Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[Binker]

Don't change things just because of changing them, it doesn't fit and you'll find yourself going back. Nothing wrong with Daily Planet, and nothing wrong having a real world Metropolis, a fantasy one, or a hybrid of both. These things aren't the problem and shouldn't be considered as such.

Its what I said, its the acceptance of everything, not the alienation of anything.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Don't change things just because of changing them, it doesn't fit and you'll find yourself going back. Nothing wrong with Daily Planet, and nothing wrong having a real world Metropolis, a fantasy one, or a hybrid of both. These things aren't the problem and shouldn't be considered as such.

Its what I said, its the acceptance of everything, not the alienation of anything.

I don't think that's what is being said.

You have 80 years of stuff to pull from. You have a lot of "blocks" to work with.

Hollywood acts like certain things are problems (being an upstanding person) and not about what parts are available in the character's mythos already that would make it work.


It's not about anything being wrong with the Daily Planet. It's asking, would a newspaper company function in Superman's world similar to our own? Why not make the Daily Planet a Buzzfeed style news? Lois is still a reporter. She just doesn't need a Jimmy Olsen following her with a camera.

The same world that produces a Lex Luthor and Steel tech can make Lois smart enough to have a camera drone to file her reports from overseas.

Make Jimmy the web designer for the paper.

I'm not advocating for this stuff. I'm saying there's enough stuff in Superman's world that pulling one comic where he killed Zod to make a "grounded" movie vs. the 1000s of others where he wins in the face of killing is an option is part of the problem of Hollywood thinking Superman doesn't fit in. Just use a little imagination with what's already there.

 

[misslane38]

That's actually an interesting question. For whatever reason the idea that someone might be brought up wanting to respect others, open doors, help strangers out, speaks honestly, is somehow old fashion. It might help to explain why there was such a divide over this Superman. If you're brought up in a cynical environment, where the outlooks are bleak, no-one can be trusted and strength is the only value worth measuring, then it's kinda of easy to see why Snyder's Superman would be appealing to some people. But if you're wanting someone who stands for something good, conducts themselves in a way that's respectable and goes out of their way to inspire others, then that Superman is not for you. This discussion about 'old fashion' make me wonder if today's audiences simple aren't use to the idea of someone being good because that's who they are.

What?! Snyder's Superman explicitly avoids using his strength and is constantly holding back. He holds back against Pete Ross, Fordman and other bullies, Ludlow at the bar, Swanwick (wears handcuffs to make him feel better), Hardy (saves one of his men who was shooting at him minutes earlier), Batman (he offers mercy and apologizes), Lex Luthor (from Doomsday's fist), even Zod at first (he surrenders). No one can be trusted?! Snyder's Superman exposes the truth about himself to Lois in Ellesmere, knowing she's a nosey and dogged reporter. He speaks to a local priest, Father Leone, before turning himself into the U.S. government.

Jonathan Kent didn't raise Superman in the DCEU to be cynical. He raised him to believe that he had to figure out for himself what his purpose was and to reveal himself to the world when he was ready. He literally tells his 13 year-old son that one day he would see his differences as blessings he could proudly share with the world. It is Snyder's Superman who conducts himself in respectable ways. He doesn't gaslight Lois Lane or beat up bullies in diners. He kills a fully powered Zod to prevent death and weeps; he doesn't kill a depowered Zod and smile about it. Stand for something good? Superman stands in front of Finch's committee to represent truth and cooperation. He stands for mercy and grace when he's faced with Batman's rage. He sacrifices his own life for mankind even if they reject him to give them hope.

Superman didn't have to stand up for the people of Gotham. He could have chosen to please himself and focus all his efforts on clearing his own name for what happened with Nairomi and Keefe, but he chose the voiceless poor of Gotham. And he did it in a way that had nothing to do with a show of strength. He went out of his way to be a voice for those who had none. And he inspired Bruce Wayne by offering him his trust. He went out of his way to his death to give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards.

