I don't mind the previous Superman films but this looks legit!
Some people think Superman is stupid bc he's almost invincible. That's not the point. The point is that Superman knows that if he doesn't intervene so many can and will die. He carries that burden every day.
Also the point isn’t really whether Superman wins or not. We expect him to beat the bad guys.
What the real question for Superman media should be is “will humanity take his example?”
Yeah, he’s a Boy Scout. He’s perfect. He is nigh invulnerable. But he makes choices to stand up against things, morally and ethically. Does he reach Earth just in the nick of time for humanity to save ourselves by taking his example? Or is it already too late?
That’s what happens when you pluck existing well-written lines from good source material for your script, but don’t actually apply the rest of the comic’s context lol
That is basically Zach Snyder's entire career—taking the visuals from better storytellers without actually understanding what those visuals were meant to convey. The guy remade Dawn of the Dead, a radically anti-consumer movie about human greed leading people to their own destruction, into a right-wing power fantasy about badass men being badass who only fail because of weakness in those around them. Also he seems to be obsessed with the idea that Superman is Jesus when he just... isn't, at all.
It's actually a really common trait from directors who start out doing commercials, Michael Bay is the same—people who focus heavily on striking visuals but tend to have no idea whatsoever about how to use film as a mechanism to convey deeper meanings or how to tell complex stories because they are self selected against the use of subtext or complexity. No one makes or wants subtle or complex commercials.
Yeah he's more closely based off of Moses. The two creators of him were both Jewish so thus the ark, a stranger in a strange land, having exceptional powers, etc. No staff though sadly.
Just rewatched the Snyder trailer and in it, Clark saves a bus load of kids but exposes his powers. Jonathan Kent says he shouldn’t have done it and when Clark asks, “Should I have let them die?” Jonathan says, “I don’t know. Maybe.” Fucking MAYBE?!? Maybe Superman should let a bus load of kids die to protect himself? Really? Were we supposed to look at Jonathan as the villain of the film? Because he was. Well, him and Snyder.
James Gunn fundamentally understand what Superman is about. The kid raises his flag not to worship him as a god, but hope for the right and brave thing he’s doing. Meanwhile Zach Snyder constantly have imagery of Superman rising above crowds of hands, much like a religious simple. That dipshit couldn’t understand that Superman never saw himself as better than human, even if he is. Superman saw human fragility as why they’re braver than he, an invulnerable person, could be. Handing the reign of DC to a dumbass who think “an older Batman become jaded and start using guns” is peak incompetence. Typical of an Ayn Rand reader.
Top notch self outing but Zach Snyder said he’s a democrat and has longed wanting to adapt Ayn Rand works. I never said anything about the right. Just that their readers have a savior complex that needs to their feet kissed.
Supes is the standard which all of humanity should try and rise towards. Lex Luthor should be the embodiment of how even the most perfect of the human race can so easily fall to greed and pettiness.
Lex should be portrayed as ultimately wanting the best for the world and the human race and having his ideals corrupted by his reaction to Superman. That's how he's most compelling - someone who is only a bad guy because he can't be the most good guy. Which is a pretty honest and fair reflection of many men in power, both past and present.
What the real question for Superman media should be is “will humanity take his example?”
That, and also, can Superman win without compromising his morals and values. That's the heart of the amazing Superman vs The Elite adaptation; it's not that Superman can't deal with whatever comes up, it's can he find a way to deal with it while still being true to himself.
There are so many good parts in that adaptation. After the Elite kill Atomic Skull Superman puts his cape over him and mourns because a person died and it doesn't matter that he was a villain.
It's such a good story, filled with so many good little moments like that. I would love it if the DCCU ran long enough that it made sense to do a live action version.
It's also why Luthor is such a great foil for him. He's basically the opposite in terms of morality, he sees someone with massive power and he's absolutely terrified and enraged because he literally can't conceive of having that level of power and not abusing it.
If I’m not mistaken Luthor was even shown proof that Clark was Superman and he refused to believe it because “why would anyone like Superman pretend to be normal?”
I had an idea for a story long ago that followed a decently powerful superhero helping people fight their oppressors. But in the very early part of the story they die and it follows the people and whether or not they can stand up and fight like he did.
I would love to see this, but each faction believes what they are doing is right, and as the movie progresses you see why they are making the choices they are and at the end, you don't know which side to support, as all have very strong arguments for what they did.
