Justice League Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - - - - - - - Part 16

[STARMAN]

Henry should approach Geoff Johns to write a treatment. He needs to arm himself with as much ammunition as possible when approaching WB. There are other writers but he already knows Geoff.

 

[Superchan]

That's what Superchan wants. Empty platitudes about hope and a smile imprinted on his face at all times. A cheerful and good-natured hero archetype. Nuance be damned.

Seriously dude, take a breath! This kind of thing isn't worth you getting so worked up about, if you don't like the comment then just ignore it.

BTW love the super-johnny bravo pic, is he waving goodbye to snyder and his DCEU?

 

[Micromind]

BTW love the super-johnny bravo pic, is he waving goodbye to snyder and his DCEU?

He is saying goodbye to Whedon.


Seriously, what people have against DCEU ? Maybe part of the reason is because Snyder started it.

Earlier, I used to think that many fans are just anti-DC (well, some are..) but now I think that they can't stand DCEU because Snyder was the Architect of phase-1.

That and some fans are totally against the actors Snyder has cast in DCEU (namely Eisenberg as Lex, Leto as Joker, Ezra as Flash, Gadot as WW, Affleck as Bats) smh.

And, DCEU's poor performance with critics isn't helping DCEU at all.

 

[Black Narcissus]

 

[DerekLake]

That first scene was forced and hokey as hell. It felt like a video game cut scene, how the obviously ADR'd kids were talking to him. A very transparent attempt to "fix" Superman without putting any care into it.

The opening scene was forced, but what it attempted to do wasn’t. One of the several things missing from Snyder’s BvS was a sense that his Superman had these sorts of interactions on a regular basis. The way he interacts with people in his montage, the way he responds to the controversy and the seeming fact that Lois and Martha are his only motivations for goodness (seeming, based on what actually drives him most in BvS) — all these seem to illustrate a character who doesn’t engage with people in such a personal way. Even the way that JL opens with Superman engaged in conversation with a fire fighter is a massive departure from BvS (yes, I realize the context of the post-bombing scene, but still, it was missing).

It’s worth noting that MOS featured a lot more of those sorts of interactions once Clark decided to reveal himself, and that film was clearly setting up a Superman who was more connected to the world and to people in it. Bottom line is that JL is not a far leap from MOS, and that’s a good thing. If it doesn’t match up with BvS, then honestly that reflects on what BvS lacked in its portrayal of Superman.

That's what Superchan wants. Empty platitudes about hope and a smile imprinted on his face at all times. A cheerful and good-natured hero archetype. Nuance be damned.

You are presuming that the only way to do nuance is to do it the way Snyder did.

 

[idiot09]

Really liked Clark's interaction with the various people he met while investigating Batman in BvS, particularly when he goes to the police station. In that movie one of the themes was alienation and villification of Superman, so it kinda makes sense why there was less of that compared to MOS. They are the same character though, and he is a person who is kind, gentle,humble and helpful(i really like this part where he introduces himsef at 3min mark). So its accurate characterization for me.

[YT]TCik5tlh3m8[/YT]

 

[GothamBat]

Seriously dude, take a breath! This kind of thing isn't worth you getting so worked up about, if you don't like the comment then just ignore it.

BTW love the super-johnny bravo pic, is he waving goodbye to snyder and his DCEU?

If one of us is worked up, it's you dude. Btw that's Major Man from Powerpuff girls.

 

[Micromind]

Really liked Clark's interaction with the various people he met while investigating Batman in BvS, particularly when he goes to the police station. In that movie one of the themes was alienation and villification of Superman, so it kinda makes sense why there was less of that compared to MOS. They are the same character though, and he is a person who is kind, gentle,humble and helpful(i really like this part where he introduces himsef at 3min mark). So its accurate characterization for me.
[YT]TCik5tlh3m8[/YT]

Agreed.
Also, these clips show Clark Kent standing for rights of citizens and for Truth and justice, how can people not see this ? It doesn't matter if he is not in costume, he is still trying to help people.


[YT]snzSAsS_42s[/YT]
[YT]Th3WcAVCaKo[/YT]

 

[Tra-El]

yesss.