It might mean him not being the most interesting character, but if you walk out of the theatre standing up a little straighter, with your head a little higher, and feeling more positive about yourself and other people, then maybe that's all he needs to be. Not every character has to have this dramatic story arc, filled with tension and suffering, sometimes simple is the best option.

I disagree. It is more inspiring to see how simple acts of kindness can come from someone who has suffered and struggled than it is to see kindness come from someone whose life is a fairy tale -- a pure wish-fulfilment fantasy.

 

[Boy Scout]

That's actually an interesting question. For whatever reason the idea that someone might be brought up wanting to respect others, open doors, help strangers out, speaks honestly, is somehow old fashion. It might help to explain why there was such a divide over this Superman. If you're brought up in a cynical environment, where the outlooks are bleak, no-one can be trusted and strength is the only value worth measuring, then it's kinda of easy to see why Snyder's Superman would be appealing to some people. But if you're wanting someone who stands for something good, conducts themselves in a way that's respectable and goes out of their way to inspire others, then that Superman is not for you. This discussion about 'old fashion' make me wonder if today's audiences simple aren't use to the idea of someone being good because that's who they are.

I was in a park waiting for someone the other day near a big family who were having a birthday barbaque when one of the women who had just bought some ice creams for everyone came over to where I was standing and asked if I wanted one. Maybe this type of gesture was far more prevalent in the past, but because I was brought up in a world where 'stranger danger' was instilled in me I was taken aback by the offer. So, maybe Superman doesn't need to be this super complex character, maybe he just needs to present us with an image of what a good person is. It might mean him not being the most interesting character, but if you walk out of the theatre standing up a little straighter, with your head a little higher, and feeling more positive about yourself and other people, then maybe that's all he needs to be. Not every character has to have this dramatic story arc, filled with tension and suffering, sometimes simple is the best option.

I don’t disagree with you, but I also think that’s it’s possible to tell a story about a Superman who doubts himself, his upbringing, and his place in the world without turning him into someone he’s not. Superman is still a person at the end of the day, and people have to deal with personal and professional problems all the time. What’s important to understand, however, is that the way a person reacts when confronted with hardship is unique to them. Scarlet Witch and Superman don’t deal with stress the same way. Nor do Batman and Ant-Man. Or Thor and The Flash. Or Wonder Woman and Daredevil.

Superman doesn’t need to be perfect. He can be allowed to make mistakes and question himself and feel lonely. But there are ways to portray his internal conflicts without betraying who he is and what he stands for. And unfortunately for us, Singer and Snyder missed the mark.

 

[misslane38]

Superman doesn’t need to be perfect. He can be allowed to make mistakes and question himself and feel lonely. But there are ways to portray his internal conflicts without betraying who he is and what he stands for. And unfortunately for us, Singer and Snyder missed the mark.

How did Snyder's approach miss the mark and betray what Superman stands for?

 

[Boy Scout]

How did Snyder's approach miss the mark and betray what Superman stands for?

Like I’ve told you before: I’m not discussing this with you. We both know it’d be a waste of time. Have a good day.

 

[unholyrevenger]

How did Snyder's approach miss the mark and betray what Superman stands for?

Because it makes the same mistake Smallville does, it doesn't skip over the growing pains and emotional hardship of becoming Superman. the way Superman the Movie, Superman the Animated Series or Lois and Clark Skip ahead with a "years later" plaque or just pick up after Supes has established himself.

 

[jmc]

What?! Snyder's Superman explicitly avoids using his strength and is constantly holding back. He holds back against Pete Ross, Fordman and other bullies, Ludlow at the bar, Swanwick (wears handcuffs to make him feel better), Hardy (saves one of his men who was shooting at him minutes earlier), Batman (he offers mercy and apologizes), Lex Luthor (from Doomsday's fist), even Zod at first (he surrenders). No one can be trusted?! Snyder's Superman exposes the truth about himself to Lois in Ellesmere, knowing she's a nosey and dogged reporter. He speaks to a local priest, Father Leone, before turning himself into the U.S. government.

