>Superman should be invincible. Since his car-smashing debut in 1938, he’s starred in at least one regular monthly comic, three blockbuster films, and four television shows. His crest is recognized across the globe, his supporting cast is legendary, and anybody even vaguely familiar with comics can recount the broad strokes of his origin. (The writer Grant Morrison and the artist Frank Quitely accomplished it in eight words and four panels: “Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple.”) He’s the first of the superheroes, a genre that’s grown into a modern mass-media juggernaut.
>And yet, for a character who gains his power from the light of the sun, Superman is curiously eclipsed by other heroes. According to numbers provided by Diamond Distributors, the long-running Superman comic sold only 55,000 copies a month in 2015, down from around 70,000 in 2010—a mediocre showing even for the famously anemic comic-book market. That’s significantly less than his colleague Batman, who last year moved issues at a comparatively brisk 150,000 a month. Mass media hasn’t been much kinder: The longest-running Superman television show, 2001’s Smallville, kept him out of his iconic suit for a decade. Superman Returns recouped its budget at the box office, but proved mostly forgettable. 2013’s Man of Steel drew sharp criticism from critics and audiences alike for its bleak tone and rampaging finale. Trailers for the sequel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, have shifted the focus (and top billing) to the Dark Knight. Worst of all, conventional wisdom puts the blame on Superman himself. He’s boring, people say; he’s unrelatable, nothing like the Marvel characters dominating the sales charts and the box office. More than anything, he seems embarrassing. Look at him. Truth? Justice? He wears his underwear on the outside.
What will it take to improve Superman's image, /co/?
>He seems embarrassing. Look at him. Truth? Justice? He wears his underwear on the outside.
Is he trying to say this as public opinion or is it his own view of Superman? Either way, fuck him.
The problem with supes isn't unrelatability. It's that they never gave his powers a cap. Originally he could run faster than a train, lift heavy junk and jump pretty high. His power creep is ridiculous.
though this is never shown outside of comics for some reason
>space flight unaided
There are probably more. The point is Supes could end all crime everywhere if he felt like it but doesn't. Injustice points out the potential mayhem he can cause when he puts his foot down. SO maybe if he wasn't a god by power level we wouldn't be bored by his all punching all lifting solutions. Maybe if we were occasionally scared he could fail we would be more invested in watching him succeed.
Did you even read the rest of the article?
>Behold! I give you the problem of Superman. It’s a problem that has less to do with the character himself and more to with DC Comics, which found itself stuck with a flagship character it thought needed fixing. In trying, it broke him nearly beyond repair.
He's talking about the general public, and how DC itself views the character. The writer is actually taking shots at those people and it is deserved.
The trouble with Superman is that he's a big uncomplicated nice guy so assholes that know they'll never measure up have to make up ways to tear him down rather than trying to live up to his example.
>He wears his underwear on the outside! How silly!
Nigga who gives a shit? He HELPS people. He can wear whatever the fuck he wants. What the fuck do YOU do?
>The problem DC faced was this: You can’t fix something if you’re not sure where it’s broken. One of the issues halting a successful reinvention of Superman is a shift in the nature of the comics market. Since the 1980s, the dominant trend in the industry has been specialty comics shops replacing newsstands as primary distributors. Given this change, companies like Marvel and DC have focused their marketing toward an ever-dwindling market of adult fans, darkening their characters in an attempt to keep the interest of a readership desperate for mainstream respectability. In effect, adults were colonizing young-adult narratives and warping them in the process—an early example of what later occurred with Michael Bay’s legendarily crass Transformers films.
>In one of the uglier paradoxes of the superhero-comics industry, characters who were devised to entertain children soon became completely unsuitable for them. Leaning into this trend in an effort to entice new adult readers, DC largely abandoned its strengths as a publisher of optimistic, bizarre superheroics and fumbled for an edgier identity. Aspirational characters were hit hard by this change—Wonder Woman in particular has suffered nearly as many reboots as Superman, the latest of which has cast her as the bloodthirstiest of her Justice League coworkers, her trademark lasso of truth traded for a sword.
>But the trend proved particularly damaging to the Man of Steel. The 1986 Dark Knight Returns, one of the landmark wave of “mature” superhero comics, cast him as a Reaganite stooge and ended with Batman knocking him out. The choice directly shadowed Superman’s history up until the present. The dour trailers for Batman v Superman draw directly from the imagery of The Dark Knight Returns, with several shots paralleling panels from the earlier comic. The effect is to shout for everybody watching: This is a serious film. Pointedly, in these trailers Superman never once smiles.
Make a movie about him being completely blown the fuck out by Mister Mxyzptlk
>Who, then, is the modern Superman? Per Grant Morrison’s critically acclaimed All-Star Superman (2005), a love-letter to the Silver Age of Superman comics, Clark Kent is a man whose god-like power is his incredible empathy, juxtaposed against strange and dastardly villains—tyrant suns, Bizarro clones, the megalomaniacal Lex Luthor. He’s a journalist who fights corruption and oppression wherever he finds it, both in and out of costume, as in Mark Waid’s Superman: Birthright (2004), which retells the character’s origin with an emphasis on his relationships with the Daily Planet and the astute Lois Lane.
>Perhaps most importantly, he’s a character who deeply feels his responsibilities, but still manages to be cheerful, funny, and down to earth—the defining characteristics of Kurt Busiek’s alternate-universe tale Superman: Secret Identity (2005). Secret Identity in particular is worth noting for another reason: it’s the only Superman story to graft the refinements of Stan Lee’s underdog Spider-Man back onto Superman. As a result, it’s the best Superman story of the decade and perhaps one of the best of all time.
Taken together, these stories point to a way forward for Superman that could easily recapture people’s imagination while mirroring Siegel and Shuster’s original vision: stories of a man with the powers of a god, who chooses to live as a normal person and fight for normal people. Stories that are part newsroom drama and part mind-bending superheroics, mixing in corrupt corporations and alien invaders from other dimensions. Stories that can veer into snappy romantic comedy or genuine emotion with the removal of a pair of glasses. Stories that stop trying to reboot Superman and instead refine and build on what’s already there.
>In other words, if you believe in him, the man can fly.
I saw this article when it was shared on facebook on Sunday, and there was a significant number of folks who said their problem with him was that he wasn't relateable. Some said it was because he was an alien. Others said because he was OP. Others said because he wasn't compelled to heroism by a trauma of some sort. Regardless of the reason, and acknowledging that I completely disagree with the notion that he is unrelateable, there is a significant number of critics who feel he is unrelateable.
Why are so many people hung up on this idea that characters have to be relatable to be good?
That just smacks of this generations rampant egocentric worldview that everything has to be about them. Even fictional characters have to essentially be they themselves doing these amazing things or else they simply can't comprehend it.
That is such bullshit. I love it when I can relate to a character, but I would never demand a character be made relatable just to satisfy me.
Hell some of my favorite heroes are some I can't relate to in the slightest, like Thor. He's an actual viking warrior god that fights giant monsters, demons and living planets and lives in a golden city in space.
I can't relate to that, but I think it's fucking awesome as hell and I love it all the same.
>>This is who the character is at his best: not a walking set of superpowers, but a man fighting for truth and justice to the best of his considerable ability.
>>Perhaps most importantly, he’s a character who deeply feels his responsibilities, but still manages to be cheerful, funny, and down to earth
>>Taken together, these stories point to a way forward for Superman that could easily recapture people’s imagination while mirroring Siegel and Shuster’s original vision: stories of a man with the powers of a god, who chooses to live as a normal person and fight for normal people. Stories that are part newsroom drama and part mind-bending superheroics, mixing in corrupt corporations and alien invaders from other dimensions. Stories that can veer into snappy romantic comedy or genuine emotion with the removal of a pair of glasses. Stories that stop trying to reboot Superman and instead refine and build on what’s already there.
>>In other words, if you believe in him, the man can fly.
