Trailer Superman Full Trailer

nevin said:

Yea but I just want a superhero movie where the superhero has challenges, maybe a few ethical dilemma's and then does the right thing. All this watchmen dark, do we really need them stuff is fine for that genre not for Marvel or DC. IMO anyway.

Click to expand...

jian said:

I sort of agree with this and sort of don’t.

I do agree that Superman shouldn’t care much what other people think - not because they’re not people to him or somehow inferior or irrelevant, but because he disagrees and his opinions won’t be changed by what they say, because he knows what the right thing is to do.

I didn’t like the scene because I’d expect his response not to be angry or upset, but to sigh and accept it calmly. It’s nice they think that, but they weren’t there and he was doing the right thing while the job was in front of him.

Now, that isn’t great for interviews either, because he’s not really explaining himself to the audience, but it’s probably the only place he can go. “I’m sorry some people don’t agree with what I’m doing, Ms Lane, but as long as I’m helping people I’ll just carry on doing it.”

Click to expand...

Clint_L said:

I think Morrus already made this point, but I just don't see Superman's ethics coming from his godlike perspective. I see them as coming from his adoptive parents, who have always been presented as completely salt-of-the-earth, this is right, this is wrong, kinds of folks. Like, he's completely drank the small town, rural America, mid-century Kool-Aid, but only the good parts. He is, morally, a very, very simple person.

Which I love, because it makes his character structurally ironic, not because he's an alien with bulletproof skin, but because he's a farmer with bulletproof values.

Click to expand...

nevin said:

The superman willing to do whatever it takes to save lives gives me hope that the old DC verse is dead.

Click to expand...

jian said:

That’s fair, and it’s certainly where he derived his ethics, but his infallibility isn’t from Kansas, it’s narrative at best and divine/alien at worst. His infallibility is one of Superman’s most important characteristics - because he can’t be trusted with his power without it - but it also is very hard to write.

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

I am not sure where you are getting this. Superman -- at least in the modern world -- has never been infallible. he does his best, but he makes mistakes. And then he owns up to them. Those traits are what make his Super.

Click to expand...

jian said:

I used to like this idea but now I’m not sure about it. It reminds me of a scene in Astro City where Samaritan (Superman expy) is having dinner with Winged Victory (Wonder Woman expy) and she says in exasperation something like, “We’re opposites - you’re a god pretending to be a man, and I’m a woman pretending to be a goddess.”

Now, Sam and WV are different characters from Clark and Diana - this scene is really about how WV has tried to use her fame to inspire other women - but there’s a grain of truth there about Clark. Clark isn’t just a nice Kansas farmboy turned reporter who’s a superhero in his spare time - he’s also literally the most powerful man in the world, the closest thing to God most people will meet. He needs to pretend to be human to be human - without the secret identity of Clark Kent, he has no connection to the rest of us and ultimately no need to be bound by any human limits, and that goes bad really fast.

(This is something I liked about What Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, the finale to the Silver Age Superman that someone mentioned earlier upthread. Spoilers for a 40 year old comic in case you haven’t read it:

Spoiler

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow is a deconstruction of Silver Age Superman (which is good because honestly half the time that guy was kind of an autocratic idiot, making decisions for his friends all the time without telling them).

It’s about removing the narrative protections that Superman has. So first, he loses his secret identity and can’t be Clark any more; then his career becomes more destructive than beneficial, as all his villains attack him and his family and friends, killing several characters; and finally, he’s forced to kill someone to save others.

Without his narrative protections, Superman doesn’t have his narrative omnibenevolence either - he can do the wrong thing, his actions can hurt people. He’s reduced to what I mentioned earlier - an unstoppable guy with all the power and none of the accountability. So he does the only narratively moral thing he can, which is permanently remove all his powers, thus removing all his responsibility.

It’s a fitting ending to any era of Superman and probably the only happy ending he can have. Ultimately, the world does just fine without him, as he had hoped.)

Click to expand...

Clint_L said:

I think Superman making mistakes is an awesome plot point, as long as they're honest mistakes. In fact, that's why I describe him as structurally ironic: his simplistic values will inevitably put him in situations where there are unforseen consequences, of course with the best of intentions. This is the most American theme imaginable - he's basically like a Mark Twain character.

What I hate are attempts to make Superman all conflicted and moody. We have zillions of conflicted, moody superheroes to choose from, so let's keep the poster boy for naive innocence different.

Click to expand...

jian said:

That’s fair, and it’s certainly where he derived his ethics, but his infallibility isn’t from Kansas, it’s narrative at best and divine/alien at worst. His infallibility is one of Superman’s most important characteristics - because he can’t be trusted with his power without it - but it also is very hard to write.

Click to expand...