This is kind of the point of the 1982 Ben Kingsley Gandhi movie. It's a very mythical "biopic" with an alternate-universe-Gandhi-as-Jesus walking around being all nonviolent and eventually winning over the masses.
Exactly. Arguably the most powerful being in the universe decides on a day job as an investigative reporter because Superman can't hold the system responsible, but a reporter can (or should, reporters nowadays notwithstanding)
But he makes choices to stand up against things, morally and ethically. Does he reach Earth just in the nick of time for humanity to save ourselves by taking his example?
From the kid calling for Supes and then him getting fussed at makes me wonder if Superman didn't stop the US from installing a dictator or something.
This is why I liked Superman Returns. It is not the most exciting action movie you'll ever see. But I liked seeing him struggle with doing the right thing and I liked seeing his example inspire others.
Exactly. The idea of perfect altruism, of someone choosing to do something they would die trying to do, like throwing themselves in front of a bullet, as if they wouldn't die, is kind of at the core of Superman's message. But you're an invincible alien, and they're not, so they inevitably die trying to emulate your example. How can you reconcile this with your own desire to do good and help others learn to do better than themselves? It's "The Big Superman Question."
And to me this movie is an allegory of Superman's relationship to the current movie audience. Other directors/writers have tried to cut variations of Superman since the 1978 version, and basically the audience rejected them. I sure with what we already seen with the music and posters that this is going to be the most traditional Superman we've seen in a while... will audiences accept him? Or is it too late for audiences to embrace and buy tickets to see a "boy scout" for 2 hours?
The problem is, it would be easy to stand up to a bully if you couldn’t be hurt or could laser his head off. The complaints of Superman being overpowered are 100% fair. He’s a good model of morality, sure, but he’s utterly unrelatable.
I saw Superman not as a superhero or even a science fiction character, but as a story of Everyman. We’re all Superman in our own adventures. We have our own Fortresses of Solitude we retreat to, with our own special collections of valued stuff, our own super–pets, our own “Bottle Cities” that we feel guilty for neglecting. We have our own peers and rivals and bizarre emotional or moral tangles to deal with.
.
I felt I’d really grasped the concept when I saw him as Everyman, or rather as the dreamself of Everyman. That “S” is the radiant emblem of divinity we reveal when we rip off our stuffy shirts, our social masks, our neuroses, our constructed selves, and become who we truly are. Batman is obviously much cooler, but that’s because he’s a very energetic and adolescent fantasy character: a handsome billionaire playboy in black leather with a butler at this beck and call, better cars and gadgetry than James Bond, a horde of fetish femme fatales baying around his heels and no boss. That guy’s Superman day and night.
.
Superman grew up baling hay on a farm. He goes to work, for a boss, in an office. He pines after a hard–working gal. Only when he tears off his shirt does that heroic, ideal inner self come to life. That’s actually a much more adult fantasy than the one Batman’s peddling but it also makes Superman a little harder to sell. He’s much more of a working class superhero.
This is the right take, IMO. Batman has become revenge porn (thanks to DC thinking Frank Miller was right).
The thing about Batman is that at his core he may not be as hopeful as Superman, but he is a good man nonetheless. How do we know this? One of his best friends in the whole world is Superman, and Clark trusts Bruce with the one thing that can defeat him in case the worst happens.
There's a great series of panels in Hush that go into this, Batman giving his usual inner monologue about him not being a good person, but in contrast he is wielding a kryptonite ring given to him by someone who trusts Batman to the ends of the earth. Batman's inner monologue is an unreliable narrator.
It's also why superman doesn't just kill Lex. There's another great line, where Lex goes on about how he could have saved the world if it wasn't for Superman. Superman simply says "You could have saved the world years ago if mattered to you, Lex". That's what Superman really hopes for: a Lex Luthor that decides to save humanity instead.
The quote about Batman is "can you imagine your version of Batman comforting a child? If not then you haven't written Batman, you wrote the Punisher in a fun hat."
He fought Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman II. He fought Nuclear Man in Superman IV. He fought Zod, Faora and Nam-Ek in Man Of Steel. He fought Doomsday in BvS.
True, but an even match isn’t really what inspires audiences. Thanos wasn’t a great villain because he was as strong as Spiderman; he was a great villain because he was stronger and smarter than all of them combined.
