Controversial Superman Opinions

[Ascended]

I read the entirety of the Rebirth Action and Superman runs. Not sure where the idea of "the Kents were bad parents comes from."

Then you're not looking, man. It's all very clear, right there on the page.

Clark has always been bad with family. Going all the way back to Mon-El's debut, to Kara's....Clark is not good with family, and it's a trait that was (largely) consistent through his entire history until Rebirth and Tomasi decided he was actually father of the year. But even within that mindset, he allowed a ten year old to wander about wearing a symbol that many world-breaking villains will attack on sight. Thank the gods Metallo or Kalibak never happened to be walking down the same street as Jon while the kid was on his own. No supervision, unless you count the thirteen year old assassin psychopath. Those two kids went to space, through time, to other dimensions, all on their own, with Clark and Lois' blessing.

And you think a summer road trip with grampa is out of character for the Kents? The crap Jor did as "Mr. Oz" was revealed to be brainwashing, which he was no longer influenced by, so there was no "villain" status on him at the time. And of course Clark would want his kid to have the relationship with Jor-El that Clark never got to have. The only difference between Tomasi and Bendis is that Bendis actually recognizes the dysfunctional/non-traditional aspects of the family and didn't try to make them into a Norman Rockwell painting of an Americana that never existed.....and Bendis didn't write it "cute" enough to satisfy Jon fans.

But saying it's out of character is ignoring literally everything about Clark's history. If you've any knowledge of literary analysis and how to apply it, go check out Clark's other dynamics with his family. Look at it without confirmation bias, or a bias for what you enjoy personally, and see what the evidence tells you.

[Vakanai]

I have problems following that argument. In the first place, Billy Batson doesn't fit the model of a sidekick, since he is Captain Marvel and they don't normally work side by side together. You could maybe argue that Whitey Murphy is a sidekick, but he was first invented for the 1941 serial.

More importantly, DETECTIVE COMICS 38 (April 1940) came out on the newsstands in early March of 1940, when only three issues of WHIZ COMICS had so far appeared and the idea of Billy Batson or Captain Marvel had yet to prove itself. And it's unlikely, given the lead time needed to get out a comic book, that Whitney Ellsworth, Bill Finger, Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson would have even known of the existence of Captain Marvel when they prepared their "Robin, the Boy Wonder" for publication.

And you're not giving enough recognition to Robin's own influence on the comic book landscape. That was a novel idea for costumed mystery men, which would soon be copied in many other comic books. However, the idea of a kid sidekick or a pairing of adult and kid, was not a new one.

In the comic strips, there was already Dick Tracy Junior, Dickie Dare and Terry and the Pirates--which likely were a big influence on creating Dick Grayson. There's adults and kids having adventures together in such works as HUCKLEBERRY FINN and Charlie Chaplin's THE KID. Kids as adventure characters themselves had a long tradition. It's maybe giving equal weight to both--Batman and Robin--that was the trick.

While the idea that kids needed an intermediary like Dick Grayson might have been in the heads of the creators, I'm not sure it was in the heads of kid readers. Jules Feiffer certainly didn't think so.

As far as Superman goes, he never really had an ongoing kid sidekick per se up until modern times. You could argue that Jimmy Olsen is a sidekick, but Jimmy the office boy didn't really serve that purpose much in the 1940s comic books. He becomes one of several people that enter the radio series, to serve as sounding boards for Clark Kent--to make exposition easier. But so far in my listening, he's only showed up in two different stories--taking over that task from Lois Lane, Perry White and others. It's really the 1950s television series that makes Jimmy Olsen a household name, such that the comic books brought him back from limbo and put him in his own comic book.

I'm currently up to the "Lighthouse Point Smugglers," the second appearance of Olsen on radio, beginning July 22nd 1940, and that story is copied later for "The Haunted Lighthouse," only the second episode of the T.V. series (not counting SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN).

Controversial opinion - I like superhero radio serials as a concept! Mind telling me where you are listening to these Superman radio episodes?

[manwhohaseverything]

I have problems following that argument. In the first place, Billy Batson doesn't fit the model of a sidekick, since he is Captain Marvel and they don't normally work side by side together. You could maybe argue that Whitey Murphy is a sidekick, but he was first invented for the 1941 serial.

