Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - Part 5

[misslane38]

Yeah I just read it and it applies to Snyder's superman and I hate that take so that's that.

Fair enough. You don't have to like it. I love it, though, because not only did the ideas inherent in existential heroism develop Superman's character, but also other characters -- from Bruce, to Lois, to Lex -- and as a result, the narrative establishes a foundation of hope that is pure, strong, and rooted in truth.

Thus, in Camus' The Plague the Catholic Priest, Father Paneloux realizes one cannot "honestly" or actually love God (or life, existence) unless one accepts that this God created a world of meaningless, terrible suffering; only the terror of the plague and witnessing children dying can teach the priest the true nature of charity and love and, thus, God. Put another way, if there is a God, He or it is the God of the Holocaust -- a god that allows evil and suffering to exist. To love that God is to love that suffering -- this is the message of the Book Of Job: as Satan tells God: untested faith is no faith at all, and it's easy for a rich, happy man to love you (or existence); true faith is the love of suffering -- just as true love in a marriage or relationship is not loving the better, but the worse ("for better and for worse"). In this way Father Paneloux, like Sisyphus, rises above the meaninglessness of the plague: he embraces the entirety of creation in all its absurdity and pain.​

Job was God's beloved. He was a righteous, pious, good man that God tested. Superman is similarly tested in BvS. The sentiments and difficulties he is faced with aren't a sign that there is something wrong with him, and the fact that he overcomes those difficulties and persists in his mission -- to bring hope to the world and to even die for them -- even though some still hated him and he couldn't save everyone, shows the strength of his own hope. You can't see the brilliance of a candle's light in the bright light of day; you see it best in the dark. Facing an existential threat and going through an existential journey makes it so a hero demonstrates his own hope and perseverance.

Identically, in Man's Search For Meaning, Jewish Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl shows us that even in the most absurd, terrible, demeaning and powerless situations -- a concentration camp waiting to be condemned to death -- a man can still maintain or create his own human dignity and thus rise above his fate: "...everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way" ... "in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result on an inner decision and not the result of camp influences alone."​

​

Applying the above to Superman in BvS, Martha tells Clark to be the world's hero or monument, or be none of it, because he doesn't owe the world a thing. She's expressing the existentialist view, presented above, that one shouldn't base their heroic behavior on a sense of obligation; it's a mindset that removes agency from the hero. Having one's motivation or inspiration rooted in honoring a father's dream or legacy, as Clark wanted to do for Jonathan and Jor-El, similarly limits Superman's heroism because those motivations are external or extrinsic rather than internal or intrinsic. Accordingly, after the Capitol bombing, when Clark looks at a world that has lost their faith in him and at a world in which his actions seem to cause more harm than good, he has to relocate his motivation. He ultimately returns to Metropolis to be Superman again and even to die for the world that had lost its faith, because he created his own meaning rather than needing the world or his parents for validation and in spite of the "nightmares" of life.

Interestingly, Batman has a similar struggle. While the world isn't as publicly against him as they are about Superman, he does struggle with his lack of success as a vigilante. Essentially, Batman is placed in a situation in which he also develops a sense of powerlessness and meaninglessness. Moreover, he speaks about how his parents' murder taught him to force the world to make sense; so he was forcing the sense instead of accepting and coping with the fact that the world and life don't make sense. He also shows an interest in wanting a legacy. Like Clark, he reflects on legacy and notes that the Waynes were "hunters" before he goes off to defeat Superman. So Batman, too, has to overcome his sense of powerlessness and obligation by accepting that which he cannot control. He can't control Superman, but he doesn't have to kill him. He can control himself, so he doesn't have to become a killer.

In contrast, an "existential Hell", metaphorically speaking, is therefore a place where one is no longer free to choose one's own meaning. Existentialist failures are those who refuse to create their own meaning and instead blame others for their choices, paint themselves as "victims" of circumstance, and define themselves as others see them, rather than how they choose.​

Unlike the existential heroes of our story -- Superman and Batman -- Lex is an existential failure. Although he similarly roots a lot of his motivation in his parents (his father), he does it differently in that he doesn't want to be like his father. Lex wants to be the opposite. However, because he still defining himself in relation to his father, he is limited. He isn't creating his own meaning. In addition, he blames others and defines himself as a victim. It's true that Lex was a victim of abuse, but he doesn't have to adopt an attitude of a victim and let that identity control his actions. So, by blaming God for his victimization -- and projecting that onto superheroes and metahumans -- Lex becomes an existential failure.

