Zack Snyder on his critics: "You're living in an f-ing dreamworld!"

[JAK]

So are the versions of the Kents that appear in MoS and BvS but that didn't stop people crying foul. And the person I was replying didn't care about the canon status of Hippolyta's characterization. They flat out said they'd never read a WW comic before.

You'd have to swing pretty loose with most versions of canon (Golden Age above aside) to get the Kents where they are in MoS. I personally didn't mind the take on the Kents necessarily (though I can see why some would hate it), but Hippolyta seems closer to her source counterpart than the Kents are.

[Agent Z]

You'd have to swing pretty loose with canon to get the Kents where they are in MoS. I personally didn't mind the take on the Kents necessarily (though I can see why some would hate it), but Hippolyta seems closer to her source counterpart than the Kents are.

Look at the post above you. And again, the argument was not about whether or not this Hippolyta was canon to the comics. It's the double standard of people going on and on about how evil the Kents are.

[manwhohaseverything]

You'd have to swing pretty loose with most versions of canon (Golden Age above aside) to get the Kents where they are in MoS. I personally didn't mind the take on the Kents necessarily (though I can see why some would hate it), but Hippolyta seems closer to her source counterpart than the Kents are.

Why should it be put aside? Goldenage superman will always matter. golden superman was pretty damn cool like tintin. If snyder takes inspiration from it. He is only doing what byrne did albeit in his weird way.
Aside from the above snyder had taken inspiration from earth one, secret origins, byrne reboot, even though waid hates this interpretation some birthright. So, does canon argument stand. I don't think so. That tornado thing happened in for all seasons but in a different way.

[JAK]

Why does canon even matter any way? I mean, the original Clark's parents are john and mary. It is not Jonathan and martha.
Post crisis version or even donner one of Clark's adopted parents is just an interpretation. Like man of steel version is. prior takes mentioned has no authority over man of steel version to dictate it or claim superiority unless creator namely snyder wills it.
See what jerry and siegel's kents tell clark to do. They say to hide his abilities, until a proper time.precisley what snyder did.look, nobody should fault snyder of not researching or even loving the character. I believe, he has more knowledge than many fans here. And loves the character as much as any fan. He hold superman in a pedestal.

It does and it doesn't. As I said before, I didn't have much problem with the Kents' characterization (aside from the "maybe" line a *tiny* bit) as they were in MoS (my biggest fault with them is Pa's death scene). Certain things, which will be different for everybody, can change and nobody makes much fuss. Others change and the character runs the risk of not being the character anymore (again, ymmv). And I don't even think that was the problem with Clark himself so much as what we were presented with and how - with a few (imo key) differences.

I know Snyder did his homework. That much is obvious. I can't agree that he loves the character as much as any fan, though. If he does, then he doesn't (imo) understand Superman. Others will absolutely feel differently about that, and that's totally fine and they have every right to feel that way. I just don't agree. Maybe if I knew what kind of movie he'd make without any direction from WB/DC, I'd feel differently. But it's very likely that we'll never know that for sure.

[JAK]

Why should it be put aside? Goldenage superman will always matter. golden superman was pretty damn cool like tintin. If snyder takes inspiration from it. He is only doing what byrne did albeit in his weird way.
Aside from the above snyder had taken inspiration from earth one, secret origins, byrne reboot, even though waid hates this interpretation some birthright. So, does canon argument stand. I don't think so. That tornado thing happened in for all seasons but in a different way.

It's not a judgement call on that, I'm just saying why people would react the way they reacted to them in MoS. Of course Golden Age Superman will always matter. Heck, I wrote a draft movie version where he was raised in the orphanage - I'm sure people would absolutely hate that, lol

I'm just saying that the Golden Age isn't what most people are familiar with, hence their reaction. Not that it's better/worse/etc.

And there's no defending that tornado scene with me - unless you make the actor younger and not use Cavill. I just can't picture him not trying anything (not saying he has to succeed), it strikes me as against his character both in general and in the film (and I've gone 1,000 rounds about that on the board already and it hasn't swayed me yet).

