Zack Snyder's Superman isn't 'Dark,' He's 'Relatable'

[Sam Robards, Comic Fan]

...Superman is barely even a character, much less a relatable person, in those awful movies.

Agree 100% with this. He has absolutely no agency in these movies, to say nothing of character. In the first one, he's constantly being pulled back and forth between the dueling ideologies of his two dads and only becomes Superman when he has to because Zod shows up. In BvS, he spends all of his time either moping or being pissed at Batman. Not exactly compelling, or relatable, characteristics.

I will admit that JL already looks better than the previous two movies, but I'll likely wait until it's On Demand before I watch it.

[AcesX1X]

He could learn to sacrifice himself in a just as equally contrived way.

if giving up your own life so someone else could have one is contrived, then i guess you're right.

[2britishnerdz]

in the BVS the substance of Clark Kent and Superman has been totally destroyed .... i couldn't relate to this superman at all ! he was gloomy , depressed , and nothing like the superman iv seen in pervious tv shows or comic books . i understand that all characters go through a dark path within the comics but to make him dark within the movie and take away his persona as Clark Kent and Superman then thats just not good at all . Warner Bros really need to allow the the creative team to express there mind within the movie and produce a comic book movie ! Just look at Deadpool . could we please just have superman wearing a colourful suite ? give him some life !

[NightMage]

No lie on Marvel's Captain America being a Superman's Superman. But I still don't get how Superman is relatable. Is it just his ability to be depressed? Or because his Mom's name is Martha? Or is it his ability to fly? Or his super speed? Or his super strength? Or the way he shoots fricken laser beams out of his eyes? Or is it because he's from another planet that makes him like us?

I always thought the best Superman portrayal's were INSPIRATIONAL not RELATABLE...

This; Snyder still doesn't get it, does he?

[jbwbubba]

Welling's Clark was relatable, Benoist's Kara is very relatable, the Clark/Superman from MOS not so much

[Rene Narciso]

I don't agree that Superman's best works are lighthearted. All-Star Superman might be an exception, but I'd say that in a huge chunk of Superman's classics, he's harrowed by philosophical questions and pondering his purpose.

Superman has almost 80 years of history. It seems like the panels you posted are all from the 1990s and later. I can't see them now at my work (it blocks photobucket), but I remember it from seeing at home. I think that is a huge problem with DC in the last few years, both in the comics and movies. Too much obsession with a nineties aesthetic and ambience.

And several of "weighty" Superman stories in your pictures, like Kingdom Come and Red Son, are the kind of self-involved tales that work as a "response" or alternative to classic Superman. I think Marvel was far more adept in mining elements from "updated" stories like Ultimates while mantaining the spirit of the classic characters.

[Rene Narciso]

I do too, but society at large is a different story. Superman is enjoyed as a symbol, but as an actual engaging character? No, the majority seem to want heroes they can relate to and who have flaws and are still able to be heroes in spite of said flaws. The popular perception of Superman is that he's "better" than us, and nearly invincible to boot.

I don't agree with that perception, but it is what it is. Batman and Spider-Man are more popular because they are perceived as being more flawed and relateable.

It reminds me of something Alan Moore said when he returned to superhero comics to write Supreme. He first studied the superhero comics being published to see if he could write something similar. And then he slapped himself and realized that he wasn't in the business to write what the public think they want. He is the business to TELL the public what they SHOULD want. Instead of trying to be cool, he would redefine what is cool.

I see the whole debate about Superman in similar terms. While DC is prey to the self-defeating attitude that Superman isn't cool and society at large can't relate to him, Marvel didn't pause to curse at society for not considering Ant-Man, Guardians of Galaxy, or Thor "cool". Marvel MADE the public think their characters are cool by having absolute faith in themselves and their characters.

I mean, there were a lot of people saying Thor was not cool before the movie was made. He was a cross between Conan and the Swedish Chef, some joked. How can the public relate to THAT? I mean, that is a much bigger hurdle than Superman, right? Viking Gods from Space? But Marvel found a way. Why can't DC find a way without making their characters all "1990s" and emo?

[SiegePerilous02]

I mean, there were a lot of people saying Thor was not cool before the movie was made. He was a cross between Conan and the Swedish Chef, some joked. How can the public relate to THAT? I mean, that is a much bigger hurdle than Superman, right? Viking Gods from Space? But Marvel found a way. Why can't DC find a way without making their characters all "1990s" and emo?