Also, consider how Lois Lane figures into this framework. When she goes to Nairomi, she is victimized and is used to victimize others. The warlord tells her that her "ignorance" wasn't "innocence," and Lois spends the rest of the movie trying to, as she told Clark she wanted to do, "understand what happened." She doesn't allow herself to remain ignorant, and she doesn't absolve herself from guilt. Instead, she strives to create her own meaning. Lex repeats the old adage, "knowledge is power" in the film, and Lois' investigation is her way of empowering herself and others. Exposing what really happened doesn't make her any less at fault for being an unwitting pawn, but it does allow her to fight back and it allows her to enable the public to fight back by making sure they aren't ignorant to what Lex really did and who Superman really is.

In short, by following the Existential model, Snyder and Terrio portray their heroes and define heroism and hope as something that comes from within and that is less dependent on external forces like public opinion or adherence to a legacy. Both Batman and Superman are faced with moments of existential annihilation: Superman tells Batman "Bat is dead" and Superman also concludes that "Superman was never real." The truth is the versions of Batman and Superman these men each were did die and needed to, but only to be created anew with a stronger foundation. Thus, the Existential model enables the filmmakers to tell a story with the message that the capacity for hope, even in the most hopeless situations, can be found within, and that no one can take away our power, because we alone control it.

 

[Black Narcissus]

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Superman has a thigh gap

 

[Herolee10]

Fair enough. You don't have to like it. I love it, though, because not only did the ideas inherent in existential heroism develop Superman's character, but also other characters -- from Bruce, to Lois, to Lex -- and as a result, the narrative establishes a foundation of hope that is pure, strong, and rooted in truth.

Thus, in Camus' The Plague the Catholic Priest, Father Paneloux realizes one cannot "honestly" or actually love God (or life, existence) unless one accepts that this God created a world of meaningless, terrible suffering; only the terror of the plague and witnessing children dying can teach the priest the true nature of charity and love and, thus, God. Put another way, if there is a God, He or it is the God of the Holocaust -- a god that allows evil and suffering to exist. To love that God is to love that suffering -- this is the message of the Book Of Job: as Satan tells God: untested faith is no faith at all, and it's easy for a rich, happy man to love you (or existence); true faith is the love of suffering -- just as true love in a marriage or relationship is not loving the better, but the worse ("for better and for worse"). In this way Father Paneloux, like Sisyphus, rises above the meaninglessness of the plague: he embraces the entirety of creation in all its absurdity and pain.​

Job was God's beloved. He was a righteous, pious, good man that God tested. Superman is similarly tested in BvS. The sentiments and difficulties he is faced with aren't a sign that there is something wrong with him, and the fact that he overcomes those difficulties and persists in his mission -- to bring hope to the world and to even die for them -- even though some still hated him and he couldn't save everyone, shows the strength of his own hope. You can't see the brilliance of a candle's light in the bright light of day; you see it best in the dark. Facing an existential threat and going through an existential journey makes it so a hero demonstrates his own hope and perseverance.

Identically, in Man's Search For Meaning, Jewish Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl shows us that even in the most absurd, terrible, demeaning and powerless situations -- a concentration camp waiting to be condemned to death -- a man can still maintain or create his own human dignity and thus rise above his fate: "...everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way" ... "in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result on an inner decision and not the result of camp influences alone."​

​

Applying the above to Superman in BvS, Martha tells Clark to be the world's hero or monument, or be none of it, because he doesn't owe the world a thing. She's expressing the existentialist view, presented above, that one shouldn't base their heroic behavior on a sense of obligation; it's a mindset that removes agency from the hero. Having one's motivation or inspiration rooted in honoring a father's dream or legacy, as Clark wanted to do for Jonathan and Jor-El, similarly limits Superman's heroism because those motivations are external or extrinsic rather than internal or intrinsic. Accordingly, after the Capitol bombing, when Clark looks at a world that has lost their faith in him and at a world in which his actions seem to cause more harm than good, he has to relocate his motivation. He ultimately returns to Metropolis to be Superman again and even to die for the world that had lost its faith, because he created his own meaning rather than needing the world or his parents for validation and in spite of the "nightmares" of life.