 

[DerekLake]

Really liked Clark's interaction with the various people he met while investigating Batman in BvS, particularly when he goes to the police station. In that movie one of the themes was alienation and villification of Superman, so it kinda makes sense why there was less of that compared to MOS. They are the same character though, and he is a person who is kind, gentle,humble and helpful(i really like this part where he introduces himsef at 3min mark). So its accurate characterization for me.

Agreed.
Also, these clips show Clark Kent standing for rights of citizens and for Truth and justice, how can people not see this ? It doesn't matter if he is not in costume, he is still trying to help people.

It matters because it is Superman who connects to people on that individual and personal level, not just Clark the reporter. Superman is the person people recognize, not Clark. And Superman having those interactions with people (especially those who feel ignored or downtrodden) means more to them than Clark Kent doing so, obviously because Superman is someone recognized as having influence and the ability to actually right some wrongs. Just take the GCPD example: “Mrs. Santos” dismisses Clark because he’s seemingly just a reporter, but if it were Superman, though she would request the same thing, she wouldn’t have been as dismissive.

I love all of the Clark moments in BvS, especially because he’s a reporter concerned about justice, but these interactions aren’t really what I’m talking about when I’m talking about what the JL cell footage illustrates. The Superman we got in BvS was detached and distant from humanity, to a degree that’s at odds with his relative closeness across various comics. And it wasn’t just because of the media hatred or the fact that people worshipped him like a god.

I guess the best way I can put it is that BvS captures the grand, mythic hero well enough, but it leaves out the local hero aspect of the character, which is actually the real quality that makes him so iconic. Superman, as powerful and grand a character as he is, is close to the ground, to ordinary people, and not just when he’s rescuing them. That’s what the cell footage, as imperfect as it is, restores. And contrary to popular belief, Superman didn’t need to die to relate to people in that way.

 

[idiot09]

Yeah I dont care if he is in costume or not. As Clark Kent or Superman, his first instinct is to do good. He is the same person inside. Also in BvS, Superman was a very divisive figure due to Luthor's manipulation, so I understand why he would be try to do as much as he can as CK, as even when Superman tries to do something good, something bad happens(reminds me of Spider-man 2 in a way). And we see him help people and interact with them in both movies, so I'm a happy camper.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I feel like people always draw a distinction between Superman and Clark due to the popular depiction of the character, but the movies didn't draw that distinction. He's Clark/Superman in and out of the costume.

 

[Aurakles]

I've seen a lot of talk of BVS lacking hope and optimism, to me it's one of the most hopeful and optimistic superhero films.

It's easy to optimistic in the good times, to have hope in the summer. When it's warm and sunny, when there's food in the pantry, money in the bank and friends to keep you company, it's easy to believe there's good in the world

But the real optimists are those who can hold onto their hope in the bad times. When it's cold and dark, rain leaking through the roof, when you're hungry, poor and lonely, but you still believe there's good in the world?
To take everything the world can throw at you, to be dragged through the wringer and still believe thinks can work out?
That's a real message of hope and optimism, that’s BVS.

 

[DerekLake]

Yeah I dont care if he is in costume or not. As Clark Kent or Superman, his first instinct is to do good. He is the same person inside. Also in BvS, Superman was a very divisive figure due to Luthor's manipulation, so I understand why he would be try to do as much as he can as CK, as even when Superman tries to do something good, something bad happens(reminds me of Spider-man 2 in a way). And we see him help people and interact with them in both movies, so I'm a happy camper.

Superman was divisive long before Lex’s manipulations. If he wasn’t, Lex couldn’t have conceivably used the one incident. But if being Superman is so problematic that he doesn’t actually engage with people on a personal level, then BvS doesn’t really fix that for him. And Justice League doesn’t fix that for him. And then it raises the question — if he’s just trying to rescue people from danger, why even be Superman? Why not save people as a civilian and then hide away, as he did in MOS? Why even go public? Because he certainly doesn’t undertake any efforts to guide the people of Earth or help them “accomplish wonders” (as Jor-El said). If that’s the case, then the question raised by the film — must there be a Superman? — is a resounding “No!”

I feel like people always draw a distinction between Superman and Clark due to the popular depiction of the character, but the movies didn't draw that distinction. He's Clark/Superman in and out of the costume.

But if it isn’t a meaningful distinction, why does he put on a skin-tight costume and a cape? Why not do what he does without it? It would certainly help. No, there is a meaningful distinction, and it’s that “Superman” is more than just a silly name; it’s a symbol, and if Clark isn’t doing the best of what he does as that symbol, then there’s no point for the symbol.

