Controversial Superman Opinions

[manwhohaseverything]

So it's okay for you to do it but not others because you don't like Superman. Okay.

Look, dude. You're welcome to your opinion but don't go acting like everyone else complaining about a particular take is somehow wrong when it's pretty much all you do, but for all takes except your extremely particular version of Superman.

Yes,it is.Cause,your guy is superman.You get your superman everywhere from comics to tv to movies,anything really.Mine is relegated to mere phase of the character or into history book as obscure phenonmenon.You get your superman.I don't.So,i get a free pass.Find one thing inconsistent in that post.I said"if you are getting your superman".You guys just **** on dceu superman cause it's easy.I could **** on him to.But,it isn't worth it.I **** on the idea of superman as he is or he is made out into,Which causes entirely a perception that isn't compatable with what it's creator had in mind.Was superman ever an example figure as the "hope harder" guy or was he just a guy trying to do the right thing on behalf of the common man?These two motives for the character sends vastly different messages.Moreover,it doesn't address the broader problems with the character.I don't like superman as this.A white knight with a supressed darkside.His shadow is basically screaming.That's why we get all these evil tyrant versions.Heck!many fan are all about the fear "superman will become space hitler".So,anything outside their norm is met with constant "but,he will be tyrant" and an ancedote from dogmatic industry..

[Steel Inquisitor]

No,My position was clear.Donner didn't mean for the white knight thing to be taken like this.But,the perception that was built and consequences of that symbolism was baaad.Did i say he was?Well,duh!without donner superman there would be no snyder superman.The guy basically took the story structure and villain from donner movie,that includes knight thing and jesus thing.Granted!he tries to negate jesus thing,here and there.All i am saying was,they are all stick in the mud.Blaming snyder superman,when superman in general doesn't have a personality in general is hypocritical.Either "Geeh!golly" or "Hey kids!remeber to hope harder and brush your teeth,everyday".If That's your notion of good.Then you aren't being good.You are being an ostrich.

It is clear, and wrong.Donner's Superman is everything you've complained about in our conversations, sometimes interpreting the "knight" aspect literally as if Superman's an actual knight rather than a figuritive one. Only because Donner made a Superman movie, Snyder ignored many things about that Superman and other Supermen in media, like comic books. Another inspiration was the Superman from Dark Knight Returns, only Snyder missed the point of Miller's Superman in that, as well. All he saw was the bad things, even Miller understood and respected Superman. Superman is not a knight in Snyder's films. Snyder put Cavill in a church right next to a Jesus painting in a scene, it was bordering on parody how far he tried to connect Jesus imagery to Superman. Because Superman not being a good man is what the world needs. Sure he does, you just don't like it, replacing one cliche with another. "Gee golly" is Captain Marvel, not Superman. Sure it is, that's Superman being a responsible role model for kids. Super-hero stories are morality tales. Being contrary for contrary's sake is hollow.

Hah!as if edgy loners are the only ones who callout bullshit by public or government.Americans have wierd notions of good and bad.They create wierd dichotomy.Here,being nice guy is being timid,naive.cheerful,rule clinging boyscout ala cap,superman,shazam..etc.The bad boy is edgy,loner,brooding,kewl aka batman,wolverine.It's pretty stupid.(I am not talking about snyder superman.this is a general statement).

Batman and Wolverine aren't edgy loners, they create families for themselves where ever they go and are infamous for being on every super-hero team in their respective companies. That's your interpretation of a "nice guy" not actual super-heroes like Superman. Where being nice is seen as weak and naive while problematic super-villains like Black Adam, known for killing people as a dictator is boosted as a role model for Superman to follow in the footsteps of.

Edit: Snyder's Superman problem is that becomes a villain, both in Justice League and in the Knightmare future.

[Robanker]

Yes,it is.Cause,your guy is superman.You get your superman everywhere from comics to tv to movies,anything really.Mine is relegated to mere phase of the character or into history book as obscure phenonmenon.You get your superman.I don't.So,i get a free pass.Find one thing inconsistent in that post.I said"if you are getting your superman".You guys just **** on dceu superman cause it's easy.I could **** on him to.But,it isn't worth it.I **** on the idea of superman as he is or he is made out into,Which causes entirely a perception that isn't compatable with what it's creator had in mind.Was superman ever an example figure as the "hope harder" guy or was he just a guy trying to do the right thing on behalf of the common man?These two motives for the character sends vastly different messages.Moreover,it doesn't address the broader problems with the character.I don't like superman as this.A white knight with a supressed darkside.His shadow is basically screaming.That's why we get all these evil tyrant versions.Heck!many fan are all about the fear "superman will become space hitler".So,anything outside their norm is met with constant "but,he will be tyrant" and an ancedote from dogmatic industry.