Interestingly, Batman has a similar struggle. While the world isn't as publicly against him as they are about Superman, he does struggle with his lack of success as a vigilante. Essentially, Batman is placed in a situation in which he also develops a sense of powerlessness and meaninglessness. Moreover, he speaks about how his parents' murder taught him to force the world to make sense; so he was forcing the sense instead of accepting and coping with the fact that the world and life don't make sense. He also shows an interest in wanting a legacy. Like Clark, he reflects on legacy and notes that the Waynes were "hunters" before he goes off to defeat Superman. So Batman, too, has to overcome his sense of powerlessness and obligation by accepting that which he cannot control. He can't control Superman, but he doesn't have to kill him. He can control himself, so he doesn't have to become a killer.

In contrast, an "existential Hell", metaphorically speaking, is therefore a place where one is no longer free to choose one's own meaning. Existentialist failures are those who refuse to create their own meaning and instead blame others for their choices, paint themselves as "victims" of circumstance, and define themselves as others see them, rather than how they choose.​

Unlike the existential heroes of our story -- Superman and Batman -- Lex is an existential failure. Although he similarly roots a lot of his motivation in his parents (his father), he does it differently in that he doesn't want to be like his father. Lex wants to be the opposite. However, because he still defining himself in relation to his father, he is limited. He isn't creating his own meaning. In addition, he blames others and defines himself as a victim. It's true that Lex was a victim of abuse, but he doesn't have to adopt an attitude of a victim and let that identity control his actions. So, by blaming God for his victimization -- and projecting that onto superheroes and metahumans -- Lex becomes an existential failure.

Also, consider how Lois Lane figures into this framework. When she goes to Nairomi, she is victimized and is used to victimize others. The warlord tells her that her "ignorance" wasn't "innocence," and Lois spends the rest of the movie trying to, as she told Clark she wanted to do, "understand what happened." She doesn't allow herself to remain ignorant, and she doesn't absolve herself from guilt. Instead, she strives to create her own meaning. Lex repeats the old adage, "knowledge is power" in the film, and Lois' investigation is her way of empowering herself and others. Exposing what really happened doesn't make her any less at fault for being an unwitting pawn, but it does allow her to fight back and it allows her to enable the public to fight back by making sure they aren't ignorant to what Lex really did and who Superman really is.

In short, by following the Existential model, Snyder and Terrio portray their heroes and define heroism and hope as something that comes from within and that is less dependent on external forces like public opinion or adherence to a legacy. Both Batman and Superman are faced with moments of existential annihilation: Superman tells Batman "Bat is dead" and Superman also concludes that "Superman was never real." The truth is the versions of Batman and Superman these men each were did die and needed to, but only to be created anew with a stronger foundation. Thus, the Existential model enables the filmmakers to tell a story with the message that the capacity for hope, even in the most hopeless situations, can be found within, and that no one can take away our power, because we alone control it.

Well, in all honesty, having had some time to really think about it...I can definitely appreciate the approach that Snyder and Terrio were trying to go for when it comes to Superman's journey throughout Snyder's "Trilogy".

If anything though, I feel like things would have gone a bit more smoother had Snyder managed to incorporate scenarios that would have allowed Superman to interact with more people in the height of his journey (BvS). I feel like one of the reasons why some easily gloss over Superman's portion/his journey in BvS is because, unlike Batman's arc, he isn't given as much dialogue to work with and doesn't get a chance to really voice out his inner thoughts with other characters.

I would have definitely appreciated it even more if Clark had been able to speak with Diana and even Lex (before his confrontation with him on top of Lexcorp).

If anything, I feel like on what was supposed to start as a Superman trilogy evolved into more of a JL trilogy with the inclusion of BvS.