[JAK]

Look at the post above you. And again, the argument was not about whether or not this Hippolyta was canon to the comics. It's the double standard of people going on and on about how evil the Kents are.

Oh, you missed my edits. That's my bad, sorry about that!

What I'm saying isn't that people are right, just understanding why they reacted how they did. Part of people "knowing" Superman's origin better is the fleas come with the dog, as it were.

[manwhohaseverything]

I know Snyder did his homework. That much is obvious. I can't agree that he loves the character as much as any fan, though. If he does, then he doesn't (imo) understand Superman. Others will absolutely feel differently about that, and that's totally fine and they have every right to feel that way. I just don't agree. Maybe if I knew what kind of movie he'd make without any direction from WB/DC, I'd feel differently. But it's very likely that we'll never know that for sure.

Again, i think he does.you might think he is batman fan like timm. But, he is not. I have never seen him talk about batman in interviews the way he does superman . I remember hearing snyder doing charity with his superman stuff(especially, after his daughter's death) . The guy has social anxiety and stuff. Cut him some slack. He has expressed time and time again his love.

And a pre crisis fan would say the same about post crisis fans. That they don't get superman And vice versa. There is noway test some ones love for the character other than his actions.

Snyder has his own philosophical positions and standing. So naturally his superman is filtered through that lens. Tornado scene makes sense otherwise Jonathan is a hypocrite who does not follow his own rules. He died with honor and integrity. The kid's(clark) existence could essentially start a world war three if his secret got out before he was ready.

snyder is very valid in his views and is honest about it. I mean, its not like Bryne or other creators hadn't filtered superman through their own philosophical positions and political views. So, why should snyder be blamed for having biases like the others. Bryne even made superman be born on earth. I have explained why and how kents are utilitarian and moral libertarians in this movie in this very thread.you can check it out if you wish.

Snyder was just trying to make kent into existentialist, utilitarian and moral libertarians.i mean the whole "be their hero, be their monument, be their angel. Or be none of it. you don't owe this world a damn thing. You never did" speech. Basically, reflects that. "maybe, There is more at stake than just our lives. There is the lives everyone around us. When the world finds out what you can do. It's going to change everything.our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human " from pa kent also pushes that. It's pretty harsh utilitarian perspective.

Zack snyder had a logic behind making the kents utilitarians. The reasoning is very simple. Clark's senses and his inability to match his senses.Clark would always have to make utilitarian choices. Not just based on some kantian ethics.
"My parents taught me to home my senses, Zod. Focus on just what I wanted to see, without your helmet, you're getting everything. And it hurts, doesn't it?!"
Keep in mind, clark takes both. Consequences of a man with such greatness as clark is much more than anyone else.so, it matters a million times more. This what pa tries to teach him
"You’re not just anyone. One day, you’re gonna have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad... he's gonna change the world."
This what the movie makes clark responsible for the destruction of Metropolis and smallville caused by his "leap of faith" and "you think you can threaten my mother" .
There isn't anything that states.snyder can't do this. Any superman had his share of departures from original guy. So, "aren't" argument doesn't hold weight.

Pa doesn't teach him fear his otherness. He makes clark see that the world is cruel and his otherness might not be welcome.
"My father believed that if the world found out who I really was they'd reject me out of fear. He was convinced that the world wasn't ready. What do you think?"
And there is truth to it. World will never be ready for a flying alien to serve truth and justice.i mean, people hate superman being a little rough. They say he is too powerfull for that. In order for clark to be moral he has to be like postcrisis or may be the all star version of the character. But, the truth is that's just not possible. We are human. Clark is human. "notions of what it means to be human". In fact, he asks clark to pursue and find his otherside. If it wasn't for Jonathan kent there wouldn't be a" kal el".
"You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father, and he sent you here for a reason. And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is"