I don't know who wrote this but they really capture my opinion of Superman and why I love him. He's a truly good person with the powers of a god and all he wants to do is to help. How can people hate that?
>The dour trailers for Batman v Superman draw directly from the imagery of The Dark Knight Returns, with several shots paralleling panels from the earlier comic.
EXCEPT KEY THING MOTHER FUCKER!
Superman is clearly the one most good/right in the film faggot.
> The effect is to shout for everybody watching: This is a serious film
That is a extremely good thing, the era of campy silly dreck ended with Superman 3-4 & Batman & Robin, Marvel just keeps using Voodoo to desecrate the corpse. (In a good way, pretty much all the Marvel films are better then Superman 1-2 despite their over reliance on ill timed quips)
>In fact, it’s hard to escape the impression that Superman’s own company finds him a bit embarrassing. As the comics writer Chris Sims points out in his review of the anniversary compilation Superman: A Celebration of 75 Years, DC’s company line on Superman seems to be that he’s “a depressed sad sack who never wins.” The company ditched his iconic red trunks in 2011 and placed him instead in the blue, armor-like suit he currently wears on film. In response to fan complaints that Superman was “too powerful” and thus boring, it constantly adjusted his level of strength. Broader attempts to reconcile the character with its new approach have been filled with false starts and cold feet: Many of the innovative Superman runs of the past decade, including Joe Casey’s short-lived attempt to position the character as a pacifist, were either quickly rolled back or derailed by editorial interference. Promising new approaches, including a radical late ’90s pitch by the modern comics superstars Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, and Mark Waid, likewise went unexplored.
>Instead, the majority of Superman stories published in recent years have either been chair-rearranging reboots or have focused on the question of his relevance. The relaunches have been particularly difficult to ignore. Since 2001 alone, DC has commissioned five different reboots of Superman’s origins in the comics: the excellent Superman: Birthright and All-Star Superman, the adequate Superman: Secret Origins, the execrable Superman: Earth One, and the ongoing (and rather good) Superman: American Alien. Mass media has gotten in on the act as well, with the show Smallville and the blockbuster Man of Steel likewise being obsessed with reinventing the character for modern America.
By being captain america.
Marvel Cap is what Superman wishes he was. He grew up in far worse circumstances, had far less to work with and he's been shown to be everything supes wishes he was.
He doesn't NEED to be super indestructible. Hell, I'd play up how he needs sunlight to get really strong and at night he's running off of stored energy. Even bring up the red light and kryptonite thing.
Make up an anecdote about how he went to the north pole for six month during the night season and he'd lost most of his power. Even nearly dying in avalanche when he tried to help someone. Will throw many people off the trail of clark kent = superman now that I think about it.
People can't claim SUPERMAN IS SUPER INVINCIBLE BECAUSE RADDA RADDA RADDA! they can say he gets his powers from sunlight and play up his super heat vision and..
Superman fails precisely because they try so fucking hard to make him like all of the hip cool and now characters instead of running with what makes the very idea of superman work.
Super powers, being raised by good salt of the earth and very very human and humane people, and deciding to use his powers to do good, be a good example for people everywhere to follow, while living his life as a normal honest man.
That's not sexy enough. That's not edgy enough. So we got the horrorshow that was superman returns and the outright abomination that was man of steel.
>Questioning Superman’s place in culture isn’t an inherently bad idea, and it’s no wonder that creators want to dig into his truth-and-justice symbolism in a world that seems to hold both in short supply. However, that impulse has led into a rabbit hole of navel-gazing narratives that endlessly attempt to justify the character’s existence. In its constant attempts to “fix” Superman over the last 20 years, DC has largely forgotten to tell stories with him.
>The irony of all this is that, for all the rust and ineffectual tinkering, the storytelling engine built by Siegel and Shuster still runs. Superman remains as inspirational a character as he did during the Great Depression: Considering the current state of rampant income inequality, brutal law enforcement and corrupt politics, the immigrant superhero from the planet Krypton may be more relevant now than he has been in years. What the comic requires now is not another reboot, but a forceful, committed attempt to refine the engine that currently exists—to stop trying to make Superman something he’s not, and to focus instead on what he is. The current writer on Action Comics, Greg Pak, has leaned into this idea with stories of a more socially aware Superman. It’s a good start. But it remains to be seen whether or not DC will allow it to stick.
Not saying theyre reliable. Bot saying they're worth listening to. I am however saying that they do paint a portrait of a significant portion of people who don't like Superman because they are of the opinion that he isn't relateable. Again, I disagree with that notion, but whether or not you and I find Superman relateable doesn't matter if the people DC and WB need to be more interested in the character don't. If I remember the article correctly, the main notion is that efforts have been made to make him relateable by making him more flawed, less idealistic, etc, and that attempts to do so have not only not accomplished what they were hoped would, but have also betrayed what the character was meant to signify at its inception and that if anything DC should strive to return to that original concept in a modern context, but retaining its original ideals and pursuits. I would agree with that, and suggest that DC not change Superman to make him more relateable but instead just do a better job showing how he already is relateable.
Yeah but Superman should never be too serious. I mean he can be serious but he should always still be able to crack a smile that tells you everything is going to be ok. He isn't serious like Batman who is serious all the time, he should have moments of seriousness between his general good mood
>Superman has no place in a world where cynicism and petty cruelty are law.
Except that is exactly were he belongs so he can actually make a difference, him being in a already happy hopeful world kinda makes his inspiring ideal redundant.
>How can people hate that?
Because that's not what the people complaining are.
Every argument as to what's "wrong" with Superman, and every solution on how to "fix" him, reveals just how much of a self absorbed asshole the speaker is.
People complain that he's an alien immigrant, and thus unrelatable. But what they really have a problem with is the fact that he's assimilated and naturalized in a way they refuse to.
People complain he's overpowered. Except his villians are just as overpowered. Hell, a few of his allies are too. What they really have a problem with is what Clark DOES with that power; help his fellow man, no strings attached.
People complain that he's not driven by tragedy. That's self-fucking-explanatory. They think that someone needs to be guilt tripped into doing the right thing, because otherwise they'd have no excuse not to.
He dresses silly? His 60-70 year old mom made his costume. Are you so big an asshole that you wouldn't wear something your mom made you with her own two arthritic hands?
>Others said because he wasn't compelled to heroism by a trauma of some sort.
I fucking hate this meme. It was a big part of what ruined John Carter, that rather than jumping in all two-fisted to kick ass like a 19th century heroic cliche, (which would have been so dated as to wrap around and be refreshingly new in comparison) they made him fit the modern "heroic" cliche, and so we had to sit through about an hour of him whining about how he didn't care and wanted to go home to his wife before he suddenly cared enough to take action and the plot could finally get moving again.
This same stupid meme also made that awful Mel Gibson film "The Patriot" into a joke, where "the Patriot" isn't even doing it because of patriotism, but out of revenge 'cause the Brits killed his family and now it's personal! They should have called it "The Selfish Revenge Guy."
Why can't people do the right thing because it's right? Why do they always have to do it for petty personal reasons?
>As the comics writer Chris Sims points out in his review of the anniversary compilation Superman: A Celebration of 75 Years, DC’s company line on Superman seems to be that he’s “a depressed sad sack who never wins.”
Huh, I remember that article.
Some of Superman's flagging sales can be blamed on larger industry trends within DC. DC (like Marvel) tends to be obsessed with beginnings and origins, and never really challenges the status quo of the character in a meaningful way. When they have, they have inevitably had to undo it. Sometimes poorly and at the loss of their readership.
When the old DC universe ended in 2011, the Superman of those comics was officially the same Superman from John Byrne's Superman reboot from 1985. But Byrne himself has long burned bridges with DC (and everyone) and with the editorial changes, not to mention cellphones and the internet, the end of the USSR, the way that version of Superman started and ended could hardly be argued to be in the same narrative.
Likewise, the immense popularity of Batman means the caped crusader is on his fifth Robin while the rest of the DC universe can barely keep their spotlight..
