He had no issue exposing his abilities to those random people on the oil tanker.
When he was an adult nearly a decade after the tornado incident. There's clearly a difference in one's confidence in oneself, one's abilities, and one's identity in one's thirties compared to one's teens.
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.
And I think how you define goodness is misguided. It suggests that goodness is something that comes from a sugar-coating of reality rather than a complex set of negotiations within oneself and one's environment. What I find difficult to understand is the blindness when it comes to Superman. You talk about what is "traditional" and a character that suits my "tastes," yet everything that exists within Snyder's Superman is present throughout the character's vast and complex mythological canon. Snyder's Superman is not apocryphal by any means, so his Superman is both traditional and appeals to my taste for the character I've loved for 25 years.
DCEU Clark Kent is a good dude. What makes Clark Kent, any Clark Kent, a good dude? It is his kindness, his humility, his grace, his ability to see the best in people, his love of truth, and his never-ending quest for justice, especially for the lost and forgotten. All of these traits are woven throughout Snyder's Superman. But if you and others cannot see it because the character himself isn't getting praised for it, or Superman himself isn't revelling in it in some way, then that's not what I care about when it comes to the character.
Does a man who saves another man's life only matter if he smiles? Does a man offering a bully his mercy and forgiveness not matter because he was bullied in the first place? Does a man saving a woman from sexual harassment not rate as good because he's lonely? Doing good for the sake of good is what matters. It's not the hero cake Jonathan mentions in the mountains in BvS or the moral desert to which philosophers and a show like
The Good Place refer.
This seems like kind of a strawman argument. Superman is an escapist character, but not one that revels in his privilege or is always right. I don't know why his example is redundant when supervillains, alien tyrants, murderers and rapists exist in his universe for him and other heroes to fight against. Him being redundant would mean there is no conflict in his universe at all, and that is factually incorrect. If his life and choices were easy, he would have been able to save his adopted parents from dying of sickness/Pa Kent dying of a heart attack (depending on the version), he wouldn't be the last/among the last of his species, he wouldn't have to live every day with the ability to hear all the problems in the world and be forced to choose which things to respond to, he would be able to solve all of his problems with his powers instead of using journalism to combat the problems he can't solve, he wouldn't have accidentally poisoned Mon-El, he would be effortlessly able to reform Lex instead of being endlessly frustrated by his inability to reach him, he would be much more open to his closest friends and loved ones instead of being even more stand-offish than Batman (who is traditionally closer to Robin and Alfred than Clark is to even Supergirl), his victories against Mxy are anything but easy (as the latter could end his existence with the snap of a finger if he ever stopped screwing around), etc. Yeah he wins and saves the day a lot, but so does practically every superhero ever.
I'm not talking about Superman; I'm talking about fans of a particular take of Superman. There is conflict in his universe; his choices aren't easy; he can't solve all of the world's problems. Superman isn't a character who revels in his privilege or is always right, but certain fans of the character seem to only see him through these rose-colored glasses of nostalgia or ignorance. I've posted panels, quotes, and gifs that cover the vast Superman canon that demonstrates how Snyder's Superman has clear analogues to Superman throughout his 80 year history. I've called out the hypocrisy and the double standards. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that other versions of Jonathan Kent have said the exact same things to their sons as Costner's Kent. It doesn't matter that other versions of Superman have had doubts or even quit. It doesn't matter than other versions of Superman have killed Zod.
It doesn't matter because one version is good while the other is bad -- one version is right while the other is wrong. Because it is the lens through which the audience with those narrative elements that matter. It seems to me that Snyder's Superman can be everything and more than other versions of the character, but the stalwart traditionalist will not engage and will not be moved. I'll give you an example. Superman kills Zod in
Superman II. No one cares. Superman kills Zod in MoS. Everyone cares. Why? It is entirely in the way the act is treated in the narrative: one Superman celebrates and is celebrated while the other weeps. Same difficult choice, same conflict, same action, but with two entirely different audience responses. The version of the character who doesn't get the hero cake and the hero music for his deeds must not be good enough.
If the people want something like the more traditional Superman, it makes better business sense to just give it to them. And if they did, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be complex. Complex Superman stories have existed long before the DCEU tried it.
That's what I'm saying, though. I'm saying that the simple version of Superman -- the traditional version of Superman -- is a myth. Traditional Superman is complex. The 80 years of film, television, and comic continuity provides the basis for countless iterations of Superman to which DCEU's Superman is hardly an outlier in terms of his fundamental traits. The only difference between the DCEU Superman and the rest of the mythology is the context in which he exists. DCEU Superman lives in a complex world that does not immediately reward or accept his goodness or his differences. In other versions, Superman can cause collateral damage and little fuss will be made on par with Wallace Keefe's or Bruce Wayne's vengeful obsessions. It isn't that this Superman isn't good; it's that his world takes its time to accept a godlike being as a guy who is just trying to do the right thing. Superman's choices aren't different than other versions of Superman, but the consequences he experiences for those choices are different.
You are contradicting yourself.
Nope. Look closely, one statement refers to Clark holding back from using his powers to save his father while the other refers to holding back using his strength as Superman's go-to response to conflict. You accused DCEU Superman of overly relying on his strength as part of characterizing him as a might makes right sort of man. I merely pointed out that DCEU Superman is characterized by several incidents of him restraining his strength.