Jonathan Kent didn't raise Superman in the DCEU to be cynical. He raised him to believe that he had to figure out for himself what his purpose was and to reveal himself to the world when he was ready. He literally tells his 13 year-old son that one day he would see his differences as blessings he could proudly share with the world. It is Snyder's Superman who conducts himself in respectable ways. He doesn't gaslight Lois Lane or beat up bullies in diners. He kills a fully powered Zod to prevent death and weeps; he doesn't kill a depowered Zod and smile about it. Stand for something good? Superman stands in front of Finch's committee to represent truth and cooperation. He stands for mercy and grace when he's faced with Batman's rage. He sacrifices his own life for mankind even if they reject him to give them hope.

Superman didn't have to stand up for the people of Gotham. He could have chosen to please himself and focus all his efforts on clearing his own name for what happened with Nairomi and Keefe, but he chose the voiceless poor of Gotham. And he did it in a way that had nothing to do with a show of strength. He went out of his way to be a voice for those who had none. And he inspired Bruce Wayne by offering him his trust. He went out of his way to his death to give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards.



I disagree. It is more inspiring to see how simple acts of kindness can come from someone who has suffered and struggled than it is to see kindness come from someone whose life is a fairy tale -- a pure wish-fulfilment fantasy.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but superheroes are a fairytale.

 

[misslane38]

Like I’ve told you before: I’m not discussing this with you. We both know it’d be a waste of time. Have a good day.

It just...well...I hear all the time about how Snyder's Superman is so off the mark, and yet I can never get a straight answer about what it is exactly that he did or didn't do that failed to match up with what you would expect from a man who fights a never-ending battle for truth and justice in order to give humanity an ideal of hope to strive towards. See, to me, good is a conversation. I think talking through these things, as long as it is done in good faith, can always make a difference even if our minds aren't changed. At least we would understand each other better. But it seems that understanding isn't something that interests you very much, so I'll concede to agree to disagree.

 

[misslane38]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but superheroes are a fairytale.

I hate to break it to you, but fairy tales do not sugar coat the world. I don't know what fairy tales you read growing up, but fairy tales -- the best ones -- are filled with darkness and danger. They are filled with characters who struggle and grow as a result of that struggle. I sincerely urge you to read to work of Joseph Campbell who literally wrote the book on heroes. You'll learn that every story from the stone age to the modern era features a road of trials in which the hero must slay the dragons of societal expectations and his or her own ego.

One thing that comes out in myths is that at the bottom of the abyss comes the voice of salvation. The black moment is the moment when the real message of transformation is going to come. At the darkest moment comes the light.
Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth

I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going, because they were holding on to something.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers

 

[Limonade]

I hate to break it to you, but fairy tales do not sugar coat the world. I don't know what fairy tales you read growing up, but fairy tales -- the best ones -- are filled with darkness and danger. They are filled with characters who struggle and grow as a result of that struggle. I sincerely urge you to read to work of Joseph Campbell who literally wrote the book on heroes. You'll learn that every story from the stone age to the modern era features a road of trials in which the hero must slay the dragons of societal expectations and his or her own ego.

One thing that comes out in myths is that at the bottom of the abyss comes the voice of salvation. The black moment is the moment when the real message of transformation is going to come. At the darkest moment comes the light.
Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth

I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going, because they were holding on to something.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers

Disney Fairy Tales?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

What?! Snyder's Superman explicitly avoids using his strength and is constantly holding back. He holds back against Pete Ross, Fordman and other bullies, Ludlow at the bar, Swanwick (wears handcuffs to make him feel better), Hardy (saves one of his men who was shooting at him minutes earlier), Batman (he offers mercy and apologizes), Lex Luthor (from Doomsday's fist), even Zod at first (he surrenders). No one can be trusted?! Snyder's Superman exposes the truth about himself to Lois in Ellesmere, knowing she's a nosey and dogged reporter. He speaks to a local priest, Father Leone, before turning himself into the U.S. government.