 

[misslane38]

Superman was divisive long before Lex’s manipulations. If he wasn’t, Lex couldn’t have conceivably used the one incident.

That's not true, Derek. Lex resents Superman's popularity and what he sees as idolatry, and that's what he's trying to ruin. Perry says there's a love affair with Superman. Bruce complains about puff pieces about Superman. There are statues in his honor.

 

[DerekLake]

I've seen a lot of talk of BVS lacking hope and optimism, to me it's one of the most hopeful and optimistic superhero films.

It's easy to optimistic in the good times, to have hope in the summer. When it's warm and sunny, when there's food in the pantry, money in the bank and friends to keep you company, it's easy to believe there's good in the world

But the real optimists are those who can hold onto their hope in the bad times. When it's cold and dark, rain leaking through the roof, when you're hungry, poor and lonely, but you still believe there's good in the world?
To take everything the world can throw at you, to be dragged through the wringer and still believe thinks can work out?
That's a real message of hope and optimism, that’s BVS.

The problem is that hope and optimism are undefined in BvS. What is there for Superman to hope in? That there is good in the world? What does that even mean? Does it mean that good things happen, even we all he sees are bad things? Does it mean that he can still do good things, even when all his efforts result in bad things happen? Does it mean that there are good people in the world, even when the bad people seem to have the loudest voices? The only thing BvS seems to really develop is that people can be redeemed, which really definitively only happens with Bruce. Otherwise, it’s that there are good people in the world (namely, Martha and Lois). But if Clark can only be reminded of good in the faces of Lois and Martha, and not in the girl he saves or the family he saves, then he doesn’t have a very optimistic view of the world as a whole, and he isn’t very hopeful.

But I think when most people talk about BvS not being hopeful and optimistic, I think they are mostly referring to the film’s tone, not the message it tries to give, as well as to Superman’s general attitude here. Because it’s quite apparent that Superman loses faith and even despairs in this film. The problem is that, as many have said, we aren’t given any indication that Superman has hope at the beginning of the film. We aren’t given a Superman who embodies or expresses optimism and hope, only one who is naive about his single-minded actions. Naïveté and hope are not the same thing. And a naive Superman is a big step back from MOS, where he was fully aware of the negative world he was stepping into, and went from distrust to trust.

 

[Da-Scribe]

But if it isn’t a meaningful distinction, why does he put on a skin-tight costume and a cape? Why not do what he does without it? It would certainly help. No, there is a meaningful distinction, and it’s that “Superman” is more than just a silly name; it’s a symbol, and if Clark isn’t doing the best of what he does as that symbol, then there’s no point for the symbol.

Same reason I used to put on a black shirt and khakis when I went to work at Sports Authority. It's a uniform. He put it on to honor his Kryptonian heritage and it took on a new meaning for the public from there. He obviously understands that when he shows up to work in that uniform, that it means something to people. But that doesn't mean he's suddenly a different person once he puts it on. He's still himself either way.

Like the way I behave in and away from work is a reflection of who I am overall. And I'm that person 24/7. I don't stop being Chris the Advertising Genius cwink just because I've gone home for the day. I am always that genius. t:

 

[misslane38]

The problem is that hope and optimism are undefined in BvS. What is there for Superman to hope in? That there is good in the world? What does that even mean? Does it mean that good things happen, even we all he sees are bad things? Does it mean that he can still do good things, even when all his efforts result in bad things happen? Does it mean that there are good people in the world, even when the bad people seem to have the loudest voices? The only thing BvS seems to really develop is that people can be redeemed, which really definitively only happens with Bruce. Otherwise, it’s that there are good people in the world (namely, Martha and Lois). But if Clark can only be reminded of good in the faces of Lois and Martha, and not in the girl he saves or the family he saves, then he doesn’t have a very optimistic view of the world as a whole, and he isn’t very hopeful.

Superman hopes in hope. Hope and optimism are defined as committing to who you are and what you believe in no matter what. You keep trying even if there's only one person for whom it matters. BvS is a film that explores an existential narrative. Superman is its titular existential hero. Superman dies for humanity at the end of the film, even though humanity had feared and doubted him. Superman saves Lex Luthor from Doomsday even though he killed villagers in Nairomi, killed the branded criminal, killed everyone at the Senate hearing, kidnapped his girlfriend and mother, and manipulated Batman to be his executioner.