 

[FlareKnight]

I don't think Superman had any kind of hero's journey particularly the one mentioned above. Superman never found any hope from within or built a stronger foundation for his beliefs. He simply narrowed it down to self-interest. He didn't want his mom to die, he didn't want Lois to die. All he really ended up doing was making sure to save people he personally knew and cared about. So long as those two individuals are safe then it is all good for him. If he gained any sort of inner growth or belief in his own heroism it wasn't in BvS. That would have to arise hopefully in Justice League. Telling Lois she is his world and dying to save her doesn't say anything about him as a hero.

Which makes sense with his characterization so far. He went about helping people, but never really wanted to do it. Of course plenty of blame goes on Snyder for how he handles any heroic moments for Superman. Just montage it up and cut all dialogue. It's no wonder public opinion on him varies into a religious level. He's basically a floating silent angle figure. No one can treat him like a person because he himself refuses to act like a person. Talk to the people you are helping! Stop floating up there like a ghost.

The interesting thing will be where they go with him at this point. Feels more like they are setting him up for an Injustice storyline than anything else. His whole focus and worldview is basically revolving around Lois at this point. So killing her would certainly trigger a Superman related apocalypse. His foundation is just that fragile right now.

 

[idiot09]

Thats just wrong on so many levels. Literally every point is wrong.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Thats just wrong on so many levels. Literally every point is wrong.

Don't take the bait.

 

[misslane38]

I don't think Superman had any kind of hero's journey particularly the one mentioned above. Superman never found any hope from within or built a stronger foundation for his beliefs.

He came back to being Superman because as he literally says in the film, "This is my world. You are my world." Superman on the mountaintop hears the inner voice of his father and concludes that the nightmares and unintended consequences that lead to feelings of hopelessness and guilt can be endured. Lois reminded Clark that Superman means something -- the hope he inspires is all some people have. And on that mountaintop, Clark is able to let himself feel the truth of that statement.

He simply narrowed it down to self-interest. He didn't want his mom to die, he didn't want Lois to die. All he really ended up doing was making sure to save people he personally knew and cared about. So long as those two individuals are safe then it is all good for him.

He literally died to save humanity after both Lois and his mother were safe and sound. What you are saying is like saying Jesus only died to save his mother, Mary, because his sacrifice would grant her eternal life. It's utter nonsense.

If he gained any sort of inner growth or belief in his own heroism it wasn't in BvS. That would have to arise hopefully in Justice League. Telling Lois she is his world and dying to save her doesn't say anything about him as a hero.

He didn't just say Lois was his world. He also said, and I know you must know this, "This is my world."

Which makes sense with his characterization so far. He went about helping people, but never really wanted to do it.

More nonsense. If Clark never wanted to help people, then why did he do it? Why did he save the men on the oil rig? Why did he save Pete Ross? Why did he save the soldier that fell from the sky during the fight in Smallville? Are you seriously suggesting that Clark saved those people as some sort of penance or obligation? No one forced Clark to save or help people. He could have lived life using his powers for selfish reasons or merely lived a normal life, but that's not the life Clark chose for himself. He chose to live a life in which he searched for purpose and became a guardian angel along the way. He sacrificed what could have been his life when he surrendered to General Swanwick and later General Zod. He didn't have to show up to answer the questions posed by Senator Finch and her committee, yet he did. And when the world feared and rejected his help, it hurt him deeply. A man -- a hero -- who doesn't really want to help people doesn't act or behave that way.

Of course plenty of blame goes on Snyder for how he handles any heroic moments for Superman. Just montage it up and cut all dialogue. It's no wonder public opinion on him varies into a religious level. He's basically a floating silent angle figure. No one can treat him like a person because he himself refuses to act like a person. Talk to the people you are helping! Stop floating up there like a ghost.

The montage is there to show you how the media is twisting his heroic acts. The montage shows how the world is struggling to understand and adjust to Superman. It's about asking the question: Must there be a Superman? The montage shows how Superman continues to help people, yet in return he is met with either worship or fear. Because that's what our world does to good people. It worships them like gods or doesn't believe that anyone that powerful could be that good. Superman changed the way people viewed themselves and their place in the universe, so his every action is scrutinized and viewed with suspicion. The montage reveals that struggle.

The interesting thing will be where they go with him at this point. Feels more like they are setting him up for an Injustice storyline than anything else. His whole focus and worldview is basically revolving around Lois at this point. So killing her would certainly trigger a Superman related apocalypse. His foundation is just that fragile right now.

