Worst versions of Superman?

[JAK]

Man, that's a long video...I have to look into some of what he says.

Basically, I've always been baffled by the reputation of the film. I loved it, dunno what to say.

Hey ah.. who is Klara?

LOL, yeah, that messed with me, too.

I'm not thinking so much about the overall theme of the video, I just thought some of the info was interesting (and I hadn't heard it before). So I thought I'd share.

Superman on Supergirl was pretty bad. Even ignoring the costume it's pretty bad. I'd also go with the old 70's movies. I try not to knock them too much because it's another era. I can barely sit through the first film though. Lois literally seems him everyday but doesn't get he's Superman? That just doesn't work for me. Plus, those movies portray Superman as a little too goody goody for me. He just feels fake. No depth. Horrible endings to the first 2 movie. Minus nostalgia, those films are awful. Superman Returns isn't much better but I give it points for the plane scene & the better effects. Superman just seems like a wimp.

Part of the identity thing is that we've been familiar with the concept for decades, so we look for it. But if Superheroes never existed, you wouldn't necessarily. And to this day, I still think Reeve nails the transformation of Clark and Superman. That would be a lot harder to get than we'd think.

At World's End was indeed amazing.

It absolutely was amazing. I love Pirates of the Caribbean. LOL

People liked the TV Supergirl version of Superman because he was the antidote to the bleak, dour, dark, depressed Superman in the Man of Steel and Superman v Batman movies, which lots of people despised.
Basically if they hated the DCEU Superman and loved the Christopher Reeve Superman, they enjoyed the Tyler Hoechlin Superman because that is the Superman most people think of when they think of Superman.

True. I'd say that you could hate the DCEU Superman and not particularly love the Reeve Superman and still get that same result.

Yeah, I tend to go pretty easy on Superman Returns because I think it was a massive wasted opportunity and Routh was frankly, robbed of his chance to be a truly great Superman by a mediocre script (and I still think he's an amazing Clark Kent even then) but I'm knee jerking against it as well recently.

Still, why did nobody stop and say "Hold on, we're rebooting Superman with a relationship drama that is a sequel to a thirty year old movie that most of the audience hasn't seen? Go back to the drawing board, effective immediately."

Definitely. But WB have never known what to do with Superman - and the last person who had an idea was Burton... so Singer's pitch probably sounded amazing at the time.

But definitely I think Chris Reeve is still the standard every subsequent actor has to live up to and in terms of sheer acting, nobody has beaten him yet.

I'll just say that the Superman on the Supergirl show is what most people picture as Superman, not the movie version.

Both are true, as is the rest of what you said, imo. Reeve Superman has entered into the larger social consciousness, and his extremely skilled performance is much more what people remember than the details - for better or worse. And Tyler's Superman is a closer amalgamation of what people think of with Superman, personality-wise.

[Adekis]

While I don't hate the Cavill version of Superman, I think you are essentially correct. In fact, I'll go one better and say he's better than the Chris Reeve Superman because, so far, Supergirl Superman hasn't crushed the hands of any helpless opponents or beaten up anyone for revenge after they beat him up when he didn't have his powers. But definitely I think Chris Reeve is still the standard every subsequent actor has to live up to and in terms of sheer acting, nobody has beaten him yet. But some of his actions in Superman II are the worst of any live action Superman.

I'll just say that the Superman on the Supergirl show is what most people picture as Superman, not the movie version.

I'm sort of appalled that crushing Zod's hand is worth mentioning, but not mind-wiping Lois! I mean I know I just said this recently, possibly earlier in this very thread, but DC's most controversial event was about whether it was okay for C-List heroes to mind-wipe a murderer rapist, and yet how many fans just let Superman himself off the hook for mind-wiping an innocent woman who trusts him implicitly? It's totally morally depraved! I'm not even going into the question of whether it makes his sex with her into retroactive date-rape or whatever, because I fundamentally think that either way he's totally violated the most basic right a person can have, to the woman he loves, and he's convinced himself that it's for her own good?! How paternalistic and condescending can you get? Lois would never have agreed to that! In regards to Zod, I am utterly unconcerned with the morality of light-to-moderately injuring a would-be planetary dictator. I mean it's not like Superman took away Zod's powers and then snapped his neck or something.