While the current stuff by Greg Pak is quite fun, it is still also a stripped down post-modern take on the character.
Potential readers have moved on to less byzantine media. Only in comics does there exist the idea that there must always be a Superman comic being published, even if it lacks creative integrity or identity.
MOS is one of my absolute favorite movies (top 5)
And I like that he is a reporter and has a grounded human view of humanity.
I love his power level.
I love that he helps people.
I am 100% fine ether way if he has tragedy in his origin or not.
I don't care about if his mom created it in some incarnations I car about if it is enjoyable to see on the page or screen, and in the Reeves films it is not at all.
First superhero? What about the greek demigods, beowulf etc? How do you parse that as the first ridiculously powerful fictional character?
Its just an archetype, there is nothing new under the sun.
I dunno. I'm sure some of their arguments are valid it's just frustrating that people just take a quick glance at a character through media and assume he's boring or not relatable. I mean I personally relate to the message of doing good for the sake of it. I hold that very personally and I'd say that's a belief that helped form me as a person. So seeing people write of a character and a message simply because they can't relate to such a simple idea as being a good person astounds me.
Honestly man? It what you said and what >>79716017 said, which is a sentiment I've said for months now. People like a flawed "relatable" character because its easier to see yourself in someone imperfect, than to acknowledge that you can be better, and won't ever be perfect, but that you could concievably make your microcosm better for those around you by striving to be better and doing what you can to be more like that perfect person. I will never be Superman, but if I can help those around me in the little ways that I can, I like to think that if Superman were real that he'd be proud of me, and that's victory enough for me. Other folks might just want to think that they are fine as they are. I've always seen superheroes at their best when they represent our best. They are the exceptional. They are the excellent. They're being more than us though also makes the wish to be one of them, and the fact that I am not one of them easier to consume, because if I am not exceptional or perfect, why should I be a superhero?
I don't give a shit what your favorite movies are. This thread isn't even entirely about that one mediocre movie.
>Grounded view of humanity
What? Superman is an unflinching optimist. He's the one that thinks everyone can do what he does. Batman has a more grounded view of humanity. Hell, Wonder Woman has a more grounded view of humanity. Stop using words when you don't know what they mean.
>I don't care about if his mom created it in some incarnations I car about if it is enjoyable to see on the page or screen, and in the Reeves films it is not at all.
He doesn't get his costume from his mom in the Reeves films. For someone so dedicated to telling everyone how silly and campy and stupid they are, you don't seem to have even watched them.
He doesn't help his fellow man NSA.
He upholds the status quo even saving the lives of very evil human beings while allowing poor people to starve in his own goddamned city.
That fucking ideal does not mesh with any form of reality.
He's not a hero. He's a super powered jack thug of anyone who's in power at the time.
And in the movie, he's just some menssing wandering narcisstic misanthropic cynical bitch nigga who does fuck all.
I have never posted a copy pasta in my life.
I don't think he is a joke conceptually, I love mos and I love TAS, its about taking him as a ideal and making it feel like some believable powerful thing existing in a real world.
Treating him like he must sways win/save the say/never kill/never make mistakes/never make sacrifices is extremely disrespectful to him conceptually and treats him like a joke that he doesn't need to be.
He needs to struggle, to be tested, to have burdens, to be conflicted, It is not inherently necessary in any way for him to be perfect and do everything perfectly.
>He doesn't get his costume from his mom in the Reeves films.
That's what he was trying to say with his bad grammar. "And in the Reeves films it is not at all." He means that it didn't happen in the Christopher Reeve films.
>I have never posted a copy pasta in my life.
>Treating him like he must sways win/save the say/never kill/never make mistakes/never make sacrifices
Oh look, there it is again.
I am going to say this as clearly as I possibly can:
You are the only person in this thread that is saying that anyone's arguing in favor of a perfect Superman that never stumbles or loses. The ONLY person.
Do you know what they call it when someone creates an argument that no one is using in order to seem right?
Google it, son.
In the year 2016, I have serious doubts about what a hypothetical audience for Superman would want from the character.
Because DC Editorial isn't gonna let him do a lot of things. They just aren't.
Obviously I meant "always using punctuation marks while arguing how highly artistic and epic MoS was while the older stuff is 2silly4me"
If it's multiple people doing the same thing then buy, what a trend
>I don't give a shit what your favorite movies are. This thread isn't even entirely about that one mediocre movie.
That's fine but you made the assumption that people that like different takes on Superman want to fix him and dislike the other things you mentioned which I proved false.
I mean he grounds himself by standing with and alongside people and hears their stories and lives thru his reporting instead of just being a god above them.
> For someone so dedicated to telling everyone how silly and campy and stupid they are, you don't seem to have even watched them.
I meant in how silly the outfit LOOKED visually.
>Grounded view of humanity
She's the virgin birth to a queen of an island of isolationist immortal misandrist misogynist sociopathic lesbian barbarians.
She's the well off well protected princess of this closed off society of super beings.
Her having anything close to an understanding of humanity is fucking retarded.
Her entire peace thing is fucking retarded.
Her whole love thing is fucking retarded.
She's fucking she worf. The dyke version of every violently bigoted against one thing or another monster character in every comic or piece of sci-fantasy you can name.
She's basically the dwarf and anything with a dick are elves.
And they still have him attempt to tackle social ills though. Superman can't do shit to tackle world hunger, and he knows it.
Which is weird because Batman could do more to solve that problem but no one ever guilts him for failing to do so.
>You are the only person in this thread that is saying that anyone's arguing in favor of a perfect Superman that never stumbles or loses. The ONLY person.
If you or anyone else thinks MOS is inherently bad because they chose to have Clark kill or cause damage himself or not be able to save metropolis in full then yes you are saying that.
Honestly though I think Superman would be the one who'd try to tackle world hunger bit by bit, even if he would fail several times because of red tape or whatever. Batman would just donate money as Bruce Wayne and make the occasional humanitarian visit.
MoS superman isn't a reporter.
He's a random asshole who walks around doing fuck all and causing as much if not more damage then he prevents or stops.
If superman, at any point, was revealed to be a wandering blogger or was a globe trotting reporter who sent in well written humanistic articles from different places?
Yeah. Hell it wouldn't have even taken a major rewrite of that garbage movie. Just a few lines here and there.
Have Ma Kent stop blathering on about "WHY RISK YOUR LIFE FOR PEOPLE FUCK THEM NIGGAS LET EM DROWN" for a few minutes and just talk about how she tried to bookmark his blog page/web page or has a massive scrap book filled with his articles and a map showing where he's been in the world.
Have Perry talk about a new hotshot reporter. ANYTHING.
He's just a random with superpowers in the movie. And not a good random. Just some asshole who's wandering around doing fuck and all.
Bitch you can barely string together a coherent sentence. You've proven shit and can't argue anything the the unrelated strawmen that you set up. You look at surface stuff and assume depth and meaning because someone's turned the saturation down, you have no clue what goes into making a good story much less a bad one, you praise incoherent narratives with weasel words and meaningless purple prose in a late term aborting attempt to sound like an intellectual, and the only reason you haven't been laughed off this board is because you've used the two brain cells you have to rub together to summon enough wherewithal to remain anonymous. Learn English.
Yes, on paper she should be naive as fuck and the fact that she isn't has always been a bit of cognitive dissonance. but the fact that she's been written as of late as being a more pragmatic necksnapper that doesn't think everyone can be saved/redeemed is what makes her review more grounded. Which, you have to remember, in the minds of idiots and thus for the purposes of this discussion, is a word synonymous with cynical.
Point to where in the thread anyone said ANYTHING remotely resembling that and maybe, just MAYBE you'll have a point.
I'd accuse you of being a bot but goddamn even bots are smarter and more able to read these days.
>And not a good random. Just some asshole who's wandering around doing fuck and all.
But he was still out trying to help people, though. He saved the people on the oil rig, which is more than I could say for Superman Earth One who spent most of his time applying to jobs in the comic.