Clark is in Smallville I believe when that tornado hits. A small town where everybody knows each other. So at least most of those people on that road would believe to be people who know him. Again. Even before that, when Ma Kent was lying to the mom to pretend Clark didn't push the bus out of the water, she was lying to someone from her own community.
Those people know him as Clark Kent. The people in Spider-Man knew Peter as the beloved local hero with superpowers. They were already accustomed to the idea that people with special abilities exist. The people of Smallville would not have been so acclimated to the weird and unexplained.
They are telling Clark don't trust anyone. Even people who you know and should be able to trust.
Which would make them no different than any other versions of the Kents.
Again. If you have Clark with parents who instill a purpose in him. You do.
You are proving my point. Ma and Pa act as Clark's compass. If you make them aimless. You make Clark aimless.
Which is fine if you build the story to get Clark to that point without them but they don't.'
What version of
Man of Steel did you watch? The one I saw had both Martha and Jonathan knowing early on that their son was sent to Earth for a reason. Jonathan envisioned a future for his son in which he could proudly share his blessings with the world. Jonathan knew his son wanted to use his gifts to help people, and he raised Clark to be a man of good character who used his powers wisely and with restraint. When Clark was a child, the Kents advocated secrecy to protect their son and the world until both were ready. You do not prepare a child for a greater destiny that involves changing the world and proudly standing in front of the human race if you believe he doesn't have a purpose. The only thing the Kents wanted for their son is the opportunity to have a childhood, so that he could find his own purpose. They raised Clark to believe his purpose was to discover his purpose.
Reeves Superman left to search for answers about a mystery he just learned about. Snyder Superman just left. Both have holes but not for the same reason.
But the point is that Reeve's Superman never has to negotiate or shape his own purpose at all. There is no precursor to his becoming Superman. He walks into Fortress and comes out Superman with a costume and a secret identity. There is no journey at all.
On stringer thing okay. On the journalist thing....at a major metropolitan newspaper......I think you do. They don't just give jobs at the NYT to someone who doesn't know have a level of experience with journalism and who's last job was working at a bar.
And what level of experience did Reeve's Clark Kent have when he was hired at the DP? He could type fast. That's all we know. Do you see how frustrating it is that in this thread I have one person telling me that Superman stories should be escapist fairy tales that do not conform to the realities of the world while at the same time you are arguing that Clark have ideal qualifications for a stringer position?
Again. His existence is in doubt cause Snyder kicked the foundation out from under the character!
No, he didn't. Instead of Clark shaping his existence out of one line from his adoptive father and brainwashing in crystal Fortress, Snyder had his Clark Kent shape his own existence and his own purpose from making connections with people like Pete, Lois, and Father Leone, saving people like Chrissy and the oil rig workers, and learning the truth about himself from Jor-El's AI.
Clark is an Earthling first and foremost. With his "middle America" upbringing in tact. He's not looking aimlessly for answers. He's sure of who Clark Kent is. Superman is an extension of that steadfast belief in Truth, Justice, and the American Way Clark Kent is raised to believe in.
I'm sorry Superman is never a Earthling first and foremost. That flies in the face of nearly all of continuity except a 20 year period between 1986 and 2006 (Post-Crisis to Infinite Crisis). There's a whole other 60 years of storytelling that either frames Superman as the dominant identity (Pre-Crisis) or as a balance between Kryptonian and Human (Post-Infinite Crisis). Superman, in these stories, is an amalgam of his experiences in Smallville and influences from his home world.
Snyder's Superman doesn't struggle with his values. He's not caught up in some moral crisis in which he cannot tell right from wrong. He's trying to figure out the best way to use his differences to help people. He knows he wants to be useful, but he needs to discover what that means in practical terms. Putting on a suit as a public figure, believe it or not, is not an idea that can just magically spring from a man's mind. There is a gulf of difference between a good upbringing and becoming a public superhero.
The reason Martha makes his cape in so many origin stories is cause they are 100% behind his decision cause it makes logical sense. Superman is their ideals for Clark made literal!!!
After learning the truth about himself in Ellesemere, Clark comes home to his mother. He's joyous, happy, and peaceful. She tells him:
"The truth about you is beautiful. We saw that the moment we laid eyes on you. We knew that one day, the whole world would see that." Later, at the end of the film at Jonathan's grave, Martha reiterates:
"Your father] always believed you were meant for greater things. And that when the day came, your shoulders would be able to bear the weight." And in MoS, Martha's first reaction upon seeing Clark in his suit is to tell him how much she likes it! At no point in MoS do Jonathan and Martha object to the idea of their son becoming a public hero one day. In fact, Jonathan seems to very much expect that as part of Clark's future. The only thing that ever mattered to them was keeping their son safe long enough for him to be ready to take on the burdens and responsibilities of that role.
Honestly, Snyder's Superman storywise should have ended up like Shuster's and Siegel's original Superman. The orphan who beat up landlords.
He literally makes an argument to Perry White about how much he cares about standing up for the poor and forgotten people of Gotham who are being terrorized by The Batman. He wants to "beat up" Batman in the press because of the negative impact his reign of terror is having on poor people. In MoS, we also see Clark protecting working class people on several occasions. Golden Age Superman was also frequently portrayed as taking a stand against the military industrial complex, so DCEU's Superman aversion to the U.S. militaries illegal spying and drone strikes fits right in there.