EDIT: I'm an idiot, he totally killed Zod in the most major cut of that movie. I still don't care, but I shouldn't have used that to argue my point because it's not true.

Okay, rant over.

Superman I's pretty okay at least. It'll never be my favorite Superman movie and I'll probably always consider it overrated, but I don't hate anything about it with that same withering passion as Superman II; I think at least two or three elements are excellent, and ultimately I can easily see why it's so popular. Certainly I see why Reeve is so popular as an actor. He's phenomenal!

Meanwhile, I think that both the TV and film versions of Superman run into a pretty severe problem, which is that they're overly attached to Lois. In Supergirl, Superman says that he doesn't know if he could choose between letting Lois die and saving the day, never mind that one of the things that his most visible influence, Superman the Movie gets absolutely right is that first of all, he'd totally let Lois die to save millions of people, and second of all, it's a false choice and he can save her anyway (never mind that it used a bogus plot device to do that). Also, characters on Supergirl, including himself, compare him to Kara unfavorably, ie "Supergirl is better than Superman", not different, not better at some things but worse at others, but actually totally better as both a character, as a person and as a super-hero in basically all respects. That's crap, I don't care if she's the one the show's named after.

Meanwhile, in the movies, Kal's relationship with Lois is for the most part great, certainly the best in any live action movie- but there's that awkward unavoidable implication that if she died, he'd start working for Darkseid and murder a helpless man for revenge. Yikes. Not great. Honestly, that's only been done well once, in Brave New Metropolis. Lois is a key part of the Superman mythos, and I could see arguing that he'd give up being Clark or something without her, but not that he'd go crazy and take over the world.

I kind of like the one where he moves to space and becomes Maxima's consort after Lois dies, personally.

[Powerboy]

I'm sort of appalled that crushing Zod's hand is worth mentioning, but not mind-wiping Lois! I mean I know I just said this recently, possibly earlier in this very thread, but DC's most controversial event was about whether it was okay for C-List heroes to mind-wipe a murderer rapist, and yet how many fans just let Superman himself off the hook for mind-wiping an innocent woman who trusts him implicitly? It's totally morally depraved! I'm not even going into the question of whether it makes his sex with her into retroactive date-rape or whatever, because I fundamentally think that either way he's totally violated the most basic right a person can have, to the woman he loves, and he's convinced himself that it's for her own good?! How paternalistic and condescending can you get? Lois would never have agreed to that! In regards to Zod, I am utterly unconcerned with the morality of light-to-moderately injuring a would-be planetary dictator. I mean it's not like Superman took away Zod's powers and then snapped his neck or something.

Okay, rant over.

Superman I's pretty okay at least. It'll never be my favorite Superman movie and I'll probably always consider it overrated, but I don't hate anything about it with that same withering passion as Superman II; I think at least two or three elements are excellent, and ultimately I can easily see why it's so popular. Certainly I see why Reeve is so popular as an actor. He's phenomenal!

Meanwhile, I think that both the TV and film versions of Superman run into a pretty severe problem, which is that they're overly attached to Lois. In Supergirl, Superman says that he doesn't know if he could choose between letting Lois die and saving the day, never mind that one of the things that his most visible influence, Superman the Movie gets absolutely right is that first of all, he'd totally let Lois die to save millions of people, and second of all, it's a false choice and he can save her anyway (never mind that it used a bogus plot device to do that). Also, characters on Supergirl, including himself, compare him to Kara unfavorably, ie "Supergirl is better than Superman", not different, not better at some things but worse at others, but actually totally better as both a character, as a person and as a super-hero in basically all respects. That's crap, I don't care if she's the one the show's named after.

