Poll: Question about Superman

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

With the comments from both MovieBob and the arguments that come from discussing Man of Steel, I have to ask, what is the vision of superman that everyone has?

I have an odd feeling that difference of views may be causing a fair amount of the arguments. Some go down the "comic" route and decide to make any movie made have the character copied with the morals and abilities as in the comics. Others seem to go down the "cynical" path in which they want the character to be deconstructed and have it's values analyzed and the consequences shown.

Before I talk about my perspective, I will state my bias. I'm a sophomore at Carnegie Mellon with an affection for anime/manga and am only knowledgeable of DC/Marvel due to the animated series and recent movies

I don't really like Superman as he is; I don't hate him, he is a great symbol of hope and optimism that radiates towards the other characters. But he is just that, a symbol; not a man who wanted to be the symbol, he has been a symbol for the past few years with the current attempts at deconstruction (Frank Miller comes up) failing. He only seem to operate on black and white operating without considering that actions like "no killing" will lead to greater tragedies. That's not a character with a progression of personality or abilities, it's just "he pulls through because he is the hero."

Heroes to me don't exist, there are men who follow their own morals and views with head up high and those who only follow others. What is good or bad is only based on the perspective of others which may or may not be the right perspective. Superman just seems to be good because we say he is, but is he really; does he really prevent crimes from taking place by eliminating situations that cause it to arise, does he stop the villains who can doom the world over and over from doing it again. I ask you, if the means are just but the end result doesn't change a thing, is it really something to praise?

(P.S. as usual, if I've made a mistake about the character, tell me and if you disagree, reply back with a well constructed debate)

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

As a lukewarm superhero movie fan and a non-fan of DC, I don't really mind so long as I'm surprised with whatever they come up with. Really. I'm more interested in being amused by the movie than by how loyal or disloyal it is to whatever canon you like best. Show me something that makes Superman interesting to watch. I liked Man of Steel but the whole Krypton/Kent Farm fairy tale is sooooo tired and played out.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Personally, I've always seen Superman as a distant father figure to other, more interesting superheroes. DC's big names seem rather stale and dull to me.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I have almost no attachment to Superman. He's a simple, unrealistic character who doesn't evolve, essentially a living moral yardstick. However,

Spoiler

I don't agree with the whole killing Zod thing. It was emphatically the wrong thing for Superman to do. In his book, there is always another way. And there was. He could have put his hand over Zod's eyes, taking burns to save the people. With all that Kryptonian Phantom Zone technology still around, he could have sent Zod back to dimensional prison. The grimdark, Call-of-Duty, "sometimes killing is unavoidable" theme used in Man of Steel is simply not one that works with Superman. He should make humans look paranoid, rash, and self-destructive. He should never, ever drop to their level.

 

[Little Woodsman]

I think that the DCAU nailed the characterization of Superman. At the same time they showed a willingness to explore aspects of the character that have frequently been ignored. In venues like movies this could be taken a bit farther than it was in DCAU (since the cartoons were seen as being primarily aimed at children) would be alright.
There have been soooo many comics for Superman over the decades, with different writers and different takes that the term 'comic' in the poll is virtually meaningless. Many, many of those old stories have explored the ideas of what happens if Superman uses his powers without careful consideration.
HOWEVER, there are limits and boundaries. One of those should be his stance against killing. He's Superman. He should find another way. The consequences if he doesn't almost don't bear thinking about.
The idea of individuals with 'ultimate power' taking different moral paths has been and can continue to be explored in these and similar mediums, but if an author is going to change the character that much they may as well just make or use a different character.
So to answer your original question...I like exploring new ideas with established characters, and I approve of some level of deviation from the character's established norms. But to explore certain ideas I just feel it's more appropriate to use/make different characters.