Jonathan Kent didn't raise Superman in the DCEU to be cynical.

Your last sentence answered your own question.

Superman holds back because he's cynical of what our response will be. Exactly because of how Johnathan raised him. He died in a tornado cause he didn't trust a handful of people on that road.(Contrast that with Raimi's Spiderman 2. The New Yorkers on the train swear to protect a stranger's identity cause he did the right thing and helped them).

Snyder's interpretation only makes sense if the end goal of living in Smallville is to become Superman. Clark never had a personality. Even in that conversation in the truck before the tornado, we know what he doesn't want to be but we never find out what he actually wants to be.

He just shows up at the Daily Planet and gets a job? How? Did he get a degree? What was he studying at Kansas State?

If Snyder had applied Ma and Pa Kent as the ones who instilled a sense of purpose in Clark. He would want to help people as Clark the investigative reporter from the start. Superman would have been just another way to do what he wants to do.

Snyder built the story so Clark was aimless and Superman is simply incidental to Zod arriving.

 

[Swagneto]

I don't think that's what is being said.

You have 80 years of stuff to pull from. You have a lot of "blocks" to work with.

Hollywood acts like certain things are problems (being an upstanding person) and not about what parts are available in the character's mythos already that would make it work.


It's not about anything being wrong with the Daily Planet. It's asking, would a newspaper company function in Superman's world similar to our own? Why not make the Daily Planet a Buzzfeed style news? Lois is still a reporter. She just doesn't need a Jimmy Olsen following her with a camera.

The same world that produces a Lex Luthor and Steel tech can make Lois smart enough to have a camera drone to file her reports from overseas.

Make Jimmy the web designer for the paper.

I'm not advocating for this stuff. I'm saying there's enough stuff in Superman's world that pulling one comic where he killed Zod to make a "grounded" movie vs. the 1000s of others where he wins in the face of killing is an option is part of the problem of Hollywood thinking Superman doesn't fit in. Just use a little imagination with what's already there.

All of this is on the money, you have the right idea.

Or you could even keep the Daily Planet as an actual newspaper and really emphasize Clark and Lois as 'real' more distinguished reporters fighting the good fight against the new wave of online and social media and the spread of fake news. Plus it would allow you to keep Clark Kent in a suit... and I always liked seeing Clark Kent in a suit.

But I mostly agree with your approach. And as for Jimmy yea he should be cool and relatable to the modern audience.

 

[misslane38]

Disney Fairy Tales?

Yes, even Disney versions of fairy tales do not bubble wrap protagonists in narratives and worlds without conflict, judgement, doubt, mistakes, or loss. Watch any Disney Pixar film for the last decade, you'll find a protagonist whose parents or culture do not support or understand the hero. You'll find a hero or heroine who makes a mistake or quits the hero's journey because it looks like things won't get better. None of these fairy tales shield their heroes from the struggles and conflicts of life or society.

 

[flickchick85]

I mean, there are still legitimate journalism outlets out there in modern times so I don't think we need to stoop to making the Planet a Buzzfeed type of "news" organization in order to feel up-to-date, but I'd approve the general approach here. The newsroom needs to be updated, the internet and social media being major parts of their business, and I like the idea of updating Jimmy's job/skills.

 

[misslane38]

Superman holds back because he's cynical of what our response will be. Exactly because of how Johnathan raised him. He died in a tornado cause he didn't trust a handful of people on that road.(Contrast that with Raimi's Spiderman 2. The New Yorkers on the train swear to protect a stranger's identity cause he did the right thing and helped them).