Meanwhile, in the movies, Kal's relationship with Lois is for the most part great, certainly the best in any live action movie- but there's that awkward unavoidable implication that if she died, he'd start working for Darkseid and murder a helpless man for revenge. Yikes. Not great. Honestly, that's only been done well once, in Brave New Metropolis. Lois is a key part of the Superman mythos, and I could see arguing that he'd give up being Clark or something without her, but not that he'd go crazy and take over the world.

I kind of like the one where he moves to space and becomes Maxima's consort after Lois dies, personally.

I didn't mention the Amnesia Kiss because it wasn't done for petty, vengeful reasons. If we accept the story as presented, she was having a nervous breakdown and he prevented it. Yes, I know. And by that logic, in story, MoS Superman had to kill Zod.

A minor problem with the Amnesia Kiss is again pulling a new power out of his cape that he never had before and never had again. The big problem is the mentality of the movie makers. He could have told her they would work through this and the 3rd movie could have dealt with this as a major subplot. But they just wanted to do away with the relationship and reset everything to Square One rather than furthering the story. In today's terminology, they hit the reset button. It seems that, in their minds, they had let the Clark/ Lois relationship go too far for dramatic reasons so, in the fashion of episodic television, they had to somehow cancel the situation so that they could have Superman with another woman in the next movie until that relationship also deadended.

The Amnesia Kiss is where the Reeve Superman series deadended for me because that scene told me the story would never evolve. It would just repeat.

As far as best Superman movie ever, I'd still go with the first Reeve Superman movie. What other Superman movie is there for greatest? I love the George Reeves Superman but I'm talking about movies. Again, I actually like a lot of MoS and I'm not even all that upset about his killing Zod given the contrived circumstances. And yes, it probably is the best Clark/ Lois relationship in a movie and it clearly is going to continue and go places, not reset. My issues with Cavill Superman are things like when he stops helping the victims because he's too anxious to find out what was behind the explosion and that takes precedence over saving the victims for him.

I don't consider the Supergirl Superman saying she's better than him to be a problem remotely on the level of some of the stuff the Chris Reeve and Henry Cavill versions did or failed to do.

And I would go on and on but sleep time so I'll leave it for now.

[DochaDocha]

I'm totally over the hand-wringing of the amnesia kiss. If you have ethical issues about paternalistically giving someone mercy amnesia without consent, and thus altering a person's perception of reality, then just think of all the fun we could have nitpicking the ethics of going back in time and warping everyone on Earth's reality. Just imagine all the people who had tragedies happen to them, only to have them undone and then redone, because Superman wanted to save one woman's life. I guess if there were a real-life equivalent to give someone mercy amnesia, I'd probably be more bothered to be appalled, but at some point I would rather just say here's a fantasy story with weird stuff happening.

[Stick Figure]

I'd don't kill the 2nd Superman too much for the kiss thing because that was a less sensitive time I think. Ever watch old tv comedies? The characters yell at each other constantly. Nobody would accept that now. We watch those films now and see brainwashing. I bet the writers didn't think anything like that then. Just a less sophisticated time. I dislike those films because they make Superman look like so corny. It's an image I think the character has only recently escaped.

[Powerboy]

I'd don't kill the 2nd Superman too much for the kiss thing because that was a less sensitive time I think. Ever watch old tv comedies? The characters yell at each other constantly. Nobody would accept that now. We watch those films now and see brainwashing. I bet the writers didn't think anything like that then. Just a less sophisticated time. I dislike those films because they make Superman look like so corny. It's an image I think the character has only recently escaped.

For instance, in the 1950s, there was a show called "The Honeymooners", a comedy where the husband was frequently saying to his wife, "To the Moon, Alice" meaning he would hit her so hard she would land on the Moon. Of course, he never actually hit her and she confronted him with the full knowledge that he wouldn't. I've seen interviews with the actress who said that they really didn't have the cultural awareness back then of how often things like wife abuse really happened.

