Originally Posted by
godisawesome
In my opinion, it’s still the best of the Superman movies, though not by as much as I used to try and argue, or as much as I wish, primarily because while it doesn’t fortunately doesn’t have “Charlatan Clark” (which is my single biggest characterization beef with the Reeves movies, since I’ve always regarded more exaggerated Clark’s as mean spirited in some way), it still lacks a Clark identity. And I still tend to think that if it had a competent, Clark-focused sequel and leaned more towards the more optimistic aspects of the film (which often get overlooked).
I think it has the best villain, mythos, and conflict of the Superman films on a structural level, and that the supporting cast has superior characterizations here compared to the Reeves, Lester and Singer films - with the exception of Pa Kent. I just think the more overtly Silver Age character of the older films are hurt by the flaws of the Silver Age, while seeing a Lois who’s competence is emphasized, a Daily Planet staff that feels both more believable but also more heroic, a more complex but still ultimately optimistic Smallville, and a likeable set of military characters makes those part of the film a treat. Shannon’s Zod *is better than Stamp’s, and the fact of the matter is we’ve had “meh” Luthors overall on the big screen, while Faora and even the other Phantom Zone baddies are fun little background villains.
But yeah, Pa Kent having some kind of pseudo-objectivist and insular fear for his son and having the “Boomers want him dead” curse does suck, especially since (again) the Rest of the Smallville scenes are actually shockingly optimistic, as ar e most of the other humanity scenes; a lot of the film’s darker tones with humans comes almost strictly from Pa Kent.
And overall, I can’t help but feel that maybe if the film had Clark already wear the glasses, already run a blog, and establish a civilian rapport with Lois early on before she deduces who he is, it would have gone a long way. What parts of Cavill’s Porto-Clark are on screen is good, and his Superman is great… but I think the film sort of suffers a similar issue to the Reeves Superman from the Jesus allegory the films keep going back to, simply subbing out the broad humor and inherently facile approach to the Clark Kent identity that the Reeves films had with a lonely outsider trope that isn’t any better, and doesn’t have anything to compensate for the humor that Reeves fans enjoyed (and that I don’t.)
I have a similar issue with Mark Waid’s Birthright and it’s Clark, as well as Earth One’s; really, it’s almost odd how much both creators who approach Clakr form the “disguise” and “real deal” aspect can sort of skip right past realizing that a likeable, fully developed Clark is probably better overall.