Maybe it's just me, but maybe the trouble with Supes is that his identity isn't easy to summarize. He stands for truth, justice, and the American way because even though he isn't from Earth, he was raised in the US and grew to love his country... but what exactly makes him a patriot in comparison to other patriotic comic characters? And when he fights, he fights for all of humanity, so why "the American way"? He has a variety of powers, from speed and strength to flight, laser vision, and freezing breath, so you can't pin him down as "the X character" the same way you can say "Flash is about speed" and "Aquaman is about the ocean".
His costume doesn't carry much weight when it comes to his ideals, either. Look at Batman: Yes, he dresses like a bat, but we know that's because he's a symbol of fear. He wants to give the scary people something to be scared of themselves. Captain America stands for classic American ideals in that he's a patriot, a war hero, and he's an idealist in an era of realists. Aquaman and Black Panther are kings, Strange is a sorcerer. Superman's suit is a representation of the planet and family he left behind, but with the House of El crest conveniently looking an 'S', you lose a lot of the mystery and foreignness that would help add more meaning to his look.
Superman's strongest message is the one of heritage vs. culture. If that could play a bigger part in how he's presented, how he feels like he doesn't belong and a lot of people hate him, but he keeps on trying to protect them anyway, I think people would identify with him more. Especially if protecting those people were a challenge for him, and he wasn't so powerful.
I don't think Mos is high art or anything beyond a extremely great film, but visual designs for Krypton and their wear absolutely are extremely artistic.
The scale of the fights are epic in every feasible definition of the word.
I like Superman 1 & 2 but aspects of them are cringe inducing, stop mother fucking mocking me for not liking parody style campy-ness.
Did you mock people happy they made Batman 1989 serious instead of Adam West lite? No? Then your a hypocritical piece of shit.
he represents the american way because he's an immigrant living the american dream. He found a better life in america than back home. Some people hate him for being from somewhere else despite his intentions.. etc
Only idiots just throw out those words without putting explanations behind them.
No one is mocking you for not liking camp. Everyone is mocking you because you sound like a fucking moron that's doing his best to sound smart but at best can only manage edgy teen.
He then later wrapped that one guys rig around a telephone pole, destroyed downtown fucking smallville which probably cost more then a few lives, brought the kryptonians to earth, then turned metropolis into ground zero in a superhuman free for all.
That one single fucking thing he did does not make up for the fact that he is responsible for a lot of destruction.
I learned to read from comics and have read and stayed abreast of them for nearly my entire life.
It sounds like all you've read of superman is articles and a few tabletop MUST READ superman stories.
I stand by my post and hope that you can find one single thing that disproves my post.
Do any of you guys actually read Superman comics?
Because I feel like I've wondered into an academic debate.
>MoS superman isn't a reporter.
>He's a random asshole who walks around doing fuck all and causing as much if not more damage then he prevents or stops.
I was talking about Superman in general in regards to the Reporting.
And no the worst damage he caused was crashing the scout ship which side swiped 4 buildings which is not even a 20th of the damage done in the film.
No, cartoon starfire and shazam are naive.
WW should have a world view that is so deeply alien and fundamentally fucked up that one would struggle to understand how they can function in a civilized society.
She's not naive, she should be utterly fucked up in her understanding of society and her entire thing should be about learning how to be a part of "man's world".
He probably did because MoS is the only Superman media he's consumed. He's likely heard of All Star, but only just enough so that he can accuse everyone else of wanting that and only that.
Superman is Hope.
It's for parents who sent him away in hopes that he could be saved. For the Kents who were hoping for a child and were given one. Who raised a child with the god and taught him the merits of doing the right thing simply because it is what right. It's the Hope that they raised their boy right. It's Clark's Hope to be able to live a normal life. And when that failed it was his Hope to be able to help others because he can. It's his Hope for the planet to be safe and for it's inhabitants to no longer have to fear the unknown. His Hope that we will realize our potential and raise ourselves up. The Hope that everyone is capable of greatness.
That's what he stands for, at least to me. His character is Hope that we can all do the right thing.
If the trunks prevented him from being hexed by magic and reality warping, it would be a good excuse to wear them. The stories should be about him not accidentally annihilating his opponents by finding clever ways to defeat them as well as attempting to rehabilitate them.
Other stories could be about him going around helping people randomly, maybe a farmer down on his luck or a man who can't find a job or something. Superman is supposed to be a role model, and that's the real reason people don't like him: because they know that they want to stay degenerates forever instead of being good.
There's, like, all this posturing going on in this thread about what Superman represents and his hypothetical appeal, but very little about what would make a Superman comic book sell better in 2016.
It's a very curatorial perspective.
>You've proven shit and can't argue anything the the unrelated strawmen that you set up.
I proved your a liar or failing that you are making inaccurate assumptions, you flat out said...
> Every argument as to what's "wrong" with Superman, and every solution on how to "fix" him, reveals just how much of a self absorbed asshole the speaker is.
And that is fucking false because I don't consider anything to be wrong with him, and I don't want to change anything about him but his tone (SOME OF THE TIME) and the irrational expectation that he always be perfect and do perfectly in every alternate incarnation of him film or otherwise.
>WW should have a world view that is so deeply alien and fundamentally fucked up that one would struggle to understand how they can function in a civilized society.
Naive was the, let's say "egalitarian" way I was phrasing it, but honestly? I agree. Wonder Woman shouldn't know shit about shit. Her entire mission is flawed because she doesn't know men, so how is she supposed to change their world? On paper, her world view should be alien, anachronistic, and incompatible with just about everything she interacts with.
But it isn't, because to suggest otherwise would be problematic. But that's neither here nor there.
I feel you, but also, he never knew his home. It would have more of an impact if he was, say, 12 years old when he was sent to live on Earth, rather than him having been an infant when Krypton exploded.
People make Superman out to be like an immigrant who flees their war-torn country to come here for a better life, when in reality, he's the infant child that immigrant brought with them into this country. Still an immigrant, but more Americanized than anything since this country was all they ever knew.
If we're talking about what would make things sell, then the problem isn't even just with Superman. The problem is an industry wide thing that starts with the shitty distribution model.
Well what the fuck did
>>He doesn't help his fellow man NSA.
Also you know he has worked to end world hunger before right? Also he regularly stands up to the establishment when he thinks they're in the wrong. But breaking the laws isn't something he makes a habit of because that would be a pretty bad precedent to set.
I feel 100% the same way. But in people's efforts to make him an exclusively-American icon (in the vein of Captain America), I feel like they lose the best aspect of Superman: The fact that his story is about trying to imitate the best of humanity as a whole when you're not human at all.
The best thing for Superman would be painting him as a defender of Earth rather than some sort of American icon. Yes he has a lot of importance to American pop culture, but I don't think his character should be about America. I think the idea of Superman should be that, if he had landed in France, Japan, or Argentina and raised by people similar to the Kents, he would have ended up the same person anyway.
You seem to have forgotten the post number that links to the non-argument you're pretending people are making. People are saying superman being changed is bad because superman was never the shitty strawman you're saying that everyone is demanding.
>and the irrational expectation that he always be perfect and do perfectly in every alternate incarnation of him film or otherwise.
Again. POINT TO WHERE ANYONE BUT YOU IS SAYING THIS IS EVEN A THING OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. The only time it's even a point of contention is when people (rightly) point out that it doesn't mesh with the hamfisted savior imagery of your shitty "greatest movie of all time".
>Only idiots just throw out those words without putting explanations behind them.
The modern Kryptonian outfits looked like carved organically flowing stone in the vein of HR Giger, would artistic not be a accurate description of that?
The power of the individual blows along with the general ferocity during the fight scenes along with the world spanning locations and gravity of the threat facing the world in the film, would epic not be a accurate description of that?
> Everyone is mocking you because you sound like a fucking moron that's doing his best to sound smart but at best can only manage edgy teen.
There is nothing edgy about liking well made films that take their subject matter seriously.
>In one of the uglier paradoxes of the superhero-comics industry, characters who were devised to entertain children soon became completely unsuitable for them.