That is the point utilitarianism.Again,saving pa has consequences. If Clark's choices are more destructive then, is saving pa the moral choice like kantian ethics dictate? . Pa believes for the greater good he should be " dieing for no reason at all".it makes bruce look like a moron. Clark's parents did also teach him "existentialism" like his own parents.bear in mind clark himself is less of utilitarian. He choses to take the "leap of faith" /kantian(cough! Cough! Christian) ethic. He choses to save his mom martha over "other hundreds of screaming people of agony" in bvs /kantian ethic. And also jor el says "you can save all of them" (cough! Cough! Jesus christ pose)

The goal of utilitarian is to make choices that bring happiness to maximum number of people. Since, it cannot be done to everyone and everytime but the reverse is possible . Ma asks him to be none it. If it is makes himself and others unhappy. Since, it was making himself unhappy. And the people were clearly unhappy. So, ma asked him to stop if everyone is unhappy. Why does clark "have" to be responsible to help? Why doesn't he get a choice? Because of what? Power. That's just nonsense argument. If a person who can sing decided to stop singing. Does that make him immoral? He should not be helping due to some burden of responsibility or duty but his own free will. Clark should do the right thing not because he has to, but he wants to. The point of movie was always the importance of "chance" and "choice".
"Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious, the element of choice, of chance."
Kents fought for clark to have his choices. The same thing jor el and lara did with normal birth .

The movie gives clark two perspectives.
One) utilitarian and existentialist perspective of ma and pa kent.
Two) based on kantian and Christian ethics which is from jor el and lara, Also the priest.
Bare in mind this is not strict distinction since the kents and els have both taken the other choice. Anyways in the movie, clark embodies the best of both worlds.

"No, you are as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds. The dream your mother and I dedicated our lives to preserve."

He became "superman" by combining these perspectives and rising above them both. Sure, he may take actions that may favor one side over the other. But, it depends on the situation.But, clark is to rise above both these perspectives of their respective societies And answer jor el's question "What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater?" The answer is we get a superman.

If you ask me, this whole thing is because of people's notions of "classic superman".goldenage guy is pretty rough.

[Robanker]

Again, i think he does.you might think he is batman fan like timm. But, he is not. I have never seen him talk about batman in interviews the way he does superman . I remember hearing snyder doing charity with his superman stuff(especially, after his daughter's death) . The guy has social anxiety and stuff. Cut him some slack. He has expressed time and time again his love.

And a pre crisis fan would say the same about post crisis fans. That they don't get superman And vice versa. There is noway test some ones love for the character other than his actions.

Snyder has his own philosophical positions and standing. So naturally his superman is filtered through that lens. Tornado scene makes sense otherwise Jonathan is a hypocrite who does not follow his own rules. He died with honor and integrity. The kid's(clark) existence could essentially start a world war three if his secret got out before he was ready.

snyder is very valid in his views and is honest about it. I mean, its not like Bryne or other creators hadn't filtered superman through their own philosophical positions and political views. So, why should snyder be blamed for having biases like the others. Bryne even made superman be born on earth. I have explained why and how kents are utilitarian and moral libertarians in this movie in this very thread.you can check it out if you wish.










If you ask me, this whole thing is because of people's notions of "classic superman".goldenage guy is pretty rough.

Much as Snyder, people are allowed to have their bias for which they prefer and consider their truest incarnation of Superman. Personally? I cannot jive with a Pa Kent who tells Clark to let people get hurt just to protect himself. Yes, yes, he told him to hide to prevent fear of him in the golden age, but that's no longer really Pa Kent just as Diana doesn't lose her powers when bound. The golden age Superman threatened to splatter a dude's skull if he wouldn't talk. That's pretty rough, a bit more than I'm personally comfortable with. I like my Superman to be a bit rougher around the edges than the All-American paragon, someone with a mischievous side and sense of humor. He's supposed to be the best of us taken to an extreme, not a milquetoast ideal.


Is Snyder's take on Superman valid? Sure, if you care for it. I don't... But I believe the discussion was about Batman (funny how these are the two extremes each discussion of Clark comes to). Both are endemic of a bigger albatross that seems even Clark cannot lift from his own neck: the burden of making Superman appear modern and interesting to new audiences... And I do mean burden, for it's taken as one. He's inherently viewed as a childish power fantasy that can only be made adult with hefty cynicism, and yet Peter Quill dominated the box office by being an overgrown child. I just don't understand how so many adults are afraid of realizing that they can like something inherently silly (like superheroes) and still enjoy them as literature while acknowledging how preposterous the notion is.