There's not really anything 1990s or emo about Superman or the other heroes the DCEU. He isn't wearing pouches all over his costume and firing off multiple, implausible looking guns, and the women aren't stick figures, silicone pumped barbies contorting themselves into back breaking positions to show off their bewbs. The nihilism inherent in the overly muscled, "kill 'em all" guns blazing heroes from that period are not present in these films. Bruce is the closest thing we got, and even he realizes he was on the wrong path by the end of the film.

Is being introverted and occasionally self doubting all it takes to be emo? Because I must have been emo this whole time and never realized it.

Only comic fans would have any perception about Thor or Ant-Man before the films came out. The general public never cared either way, because they most likely weren't even aware those characters existed (especially Ant-Man, and even now they don't know that Hank Pym is the Ant-Man in the comics). Superman is not like them at all, the problems surrounding the character are a much bigger hurdle because EVERYONE in the world knows who he is to some degree. Snyder and co didn't go about it in the best way, but I can perfectly understand why they felt like they needed to try. I also reject the notion that nobody on the staff understands the character, they just have a different interpretation of him.

And while I want DCEU Superman to move into a lighter direction and see a different director tackle him, I hope they can aim higher in quality than the utterly generic Thor and Ant-Man films.

[misslane]

For me the moral choice Superman failed at was in BvS. He let Lex turn Martha Kent into a weapon. Whether or not he planned to kill Batman originally, once Superman took a step towards Gotham rather than simply dealing with Lex he justified the logic of kidnapping Martha as an effective way to control Superman. Superman needed to simply refuse Lex's offer. I'm not saying he should have stood back and waited for Lex's thugs to kill Martha, but whatever Clark did should have begun with staying clear of Gotham.

The flaw is going "how would I react to this" and then having Superman follow that thought process instead of going "how should someone handle this" and then using that as a starting point for what you have Superman do.

But they did do that by having Superman go to Gotham, not to fight Batman, but to ask him for his help in saving Martha. He can go through the appearance of being controlled without actually being controlled and ultimately turning it around on Lex. And, honestly, if this is the biggest supposed moral failing that one can come up with, then it's not much to base any assertion of his corruption on; it's grasping at straws and nitpicking at its finest.

But like, you can see where people are coming from with this, right? There are strong ideas that run throughout this movie that are muffled at best.

No, I honestly can't. I thought the movie was very clear in the idea department.

[misslane]

They do put his life above others. Jonathan certainly isn't being ambiguous about his feelings that Clark should not have saved those kids. He is hesitant when he realizes that the alternative is them dying, but his lecture to Clark was basically "don't help it draws attention like Mrs. Ross". He backs off to "maybe" when confronted with the ultimate outcome being someone dying, but even by the time of the tornado Jonathan is still set on the idea that if others (including himself) get hurt that is a small price to preserve Clark's secret.

You can't even make your case without qualifying it. See how you start off with the extreme of Jonathan uambiguosly wanting Clark to let kids die, but then admit that he was hesitant. Hesitance does suggest ambiguity. Saying, "Maybe," as Jonathan did does show that he is conflicted and isn't sure what the right answer is. What he shares with Clark is his working through the thought process himself and showing Clark that he doesn't have the answer, and so he informs and thus empowers Clark to make those choices himself. You can't use Jonathan's sacrifice here, because all it shows is that he didn't want to force Clark's hand and since it was only his life and his choice, then it's not the same as letting other people die, like those children, who wouldn't have had similar agency and motivation.

And leaving the choice up to Clark assumes they support his choice. Jonathan doesn't. He selfishly tries to protect Clark by discouraging Clark from doing things to help others. I get the sentiment and if Clark were my kid I'd pry do the same thing. But then again I'm not supposed to be setting an example for someone who will be the world's greatest hero. I don't want to see Superman raised by Joe and Jane Average ... unless it is to show Superman outright rejecting their values when they conflict with his own higher values.

I disagree. Jonathan does support Clark's ultimate decisions. He just wants him to make those decisions wisely and to act carefully knowing what the outcome might be and being prepared for what could come next. Imagine a parent telling a their pregnant teen daughter that they support her decision to either abort, adopt, or have her baby, but also let her know that giving up a child can be painful and lead to regret or that having it can be difficult with lasting impact on lifestyle. Sharing that information isn't the same as discouraging the daughter from doing anything. It's about being prepared, and making a choice based on conviction instead of ignorance.

[thelibrarian]

I didn't think Thor or Ant Man were cool. I thought comic book Thor was cooler but hated whats his name. He should have stuck to romantic comedies and brokeback mountain. I knew nothing of gaurdians of the galaxy which helped and they were legitimately cool on their own. I never liked superman before but I like the dark relatable superman whatever you want to call it but i always like the antihero, darker, more thoughtful and more complex stories than the good vs evil where the hero's are always right and nobody thinks or expects too much.