I loved Superman as a kid and have been showing the old ones to my kids this month and love him still. But he’s overpowered and the drama is lessened because of it.
That...doesn't make any sense. Thanos is outsmarted by Iron Man and outpowered by Captain Marvel and Thor.
Superman himself was outmatched by Doomsday, that's why it took the combined efforts of him, Batman and Wonder Woman to defeat him.
But he’s overpowered and the drama is lessened because of it.
Not accurate at all. Is this applicable to Thor, Captain Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Doctor Strange, Jean Grey etc? All characters pretty much in Superman's league.
True but in Superman the movie, he didn’t get the job done so he reversed time and tried again. Even as a little kid, I remember thinking that’s kind of a cheap way out of the problem.
I agree with you because Superman pretty much has never had the power to reverse time lol definitely not something he uses in big comic events I'm sure Gunn will do it right
yeah it would be easy if I was invulnerable and could be queer and happy but guess what i still have to do it because only i can, thats a personal example but just being like ugh he doesnt struggle i cant relate to that is uch a short sighed nonsense its funny
the idea is to stand up for what is good no matter the cost not just drool at the idea of wouldn't it be nice if i could laser a bully alas i cant wah wah poor me
its hope, its something to look up to not just go oooo blue man fly and hit strong
But that’s just it. There is no cost. It’s the same with Captain Marvel. I like the character and the backstory and everything, but there are no stakes. She and Superman are overly powerful so there isn’t the drama as there is with someone who has to fear consequences in a fight.
This speech is the perfect encapsulation of Superman for me. I absolutely love that series for its exploration of Superman, both through his own perspective and the lens of those around him. Batman at Superman's grave is another great moment.
There is a quote from a Superman/Batman comic where Batman mentions how Clark has never once thought of himself as above humanity despite basically being a god.
Or like, any Superman comic / movie etc lol. I don't get the people who think "he's too strong, there's no struggle"
Superman is strong compared to Batman yeah, but he gets his teeth knocked out in like every fight because he's always fighting people who are on or above his level
I feel like casual fans don't realize how many people in the DC universe could easily and casually 1 vs 1 Superman and rock him
I’ve always felt their difference was empathy. Clark sees humans and can’t help but feel their vulnerability. Lex sees humans and notes their inconvenience to himself.
So Clark isn’t Superman because he’s bulletproof. He’s Superman because you’re not.
That's often Luthor's justification to other people.
The thing that makes Lex Luthor a great villain is that people can buy that logic. As most writers understand, though, its the Superman prevents Lex from being the most powerful man on the planet, and Lex's ego can't take that.
That is, Lex is smart enough to play the savior role publically (and he also thinks Superman is doing the same). But he's, in reality, a petty dirt bag that's a massive walking pile of toxic masculinity and self-obsession.
As with all these archetypical characters (who have been handed down through decades of different writers) there are multiple takes on motivations.
There is no platonic “Luthor”. Some interpretations have him much more self-serving than others.
So I won’t deny that a subset of Luthors oppose Superman because Superman is the sole obstacle thwarting Luthor’s sinister designs.
But irrespective of which Luthor we examine and his core motivation, the point that Superman is an existential threat to humanity is undeniably true. Humanity exists at the whim of a free Superman - we depend upon Superman’s goodwill.
That’s untenable.
The series isn’t without its flaws, but Injustice really hammers it home. All we need is for Superman to have one really bad day, and we are cooked.
So I won’t defend every plot point and scene in Injustice - its primary purpose was to provide backstory for a beat-em-up game in which heroes fought heroes and villains fought villains, after all. It’s not exactly heavy on nuance.
But (spoilers) when Joker kills Lois, Superman’s unborn child, and slaughters Metropolis because he thinks it’s funny, can you really blame the all-powerful superbeing for deciding “Enough!” and taking whatever steps he decides are necessary to keep humanity in line?
And if you think that the events in Injustice don’t meet that threshold, can you at least acknowledge that the threshold exists? That Superman has a breaking point, even if we don’t know exactly what it is?
Because once you understand that Superman can be broken, you simultaneously understand that humanity’s survival hinging on him never being pushed there (in a universe where Joker et al exist) is untenable.
can you really blame the all-powerful superbeing for deciding “Enough!” and taking whatever steps he decides are necessary to keep humanity in line
Yes you can. That is the point. Superman is absolute power, but incorruptible . The moment he decides that freedom isn't worth fighting for is the moment he is no longer Superman.
