Is Superman Perfect?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

I know MoS got a mixed critical reaction because it didn't live up to their preconceived notions.

It got a mixed critical reaction because it had flaws. People have been complaining about their preconceived notions of Superman for decades, going against that wouldn't have gotten it a 56% on Rotten Tomatoes all on its own.

There's no logical reason for Superman to address the concerns of people on the other side of the 4th wall.

Those are the only concerns to be addressed unless a character in the movie specifically pipes up, since they're the ones paying money.

[The Beast]

It got a mixed critical reaction because it had flaws. People have been complaining about their preconceived notions of Superman for decades, going against that wouldn't have gotten it a 56% on Rotten Tomatoes all on its own.

The vast majority of negative reviews on RT complained about the lack of joy. The reviewers punished the movie for not living up to their expectations and eventually an editor for RT disavowed their rating.

By comparison, IMDB rates MoS at 7.3/10 as the second highest rated Superman movie behind 1978's Superman at 7.4/10.

BTW, have you ever read Superman #1 from 1939? Now that's dark and joyless entertainment.

Those are the only concerns to be addressed unless a character in the movie specifically pipes up, since they're the ones paying money.

This doesn't make any sense but I imagine you have to snip my responses and dance around the issue so awkwardly because you don't have a leg to stand on. Nobody in the MoS-verse is going to complain about Superman's efforts that day because they are glad to be alive and they have no preconceived notions of what Superman is "supposed-ta" be. That's why complaints of that nature are irrelevant.

Although they put the money upfront, ultimately it's satisfied customers like myself who paid the price of admission five times (four for me, one for the missus) and bought the movie on Blu-ray. It's also satisfied customers like myself who are going to be the target audience from here on out.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

This doesn't make any sense but I imagine you have to snip my responses and dance around the issue so awkwardly because you don't have a leg to stand on. Nobody in the MoS-verse is going to complain about Superman's efforts that day because they are glad to be alive and they have no preconceived notions of what Superman is "supposed-ta" be. That's why complaints of that nature are irrelevant.

Although they put the money upfront, ultimately it's satisfied customers like myself who paid the price of admission five times (four for me, one for the missus) and bought the movie on Blu-ray. It's also satisfied customers like myself who are going to be the target audience from here on out.

Maybe I was unclear, I meant just generally "people on the other side of the fourth wall".

[Conch22]

Pros of man of steel : it was cast very well, feel this is a strength in all snyders films (that I've seen)
The action scenes were worthy of a superman film, if a bit repetitive and draggy.
Lois Lane was handled really well and as someone who was reticent at the idea of amy addams in the role, she really sold me through her performance.

The cons: story was incredibly disjointed, hopscotching between flashbacks & present day.
Did not like Zod, though villain personalities and motivations being weak, also seems like a hallmark of Snyder
imitation Coulson, as played by detective stabler from SVU. I like Christopher Meloni, but the only thing I felt with his death was minor dismay because I like the actor, wanted him in a sequel.
Having Clark wander the earth like Cain from kung-fu.
His pettiness towards awesome canadian character actor ian tracey (the dick of a trucker whose vehicle clark wrecked)
I could care less about the Christ imagery, but if you cap it off by having clark murder king herod (zod) doesn't make for a great metaphor : he's the second coming, with neck snapping action.
Clark making out with lois in a disaster zone did not flow with their relationship in the movie and seemed in poor taste, given its a disaster zone, likenable to 9/11 with the imagery.
How Clarks horrible choice is dealt with. He has an anguish scream, wrecks some government hardware so the man will get off his back, chats up his ma and then decides to get a job with lois to overcome his personal demons (exterminating the last members of his race, EXTERMINATE!

I did like the movie and felt it could've been the best superman movie, but ultimately feel the negatives outweigh the positives.
The reasoning that Superman had to kill to have an aversion to killing also doesn't sit right with me. It should be because he's a decent person with a good upbringing that respects the sanctity of life and has a comprehensive understanding of right & wrong. Establishing his moral code the way they did feel shock value driven and lazy.

[HeroVladimir93]

Pros of man of steel : it was cast very well, feel this is a strength in all snyders films (that I've seen)
The action scenes were worthy of a superman film, if a bit repetitive and draggy.
Lois Lane was handled really well and as someone who was reticent at the idea of amy addams in the role, she really sold me through her performance.