Nothing about a Green Lantern ring makes any lick of sense. It's also goddamned cool. Superman lifts a city that exists inside the center of a technicolor supernova? Dope. Revel in it. Perhaps I'm in the wrong, but wasn't that part of the fun when we were all children? That we knew it was impossible and didn't care anyway? Batman is unique because he's the blindspot. People love the Batmobile (outside Arkham Knight) and yet it never has to deal with traffic in what is among the densest population centers in the entire country? Who cares. It's a rad car. Let's see it be rad. Superman is here? YAWN, how does he even fly? Superman is likely past the point of resurgence. I don't even know if it's possible for him to have one anymore, the well may have become too poisoned from years of mismanagement and excessive portrayals of him being beaten, humbled or driven under heel as some metaphor for godhood that humanity must overcome using Batman as their champion. His symbol, be it as hope, a god or some form of government tool (which is possibly the biggest misunderstanding of him imaginable) is always going to be the biggest thing holding him back.

Morrison once wrote that Clark felt he can never live up to his legend, and sadly it's true, because his legend is the man who will never let us down; the paragon. The man of tomorrow, akin to a sun god, who chooses to be a man can never be allowed to be a character. It's a tragedy.

I'm convinced humans are Anti-Life itself more and more as I get older. If Barry is to generate Speed Force, we generate Anti-Life. I, for one, welcome our new Apokoliptian overlord.

[Agent Z]

Much as Snyder, people are allowed to have their bias for which they prefer and consider their truest incarnation of Superman. Personally? I cannot jive with a Pa Kent who tells Clark to let people get hurt just to protect himself. Yes, yes, he told him to hide to prevent fear of him in the golden age, but that's no longer really Pa Kent just as Diana doesn't lose her powers when bound. The golden age Superman threatened to splatter a dude's skull if he wouldn't talk. That's pretty rough, a bit more than I'm personally comfortable with. I like my Superman to be a bit rougher around the edges than the All-American paragon, someone with a mischievous side and sense of humor. He's supposed to be the best of us taken to an extreme, not a milquetoast ideal.


Is Snyder's take on Superman valid? Sure, if you care for it. I don't... But I believe the discussion was about Batman (funny how these are the two extremes each discussion of Clark comes to). Both are endemic of a bigger albatross that seems even Clark cannot lift from his own neck: the burden of making Superman appear modern and interesting to new audiences... And I do mean burden, for it's taken as one. He's inherently viewed as a childish power fantasy that can only be made adult with hefty cynicism, and yet Peter Quill dominated the box office by being an overgrown child. I just don't understand how so many adults are afraid of realizing that they can like something inherently silly (like superheroes) and still enjoy them as literature while acknowledging how preposterous the notion is.

Nothing about a Green Lantern ring makes any lick of sense. It's also goddamned cool. Superman lifts a city that exists inside the center of a technicolor supernova? Dope. Revel in it. Perhaps I'm in the wrong, but wasn't that part of the fun when we were all children? That we knew it was impossible and didn't care anyway? Batman is unique because he's the blindspot. People love the Batmobile (outside Arkham Knight) and yet it never has to deal with traffic in what is among the densest population centers in the entire country? Who cares. It's a rad car. Let's see it be rad. Superman is here? YAWN, how does he even fly? Superman is likely past the point of resurgence. I don't even know if it's possible for him to have one anymore, the well may have become too poisoned from years of mismanagement and excessive portrayals of him being beaten, humbled or driven under heel as some metaphor for godhood that humanity must overcome using Batman as their champion. His symbol, be it as hope, a god or some form of government tool (which is possibly the biggest misunderstanding of him imaginable) is always going to be the biggest thing holding him back.