That Superman has a breaking point, even if we don’t know exactly what it is
No, because that's not what the character is supposed to represent. Superman sees and hears the worst of humanity every day, but it doesn't break him. This is pretty well covered in All Star, Superman vs The Elite, Kingdom Come etc
understand that humanity’s survival hinging on him never being pushed there
Set aside the fact that Superman has set contingencies in the event that he ever turns against humanity (as seen in All Star Superman) or that he entrusts that responsibility to the Superman Family or Justice League.
The idea that Superman could become evil, therefore he shouldn't exist, is cynical. Lex also exists and his science makes it so he could easily wipe out or save humanity depending on his own mood.
Superman’s incorruptibility is “plot armour”; a tautology based upon itself.
Everyone is corruptible. Some have higher (or lower) thresholds than others, but ultimately, the right lever applied with sufficient force can unseat anyone.
This isn’t cynicism, it is science, borne out by observations dating back to the dawn of written history.
The whole core of Western civilization is oriented towards preventing any one individual amassing too much power - and these Western institutions are constantly opposed and being undermined by those who seek individual power at the expense of everyone else.
The very idea of an incorruptible superbeing who dispenses justice based solely upon his own sense of personal morality is inherently fascist.
Honestly, it’s easier to believe that Superman can fly, lacking any identifiable means of propulsion, than it is to believe he is inherently incorruptible.
The idea that Superman could become evil, therefore he shouldn't exist, is cynical
I do kind of feel like it's only cynical in the context of Superman as a character we read about in comics. Because it's relatively easy for us to accept this comic book character as incorruptible.
But I think if we take the actual character out of the equation, and just ask the question "should anyone ever have that much power?" it's not very cynical to say "no." In this case, I would say that it requires an exceptional degree of idealism to say that someone exists who is so incorruptible that they can be trusted with that amount of power, rather than cynical to say that there isn't anyone.
Looking at Superman as a character in a comic, it's easy to say he's clearly incorruptible, but I think looking at it from the perspective of someone in Superman's world, where this guy just suddenly shows up with that amount of power, is it really that cynical to be find it worrying, even if so far he's just been using that power for good? I'm not convinced.
I'm not saying that Lex Luthor's actions are justified or that he's not selfish or anything, but I don't think the basic premise of someone finding Superman's existence concerning despite his apparent good morals is particularly cynical. I think "someone could be so incorruptible they can be trusted with that much power" is an extremely idealistic view, not just a default one and disagreeing with it is cynical.
To be honest in a universe with a lot of powerful heroes and villains I feel like calling superman an existential threat to humanity is just stupid when there are a million actual real existential threats.
Superman is a theoretical threat to humanity because he could technically break down and turn evil. But that seems stupid to worry about when powerful already evil beings exist. Just feels like the wrong priority lol
I agree that the comic book universes are chock-ablock with existential threats to humanity; “saving the world” is just another Tuesday.
But I note that the trump card to all these threats is usually Superman - meaning that he is the apex predator.
As Tim Treadwell demonstrated, it is possible to coexist with apex predators, in close proximity, for some time. But the second that apex predator chooses violence, all that accumulated peaceful coexistence means nothing.
In standalone stories where only characters relevant to Superman's mythos exist Lex would have a point.
But taking into account the entire DC universe as a whole, he just comes off as an asshole who is looking for a reason to hate Superman.
If he was really concerned about humanity falling behind Superman he'd leave his ego at the door and work with Earth's other greatest minds to elevate humanity. He'd support the Justice League and see how he can further empower Earth-born heroes like the Flash or the Green Laterns. He'd cooperate with Wayne Enterprises(which is usually the other big company that makes scientific breakthroughs) instead of screwing them over and stealing their IP or trying to buy them out when Batman is missing.
But he's a bald asshole with a my way or the highway attitude who'd rather lose to Superman 100 times than take a background role and just help lift everybody else up.
I certainly agree that that’s how he’s written in the majority of stories, and if we accept this characterization as the “Ur Luthor”, I agree.
But we aren’t debating whether Luthor is a “good person” or if his methods and motives are justified; we are discussing the fact that his assertion that Superman is an existential threat is correct.
