OK, fine I shouldn't have said everybody, but there are certain versions of characters that tend to be the version that most people think of, and not just us fans who are familiar with their history, I'm talking about the average person on the street who has never read a comic book, and only knows the character from previous movies and TV shows.
The alleged "average person on the street" has been exposed to many different versions of Superman, based on their generation, interest (or lack of interest) in comic books or adaptations. Some only know the character as a product of licensing and nothing more, but that's not the argument you--and a few other I Hate Snyder members are making. The I.H.S. crew would not trip over their own arguments in this thread if they did not think that the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan version (and by association, George Reeves) was the "right" or "iconic" (one of the most overused / misused words of this century) version, when it was most certainly not the way the creators intended in the early years of
Superman and
Action Comics.
I think you can at least agree with me that when it comes to characters like Batman, or Superman, or Spider-Man, that there tends a specific image that most people, again not just us comic book fans who are familiar with all of the different ways the character has been presented over the decades, have in mind.
For Superman, I'm not necessarily talking about the version you keep going to, which I've never read, I'm talking about the version in books like Geoff John's Secret Origin, All-Star Superman, Last of Son of Krypton, or Justice.
Then you are referring to random titles, which is different than your "iconic" argument--which is always born of a perception that "iconic" means some older and/or long-lived interpretation of the character, as if that was the original way he was meant to be. Again, that is patently false.
At the risk of sounding dismissive (and it is not my intent)--so what? Just because people have expectations of a "version that most...think of" it doesn't mean that that version is, in and of itself, more "correct" than another.
...and those who believe in the false notion of a
"version that most people think of" conveniently forget that DC actively worked to scrub that version starting in the late 1960s. They also conveniently forget that when
Superman Returns hit theatres, few were wanting to see a return to the Donner version in the 21st century, as its time (and tone) had passed, hence the reason no one was begging for more Routh and/or sequels to that film. They must ignore those major points in the character's history in order to sell the dead-on-arrival argument that "everyone" (or nearly "everyone") is itching to see the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan (or "daddy" / camp counselor George Reeves and/or the
Super Friends interpretation) Superman, when it is clear that is not the case.
- TG1 puts Superman: The Movie ex aequo with Man of Steel (even I don't do that--I place Man of Steel ahead by a whisker
)
The I Hate Snyder crew tap-shuffle-taps by that ranking with horse blinders firmly in place. Seeing that would get in the way.
The artist is not owed adulation, but the audience is not owed fulfilled expectations. The latter is only owed an experience--not a pleasing one.
Solid reasoning.
Nah. He says more than that. He posits a world where, unlike the traditional accounts where Superman is almost universally acclaimed as a force for good by all but those who are "not good", the existence of an extraterrestrial being with nearly god-like powers is likely to provoke as much fear as it is joy.
...and to a real life audience who lives in the real world, the Snyder version of a super-powered alien and the reaction many would have to its existence among mankind is the right interpretation for this time. As I pointed out before, the reaction/motives of
Dawn of Justice's Luthor were a perfect commentary on his fears / militant atheism grafted on an alien, which bookended many of Clark's own father's concerns in the previous film. There's no true development in
any superhero film of today, if a character is some pseudo-God/Daddy loved by all. There's no substance to a character of that kind, and he would not be able to relate to anyone else if he was that God/Daddy some seem to want him to be.
Snyder's Superman/Clark had to adapt to humans and sail the rough waters of a world where part of the population does not care if he stops a plane from crashing, because he is seen for what he is: a superpowered alien with no natural ideological or (more importantly)
blood connection (or species heritage) to humans. In his early career, he has not earned that trust with everyone. That is the way a real world would perceive a Superman, which is why his treatment in MoS and BvS was so spot-on. Finally, he felt as if he could be "real" in a film that appears to mirror our own world, instead of the hopelessly silly versions that is not only stale and unrealistic (as much as a fantasy character can be), but that kind of character is not even relatable to other superheroes, and in any attempt to build a superhero franchise, that would be a serious problem. Thankfully, Snyder's DCEU steered clear of that, giving audiences a Superman that was not perfect, had much to learn, and understood that he alone is not all things to all people.
Added to that, he presents a post-Watergate, post-Vietnam War era for Clark's upbringing--a time when people were (and remain) far less trustful of the "truth, justice and American Way" (patent pending) ideal from earlier versions of the story. So his Kent parents are a bit rougher around the edges, without all the answers neatly packaged in a Norman Rockwell-esque fantasy.
Then there is the fact Superman is basically on his first day on the job and he's confronted by Zod and company--a much more fearsome version than in 1978 (where Superman was no longer new to the job).
Oh, that fact is habitually ignored by a certain group.