It's similar to how, in MoS, they make the movie both a super hero movie and a "first contact with alien life" movie and state that the Superman concept is intrinsically a first contact story. But when the first Christopher Reeve Superman was made, movies like "Close Encounters" were also just being made and the idea that a superhero movie like Superman had to focus heavily on the first contact aspect wasn't necessarily even conceived of yet.

Although we don't like to admit it, what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral, are social concepts that develop over time. At the time of the first Superman movie, we just were not socially at the stage where altering someone's memories to prevent them from having a nervous breakdown was somehow wrong. In fact, there would still be a huge debate back and forth considering the why of doing it

[The World]

People liked the TV Supergirl version of Superman because he was the antidote to the bleak, dour, dark, depressed Superman in the Man of Steel and Superman v Batman movies, which lots of people despised.
Basically if they hated the DCEU Superman and loved the Christopher Reeve Superman, they enjoyed the Tyler Hoechlin Superman because that is the Superman most people think of when they think of Superman.

While I don't hate the Cavill version of Superman, I think you are essentially correct. In fact, I'll go one better and say he's better than the Chris Reeve Superman because, so far, Supergirl Superman hasn't crushed the hands of any helpless opponents or beaten up anyone for revenge after they beat him up when he didn't have his powers. But definitely I think Chris Reeve is still the standard every subsequent actor has to live up to and in terms of sheer acting, nobody has beaten him yet. But some of his actions in Superman II are the worst of any live action Superman.

I'll just say that the Superman on the Supergirl show is what most people picture as Superman, not the movie version.

This is fairly disturbing to read. It feels like we're moving backwards in time and regressing on where Superman's standing is and how he's being represented both to the public at large and within the Superman fanblock. Hoechlin!Supes is a fall guy and nothing more, he exist to make other characters look better and nothing else. He has none of the toughness, the cleverness, the unflinching dedication of the character or the skill that Superman should posses. He got lucky on a cosmic roll of the die and put on colorful pajamas. He could not be and never would be a the greatest hero on any world even if there were no other "super" beings on it.

I fear that the seeming constant multimedia failures that have been pinned to Supes is causing the fanbase to give into it's darker impulses wherein we are so desperate for outsider acceptance we'll take even backhanded acceptance. The kind where for Superman to be liked he has to be face down in the dirt, he's the smart kid who has to become a class clown to have friends. Across the 2000's it felt like there was a slow shift where the Superman fanbase got fed up with it and started demanding better for the character and it's starting to feel like we're heading backwards and just looking for any bit of approval from the larger public so that people will say good things about the character. Even if he a joke.

Superman is heading into some turbulent water if Hoechlin!Supes is the gold standard. We're truly in the dark times if the iconic idea of Superman is a bumbling screw up who by his own admission would probably get everyone killed and the fanbase agrees with that depiction.

[Powerboy]

This is fairly disturbing to read. It feels like we're moving backwards in time and regressing on where Superman's standing is and how he's being represented both to the public at large and within the Superman fanblock. Hoechlin!Supes is a fall guy and nothing more, he exist to make other characters look better and nothing else. He has none of the toughness, the cleverness, the unflinching dedication of the character or the skill that Superman should posses. He got lucky on a cosmic roll of the die and put on colorful pajamas. He could not be and never would be a the greatest hero on any world even if there were no other "super" beings on it.

I fear that the seeming constant multimedia failures that have been pinned to Supes is causing the fanbase to give into it's darker impulses wherein we are so desperate for outsider acceptance we'll take even backhanded acceptance. The kind where for Superman to be liked he has to be face down in the dirt, he's the smart kid who has to become a class clown to have friends. Across the 2000's it felt like there was a slow shift where the Superman fanbase got fed up with it and started demanding better for the character and it's starting to feel like we're heading backwards and just looking for any bit of approval from the larger public so that people will say good things about the character. Even if he a joke.