That is some really flimsy reasoning you've got there to justify hypocritical behavior, dude. But alright. We'll agree to disagree.

Superman is a character that does both. Everything he does is with the hope that it makes the situation better and he's always acting on the behalf of the common man. If the world gets dark, yes, he hopes harder. It's cheesy, but it's why he continues to fight for the little guy no matter the odds. Nothing will break his spirit. It's not either or. It's two sides of the same dude. Trying to pretend it's otherwise is just looking for some arbitrary line in the sand to stand on one side of so you can be in the "correct" camp of Superman fans.

He does both. He's always done both. Just because he gets saddled with bad writing sometimes doesn't change that. All characters get sandbagged with it sometimes. That's not exclusive to Superman, Western comics or any other medium.

[manwhohaseverything]

That is some really flimsy reasoning you've got there to justify hypocritical behavior, dude. But alright. We'll agree to disagree.

Superman is a character that does both. Everything he does is with the hope that it makes the situation better and he's always acting on the behalf of the common man. If the world gets dark, yes, he hopes harder. It's cheesy, but it's why he continues to fight for the little guy no matter the odds. Nothing will break his spirit. It's not either or. It's two sides of the same dude. Trying to pretend it's otherwise is just looking for some arbitrary line in the sand to stand on one side of so you can be in the "correct" camp of Superman fans.

He does both. He's always done both. Just because he gets saddled with bad writing sometimes doesn't change that. All characters get sandbagged with it sometimes. That's not exclusive to Superman, Western comics or any other medium.

It's not flimsy.i would be hypocrite If i said,"Don't **** on dceu superman" and just that.

You are basically disribing optimism.My friend,there is a difference between optimism and preachy "Hope makes everything better" and dad like behaviour towards grown people.Optimism is a mere trait that's part of temperament.Don't treat it like it's the character's motive.Here,superman's motive has become "to be an example to mankind".Writers,write superman with preconcieved notion that he is an example.That it is his motive.Charater motive drives story.Especially in character driven stories like that of superman's.Ok,let's take your "never give up" definition .Clark rarely shows the grit that a true follower of stoicism would have like allmight. I don't see clark going out there to help with blown up internal organs,spitting blood and still smiling harder than ever,day in and day out.Now,that is a champion.A symbol of true optimism.Being a champion has costs.Superman suffers none.period.Preaching is easy.

[Steel Inquisitor]

One of the first things we saw him doing was standing up for a woman who was being sexually harassed and he was vocally against Batman's vicious methods.

Clark did absolutely nothing for her in that room, he politely asked him to stop it and got beer over him. He could have thrown the harasser out, but he didn't. The intent is great but Snyder failed with the actual scene.

Being quiet in public is not the same thing as being a distant god.

Sure it is, a being like Superman needs people to trust him him looking like a sad puppy and saying nothing leaves him distant to the audience and the world in-universe since he's not communicating. Even worse after not having a good first impression with many people in Man of Steel, and Snyder did nothing with this, he had no story arc to open up in B vs S, there was no shown reason for why he got so quiet in public after Man of Steel.

Nor is Snyder's Superman. The very first film had him getting help from the military and being alienated from the government was used against him in the second. At this rate, using the word edgy to describe him can only be seen as a joke. It's about as valid as people calling Rey a Mary Sue.

I wasn't describing him from Man of Steel, there he came off as human. In B vs S he was like a new character entirely. Lois has more contacts with the military than he does in B v S. We aren't even told what type of reporter he is.

Your arguments against Snyder's Superman aren't any less based on false premises as anyone else who calls post-crisis or Donner Superman a bully or status quo defender. The only difference between you and manwhohaseverything is which Superman you prefer.

I back up my arguments with facts and am consistent.