When Clark was a child, his mother taught him to overcome his fear by making the big world into a small one. That's what Lois means to him, and it's the lesson Jonathan reiterates on the mountaintop. It's the essence of the monomyth, according to Joseph Campbell, and a source of inspiration for Zack Snyder:

Furthermore, we have not even to risk the adventure alone; for the heroes of all time have gone before us; the labyrinth is thoroughly known; we have only to follow the thread of the hero-path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves; where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; and where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world.

BvS at its core exemplifies the dualities referenced above. Superman's last words are a monument to its message: "This is my world. You are my world." It means Superman will do good things and believe in humanity even if he can't see it yet. He's going to take a leap of faith and let the trust part come later. He dies for this belief.

But I think when most people talk about BvS not being hopeful and optimistic, I think they are mostly referring to the film’s tone

Hope is not a tone.

 

[DerekLake]

That's not true, Derek. Lex resents Superman's popularity and what he sees as idolatry, and that's what he's trying to ruin. Perry says there's a love affair with Superman. Bruce complains about puff pieces about Superman. There are statues in his honor.

So both things can’t be true based on what BvS shows us. Either Superman is well-loved around the world and mostly stays that way (based on, “Not everyone shares your opinion”) or he was always divisive.

Metropolis loves Superman, and the Daily Planet writes puff pieces about him. Political pundits and U.S. Congressional leaders speak out against him. A select few groups of people worship Superman and look to him for hope. Two businessmen conspire against him. One bitter survivor hates him. Now we can either say he is mostly well-liked and not as divisive as he believes, or we can say he is divisive and the world truly is split on him. What we see and what we are told only supports one of those options.

Case in point, Bruce and Wally hate Superman because of the Black Zero Event — that predates Lex’s actions. Lex hates Superman because of, as you say, the public reception he gets — that also predates Lex’s actions. Finch and her Congressional colleagues might call for a hearing because of Lex’s actions, but the fact that she asks such fundamental questions about Superman’s purpose indicates that they were already wary of him. At the very least, Swanwick’s words at the end of MOS already foretold a wary Washington.

So if Superman is well-loved, Lex’s actions don’t do much to change that (arguably, that’s precisely why he tries to get him to murder Batman). If he is divisive, Lex’s actions only make him more controversial or reviled in the eyes of a select few individuals.

Either way, it isn’t Superman’s standing in the eyes of the world (his divisiveness) that changes his view of what he should do as Superman. In fact, it is at only one point where he decides that he shouldn’t do things, and he doesn’t just retire the outfit, he goes into exile entirely (no CK or Superman).

Same reason I used to put on a black shirt and khakis when I went to work at Sports Authority. It's a uniform. He put it on to honor his Kryptonian heritage and it took on a new meaning for the public from there. He obviously understands that when he shows up to work in that uniform, that it means something to people. But that doesn't mean he's suddenly a different person once he puts it on. He's still himself either way.

Like the way I behave in and away from work is a reflection of who I am overall. And I'm that person 24/7. I don't stop being Chris the Advertising Genius cwink just because I've gone home for the day. I am always that genius. t:

That’s not at all the same, and that’s not what Man of Steel sets up. For one, I assume you don’t use a different name and pretend to be a different person while at work. I also assume you don’t pretend to need corrective lenses when not at work. Clark is obviously not a different person when not wearing the costume, but he certainly doesn’t go and rescue people while dressed as Superman. Supposing you were a nurse or medic, I’d assume you would help someone who stopped breathing whether on or off-duty? There is a difference.

Second, Man of Steel sets up that the Superman identity is more than just a suit: it is itself the symbol of hope, a particular hope that every person can be a force for good, and a hope that is put into practice by Superman guiding and leading the people of Earth. What does it say then, that Clark shows clearer concern for a grieving individual in “secret” (as CK) and not as Superman, the supposed beacon? I’m not saying that he shouldn’t do that as CK. I’m saying that he should do that as Superman. And that is why some of us appreciate the JL opening footage, despite its flaws.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Eh, this is becoming another MoS/BvS debate. I'm good on that. We're not changing each other's minds.