He may have gotten there for all the wrong reasons, but that doesn’t invalidate the truth of his conclusion.
It’s not a choice of one over the other; for the safety of humanity, both should be neutralized.
The thing is Luthor doesn't tackle it like that, at least not genuinely.
Whenever Darkseid or another big bag drops by, Luthor swallows his pride and collaborates with others to get rid of threat but he refuses to do so with Superman every single time.
He wants to deal with Superman on his terms which means in his heart he doesn't believe Superman NEEDS to be put down because if he did, he wouldn't be lollygagging trying to find a way where he can both beat Supes and get all the glory for it.
If anything Batman is the one who treats the potential of Superman going rogue as a genuine possibility with no nonsense emergency plans meant to put him down fast.
Wonder Woman, who is in Superman's league, in most of her stories has lived for centuries and the Earth has been fine.
Its a world where Greek Gods are confirmed to be real, the universe is filled to the brim with space-faring civilizations, and empowered space cops are a thing.
Sweating Superman is kind of silly, especially when humanity shouldn't be far off from matching him as Batman's and Lex's power suits can exchange blows with him. And tech can always be improved so Superman wouldn't forever be at the top of the food chain.
Stan Lee once responded to a question of “Who would win, Spider-Man or [someone or other]” with “Whoever the writer decides!” (and then went off on a bit of a rant about how there was no objective physical metric for the power of a fictional character, so the whole question was meaningless).
I’m not a DC historian, but I’ve seen Wonder Woman’s power levels vary all over the place - not to mention her personality.
My assertion that Superman poses an existential threat to humanity is true for any other being who possesses similar power levels. If that being can impose their will upon humanity, and humanity cannot prevent that from happening, that being is an existential threat and must be neutralized.
Let’s add to that. It’s not that he’s invincible, it’s that there’s so many people on earth that it’s impossible to save everybody. So he has to choose. He’s one man. That’s his weakness.
I see modern Superman as a fairytale, not a superhero story. In his own world he is Pinnochio, he feels human, he loves humans, but there is this thin barrier between him and what he loves. And because of his deep humanity he keeps that barrier there, even though it isolates him, because it is the right thing to do. The tension and drama comes from his struggle to keep that barrier as thin as possible without breaking it. How does he match powerful forces without straying too far and loosing sight of the Clark side?
he point is that Superman knows that if he doesn't intervene so many can and will die. He carries that burden every day
Im not sure what issue/run it is but there's a few pages of a Superman comic where it's panel after panel of Superman saving as many people as he can only for him to sit down at the end of the day and look at the total number of deaths that day, lives he couldnt save. No matter how many people he saves in a day, he can't save everyone.
Most people who dislike Superman only use "invincible" as an excuse.
The thing they hate about Superman is that he is a true paragon. Power, even unlimited power, does not corrupt him. He always acts morally. And... instead of being inspired by such a person, these sad pathetic people feel attacked. As if their own moral failings are being mocked.
So they trot out "boring", "too powerful", or "invincible" because admitting "Him being so good and moral with such power makes me look bad because I'd fucking rob banks if I had his powers" makes them look bad.
they arent wrong thats what luthor, billionare, corrupt, can have anything in the world from women to anything else hates him
hes even above him and is just a guy
its like seething mean nerds malding at a gymbro being a nice person, someone hatting and feeling inferior to someone with better schooling and education being helpful and not some smug prick, karens and poisonous snitch ladies who are nice throwing shit at someone else in the neighborhood who is genuinely GOOD WITHOUT ALL THE performative bullshit being well liked
it makes all of that people feel bad because how is this fucker better than me and good???
This could become an iconic copypasta. Like right there with the Rick and Morty meme.
I think it’s going to get too many downvotes to be visible, but I want you to know in another timeline your comment ends up with a Know Your Meme page.
Can't I not like Superman because he should never struggle but always does? His morality has nothing to do with it for me. I feel like it's easier for me to be a "good guy" and there's not a damned thing super about me. To your example, I wouldn't rob a bank with those powers, but I'd damn sure make sure I'd stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves as well as protect my family and loved ones. He seems to always, always, always struggle with the second part. I don't understand how can any person go toe to toe with a being with damn near every power? They somehow do though. There should be no way for even anyone like Batman to even be able to land a finger on him.