[misslane]

If the ideas hadn't been muffled we wouldn't need misslane to explain them. She is focusing on the hidden gem and claiming that everyone else is blind for not seeing it instead of the ton of mud around it.

And honestly I'd rather see the movie the way she did, it just didn't work out for me that way.

Don't blame the messenger (the movie) for your missing things or misinterpreting them. These gems weren't hidden. I saw this movie a second time with my mother, who is not a superhero or even sci-fi/fantasy type and is not a literary person either, and when we were discussing the movie afterward she had picked up on most of the same things I did. Sometimes one can miss things because of having too rigid of an idea of how things should be or not having an open mind, because then you filter what you see through your existing schemas. That's just a guess, though. I don't know why some don't get what is right there on screen with layers of dialogue, visuals, and even music working together to communicate the message, but concluding that it's undoubtedly the movie's fault is presumptuous.

[misslane]

Agree 100% with this. He has absolutely no agency in these movies, to say nothing of character. In the first one, he's constantly being pulled back and forth between the dueling ideologies of his two dads and only becomes Superman when he has to because Zod shows up. In BvS, he spends all of his time either moping or being pissed at Batman. Not exactly compelling, or relatable, characteristics.

No agency? How can you say that after pages of people discussing Clark's CHOICE, as a young man, to save his classmates from drowning? The whole damn point of Superman's journey is these movies is about agency. His Kryptonian parents conceive and give birth to him, in defiance of Kryptonian law and custom, to support free will over determinism. The Kents' focus on helping their son understand that he has a choice about what kind of man he is going to be. Zod's arrival didn't remove agency. If it had, Clark wouldn't have gone to a priest for counsel. Was he under a lot of pressure? Was it a hard choice? Yes. But he made it, and he also chose how he was going to respond to Zod's arrival. He chose to surrender himself to humanity, even allowing them to handcuff them for their peace of mind, and he chose to entrust the Kryptonian key with Jor-El's AI to Lois. He chose to kill Zod, too, which was a CHOICE that critics had a difficult time with. Clark then CHOSE to get a job at the Daily Planet.

In BvS, Superman doesn't mope. He responds to criticisms of his involvement in Nairomi by trying to reassure Lois that it's okay. He wasn't the one worried. He was so unconcerned that he happily bought her flowers and groceries to prepare dinner and then they made joyful love in a bathtub. The next day, he didn't mope. Rather, he took control. He sought out the African witness, but when he couldn't find her and heard from locals about the Batman, he CHOSE to begin investigating Batman's increased brutality. Even though Perry told him not to, Clark continued to pursue it. Superman also didn't just sit around moping. He saved people from fires, floods, and more. He also CHOSE to appear before the senate to engage in the conversation June Finch wanted to help better understand and clarify his role in the world. His lowest moment was after the Capitol exploded. He did question his place because he saw that he had become such a figure of controversy that he was being used or become a target for evil that was hurting just as much, if not more, than it was helping. However, he didn't just settle on that. He continued to mull it over, and even called upon the wisdom of his dead father as part of his subconscious, then CHOSE to return certain that this was his world and hope wasn't lost. Superman subsequently chose to reason with Batman instead of kill him and to die for humanity.

Clark has consistently upheld the themes of the narrative and the El's wishes for him to have the free will that others, like Zod, on Krypton had been deprived of. Clark's life is a testament to agency, and his choices developed his character in myriad ways.

I relate to Clark's struggle in the sense that I watch the news and see things that I care about attacked everyday, and I sometimes have a hard time staying positive as a result. But I gain peace from my family and loved ones and try to do my best, as Clark does. He's also an introvert, like me, and he prefers to let his actions speak or to use words to make a difference. I find this Clark very relatable. I know more about him as a person, because I get to see him go to work, have parents, and have a significant other. Few superheroes in today's films can boast so much. He also faces a world that looks a lot more like the one I'm in. One where Trump, terrorism, and the media create a swirl of fear and controversy. I relate.

[Lightning Rider]

That was luck. If not for that "Martha" scene Superman would have died followed by his mom. Maybe Bats would have arrested Lex afterward.

That's not luck, that's his faith in Bruce paying off. It was a close one though.

You want to make him interesting? Give him conflict, don't make him conflicted.

To me this sounds like "give him things to punch", and not much else. Every character has their own internal struggle.

[He-Kal]

The people working on The Flash and Supergirl tv series should do the movies....problem solved.