Morrison once wrote that Clark felt he can never live up to his legend, and sadly it's true, because his legend is the man who will never let us down; the paragon. The man of tomorrow, akin to a sun god, who chooses to be a man can never be allowed to be a character. It's a tragedy.

I'm convinced humans are Anti-Life itself more and more as I get older. If Barry is to generate Speed Force, we generate Anti-Life. I, for one, welcome our new Apokoliptian overlord.

Peter Quill was not the only character on Guardians of the Galaxy. I doubt he'd make a billion dollar movie on his own and I doubt Superman being written to act like him is going to make him popular. It certainly didn't help the Green Lantern movie. There's a difference between something that can appeal to children and something being childishly written.

And if Morrison said that Clark can't live up to his own legend, well, I'm not sure why it's an issue that he can't. Then again, I'd say that Superman's own legend is his true enemy.

[manwhohaseverything]

Much as Snyder, people are allowed to have their bias for which they prefer and consider their truest incarnation of Superman. Personally? I cannot jive with a Pa Kent who tells Clark to let people get hurt just to protect himself. Yes, yes, he told him to hide to prevent fear of him in the golden age, but that's no longer really Pa Kent just as Diana doesn't lose her powers when bound. The golden age Superman threatened to splatter a dude's skull if he wouldn't talk. That's pretty rough, a bit more than I'm personally comfortable with. I like my Superman to be a bit rougher around the edges than the All-American paragon, someone with a mischievous side and sense of humor. He's supposed to be the best of us taken to an extreme, not a milquetoast ideal.


Is Snyder's take on Superman valid? Sure, if you care for it. I don't... But I believe the discussion was about Batman (funny how these are the two extremes each discussion of Clark comes to). Both are endemic of a bigger albatross that seems even Clark cannot lift from his own neck: the burden of making Superman appear modern and interesting to new audiences... And I do mean burden, for it's taken as one. He's inherently viewed as a childish power fantasy that can only be made adult with hefty cynicism, and yet Peter Quill dominated the box office by being an overgrown child. I just don't understand how so many adults are afraid of realizing that they can like something inherently silly (like superheroes) and still enjoy them as literature while acknowledging how preposterous the notion is.

Nothing about a Green Lantern ring makes any lick of sense. It's also goddamned cool. Superman lifts a city that exists inside the center of a technicolor supernova? Dope. Revel in it. Perhaps I'm in the wrong, but wasn't that part of the fun when we were all children? That we knew it was impossible and didn't care anyway? Batman is unique because he's the blindspot. People love the Batmobile (outside Arkham Knight) and yet it never has to deal with traffic in what is among the densest population centers in the entire country? Who cares. It's a rad car. Let's see it be rad. Superman is here? YAWN, how does he even fly?

I'm convinced humans are Anti-Life itself more and more as I get older.

But, it isn't about just clark. It is about everyone else around him. I feel like i am going in circles here. Utilitarian perspective comes into play here. What if Clark's decision to reveal himself by saving pa or the school bus cause more deaths than the people he saved. Will Clark's action be considered moral? Kant would say, yes. Because for kant intentions are more valuable and judge of morality. A utilitarian would say no. Here, the outcome is what matters. There is bigger chance of Clark's reveal causing chaos than anything else. Clark needs to be ready when he reveals himself. so, that he can face the chaos, make something of it and covert it to order.

People just need to keep their notions what is superman aside. Because otherwise, some will say superman is jesus,Others will say he is satan and everything in between. I am talking in and out of story here. That was the point of bvs. Clark was, is and always will be just a dude from kansas trying to do the right thing. not because of obligation. but, because of voluntary choice.