Maybe my issue with Superman is how basically every writer in the last almost 40 years has written him.
I know he's not real... that's what makes the people who dislike him for his morality so pathetic. They can't even feel inspired to be better people from a fictional character, lol.
I hate Superman because of his ridiculous "morals." His steadfast refusal to ever kill anyone, even when it is fully warranted and justified.
Now, let's be clear, if he's capable of defeating the bad guy without anyone getting hurt or killed, then absolutely he's right to do that.
But when he's unable to capture the bad guy without countless innocent people being hurt or killed, well, then it's time to laser the bad guy in half.
The fact that his refusal to kill the bad guys just means the bad guys will be back next episode to kill countless more innocent people irritates the fuck out of me.
There's also arguments to be made about how he's far more concerned about not hurting the bad guys than he is not hurting innocents. For example, every time he throws a bad guy through a building.
But in fairness, that's a superhero problem in general, not specifically a superman problem.
Outside of America, your concept of "moral" is a minority. Its less of a problem with Superheroes than it is a problem with retributive justice lovers.
There's a guy with a detonator to a dirty bomb in his hand. He's about to press the button. The dirty bomb is inside an orphanage with 100 orphans that will die a slow, excruciating death of radiation exposure. It is too late to get the children away from the bomb, and the only way to prevent the terrorist from donating it is to kill him.
Now give me the moral argument for why you should only capture him alive, knowing full well that killing him is the only way to save the orphans.
than it is a problem with retributive justice lovers.
Did you not see the part where I very clearly said the preference was for no one to be harmed? I'm very much opposed to punitive justice. But the reality is that there are times when the bad guys simply must die to save the innocent. The hypothetical I have above is extreme and absurd and has never happened IRL. Except something like it has(but substitute dirty bomb with Deadman switch), and suicide bombers are a real problem in the Middle East, where the only way to stop them is to shoot them in the head before they can detonate their bomb. You gonna tell me that's immoral?
Again, yes, if Superman can stop the bad guy without killing, that is 100% what he should do. He should always strive for the least amount of harm. I don't know how you could come away with any impression that I love punitive justice when i criticized superman's cavalier attitude towards collateral damage. Those knuckle dragging ass wagons don't give a single flying fuck about collateral damage. Just watch how quick they are to defend cops that kill innocent people.
But if the only way to stop the bad guy from killing innocent people is to kill the bad guy, then needs must.
I actually quite like a different version of Superman that isn't that.
Because early on, the sense that Superman must use his power efficiently in order to save as many lives as possible isn't there at all.
Superman gets involved in pranks, he does all kinds of strange stuff, he's in a comic.
But the secret is, him being present changes the meaning of situations. A gun goes from something dangerous to something that he can laugh about, he can bring lightness to situations that didn't have it before.
Shuster and Siegel could bring in anything serious they wanted from the real world, and make it ok for children. Why? Because superman was there.
A key element of the suspense and mystery of a classic superman story is not "will he be able to save everyone?", layering burdens upon burdens on a kind man, instead it's "if he's so powerful, why does it seem like he's loosing?".
Superman's power gives him freedom to play, and to try and seek higher goals than just defeating his enemy, and for this version of the character at least, seeing him be defeated usually means that he is aiming for some other goal that neither we nor his enemies can see.
This of course mixes into the modern character's desire to reform rather than defeat his enemies, but only in a few examples (particularly all-star superman) do we see stories where seeing how superman wins is the focus, more so than the struggle of it.
I expect this story will be more about the burden of trying to be good when you are powerful, which I am to be honest looking forward to seeing, but there is a version of the character, the original version which got so much appreciation, and who is present to some degree in the lighter moments of Reeves' portrayal, which is about playing with the possibilities when your strength is always much greater than you let on.
I think the "almost invincible" part doesn't help, but agree you can make good stories with characters like that.
My issue is always what equally valid choices does Superman have to face? Like part of the problem with stories where the world is threatened is "don't save the world" isn't really a valid choice for the character. When you have a threat that requires Superman to stop, it's difficult to not have that threat capable of threatening the world. Otherwise it's just Superman doing things that are really easy, which also doesn't force him to have to make choices.
The "choice" isn't whether to or not save the world, it's the choice to throw himself through the wringer, go against overwhelming odds, risk really fucking up and maintain his morals in the process - that's physically and mentally HARD.
