Under the bus: Bad portrayals of Superman across all media.

[Xon-Ur]

Here are just a few of what I consider to be the worst offenders:

*Injustice video game and related series

*Scott Lobdell's run

*Most of the New 52 portrayals outside of Morrison's run and Pak's pre-Truth run

*Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?

*Justice League War and sequel

*For Tomorrow

*Superman II - IV

*Superman Returns as released (novelization and fan edit versions with no Super Kid redeem the film for me)

*Superman Vol. 2, #22

*NotSoSuperMan of Steel

[UltraWoman]

If we're going to go with bad portrayals of Superman (and to a degree, Lois too) I have to throw in the rendition of "It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman" that was on TV back in 1975. OMG, was it hard to watch. PAINFULLY hard.

[Powerboy]

I think it's probably inevitable that a thread like this will be, "Versions of Superman that I don't like". Going with that, without wasting time trying to attack its quality which was top notch, I hated the DKR portrayal of Superman. In fairness, had it just been another "Imaginary story" about a dark Superman, no harm, no foul. The problem was that it caught on and influenced the portrayal of Superman and the portrayal of Batman and the interactions between the two for decades.

[dumbduck]

I don't recall the story exactly, but I suspect the contradiction had more to do with Superman's perhaps naive belief that there might have been a better way. More than anything, it was the thought that someone had killed because of him, and in many ways for him, that was the real reason Superman was so conflicted.

I don't really have that much of a problem with Sacrifice; I guess I always saw it as a call that it was time for change within Superman's character otherwise the character was going to break. Which he of course did break and now they're forced to put the character back together again, hopefully this time stronger than before.

As much as I gave up on Post-Crisis Superman the fact of the matter is that Byrne put him on some very bleak situations of loss. The pocket universe adventure was one dark tale. People complain about this 'last' story he gave Clark, well, I liked it. The Earth already lost, Zod, Ursa and Non so deranged that they sterilized the planet. The fight seemed hopeless with Supes vs pre-crisis kryptonians, a sad victory with only Matrix as the survivor. And at the end Clark having to make a choice. He also killed Doomsday. He watched Diana kill, and in that war she probably had to kill to save his life hundreds, thousands of times.

That guy, Byrne's guy at least, would never, ever give up on Diana. But he had to be leveled down to Batdudebro's level. Yet another Batman writer with a simplistic view of Supes, so.

I think you have to consider the fact that social media gives fans a much louder voice now. Superman fans couldn't have made such vocal protests in the past because they only had a few limited outlets available to them. So, looking at more recent storylines, I do think Superman fans who dislike the idea of Superman killing were very vocal when he killed Zod in Man of Steel. The fan outrage about that particular plot point rallied a defense that absolutely outweighed anything Lois fans have said or done regarding the "Truth" arc.

That's a good point. Ironicaly I thought that him killing Zod was justified by the situation and his lack of experience.

For me personally, definitely Reeves Superman in Superman II where he threw his powers away to have sex with Lois Lane who then went on to get beat up by drunk truckers. It's always astound me that this is considered an amazing depiction of the character. Give me Clark snapping Zod's neck over this any day.

I'm ashamed to admit that as a kid this and other stuff like 'killing' Zod and co, and 'Mind Wipe kiss' only mildly bothered me. I mean, Obi-Wan should have told Luke about Leia right in ANH. Does he have any idea how close they could... We'd rather not think about it. Yet, hey, we're getting 'real' sequels to those great popcorn blockbuster movies now, aren't we?

[dumbduck]

Mostly agree (though I'm less passionate about Earth-2 Superman, as I've never, ever seen him as actually being the original guy. Still a dumb way to end his story though), except for Lois & Clark. I wasn't a huge fan of that show, but I thought Dean Cain did it well; it followed the Byrne take in an interesting way, with his obvious posturing as Superman contrasted with the naturalness of Clark. It's not 'my' Superman, it's not even what I'd call a truly valid take, but I thought it did well for what it was, and earnestly. As opposed to Lois, who in the first season...I hesitate to throw around stuff like "worst possible take on the character", but she was Not Great, in spite of a perfectly good performance by Teri Hatcher.