And i hate this attitude towards golden age and everything (both good and bad) in that first 10 years molded by three very influential people Jerry, max and joe. It matters. It is not an afterthought. Goldenage age pa(john kent) is was and always will be the original kent. And the original superman will always be that guy. Goldenage guy wasn't just a powerfantasy but that was also a part of him.
What is so bad about that? I mean, it is just a threat. Fear is one of the weapons golden age guy used against the corrupt to protect the weak. Like batman which is stolen /copied(yes,batman took the fear aspect from superman man). Only the hope aspect remained. He is at the core a vigilante strong-man . Superman is and always will be at the end of the day a vigilante. Nothing more, nothing less. Every version of the character takes law into his own hands

[Robanker]

Peter Quill was not the only character on Guardians of the Galaxy. I doubt he'd make a billion dollar movie on his own and I doubt Superman being written to act like him is going to make him popular. It certainly didn't help the Green Lantern movie. There's a difference between something that can appeal to children and something being childishly written.

And if Morrison said that Clark can't live up to his own legend, well, I'm not sure why it's an issue that he can't. Then again, I'd say that Superman's own legend is his true enemy.

Sure, but he's undoubtedly the star. Moreover, yes, there's a difference but superheroes cannot be held to the tightest of scrutiny because they just do not make sense on any level. Where do the infinite resources come from to rebuild the city? How does anyone justify living in a city with a hero? If Superman is punched across Metropolis at supersonic speed, doesn't that shatter windows? Does the glass kill people? Has he never broken wind in his sleep and knocked out a city wall? Does Batman really never leave any DNA on a crime scene? How has Barry not eaten Central and Keystone City's entire food supplies for how much energy he has to expend? How do any of these heroes save people falling from buildings? How does nobody shoot Batman in his mouth? You mean to tell me the mob doesn't set up 40 snipers around a kill zone, lead Batman there and throw a baby off a building knowing full well he'd try and save it? How does Superman even lift an ocean liner without it crushing under its own weight or him punching right through it? How can he gently put it down without creating a quake that kills civilians? How does Themyscira stay isolated in a world where satellites, heat maps and tracing Steve's plane's last trajectory would reveal its location, submarines and aircraft carriers could rest outside their borders and lock them in or simply invade? What, people are suddenly groovy for that island alone? Gorilla City? Dinosaur Island? Giganta certainly doesn't need to adhere to the square-cube law.

None of it holds up. So we need to collectively stop trying to make things realistic and just go for "believable within the world we've set up." It's childish to try and force our fantasies to actually exist when they're predicated on men flying while holding a city. It's fantasy, science fantasy or pure high-octane nonsense, but it's not meant to be taken too damn seriously.

But, it isn't about just clark. It is about everyone else around him. I feel like i am going in circles here. Utilitarian perspective comes into play here. What if Clark's decision to reveal himself by saving pa or the school bus cause more deaths than the people he saved. Will Clark's action be considered moral? Kant would say, yes. Because for kant intentions are more valuable and judge of morality. A utilitarian would say no. Here, the outcome is what matters. There is bigger chance of Clark's reveal causing chaos than anything else. Clark needs to be ready when he reveals himself. so, that he can face the chaos, make something of it and covert it to order.

People just need to keep their notions what is superman aside. Because otherwise, some will say superman is jesus,Others will say he is satan and everything in between. I am talking in and out of story here. That was the point of bvs. Clark was, is and always will be just a dude from kansas trying to do the right thing. not because of obligation. but, because of voluntary choice.

And i hate this attitude towards golden age and everything (both good and bad) in that first 10 years molded by three very influential people Jerry, max and joe. It matters. It is not an afterthought. Goldenage age pa(john kent) is was and always will be the original kent. And the original superman will always be that guy. Goldenage guy wasn't just a powerfantasy but that was also a part of him.
What is so bad about that? I mean, it is just a threat. Fear is one of the weapons golden age guy used against the corrupt to protect the weak. You know like how batman copied this from superman(yes,superman took the fear aspect from batman). Only the hope aspect remained . He is at the core a vigilante strong-man . Superman is and always will be at the end of the day a vigilante. Nothing more, nothing less. Every version of the character takes law into his own hands

There are eras he straight up was not just a guy from Kansas. He was pretty much the space man who vacationed there as a baby. He viewed himself as Kryptonian primarily and while he loved his human parents, he was an alien.