More importantly, DETECTIVE COMICS 38 (April 1940) came out on the newsstands in early March of 1940, when only three issues of WHIZ COMICS had so far appeared and the idea of Billy Batson or Captain Marvel had yet to prove itself. And it's unlikely, given the lead time needed to get out a comic book, that Whitney Ellsworth, Bill Finger, Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson would have even known of the existence of Captain Marvel when they prepared their "Robin, the Boy Wonder" for publication.

And you're not giving enough recognition to Robin's own influence on the comic book landscape. That was a novel idea for costumed mystery men, which would soon be copied in many other comic books. However, the idea of a kid sidekick or a pairing of adult and kid, was not a new one.

In the comic strips, there was already Dick Tracy Junior, Dickie Dare and Terry and the Pirates--which likely were a big influence on creating Dick Grayson. There's adults and kids having adventures together in such works as HUCKLEBERRY FINN and Charlie Chaplin's THE KID. Kids as adventure characters themselves had a long tradition. It's maybe giving equal weight to both--Batman and Robin--that was the trick.

While the idea that kids needed an intermediary like Dick Grayson might have been in the heads of the creators, I'm not sure it was in the heads of kid readers. Jules Feiffer certainly didn't think so.

As far as Superman goes, he never really had an ongoing kid sidekick per se up until modern times. You could argue that Jimmy Olsen is a sidekick, but Jimmy the office boy didn't really serve that purpose much in the 1940s comic books. He becomes one of several people that enter the radio series, to serve as sounding boards for Clark Kent--to make exposition easier. But so far in my listening, he's only showed up in two different stories--taking over that task from Lois Lane, Perry White and others. It's really the 1950s television series that makes Jimmy Olsen a household name, such that the comic books brought him back from limbo and put him in his own comic book.

I'm currently up to the "Lighthouse Point Smugglers," the second appearance of Olsen on radio, beginning July 22nd 1940, and that story is copied later for "The Haunted Lighthouse," only the second episode of the T.V. series (not counting SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN).

I stand corrected in regards to captain marvel.But,the problem is still there and specifics of date was not what i had in my mind with the post.The reason jimmy was created was because they needed a younger pov character that superman can talk to.I knew there were literary and other works with likes the kid and huckleberryfin. I wasn't disregarding dick grayson.But merely questioning the relatability issue and effectiveness of batman and superman with younger audience.

Superman might not have had a boy sidekick.But,he did become superboy and jimmy is another vehicle.Young kids might find supes or bats cool and awesome..But,i firmly believe captain marvel provides them that and something more.if Children stayed on superman or batman because of dick or jimmy.Then ultimately they aren't staying cause of batman or superman.The main part of the franchise.

There was no way superman and batman could have continued as for younger audiences, primarily.So it was natural for them to go for older audiences as demographics.

Thankfully or due to dumb luck,the audiences literally grew as well.But,superman ran into a problem where he couldn't consistently perform to the expectations and needs of the older audiences.Older audiences need a more complex narrative (not the pretention of one).The way wb and dc chose to address superman's lack of complexity is by jesus-fication,following in donner version and for brand differenciation from batman.(Even that was blunt..Superman lacks sophistication when using religious allegory.yes that includes pkj's superman).Batman(sherlock holmes,shadow,zorro..etc) could perform cause he was linked and where taken directly from a crop of characters that was specifically for bit more of an older audiences.Superman?not so much.It was easier to whip up complex narrative for batman with cool factor.Just think of a masked heroic vigilante fighting crime,corruption and doing detective work(or any such definition).Superman has no such easily understandable definition he was a flying jesus figure hercules.That's just harder for people to get into.

Superman is left with this conundrum.Even for the younger audiences that have been brought up with games,movies,..etc superman started to become more outdated and less of a power fantasy.So the character even lost cool factor is left in a stasis.he can't attract older audiences nor younger ones.

Now they have chosen to aim for the drama audience since the 90's with lois and clark.The issue of mass appeal still remain hence the problem with the movies.

just my random assessment and thoughts on the superman franchise's history as whole.

[Jim Kelly]

Controversial opinion - I like superhero radio serials as a concept! Mind telling me where you are listening to these Superman radio episodes?