 

[misslane38]

So both things can’t be true based on what BvS shows us. Either Superman is well-loved around the world and mostly stays that way (based on, “Not everyone shares your opinion”) or he was always divisive.

BvS shows us Superman was well-liked and accepted prior to the Nairomi incident. The existence of a few critics and outliers does not undermine that fact. If that were true, then all versions of Superman, including Reeve's Superman, were always divisive figures.

Metropolis loves Superman, and the Daily Planet writes puff pieces about him. Political pundits and U.S. Congressional leaders speak out against him. A select few groups of people worship Superman and look to him for hope. Two businessmen conspire against him. One bitter survivor hates him. Now we can either say he is mostly well-liked and not as divisive as he believes, or we can say he is divisive and the world truly is split on him. What we see and what we are told only supports one of those options.

The pundits and the politicians spoke out in favor and in opposition to Superman after the Nairomi incident and Keefe's "False God" graffiti. BvS presents us with a Superman who was embraced by the majority of the world before the events Luthor put in motion to inflame the cynics and disbelievers. The world was not "truly split" on Superman until after Lex began manipulating public opinion and stoking the rage of Batman and Keefe. Were there a few outliers? Sure, but every Superman has those. I think this comment from Finch speaks to the notion of what things were like before and how things changed: "The world has been so caught up with what Superman can do, that no one has asked what he should do."

Case in point, Bruce and Wally hate Superman because of the Black Zero Event — that predates Lex’s actions. Lex hates Superman because of, as you say, the public reception he gets — that also predates Lex’s actions. Finch and her Congressional colleagues might call for a hearing because of Lex’s actions, but the fact that she asks such fundamental questions about Superman’s purpose indicates that they were already wary of him. At the very least, Swanwick’s words at the end of MOS already foretold a wary Washington.

You are providing me with a few anecdotal examples that do not constitute a trend. Of course Superman had critics, but there's a world of difference between a popular and beloved hero with a few critics and a divisive and polarizing alien.

So if Superman is well-loved, Lex’s actions don’t do much to change that (arguably, that’s precisely why he tries to get him to murder Batman). If he is divisive, Lex’s actions only make him more controversial or reviled in the eyes of a select few individuals.

BvS decidedly does not show Luthor's actions only affect those existing few individuals who already harbored cynical opinions about Superman. BvS shows Luthor's machinations resulting in enough public concern to warrant Congressional hearings and massive protests. It's not just Bruce Wayne and Wallace Keefe who hate Superman after Lex poisons the world with his own hatred.

Either way, it isn’t Superman’s standing in the eyes of the world (his divisiveness) that changes his view of what he should do as Superman. In fact, it is at only one point where he decides that he shouldn’t do things, and he doesn’t just retire the outfit, he goes into exile entirely (no CK or Superman).

He doesn't go into exile. He does what every Superman does when he needs some alone time to think: he heads to the arctic for some solitude to talk to his dad.

 

[DerekLake]

Superman hopes in hope. Hope and optimism are defined as committing to who you are and what you believe in no matter what. You keep trying even if there's only one person for whom it matters[...]

When Clark was a child, his mother taught him to overcome his fear by making the big world into a small one. That's what Lois means to him, and it's the lesson Jonathan reiterates on the mountaintop. It's the essence of the monomyth, according to Joseph Campbell, and a source of inspiration for Zack Snyder:

Furthermore, we have not even to risk the adventure alone; for the heroes of all time have gone before us; the labyrinth is thoroughly known; we have only to follow the thread of the hero-path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves; where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; and where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world.

BvS at its core exemplifies the dualities referenced above. Superman's last words are a monument to its message: "This is my world. You are my world." It means Superman will do good things and believe in humanity even if he can't see it yet. He's going to take a leap of faith and let the trust part come later. He dies for this belief.

I’m quite sure what you describe is better termed perseverance, determination, commitment, etc. They all depend on hope, but they are not hope. Hope is believing in something that you don’t see, or that isn’t yet a reality. Believing in the idea of believing in something is an empty hope. And that’s neither what MOS nor BvS presents.

Man of Steel very clearly presents the central hope as the hope that every person can be a force for good, that they can choose to be good, despite what their society intends for him or her. Jor-El says this quite clearly, and then he applies it to Clark by saying that Clark can help the people of Earth to avoid Krypton’s mistakes by guiding them, and he can be a beacon and idea for the people of Earth to race behind and eventually join and with whom they can accomplish wonders. That’s a very specific hope.