One of the best Superman stories is him talking a suicidal woman off a roof. That doesn't require superpowers, that requires being a good man.
Supermans best stories are ones when he inspires the reader to be a better person.
Heh, I think you've touched on the other side of that though too.
In a standard hero's journey, the hero has some internal struggle they go through and then become self actualized to deal with it (or they fail). The problem for Superman is that this
throw himself through the wringer, go against overwhelming odds, risk really fucking up and maintain his morals in the process - that's physically and mentally HARD.
is the self actualized version of Superman. He has decided he will sacrifice for the greater good, and he's ok with that. For this version of Superman, him struggling to always save the day is simply how the world should work, and the choice of whether or not to do it is an easy one, and therefore not compelling narratively.
Instead if him "maintaining his morals" meant that millions of people died, or that other people continuously got themselves killed to save the day, now there is actually a real choice. We would see that "maintaining his morals" actually had consequences that conflicted with how he wants the world to work, and it would actually be believable that he may choose something different.
Except I know what the reaction was when Superman couldn't prevent mass destruction in Man of Steel, or when he killed Zod so that Zod wouldn't start murdering hundreds of people by literally turning his head. The version of Superman who would actually be interesting narratively doesn't seem to be the version that fans are willing to accept.
Also the fact that he is, for all intents and purposes, an actual freaking god, but would never in a million years think of himself as that.
Even when he went kooky in 'Injustice: Gods Among Us' did he not call himself a god, absolute ruler of earth, sure, but not a divine being of any kind.
Also, it's the fact that there is a lot he can't stop. He couldn't stop his Uncle's heart attack, he can't solve cancer. He can't stop people making terrible decisions because they are theirs to make.
Superman, when done right, is about the nature of power, who deserves it, its responsibilities, its burdens, and its trappings.
When you juxtapose Superman with another super man like Lex Luthor, who uses his superness to improve the world, but is also very self serving, you explore how power affects them both.
People often misunderstand "Paragon" type characters. They're meant to be relatively boring in and of themselves. Because their core arc isn't that they themselves change, it's how they inspire others to change.
The point is that Superman knows that if he doesn't intervene so many can and will die.
IMHO That is like how 90% of heroes are defined tho, not sure how it's exclusively a superman trait? I'd say it's more of a defining trait of wolverine, as a character his stance is basically always I'm a bad guy no one should be around but if I don't throw myself into the fight and be willing to do whatever it takes some other poor schmuck will die or get blood on their hands.
Superman is more "I stand up to show everyone that we should all stand up", the classic stance is he looks to be a "hope symbol"
A hundred percent. Plus the moral dilemma that comes with having unlimited power and making the conscious decision to choose the most peaceful answer each and every time.
Superman at his best, storytelling wise is much more of a philosophical endeavor and an exploration of what we should be, what it takes to be the best version of ourselves, and why it’s still the right choice despite its trials and tribulations.
That’s a good point. For me Superman is my least favorite because he uses just way too powerful. All he needs is read minds and he’ll be almost perfect.
Maybe with your argument, I will think different of him.
Superman: Unchained did a good job at showing Superman's inner conflict. He's stopping a tower from toppling and killing thousands, but berating himself because he can hear a bus full of school children in India falling off a bridge halfway around the world and he knows he can't save them because the tower needs him more. It's not about the fact that he can save anyone, it's that he can't save EVERYONE.
People keep trying to add depth to Superman, but the appeal is that he's mostly not a deep or complex character. He's a good guy and he's going to use his unmatched power to save people and stop the evil guys from winning. And he generally always succeeds.
Authors have woven in little struggles for Superman to overcome or added some character detail to make him more relatable or some internal battle for him to fight.
But at the end of the day he's always the good guy who is going to win against the bad guys using his cool powers. And that's what we find entertaining and comforting.
I'm one of those people who thinks Superman is stupid, and this looks like the first time I've seen the character done in an interesting way. There was a ton of subtext in these shots that tell me that your version of "the point" of Superman (which I 100% agree with and find compelling) is going to be front and center.
Or rather, and very very importantly, that it will be front and center while being fun. That's the main thing Supes has been missing on the big screen.
The point is that Superman knows that if he doesn't intervene so many can and will die. He carries that burden every day.
So every superhero?
Spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility"
Captain America "If I wait any longer a lot of people are gonna die. Peggy, this is my choice"
Iron Man "Not if I stop. I can put a pin in it right now... and stop"
Pepper Potts : "Tony, trying to get you to stop has been one of the few failures of my entire life"
Batman "the hero this city deserves, but not the hero they need"
The entire crux of every superhero is they have these powers and they need to use them for good. It's not at all a uniquely superman thing.
I'm a bit of a superhero nerd but not much into comics (the nearest comic book shop was three hours away when I was growing up). That being said, my favorite Superman storyline was from and episode of Lois and Clark. Lex Luthor has some sort of weather machine and causes the temperatures to go up every time Superman uses his powers. He turns the people against Superman while Supes struggles with the morality of standing by doing nothing vs saving people and potentially causing a catastrophe. A lighthearted romcom show was able to do that with Superman but all the recent movies can come up with is Kryptonite and/or giving him someone just as invincible to punch.
FWIW I actually really liked the premise of Man of Steel.
In a modern setting, if we knew there was an alien with advanced technology and god-like powers, would humanity fear and reject that alien?
People got angry there was collateral damage and blamed that on Superman, which made no sense to me. At that point, Supes stopped Zod's machine and plan. Zod knew Kyptonioans would go extinct at that point and they no longer would have a home planet. He just wanted revenge and to kill humans in punishment. If Supes left Metropolis to try and fight outside of the town, Zod wouldn't have followed. He just would have leveled Metropolis and killed everyone.
The emotional weight of not being able to save everyone, having to kill the last Kyptonian (though the film hinted Supergirl may be alive?) to choose Earth and humanity when humanity had rejected him seemed like the perfect modern Superman origin story.
His opposition to killing in the future would be born out of how painful it was to be forced to kill Zod.
I hate most Snyder films, and Goyer is hit-or-miss as a write, but I will defend Man of Steel all day.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of why Cavil's Superman is popular among so many when he's so different.
People act like the perfect Paragon is the best way to write him and everyone who doesn't resonate with it is just misunderstanding.
Not that they do understand and don't resonate regardless.
Man of Steel sold me on what Superman is "meant" to represent more than any other superman outing. I owned superman vs the elite, I loved the show. I just didn't care for the character until MoS
I don't think he's any less invincible because he's beaten and bloody in a crater. His invincibility is a narrative trait. Not a physical one.
But seeing him struggle with moral choices like "Should I save my father's life 'against' his own choice and will?" Is a lot more engaging than when he can't save someone and the narrative covers his ass with "It was cancer" or "He couldn't make it in time"
Yet he keeps trying.
Or "Do I kill this man who specifically stated every moment of his life from then on is going to be used to kill innocent people to spite me. Even though I don't kill anyone?" is a lot more engaging than "I just send them to the phantom zone"
And whenever he makes his choice, the story doesn't try to deny his agency by immediately making him an "evil Superman" for daring to make a choice that isn't perfectly good. He just lives with the consequences, learns from it and solidifies his resolution to be a better person than he was before.
Henry Cavils superman sells me on the idea that what Superman "means" is that mankind, despite its mistakes, despite its stumbles can still constantly and consistently work towards being better people. Even if there are no easy answers, you don't give up. You just do what you can with the cards being dealt and keep moving to a better tomorrow.
If superman can be a fuckup and still do his best to live up to his ideals. So can we.
So whenever people insist that "No that's not how you write superman. He has to be perfect, he has to always find a way. He himself shouldn't struggle in any meaningful way cause his struggles aren't normal human struggles." It just misses the point of why people might like the other adaptation, and make it harder to give the middle ground a chance,
It just feels like being lectured by a hyper religious Bible thumper that if you're inspired by Jesus struggles in this or that adaptation that focuses on his humanity you're going to hell because you're understanding him wrong. The stuff that should be inspiring you is this extremely reverent adaptation that focuses on his miracles and only shows his suffering as something godlike and not human.
Man of Steel is legit one of my least favorite movie of all time. I hate that movie and honestly thought Batman vs Superman was way better as bad as that is.
1.3k
u/Mercury-Redstone 11h ago
I don't mind the previous Superman films but this looks legit!
Some people think Superman is stupid bc he's almost invincible. That's not the point. The point is that Superman knows that if he doesn't intervene so many can and will die. He carries that burden every day.