I listen to the ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN radio show on Internet Archives. One episode is only about ten minutes and I listen to one episode each Saturday--which I've been doing for over a year now. As I say, so far, Jimmy has only appeared in two stories that I've heard--I'll see if he becomes more important as the show goes on.

Distinguishing between supporting characters and sidekicks is hard. According to Mike's Amazing World, Jimmy only appears in the Superman comics 31 times between 1938 and 1948--an average of three appearances per year and at first it's hard to identify if this is clearly the Jimmy Olsen character, with many appearances being relatively minor (just a panel or two). Then he's completely forgotten about until the T.V. show makes him an important member of the cast, where I see him as essentially the same as Lois. So in 1954, Jimmy returns to the comic book pages and immediately gets his own title (with many stories being adapted from the T.V. show).

In his own title he's the lead and not a kid. He's a young adult, has his own apartment, works at a job. Maybe sometimes he plays the sidekick in a Superman story, but so does Lois or Perry. He does become a proper sidekick in the Nightwing and Flamebird stories, but there weren't too many of those. Now, I'd say that the young adult/adult pairing is one you see a lot of, too, but not many talk about that. In fiction, often a grown man likes to hang around with a younger man and an older man. I've been watching Hopalong Cassidy and he's always hanging out with a young adult and an old guy.

I'd argue that Batman is much more of a sidekick to Superman, when their team-ups also begin in 1954, in WORLD'S FINEST COMICS. Prior to 1966, Superman is the top banana. Batman is the second banana to him and Robin is the third banana. Once Batman becomes popular, the dynamic shifts and now Superman has to hold Batman's cape. That must cheese off the Man of Steel, because he keeps having to split up with the Caped Crusader and see other people, before they can re-unite for more team-ups.

I do feel like Superboy--that is Superman as Superboy--was probably spurred on by Captain Marvel, Jr.--given they look alike. But it's hard to track the tit for tat between the two publishers. Maybe the Superman publishers felt that Captain Marvel, Jr., looks too much like their guy. And if they wanted to spin off Superman characters, they did a poor job of it. Superboy can't really have adventures with his older self. They are really late in building a Superman Family. Supergirl doesn't arrive until 1959. Other Superman characters not until the 1990s.

The demographic shift seems to come when they lose their large mass market (kids). As a kid, I was quite happy to read about adult heroes. It's the smaller direct sales market that seems to drive this shift to younger teen characters, even though most fans are not in their teens anymore. I don't see that as growth--comic books have become more of a niche market, always trying to please a smaller and smaller sales base. Movies are very different as they appeal to a much bigger audience. In the old days, a big movie would drive kids to pick up the comic books. Now one seems to have little to do with the other.

[Kirk Brent]

Then you're not looking, man. It's all very clear, right there on the page.

Clark has always been bad with family. Going all the way back to Mon-El's debut, to Kara's....Clark is not good with family, and it's a trait that was (largely) consistent through his entire history until Rebirth and Tomasi decided he was actually father of the year. But even within that mindset, he allowed a ten year old to wander about wearing a symbol that many world-breaking villains will attack on sight. Thank the gods Metallo or Kalibak never happened to be walking down the same street as Jon while the kid was on his own. No supervision, unless you count the thirteen year old assassin psychopath. Those two kids went to space, through time, to other dimensions, all on their own, with Clark and Lois' blessing.

And you think a summer road trip with grampa is out of character for the Kents? The crap Jor did as "Mr. Oz" was revealed to be brainwashing, which he was no longer influenced by, so there was no "villain" status on him at the time. And of course Clark would want his kid to have the relationship with Jor-El that Clark never got to have. The only difference between Tomasi and Bendis is that Bendis actually recognizes the dysfunctional/non-traditional aspects of the family and didn't try to make them into a Norman Rockwell painting of an Americana that never existed.....and Bendis didn't write it "cute" enough to satisfy Jon fans.

But saying it's out of character is ignoring literally everything about Clark's history. If you've any knowledge of literary analysis and how to apply it, go check out Clark's other dynamics with his family. Look at it without confirmation bias, or a bias for what you enjoy personally, and see what the evidence tells you.

