Originally Posted by
Clark_Kent
I see you make this argument all the time, and let me first say that I respect your opinion & your knowledge of Superman. Your GA & SA knowledge far surpasses mine.
But I honestly don't know how, with a straight face, this argument can continue to hold water because Siegel & Schuster's 1938 "Superman" is NOT 2014's "Superman". They share similarities, true; but so do the original "Robocop" and the 2014 remake of "Robocop". But I would not argue that the new should be held to the same standards/beliefs/motivations of the old. Daniel Craig's James Bond has a license to kill much like Sean Connery's James Bond. Again, I don't hold the new to be strictly in line with the old.
Characters & concepts are rebooted / remade / reimagined all the time. It's a given. The Superman of 1974 was not Siegel & Schuster's '38. Nor was the '88 version the same as the '74. '14 is not '88. Why should this fictional character be held to the standards of 2 men from 1938? God Bless the both of them for their creation, and everyone owes them a debt of thanks for coming up with a template. But Superman was changed long before Byrne came along and, as you say, "ruined him". The character has been rebooted / remade / reimagined more times than most could accurately count. Sometimes it's book to book, depending on the creative team.
I agree that many writers have not known what to do with the character, and Superman has suffered during those times. But there are so many out there who LOVE him. Should they have to handicap their stories to fit the mold of 1938 Superman? Should Morrison have not written All-Star the way he did? Should Moore have not given Superman the sendoff in Whatever Happened...the way he did? Because Siegel & Schuster never imagined Superman doing those things or acting that way. Perhaps instead of trying to save the Earth, or instead of saving a baby sun eater, or instead of creating life itself, Superman should have spent that time destroying businesses that put people out of work. Because nothing helps the little guy quite like destroying the town factory. Maybe instead, he could have educated them about the bad cars they were making. I have not read this story, so I apologize if he did; but the way you described it, it just sounds like he took the place down.
And this brings us to "Man of Steel". An amalgamation of pretty much all eras of Superman. I guess it sucks for some that the 100% 1938 version was nowhere to be seen, but you know what? Neither was "my" Superman. This does not mean the filmmakers "don't get the character." It means that you didn't get the version they presented. I really don't think audiences want 1938 from a Superman movie. If they want powered down, vulnerable heroes, they have Marvel films for that. But people don't think "factory wrecker" when they hear Superman's name. They think of flight. Who doesn't wish they could fly? It's such a large part of who he is as a character. It's wish fulfillment. It's......not the 1938 Action Comics #1 Superman.
I don't know Siegel & Schuster personally, or their heirs, and I don't think they and I are friendly enough to use first names as if we were old drinking buddies. I also won't waste my time imagining what "Jerry" or "Joe" would have said/thought about the film. I would "bet", for lack of a better term, that they would both be in awe of the fact that a character that began under their pen 76 years ago has the 2nd most recognized symbol on the entire planet today...and I would, again for lack of better term, "bet" that they wouldn't mind that the symbol is not even their design.
It's been 60 years or more since they stopped working at DC, right? Let's stop thinking of what "Jerry & Joe" would have done.