Superman is heading into some turbulent water if Hoechlin!Supes is the gold standard. We're truly in the dark times if the iconic idea of Superman is a bumbling screw up who by his own admission would probably get everyone killed and the fanbase agrees with that depiction.

He's the gold standard only in the sense that he's not a dark, brooding, self-absorbed version of Superman as the movie version is. He's still got the dark costume designed to remind us that every hero should be dark. But other than that, he's got a positive attitude. The movies so completely miss the boat on how the public sees Superman and give us a Superman that few people see as fitting their image of Superman that almost any alternative would have people saying, "Now THAT is what Superman is supposed to be." Supergirl herself, gender aside, is a better image of Superman by magnitudes than movie Superman is. Anything that felt like Superman rather than Batman with flight and heat vision (because Batman is popular so every hero should have a dark costume and be dark, morbid and depressing rather than a beacon of hope) would be a better Superman. CW Flash is a better Superman. CW Supergirl is a better Superman. As I said, that's not moving backwards. That's just comprehending that Superman isn't Batman and what works for one character won't work for another. You don't have to be all "golly gee willikers" and Clark is a cartoon. You can advance what Superman is with the times. But that's not the same as just trying to completely go against what he is because it sells.

Putting it another way, back when Michael Keaton first played Batman, I said to a friend of mine that if this dark approach catches on and sells, before long, they'll do a dark Superman where they present him more like Batman. My friend said that was ridiculous. Superman is a totally different character. They'd have to be stupid enough to think that just because it works for Batman means it will work for Superman and that will never happen. Yet, here we are.

I don't like Supergirl Superman for his failings. I like him for at least being Superman. And you are vastly overselling his failings just because he is the guest star.

[Agniwolf]

He's the gold standard only in the sense that he's not a dark, brooding, self-absorbed version of Superman as the movie version is. He's still got the dark costume designed to remind us that every hero should be dark. But other than that, he's got a positive attitude. The movies so completely miss the boat on how the public sees Superman and give us a Superman that few people see as fitting their image of Superman that almost any alternative would have people saying, "Now THAT is what Superman is supposed to be." Supergirl herself, gender aside, is a better image of Superman by magnitudes than movie Superman is. Anything that felt like Superman rather than Batman with flight and heat vision (because Batman is popular so every hero should have a dark costume and be dark, morbid and depressing rather than a beacon of hope) would be a better Superman. CW Flash is a better Superman. CW Supergirl is a better Superman. As I said, that's not moving backwards. That's just comprehending that Superman isn't Batman and what works for one character won't work for another. You don't have to be all "golly gee willikers" and Clark is a cartoon. You can advance what Superman is with the times. But that's not the same as just trying to completely go against what he is because it sells.

Putting it another way, back when Michael Keaton first played Batman, I said to a friend of mine that if this dark approach catches on and sells, before long, they'll do a dark Superman where they present him more like Batman. My friend said that was ridiculous. Superman is a totally different character. They'd have to be stupid enough to think that just because it works for Batman means it will work for Superman and that will never happen. Yet, here we are.

I don't like Supergirl Superman for his failings. I like him for at least being Superman. And you are vastly overselling his failings just because he is the guest star.

wereas you see dark brooding and etc in movie superman (mos, i suppose) i see a superman whose actions are somewhat rooted on how homanity would react to it in our contemporary and cruel times, superman comes as a way to show that if he was rooted in reality his actions would bring consequences both positive and negative, taking the negative as modus operanti of humanity while he tries to resist and change it but the world is too big. while other heroes just go "save the day" and their actions almost never bring large scales consequences because by doing so would make them "dark"

yes it is fiction but the perception that saving the day something simple when dealing with the big picture is just making their actions like routine instead of dealing with the problems in the first place

[Soubhagya]

This is fairly disturbing to read. It feels like we're moving backwards in time and regressing on where Superman's standing is and how he's being represented both to the public at large and within the Superman fanblock. Hoechlin!Supes is a fall guy and nothing more, he exist to make other characters look better and nothing else. He has none of the toughness, the cleverness, the unflinching dedication of the character or the skill that Superman should posses. He got lucky on a cosmic roll of the die and put on colorful pajamas. He could not be and never would be a the greatest hero on any world even if there were no other "super" beings on it.