I'm actually a professor of English and Creative Writing and understand literary analysis quite a bit. I've also been reading comics (and about comics) for close to forty years. I think we're both approaching things quite differently. For starters, I didn't regard many stories or characterizations as relevant when reading the Rebirth era books. There wasn't a very clear idea as to just who these characters were (this wasn't cleared up until Superman Reborn and later, Doomsday Clock) and so I judged the book based on the continuity that began (more or less) with Convergence and Lois & Clark. Reading only those books and the Rebirth titles, I felt (and still feel) that Clark and Lois were the best parents they could be. They allowed Jon to become Superboy because they trusted him and believed it was better that he learn on the job rather than going off on his own if they tried to suppress him.

As for Bendis, this is not a mentally healthy man. His idea of marriage and family is warped to say the least, or, to be more accurate, his fictional ideas are warped. He was very clear in interviews that his goal was to deconstruct the Super Family (a reflection of Jon, Martha, and Clark) into a cynical, "modern" version of family that is "weird" and "crazy." That meant injecting his personal politics and views into Lois' personality (she didn't consider Clark's feelings about going off with Jor-El at all and then didn't contact him when she returned from space) and the family dynamic (the modern working woman does what she likes, regardless of what that means for the rest of the family.) Clark essentially surrendered to Lois, Jon, and Jor-El; this makes zero sense. I personally thought that Jurgens (in Lois & Clark and Action) and Tomasi in Superman portrayed Lois as independent, brave, strong, dedicated to her work (taking on Intergang) and yet she was also an attentive and loving wife and mother. Bendis hates this portrayal because, to paraphrase one of his interviews at the time, the Super Family didn't reflect "real families." The truth is, no one book will represent every family dynamic and it makes more sense for Superman's family to follow the dynamic that he grew up knowing and that readers and fans have known for the better part of eighty-four years. Your mileage, of course, seems to vary, so no worries.

Finally, it seems you have a personal axe to grind with the portrayal of family according to American cultural norms of the past. This "Americana that never existed" did in fact exist for some people. While it's fashionable today to apply contemporary views and standards on eras before our own, it's not logical to assume "everything was really horrible for everyone" just because we saw that life was great for some. The truth is somewhere in the middle. This is another area that I don't feel you and I will agree upon, but I respect your right to your beliefs and outlook and enjoyed reading a different perspective than my own.

[Vakanai]

I listen to the ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN radio show on Internet Archives. One episode is only about ten minutes and I listen to one episode each Saturday--which I've been doing for over a year now. As I say, so far, Jimmy has only appeared in two stories that I've heard--I'll see if he becomes more important as the show goes on.

Sounds fun, thanks!

[Monari]

Henry Cavill was the best Superman we've had on screen, Man of Steel was a good movie, and they both deserve a sequel.

[TheKryptonMan]

Henry Cavill was the best Superman we've had on screen, Man of Steel was a good movie, and they both deserve a sequel.

I happen to agree that Man of Steel was really good, and made really good box office money too.
We really deserve a sequel !!!

[Ascended]

I'm actually a professor of English and Creative Writing and understand literary analysis quite a bit.

An educator! Thank you for your service then, good sir and/or ma'am! Much respect for teachers. Hell of a tough gig.

I think we're both approaching things quite differently. For starters, I didn't regard many stories or characterizations as relevant when reading the Rebirth era books.

Yup, that would give you a very different outcome than my wider consideration. Makes sense to me now, how you got to that opinion. To that end, yeah Bendis changed what was "established" character, but did he "change" it, or just return it to something closer to historic norms? Lit analysis with comics have always struck me as a weird thing; changing cultural norms across decades influence characterization, reboots and retcons changing history. I mean, Rebirth/Reborn Clark was supposed to be post-Crisis Clark inserted into the new canon, but surrounded by a different DCU history, with his own history including a ten year old who had "always been there" we must ask, is it still post-Crisis Clark? Can it be, with that many differences? These questions are why comic analysis has become such a fascinating hobby for me. But I digress.....

As for Bendis, this is not a mentally healthy man. His idea of marriage and family is warped to say the least, or, to be more accurate, his fictional ideas are warped. He was very clear in interviews that his goal was to deconstruct the Super Family (a reflection of Jon, Martha, and Clark) into a cynical, "modern" version of family that is "weird" and "crazy."

I don't think I'm the only one with a personal bias influencing my viewpoints.