[Agent Z]

It is clear, and wrong.Donner's Superman is everything you've complained about in our conversations, sometimes interpreting the "knight" aspect literally as if Superman's an actual knight rather than a figuritive one. Only because Donner made a Superman movie, Snyder ignored many things about that Superman and other Supermen in media, like comic books. Another inspiration was the Superman from Dark Knight Returns, only Snyder missed the point of Miller's Superman in that, as well. All he saw was the bad things, even Miller understood and respected Superman. Superman is not a knight in Snyder's films. Snyder put Cavill in a church right next to a Jesus painting in a scene, it was bordering on parody how far he tried to connect Jesus imagery to Superman. Because Superman not being a good man is what the world needs. Sure he does, you just don't like it, replacing one cliche with another. "Gee golly" is Captain Marvel, not Superman. Sure it is, that's Superman being a responsible role model for kids. Super-hero stories are morality tales. Being contrary for contrary's sake is hollow.



Batman and Wolverine aren't edgy loners, they create families for themselves where ever they go and are infamous for being on every super-hero team in their respective companies. That's your interpretation of a "nice guy" not actual super-heroes like Superman. Where being nice is seen as weak and naive while problematic super-villains like Black Adam, known for killing people as a dictator is boosted as a role model for Superman to follow in the footsteps of.

Edit: Snyder's Superman problem is that becomes a villain, both in Justice League and in the Knightmare future.

He's brainwashed into being a villain, something that every Superman has had happen to him at least once. It was also not a future set in stone.

[Agent Z]

Clark did absolutely nothing for her in that room, he politely asked him to stop it and got beer over him.

He told the guy to stop harassing her and he did. Also, the woman was the one who told Clark to let it slide.

Sure it is, a being like Superman needs people to trust him him looking like a sad puppy and saying nothing leaves him distant to the audience and the world in-universe since he's not communicating.

He wasn't communicating with the public. He did communicate with Lois and his mother.

Even worse after not having a good first impression with many people in Man of Steel, and Snyder did nothing with this, he had no story arc to open up in B vs S, there was no shown reason for why he got so quiet in public after Man of Steel.

He did not "get so quiet" after Man of Steel. In Man of Steel he preferred to stay anonymous and was only forced to become public due to the invasion. He clearly isn't comfortable with being a public figure and he did try to address concerns at the Senate hearing which was ruined by Luthor blowing the place up.

Clark does have a story arc in BvS. It isn't something you might like but it does exist.

I wasn't describing him from Man of Steel, there he came off as human. In B vs S he was like a new character entirely. Lois has more contacts with the military than he does in B v S. We aren't even told what type of reporter he is.

We have never been told what type of reporter Clark is.

I back up my arguments with facts and am consistent.

The hell you do. Calling Clark a villain, saying he doesn't communicate, that he doesn't defend anyone or care about anyone, claiming he's an edgy loner etc. Every criticism about him by you is either false or an exaggeration of what actually happens. You repeatedly ignore anything about Superman in these films that doesn't make him look like a bad guy or a monster. Any tiny flaw gets blown up to ridiculous proportions with you even going as far as comparing to Ultraman.

Snyder's Superman is not Ultraman or Homelander or Plutonian or Hyperion or the kid from Bright or whatever other evil Superman you want to compare him to. He isn't perfect but neither is any version of Superman.

[Robanker]

It's not flimsy.i would be hypocrite If i said,"Don't **** on dceu superman" and just that.

You are basically disribing optimism.My friend,there is a difference between optimism and preachy "Hope makes everything better" and dad like behaviour towards grown people.Optimism is a mere trait that's part of temperament.Don't treat it like it's the character's motive.Here,superman's motive has become "to be an example to mankind".Writers,write superman with preconcieved notion that he is an example.That it is his motive.Charater motive drives story.Especially in character driven stories like that of superman's.Ok,let's take your "never give up" definition .Clark rarely shows the grit that a true follower of stoicism would have like allmight. I don't see clark going out there to help with blown up internal organs,spitting blood and still smiling harder than ever,day in and day out.Now,that is a champion.A symbol of true optimism.Being a champion has costs.Superman suffers none.period.Preaching is easy.