PS--to see great explorations of morality along these lines try the anime Death Note, and the graphic novels Kingdom Come and The Nail.
PPS--Man of Steel failed on a *great* many levels, not just the killing.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

I think that the DCAU nailed the characterization of Superman. At the same time they showed a willingness to explore aspects of the character that have frequently been ignored. In venues like movies this could be taken a bit farther than it was in DCAU (since the cartoons were seen as being primarily aimed at children) would be alright.
There have been soooo many comics for Superman over the decades, with different writers and different takes that the term 'comic' in the poll is virtually meaningless. Many, many of those old stories have explored the ideas of what happens if Superman uses his powers without careful consideration.
HOWEVER, there are limits and boundaries. One of those should be his stance against killing. He's Superman. He should find another way. The consequences if he doesn't almost don't bear thinking about.
The idea of individuals with 'ultimate power' taking different moral paths has been and can continue to be explored in these and similar mediums, but if an author is going to change the character that much they may as well just make or use a different character.
So to answer your original question...I like exploring new ideas with established characters, and I approve of some level of deviation from the character's established norms. But to explore certain ideas I just feel it's more appropriate to use/make different characters.

PS--to see great explorations of morality along these lines try the anime Death Note, and the graphic novels Kingdom Come and The Nail.
PPS--Man of Steel failed on a *great* many levels, not just the killing.

I will be very honest with you, My mentality was influenced way too much by Lelouch in Code Geass. I don't know I just like the man who is willing to become a demon for the sake of fighting a greater evil. I have heard of Death Note and how Light takes the idea of being the judge too far but at the same time, if, in our real world, we had people with abilities that can rend the world apart like the Supermans or even Accelerator from Index (who I argue is more powerful but that's for a different day), would we support the one who does not kill but leaves villains to try again or would we support the one who puts a stop permanently to the Lex Luthors, Paracites, Brainiacs and Darksieds of the world

Edit: thank you for your distinction about the fact that "comic" is not a good term as there are different interpretations. I guess a better word is "Optimistic" as that's what Superman in his more recognizable form is but I used comic because that was the original medium and where the standard personality was developed

Also, with Man of Steel, if they had to go with the exploration of power, I would have preferred they go full on Evangelion (before you rag on me, let me explain). Eva when it came out was a deconstruction of what mecha was; pilots before Eva tended to be stable of mind and spirit capable of following either their superiors or their own moral code. Eva's pilots were unstable and more realistic for what would happen if people of that age group were subjected to a war. But it did not stop at the character personalities, it ripped completely into the heroic mythos of mecha at that time; I have a feeling that while Superman may not be the best option and Batman has been overdone, we could use a movie that just ripped into how unstable many who want to be heroes are or how "villainy" is more ambiguous than you think

 

[Little Woodsman]

I think that the DCAU nailed the characterization of Superman. At the same time they showed a willingness to explore aspects of the character that have frequently been ignored. In venues like movies this could be taken a bit farther than it was in DCAU (since the cartoons were seen as being primarily aimed at children) would be alright.
There have been soooo many comics for Superman over the decades, with different writers and different takes that the term 'comic' in the poll is virtually meaningless. Many, many of those old stories have explored the ideas of what happens if Superman uses his powers without careful consideration.
HOWEVER, there are limits and boundaries. One of those should be his stance against killing. He's Superman. He should find another way. The consequences if he doesn't almost don't bear thinking about.
The idea of individuals with 'ultimate power' taking different moral paths has been and can continue to be explored in these and similar mediums, but if an author is going to change the character that much they may as well just make or use a different character.
So to answer your original question...I like exploring new ideas with established characters, and I approve of some level of deviation from the character's established norms. But to explore certain ideas I just feel it's more appropriate to use/make different characters.

PS--to see great explorations of morality along these lines try the anime Death Note, and the graphic novels Kingdom Come and The Nail.
PPS--Man of Steel failed on a *great* many levels, not just the killing.

I will be very honest with you, My mentality was influenced way too much by Lelouch in Code Geass. I don't know I just like the man who is willing to become a demon for the sake of fighting a greater evil. I have heard of Death Note and how Light takes the idea of being the judge too far but at the same time, if, in our real world, we had people with abilities that can rend the world apart like the Supermans or even Accelerator from Index (who I argue is more powerful but that's for a different day), would we support the one who does not kill but leaves villains to try again or would we support the one who puts a stop permanently to the Lex Luthors, Paracites, Brainiacs and Darksieds of the world