His whole focus and worldview does not revolve around Lois. There's nothing wrong with someone you love giving you strength and hope, and there's nothing that suggests that Superman would go mad if he lost her other than a PTSD fueled nightmare that could easily have been influenced or corrupted by Darkseid. From all accounts, the arc and tone for Justice League are rooted in hope, optimism, and rebirth.

 

[idiot09]

Don't take the bait.

Yeah. Cant be bothered anymore. Feeling like Dr Manhattan as each day passes

Edit : Thanks Miss Lane for writing what needed to be said, but I didnt want to

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I don't think Superman had any kind of hero's journey particularly the one mentioned above. Superman never found any hope from within or built a stronger foundation for his beliefs. He simply narrowed it down to self-interest. He didn't want his mom to die, he didn't want Lois to die. All he really ended up doing was making sure to save people he personally knew and cared about. So long as those two individuals are safe then it is all good for him. If he gained any sort of inner growth or belief in his own heroism it wasn't in BvS. That would have to arise hopefully in Justice League. Telling Lois she is his world and dying to save her doesn't say anything about him as a hero.

Which makes sense with his characterization so far. He went about helping people, but never really wanted to do it. Of course plenty of blame goes on Snyder for how he handles any heroic moments for Superman. Just montage it up and cut all dialogue. It's no wonder public opinion on him varies into a religious level. He's basically a floating silent angle figure. No one can treat him like a person because he himself refuses to act like a person. Talk to the people you are helping! Stop floating up there like a ghost.

The interesting thing will be where they go with him at this point. Feels more like they are setting him up for an Injustice storyline than anything else. His whole focus and worldview is basically revolving around Lois at this point. So killing her would certainly trigger a Superman related apocalypse. His foundation is just that fragile right now.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

He came back to being Superman because as he literally says in the film, "This is my world. You are my world." Superman on the mountaintop hears the inner voice of his father and concludes that the nightmares and unintended consequences that lead to feelings of hopelessness and guilt can be endured. Lois reminded Clark that Superman means something -- the hope he inspires is all some people have. And on that mountaintop, Clark is able to let himself feel the truth of that statement.



He literally died to save humanity after both Lois and his mother were safe and sound. What you are saying is like saying Jesus only died to save his mother, Mary, because his sacrifice would grant her eternal life. It's utter nonsense.



He didn't just say Lois was his world. He also said, and I know you must know this, "This is my world."



More nonsense. If Clark never wanted to help people, then why did he do it? Why did he save the men on the oil rig? Why did he save Pete Ross? Why did he save the soldier that fell from the sky during the fight in Smallville? Are you seriously suggesting that Clark saved those people as some sort of penance or obligation? No one forced Clark to save or help people. He could have lived life using his powers for selfish reasons or merely lived a normal life, but that's not the life Clark chose for himself. He chose to live a life in which he searched for purpose and became a guardian angel along the way. He sacrificed what could have been his life when he surrendered to General Swanwick and later General Zod. He didn't have to show up to answer the questions posed by Senator Finch and her committee, yet he did. And when the world feared and rejected his help, it hurt him deeply. A man -- a hero -- who doesn't really want to help people doesn't act or behave that way.



The montage is there to show you how the media is twisting his heroic acts. The montage shows how the world is struggling to understand and adjust to Superman. It's about asking the question: Must there be a Superman? The montage shows how Superman continues to help people, yet in return he is met with either worship or fear. Because that's what our world does to good people. It worships them like gods or doesn't believe that anyone that powerful could be that good. Superman changed the way people viewed themselves and their place in the universe, so his every action is scrutinized and viewed with suspicion. The montage reveals that struggle.



His whole focus and worldview does not revolve around Lois. There's nothing wrong with someone you love giving you strength and hope, and there's nothing that suggests that Superman would go mad if he lost her other than a PTSD fueled nightmare that could easily have been influenced or corrupted by Darkseid. From all accounts, the arc and tone for Justice League are rooted in hope, optimism, and rebirth.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

DA Scribe said don't take the bait and the next post takes it.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

He's basically a floating silent angle figure. No one can treat him like a person because he himself refuses to act like a person. Talk to the people you are helping! Stop floating up there like a ghost.