Those are extremely toxic ideas about what makes someone a champion, dude. You don't have to get the everloving **** beat out of you to be a champion. You simply have to stand for your ideals and not waver from them. If brought to that level, yes, Clark would absolutely take that level of beating and keep getting up. He did so in Superman: Up in the Sky against Mighto. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it wouldn't, and frankly he has taken that kind of beatdown and remained true to his ideals. You're equating getting clobbered with being a champion; you're equating violence and optimism. They have nothing to do with one another other than your own desire to see blood. Yes, people are often willing to fight and be beaten down rather than drop their ideals. It doesn't mean they have to go there every time to prove it. If they do, frankly, that's because you've got a desire to see people beaten and bloody. That's just wrong, dude.

If a child is being abused and another child stands up to their bully, the second child doesn't need to end up with three missing teeth and a broken nose to be a hero. They just had to act when necessary. Violence is not required for the solution. Clark always stands up for his ideals, and if it comes to blows, so be it. I guess by that logic a missionary who spends their life helping destitute communities isn't a champion because nobody disemboweled them or regularly knocked their teeth in. Great to know.

Clark absolutely goes in, day-in day-out smiling through pain. He hears and sees all the things we do horribly to one another and still he does his best to see the best in us. While he's holding a building up to get people clear, he sees a wifebeater. He has to internalize that, reconcile it with his belief and still get up and do it again tomorrow without losing his hope for a better tomorrow. It's built into the character. His struggle is often an internal one, but again, you only deal in bruises and blood. Hell, it's reinforced at the end of All-Star Superman when Lex finally sees the world as we do and he weeps at how wrong he's been. He's all of us. He finally sees how united we are and could be and how we constantly hurt each other. When he goes to Hell with Green Lantern, Clark is paralyzed with grief at his senses processing infinite souls in torment. His compassion cuts him deeper than any knife and yet no amount of torment prevents him from getting up the next day and doing what he can to save lives with a smile, reassuring us tomorrow will be a better day. He knows he's going to do his best to save people and yet someone will die with the words "help me, Superman" fresh on their cold, dead lips. He can't save us, and yet he tries. He always tries.

Even in the Golden Age, he never had the cost you're asking for. At his most social crusading strongman times, he was without challenge as you define it. That was the appeal. Nobody could stop this champion for the oppressed. He wasn't getting a black eye and broken nose fighting mobsters in the 30s, so your favorite incarnation of the dude actually doesn't even fit your own pedantic criteria.

All Might got to get to that level because his very story was one where he passes a torch and burns out. He had a finite tale. If Clark existed only to foster Jon's story and then lose his powers, I'm sure he'd have a heroic last stand where he got messed up as mentors always do in coming-of-age stories. It's the core structure of the narrative they inhabit. Come on, dude. You're just looking for things to complain about because you want Clark to be Gutz or Kenshiro. Clark exists in a vacuum where he needs to persist with his status quo reset for each subsequent story arc ad naseum. He is a creature of continuous publication in a universe full of them with no defined protagonist. Comparing him to characters who lead their entire universe in finite stories where they have a beginning, middle and end is like asking why the sky isn't as wet as the ocean because they both share the quality of being blue. They're similar characters in entirely different narrative structures, one of which is not intended to be the focus or sustain a publication longer than the creator lives. It's not the same. It's objectively stupid trying to make the argument that they are.

[SiegePerilous02]

Jimmy Olsen isn't as important to the Superman mythos as his fans think he is.

The list of characters more important than him arguably isn't that big. it's pretty much just Lois, Lex, the Kents, the Els and maybe Supergirl and the mythos can't survive by depending on just them. The rest including Perry are roughly on par with him or below.

The hell you do. Calling Clark a villain, saying he doesn't communicate, that he doesn't defend anyone or care about anyone, claiming he's an edgy loner etc. Every criticism about him by you is either false or an exaggeration of what actually happens. You repeatedly ignore anything about Superman in these films that doesn't make him look like a bad guy or a monster. Any tiny flaw gets blown up to ridiculous proportions with you even going as far as comparing to Ultraman.

Snyder's Superman is not Ultraman or Homelander or Plutonian or Hyperion or the kid from Bright or whatever other evil Superman you want to compare him to. He isn't perfect but neither is any version of Superman.

He is pretty lousy as a communicator though. The titular fight was brought about partially because he can't just spit out that his mom is in trouble, even though he did have opportunities to do so even during that fight. I don't care how pissed at Bruce, if he was desperate to find his mother that would overide it. Whether or not Bruce was going to listen is on Bruce.