This make me sad for some reason
>The modern Kryptonian outfits looked like carved organically flowing stone in the vein of HR Giger, would artistic not be a accurate description of that?
Yes, this is an explanation. "artistic" is not. Artistic is a single word that, by itself, lacks meaning.
>The power of the individual blows along with the general ferocity during the fight scenes along with the world spanning locations and gravity of the threat facing the world in the film, would epic not be a accurate description of that?
It would be were it not for the fact that the fights lacked tension because they didn't even attempt to characterize them.
>There is nothing edgy about liking well made films that take their subject matter seriously.
They didn't. If they took the subject matter seriously, we'd have gotten Flashpoint Superman. That movie made conceit after conceit in order to tell the story it wanted, which is fine, but to act like it was a more grounded and plausible take reveals that you confuse plausibility with solemnity, which is what garners the responses of being an edgy teen.
Now, I know I'm going to have to explain some of those words to you because they were longer than three syllables, so just list the ones you don't understand and I'll put my teaching hat on.
You're talking about that anon's analysis of Birthright, are you?
It's funny, when his comparison with MoS showed that the comic does things way better fans of the movie pointed out that what he was saying wasn't fair because the movie was "actually" inspired more from Byrne's Superman, but in these days i've been reading Byrne and in Superman's origin there's nothing similar except the idea that Krypton was a morally bankrupt world with artificial breeding. Everything Clark does in MoS is very clearly inspired from Birthright, like his traveling to find his identity, or the fact that Johnatan was scared about how the world would react to his powers, yet fans of the movie keep talking about Byrne. Is it really just because of that single page where he kills Zod? I still haven't got to that
I mean he does not help his fellow man no strings attached in the movie dumbass. Follow the thread.
Secondly, Superman only did that in a few incarnations. Hell when he actively tried to repair the world they made a big goddamned fuss about why feeding the homeless repairing the ozone and cleaning the oceans up was bad.
See, status quo is king. Being good in the way that everyone agrees upon is bad for business.
That's why it's discouraged.
Being kind to your fellow man.
Hatred is wrong.
Violence is the last resort when faced with a problem and the first resort when evil violence is heaped upon the innocent
Humanity isn't something you're born into it's an innate goodness that all people have and only need to cultivate by doing good.
Etc etc etc.
Superman has not been that for a very long time. And movie superman is anathema to the very idea of superman.
>The entire thread is about why Superman being changed is bad.
This entire thread is mostly about people who aren't reading Superman comics talking about that they used to Superman.
>The modern Kryptonian outfits looked like carved organically flowing stone in the vein of HR Giger, would artistic not be a accurate description of that?
They looked like scuba suits with scribbles.
>The power of the individual blows along with the general ferocity during the fight scenes along with the world spanning locations and gravity of the threat facing the world in the film, would epic not be a accurate description of that?
They were also kind of numbing and cartoony. The final fight went on a little too long to maintain tension for me.
I thought the movie was really inconsistent and had thin characters.
You know, if you go back to that thread you'll notice before the storytime even began that anon had said that you could do it for Byrnes's run, or Earth One, and you'd still see how it doesn't match up because the entire problem was that MoS drew from a bunch of stuff and stuck it all together without trying to make the different parts fit.
Goyer and Snyder flat out said the movie drew from Birthright and Earth One and never brought up Byrne or Miracleman or even Plato's Republic, but the fans need to move the goal posts in order to defend the movie. I guarantee if you did a similar analysis to show how the ultimately has fuck all in common with the Byrnes run, a few days later we'll see "No Man of Steel was REALLY based on Red Son!" or something.
On the other hand maybe you're right and it is because of that single page where he kills Zod. A page which only ever gets posted out of context, which is suspicious as fuck to me.
>It would be were it not for the fact that the fights lacked tension because they didn't even attempt to characterize them.
Your saying the characters within the fights did not have characterization? The entire first half the the film was nothing but characterization and depth being given to both Krypton and Clark. This is possibly the most fleshed out Zod we have ever gotten in any medium.
> They didn't. If they took the subject matter seriously, we'd have gotten Flashpoint Superman
Why is that?
> That movie made conceit after conceit in order to tell the story it wanted,
> but to act like it was a more grounded and plausible take reveals that you confuse plausibility with solemnity
I think they took the subject matter seriously because they did not heave preposterous notions upon him like the "he can always save everyone" and his origins were more richly developed and fleshed out.
The earth of mos felt like the real world, Pa is not a naive idiot, he had strong unnerving concerns and conflicting hopes in regards to Clark.
The Kents were not perfect people they had flaws and moments of selfishness.
Military had no hover cars of laser guns.
Everything felt immeasurably more real, while Older more light hearted Superman material plays more like a fable or bible story, and their is nothing wrong with ether take I'm just stating the differences as I see them.
I always thought Superman never worked because he was in an unrealistic setting
>inb4 superheroes, realistic, pick one
Everyone in the world sucks Superman's dick except Luthor who is notable as being the guy who doesn't.even if there is someone who doesn't like Superman they're always painted in a negative light instead of just being another side of the argument like a bad straw man comic. The real world doesn't work that way, I'm not saying the stupid civilians in Marvel is perfect either but it's closer.
Not a single moment felt cartoony to me, it felt like gods fighting right there before you.
>The final fight went on a little too long to maintain tension for me.
The longer it went on the more tense it got to me personally, as the tension from the fight wasn't about who would hurt the other, it was about how much damage and peril will happen before it is done and what will it cost Clark to resolve it.
I do not think there is a way to make Superman sell in 2016 for the same reasons he sold many years ago.
There, that wasn't hard.
The comics book market simply isn't interested in characters like superman and the only reason his books sell at all is name recognition and they fact that they have largely assimilated to industry trends rather than done their own thing.
Dude so many of the elseworlds deal with this very concept. And in many of them he comes out just as you'd think. And I feel like the Character really hasn't been an Exclusively American icon for a while. I mean even in the movie Supes saved India before Metropolis.
>He then later wrapped that one guys rig around a telephone pole
Which the trucking company or insurance will replace.
>destroyed downtown fucking smallville
That was Faora/Non and the A-10s, he tried to take the fight elsewhere, he grabbed Faora and leaped hard and Non dragged them back down.
>brought the kryptonians to earth
Yes but any thing they did is not on him, it would be like saying if I bought a new car and someone spotted it on the road and flowed me home and murdered by family it would be my fault.
>then turned metropolis into ground zero in a superhuman free for all.
No the world engine did, only a single building fell during his one on one fight with Zod and he did zero structural damage to it.
>The entire first half the the film was nothing but characterization and depth being given to both Krypton and Clark.
Krypton yes, Clark no.
>This is possibly the most fleshed out Zod we have ever gotten in any medium.
Agreed, but even then he's shallow as fuck. Zod is essentially a robot in MoS that has to follow his programming. But yes in comparison to the others it's *maybe* an accomplishment.
No, I mean the fight lacks tension because they're both these invincible perfect gods that never take any damage. And yes, I know you're going to whine and say "Zod threatened the planet. We're supposed to empathize with the people trapped in the rubble" but THAT is where the lack of characterization is. They're red shirts. Nobody gives a shit about red shirts.
Now I know Snyder doesn't understand Star Trek either so just so you know, a "Red shirt" is a stock character in fiction that dies after being introduced to dramatize the potential peril that the main characters face. The problem with red shirts is that they've become a joke through their overuse and no longer carry any narrative weight.
>Why is that?
Clark's ship crashes onto earth and isn't immediately swarmed by military and scientists? That's a huge fucking conceit. We have satellites and missile detection systems in place to make sure that if anything like that happens we can detect it ahead of time and we have missiles and tech to shoot that stuff out of the sky and intercept it. But none of that stuff ever gets so much as a nod because the Kents need to find Clark for the story to happen. That is a huge comic booky unrealistic conceit that a "serious sci fi" (which means nothing in of itself. do you mean HARD scifi?) would have to address.