Honestly, in terms of L&C, I think the premise just had a very limited life span. It's taking a character meant for boys and making it appealing to women. Fine. But how far can you take that? By that time in the comics they were already engaged so it's not like we didn't know where the story was headed. I thought the first season was kind of cool but went downhill after that. I bought the first season a couple years ago (for the twentieth anniversary) and when I went back and watched it, it didn't hold up as well as it did when I was a teenager. It also came off to me as sort of the same way the Batman show of the sixties did. The people involved were sort of making fun of it in a way. Deliberately campy for the sake of poking fun at the whole concept of super-heroes. That kind of treatment always bothers me. No matter how "lovingly" they think they are doing it.

I liked Teri Hatcher. Yes, there were those scenes where she watched romantic movies and cried herself to sleep. But what I remember most is her performance at the Daily Planet. Wit and charm. And beauty, that helps . At least for the 1st season. But yeah, that was that. People who defend the show are right, it delivered what it promissed, a romantic sitcom for women. At least they were honest about it.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Honestly, in terms of L&C, I think the premise just had a very limited life span. It's taking a character meant for boys and making it appealing to women. Fine. But how far can you take that? By that time in the comics they were already engaged so it's not like we didn't know where the story was headed. I thought the first season was kind of cool but went downhill after that. I bought the first season a couple years ago (for the twentieth anniversary) and when I went back and watched it, it didn't hold up as well as it did when I was a teenager. It also came off to me as sort of the same way the Batman show of the sixties did. The people involved were sort of making fun of it in a way. Deliberately campy for the sake of poking fun at the whole concept of super-heroes. That kind of treatment always bothers me. No matter how "lovingly" they think they are doing it.

I didn't dislike it because it aimed to reach a different audience (in my mind, they should be doing way more of that) or the camp. It just had a first season where Lois cried herself to sleep about wanting a boyfriend (and the first couple times she nearly died, which even for early Lois...no), lectured Clark about what Superman means every other episode to unintentionally pump him up, and nearly married Lex because she hadn't figured out his true colors like all the men had (granted John Shea was a great Lex who, while slimy in private, was believably charismatic and likeable in public. I bought that he'd fooled Metropolis). She toughened up later, which is actually why I like what I've seen of the other seasons a lot more. The first season's Jimmy was great though.

Anyway, since I forgot it earlier, obviously Injustice.

[Jon Clark]

Superman The Movie- I understand the limitations of special effects and the "You will believe a man can fly" tag line was true, but Superman versus Lex in that movie was one of the worst showings of superpowers around especially if you cut out the "gauntlet" Lex throws at him in the full cut. Superman does most of his amazing stuff in trivial scenes. Exclude saving Lois in the helicopter and the turning back time and find one really impressive feat Superman did that impacted the plot. I'm not saying I wanted Superman pounding on Luthor- but I wish they had saved the budget for superfeats enough to give us something impressive. The gauntlet might have been an attempt at that but it fell flat because it focused too much on just invulnerability to get past it.

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow- I wonder if Lois ever caught on to the fact Superman actually died in the Arctic and the guy she married was an imposter. Because the guy at the end of that story was not Superman- the very way he described Superman as being "full of himself" etc made that abundantly clear to me. While I applaud Superman's decision to give up his powers as he'd swornto do if he killed, I just can't picture the Earth-One Superman ever being totally happy having given up those powers.

Superman Returns- Take everything I wrote about Superman The Movie's uninspiring use of powers then add in not getting the character right. The only Superman scene in the movie to get Superman right was the one where he was trying to save lives in Metropolis. If they had him being that focused and showed his powers that impressively through the rest of the film I think we'd have seen a Super-renaissance. Instead it's like someone took a scene from a Bizarro version of the movie and inserted it.

[t hedge coke]

"What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?" would be a big one, for me. From his words and actions to his body language, Superman is just a bully.

Also, his big walk across America, which ignored that most "normal" people don't walk across America because they have jobs and cars and get tired and stuff, but also featured him being a condescending prick to everyone from aliens to journalists.

In general, I'd be happy enough pretending most of the superdickery pranks and spankings didn't happen. I know many are willing to overlook the misogyny and paranoia and petty vindictiveness that comes out during the Weisinger Era, but I'd rather just pave over it. Golden Age and Bronze Age forward is much better in terms of character, on the whole.