He's not a villain by any means, but he's just a void of charisma who seems put out by the whole superhero thing. Like rescuing one girl from a burning building and standing awkwardly as people fawn over him instead of, y'know, maybe putting out the fire like Superman typically does?

[manwhohaseverything]

Those are extremely toxic ideas about what makes someone a champion, dude. You don't have to get the everloving **** beat out of you to be a champion. You simply have to stand for your ideals and not waver from them. If brought to that level, yes, Clark would absolutely take that level of beating and keep getting up. He did so in Superman: Up in the Sky against Mighto.

precisley,why i didn't **** on up in the sky.Violence isn't necassary,if the story was of a different genre like say romance,family drama,political drama,time travel...etc.But,it shows intent that the guy is willing to take punishment still keep smiling for the people.Primarily, in the genre he debuted in and still arguably is part of.Which genre? you know my answer.Anyways,It shows intent.That people could trust him cause "I am here".That is how you show intent.Batman is loved cause he is the guy that gets his back broken and still gets back on the job.This story isn't about a guy dealing with moderate people and issues of people living in fairy tale.This is the story of a guy who deals with endamic corruption,hunger,joblessness,poverty,war..etc.A guy having to deal with radical issues and people.While,I can concede a child who stands for another doesn't have to loose his teeth to show his ability to stand up for his ideal.Where is the story in the situation you said.A kid standing up for another did so without things getting violent,by mere talking.While,that's an ideal situation.Forgive me,but some aren't willing to talk it out.Story requires conflict.The child willing to sacrifice those teeth and doing so shows intent and resolve.It shows,that doing the right thing isn't gonna be sun flower and diasies.But,you still have to do it and doing so with smile shows that you can endure any pain.Cap stood up for the ideal of liberty in movie at the cost of becoming a fugitive in his country whom he has patriotic feelings for.This isn't guy that doesn't care about the country.This is the dude that lives and breathes his country.Accepting to become a bad guy in their eyes.Superman is an action hero.

But,let's take your lead shall we?Fine,superman doesn't do violence.ok.Non-violence is a great ideal to embody.Espiecally,in a violent world.Make him non-violent like gandhi.The guy that used to get his stuffings beat out of him by the british.But,still wouldn't give up his 'satyagraha'.The world is a violent place in general,like it or not.Even if you refuse to take part in that others don't have to acknoweldege that refusal and oblige.So,You can still tell a story and make it action oriented.I have read couple of books that have action and non-violent heroes who refuse to hurt another living thing.As seen gandhi and his followers used to get beaten.So like it or not,Violence is part of action genre(two sided or one sided).Conclusion,Conflicts in action genre is usually built around violence.(The level of violence depends on the rating of the story and the audience.Regardless,any superman story will have some degree of violence)On side not,Superman being a guy that has no radical aspect to him is plain bland.Non-violent superman is pretty radical in that regards.So,I do submit i can get behind that notion in general.

While,i concede clark sees all the bad things we do and still believes in the good in people.Merely,being witness to evil or suffering is not suffering itself.He is not me cause he cannot feel what it's like being me.He is untouched and naive.He sees an ark(a random act of kindness).He feels humanity is redeemable.An agreeable notion.But,that still leaves all the evil and suffering in the world untouched. I am going to show the difference using religious iconography.Why?cause that story with greenlantern and superman uses such iconography.So,skip it if you must.I am going to use buddha as an example.

Clark is merely siddhartha gautama who knows there is suffering in the world.To be the buddha,he needs to be more than that.He needs to feel it himself.Be touched by it.Siddhartha didn't get enlightenment by being comfortable with that arc.He was puzzled and truly disturbed.He left his comfortable life style for answers.He searched for answers in the wilderness.He lost himself as part of the hell superman only saw.He suffered like a man,Not a prince or a god. This suffering brought him to enlightenment.That made him the buddha.As moses did,buddha knew he was only human.He is touched by suffering or evil.Therefore, can only create a framework.He cannot be the framework.Moses created the commandments.Buddha created the eight fold paths.Superman being the framework is the problem.To be framework,you need to be sinless.A god(jesus) untouched by human suffering and bears witness to it.Is that truly what you want?I don't think that's what superman was meant for.He might have been buddha or moses or rama/hanuman.But,he certainly was not jesus,krishna,odin...etc.The former where just men with great calling.The latter where untouchable gods sacrificing themselves for us petty humans.They are above us.Therefore cannot be our champion.Moses is a champion.Sun wukong is a champion.Perseus is a champion.Jesus is a savior.Krishna is a savior.Zeus(granted greek gods are assholes in general.Maybe that is by design) is one as well.So,which is it?is he savior or a champion?For me,A champion is worth a thousand saviors.Like it or not.The emphasis on what creates vastly different stories.(note:-jesus was touched by evil.he became human for that and sacrificed himself due to that symbolising redemption in himself and humanity.I know.all the other saviors did as well.But,still there is this underlining "i am not part of their society" mentality in them.The champions were one of us.They felt alienation and were ostracised one point or another by society.But they were us).Superman is not the savior of the oppressed.He is the champion of the oppressed.