The cons: story was incredibly disjointed, hopscotching between flashbacks & present day.
Did not like Zod, though villain personalities and motivations being weak, also seems like a hallmark of Snyder
imitation Coulson, as played by detective stabler from SVU. I like Christopher Meloni, but the only thing I felt with his death was minor dismay because I like the actor, wanted him in a sequel.
Having Clark wander the earth like Cain from kung-fu.
His pettiness towards awesome canadian character actor ian tracey (the dick of a trucker whose vehicle clark wrecked)
I could care less about the Christ imagery, but if you cap it off by having clark murder king herod (zod) doesn't make for a great metaphor : he's the second coming, with neck snapping action.
Clark making out with lois in a disaster zone did not flow with their relationship in the movie and seemed in poor taste, given its a disaster zone, likenable to 9/11 with the imagery.
How Clarks horrible choice is dealt with. He has an anguish scream, wrecks some government hardware so the man will get off his back, chats up his ma and then decides to get a job with lois to overcome his personal demons (exterminating the last members of his race, EXTERMINATE!

I did like the movie and felt it could've been the best superman movie, but ultimately feel the negatives outweigh the positives.
The reasoning that Superman had to kill to have an aversion to killing also doesn't sit right with me. It should be because he's a decent person with a good upbringing that respects the sanctity of life and has a comprehensive understanding of right & wrong. Establishing his moral code the way they did feel shock value driven and lazy.

That's your opinion and I respect it. I don't believe Superman should be perfect and infallible because that limits storytelling possibilities for the character and puts his archetype and iconic status before his character development and personal struggles. Still, the idea of Superman not killing simply because he thinks killing his wrong doesn't sit right me. Honestly, it makes more sense for me if Superman understands the beauty and fragility of life because he has taken a life and didn't like the extreme he was forced to take even if that death ultimately served the greater good.

Overall, I've enjoyed the DCEU and its version of Superman because that version of events puts Superman's character before his archetype and forces viewers to challenge their own preconceptions about the character and the world he lives in. And while I believe Superman's character should come before his archetype, especially in mainstream media, I also believe that there can be a middle ground between Superman's character and his archetype. He should make mistakes and those mistakes should be in line with his optimism, charisma and benevolent nature.

[Agent Z]

He isn't but a lot of fans expect him to be.

Did not like Zod, though villain personalities and motivations being weak, also seems like a hallmark of Snyder

What was weak about Zod’s motivation?

imitation Coulson, as played by detective stabler from SVU. I like Christopher Meloni, but the only thing I felt with his death was minor dismay because I like the actor, wanted him in a sequel.

He was nothing like Coulson.

His pettiness towards awesome canadian character actor ian tracey (the dick of a trucker whose vehicle clark wrecked)

Yeah can’t imagine why Clark would do that to an asshole who shown harassing one of Clark’s fellow employees and who was implied to do this on a regular basis.

I could care less about the Christ imagery, but if you cap it off by having clark murder king herod (zod) doesn't make for a great metaphor : he's the second coming, with neck snapping action.

I think the people who keep claiming this would be out of character for Christ have never read the Book of Revelation specifically saying that Jesus won’t as cuddly when he returns.

Clark making out with lois in a disaster zone did not flow with their relationship in the movie and seemed in poor taste, given its a disaster zone, likenable to 9/11 with the imagery.

Are people under the impression that Hollywood wasn’t destroying cities before 9/11?

How Clarks horrible choice is dealt with. He has an anguish scream, wrecks some government hardware so the man will get off his back, chats up his ma and then decides to get a job with lois to overcome his personal demons (exterminating the last members of his race, EXTERMINATE!

.
He still has the codex inside him and those pods couldn’t birth anything without the codex. The only evidence we have that Clark exterminated his race is Zod saying so.
And considering he didn’t become a tyrant or develop a split personality, he’s handled killing far better than most versions of Superman who have.

[Stanlos]

Pros of man of steel : it was cast very well, feel this is a strength in all snyders films (that I've seen)
The action scenes were worthy of a superman film, if a bit repetitive and draggy.
Lois Lane was handled really well and as someone who was reticent at the idea of amy addams in the role, she really sold me through her performance.

The cons: story was incredibly disjointed, hopscotching between flashbacks & present day.
Did not like Zod, though villain personalities and motivations being weak, also seems like a hallmark of Snyder
imitation Coulson, as played by detective stabler from SVU. I like Christopher Meloni, but the only thing I felt with his death was minor dismay because I like the actor, wanted him in a sequel.
Having Clark wander the earth like Cain from kung-fu.
His pettiness towards awesome canadian character actor ian tracey (the dick of a trucker whose vehicle clark wrecked)
I could care less about the Christ imagery, but if you cap it off by having clark murder king herod (zod) doesn't make for a great metaphor : he's the second coming, with neck snapping action.
Clark making out with lois in a disaster zone did not flow with their relationship in the movie and seemed in poor taste, given its a disaster zone, likenable to 9/11 with the imagery.
How Clarks horrible choice is dealt with. He has an anguish scream, wrecks some government hardware so the man will get off his back, chats up his ma and then decides to get a job with lois to overcome his personal demons (exterminating the last members of his race, EXTERMINATE!