I think you need a question mark at the end of that.
As I said in my post, I'm fine with stories that explore that idea. But I don't think it's appropriate to use Superman as the vehicle for that. (In fact I'm pretty sure that DC comics has recently been exploring ideas along those lines with a metahuman character named Magog...)
Part of the whole idea of Superman is that he strives for something better, that he can and will find a way to protect people without resorting to killing.
Anyway, read Kingdom Come...it shows what happens when so-called superheroes take on the role of judge, jury and executioner. Read it. Just read it.
If the people of the world think that Luthor, the Prasite, Brainiac or Darkseid need to be killed, they could give Superman an official mandate or request asking him to do so. Superman's struggle with such a request would actually make an *awesome* story. But to say that Superman should kill them of his own volition.....
(And if people wanted Luthor or the Parasite dead so badly, why wouldn't they just have them executed through normal channels? Neither one is immune to a lethal injection....)
It's like it was put in the old Lone Ranger TV series "If a man deserves to die for his crimes that's a decision for the courts, not a man with a six-gun." Principle is the same whether it's a six-gun or super strength. For the past several decades civilization has been struggling with the morality of taking lives (up until about 150 years ago no-one thought twice about executing criminals, but that's a different discussion) and now you want one guy to make that decision by himself...
So lets say Superman decides to off Darkseid...what happens next? Well, either the leaders of Apokolips go to war with each other to determine who will hold ultimate power there...OR..they get their act together and table the question of who will be ultimate dictator until after they settle the score. In the latter instance they then send Kalibak, Mantis, & Granny Goodness' elite troops all together to take Superman out, and since several of them can actually go one-on-one toe-to-toe with him they succeed. Superman is now dead, there is no-one left who is strong enough to defend the Earth, and Apokolips stages a full-on invasion. Earth gets a message to New Genesis asking Highfather to intervene but he *has* to refuse because "Humanity sent Superman to murder Darkseid.", which would be the perception, even though he made the decision himself.
(Boy I hope someone from DC comics reads that and decides to make a GN of it.....)
So anyway...find a different character to explore the theme with...

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

With the comments from both MovieBob and the arguments that come from discussing Man of Steel, I have to ask, what is the vision of superman that everyone has?

Other.

I'll start by saying my absolute favorite hero of all time has always been Spiderman. In fact, I'm more a marvel than a DC guy.

I actually don't really like Superman as a character. Well, more like I'm indifferent. He's a character and I get why he was made in the first place. And now, as a we've 'evolved' as a society, I get why he's disliked. In fact, why he's disliked now is more reason why I think he's needed.

A few things I want to get out of the way. Besides a few 'villains', there are a few characters that do things just because they are evil and they thought the bad thing is the best thing. Even Superman's 'greatest' villain honestly believes the world will be a better place if he ran it. Why not? he's literally one of the five smartest men on the planet? Why shouldn't we give up control to someone who obviously knows better than us?

That little feeling that everyone got reading that? The 'No, we shouldn't give up control' feeling? That's why I'm fine with Superman always sticking to his overly moral guns. Because it's very easy for superman to wipe out everyone he feels is wrong. He knows that. We all know that. Superman has the will to make his way absolute law. Few can oppose him. But if he's wrong he can't take back his judgement.

Power does not equal being correct. Knowledge does not equal being correct. Everyone has to have a chance to atone, to change, or the ability to serve out their punishment and then contribute to the world. In truth, Superman has no real power to change people's minds. He knows this. He only has abilities to destroy. If you try to change the world via destruction, even if there's a chance that you might have a change of heart midway into your cause... too late. The world is half destroyed.

Batman can not stop crimes, he can only foil them. Superman can't stop crimes, he can only foil them. No hero save pre-cogs can do anything to really eliminate crime. And Nor Should They. The heroes defend the innocent. They do not control our lives. If they choose to use their power or their will for the 'benefit of us all', to control us and to take away even the free will to commit crimes, tell me how are they different than any villain who wants to rule the world out there?

That's not a comic view, that's not a cynical view. That's a world view. Even now, with the US president wanting to use his power to right a wrong in a country that obviously did a wrong, the repercussions of that action will be long standing. Will the US make enemies with China and Russia and lead to another world war? Who asked the US to do it in the first place? Just because they have the power to overthrow, should they?