Bendis' idea that Jon has parallels to a special needs kid is, I think, valid....if an odd way to look at things. For me, it boils down to a fairly simple metric; did the Kents clearly love and support each other? You must remember the trite marital melodrama of the late 90's and earlier 00's; if that is avoided and the Kents remain firm in their devotion to each other, then I'm usually satisfied. And while Bendis applied non-traditional family structures to the Kents, I don't think there was ever any real doubt that they remained happy and true to their marriage. I don't ask for much more than that, and an assurance that both characters aren't made less than they are. Bendis did a poor job writing Lois, and I get that some people don't appreciate the non-traditional trappings, but I think it can't be argued that Lois and Clark were anything but deeply in love and supportive of each other, even if some of us may not care for how that was expressed, or even just for the writing and dialogue itself (which I'd agree with).

Finally, it seems you have a personal axe to grind with the portrayal of family according to American cultural norms of the past. This "Americana that never existed" did in fact exist for some people.

Oh that's mostly just me being hyperbolic. I like to put ridiculous and over-the-top claims in my posts sometimes, just to see if anyone reacts. I know that Rockwell Americana did exist for some people. My mother grew up like that, actually.

And if we disagree on things, then that's great. That's where the quality debates and discussions come from! An opinion is only as strong as the arguments against it after all. And I'm told that my posts can seem more....intense....than I intend, so please take them with a grain of salt; I assure you I'm not half as inflexible or arrogant as I might seem. Stupid text not properly conveying tone and intent....

[Jim Kelly]

There was a sequel to MAN OF STEEL, it had the unwieldy title BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE. And the sequel to that was JUSTICE LEAGUE. In addition there was BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE: ULTIMATE EDITION and ZACK SNYDER'S JUSTICE LEAGUE. That's three movies with Henry Cavill as Superman, plus loads of added footage--a lot more than some Superman actors have got. But in looking into this, I find there was no extended cut for MAN OF STEEL-- that's something they could offer the fanbase.

[Kirk Brent]

An educator! Thank you for your service then, good sir and/or ma'am! Much respect for teachers. Hell of a tough gig.



Yup, that would give you a very different outcome than my wider consideration. Makes sense to me now, how you got to that opinion. To that end, yeah Bendis changed what was "established" character, but did he "change" it, or just return it to something closer to historic norms? Lit analysis with comics have always struck me as a weird thing; changing cultural norms across decades influence characterization, reboots and retcons changing history. I mean, Rebirth/Reborn Clark was supposed to be post-Crisis Clark inserted into the new canon, but surrounded by a different DCU history, with his own history including a ten year old who had "always been there" we must ask, is it still post-Crisis Clark? Can it be, with that many differences? These questions are why comic analysis has become such a fascinating hobby for me. But I digress.....



I don't think I'm the only one with a personal bias influencing my viewpoints.

Bendis' idea that Jon has parallels to a special needs kid is, I think, valid....if an odd way to look at things. For me, it boils down to a fairly simple metric; did the Kents clearly love and support each other? You must remember the trite marital melodrama of the late 90's and earlier 00's; if that is avoided and the Kents remain firm in their devotion to each other, then I'm usually satisfied. And while Bendis applied non-traditional family structures to the Kents, I don't think there was ever any real doubt that they remained happy and true to their marriage. I don't ask for much more than that, and an assurance that both characters aren't made less than they are. Bendis did a poor job writing Lois, and I get that some people don't appreciate the non-traditional trappings, but I think it can't be argued that Lois and Clark were anything but deeply in love and supportive of each other, even if some of us may not care for how that was expressed, or even just for the writing and dialogue itself (which I'd agree with).



Oh that's mostly just me being hyperbolic. I like to put ridiculous and over-the-top claims in my posts sometimes, just to see if anyone reacts. I know that Rockwell Americana did exist for some people. My mother grew up like that, actually.

And if we disagree on things, then that's great. That's where the quality debates and discussions come from! An opinion is only as strong as the arguments against it after all. And I'm told that my posts can seem more....intense....than I intend, so please take them with a grain of salt; I assure you I'm not half as inflexible or arrogant as I might seem. Stupid text not properly conveying tone and intent....

