This is the core of the problem with Snyder's take on Superman, there is no way that anybody should ever fear or distrust Superman
When a super-powered alien first makes his presence known, human nature would kick in, and that means they would not celebrate him as their camp counselor/Daddy figure. He is a creature with no blood connection to mankind at all, so rational minds would know he cannot be trusted right out of the gates, which MoS and BvS successfully illustrated.
.
I really couldn't care less about how people reacted to him during the Depression. We're talking about how he is being portrayed today.
Then you do not care about the origin and intended development of the character. You only care about the one that fits that watered down version which DC's publishers and editors worked to remove, as that version of Superman was a silly aberration. You cannot get away from that.
OK, I admit, I can find going back a characters beginning interesting from a historical perspective, but that's it, I don't really see why that should be so important to a modern adaptation when there is so much history with the character not being like that.
For the reason films have origin stories..
Batman Begins, Captain America: The First Avenger,
Man of Steel, etc. The early period of a character are defining and important in presenting him as he was meant to be.
The popularity of a character has nothing to due with whether or not the early version of a character is the iconic version of a character.
Wrong again. It did not take Superman decades to become a cultural phenomenon-an icon. He was an overnight success, so his iconic status was earned in that early period, hence the reason that less than a full year into is existence, actor Ray Middleton became the first person to portray Superman at the
1939 World's Fair. Its the reason that in the same year--1939-- the unforgettable 80-foot inflatable Superman was part of the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. That was the early, often brutal, judge and jury, Depression-era Superman. He was already a breakout icon, long before the silly disasters at the hands of Weisinger/Plastino/Swan, et al.
There are plenty of shows that were popular right off the bat, but still retconned and adjusted things as they went along, and it is the retconned and changed version that is the one people think of today.
...which should tell you that in the wake of the disaster that was
Superman Returns, no one---WB included--wanted to see the Donner-tribute version again, and now we have the Snyder version.
Its the reason no one is itching to bring back a Super Friends When people think of Spock, they think of him as the unemotional Vulcan, not the smiling and laughing Vulcanian.
Astoundingly poor comparison. Once again, you're trying to argue that early Superman was a one-off, in the way Spock from
"The Cage" was. Wrong again, as the Superman I'm talking about was 1) an instant success and 2) was the way the character was presented for a number of years because that early version was embraced by the public. That is not the case with Spock at all.
I honestly don't remember the movie well enough to debate this point, I just know a lot of people said they liked Routh in Returns and were excited he was coming back for Crisis on Infinite Earths.
Routh in CW-COIE was stunt casting, much like Burt Ward and others in that production. Again, the public did not love that Donner tribute film, or the fact Routh was attempting to mimic Reeve.
Yes, but again, those were characters who were had already been darker, and more grounded for quite a while, Superman is not.
Superman was darker from the beginning. You would have a point if he was not
Why do you stop at George Reeves and Super Friends with every comparison?
I repeatedly referred to
Superman Returns.
Why not bring up every other (current) interpretation of the character that's still matching what people want in a Superman. The Supergirl TV series, Smallville, the current comics (especially post the failed nu52) and so on and so on.
Smallville? The series endless Superman fans despised due to spending years selling the series as what one critic once called it,
"Party of Five: The Superhero Years?" For all of the talk about a character adaptation not being "on model,"
Smallville was on the Mount Rushmore of adaptations deviating from the source.
About the CW-Superman: he was never universally loved. In fact, he was criticized for a number of reasons. Moreover, it remains to be seen how the forthcoming series will do; if it sinks into low ratings territory, that might be a strong indicator that one half of the series lead is not cutting it, and I'm not talking about Lois. If its a hit, then Hoechlin will be seen as holding up his end of the series for audiences to invest their time into.
But rare was it said that Routh was a problem at all.
You have a far different recollection than those who did not like Routh attempting to mimic Reeve, especially in a film released only two years after Reeve's death.
Seriously?
There's not really a story there, is there? That's been the character's problem for many decades.
Exactly.
There's no reason that people running things, at least, shouldn't fear and distrust Superman. As for other people...well, look to the problematic relationships they have to the gods they believe in for some suggestion of the potential anxieties and resentments Supes would be dealing with. They're gonna want to know his politics for sure, just for starts - and there's no answer or evasion of an answer that wouldn't provoke negative reactions.
Well said.
)