No, he doesn't. There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. The only time Superman held back in MoS was because his father wanted to protect his son. His father wanted him to have a chance to find out who he was and what his purpose was in the world. Clark was 17 years-old. When Clark was 18 years-old in the first Donner film, Jonathan tells Clark something similar. He tells him: "Look, son. You've been nothin' but a blessing to your mother and me. In the beginning, when you first came, we thought they'd take you away from us if people found out about...the things you could do."

Your comparison between Spider-Man II and Man of Steel doesn't work because you are ignoring critical contextual differences. Spider-Man was well-known to the public in the film. He was an established hero who had earned some measure of acceptance and respect in his city. Clark, on the other hand, would have been exposing himself for the first time to people who would have never experienced anything like it before. And what they would be seeing is Clark using his powers to save his own father rather than as Peter was doing, which was to protect ordinary people. Peter Parker was also an adult; Clark was still a child. You are comparing the actions of a child who trusts his father to a mature adult. It makes no sense.

Snyder's interpretation only makes sense if the end goal of living in Smallville is to become Superman. Clark never had a personality. Even in that conversation in the truck before the tornado, we know what he doesn't want to be but we never find out what he actually wants to be.

Clark tells his father he wants to do something useful with his life. What 17 year-old has a clear idea of who he wants to be? I am a school counselor and tutor who regularly counsels boys this age, and it is much more common for a boy to still be searching than in it for a boy to know what he wants to be. By contrast, Reeve's Superman shows no interest in any direction or purpose in his life until he begins following the pull he feels from the crystal in his ship. From there, he travels to his Fortress where everything he becomes is dictated by Jor-El's AI.

He just shows up at the Daily Planet and gets a job? How? Did he get a degree? What was he studying at Kansas State?

He didn't get a job as a reporter. Clark was hired as a stringer. One doesn't need a degree to be a journalist let alone a stringer. It is not a highly skilled position.

If Snyder had applied Ma and Pa Kent as the ones who instilled a sense of purpose in Clark. He would want to help people as Clark the investigative reporter from the start. Superman would have been just another way to do what he wants to do.

This is a BS standard that is never applied to the vast majority of other incarnations of Superman.

Snyder built the story so Clark was aimless and Superman is simply incidental to Zod arriving.

He wasn't aimless, though. From the beginning of the film, it is clear Clark has one aim: to find out the reason for his existence. The Kents raised their son to believe that one day his differences would one day be blessings or gifts Clark could proudly share with the world.

 

[Swagneto]

He wasn't aimless, though. From the beginning of the film, it is clear Clark has one aim: to find out the reason for his existence. The Kents raised their son to believe that one day his differences would one day be blessings or gifts Clark could proudly share with the world.

Clark wasn't even allowed to share his gifts with his own father and Pa Kent died reinforcing that lesson.

Nothing Pa Kent did made any sense.

 

[jmc]

I hate to break it to you, but fairy tales do not sugar coat the world. I don't know what fairy tales you read growing up, but fairy tales -- the best ones -- are filled with darkness and danger. They are filled with characters who struggle and grow as a result of that struggle. I sincerely urge you to read to work of Joseph Campbell who literally wrote the book on heroes. You'll learn that every story from the stone age to the modern era features a road of trials in which the hero must slay the dragons of societal expectations and his or her own ego.

One thing that comes out in myths is that at the bottom of the abyss comes the voice of salvation. The black moment is the moment when the real message of transformation is going to come. At the darkest moment comes the light.
Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth

I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going, because they were holding on to something.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers

As someone who has a keen interest in and read a lot of mythology I'm more than aware they are often a reflection of us as a society. But what I was getting at, and what you overlooked with what I said, was that not every tale needs to be this deep philosophical text that reflects our true nature. Sometimes a story that escapes real life is not only perfectly fine, it's needed. Superman is that type of character. He's not meant to be overly complex, he's just meant to be a good guy doing good things. You may not like it, but this Superman has been an utter failure because that simple concept was rejected. It doesn't matter what past mythologies did or which famous scholar said what about mythology, the attempt to ground Superman in a world filled with struggle, regret, suffering and dread hasn't worked, that is fact. Escapism, where the world depicted is one that is more utopia like featuring idyllic characters, has it place in literature, and Superman is part of that group, and it's time to stop questioning that and to start embracing it.