Yes, the golden age is extremely important to Clark, Pa and hell, superhero comics in general. Nobody is refuting that. But to refute the next 70 years of publishing history is equally foolish. The characters have evolved over time.

Furthermore, you can't demand people cast their notions of Clark aside while asserting your own about how the first ten years matter enough to "is, was, and always will be" (and you're doing that a lot as if you're the authority on a character you're asking people not act as if they're authorities on) as if it's the truest incarnation of a character that is owned by a corporate entity. That's certainly the truest incarnation for his creators, or is it?

800px-Reign_of_the_Superman.jpg

Perhaps people refine their ideas over time. I would argue that Superman isn't a utilitarian and neither should the Kents be. Snyder did, and I hated his take on the character. So that's my bias. Some love Man of Steel and good for them, I'm glad they can enjoy it. Both I and they are entitled to their opinions.

I actually quite enjoy a golden age Superman. He worked very well for that era, and some aspects I really wish would come back into play. It isn't my bible for Superman, however. Just one of many eras in his wonderful history.

[Agent Z]

Sure, but he's undoubtedly the star. Moreover, yes, there's a difference but superheroes cannot be held to the tightest of scrutiny because they just do not make sense on any level. Where do the infinite resources come from to rebuild the city? How does anyone justify living in a city with a hero? If Superman is punched across Metropolis at supersonic speed, doesn't that shatter windows? Does the glass kill people? Has he never broken wind in his sleep and knocked out a city wall? Does Batman really never leave any DNA on a crime scene? How has Barry not eaten Central and Keystone City's entire food supplies for how much energy he has to expend? How do any of these heroes save people falling from buildings? How does nobody shoot Batman in his mouth? You mean to tell me the mob doesn't set up 40 snipers around a kill zone, lead Batman there and throw a baby off a building knowing full well he'd try and save it? How does Superman even lift an ocean liner without it crushing under its own weight or him punching right through it? How can he gently put it down without creating a quake that kills civilians? How does Themyscira stay isolated in a world where satellites, heat maps and tracing Steve's plane's last trajectory would reveal its location, submarines and aircraft carriers could rest outside their borders and lock them in or simply invade? What, people are suddenly groovy for that island alone? Gorilla City? Dinosaur Island? Giganta certainly doesn't need to adhere to the square-cube law.

None of it holds up. So we need to collectively stop trying to make things realistic and just go for "believable within the world we've set up." It's childish to try and force our fantasies to actually exist when they're predicated on men flying while holding a city. It's fantasy, science fantasy or pure high-octane nonsense, but it's not meant to be taken too damn seriously.

All fiction requires suspension of disbelief. This is not necessarily an excuse to try and provide some level of verisimilitude in your superheroes. Just going "it's all nonsense" is an easy way to make your audience apathetic. Again, the Green Lantern movie (and Batman & Robin for a more cliche example) ran on this and we saw how that turned out.

And in my experience, comic fans are far too quick to judge anything that is more serious than a Looney Tunes episode as "taking things too damn seriously".

[Robanker]

All fiction requires suspension of disbelief. This is not necessarily an excuse to try and provide some level of verisimilitude in your superheroes. Just going "it's all nonsense" is an easy way to make your audience apathetic. Again, the Green Lantern movie (and Batman & Robin for a more cliche example) ran on this and we saw how that turned out.

And in my experience, comic fans are far too quick to judge anything that is more serious than a Looney Tunes episode as "taking things too damn seriously".

Hence why I feel comics just need to be believable within the worlds they build for themselves. They have their own rules and that's fine. I never said not to have any degree of logic to it, I even noted earlier it's perfectly valid to view them as literature. I certainly do. I can also accept that they are a silly premise at their most base level and enjoy them despite it. I don't need to convince myself I'm an adult and therefore if I like something, it too must be a totally mature thing that needs to be serious, cynical and overly indulge those directions.

One of my favorite superhero comics is Batman Year One and I can promise you nobody throws a pie and soaked Bruce with seltzer in it.

Sure, GL embraced silliness. X-Men Dark Phoenix also took itself seriously. See? I can cherry pick my examples too.