And again. ONLY YOU are harping on about the "he can always save everyone".
The problem in Man of Steel, and ONLY Man of Steel, isn't that Clark or fails, it's that he's a pussy that doesn't even TRY half the time.
I WANT Superman to fail.
>You have to look past that and realize what Superman represents. A child from somewhere else can flourish and grow in America in ways his parents never could.
Okay, but what would interest you enough to get you to buy a Superman comic tomorrow?
>I do not think there is a way to make Superman sell in 2016 for the same reasons he sold many years ago.
>There, that wasn't hard.
>The comics book market simply isn't interested in characters like superman and the only reason his books sell at all is name recognition and they fact that they have largely assimilated to industry trends rather than done their own thing.
I disagree, to me if pastiches and homages to Superman like Invincible and One-Punch Man can be successful than so should Superman.
There's usually a number of people that don't trust Superman they just don't usually get much time or they make arguments to clark and then situations arise and he saves them as superman. Although the pak run where he's lost his power had the civilians being a bit more marvel like (unfortunately)
>it was about how much damage and peril will happen
Peril of stock characters and scenery isn't compelling.
> and what will it cost Clark to resolve it.
It costs nothing, because they didn't bother instilling any sense that he had a sanctity of life into the character. But because he let out a big melodramatic NOOOOOOOO like he was Episode 3 Vader, you ignored all that.
Now keep regurgitating your non-starter of an argument about how everyone wants a perfect superman that never fails even though no one is asking for that but you.
>You know, if you go back to that thread you'll notice before the storytime even began that anon had said that you could do it for Byrnes's run, or Earth One, and you'd still see how it doesn't match up because the entire problem was that MoS drew from a bunch of stuff and stuck it all together without trying to make the different parts fit.
Exactly what i was thinking while reading the very first pages. In Byrne's Man of Steel Jor-el talks about how much he hates what has become of Krypton and that he stole his son from the matrix so that he could at least be saved from all that shit + imminent destruction of the planet. And that is kind of what Jor-el does in the movie too, except that Crowe at some point starts talking about how "you will save them all, Kal-el, you will guide them in the sun..." and shit
So both the Jor-els are trying to save their son out of desperation, but Byrne-el actually shows that in the dialogue: he points out that Earth is a good, civilized planet and that his son will be "almost like a god" to humans, but he also adds that maybe Kal-el will bring the Kryptonian culture he hates so much to Earth, he doesn't know what's going to happen.
On the other hand Crowe-el HAS to give the inspirational dialogue because "duh, it's Superman, people love him", with that tiny bit of Christ comparison because the Donner movies did that
All these characterizations are mashed together in the movie and none seem to prevail on the other
My only beef with the flick were the over abundance of christ references, and the final fight looking extremely fake. They had the right idea, but it didn't look good, because none of the hits looked like they were connecting. It looked like when you're play fighting with your friends, and they move their head back to pretend they got hit. Also, neither one looked like they were taking any kind of damage, a busted lip or little blood, or even some hair out of place would have been nice to see, but the end of the fight had them both looking exactly the fucking same before they even started. The fight didn't feel like it had any weight to it.
>Which the trucking company or insurance will replace.
Actually that's not how it works. And even if it were, that trucker would lose still his job. And while we're on the subject what about the people that had stuff in that truck? What'd they do to deserve that? For all you know that trailer contained cancer medication.
>I disagree, to me if pastiches and homages to Superman like Invincible and One-Punch Man can be successful than so should Superman.
I agree with this as well. I mean, I'm not saying that a faithfully written superman would not be profitable. It just wouldn't put up the kind of consistent, reliable numbers that a big business like DC would want out of their big title.
One-Punch Man and Invincible would never be DC universe comics starring the company's largest hero.
Dude, "I can't save everyone" has been Superman's think for over half a century now.
That wasn't even a fucking thing in the first(objectively weak) superman movie. As a matter of fact the entire damned movie's climax was built around that fact.
Hell the second movie was about that too.
Every superman cartoon barring the super friends has that in there as well. Some of the best superman stories have that element.
The fuck are you even talking about. >>79718402
The kents weren't flawed. They were asshole strawmen that outright stated that humans were selfish shortsighted dicks.
As a matter of fact the most humane people in this movie were the people from the daily planet(barring lois who was just there) and the military guys(who're clear military industrial complex propaganda).
The average non city folk or military people?
Totally selfish or outright insane dicks.
>They're red shirts. Nobody gives a shit about red shirts.
Yes some of us do, especially when they took the time to show the destruction from the Daily Planet crews point of view.
>it's that he's a pussy that doesn't even TRY half the time.
How does restraining oneself for the greater good because revealing oneself may cause more harm then good to the world equal being a pussy?
>On the other hand Crowe-el HAS to give the inspirational dialogue because "duh, it's Superman, people love him", with that tiny bit of Christ comparison because the Donner movies did that
The "they will join you in the sun" line was cribbed from All Star Superman. And yet it worked there because it was Superman nearing the end of his 12 labors and foreshadowing DC 1 Million (where everyone literally joins him in the sun in the 853rd century).
Here in MoS it just seems out of place with the scene.
>My only beef with the flick were the over abundance of christ references
You know this is funny because they try to analogize Superman with Christ but then they have him killing. I think the problem with Superman killing is not so much that it has Superman killing but that they're mashing up things and not really giving much thought to the entire thing. If he had Superman killing but the eased up or eliminated the Christ comparisons, then it would be less of a problem.
It's sort of like Watchmen where he gets certain things but other things end up awkwardly placed out of context.
>especially when they took the time to show the destruction from the Daily Planet crews point of view.
You mean the crew of red shirts that had no characterization or even more than a paragraph's worth of dialogue? I'm suddenly supposed to care about them now that they've gone from being meaningless background props to meaningless background props?
And they're not even GOOD red shirts because no one dies or gets injured. They just get dusty. Wow. Such peril. Such danger. Much drama. Wow. So epic.
>Peril of stock characters and scenery isn't compelling.
Yes it is.
>It costs nothing, because they didn't bother instilling any sense that he had a sanctity of life into the character.
False, they showed he is strongly against punching down (wouldn't stand up to bully, walked away from job instead of harming the drunk douche)
> But because he let out a big melodramatic NOOOOOOOO like he was Episode 3 Vader, you ignored all that.
Yes and that scream alone was a billion times more emotionally effective then anything in the prequels.
>They were asshole strawmen that outright stated that humans were selfish shortsighted dicks.
But there is nothing, not a single fucking thing ass-holish about wanting to both keep your son safe and keep society from tearing itself apart.
>who're clear military industrial complex propaganda
No they were not such in even the vaguest sense, if such was the case then the Military's hardware would not have been rekt so easily, Superman would have been written to go along with them and trust them.
>It just wouldn't put up the kind of consistent, reliable numbers that a big business like DC would want out of their big title.
But Superman isn't reliably getting big numbers!
The title is flagging at 55K!
>My only beef with the flick were the over abundance of christ references
Literally 2 under 2 minute scenes in a 140something minute film you asshurt atheist prick.
> Also, neither one looked like they were taking any kind of damage
That was the point.
> The fight didn't feel like it had any weight to it.
The point of the fight was how it effected the city around them not how it effected them individually.
The weight comes from the direness of ending the fight because the harm it is doing around them. 2 invincible beings fighting is pointless in and of itself, Clark knows that, but Zod is not giving him much choice.
>Yes it is.
That's not an argument.
>False, they showed he is strongly against punching down (wouldn't stand up to bully, walked away from job instead of harming the drunk douche)
Cowardice and passivity is not establishing a sanctity of life.
>Yes and that scream alone was a billion times more emotionally effective then anything in the prequels.
Just because you say it's good, doesn't actually mean it is, and it certainly doesn't go any length towards proving it is. Yeah, this is your opinion, but as we've already established, you have no idea what good characterization or performances even look like.