I fear that the seeming constant multimedia failures that have been pinned to Supes is causing the fanbase to give into it's darker impulses wherein we are so desperate for outsider acceptance we'll take even backhanded acceptance. The kind where for Superman to be liked he has to be face down in the dirt, he's the smart kid who has to become a class clown to have friends. Across the 2000's it felt like there was a slow shift where the Superman fanbase got fed up with it and started demanding better for the character and it's starting to feel like we're heading backwards and just looking for any bit of approval from the larger public so that people will say good things about the character. Even if he a joke.

Superman is heading into some turbulent water if Hoechlin!Supes is the gold standard. We're truly in the dark times if the iconic idea of Superman is a bumbling screw up who by his own admission would probably get everyone killed and the fanbase agrees with that depiction.

Just to clarify i don't like the character as shown there. No way Superman is such that he would let world go bust while he saves Lois. That's terrible writing. But the acting? That's another matter. I sincerely love his performance. He is totally entertaining. If he would have his show he would not be the 'fall guy' as people say of him. This from a fan who saw Man of Steel before Superman The Movie. I don't have any love for Routh's performance too which seemed to ape Reeve. Routh hit the right notes few times. But its a miss overall. Cavill is totally different. He is okay to good. But i am not entertained if it makes sense.

[superduperman]

To be fair to the Supergirl Superman, we don't know much about him because it's not his show. We don't get to see much of him. He's a concept more than he is a person. We know that he knew the Danvers when he was younger and that he left Kara with them for that reason and apparently he was a member of the Legion at some point because he had one of their rings in his fortress. That's it. That's really all we know. Supposedly his parents are dead. When he first appeared last year everyone got excited and then when he showed up again at the end of the season, they went out of their way to make her look good. I do wonder if his popularity at the beginning of the season might have something to do with why they felt the need to take him down a peg. Keep it her show.

Returns simply was a bad idea. It was a nostalgia grab, nothing more.

[Powerboy]

wereas you see dark brooding and etc in movie superman (mos, i suppose) i see a superman whose actions are somewhat rooted on how homanity would react to it in our contemporary and cruel times, superman comes as a way to show that if he was rooted in reality his actions would bring consequences both positive and negative, taking the negative as modus operanti of humanity while he tries to resist and change it but the world is too big. while other heroes just go "save the day" and their actions almost never bring large scales consequences because by doing so would make them "dark"

yes it is fiction but the perception that saving the day something simple when dealing with the big picture is just making their actions like routine instead of dealing with the problems in the first place

I like the part about how the world- more specifically, the United States- would really react. In a nation where half the country has a kneejerk reaction to illegal immigrants and an equally kneejerk and religiously and culturally phobic reaction to anybody from the Middle East, a "If one of them did it, they all did it" reaction (that generalizing kind of reaction being one of the essences of bigotry), it's totally realistic how people react to Superman in MoS.

The problem is his failings. Not only does he not seem to do much of anything to try to move the fights away from civilians getting killed but he continues a similar pattern in the next movie. He puts a guy through a wall when he probably could have used a much less deadly method to save Lois so killing Zod doesn't seem to have invoked a "Never again" attitude. But his really poor judgement continues when he starts helping with rescue attempts but gets frustrated because he wanted to find out who set that bomb and just leaves right in the middle of the rescues. Hey so some people maybe die in the rubble because he's frustrated. No big deal, I guess?