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get where you're coming from and while I'm looking at things differently, we both share a passion for the character and his mythology. For a long time, I've pined for a return to a semblance of "my Superman," though "my Superman" has evolved from the character when I met him in 1992 as a teenager into something more complex. I've aged and have read a good bit of Golden, Silver, and Bronze Age Superman comics. If I had my druthers, I'd want a reboot in the comics that takes the best elements from every era (similar to what Morrison did in Action and All-Star) and would very likely want the classic love triangle restored. I'd also want an Earth where Lois and Clark are married with a pre-teen Jon that could be visited occasionally. I have a feeling none of what I want to see is coming anytime soon from DC, if at all.

[Agent Z]

Then you're not looking, man. It's all very clear, right there on the page.

Clark has always been bad with family. Going all the way back to Mon-El's debut, to Kara's....Clark is not good with family, and it's a trait that was (largely) consistent through his entire history until Rebirth and Tomasi decided he was actually father of the year. But even within that mindset, he allowed a ten year old to wander about wearing a symbol that many world-breaking villains will attack on sight. Thank the gods Metallo or Kalibak never happened to be walking down the same street as Jon while the kid was on his own. No supervision, unless you count the thirteen year old assassin psychopath. Those two kids went to space, through time, to other dimensions, all on their own, with Clark and Lois' blessing.

And you think a summer road trip with grampa is out of character for the Kents? The crap Jor did as "Mr. Oz" was revealed to be brainwashing, which he was no longer influenced by, so there was no "villain" status on him at the time. And of course Clark would want his kid to have the relationship with Jor-El that Clark never got to have. The only difference between Tomasi and Bendis is that Bendis actually recognizes the dysfunctional/non-traditional aspects of the family and didn't try to make them into a Norman Rockwell painting of an Americana that never existed.....and Bendis didn't write it "cute" enough to satisfy Jon fans.

But saying it's out of character is ignoring literally everything about Clark's history. If you've any knowledge of literary analysis and how to apply it, go check out Clark's other dynamics with his family. Look at it without confirmation bias, or a bias for what you enjoy personally, and see what the evidence tells you.

Did Clark and Lois know Jor-El had been brainwashed?

[Vordan]

Did Clark and Lois know Jor-El had been brainwashed?

After the staff got smashed Jor had a moment of clarity and told Kal he was sorry for what happened. So Kal was unsure about the extent of the brainwashing but he knew there was an external factor.

[Ascended]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get where you're coming from and while I'm looking at things differently, we both share a passion for the character and his mythology.

Oh I think you'll find everyone here looks at things differently. Clark's been through a lot of variations over the decades and we all have our preferences.

Mine, of course, are superior and correct, but to each their own. (kidding)

We'll argue as hard as politicians sometimes (though at our worst we're still more polite and tolerant than they) but I don't think anyone has anything but respect for the community and its members. Hell, for a lot of us this is probably the only place we can discuss the genre to such a degree.

If I had my druthers, I'd want a reboot in the comics that takes the best elements from every era (similar to what Morrison did in Action and All-Star) and would very likely want the classic love triangle restored. I'd also want an Earth where Lois and Clark are married with a pre-teen Jon that could be visited occasionally. I have a feeling none of what I want to see is coming anytime soon from DC, if at all

Not in main canon no probably not. But they've been dropping a good amount of Elseworlds and self-contained stuff. We just had that Superman 78 mini, with the classic status quo. Super Sons are getting a animated film (with kid Jon, I hear, not teen). Oh, and World's Finest is set during the classic status quo days. So you might not get what you want in the core titles as a present day thing, but you've got options that should satisfy. And hopefully more coming soon.

Did Clark and Lois know Jor-El had been brainwashed?

Yup. I don't think Clark knew the details, but he knew that Jor wasn't totally responsible for his actions.

[manwhohaseverything]

There was a sequel to MAN OF STEEL, it had the unwieldy title BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE. And the sequel to that was JUSTICE LEAGUE. In addition there was BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE: ULTIMATE EDITION and ZACK SNYDER'S JUSTICE LEAGUE. That's three movies with Henry Cavill as Superman, plus loads of added footage--a lot more than some Superman actors have got. But in looking into this, I find there was no extended cut for MAN OF STEEL-- that's something they could offer the fanbase.

Hell yeah! I want that deer scene..