[Powerboy]

Honestly, in terms of L&C, I think the premise just had a very limited life span. It's taking a character meant for boys and making it appealing to women. Fine. But how far can you take that? By that time in the comics they were already engaged so it's not like we didn't know where the story was headed. I thought the first season was kind of cool but went downhill after that. I bought the first season a couple years ago (for the twentieth anniversary) and when I went back and watched it, it didn't hold up as well as it did when I was a teenager. It also came off to me as sort of the same way the Batman show of the sixties did. The people involved were sort of making fun of it in a way. Deliberately campy for the sake of poking fun at the whole concept of super-heroes. That kind of treatment always bothers me. No matter how "lovingly" they think they are doing it.

Personally, I'm kind of a fan of the old school Earth 2 universe so it really irked me. Give him a happy ending and then yank it away for no reason.

Hmm, I'd have to disagree there because, Smallville which, to me, is more or less taking what was originally a character designed to appeal to boys and making a storyline designed to appeal first and foremost to girls and women, generically speaking, of course. It's probably more the presentation, even within that basic context. I didn't watch a lot of L&C so I can't really say what the difference was that caused it to be canceled while Smallville ran ten seasons.

[Powerboy]

Superman The Movie- I understand the limitations of special effects and the "You will believe a man can fly" tag line was true, but Superman versus Lex in that movie was one of the worst showings of superpowers around especially if you cut out the "gauntlet" Lex throws at him in the full cut. Superman does most of his amazing stuff in trivial scenes. Exclude saving Lois in the helicopter and the turning back time and find one really impressive feat Superman did that impacted the plot. I'm not saying I wanted Superman pounding on Luthor- but I wish they had saved the budget for superfeats enough to give us something impressive. The gauntlet might have been an attempt at that but it fell flat because it focused too much on just invulnerability to get past it.

I thought lifting the San Andreas Fault was pretty darn impressive.

But then again, I saw the movie in 1979 so there's a whole different concept of "impressive special effects" for me. It was a lot like the original Star Wars movie (since then called "A New Hope"). I would guess it doesn't seem such a big deal now if any deal at all but, in 1977, it was a special effects bonanza beyond anything that anybody had ever seen in a movie before. Nothing else was even close. It was magnitudes beyond what had been done before. Superman the Movie appeared during that era. I suppose it's nearly impossible now to convey how overwhelmingly impressive those effects were in the late 1970's. It was basically that special effects had stayed almost the same for a couple of decades, creeping forward just a little bit here and there but nothing that made you feel they were that much different. Then, with SW, a quantum leap in effects that carried over to Superman.

Just to give an example. In a special feature on "Smallville", they had a discussion of why Superman the Movie's effects hold up so well that, only with the advent of CGI are they starting to look dated. For instance, they were given whatever time they needed to get it right. They sometimes spent three weeks filming a flying scene that would amount to ten seconds on screen. Normally, in three weeks, even the biggest budget movie would have 15 minutes of film that would appear in the final cut, a minute a day. They spent three weeks to get ten seconds that would appear in the final cut and they did that more than once.

To be honest, I think the special effects were the absolute best- spare no expense, no time limit- that could possibly have been done at that time.

[Jon Clark]

I thought lifting the San Andreas Fault was pretty darn impressive.

But then again, I saw the movie in 1979 so there's a whole different concept of "impressive special effects" for me. It was a lot like the original Star Wars movie (since then called "A New Hope"). I would guess it doesn't seem such a big deal now if any deal at all but, in 1977, it was a special effects bonanza beyond anything that anybody had ever seen in a movie before. Nothing else was even close. It was magnitudes beyond what had been done before. Superman the Movie appeared during that era. I suppose it's nearly impossible now to convey how overwhelmingly impressive those effects were in the late 1970's. It was basically that special effects had stayed almost the same for a couple of decades, creeping forward just a little bit here and there but nothing that made you feel they were that much different. Then, with SW, a quantum leap in effects that carried over to Superman.

Just to give an example. In a special feature on "Smallville", they had a discussion of why Superman the Movie's effects hold up so well that, only with the advent of CGI are they starting to look dated. For instance, they were given whatever time they needed to get it right. They sometimes spent three weeks filming a flying scene that would amount to ten seconds on screen. Normally, in three weeks, even the biggest budget movie would have 15 minutes of film that would appear in the final cut, a minute a day. They spent three weeks to get ten seconds that would appear in the final cut and they did that more than once.