Outside of hero worship for no reason except he's a celebrity and one with powers, there's no more reason for some people to worship him or whatever than there is with any rock star.

And this is the guy who supposedly will bring humanity into light and hope according to the premise of the MoS Superman movies themselves. Right after he gets done walking away from rescues because he's preoccupied with other things. He's well meaning but he's not just a sad excuse for Superman. He's a sad excuse for anybody with those kinds of powers. Given those powers, I wouldn't walk away when there are still people in the rubble and rescuing is still needed and probably neither would you. He's a pathetic imitation of a hero let alone Superman.

[Agniwolf]

I like the part about how the world- more specifically, the United States- would really react. In a nation where half the country has a kneejerk reaction to illegal immigrants and an equally kneejerk and religiously and culturally phobic reaction to anybody from the Middle East, a "If one of them did it, they all did it" reaction (that generalizing kind of reaction being one of the essences of bigotry), it's totally realistic how people react to Superman in MoS.

The problem is his failings. Not only does he not seem to do much of anything to try to move the fights away from civilians getting killed but he continues a similar pattern in the next movie. He puts a guy through a wall when he probably could have used a much less deadly method to save Lois so killing Zod doesn't seem to have invoked a "Never again" attitude. But his really poor judgement continues when he starts helping with rescue attempts but gets frustrated because he wanted to find out who set that bomb and just leaves right in the middle of the rescues. Hey so some people maybe die in the rubble because he's frustrated. No big deal, I guess?

Outside of hero worship for no reason except he's a celebrity and one with powers, there's no more reason for some people to worship him or whatever than there is with any rock star.

And this is the guy who supposedly will bring humanity into light and hope according to the premise of the MoS Superman movies themselves. Right after he gets done walking away from rescues because he's preoccupied with other things. He's well meaning but he's not just a sad excuse for Superman. He's a sad excuse for anybody with those kinds of powers. Given those powers, I wouldn't walk away when there are still people in the rubble and rescuing is still needed and probably neither would you. He's a pathetic imitation of a hero let alone Superman.

that is an unfair judgemente of the situation, zod was keen on terminanting humanity, it is not like he would move away because superman asked him because of the dangers, also the capitol scene is pretty much that everyone died there and even if there was someone there the public opinion was so much negative just outside the building that the risk of a revolt could potentialy create more victims than the supposed survivors that you are supposing exist, and for the sad excuse, remember that superman helps people because he wants to, there was never an obligation, and even if there was one it was always self-imposed, he saves because he can not because is his obligation. as for the i/you would do this or that we will never know because we dont have those powers. either me or you could very well go star-system domination with those powers because "power corrupts"

[Powerboy]

that is an unfair judgemente of the situation, zod was keen on terminanting humanity, it is not like he would move away because superman asked him because of the dangers, also the capitol scene is pretty much that everyone died there and even if there was someone there the public opinion was so much negative just outside the building that the risk of a revolt could potentialy create more victims than the supposed survivors that you are supposing exist, and for the sad excuse, remember that superman helps people because he wants to, there was never an obligation, and even if there was one it was always self-imposed, he saves because he can not because is his obligation. as for the i/you would do this or that we will never know because we dont have those powers. either me or you could very well go star-system domination with those powers because "power corrupts"

But with the Kryptonians, we don't really even see an attempt to move the fight away. But that can be marked as inexperience. In the second movie, the implication is clearly that there were survivors in the vicinity but that Superman gets frustrated and just leaves because he wants to know who is behind it. That he was helping with the rescue seemed to cause a positive reaction. Certainly, the television reporter seemed to present it that way. His up and leaving seems to have generated a more negative reaction and it seemed like Luthor predicted everything he would do possibly including that he would get frustrated and leave at a certain point.