I did like the movie and felt it could've been the best superman movie, but ultimately feel the negatives outweigh the positives.
The reasoning that Superman had to kill to have an aversion to killing also doesn't sit right with me. It should be because he's a decent person with a good upbringing that respects the sanctity of life and has a comprehensive understanding of right & wrong. Establishing his moral code the way they did feel shock value driven and lazy.

I thought the action was not good. It looked like PS2 cut scenes

[SpideyCeo]

Perfect ?

Great , i smash your car. Here you go , you can have my autograph and sell it on ebay.

Not really helping, superman being a self righteous jerk demi God and getting away with it puts him in the Mary sue position.

[Kuwagaton]

spoilers:

he doesn't get away with it.

end of spoilers

[The World]

The problem with Supes is that anything that could be perceived as a flaw has been purged from the character over the years. Being homesick for Krypton, feeling out of place on Earth, or having something of an authoritarian streak in him could be tangible flaws for the character to exist with but many writers over the years have tried and probably successfully managed to purge them from the character because ultimately I think Superman on a base level as a creature from a foreign land who wields unimaginable power is scary to people. Much of modern times has been about softening the character so that he'll be more palatable to readers who find him inherently scary, but frankly screw those people. Superman writers should write for the character not for an audience that sees him as a tertiary concern at best.

We could solve this by making reading Golden Age mandatory to write the character imo.

[Ascended]

Much of modern times has been about softening the character so that he'll be more palatable to readers who find him inherently scary, but frankly screw those people. Superman writers should write for the character not for an audience that sees him as a tertiary concern at best.

We could solve this by making reading Golden Age mandatory to write the character imo.

I agree with those words.

However, I think there's plenty of flaws left in Clark. They're just deeper, more nuanced, subtle things that easily slip past people who don't know the character very well. For example, Clark actively keeps almost everyone at arm's length, and if you're actually family (like Kara) then he's even worse. He lies habitually about things he doesn't have to lie about and things he really shouldn't lie about. He preaches about non-lethal solutions but has a higher body count than most of his peers. He can be a hypocrite, bully, and self-righteous....and he almost always gets away with it because he's Superman.

Clark's got plenty of fascinating flaws and contradictions in him, but the public isn't usually aware of these things and a lot of writers and editors either don't know, or actively try to avoid including them......which usually just ends up making those flaws more obvious, like the infamous Action 775 that succeeded only in putting Clark's hypocrisy on display in a huge anniversary issue.

[HeroVladimir93]

Clark's got plenty of fascinating flaws and contradictions in him, but the public isn't usually aware of these things and a lot of writers and editors either don't know, or actively try to avoid including them......which usually just ends up making those flaws more obvious, like the infamous Action 775 that succeeded only in putting Clark's hypocrisy on display in a huge anniversary issue.

Really? What happened there?

[Vordan]

His big flaw that’s been there from the start and has carried over pretty consistently is wrath. Clark gets mad and then does something dumb without thinking it through. New 52 Superman has that flaw on display throughout Morrison Action Comics run. Rebirth Superman showed off that trait throughout Jurgens and Tomasi’s runs. Jurgens had him reveal himself because he was PO’d that Lex was calling himself Superman. Tomasi had him lose his **** when Damian kidnapped Jon and he burst into the Batcave. Bendis has carried that trait over too, his last issue of Superman has Clark start getting super angry and think about killing Rogal. It’s a pretty consistent part of his character.

[Kuwagaton]

The problem with Supes is that anything that could be perceived as a flaw has been purged from the character over the years. Being homesick for Krypton, feeling out of place on Earth, or having something of an authoritarian streak in him could be tangible flaws for the character to exist with but many writers over the years have tried and probably successfully managed to purge them from the character because ultimately I think Superman on a base level as a creature from a foreign land who wields unimaginable power is scary to people. Much of modern times has been about softening the character so that he'll be more palatable to readers who find him inherently scary, but frankly screw those people. Superman writers should write for the character not for an audience that sees him as a tertiary concern at best.

We could solve this by making reading Golden Age mandatory to write the character imo.

So his flaws used to be better. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Not that being homesick for Krypton would really be a flaw, or that it was really a part of his character in the Golden age.

[HeroVladimir93]

So his flaws used to be better. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Not that being homesick for Krypton would really be a flaw, or that it was really a part of his character in the Golden age.

Sometimes, I entertain this notion that Superman's nostalgia for Krypton doesn't really bother him that much; until, of course, someone can turn that nostalgia into an interesting story. In other words, Superman doesn't really suffer from his flaws until a writer says so.