The last two Avengers movies took themselves seriously (even though they had their humor) and Shazam was a fun movie that had some rough stuff in it too (child abandonment, patricide). Both embraced that there's some absolutely bonkers **** in the DNA of the source and didn't hide from it There's a middle ground.

[manwhohaseverything]

There are eras he straight up was not just a guy from Kansas. He was pretty much the space man who vacationed there as a baby. He viewed himself as Kryptonian primarily and while he loved his human parents, he was an alien.

Yes, the golden age is extremely important to Clark, Pa and hell, superhero comics in general. Nobody is refuting that. But to refute the next 70 years of publishing history is equally foolish. The characters have evolved over time.

Furthermore, you can't demand people cast their notions of Clark aside while asserting your own about how the first ten years matter enough to "is, was, and always will be" (and you're doing that a lot as if you're the authority on a character you're asking people not act as if they're authorities on) as if it's the truest incarnation of a character that is owned by a corporate entity. That's certainly the truest incarnation for his creators, or is it?

800px-Reign_of_the_Superman.jpg

Perhaps people refine their ideas over time. I would argue that Superman isn't a utilitarian and neither should the Kents be. Snyder did, and I hated his take on the character. So that's my bias. Some love Man of Steel and good for them, I'm glad they can enjoy it. Both I and they are entitled to their opinions.

I actually quite enjoy a golden age Superman. He worked very well for that era, and some aspects I really wish would come back into play. It isn't my bible for Superman, however. Just one of many eras in his wonderful history.

The space man was just dude from kansas. That is his origin. You are talking about the silverage guy kal el. Kansas and clark are part of his immigration into America and integration into American society and culture . Superboy existed in silverage. He had many adventures in Smallville. There is a reason for that.

I never refuted anything. Don't throw words in my mouth. I am just against people's bias against the guy and attitude that trivialises it. I said others are equally valid interpretations. But, that doesn’t mean we throw the goldenage in the dust bin or say that isn't superman.

Yes, i asked for people to cast aside everything else aside from what is there at the core, on paper . I have asked them to put aside their unreasonable demands from the character look at the character for what it is. Not what we want it to be.i don't see anything wrong with that. The dude from kansas who immigrated from Krypton .it is not my assertion, it is in the text. Superman is what people(lois in modern tales) called that dude in every version. By definition "superman" is a vigilante because he breaks the law. Kal el or clark, it doesn't matter which is the all encompassing identity is(it had changed from version to version) .

Ship of theseus. Th guy in the "reign of supermen" is altogether a different ship which was discarded as a whole(including the keel) . Refining set of ideas(parts of a ship) is fine. But, set of ideas or ideology has core( the keel - backbone of a ship) . For example, Buddhism's core is ahimsa, karma, nirvana, eight fold path.. Etc. No matter how many thousand years pass. That will be its core. Otherwise it might not be Buddhism, it becomes something else. First 10 years created enough core for the character in my eyes, which didn't much change(the keel remained consistent) .saying that is just a prototype for the real "classic" thing is disingenuous.

Again, i never discredited other versions. I am just against trivialising the original idea that constitutes core of later interpretation. Man of steel is equally valid interpretation as silverage, postcrisis, new 52... Etc. The likes and dislikes are people preferences. But, if i to write a vigilante like a vigilante it is not wrong.

You forgot superman in man of steel is not utilitarian.the Kents tend to shift towards that in the spectrum. While the el's and the priest go the other route and follow kantian ethics predominantly . Clark's job was to mix the two(best of both worlds) and forge his own path to be called superman by the people/lois in this case.

[SiegePerilous02]

And in my experience, comic fans are far too quick to judge anything that is more serious than a Looney Tunes episode as "taking things too damn seriously".

Isn't this hyperbole as well, just coming from the opposite direction?

After all, a lot of the criticism that the DCEU took itself too seriously haven't really been applied to Wonder Woman, which just executed its serious moments in a more competent manner. And the DCAU is a literal cartoon continuity that got seriously dark at times and light/silly in others that was embraced.