To say that he isn't obligated but wants to is part of any concept of Superman. That he just ups and leaves while the rescue attempts continue? Well, he's way below the Superman average then. Way below. He just makes choices that seem to most people just are not Superman choices. It puts him below a lot of real life people, not just other versions of Superman.

I also really liked the early parts of MoS where he's sort of a mythical figure working secretly, helping people. It's almost as if he's better before he puts on the costume and goes public.

[The World]

He's the gold standard only in the sense that he's not a dark, brooding, self-absorbed version of Superman as the movie version is. He's still got the dark costume designed to remind us that every hero should be dark.

Dark, brooding, and even pitiful sure I can see of Cavil's Superman but I don't see the self absorbed stuff. Honestly the Lois bit from Hoechlin!Supes made me see that guy as much closer to self concerned than any of the recent Supermen baring Superman Returns Superman. Frankly Hoechlins too much of a nothing character anyways to be a gold standard Superman. He's a vapor of a character that exist to prop up another one. He a powerful piece of furniture or an electrical appliance. All we really know is that he sucks at actually being Superman.

But other than that, he's got a positive attitude.

That's one aspect of a much larger character. If he's bombing in all sorts of other areas and succeeding in one then he's an F student.

The movies so completely miss the boat on how the public sees Superman and give us a Superman that few people see as fitting their image of Superman that almost any alternative would have people saying, "Now THAT is what Superman is supposed to be."

The failings of the tv show Superman are independent of the failings of the movie Superman. Frankly I think it's much more prudent for DC to build a Superman that's representational of the best of the comics Superman and stop relying on vague "feelings" from the public. They need to start building a more concrete image of who Superman is rather than who he is being either general ideas or even worse stereotypes based on elements of his mythos. His character needs to step back from how generic he's become.

Anything that felt like Superman rather than Batman with flight and heat vision (because Batman is popular so every hero should have a dark costume and be dark, morbid and depressing rather than a beacon of hope) would be a better Superman.

People keep tossing this thing about how Superman was just Batman with flight and heat vision. Since the 60's Bruce has run a gauntlet of different characterizations and set ups. But that's because Bruce seems to be a dynamic character compared to the increasingly diluted and starched approached that DC has given to Superman. Where as Bruce's existence overtime has become people coming up to the plate to experiment and do exciting new things Superman has been people coming up to slowly whittle the character down to increasingly vague concepts. Postive, good, and country are all that seems to be left of a character that once expanded a great range of possibilities.

CW Flash is a better Superman. CW Supergirl is a better Superman. As I said, that's not moving backwards. That's just comprehending that Superman isn't Batman and what works for one character won't work for another. You don't have to be all "golly gee willikers" and Clark is a cartoon. You can advance what Superman is with the times. But that's not the same as just trying to completely go against what he is because it sells.

And what are these qualifiers for being a good Superman besides being positive? You're boiling these characters that span decades down to a few traits and seemingly little more. Frankly the ideal Superman would probably have knocked Hoechlin's block off

Putting it another way, back when Michael Keaton first played Batman, I said to a friend of mine that if this dark approach catches on and sells, before long, they'll do a dark Superman where they present him more like Batman. My friend said that was ridiculous. Superman is a totally different character. They'd have to be stupid enough to think that just because it works for Batman means it will work for Superman and that will never happen. Yet, here we are.

Batman's been kicking Superman's ass all up and down the block chiefly because the character can go anywhere and do anything he pleases. He's informed by the richness of his own 75+ years of publication while Superman is informed by "feelings".

I don't like Supergirl Superman for his failings. I like him for at least being Superman. And you are vastly overselling his failings just because he is the guest star.

He's a bum. I'm sorry but my understanding of Superman has been informed by the ingenuity, skill, cleverness and strength. I might have even been able stomach all of that being absent if the guy wasn't some shmuck who can be felled by "having to risk Lois". He's there to take a dive and that's fine, it's Supergirl's show but we shouldn't be encouraging this garbage at all.