Going down the path of 'I have the power, I should enforce the rules' never worked in real life. Not once. That's why we have this sorry state of a planet. If anything, Superman yielding from his own views of 'maybe this villain doesn't deserve to live' and realizing he has to enforce the views of the public is more understandable in the world we live in today.

 

[Fox12]

I don't like grim, dark, emo superman, but I don't want him to be a bumbling idiot either. I like the animated superman best. He had a modest confidence around him, but he wasn't dark or brooding by any means.

I've also come to hate the whole "dark and gritty is realistic" nonsense that everyone has been spouting out for the last decade. It fits batman, my favorite character, but not superman. More than that, though, I don't consider dark and gritty to be any more realistic than bright and optimistic. Sorry Game of Thrones fans, randomly killing people off doesn't make your story bright or "edgy."

I would love to see superman become the antithesis to this trend, instead of another embodiment of it. An acknowledgement that we live in a dark world, but we can make it better. That was one of the central themes to Watchmen, if not THE central theme, but that flew over most peoples heads. It was nowhere near as cynical as some people seem to think it was. I think a lot of people misunderstood it. Superman doesn't have to be a campy 1950's puritan any more than Batman has to be Adam West. We can have an idealistic and hopeful superman who isn't naive, stupid, or unrealistic.

 

[Drummodino]

The optimistic view doesn't work in a modern setting. Shoot me for saying it but it is true. The black and white view is boring! It's been done to death and it doesn't fit in today's world. It's far more difficult to have a truly compelling character without some kind of internal conflict than one who does, hence why antiheroes such as Wolverine are so popular. I know this is an unpopular thought on the escapist, but the majority of people elsewhere on the internet believe something similar.

Man of Steel spoilers:

Spoiler

I was glad when Superman killed Zod. To me that was a ballsy move by the film makers and it reflected what works in today's world. Think about this, if Zod had been turned over to the authorities by Superman, they would have executed him. There is no question about it, he tried to commit genocide on our ENTIRE SPECIES. There is no way he could have been left alive. The old comic book trope of never killing villains just does not work anymore! As much as I love Batman and how he never kills (because it would lead to him becoming what he fights), in any other story killing the villain is what is right to do.

Hell, in the Marvel movies several villains have been killed (Obidiah Stane anyone?).

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The optimistic view doesn't work in a modern setting. Shoot me for saying it but it is true. The black and white view is boring! It's been done to death and it doesn't fit in today's world. It's far more difficult to have a truly compelling character without some kind of internal conflict than one who does, hence why antiheroes such as Wolverine are so popular. I know this is an unpopular thought on the escapist, but the majority of people elsewhere on the internet believe something similar.

Man of Steel spoilers:

Spoiler

I was glad when Superman killed Zod. To me that was a ballsy move by the film makers and it reflected what works in today's world. Think about this, if Zod had been turned over to the authorities by Superman, they would have executed him. There is no question about it, he tried to commit genocide on our ENTIRE SPECIES. There is no way he could have been left alive. The old comic book trope of never killing villains just does not work anymore! As much as I love Batman and how he never kills (because it would lead to him becoming what he fights), in any other story killing the villain is what is right to do.

Hell, in the Marvel movies several villains have been killed (Obidiah Stane anyone?).

As a counter point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_vs._The_Elite

Spoiler

If you haven't read the original comic then Superman becomes fucking horrifying when he decides to kill.
It is all well and good to say that Superman should get with the times, but do you really want the most powerful being on the planet playing judge, jury, and executioner?

 

[Agayek]

My take on Superman is very much influenced by the DCAU, as, not being a comic fan, that was my primary source for the character. As such, I despise trying to put a "grim and gritty" layer on top of it. It's stupid, pointless, and runs counter to the very essence of the character. Superman's all about being the better man, about having ultimate power and the wisdom to know that it doesn't make one God. At the most basic level, Superman is about two things, hope and restraint.

Neither of which are exactly prevalent in modern society, unfortunately, which goes a long way to explain why so many people dislike him.

It also means that he's needed now more than ever though. If there's any one thing society as a whole needs right now, it's for people to learn the value of restraint, of the idea of "Just because I can, doesn't mean I must".

