men of action, their direction and drive formed at an early age.

I didn't feel Bruce Wayne was directionless. His journeys weren't haphazard but rather purposeful. He established a moral code (see his stances on stealing and killing) but tried to understand moral grey areas. And, of course, he learned how to fight. Also, I felt that upon his return to Gotham, he didn't come up with ideas of how to be a crime fighter off the top of his head, but likely gave great thought into how he wanted to execute his master plan. That he could access his father's high tech armory was convenient and lucky, but he knew he wanted to leverage it as part of his grand scheme. All in all, we the viewers knew what Bruce was doing for seven years: learning how to become Batman, even if he didn't know the particulars. A lot of the process was reactive, but much was also proactive.

On the other hand, what was Superman up to (and I don't think you could even call him "Clark Kent" at this time because he didn't use that identity)? What was his endgame? Did he have a set purpose? These are kind of unclear other than that when it came time to help people, he would. But why did he choose gigs like being a crabber or a bus boy? Bruce's journey felt intentional. Clark's seemed somewhat arbitrary in the choices he made other than that it was time to move on for whatever reason and he wouldn't turn his back on someone in need.

EDIT: After further consideration, I realized Superman did have a purpose. It was to help people while laying low, being as boring as possible so people wouldn't find him interesting enough to get to know him or his secret. And once he did something that might've made people suspicious of him, he bounced. But it still seems a lot less thought out than what Bruce Wayne was doing in Batman Begins.

[Agent Z]

His one interview with Lois in the first Donner movie told us more about his character, what he stands for, how he views people and how he'd like to be viewed than three movies worth of scenes overseen by Snyder. Hell in Smallville, we actually get to see him be happy instead of constantly miserable, we get to see his adoptive father encourage him with the idea that he's meant for greater things than scoring touchdowns and we get to see Clark actually get to cope with his fathers death and come to terms with the idea that no matter how powerful he is there are things he can't change (as opposed to MOS where Jonathan died a completely needless death for no real reason other than to instill his son with a lack of faith in humanity)

I really don't see how MOS is any way an improvement over what you've described the Donner movie as. In that movie, We see Clark feeling miserable and alienated with no actual friends, His annoyingly paranoid father tells him that he needs to prioritize keeping his secret at all costs (even letting people die), than he spends most of his adult life bumming around the world as an aimless, wandering hobo with no actual goal in mind, doing odd jobs, saving people out of circumstance so he won't feel guilty about not doing anything, randomly overhears two soldiers talking about something they found in the ice that just happens to be the one thing that he can insert the key into, has a "hamlets ghost dad pow-wow" with an AI hologram of his dead dad who basically gives him the suit and lays out his life's purpose in exactly the same way the first Donner film did but instead of just going out as Superman right away, He goes right back to "wandering hobo" mode until Zod gives him literally no choice but to reveal himself to the world (except he reveals himself to the US military and we never get a sense of what the general public feels about him)

Clark's an incredibly passive protagonist in Man of Steel. If Zod hadn't arrived, He probably would have just put the suit away and never think to go back to it. If he hadn't overheard those soldiers randomly, He probably would have spent the rest of his life as an aimless drifter.

Telling Clark to prioritize his secret isn't remotely new for Jonathan. Both the Smallville, Lois & Clark and even the Golden Age versions did the same thing. The Smallville version was arguably worse since Clark's secret repeatedly put his relationships in jeopardy and was a contributing factor in why Lex Luthor turned evil.

As for Clark being aimless, this isn6tge gotcha you think it is since Clark looking for a purpose is part of his arc.

[manwhohaseverything]

Actually,there was a goal..he always had the house of el key to the ship with him.He was out there to find his origins. it was arbitrary. because there was nothing to go on.It was a wild goose chase.He got a vif of government activity in north.So he started following that..

