News Next Arrowverse Crossover to Include Batwoman
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
I think the '84 movie has its merits.
That wasn't Supergirl, but an original Kryptonian character named Lady Zara. She wasn't Clark's cousin, but the person he'd been betrothed to as an infant. http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Zara_(Lois_&_Clark)
I think he's worked quite well in his appearances to date, although it was a bit awkward the way much of "Elseworlds, Part 3" seemed to take a sudden back seat to the proposal episode of a hitherto-nonexistent Superman series.
It was established in the first Flash/Supergirl crossover that there are no counterparts for Barry or any of his fellow heroes or teammates on Earth-38.
Maybe that's where they're going with Nia Nal.
People who claim to be abducted by aliens say they made an observation too, doesn’t make it valid or worth even considering. It says more about you and your worldview than you think and really nothing about Superman.
Superman is Superman, in the fictional world he exists in people probably tell him how great he is constantly. But he’s a humble farmboy and likely goes out of his way to make them feel better. He’s Mr Rogers with superpowers. He doesn’t need to be told he’s great and wonderful, he knows it. He likes helping others and that extends to confidence and self worth. If Superman told you that you did a great job you’d feel amazing. Since Kara is his cousin, he probably has taken a special interest in helping her. She’s a young hero and he’s the greatest hero who ever lived, him telling her how she’s better than him is his way of helping her. Superman doesn’t feel inferior, trying to attach him to him for imagined slights is pointless. It only exists in the mind of the few who see it, probably because of personal issues.
Last edited:
How utterly pathetic. This guy is just whining about how a girl was better than his fantasy penis extender. He’s so insecure about his own manhood that he adopted Superman and other heroes. So when Superman isn’t portrayed as his perfect vision of manhood, which includes a sexist superiority to women, he sees it as an attack. Real men don’t feel threatened by women, only little boys do. This deserves but mockery. Thanks for the laughs.
Hence I linked to a review of a study identifying genetic markers. The jury's still out and will be for some time, Christopher's not in a position to make that statement so emphatically
You're suggesting Superman's never portrayed negatively anywhere else?
I think the idea that Superman is being portrayed negatively on Supergirl is nothing but an opinion.
Here's Superman committing cold blooded murder:
And here he is beating the living daylights out of a guy in a bar for revenge:
That's the quintessential "nice guy" Christopher Reeves Supes too, being portrayed to be pretty awful when you actually take a step back and think about it.
And here he is beating the living daylights out of a guy in a bar for revenge:
That's the quintessential "nice guy" Christopher Reeves Supes too, being portrayed to be pretty awful when you actually take a step back and think about it.
A bizarre one at that. It comes off as childishly sexist. It’s like they think Superman is the ultimate man so anything that degrades this is an attack on him and masculinity itself. Even when it’s a nice guy trying to reassure his cousin that she’s fully capable of doing her job because he believes in her and trusts her. It’s sad that they we have to see this same pathetic argument every single time Superman shows up on Supergirl as if they expect the show to stop being about her because a man showed up to show her “how it’s done”. If you’re that threatened by Supergirl maybe you shouldn’t watch Supergirl.
While I can already hear the protests of "deleted scenes aren't canon", I offer this as evidence that it was not the filmmakers intent to depict Superman commiting cold-blooded murder. The scene dragged a little too long and would have slowed down the conclusion of a movie that was already ready to end, so I understand why they cut it, but part of me wishes that it had been retained just to forestall all of these "superman is a murderer' arguments.
I'll grant you the restaurant bully, though. That was a bit petty.
It doesn't matter what their intent was, that was what was screened. Superman coldly murders a depowered and essentially harmless Zod with a smirk.
And yet those are two of my favorite scenes from one of my all-time favorite movies.
And yet those are two of my favorite scenes from one of my all-time favorite movies.
It's ok, that just shows you're a terrible person, no biggie
...but only on Tuesdays.
Until you show me a corpse I reject your absolute assertation that the Kryptonian criminals were killed. After all, there weren't any corpses shown on screen as per your own above-quoted conditions. That they were killed is entirely assumption on your part, and that's all it will ever be.
I'm not showing you any corpse, they've been dead for years and the smell would be horrific
You assume that it would be.
No, I've got them in my shed.
We don't go out there any more but the compost is awesome!
Your argument that Superman is a murderer would make a much better source of compost.
And they could have added a throwaway (dubbed, if they couldn't shoot new scenes) line like "I wonder how Zod and his fellows are coping with being imprisoned in a Earth jail without their powers" or something like that, but they deliberately chose not to do that.