>No they were not such in even the vaguest sense, if such was the case then the Military's hardware would not have been rekt so easily, Superman would have been written to go along with them and trust them.
Okay, you do realize that the US Military had to approve of this, right? You're not allowed to use them in any capacity on film unless they're okay with it.
Something that irks me about Superman killing in MoS is that there isn't even a single line trying to enstablish the fact that he doesn't like to kill as a principle. This is writing 101 and they failed at even that. But no, of course, i must just be mad because they made Supes flawed!
I remember very clearly that right after the movie came out, when we knew nothing about a sequel, people were already using the excuse that the sequel was going to address it, that the killing of Zod was going to be the "origin" of the no-kill rule. Then it slowly turned into "Superman never has a no-kill rule, [insert Superman killing Zod page here x100 times]"
>How does restraining oneself for the greater good because revealing oneself may cause more harm then good to the world equal being a pussy?
He fucking wrestled with this in every fucking superman incarnation since the 60's.
In this movie? He decided to be a cynical bitch who does FUCK AND ALL and cause shit tons of damage while accidentally saving people a grand total of fucking TWICE
That's not him holding himself back for the greater good. That's him being a faggot because the writers are pussies who didn't have the balls to show him being a superhero.
Being a passive reactant is seen as the only real good in the film. Fucks sake even being superman and doing good is seen as risky and indirectly evil and bad.
That is a deeply fucked up message. One of many deeply fucked up messages.
This kind of casual and and even aggravated dismissal of human life is something that is not suitable for the superman character.
You can tell the creators of it disliked or simply simply disregarded all people who were not "important".
Let me guess. You live in a large densely populate city.
>Yeah, this is your opinion, but as we've already established, you have no idea what good characterization or performances even look like.
No its not established in any way shape or form, you think Clark has no depth because he didn't smile enough so you sure as fuck aren't a great judge yourself.
> Okay, you do realize that the US Military had to approve of this, right?
That doesn't in any way shape or form prove the film is going "FUCK YEAH JOIN THE MARINES"
And man a Alien invasion movie without the military being involved or responding, that makes fucking sense.
These mental gymnastics are astounding. And i'm someone who thought the movie was ok, even with those things that I said, but the fact that you seem to have such a bizarre personal connection to the movie that any criticism towards the movie you seem to take as a personal insult, is just simply hilarious.
Anyone that's taken even a day's worth of Tiger Schullman's McKarate learns how to pull their punches and control their strength.
Moreover, for Clark to even reach adulthood without being dissected immediately, he would've had to have learned how to reign in his stregth so that he wouldn't be crushing doorknobs and breaking pencils every other second of his daily life. He should, if you actually apply logic to the movie like a "Serious scifi" invites, be able to stand up to bullies without immediately vaporizing them with his full 100%.
Clark can easily choose not to hurt someone while still interacting and standing up to them. But the fact that he doesn't and would sooner puss out than make that attempt can indeed be interpreted as cowardly.
Independence day did the alien invasion better.
It did the whole cost of the violence thing better
It also did humane heroes caring for, sacrificing for, and protecting other people better then A FUCKING SUPERMAN MOVIE.
It also managed to do it without the involvement of the us military.
That's just a failure on every goddamned level.
The fact that this hasn't happened is because of both the strength and weakness of Superman.
He is Mr. Status Quo, everything can and always will circle back to him.
I think that is more what turns people off him, not that he is Super Powerful or can do anything but that he is the central figure and nothing can really change while he is around for long. It is also probably why DKR worked so well and why Superman's depiction in that as a Reagan Yes-Man makes so much sense.
>He decided to be a cynical bitch
That is what makes this version interesting and new.
>and cause shit tons of damage
No most he damaged was crashing the scout ship which was a 20th of the collective destruction in the film.
> while accidentally saving people a grand total of fucking TWICE
Neverminding the individual saves, how the fuck was saving 7-8 Billion people by nearly dying to take out the world engine accidental and how was choosing to Kill Zod saving 7-8 Billion people accidental?
> Fucks sake even being superman and doing good is seen as risky and indirectly evil and bad. That is a deeply fucked up message.
Its never even remotely stated to be evil, its stated/implied to be upheavaling and destabilizing to the world and society, that is a extremely logical realistic assumption to make.
>This kind of casual and and even aggravated dismissal of human life is something that is not suitable for the superman character.
This is a serious and grounded take on Superman, remember? But it's just the opposite problem' they expected the audience to hold unimportant characters in high regard because otherwise the final fight lacks any and all tension. But they didn't want to put the work in.
What do I care if Female Daily Planet Reporter dies? I can't even remember her fucking name. Why should Clark care? He's never even met her!
>Because all lives are sacred to Superman
THEN INTRODUCE THAT INTO HIS CHARACTER.
>you think Clark has no depth because he didn't smile enough
Strawman projection that has no rooting in anything I, or anyone else, has said. You could at least attempt to argue the actual points for once rather than your made up autistic headcanon of the meanies that hate your precious cinematic masterpiece.
I've been a huge Superman man since I could remember back when in my early childhood.
I've collected and read many of the comics, watched many of the TV shows. My mom even took me to the signing at Macy's in NYC for the Death of Superman comic.
Being relateable is not a characteristic that I had ever found to be wanting from Superman. You aren't supposed to relate to him, you're supposed to look up to him and aspire to be more like him.
As a kid, when I looked at him, I thought "yeah, I wanna be just like that when I grow up! Strong! Heroic! Help people! Save lives! Do the right thing! Stand for truth, and justice!".
As an adult, I still read the comics, but when I look at Supes now, I can't look up to him the same way I did when I was a kid, for several reasons.
The main reason is I am a lot less naive now. As an adult, I see more clearly how the world works. Being like Superman isn't going to necessarily keep you alive or provide income. He's still a great character to look up to and emulate to some degree, well, at least his earlier incarnation, which brings me to reason two.
So is Superman just forever ruined then? I don't think WB/DC is gonna listen to feedback from people and just return the character to his true roots. And even if they did, isn't that type of Superhero really outdated by today's standards?
Is the character even relevant anymore? How would people react if DC actually retired and did away with the character?
>they expected the audience to hold unimportant characters in high regard because otherwise the final fight lacks any and all tension. But they didn't want to put the work in.
Yeah, the scenes themselves feel like an after-thought, none of them are integrated with the rest of the action, Perry and friends are either running from a green screen or fighting a pile of rocks inside a movie studio. Even after Superman "saves" the city it's only Lois running around to follow him, none of these two main characters interact with the others, as if those weren't supposed to be there in the first place. But i'll admit this is mostly conjecture on my (and some other people's) part
The second reason is his character change. MUH SUPERMAN, as people would say, is the one who never compromised his morals, who said that "there's always another way." The reason why this is so important is because some of Superman's traits you are supposed to admire and aspire to be more like, is persistence, tenacity, and unwavering resolve. It was meant to show that a great trait to have is never giving up in the face of total adversity, that even in the most difficult of choices and times, you had to keep fighting to find another way.
Some people felt that having him snap Zod's neck was realistic, and character development. I agree with those people. However, it develops it in a bad way. If the person we are supposed to aspire to be like, to look at as an example of what we should all be, is compromised, how can we look at him the same way again?
Doomsday in the comic (pre-Nu52) during the Death of Superman was an exception, because Supes literally fought him to his last breath. He refused to give up so that he can protect the people and city he cared about. In the movie, he had the upper hand and took the easy way out. You can say he panicked and I agree with you but that doesn't change the fact it was dumb and ruined Superman's image more than it developed his character.
>Independence day did the alien invasion better.
Perhaps considering the entire film was about that single subject whole MOS was only partly a Alien invasion film.
However its resolution and defeat of the aliens was vastly less logical and effective.
>It did the whole cost of the violence thing better
>It also managed to do it without the involvement of the us military.
Are you fucking delusional?
Will Smith the Lead character is a F-18 pilot, and the film made being such look cool and honorable as fuck, their is vastly more footage of Military Hardware then in MOS.