 

[misslane38]

Clark wasn't even allowed to share his gifts with his own father and Pa Kent died reinforcing that lesson.

Nothing Pa Kent did made any sense.

Jonathan told Clark when he was thirteen that one day he would see his blessings as a gift he could proudly share with the world. Here is the dialogue verbatim:

But you're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you were...That you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you're going through, one day...One day you're going to think of them as a blessing. When that day comes, you have to make a choice. A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.

Jonathan wanted his son to be able to have a childhood: a chance to experiment, to learn, to grow, to find out for himself who he was and what his purpose would be. He believed that if Clark were exposed while he were still a child, then both Clark and the world would suffer. He was protecting everyone because he believed that was the best way for Clark to make a place for himself among humanity.

Maybe. There's more at stake here than just our lives, Clark, or the lives of those around us. When the world...When the world finds out what you can do it's going to change everything. Our...Our beliefs, our notions of...what it means to be human. Everything.

Jonathan didn't want his son to save him because Clark still hadn't demonstrated the maturity he would need to be Superman. Clark was 17 years-old. He was still a child. Jonathan Kent died reinforcing the lesson that there are more important things at stake. He believed the world wasn't ready, but he always believed a day would come when the time would be right. It just wasn't the right time.

 

[misslane38]

As someone who has a keen interest in and read a lot of mythology I'm more than aware they are often a reflection of us as a society. But what I was getting at, and what you overlooked with what I said, was that not every tale needs to be this deep philosophical text that reflects our true nature. Sometimes a story that escapes real life is not only perfectly fine, it's needed. Superman is that type of character. He's not meant to be overly complex, he's just meant to be a good guy doing good things. You may not like it, but this Superman has been an utter failure because that simple concept was rejected. It doesn't matter what past mythologies did or which famous scholar said what about mythology, the attempt to ground Superman in a world filled with struggle, regret, suffering and dread hasn't worked, that is fact. Escapism, where the world depicted is one that is more utopia like featuring idyllic characters, has it place in literature, and Superman is part of that group, and it's time to stop questioning that and to start embracing it.

I cannot embrace a Superman who can only be a good guy who does good things because he already exists in a world in which such an example is redundant. I get the appeal of Superman for you and many others: he's a wish-fulfilment fantasy. Perhaps even more specifically, he's a power fantasy. Any good power fantasy encompasses the perfect hero in a world that assigns him privilege and does nothing but allows him to revel in it. He is always beloved, never wrong, and always gets what he wants. His choices are easy; his victories assured. Those with privilege are reluctant to give it up. I get it.

 

[Swagneto]

Jonathan told Clark when he was thirteen that one day he would see his blessings as a gift he could proudly share with the world. Here is the dialogue verbatim:

But you're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you were...That you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you're going through, one day...One day you're going to think of them as a blessing. When that day comes, you have to make a choice. A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.

Jonathan wanted his son to be able to have a childhood: a chance to experiment, to learn, to grow, to find out for himself who he was and what his purpose would be. He believed that if Clark were exposed while he were still a child, then both Clark and the world would suffer. He was protecting everyone because he believed that was the best way for Clark to make a place for himself among humanity.

Maybe. There's more at stake here than just our lives, Clark, or the lives of those around us. When the world...When the world finds out what you can do it's going to change everything. Our...Our beliefs, our notions of...what it means to be human. Everything.

Jonathan didn't want his son to save him because Clark still hadn't demonstrated the maturity he would need to be Superman. Clark was 17 years-old. He was still a child. Jonathan Kent died reinforcing the lesson that there are more important things at stake. He believed the world wasn't ready, but he always believed a day would come when the time would be right. It just wasn't the right time.