 

[Fox12]

The optimistic view doesn't work in a modern setting. Shoot me for saying it but it is true. The black and white view is boring! It's been done to death and it doesn't fit in today's world. It's far more difficult to have a truly compelling character without some kind of internal conflict than one who does, hence why antiheroes such as Wolverine are so popular. I know this is an unpopular thought on the escapist, but the majority of people elsewhere on the internet believe something similar.

Man of Steel spoilers:

Spoiler

I was glad when Superman killed Zod. To me that was a ballsy move by the film makers and it reflected what works in today's world. Think about this, if Zod had been turned over to the authorities by Superman, they would have executed him. There is no question about it, he tried to commit genocide on our ENTIRE SPECIES. There is no way he could have been left alive. The old comic book trope of never killing villains just does not work anymore! As much as I love Batman and how he never kills (because it would lead to him becoming what he fights), in any other story killing the villain is what is right to do.

Hell, in the Marvel movies several villains have been killed (Obidiah Stane anyone?).

I think the majority of people agree with you, and at one point so would I. As time went on, however, I've completely switched my view. I don't think optimism is the same as naivete, or as having a white and black outlook on the world. I don't think optimism is pretending the world doesn't have problems either. It's accepting the worlds problems, and then trying to make it better.

For one thing, why do people insist on saying that optimism doesn't fit "in our world today?" We actually live in the least violent time in human history, with war and crime statistics from around the world taken into account.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

George R.R. Martin (I don't hate him, but he's the living embodiment of this trend) insists he holds a "realistic" view of humanity. I find it interesting that Tolkien, who served in the killing fields of Europe, surrounded by hulking masses of dead meat for miles, had a more optimistic view of humanity than Martin, whose never seen war but insists he realistically depicts the cost of it. Of course evil exists, and it's not always simple to understand, but to think that life is "brutish nasty and short" is simply wrong. In Martins world everyone has ulterior motives, and the only good people are naive. They soon die, because of course good is the same as stupid. perhaps this is the result of his girlfriend leaving him for his best friend, I don't know, but at some point he became a pessimist, and now his view is anything but unbiased.

You have to understand that there's a vested interest in pessimism. Charities won't make money by telling you things will get better, and news won't get attention if everything seems fine. We see terrorism and school shootings and we think the worlds going to hell. Yet, if you look at the facts, the world is getting better all the time.

From a scientific point of view, it is not in humanities nature to turn on and betray our fellow man. From an evolutionary point of view, we evolved to help one another to achieve greater goals that couldn't be achieved individually. It's written in our very genes to help our fellow man. Atrocities, such as school shootings, stand out specifically BECAUSE they're so rare. They don't represent humanity as a whole, only what we are capable of in extreme cases. Not only is pessimism gloomy, it's intellectually dishonest!

Optimism doesn't mean you ignore the evil in the world, it means you understand it, you acknowledge it, and you choose to believe you can combat it. It takes courage to be an optimist. This is the attitude I've adopted despite knowing several rape victims, several victims of domestic violence, victims of parental abuse, war veterans, ect. I've been forced to accept that the pessimistic view of the world is ultimately skewed, and based on shaky evidence at best.

 

[Little Woodsman]

My take on Superman is very much influenced by the DCAU, as, not being a comic fan, that was my primary source for the character. As such, I despise trying to put a "grim and gritty" layer on top of it. It's stupid, pointless, and runs counter to the very essence of the character. Superman's all about being the better man, about having ultimate power and the wisdom to know that it doesn't make one God. At the most basic level, Superman is about two things, hope and restraint.

Neither of which are exactly prevalent in modern society, unfortunately, which goes a long way to explain why so many people dislike him.

It also means that he's needed now more than ever though. If there's any one thing society as a whole needs right now, it's for people to learn the value of restraint, of the idea of "Just because I can, doesn't mean I must".