June Finch, a member of the US Senate, basically said that Superman shouldn't be allowed to participate in state-level interventions. The corresponding 'floating' scene is intended to convey both his helplessness in not being able to act unilaterally and the weight of said dilemma.

 

[Superchan]

Fair enough. You don't have to like it. I love it, though, because not only did the ideas inherent in existential heroism develop Superman's character, but also other characters -- from Bruce, to Lois, to Lex -- and as a result, the narrative establishes a foundation of hope that is pure, strong, and rooted in truth.

I know you do and that's great but as you have no doubt gathered by now, I hate Snyder's superman and his DCEU stuff probably as much as you love it.

I am a firm believer that every creator has the right to interpret superman the way they want to and try and put their stamp on the character but with that being said I reserve the right to reject said version if I see fit.
I reject this charmless, emo (yeah that's the right word for it) superman that Snyder tried to sell the audience and largely failed in doing so. In his quest to make superman 'relatable' he committed the ultimate sin of making superman dull and unlikable (IMO) much like Singer did with his half a**ed remake of Donner's original.
Snyder I believe is one of the primary factors (the other being WB's incompetence) why the DCEU has struggled thus far and I have no faith what so ever that we're going to see any redemption for the superman by the end of snyder's so called "trilogy".

 

[misslane38]

I know you do and that's great but as you have no doubt gathered by now, I hate Snyder's superman and his DCEU stuff probably as much as you love it.

I am a firm believer that every creator has the right to interpret superman the way they want to and try and put their stamp on the character but with that being said I reserve the right to reject said version if I see fit.
I reject this charmless, emo (yeah that's the right word for it) superman that Snyder tried to sell the audience and largely failed in doing so. In his quest to make superman 'relatable' he committed the ultimate sin of making superman dull and unlikable (IMO) much like Singer did with his half a**ed remake of Donner's original.
Snyder I believe is one of the primary factors (the other being WB's incompetence) why the DCEU has struggled thus far and I have no faith what so ever that we're going to see any redemption for the superman by the end of snyder's so called "trilogy".

This Superman doesn't need redemption per se. He just needs to continue his journey of growth and transformation, and I have faith that we will see that.

As for Snyder, his work has made me feel Superman's hope in a real way more so than I ever have before when he didn't struggle as much. It's inspirational to me. His Superman has richer relationships with his parents, with Lois, and is more dedicated to his job as a reporter than previous versions, too, making me connect with his humanity and helping me appreciate him even more.

I get that we see this differently, though, and that's okay. I hope you are pleasantly surprised by what is to come, and I hope that I'll continue to enjoy what I see.

 

[Superchan]

This Superman doesn't need redemption per se. He just needs to continue his journey of growth and transformation, and I have faith that we will see that.

I the context of the story itself no he doesn't, as far as I'm concerned he constantly redeemed himself throughout the film by helping people despite of humanity's never ending b****ing and to top it off he died for their ungrateful a**es. I may give the DCEU's superman alot of flack but I can't deny that he's been nothing but heroic through out BvS.

As for Snyder, his work has made me feel Superman's hope in a real way more so than I ever have before when he didn't struggle as much. It's inspirational to me. His Superman has richer relationships with his parents, with Lois, and is more dedicated to his job as a reporter than previous versions, too, making me connect with his humanity and helping me appreciate him even more.

You know this might be a first but I have to agree with you there, changing the Lois and Clark dynamic (I grew very tired of the love triangle tbh) was MOS's single greatest accomplishment and I actually liked the fact that Jon and Martha weren't their usual archetypal comicbook selves and felt more like real parents who love their son more they cared about the rest of the world, this is why I liked the scene in BvS where martha said (in visible anger) that ÿou don't owe this world a thing.
The reporter CK was the only thing I liked about the UC but sadly most people out there saw the theatrical cut and in that version CK the reporter was marginalized in favor of the 'bat-max' desert sequence, which aside from looking cool served little to further the story other than WB's obvious JL setup attempts.
I don't know about you but I actually love the reporter CK as much as I love superman. The Daily Planet CK isn't just a disguise for superman like he is in most stories but rather a social crusader, a guy who deals with the smaller scale issues plaguing society as opposed to the global, larger than life issues that superman tends to deal with.
My favorite part of Morrison's Action run is where Batman brings Clark a pen-drive showing him that statistically he is as important to the world as superman is and superman adventures #18 (based on STAS) - where CK saves 300 people from an inevitable train collision through journalistic know how rather than physical strength - is one of my favorite superman stories of all time.