[bat39]

His one interview with Lois in the first Donner movie told us more about his character, what he stands for, how he views people and how he'd like to be viewed than three movies worth of scenes overseen by Snyder. Hell in Smallville, we actually get to see him be happy instead of constantly miserable, we get to see his adoptive father encourage him with the idea that he's meant for greater things than scoring touchdowns and we get to see Clark actually get to cope with his fathers death and come to terms with the idea that no matter how powerful he is there are things he can't change (as opposed to MOS where Jonathan died a completely needless death for no real reason other than to instill his son with a lack of faith in humanity)

I really don't see how MOS is any way an improvement over what you've described the Donner movie as. In that movie, We see Clark feeling miserable and alienated with no actual friends, His annoyingly paranoid father tells him that he needs to prioritize keeping his secret at all costs (even letting people die), than he spends most of his adult life bumming around the world as an aimless, wandering hobo with no actual goal in mind, doing odd jobs, saving people out of circumstance so he won't feel guilty about not doing anything, randomly overhears two soldiers talking about something they found in the ice that just happens to be the one thing that he can insert the key into, has a "hamlets ghost dad pow-wow" with an AI hologram of his dead dad who basically gives him the suit and lays out his life's purpose in exactly the same way the first Donner film did but instead of just going out as Superman right away, He goes right back to "wandering hobo" mode until Zod gives him literally no choice but to reveal himself to the world (except he reveals himself to the US military and we never get a sense of what the general public feels about him)

Clark's an incredibly passive protagonist in Man of Steel. If Zod hadn't arrived, He probably would have just put the suit away and never think to go back to it. If he hadn't overheard those soldiers randomly, He probably would have spent the rest of his life as an aimless drifter.

You mean the interview where Donner's Superman says that he's here to fight for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" and that he "Never lies"?

I mean, I'm not knocking the Donner film. Every scene of that movie is iconic and it perfectly encapsulates a representation of Superman. But the one most people consider "classic". But it's not the only one.

There's a bit more of "show, don't tell" to Snyder's Superman. He's someone who was overwhelmed by these powers but learnt to control them. He wanted to use his powers to help people but his dad cautioned him that the world might not be ready for what he can do. After his dad's death, he wanders the world, helping out covertly while trying to unlock the secret of his alien heritage. And yes, he is directionless, as we all are at some point in our lives. But then he happens to stumble upon the truth of his heritage, and is rather violently confronted by it in the form of Zod and his army. He realizes that his dad was right, to an extent, when he's met with hostility by the military. But he also sees the goodness of humanity, particularly in Lois, and also in the military as they start to trust him. And this motivates him to give it his all to save the world from Zod. And he realizes that this is what he wants to do with his life now that his existence is known and he's tentatively been accepted by the world.

There is a Jor-El hologram in MOS too. But that Jor-El hologram doesn't spend 12 years indoctrinating Clark into becoming Superman.

I kind of joked about the "hobo" comments throughout the years, but something that relates to a prior comment of mine is that he jumps from job to job but doesn't seem to form any sort of relationship with anyone involved. It makes sense within the narrative, but was that a good idea for fleshing out his character?

It's pretty much in line with most Post-Crisis takes on the origin, wherein Clark spends several years between Smallville and Metropolis traveling the world. And I dunno, I feel it fleshes him out a bit more than spending that time in the Fortress with Jor-El's hologram.

[Riv86672]

As we head into the next iteration of Superman-On-Film, today marks the ten year anniversary of Zack Snyder’s highly polarizing Superman reboot. Immediately following the lukewarm received Superman Returns where it was criticized for being too deferential to those movies, Man Of Steel was in many ways had the complete opposite as it couldn’t be more a bigger departure from the Donnor movies that once had Superman cheerfully rescue cats from true with a smile. Man Of Steel had great trailers/marketing and was coming off the heels of the concluding Nolan Batman franchise. Matter of fact Chris Nolan, was a producer on the film and David Goyer who wrote the screenplay was the writer for Begins, and had story credit for its two sequels.


In fact, when you think about it the Batman association the movie may have played in it’s favored considering the trailers weren’t shy about it being from the one who gave you The Dark Knight trilogy. The movie had a good opening weekend but was met with mixed reviews and fan reception. Among the many criticisms the film received was the third act battle with portrayed a litany of massive CGI destruction, and lack of humor, and last but least - a complaint that still the topic for fiery debates online was Superman killing Zod. For myself, watching the movie ten years later I still find enjoyment with the film and still think it’s the best of the Snyder DC trilogy but I’m honestly not as high as I was when I first watched it. I wonder after ten years, what’s your thoughts on Man Of Steel?

^^^eh, same as I felt ten years ago.

On the Plus side:
Excellent ways of presenting Supes’ powers.
Great fight scenes, in and of themselves.
Russell Crowe made for a pretty good Jor-El, and Krypton looked cool.
Zod and Faora were quite menacing.

On the Minus side:
Supes’ costume was too dark. He should have been the bright contrast to the black clad, militaristic Kryptonians.
Jonathan Kent was too paranoid, filling Clark w. dread instead of purpose; he was terrible father in terms of setting a good example.
Supes should never have killed Zod, not on top of all the other darkness that pervaded the movie; Supes doesn’t lower himself, he raises everyone up.