Superman of the old actually was just an overdog.So is allmight.He wasn't invincible.There were limits. he would get knocked down and get hurt.Then he would bounce back like a rubber ball.Just like when he is punching beams.That's how it used to work.So this idea that mob bosses couldn't hurt him is wrong.He took on army with shells that could easily penetrate his skin and kill him.The guy took on things that could hurt.He got beat up by lex with powerstone.He took on guys with reality rays and a guy that could make comics characters come to life.He took kaijus and giant robots.He took on atomic bombs.The episodic nature meant,clark getting hurt and coming back had to end in one issue.While,goldenage was appealed to a younger audience.While,it wasn't as restricting or strict as when comics code took over.Superman didn't feature adult contents to that degree to say the least.

Clark ain't a missionary.He is a vigilante.Missionaries (that are good without hidden motives) do charity work.While,that's great.They don't have to confront evil or contradictions in themselves or the world.Normally,there would be no conflict.If there is no conflict there is no story.The only conflict there would be with people that aren't willing to help,starting to helps out.Clark is kind from the get go.People with that narrowmindset won't be challenged in anyway.Cause they won't see themselves in the protagonist.why is spiderman relatable?cause,he does the most selfish things with his powers at first and pays a price for it.Clark only provides a third person view of why we should be nice or kind or responsible.Peter parker shows why you should be that first person(death of uncle ben).Moreover,a guy like clark who is all of this just dealing with that would be a waste.Clark as a guy who has gotten his house in order should step into the sunlight and confront evil in the world.Set the world straight.Thereby setting any contradictions and flaws in himself also straight or make peace with it.(liar who fights for truth and vigilante fighting for justice)

Clark is the star of two books.I don't care what happens to clark kent in larger dcu.They could easily tell stories in his books.The writer has enough autonomy on what happens in his books.Because he pitched it.It's whole different deal if the story doesn't sell and they sack him.But,as long as person is on a book.He can have a story where clark is shown struggling with things.Stories Where the guy wins at costs,at the very least.A story that has stakes.What's the point of having stories with him if there is none?If he cannot be even be prioritised in his own corner.Then screw the shared universe business.It ain't worth it.If the battle is meaningless then screw the neverending nature of it.If the drama doesn't have emotions and feeling that doesn't feel manufactured then screw the soap-opera nonesense.Unlike the goldenage which was episodics and more like newspaperstrips .Where the story telling was for kids(I am not against comics being for kids).They could seriously expand on things,now.Like japan,clark could be shown like this.

[Vordan]

The list of characters more important than him arguably isn't that big. it's pretty much just Lois, Lex, the Kents, the Els and maybe Supergirl and the mythos can't survive by depending on just them. The rest including Perry are roughly on par with him or below.



He is pretty lousy as a communicator though. The titular fight was brought about partially because he can't just spit out that his mom is in trouble, even though he did have opportunities to do so even during that fight. I don't care how pissed at Bruce, if he was desperate to find his mother that would overide it. Whether or not Bruce was going to listen is on Bruce.

He's not a villain by any means, but he's just a void of charisma who seems put out by the whole superhero thing. Like rescuing one girl from a burning building and standing awkwardly as people fawn over him instead of, y'know, maybe putting out the fire like Superman typically does?