Very well put my friend. Reminds me of his speech to Captain Marvel in the Return of Black Adam. Which is something else that people debating this point should watch.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I will be very honest with you, My mentality was influenced way too much by Lelouch in Code Geass. I don't know I just like the man who is willing to become a demon for the sake of fighting a greater evil. I have heard of Death Note and how Light takes the idea of being the judge too far but at the same time, if, in our real world, we had people with abilities that can rend the world apart like the Supermans or even Accelerator from Index (who I argue is more powerful but that's for a different day), would we support the one who does not kill but leaves villains to try again or would we support the one who puts a stop permanently to the Lex Luthors, Paracites, Brainiacs and Darksieds of the world

There has been something like that in the DC universe, there was even an episode of Justice League about it, the episode was called "A Better World." In one of the alternate universes Superman gets fed up with Lex Luthor, and the way he can constantly use the law to his own advantage and get out of any crime that he commits all because he's got tons of money and crap loads of lawyers, so he kills him in a fit of anger after Lex Luthor tells him that Superman is actually his greatest accomplice by the very fact that he's allowed Luthor to live. After that Superman realizes that with Luthor gone the world is a safer place, and then proceeds to use his eye lasers to lobotomize every super villain he comes across, or just kills them outright. Eventually he just begins ruling the world through fear. It becomes an incredibly safe place, with no war and no violence, but also no freedom. There's no freedom of speech, no legal demonstrations, Superman doesn't allow anything that could possibly endanger public safety, in any form. Nothing is really better though, people are just ruled through fear, and since there's nothing that can stop Superman the population of earth mostly just become soulless automatons doing whatever Superman says. Governments just become figureheads with rigged elections, and the only real ruler is Superman, and the rest of the Justice League.

The point of this alternate universe is to show how unstoppable Superman really is. If Superman doesn't hold to his strict moral code of no killing, there will be no one on earth who can challenge him, therefore allowing him to do whatever he wants, becoming an absolute tyrant in the process, all in the name of peace and progress. But what's the point of peace is people lose the power of self-determination?

Also, with Man of Steel, if they had to go with the exploration of power, I would have preferred they go full on Evangelion (before you rag on me, let me explain). Eva when it came out was a deconstruction of what mecha was; pilots before Eva tended to be stable of mind and spirit capable of following either their superiors or their own moral code. Eva's pilots were unstable and more realistic for what would happen if people of that age group were subjected to a war. But it did not stop at the character personalities, it ripped completely into the heroic mythos of mecha at that time; I have a feeling that while Superman may not be the best option and Batman has been overdone, we could use a movie that just ripped into how unstable many who want to be heroes are or how "villainy" is more ambiguous than you think

They've had that movie, it was called "Watchmen."

 

[Little Woodsman]

Also, with Man of Steel, if they had to go with the exploration of power, I would have preferred they go full on Evangelion (before you rag on me, let me explain). Eva when it came out was a deconstruction of what mecha was; pilots before Eva tended to be stable of mind and spirit capable of following either their superiors or their own moral code. Eva's pilots were unstable and more realistic for what would happen if people of that age group were subjected to a war. But it did not stop at the character personalities, it ripped completely into the heroic mythos of mecha at that time; I have a feeling that while Superman may not be the best option and Batman has been overdone, we could use a movie that just ripped into how unstable many who want to be heroes are or how "villainy" is more ambiguous than you think

Hey, no intent to rag on you here.
But I do wish you had put this as a reply to my post rather than editing it in to your own post after I had already posted a lengthy reply. Not only did I almost miss this, to someone else reading it would look like I ignored a lot of points that you raised.
So far as a complete deconstruction goes...off the top of my head pilots in Macross, Dangizer, Dangaioh (original), Gundam, Escaflowne and most especially Magic Knight Rayearth all had internal struggles about the uses of their mecha/powers. Don't get me wrong, I love Evangelion but it's not as revolutionary as you think.
We are on the same page in wanting an exploration of 'super-heroes' succumbing to the temptations of power....and the moral ambiguity of the 'super-villains', of course a lot of these things *did* get explored in the DCAU, in their Superman, Batman, Batman Beyond & Justice League series....
And every instance that I can think of the themes being explored in DCAU worked better than Man of Steel, due plainly and simply to better writing.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Really the only way to make superman interesting is to compromise his morals. Everyone knows you can't beat him in a fight. He's most interesting when he's acting illogically for the sake of being good, or when he's acting for what he believes is the greater good but is misdirected. Honestly I've been more engaged in the instances when he's in the wrong, because then "how the hell do you stop superman" Is the problem rather than the solution. In "the dark knight returns" you don't get the sense that superman is the villain, and it's debatable he is objectively right, but you're rooting for batman because he's made out to be more empathetic, standing for the rights of the individual rather than the idea of the greater good.