So he tells his son that one day he has to make a choice, and then when that day comes he robs him of that choice?

If THAT wasn't the right time, what would have been? Since you've declared that someone who's 17 isn't capable of making good decisions, how old would he have needed to be? Is there a magic number?

 

[misslane38]

So he tells his son that one day he has to make a choice, and then when that day comes he robs him of that choice?

If THAT wasn't the right time, what would have been? Since you've declared that someone who's 17 isn't capable of making good decisions, how old would he have needed to be? Is there a magic number?

It's not about a specific age, but about maturity. Clark, in his conversation with his parents in the car, demonstrated that he wasn't mature enough to be exposed to the world yet. Jonathan did not rob Clark of his choices. Jonathan made a sacrifice so that his son wouldn't have to change the course of his life to save his own father. It was an act of self-sacrifice that mirrored Jor-El's and Lara's sacrifices. It ties back to Jonathan's earlier comments about there are more important things to consider when making big decisions that could change the world. The right time for Clark to become Superman is for Clark to decide. He didn't have to respect his father's choice that day, but he did.

It was a choice Clark owned when he spoke to Lois about years later at Jonathan's grave. If Clark truly felt he was ready, he would have defied his father. He didn't. He chose instead to make his father's sacrifice means something. He spent the next decade traveling the world looking for answers about his origins and testing his limits as a hero. He learned about humanity, lived among us, protected us, and took more and more risks to test whether the time was right. So, no, there is no magic number. Just like there's no magic number for falling in love. There just comes a time when key elements align, and you just...know.

 

[Swagneto]

He had no issue exposing his abilities to those random people on the oil tanker.

 

[jmc]

I cannot embrace a Superman who can only be a good guy who does good things because he already exists in a world in which such an example is redundant. I get the appeal of Superman for you and many others: he's a wish-fulfilment fantasy. Perhaps even more specifically, he's a power fantasy. Any good power fantasy encompasses the perfect hero in a world that assigns him privilege and does nothing but allows him to revel in it. He is always beloved, never wrong, and always gets what he wants. His choices are easy; his victories assured. Those with privilege are reluctant to give it up. I get it.

Then the character is not for you. We've tried it your way and it didn't work. If you don't like traditional Superman then you should probably find a character that suits your tastes more. I'm saying all of this as someone who's not even really a Superman fan, in fact 10 years ago, especially when the Dark Knight came out, I would have probably agreed with a lot of what you said. But, in a case of being careful what you wish for, we've learned that path is not the right one for this particular character. What is the right path? It's simply about accepting Clark Kent is a good dude. Not questioning it, not giving justification for it, not trying to tear it down, just accepting it.

 

[SiegePerilous]

As someone who has a keen interest in and read a lot of mythology I'm more than aware they are often a reflection of us as a society. But what I was getting at, and what you overlooked with what I said, was that not every tale needs to be this deep philosophical text that reflects our true nature. Sometimes a story that escapes real life is not only perfectly fine, it's needed. Superman is that type of character. He's not meant to be overly complex, he's just meant to be a good guy doing good things. You may not like it, but this Superman has been an utter failure because that simple concept was rejected. It doesn't matter what past mythologies did or which famous scholar said what about mythology, the attempt to ground Superman in a world filled with struggle, regret, suffering and dread hasn't worked, that is fact. Escapism, where the world depicted is one that is more utopia like featuring idyllic characters, has it place in literature, and Superman is part of that group, and it's time to stop questioning that and to start embracing it.

I think Superman can be a good guy doing good things in lighter stories and still be very complex. Writers like Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Elliot S! Maggin and others have proven that. But those writers also keep the simple but powerful core of the character as a light hearted escapist character at the forefront (more so Morrison and Maggin than Moore), which is where they can succeed where the DCEU failed for the most part, IMO.