BvS, though perhaps a bit muddled (IMO) presents the hope that 1) there is good in the world (again, a bit ill-defined but seemingly referring to a person’s loved ones), and that 2) those who are fallen can be restored, those who fight and kill can do better (like Bruce).

Clark most certainly regards Martha and Lois as good, but if the point of his exile and “conversation” with Jonathan was to remind him that good people existed in the world, then it’s odd that he needed to look to Martha and Lois, and not also to the many other innocent people who had received his aid. Clark’s efforts to try to bring Batman to justice through reporting reflect a hope that truth leads to justice (even though he doesn’t apply that to his own situation). He doesn’t really embody the latter hope himself, until his learns that Lex manipulated Bruce (though I don’t know how he parsed that from Lex’s riddle).

Optimism is really just a positive view of what is, or at least a perspective that sees the positive in a situation, person or thing. Optimism can stem from hope or naïveté. I wouldn’t quite describe Clark as optimistic throughout most of BvS. Hopeful in Bruce and Lois and, eventually, the world, but not optimistic, at least, not until after his fight with Batman.

Hope is not a tone.

I think I did say, “most people.”

 

[DerekLake]

Eh, this is becoming another MoS/BvS debate. I'm good on that. We're not changing each other's minds.

Fair enough. I’ll leave it alone.

 

[The Guard]

I’m quite sure what you describe is better termed perseverance, determination, commitment, etc. They all depend on hope, but they are not hope. Hope is believing in something that you don’t see, or that isn’t yet a reality. Believing in the idea of believing in something is an empty hope. And that’s neither what MOS nor BvS presents.

But then you go on to say...

Jor-El says this quite clearly, and then he applies it to Clark by saying that Clark can help the people of Earth to avoid Krypton’s mistakes by guiding them, and he can be a beacon and idea for the people of Earth to race behind and eventually join and with whom they can accomplish wonders. That’s a very specific hope.

Specific? That's...actually pretty vague when you think about it.

BvS, though perhaps a bit muddled (IMO) presents the hope that 1) there is good in the world (again, a bit ill-defined but seemingly referring to a person’s loved ones), and that 2) those who are fallen can be restored, those who fight and kill can do better (like Bruce).

It's really not that ill defined. Its as simple as the question as to whether men are still good, and whether our failures can be redeemed. The entire film from Bruce's perspective is a man falling into despair and realizing he can be redeemed. Clark's perspective is wondering if it is possible to remain good despite endless burdens and challenges and failures.

Clark most certainly regards Martha and Lois as good, but if the point of his exile and “conversation” with Jonathan was to remind him that good people existed in the world, then it’s odd that he needed to look to Martha and Lois, and not also to the many other innocent people who had received his aid.

Except that Clark is concerned about his own goodness, not the goodness of others. At this point in the film, he feels he has failed innocent people, and is questioning his effectiveness. As the film continues, he questions his own "goodness" (albeit fairly briefly). It is the goodness of those with power that the film questions, not the goodness of the people they are supposed to serve.

The point of his exhile conversation was to show that it is possible to bear great burdens with the help and support of others. And the film shows us this as well. He consults with Lois, Martha, and Jor-El.

Clark’s efforts to try to bring Batman to justice through reporting reflect a hope that truth leads to justice (even though he doesn’t apply that to his own situation). He doesn’t really embody the latter hope himself, until his learns that Lex manipulated Bruce (though I don’t know how he parsed that from Lex’s riddle).

Clark's efforts to bring Batman to justice is specifically about protecting those who cannot protect themselves and giving the disenfranchised a voice despite the fact that they have been marginalized, not just about truth leading to justice.

 

[The Guard]

BvS shows us Superman was well-liked and accepted prior to the Nairomi incident. The existence of a few critics and outliers does not undermine that fact. If that were true, then all versions of Superman, including Reeve's Superman, were always divisive figures.

The existence of a statute in hero's park certainly suggests that he wasn't THAT divisive prior to the issues confronted in BVS.

Though I do think a figure like Superman is always going to be somewhat controversial, and the film drives that home pretty well. Eventually there was controversy that built up.

He is a hero to the people of Earth, but he is still controversial. And that's just realistic.