My problems with Cavill are as follows
1. The man himself is not good at roles that require emotional range. He’s good at playing angry pissed off villains like Walker or sullen antiheroes like Geralt. Straight up heroes like Supes aren’t his forte
2. Snyder robs this Clark of any real agency. He hides because Pa tells him to and puts on the suit because Jor tells him to. MoS makes a big deal about Clark’s “choices” but he never really makes any of his own, he always accepts the choices others put on him. Zod tells him either Kal kills him or he’ll kill Kal. Since the movie makes a big deal about Clark’s freedom you’d expect him to reject the dichotomy and find another way but instead he ends up surrendering to Zod’s logic.
3. Snyder “deconstructs” a lot of Superman’s mythos but also wants us to treat these characters like they’re still the regular versions. Pa and Ma are selfish pricks who constantly advocate that Clark put himself and his immediate loved ones before anyone else. It’s a total rejection of “with great power comes great responsibility”. Yet we are clearly meant to view them as good people and good parents despite this given how much Snyder brings them back in and expects the audience to care about them. Pa’s came in BvS is absolutely godawful, some of the worst advice I’ve heard, yet it’s treated as this tender heartfelt moment instead.
4. It’s pointless edgy and juvenile despite aspirations of “maturity”. Snyder isn’t smart enough to handle deep subjects so we get dumb crap like Lex’s piss jar and the super powered alien who somehow can’t find his mom and needs Batman to do it. The Martha moment is when the whole thing just collapses, Snyder’s pseudo intellectualism on display in such a ridiculous manner as to cause people to burst out laughing at what’s meant to be a serious moment.
5. Finally Clark himself is a bore. No personality on display, he’s merely the vehicle for Snyder’s hollow Jesus imagery and to let Snyder make even bigger fights. He’s ironically every dumb pop culture perception of Superman smashed together. He Jesus and perfect but also turns evil the moment Lois dies, he’s “hope” but also a big scary alien with constant red eyes, he’s utterly invincible and can’t be hurt by anything such as when he & Zod fight, yet is also an idiot and easily beatable by a little Kryptonite. Far from being the “way forward” Snyder’s fanboys shill him as, he’s a dead end, Superman who only exists for Jesus shots or to make evil Superman stories.

He's brainwashed into being a villain, something that every Superman has had happen to him at least once. It was also not a future set in stone.

Nah it was the future that was going to play out in Snyder’s JL sequels. It was only going to get undone after JL3 with Batman going back in time to prevent Lois from dying. Love that fridging Lois to make Superman evil so he & Batman can fight has spread outside Injustice, thank you so much Ed Boon & Tom Taylor you utter hacks.

[Agent Z]

edited post.

[Agent Z]

The list of characters more important than him arguably isn't that big. it's pretty much just Lois, Lex, the Kents, the Els and maybe Supergirl and the mythos can't survive by depending on just them. The rest including Perry are roughly on par with him or below.

I'd argue it can certainly survive without him but that's me.

He is pretty lousy as a communicator though. The titular fight was brought about partially because he can't just spit out that his mom is in trouble, even though he did have opportunities to do so even during that fight. I don't care how pissed at Bruce, if he was desperate to find his mother that would overide it. Whether or not Bruce was going to listen is on Bruce.

He's not a villain by any means, but he's just a void of charisma who seems put out by the whole superhero thing. Like rescuing one girl from a burning building and standing awkwardly as people fawn over him instead of, y'know, maybe putting out the fire like Superman typically does?

Yeah this is what I mean when I say every little thing the guy does gets picked apart to absurdity.

[Agent Z]

2. Snyder robs this Clark of any real agency. He hides because Pa tells him to and puts on the suit because Jor tells him to. MoS makes a big deal about Clark’s “choices” but he never really makes any of his own, he always accepts the choices others put on him.

Following people's advice is not the same thing as lacking agency.

Zod tells him either Kal kills him or he’ll kill Kal. Since the movie makes a big deal about Clark’s freedom you’d expect him to reject the dichotomy and find another way but instead he ends up surrendering to Zod’s logic.

Clark had made the choice to oppose Zod. He chose to be Superman. He chose to use his powers to help and protect the innocent. Killing Zod doesn't change that. Having the power to make a choice does not mean being able to bend the universe to your will.

3. Snyder “deconstructs” a lot of Superman’s mythos but also wants us to treat these characters like they’re still the regular versions. Pa and Ma are selfish pricks who constantly advocate that Clark put himself and his immediate loved ones before anyone else. It’s a total rejection of “with great power comes great responsibility”. Yet we are clearly meant to view them as good people and good parents despite this given how much Snyder brings them back in and expects the audience to care about them. Pa’s came in BvS is absolutely godawful, some of the worst advice I’ve heard, yet it’s treated as this tender heartfelt moment instead.