I get that we see this differently, though, and that's okay. I hope you are pleasantly surprised by what is to come, and I hope that I'll continue to enjoy what I see.

Ditto. You honestly think I enjoy hating any version of superman? I want to love every version of the character, even Snyder's and the Injustice versions and by god am I hoping against hope that superman (as the character for the audience) is redeemed by the end of JL.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

95% on RT.

 

[K-Rayner05]

So that's it huh i'm some kinda Superman

 

[Polux]

95% on RT.

 

[Arachnerd]

He's not smiling in the first pic. 0/10, not my Superman.

 

[Tra-El]

Lmao. Snyder should have wrote Supes and that scene like this:

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

I don't think Superman had any kind of hero's journey particularly the one mentioned above. Superman never found any hope from within or built a stronger foundation for his beliefs. He simply narrowed it down to self-interest. He didn't want his mom to die, he didn't want Lois to die. All he really ended up doing was making sure to save people he personally knew and cared about. So long as those two individuals are safe then it is all good for him. If he gained any sort of inner growth or belief in his own heroism it wasn't in BvS. That would have to arise hopefully in Justice League. Telling Lois she is his world and dying to save her doesn't say anything about him as a hero.

Which makes sense with his characterization so far. He went about helping people, but never really wanted to do it. Of course plenty of blame goes on Snyder for how he handles any heroic moments for Superman. Just montage it up and cut all dialogue. It's no wonder public opinion on him varies into a religious level. He's basically a floating silent angle figure. No one can treat him like a person because he himself refuses to act like a person. Talk to the people you are helping! Stop floating up there like a ghost.

The interesting thing will be where they go with him at this point. Feels more like they are setting him up for an Injustice storyline than anything else. His whole focus and worldview is basically revolving around Lois at this point. So killing her would certainly trigger a Superman related apocalypse. His foundation is just that fragile right now.

I actually kind of have to agree with this. Especially the bolded bits. They never give him moments where he actually interacts and talks to other people as Superman. He's always some mysterious messiah figure you can never approach. Meanwhile, Supes is supposed to be accessible and easy affable.

 

[KillerWolf]

95% on RT.

Bloddy hell... this is unsettling.

 

[misslane38]

I actually kind of have to agree with this. Especially the bolded bits. They never give him moments where he actually interacts and talks to other people as Superman. He's always some mysterious messiah figure you can never approach. Meanwhile, Supes is supposed to be accessible and easy affable.

While I think it's fair to say that Superman could have benefited from some more interaction with others, I think there are some other things to consider.

First, if one posits that being more affable would have gone a long way into solving Superman's image problems in the movie, then what would the effect be if he was more affable, yet the reaction of those like Lex or Bruce or the government remained the same? It would either make Superman's engagement appear ineffective, or it would make people like Bruce look even more irrational.

Finally, in the Ultimate Cut I believe you see Superman talk to the EMT after he brings a wounded person for care outside the Capitol. The Juarez incident on the Day of the Dead similarly indicates that he's perfectly fine with smiling at and getting close to people, and those people seem to believe that Superman is approachable. However, at the Capitol the EMT reacts by hinting that it would be better if Superman just left, and at Juarez you see Superman's expression change once they start reaching out to him as if to worship him.

Since Superman is just starting out, it seems like he's not sure what the best approach is. If the way people are going to react to him is like the way the people of Juarez do, then making it a policy to stick around to sort of lap up the love like a celebrity on an autograph line might, to him, seem self-indulgent or send the wrong message. If he hangs around in the aftermath of a crisis, like the Capitol, he could be a distraction. He spent so much of his early heroic life saving people and having to hide afterward, that it's probably an adjustment and learning curve to figure out what the best approach is.

 

[Tony Gunk]

95% on RT.

I laughed hard