I don't understand this point. The general audience has a false impression of Superman and bases their opinion on him on things that are completely false thus we should continue pushing all the myths about Superman as opposed to exposing them for being myths? That would be like saying that because the general audience believes all Aquaman can do is talk to fish, that has to be the main point of the Aquaman movie despite that being just a myth.
When the GA has a false impression about the character, you don't continue with that false impression. You get the truth out through a great and accurate movie. The whole point of a superhero movie is to break any myths about the character and show the true version of the character to the GA. This is especially the case with reboots.
What you just described is exactly what Man of Steel and its sequels will be doing. There are more things than just Kryptonite that can hurt Superman and the reboot will show that. You don't need to wait until a JL movie to show that because you can show that using Superman's own villains in his own corner of the DC universe (and Zod is a great start). If Man of Steel and its sequels do a good job of exposing the "He is too powerful and only a green rock can hurt him" myth, it won't be a problem by the time JL comes out.
Also by advertising JL on what the world's heroes will do without Superman only to have Superman come back later in the movie and bringing a boost of relief and confidence to the rest of the JL and to the GA, I think that would further push the "Superman is overpowered" myth rather than suppress it but that's just my opinion.
I'm not perpetuating the myth that Superman is too powerful. Perpetuating the myth would be to have Superman be killed by Kryptonite. This would crush it. And it wouldn't be a
Justice League film that would display it. It would be a
Man of Steel sequel that sees Superman lose, fail and die.
I know that they are giving credible threats to Superman in the
Man of Steel films. And that's awesome. But the bottom line is, in those films, he is going to WIN. Whether pushed to the edge or not, he'll win. So why would he need to be on a team? And if he's winning on his own against the baddest the universe has to offer, surely he wouldn't need help against the Joker, Mirror Master, Black Manta, etc. He wouldn't need a team. BUT -- if you introduce a threat that is even too large for Superman and SHOW that it is too big for Superman by having it truly defeat him (not in act 1 of a film, but at the climax of a film) and leave him defeated when the credits roll.... THAT will validate the need for a team. In the REAL world. Which is what they're trying to achieve.
I'm saying that if you put the one superhero into TRUE peril that most fans think cannot truly be put into peril... Not in an "almost died" scenario, but in an "actually died" scenario... Then that will get the audience's attention. It will be something new.
Going into a
Justice League film with Superman dead, whether you know he is going to return or not, gives 100% credit to the villain as well as gives 100% NEED for the formation of the team.
And Superman coming back and "putting the team over the top," doesn't reinforce the notion that he's all powerful and it's only because of him that they won... It reinforces the notion that the
team is incomplete without Superman. But also that Superman needed the team to do something that he alone couldn't.
-R