Obviously you can't make superman the bad guy in his own movie though. Superman himself probably shouldn't be portrayed cynically, but maybe the world around him should be, and the point is that he struggles with and eventually overcomes that. To be honest, I haven't seen it done right, but I'm not very into superhero continuity. I'm sure that it has been done right in some comic or animated movie.

 

[marscentral]

Superman is my favourite comic book character and has been since I was a child. I liked Man of Steel, but it was despite the darkness not because of it. Superman works best as a character (to me at least) when he is going the hard route because it's the right thing to do. The tension between Superman banking on optimism and people's inherent goodness and Batman's more cynical approach of scaring people to do the right thing could be a great source of dramatic tension in the MoS sequel. I think Affleck and Cavill have the chops for that, I just wonder if Snyder does.

As others have mentioned, just about every DC animated film or TV show from the last twenty years has a great take on Superman and they've mined some very rich source material.

 

[HardkorSB]

I don't really like Superman as he is; I don't hate him, he is a great symbol of hope and optimism that radiates towards the other characters. But he is just that, a symbol; not a man who wanted to be the symbol, he has been a symbol for the past few years with the current attempts at deconstruction (Frank Miller comes up) failing. He only seem to operate on black and white operating without considering that actions like "no killing" will lead to greater tragedies. That's not a character with a progression of personality or abilities, it's just "he pulls through because he is the hero."

To be honest, he has been a symbol ever since he was created.
That's the point with him. He's not supposed to be a person you identify with, he's supposed to be a person you hope to be.
Many characters in fiction fail as real people because they weren't written as real people and turning them into real people only takes away from what they are.
There are a lot of comparisons of Superman and Jesus. If you look at the character of Jesus, he's not a character either. He's too perfect. He starts off perfect and he finishes perfect. He's a symbol for other people to strive towards, just like Superman. If Jesus was created today, he would be a superhero.

Heroes to me don't exist, there are men who follow their own morals and views with head up high and those who only follow others. What is good or bad is only based on the perspective of others which may or may not be the right perspective. Superman just seems to be good because we say he is, but is he really; does he really prevent crimes from taking place by eliminating situations that cause it to arise, does he stop the villains who can doom the world over and over from doing it again. I ask you, if the means are just but the end result doesn't change a thing, is it really something to praise?

Here's the thing:
Not everyone goes to read comic books for realism. Many people do it to enter an escapist type of fantasy. A fantasy where real heroes do exist.
Art has the right to put symbolism above realism. To make up it's own laws of the universe.
I always thought that even the early superheroes, like Hercules, were created not to be people but for the people to go: "He is awesome and he always does the right thing, I want to be just like him".
People can't be perfect, superheroes can be.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I don't really like Superman as he is; I don't hate him, he is a great symbol of hope and optimism that radiates towards the other characters. But he is just that, a symbol; not a man who wanted to be the symbol, he has been a symbol for the past few years with the current attempts at deconstruction (Frank Miller comes up) failing. He only seem to operate on black and white operating without considering that actions like "no killing" will lead to greater tragedies. That's not a character with a progression of personality or abilities, it's just "he pulls through because he is the hero."

I hate to be the one to say this, but...read the damn comics. The mainstream ones, not even the Elseworld things or attempts at deconstruction. They'll pretty quickly disabuse you of this notion that Superman operates in black and white with no further consideration of consequences. Hell, Superman is probably the biggest contributor to this kind of thinking; he spends more time questioning himself, his powers, his actions and their consequences than practically anyone else, because his powers are correspondingly greater and his morality is all but unshakeable.

With a character who has been around for as long as he has, just about every conceivable angle has been explored, yet he remains as he is. He's moral, he's upright, he Superman, and that's why he's so beloved. Making him dark and broody, no more than a flying pair of fists who will kill at the drop of the hat, that's not so much an "alternate character interpretation" as it is a totally different character.