The Army officially approving of the film or not does not in any fucking way have to do with its quality or the message its sending.
Your letting your irrational liberal biases effect your judgement man.
I don't give a fuck, I care about the action being intact and not being preposterously interrupted for impossibly saving people and making the Villains look like they are just standing around letting it happen.
And dealing with larger scale consequences and goals instead of individual people to save adds to the scale of the film and its story.
First, I am not that anon arguing this, and I'm going to be interested in seeing how the ill advised sequel to Independence Day builds on or ruins the movie.
>However its resolution and defeat of the aliens was vastly less logical and effective.
Which resolution? Because Independence Day's makes enough sense. Cyber-warfare and kamikaze attacks are finitely more logical and plausible than opening up a black hole to an alternate dimension.
Off the top of my head? There were dead people among the good guys. If only because of that whole Kamikaze Attack thing. And again, the people in the actual struggle were given backstory and emotions and wants and desires and were developed characters rather than cutouts that bounced from one narrative point to another without a consistent arc.
Will Smith is only one of several leads in the movie. Notably, he's the one that's NOT coming back for the sequel.
>I don't give a fuck, I care about the action being intact and not being preposterously interrupted for impossibly saving people and making the Villains look like they are just standing around letting it happen.
Why can't Superman struggle to save the people while Zod is doing everything he can to stop him? We're not saying we wanted to see Superman saving every single asshole in Metropolis, we wanted to see him at least TRY
And from the way you phrased that post it looks like you just think superheroes are lame and didn't want that stuff to interrupt your DBZ fight. Oh wait even Goku cares about keeping cities intact, bad comparison
>And dealing with larger scale consequences and goals instead of individual people to save adds to the scale of the film and its story.
Yeah, by making it abstract rather than concrete.
And what consequences? The only named characters that die are the bad guys and one criminally stupid and suicidal farmer.
>If the person we are supposed to aspire to be like, to look at as an example of what we should all be, is compromised, how can we look at him the same way again?
Because not killing and risking billions of lives for the sake of not getting blood on your hands is a incredibly worse more selfish stain on his ideal.
> In the movie, he had the upper hand and took the easy way out.
Its not the easy way out when it was the ONLY way out that would not directly put more people in danger.
If Clark had not used his advantage in that moment and Zod killed more people after escaping the head lock those lives are on Clark.
An article about the diminishing sales of the Superman comics leads to a hissyfit argument about Man of Steel.
It's all over folks, Superman is finished.
Part of me blames the OP for not picking a different image, but a much bigger part blames the MoS defense force that can't go a day without making ten threads about how great their movie is.
>How would people react if DC actually retired and did away with the character?
Nobody cares except for a bunch of whiny manchildren sending hate mail to DC 24/7. Basically Hal Jordan all over again
>Why are so many people hung up on this idea that characters have to be relatable to be good?
Because it's Basic Writing 101. There has to be something connecting the character to the reader to draw them in. It doesn't have to be huge, but even unreliable narrators who you're meant to hate have to have something you can relate to.
In all those Thor stories, there's got to be something that resonates with you besides "He can kick monster ass." It might be his sense of humor, why he fights, what he wants, etc. etc. But there's going to be something.
And those people who can't understand the appeal of Superman are struggling with that. They see him as invincible, a caricature of a human being (the whole big boy scout thing), and (funnily enough) too alien. They have nothing to latch onto and relate to, and so they dismiss Supes.
Every time I see some writer like the one the guy who wrote OP's article linked to talk about how "Superman isn't relatable" or whatever, it always seems like the writer just watched the first two Christopher Reeve films and saw some goofy '60s covers, then decided they were an expert on a character that's been in publication and all kinds of media for almost 80 years.
superman should be nerfed, at least for the movies. This seems to be the case for DCEU so thats good.
No superintelligence, telekinisis, telepathy, spacetech, juggling-planets superstrength
A nuke should be enough to kill him, and missiles enough to faze him. hadguns, or heavy machineguns shouldnt affect him much.
My biggest gripe with MoS was how alien Superman felt during the entire movie. Clark Kent was truly a mask because Superman lacks any life outside his heroic deeds. Super hobo was a mistake
>Every time I see some writer like the one the guy who wrote OP's article linked to talk about how "Superman isn't relatable" or whatever, it always seems like the writer just watched the first two Christopher Reeve films and saw some goofy '60s covers, then decided they were an expert on a character that's been in publication and all kinds of media for almost 80 years.
The writer of the article actually holds the opposite opinion, and is incredibly informed on the comics.
>"In its constant attempts to “fix” Superman over the last 20 years, DC has largely forgotten to tell stories with him."
>"In its constant attempts to “fix” Superman over the last 20 years, DC has largely forgotten to tell stories with him."
But the past 20 years has had a pretty high amount of good Superman stories.
I know, I read the article, that's why I said articles that the article writer himself linked to.
Yeah, but did it ever translate into sales worthy of one of, hell, THE DC flagship hero?
>But the past 20 years has had a pretty high amount of good Superman stories.
And all the while the ongoing comic has diminished in sales.
The average issue of Superman or Action Comics has been going down in quality.
Morrison's All Star, Kurt Busiek's Secret Identity, Waid's Birthright, Johns' arcs, they are blips in hundreds of issues month-to-month.
The successes aren't happening consistently enough.
The trick is in allowing the audience to indulge into the fantasy that they could also become the hero under the right circunstance. They only need beign bitten by a radioactive spider, taking a super soldier serum, having billions and lots of free time, etc. and that's it.
The article acknowledges the good stories. But it's not consistent or it gets swept aside. Do you remember how the 00's started out with Loeb, Kelly and then later had Joe Casey, and then there was one point where it was Greg Rucka and Chuck Austen and Brian Azzarello? And then after Infinite Crisis Johns was doing Action but it got delayed, while Kurt Busiek was doing an okay job with it, but then Robinson came on board and there was the whole World of New Krypton thing that dragged on and then there was a decent Cornell Lex Luthor run and a shitty Goyer Superman story to celebrate Action #900 and fucking Grounded by JMS and then he bailed and Roberson tried to salvage it as best as he could.
You mean like how you didn't even read the article to come to that conclusion? Cause the article writer was placing the blame on DC and those people who think Superman isn't relatable.
>But there is nothing, not a single fucking thing ass-holish about wanting to both keep your son safe and keep society from tearing itself apart.
They aren't protecting him. They are protecting themselves.
They aren't teaching him to be good.
They aren't teaching him to be a good or even decent person.
They're teaching him to be a closed off cynical narcissitic dick with a deep distrust and dislike of humanity.
Teaching that to someone with his powers and who's been shown to be both a passive wimp and emotionally unstable is HORRIBLE parenting.
They don't even teach him how to deal with his anger in a constructive way. Only that they are afraid of him and to control his power. To be a punching bag that will inevitably snap or smash fucking semi trucks in a passive agressive pussy manner.
They should know that one day he'll have to make that choice and to teach him how to be a good person and always be the good man they know he'll be no matter what.
What did they do instead?
A bunch of empty flowery speeches about how they aren't his real parents and how their real intelligent brilliant super parents from beyond the stars will give him the go ahead to be a good person. You know because of perfect krypton genes or some bullshit.
>No they were not such in even the vaguest sense, if such was the case then the Military's hardware would not have been rekt so easily,
The tech in fucking transformers was wrecked very easily.
But BUT they spent a massive chunk of time selling the idea that they need BETTER tech.
Even greater shilling for the military industrial complex then the average fucking michael bay film And that takes unbelievable talent.
>Superman would have been written to go along with them and trust them.
He fucking does go along with them.
He saves more random soldiers then he does random innocent "red shirts" off the street. Fucks sake even pa kent tells him "Let them drown boy, they never done nothing for you".
Smallville rather ingeniously got around that by having the ship come down along with a meteor shower, thus it blended in on all radar. But even then, Lana eventually found radar captures that hinted of an artificial craft being along the meteors.