[All Star Superman]

What of it?your "iconic" version is donner version i presume?you do know that's it's own thing..right?i mean,what eff is crystal fortress and father in the sky recordings?farmlands of kansas?where did they come from?farmlands thing might have had some degree of showing in comics prior..but the rest..yeah!

A director and writers job is to do their spin.That's why it's called an adaptation.they should have all the liberty to do what ever they want and express whatever they feel.

First of all, it's not "my" iconic version. It's the version that was most portrayed in comics and related media for the bulk of the 75 years up to Man of Steel. That character has unities that must be present for the character to be faithfully adapted: the Kents must be loving, encouraging, and noble parents who raise Clark to be a person who, to counter NotMartha's comment in BvS, "does owe the world" something. Clark Kent is raised to believe that his powers should be used to help others, especially those who are defenseless. If this is replaced with fear-monger and indifference to letting people die, you don't have Superman. Secondly, Superman doesn't allow collateral damage from his battles to kill thousands of people. It doesn't matter if he was Superman for a minute or a year, Clark Kent is responsible and cares for all life. Finally, he doesn't kill, despite the exceptions to that idea that are outnumbered countless times in comics, film, and television up to 2013. Those exceptions (Superman II, Superman #22) are often used as a defense of Superman killing, but they are invalid as such. They are errors made by people (Lester, Goyer, and Snyder) who neither know or care about Superman.

Finally, nothing in the definition of "adaptation" supports your usage. An adaptation should make the source material fit a new medium, but that does not mean it should deconstruct and gut said source material in the process. It's fine if you like Snyderman, but that character has never been and will never be Superman.

[JBatmanFan05]

Finally, he doesn't kill, despite the exceptions to that idea that are outnumbered countless times in comics, film, and television up to 2013. Those exceptions (Superman II, Superman #22) are often used as a defense of Superman killing, but they are invalid as such. They are errors made by people (Lester, Goyer, and Snyder) who neither know or care about Superman.

Not to mention that Superman II was never clear about Zod's fate. I must have watched Sup II a thousand times growing up and I never thought "woah, Superman kills" (and boy did I recoil immediately when I first read Sup #22). And over time, I learned of and saw different Sup II cuts, which made it clear Zod didn't die. The Restored Int Cut was well circulated, I had it from like eBay or tape trading for a long time (hell, I had it so long, I probably can't even find mine anymore).

Although his survival seems ambiguous in the theatrical cut of Superman 2, the deleted scene and director’s cut prove that he almost certainly survived in all three versions. Man of Steel used Zod’s death as an origin for Superman’s rule against killing, but in the classic films, Zod never died in the first place. Superman appears to already be against killing in Superman 2, and all three of Zod’s endings confirm this.

https://screenrant.com/superman-2-mo...e-differences/

[Alan2099]

I've seen "Hobo of Steel" as a joke somewhere, maybe on Twitter or Facebook. It's certainly accurate, as Goyer and Snyder's Kent is directionless from the beginning. Goyer did the same with Bruce Wayne. Neither character are directionless before developing their superhero personas. Clark and Bruce know who they are and what their purpose is; their journey is discovering how to do achieve those purposes. As a result, we get a directionless "Bruce Wayne" who has no ingenuity and only becomes a vigilante (not hero) because his dad conveniently had a weapons division,

I like to explain Batman's "character" arc as ...

1st movie. I have no idea what I'm trying to do. I'll listen to anybody. Just somebody tell me how to be Batman!
2nd movie. Being Batman is really tough. I just don't want to do it anymore.
3rd movie. I quit being Batman. On top of that, I'll quit being Bruce Wayne to and I'll go romance a thief and murderer.

I have no clue what Nolan was trying to do.

Not to mention that Superman II was never clear about the Zod's fate. I must have watched Sup II a thousand times growing up and I never thought "woah, Superman kills"

They fell down into some fog. There wasn't even a "they can't possibly have survived that" moment. They just fell.

[Spencermalley935]

You mean the interview where Donner's Superman says that he's here to fight for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" and that he "Never lies"?

Yes while also presenting Superman as a likable, endearing and approachable character. Something Snyder never bothered to do in any of his movies.

But it's not the only one.

