I'm going to start this post by saying that I grew up on Lois and Clark as a kid, and because of that I used to defend Byrne's stories.
But it hasn't taken a lot for me to kind of question their quality, and the intentions behind the entire Byrne reboot, which basically stripped the character of certain qualities and 'marvelised' him in a failed attempt to increase popularity.
Also, Birthright is my favourite origin story, bar the young Lex stuff.
I love how Clark is characterised, how his decision to become Superman is fleshed out, how his relationship with Lois begins, and how the world is introduced to him.
There is no more "real" version of Superman than the original Golden Age version that was conceived and created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
Originally Posted by theMan-Bat
That's right. The Golden Age Superman, written by Jerry Siegel, didn't even know about Krypton. Superman in the comics didn't learn of Krypton and Kryptonite until Superman #61 (1949), written by Bill Finger. "
Are you suggesting that after Golden Age, Superman's stories and direction became suddenly no longer up to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster?
'Why do I find all of this so horrible to explore?
Sure, they are interesting questions that I don't mind seeing in an elseworlds GN. But as a theme for the film that is kicking off the tone of the whole JL, and in a film that is presenting Superman to the general audience in a way that current generations will remember him?
I just don't like it. It's dark, it's depressing and it's not how I like the tone of Superman films to be.'