To be honest, I think the special effects were the absolute best

I wasn't criticizing the special effects as much as how they were used. Trim the "flight with Lois" a bit or cut one of the "first night" feats and put that budget into something more confrontational between Reeve and Hackman.

[superduperman]

Superman The Movie- I understand the limitations of special effects and the "You will believe a man can fly" tag line was true, but Superman versus Lex in that movie was one of the worst showings of superpowers around especially if you cut out the "gauntlet" Lex throws at him in the full cut. Superman does most of his amazing stuff in trivial scenes. Exclude saving Lois in the helicopter and the turning back time and find one really impressive feat Superman did that impacted the plot. I'm not saying I wanted Superman pounding on Luthor- but I wish they had saved the budget for superfeats enough to give us something impressive. The gauntlet might have been an attempt at that but it fell flat because it focused too much on just invulnerability to get past it.

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow- I wonder if Lois ever caught on to the fact Superman actually died in the Arctic and the guy she married was an imposter. Because the guy at the end of that story was not Superman- the very way he described Superman as being "full of himself" etc made that abundantly clear to me. While I applaud Superman's decision to give up his powers as he'd swornto do if he killed, I just can't picture the Earth-One Superman ever being totally happy having given up those powers.

Superman Returns- Take everything I wrote about Superman The Movie's uninspiring use of powers then add in not getting the character right. The only Superman scene in the movie to get Superman right was the one where he was trying to save lives in Metropolis. If they had him being that focused and showed his powers that impressively through the rest of the film I think we'd have seen a Super-renaissance. Instead it's like someone took a scene from a Bizarro version of the movie and inserted it.

Except that his son was clearly crushing a lump of coal into a diamond in the background. Keep in mind, this may very well have been Alan Moore's rather cynical take on Superman and DC let it through because, last story, why the hell not? People's attitudes also change as they get older. He's now experiencing the kind of life he never knew was possible and it may have changed his perspective of what he did. But I think the Alan Moore cynicism played more of a role in it than anything else. Keep in mind, this was about the time he was becoming less enamored with DC. And he did oppose the reboot to begin with.

[superduperman]

Hmm, I'd have to disagree there because, Smallville which, to me, is more or less taking what was originally a character designed to appeal to boys and making a storyline designed to appeal first and foremost to girls and women, generically speaking, of course. It's probably more the presentation, even within that basic context. I didn't watch a lot of L&C so I can't really say what the difference was that caused it to be canceled while Smallville ran ten seasons.

Much as I like Smallville, I had my issues with it as well. The most common criticism of the show at the time it was on was that it was basically just 90210 with super-powers. My biggest criticism with L&C, as I said, was the fact that they went for the camp factor. I never like it when you make fun of the source material because it is just perpetuating the stereotypes about comic fans we've had to hear our entire lives. The whole basing the show around the relationship just kind of seemed omni-directional. We know they're going to end up together. That's the point of the show. That's what happened in the comics. It's a matter of how they get there and how long it takes. I guess when you go through enough frog-eating clones, the whole thing starts to wear a little thin waiting for them to tie the knot.

[Powerboy]

Much as I like Smallville, I had my issues with it as well. The most common criticism of the show at the time it was on was that it was basically just 90210 with super-powers. My biggest criticism with L&C, as I said, was the fact that they went for the camp factor. I never like it when you make fun of the source material because it is just perpetuating the stereotypes about comic fans we've had to hear our entire lives. The whole basing the show around the relationship just kind of seemed omni-directional. We know they're going to end up together. That's the point of the show. That's what happened in the comics. It's a matter of how they get there and how long it takes. I guess when you go through enough frog-eating clones, the whole thing starts to wear a little thin waiting for them to tie the knot.

I can see that. For instance, I loved the movie "Sky High" and yet, even as I watched it, I realized it was perpetuating every idea people who have never read a comic book have about what a comic book is these days.

[LoneNecromancer]

"What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?" would be a big one, for me. From his words and actions to his body language, Superman is just a bully.

Yeah, I hate it. Preachy strawman crap, and that's probably the nicest thing I could say about it.