I agree actually. I love the Donner movies but I think that modern incarnations really need to get away from them and do their own thing. One of my big problems with Man of Steel is that it's basically a truncated remake of the first two Donner movies (Jonathan Kent dies in Clarks teenage years, Jor-El is still used as a stand-in for God who sent his son to earth for a "special purpose", the even more on the nose Jesus symbolism, The villain is Zod, whose mostly known for his previous movie appearance)

There's a bit more of "show, don't tell" to Snyder's Superman. He's someone who was overwhelmed by these powers but learnt to control them. He wanted to use his powers to help people but his dad cautioned him that the world might not be ready for what he can do. After his dad's death, he wanders the world, helping out covertly while trying to unlock the secret of his alien heritage. And yes, he is directionless, as we all are at some point in our lives. But then he happens to stumble upon the truth of his heritage, and is rather violently confronted by it in the form of Zod and his army. He realizes that his dad was right, to an extent, when he's met with hostility by the military. But he also sees the goodness of humanity, particularly in Lois, and also in the military as they start to trust him. And this motivates him to give it his all to save the world from Zod. And he realizes that this is what he wants to do with his life now that his existence is known and he's tentatively been accepted by the world

When it comes to "show, don't tell", The movie honestly does a pretty mediocre job of it. You can't develop a character through just their actions, they need to talk about why they're doing the things they're doing and how they feel about it. Actions may speak louder than words but that doesn't mean the words themselves aren't important. Words provide context. It's hyperbolic to say you should "always show but never tell".

Jonathan Kent would never try to discourage his son from doing the right thing or try to engender such a cynical view of the world in him. He's supposed to be a contributing factor towards Clark's strong moral core and desire to do the right thing and that's so much more inspiring and frankly more interesting than him having some vaguely defined "innate desire" that his father is trying to quelch out of rampant paranoia. We never see Jonathan as a positive influence in Clarks life in MOS, we just see him engendering a paranoid cynical outlook in his son while confusingly also telling him he's destined to be a savior while never actually giving him any useful advice or encouragement. The movie honestly feels like it's trying to say that Superman's morality comes from Jor-El and that his adoptive human father was an impediment. The whole point of Superman is that he doesn't need a tragic backstory or a massive guilt complex to be a hero, He does it simply because its the right thing to do, because he was raised with strong moral values by old-fashioned, salt of the earth people. He doesn't humanity to "prove itself" to him to help them, he doesn't need to "learn to see the goodness in them" and he honestly doesn't need a "what is my purpose" type of arc. He should already know what he wants to do with his life, he just isn't sure how to go about it.

I never once got the sense that Clark was actually pursuing a purpose in his wanderings in the beginning of Man of Steel. He never felt like he was trying to "search for his origins" just that he was bumming around the world doing odd jobs and rescuing people out of circumstance. if saving people is what he wanted to do, Why isn't he trying to actually find a way to do that out in the open instead of just running away and trying to live anonymously over and over? That tells me he doesn't actually want to help people, hes doing it out of obligation. Even when he discovers the truth of his origins, He still intends to spend the rest of his life hiding from the world and only reveals himself because Zod has threatened to destroy the world if he doesn't. He doesn't even properly reveal himself to the world, he reveals himself to the US military (which is not an appropriate stand-in) and we never find out what the general public thinks of him. He doesn't even fully reveal himself to said military and he continues to have an antagonistic relationship with them at the end.

There is a Jor-El hologram in MOS too. But that Jor-El hologram doesn't spend 12 years indoctrinating Clark into becoming Superman

But he functions in pretty much exactly the same way except he's a lot more confusing about his advice and for some reason he doesn't tell Clark about the "skull of DNA" that he infused into his son for no reason that were actually told about.

Clark spends several years between Smallville and Metropolis traveling the world

In those stories, Clark was a personable guy who interacted with people and learned about different cultures, He wasn't an aimless, wandering vagrant doing ood jobs while trying to keep a low profile.

[All Star Superman]

Not to mention that Superman II was never clear about Zod's fate. I must have watched Sup II a thousand times growing up and I never thought "woah, Superman kills" (and boy did I recoil immediately when I first read Sup #22). And over time, I learned of and saw different Sup II cuts, which made it clear Zod didn't die. The Restored Int Cut was well circulated, I had it from like eBay or tape trading for a long time (hell, I had it so long, I probably can't even find mine anymore).



https://screenrant.com/superman-2-mo...e-differences/

Yep, it was another of Lester's horrible ideas to leave what happened to the PZ criminals unclear.