Once I got over my reaction the author professing to like
Arrow, which I can't say I relate to, I thought it was an interesting read. I agreed with some of it and disagreed with other parts of it. For example:
I realized that the utterly confident, entirely aspirational, and downright heroic Superman isn’t just a contrast to the current movie version but a contrast to how the character has been portrayed in live-action for the last twenty years.
I get what the author is going for here, but I don't agree that a character can't be totally aspirational or heroic if they are struggling against external forces or internal doubts. Judy in
Zootopia goes has to go through what Cavill's Superman went through in
Man of Steel and
Dawn of Justice, and she has moments where she doubts herself, feels down, makes mistakes, even quits, but ultimately she figures things out and comes out of it stronger and wiser. She was more aspirational and heroic for her ability to overcome her challenges. Perhaps just leaving it at fun or pleasant would be a better way to put it.
Say what you will about Tom Welling’s work as “the man who would be Superman,” but that show never actually got around to showing him as Superman. Even the series finale, where he technically took the costume and the mantle, offered not a single full body shot of our hero as our hero. And right smack in the middle of that show’s 10-year run, we got Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns.
This doesn't feel entirely fair either. As the show itself stated, the suit doesn't make the hero. If the article's focus is on how refreshing and novel it is to have a more upbeat and settled version of this character, then their focus is on attitude and not outfit. Welling's Clark had plenty of moments that were of that nature, and he didn't need to wear the iconic suit to do it.
So yes, Supergirl is awesome, and Tyler Hoechlin is a wonderful Last Son of Krypton. Whether this guest appearance, which I should stress doesn’t remotely resemble a backdoor pilot, should lead to a stand-alone television series, I cannot say. You can make the case that part of what made this version so endearing is that he was a supporting character, sharing the limelight with other super-heroic folks and bouncing off already established supporting characters (the real challenge is how this show will function with noticeably less Calista Flockhart).
Maybe, like Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk, this version of Superman was “super” precisely because he got to show up, be wonderful and mostly step aside for the core conflicts. Maybe Cavill will have more fun as part of a Justice League ensemble than he did as a loner. But the very existence of this cheerful and optimistic Superman in the CW television world makes the existence of the more deconstructive movie version that much more “valid.”
I agree with the assertion here that Tyler's Superman and his use on the show works partly because he's a supporting character and these episodes may endear him and his Superman to audiences, but it doesn't present a compelling enough case for a spin-off. I also agree that it's wonderful to have both versions of the character available to us now, telling equally valid stories in equally valid ways. To have different sides of the character and stages explored, you really get to see the depth and breadth of the character and what makes him so compelling and endearing.