Telling Clark to think before he leaps and to be a hero because that is what he wants to be is not being selfish. It's advice any parent would give. The thing about "with great power comes great responsibility" is that it's an aphorism without any real clarity. It's a feel good phrase that has never been truly explored with any real depth and the implications of what that means. Actually having characters point out the potential pitfalls of Clark being exposed to the public isn't being selfish. it isn't even exclusive to these versions of the Kents.

4. It’s pointless edgy and juvenile despite aspirations of “maturity”.

Edgy has become a meaningless buzzword that describes just about anything that is slightly more serious than a Saturday morning cartoon.

5. Finally Clark himself is a bore. No personality on display, he’s merely the vehicle for Snyder’s hollow Jesus imagery and to let Snyder make even bigger fights. He’s ironically every dumb pop culture perception of Superman smashed together. He Jesus and perfect

He's perfect now? Tell that to people who complain about him.

but also turns evil the moment Lois dies,

After being brainwashed, a bit of context you conveniently keep leaving out every time you complain about this.

he’s “hope” but also a big scary alien with constant red eyes,

Hyperbole.

he’s utterly invincible and can’t be hurt by anything such as when he & Zod fight,

Try watching those fights in MoS again. I don't know where you got the idea he's invincible given it is easily the most difficult fight we've seen Superman have on cinema.

yet is also an idiot and easily beatable by a little Kryptonite.

The kryptonite only worked on Clark because he wasn't expecting it and it still wasn't an instant win.

Far from being the “way forward” Snyder’s fanboys shill him as, he’s a dead end, Superman who only exists for Jesus shots or to make evil Superman stories.

It seems to me that you and others' version of Superman is based on him not living up to a weird standard where he's never lived up to because most or all of these things have applied to just about every version of Superman ever.

Nah it was the future that was going to play out in Snyder’s JL sequels. It was only going to get undone after JL3 with Batman going back in time to prevent Lois from dying.

Hence it not being a future set in stone.

Love that fridging Lois to make Superman evil so he & Batman can fight has spread outside Injustice, thank you so much Ed Boon & Tom Taylor you utter hacks.

Of all the things comic fans love to do, I will never fathom how you can rationalize blaming a writer for other people copying plot elements they did that you didn't like. Unless Boon and Taylor held a gun to Snyder's head and forced him to make that story in his JL3 (which we don't even know how it would play out) they are not responsible for the direction Snyder took a movie he made without their input.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. To paraphrase Niel Gaiman, people are right when they say they hate Snyder's Superman, they're wrong when they say why. More often than not, the criticisms are either false, exaggerations or holding him to a standard no Superman has ever truly lived up to.

[SiegePerilous02]

I'd argue it can certainly survive without him but that's me.

Maybe it can, but it can survive without Perry, Lana, Maggie, Steel, even Kon and Jon too. But if we use the logic that it can survive without only the bare necessities like Lois and Lex and we reduced it to just that, there is gradually going to not be anything left.

Yeah this is what I mean when I say every little thing the guy does gets picked apart to absurdity.

None of that is absurd since the movie since it tries to sell itself as a movie with serious gravitas, but the titular fight hinges on Clark in part being an idiot for no compelling reason.

Bruce is an idiot too, but that doesn't let Clark off the hook.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. To paraphrase Niel Gaiman, people are right when they say they hate Snyder's Superman, they're wrong when they say why. More often than not, the criticisms are either false, exaggerations or holding him to a standard no Superman has ever truly lived up to.

But i've seen you use that quote regardless of what the specific complaints are for Snyder's Superman from different people. So it comes across as you saying we're all wrong no matter what we say. Some complaints are exaggerated and absurd, but there have been well thought out ones that have been met with "you just didn't understand the movie and are explaining it wrong."

We are not holding this Superman up to impossible standards. It's standards at least the Reeve films, the Fleshier cartoons, Lois and Clark, parts of the DCAU and some of the better comics have managed to at least partially live up to for most people regardless of their own divisive responses. At the bare minimum they are entertaining. This is neither entertaining nor compelling for a lot of people and Cavill comes across as a plank of wood who is outshone by a jar of urine in his own movie, it's not unreasonable to point out where it fails