Superman
- Thread starter urbandefault
- Start date
There's a difference between corny and earnest, and the Donner version was much more earnest than corny thanks in large part to Christopher Reeve's performance.
Superman and Lois, for a more modern take, hews much closer to earnest than corny as well.
Superman and Lois, for a more modern take, hews much closer to earnest than corny as well.
You can be an upbeat, optimistic hero who believes in the best of people without being one-note. The most common comparison is Captain America, but another would be Ted Lasso. He is optimistic, he is sunny, he unfailingly believes in the best of others. But in addition, he suffers panic attacks, he has doubts about his relationship with his son, and his marriage has collapsed. It is possible to make one optimistic and hopeful, and STILL give them character flaws. Instead of just being conflicted and moody, to me THAT character was one-note.
The problem is once Clark Kent/Superman starts showing character flaws, people start complaining and demanding that he be without flaws. Actually, fans have been flip-flopping about Superman for years. When Hollywood gives them what they want from a Superman characterization, the fans end up demanding the opposite.
Just like they feel about him wearing red trunks.
I think it depends on what kinds of flaws you're talking about. If you're talking about, say, problems relating to his kids as a father or keeping his marriage healthy, those are not flaws of fundamental intention. But if the flaws stem from a fundamental lack of empathy or connection to other people -- if he's just annoyed by the people he's saving or thinks he doesn't have any obligations to people, or if he fundamentally only cares about Lois but not strangers -- then there's a problem.
It was him in Batman v. Superman. He spent the entire movie alienated and resentful that he was expected to care about or save anyone other than Lois. Then Martha ranted about how he owes the world nothing and never did.
You got so much wrong. Clark became increasingly upset over the negative press he was receiving, despite his actions. Remember, a good number of people had regarded him as a threat, because he was an alien from another world. But he still made the effort to save others, despite the growing hostility. But after the Capitol bombing, nearly everyone turned on him and he left, because he couldn't deal with that level of hostility. At least for a brief period. And in the end, Superman sacrificed his life to save the world from Doomsday.
I don't particularly feel like re-litigating this same argument over and over again, but suffice it to say that everything about Henry Cavill's performance, Zack Snyder's direction, and Goyer's and Terrio's script conspired to convey a Superman who resents the people he saves and only really cares about Lois and Martha. And even if that's not the creative intention, it's really important to structure your script, direction, and performance to convey a feeling of extreme empathy, compassion, and general enjoyment of people from Superman.
Then he shouldn't have looked so goddamn miserable while saving people. There should have been some kind of implication somewhere along the line that he actually, y'know, enjoys human company other than his mom and girlfriend.
I agree. I think the point was that he knew there were vast differences in opinion about him. He didn't like being demonized by certain media, but he didn't want to be worshipped as a god either. He was struggling to find his place in the world. But there was never any indication that he was going to stop being Superman in the film. BvS was just showing a different perspective on what we've seen from Superman in the past.
I've lately become more comfortable with Snyder's films, and more accepting of what he was trying to do, but it's undeniable there's a HUGE tonal difference between this
and this
Now, some would no doubt deride the Hoechlin scene as corny or cheesy by comparison to Snyder's approach, but for me, and I suspect for the majority of people, it feels one heck of a lot more "Superman." He's approachable, he's friendly, he's warm. He connects, however briefly, to the kid as a person. He's not hovering, distantly and silently, above suffering people like some indifferent god.
If we had seen Cavill on the roof with that family, looking them in the eye, calming their fears, assuring them, "you're safe now," and telling them, with care and compassion, to "hold on to me" before carrying them to safety, we might have had a lot fewer of these debates over the years.
and this
Now, some would no doubt deride the Hoechlin scene as corny or cheesy by comparison to Snyder's approach, but for me, and I suspect for the majority of people, it feels one heck of a lot more "Superman." He's approachable, he's friendly, he's warm. He connects, however briefly, to the kid as a person. He's not hovering, distantly and silently, above suffering people like some indifferent god.
If we had seen Cavill on the roof with that family, looking them in the eye, calming their fears, assuring them, "you're safe now," and telling them, with care and compassion, to "hold on to me" before carrying them to safety, we might have had a lot fewer of these debates over the years.
Last edited:
My problem with that flood scene is that Superman just seems to hover nearby. Yes, I know it's only for a moment of screen time. Yes, the slo-mo compounds the effect. But for a character who supposedly doesn't want to be seen as a godlike figure, he's not helping himself. 
Well, Snyder's not an incompetent filmmaker. He knows exactly what he's doing. He wants Superman to appear fundamentally detached from humanity, benevolent in intent but uncertain of himself and his role, and figuratively and literally alienated. Some people love that approach, others don't. But it's no mistake on Snyder's part that the character comes across that way.