Superman: Still Awesome

[ShinHakkaider]

MAN OF STEEL was a FANTASTIC first contact/alien invasion movie. But it was a garbage Superman film. Cavil's portrayal was actively not the Clark/Kal-El we know and aspire to be, and it all starts with Costner's Pa Kent. Costner's struggle to protect his son was very human and understandable, but it wasn't Pa Kent. Clark was a good person because he was raised by good people, to help others without hesitation. Because that source was essentially corrupted, we got...Cavil's Superman.

Gunn's SUPERMAN gave us an inspirational Superman and a GOOD person.

I saw too many complaints about how weak he was and that he just kept getting his butt kicked. Typical. Superman isn't Superman because of his powerset. He's Superman because he has that powerset and doesn't abuse the power. He uses it to help. In a way that most of us (including me) would absolutely NOT.

Snyder and his rabid fanboys have a 12-year-old's understanding of what power is and how it should be used. And that's to KICK-A**!! Superman, the actual Superman, is a character who serves and inspires humans to be better. I love that as cynical and grim as Batman is, he still thinks Clark is probably the best man he knows and understands Clark's true nature and loves him like a brother for it even though he's never say it out loud.

 

[Reynard]

MAN OF STEEL was a FANTASTIC first contact/alien invasion movie. But it was a garbage Superman film. Cavil's portrayal was actively not the Clark/Kal-El we know and aspire to be, and it all starts with Costner's Pa Kent. Costner's struggle to protect his son was very human and understandable, but it wasn't Pa Kent. Clark was a good person because he was raised by good people, to help others without hesitation. Because that source was essentially corrupted, we got...Cavil's Superman.

Gunn's SUPERMAN gave us an inspirational Superman and a GOOD person.

I saw too many complaints about how weak he was and that he just kept getting his butt kicked. Typical. Superman isn't Superman because of his powerset. He's Superman because he has that powerset and doesn't abuse the power. He uses it to help. In a way that most of us (including me) would absolutely NOT.

Snyder and his rabid fanboys have a 12-year-old's understanding of what power is and how it should be used. And that's to KICK-A**!! Superman, the actual Superman, is a character who serves and inspires humans to be better. I love that as cynical and grim as Batman is, he still thinks Clark is probably the best man he knows and understands Clark's true nature and loves him like a brother for it even though he's never say it out loud.

I think people can like both films for different reasons. Moreover, I don't think it is conducive to good discussion to come in hot and basically denounce one of them. This thread is about how good Gunn's Superman is,not about how bad Snyder's is.

 

[trappedslider]

MAN OF STEEL was a FANTASTIC first contact/alien invasion movie. But it was a garbage Superman film. Cavil's portrayal was actively not the Clark/Kal-El we know and aspire to be, and it all starts with Costner's Pa Kent. Costner's struggle to protect his son was very human and understandable, but it wasn't Pa Kent. Clark was a good person because he was raised by good people, to help others without hesitation. Because that source was essentially corrupted, we got...Cavil's Superman.

Gunn's SUPERMAN gave us an inspirational Superman and a GOOD person.

I saw too many complaints about how weak he was and that he just kept getting his butt kicked. Typical. Superman isn't Superman because of his powerset. He's Superman because he has that powerset and doesn't abuse the power. He uses it to help. In a way that most of us (including me) would absolutely NOT.

Snyder and his rabid fanboys have a 12-year-old's understanding of what power is and how it should be used. And that's to KICK-A**!! Superman, the actual Superman, is a character who serves and inspires humans to be better. I love that as cynical and grim as Batman is, he still thinks Clark is probably the best man he knows and understands Clark's true nature and loves him like a brother for it even though he's never say it out loud.

wow.....that sounds like someone who got mad when one comic age changed to another and it changes their favorite character.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I think people can like both films for different reasons. Moreover, I don't think it is conducive to good discussion to come in hot and basically denounce one of them. This thread is about how good Gunn's Superman is,not about how bad Snyder's is.

I like MAN OF STEEL. I saw it theatrically in IMAX and enjoyed it. I own it on BluRay. I just don't think that it's a good Superman movie. I think any discussion of James Gunn's version is going to have a comparison of the iteration that came before flaws and all. I think the opening 20 min or so of MAN OF STEEL is inspired. I think the final 20 minutes are AMAZING and shows the full destructive capabilities of two Superman-level beings fighting in a populated city. But nothing else about it said Superman to me. Gunn's SUPERMAN on the other hand hits almost ALL of the marks it needs to for a good, not GREAT Superman movie.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

wow.....that sounds like someone who got mad when one comic age changed to another and it changes their favorite character.

That's funny. I think it sounds like someone questioning how much you can change a character before it stops being the actual character and becomes something else entirely.

But do go on...To quote another of my favorite characters: "I can do this all day..."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

wow.....that sounds like someone who got mad when one comic age changed to another and it changes their favorite character.

I've been reading Superman since the 1970s, when I subscribed with my allowance money and it showed up in my mailbox and have been with him through all sorts of big swings, from Byrne's take after the Crisis to the elder stateman take of Kingdom Come to the blue jeans wearing anti-capitalist in the early days of the New 52 to today.

Superman can mean a lot of things.

"Maybe I should let a bus full of school kids die to protect my secret" isn't any of them, though.

Snyder has explicitly said he doesn't get or agree with optimistic superheroes, as emblemized by Superman. By all accounts, Snyder is a good guy, but he was the wrong guy to handle this film and Warner Brothers was wrong to try and give us a Dark Knight take on Superman. It just wasn't right for the character.

His other versions of the Trinity were more recognizably themselves, probably because they inherently have the hard edge that Snyder vibes with. But Superman ain't it.

 

[trappedslider]

That's funny. I think it sounds like someone questioning how much you can change a character before it stops being the actual character and becomes something else entirely.

But do go on...To quote another of my favorite characters: "I can do this all day..."

I found Man of steel to be an excellent superman but, I can understand why some don't. Outside the snyder dislike, a lot of it to me comes down to " I don't like the writer and what he's doing"

I've been reading Superman since the 1970s, when I subscribed with my allowance money and it showed up in my mailbox and have been with him through all sorts of big swings, from Byrne's take after the Crisis to the elder stateman take of Kingdom Come to the blue jeans wearing anti-capitalist in the early days of the New 52 to today.

Superman can mean a lot of things.

"Maybe I should let a bus full of school kids die to protect my secret" isn't any of them, though.

There's a lot of different versions of Sups and not just in the main contitunity. some say that superman can't/shouldn't be cynical. I think he can be with a good story and if that's what you go in expecting from it.

Gunn's Superman was clearly from the start a more goofy/throwback to Superman of the golden age. Gunn was the right one for that style. I doubt he could tackle Superman of Injustice or Absolute Superman among others.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I found Man of steel to be an excellent superman but, I can understand why some don't. Outside the snyder dislike, a lot of it to me comes down to " I don't like the writer and what he's doing"

This is a weird thing to say when I explicitly said that he's apparently a very good guy. People can dislike movies without having a personal beef with the director.

There's a lot of different versions of Sups and not just in the main contitunity. some say that superman can't/shouldn't be cynical. I think he can be with a good story and if that's what you go in expecting from it.

Gunn's Superman was clearly from the start a more goofy/throwback to Superman of the golden age. Gunn was the right one for that style. I doubt he could tackle Superman of Injustice or Absolute Superman among others.

Man of Steel is a cool superhero movie.

But Superman is one of the most recognizable characters on Earth and arguably DC's and Warner Brothers' flagship character. Going with a revisionist take or an Elseworlds style "what if Superman, but amoral" approach is better left to stuff like Invincible or the Boys, both of which did a great job with it (as did Elseworlds: Red Son and a bunch of other alternate takes over the years).

After the audience loudly rejected the "what if Superman, but a dead beat dad" approach taken by Superman Returns, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that "what if Superman, but we're not going to worry about massive collateral damage killing millions of people" upset people seven years later.

Again, I lay a lot of the blame here at the feet of Warner Brothers executives who clearly just wanted a Dark Knight take on Superman, not getting that the existing Superman audience didn't want something like that, and had made it very clear very recently.

 

[trappedslider]

This is a weird thing to say when I explicitly said that he's apparently a very good guy. People can dislike movies without having a personal beef with the director.

A lot of superheros behaviors are very depending on the writer, which is what i was attempting to get at.

Man of Steel is a cool superhero movie.

But Superman is one of the most recognizable characters on Earth and arguably DC's and Warner Brothers' flagship character. Going with a revisionist take or an Elseworlds style "what if Superman, but amoral" approach is better left to stuff like Invincible or the Boys, both of which did a great job with it (as did Elseworlds: Red Son and a bunch of other alternate takes over the years).

After the audience loudly rejected the "what if Superman, but a dead beat dad" approach taken by Superman Returns, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that "what if Superman, but we're not going to worry about massive collateral damage killing millions of people" upset people seven years later.

Again, I lay a lot of the blame here at the feet of Warner Brothers executives who clearly just wanted a Dark Knight take on Superman, not getting that the existing Superman audience didn't want something like that, and had made it very clear very recently.

Given the actual state of the world, a more hopeful jolly superman is the right call.

My first impression of superman was via Superman::TAS/DCAU and DKR, I watched the Reeves movies,but they didn't imprint on me.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Never saw Man of Steel, but yeah, comparisons of the movies are gonna happen.

I did see Batman V Superman. That was a pile of <execretive deleted.>

I don't think anyone who was familiar with Superman from other media was ever going to gel with Snyder's take on him.

I doubt he could tackle Superman of Injustice or Absolute Superman among others.

Gunn did do Brightburn...