What do DC fans like about DC?

[Overhead]

Remember when Iceman came out, and people were ticked that he'd come out as gay when he wasn't before? Lets just say I don't trust the industry to not do that in reverse with other characters.
Like I said, if a "gay" character is never written as gay, it kinda loses impact. I won't say they stop being LGBT if they never have another LGBT relationshp ever again, but they may as well be straight if all they have are straight relationships.
I mean if deadpool were to do straight relationships long enough that people forget he's really pansexual, then he doesn't have that normalizing presence that might help get over real pansexuals when all is said and done.

This somewhat strikes a chord with me and I can see some of those characters mentioned, like Deadpool, should certainly be excluded from the list.

Deadpool has been described as pansexual in the promoting of his movie, but really he's only ever been displayed in media as completely heterosexual. All his relationships have been with women (even gross alien women) and potential homosexuality is only ever used as a joke, not anything serious.

By appropriating the label of pansexual while writing him as a completely ordinary heterosexual, it does dis-service to real bisexual people and is just appropriating the label without actually including any of that oh-so-icky "two men kissing and having real emotions for one another" that the concept would require if it was actually run with.

There are some other problems with that list like characters being listed multiple times (Lucy in the Sky is also listed under her real name), names in the wrong lists, dead characters and overall questionable inclusions as well as very minor characters that appeared in a single issue 20+ years ago and have never been seen since.

 

[HybridChangeling]

Well personally my favorite thing about the DC media is the animated movies and a few of the comics. Plus the Batman Animated Series is probably my second favorite show of all time. Check these out for some cool DC stuff.

Spoiler: Movies

- Mask of the Phantasm
- Under the Red Hood
- Return of the Joker
- Assault on Arkham (If it is your thing and you can get past some stupid.)

Spoiler: Comics

- The Red Hood/Arsenal series is decent.
- Catwoman as a mob boss has been interesting the whole time.
- The direction they are taking Superman seems fun
- My ex says that Gotham Academy is rad and I should check it out.

That is just the more recent comics and iconic movies. There is so much more that is great about DC. Just have to look.

 

[hermes]

As someone that has loved both since childhood, lo those many years ago, DC and Marvel have always approached superheroes in a fundamentally different way. DC was about gods living among people while Marvel was about people with the powers of gods.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is true. I don't remember what movie it was, but in it some guy saying why he liked Superman was because Superman was his true identity, while Clark is his alter ego, something different than a lot of heroes, like Batman or Spider-Man.

That would be Kill Bill vol 2, where Bill, as an surrogate of the director, monologues about the role of the Superman/Clark dichotomy. He considers Clark as the way Superman sees us, that by acting pathetic and cowardly, Superman is mocking humanity. Personally, I think that interpretation is wrong, because it assumes Clark is mostly a disguise, and he is unhappy when he is Clark. The truth is that his upbringing as a farm boy in Texas is as much a part of him as being the most powerful man on Earth. He is, in fact, much closer to the Kent family than to the members of the house of El, since that is all he knew growing up. It is the combination of his kryptonian powers and his traditional american values (said here without a gram of cynicism) that make him what he is, and what some people can't wrap their heads around.

OT: I don't consider myself a DC fan (in fact, given my inability to immediately hate everything Marvel, and unquestionably love everything DC, "true fans" could say I am a Marvel fan), but I think many of their characters are more interesting, heroes and villains. Of course, that depends on the writer, specially those talented enough not to clean up every conflict with Batman just because he is the most popular character: Have an intergalactic demigod interested in destroying the earth? Why use the guy that could move mountains when we have the rich guy with a fancy car and kung fu moves. Have an mind controlling starfish from outer space trying to conquer the earth? Should we send the guy whose power is literally limited by his imagination, or the guy with a dark pijamas and a darker attitude? I am sure the menace will not be lessened when it is solved by a normal guy kicking it in the face.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

 

[Overhead]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

You see that way I see it as this:

A beacon of light and hope shines admist the darkness and desolation.

 

[Overhead]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

You see that way I see it as this:

A beacon of light and hope shines admist the darkness and desolation.

But a basic critical analysis backs up my presentation as the one they were trying to get across.

Everything from the muted colours to the destruction porn of Man of Steel shows them trying to put across a more grim and edgier Superman, a Superman who is willing to let innocents die - even his own family - to protect himself and his identity.

This isn't coming from someone who hates DC and Superman, he's my favourite superhero and I love his renditions in comics like All-star Superman, Superman Beyond and classic issues of his own comic like What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American way (Action Comics #775) and even good guest appearences (Hitman #34 springs to mind. However just because I like Superman, that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he's had many different writers some great, some good and some godawful - as well as various different presentations and characterisations. There is no one single true version of Superman, but rather a spectrum of different Supermen that vary depending on the story. Not all of them fit the archetype you're aiming for.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Remember when Iceman came out, and people were ticked that he'd come out as gay when he wasn't before? Lets just say I don't trust the industry to not do that in reverse with other characters.
Like I said, if a "gay" character is never written as gay, it kinda loses impact. I won't say they stop being LGBT if they never have another LGBT relationshp ever again, but they may as well be straight if all they have are straight relationships.
I mean if deadpool were to do straight relationships long enough that people forget he's really pansexual, then he doesn't have that normalizing presence that might help get over real pansexuals when all is said and done.

This somewhat strikes a chord with me and I can see some of those characters mentioned, like Deadpool, should certainly be excluded from the list.

Deadpool has been described as pansexual in the promoting of his movie, but really he's only ever been displayed in media as completely heterosexual. All his relationships have been with women (even gross alien women) and potential homosexuality is only ever used as a joke, not anything serious.

By appropriating the label of pansexual while writing him as a completely ordinary heterosexual, it does dis-service to real bisexual people and is just appropriating the label without actually including any of that oh-so-icky "two men kissing and having real emotions for one another" that the concept would require if it was actually run with.

There are some other problems with that list like characters being listed multiple times (Lucy in the Sky is also listed under her real name), names in the wrong lists, dead characters and overall questionable inclusions as well as very minor characters that appeared in a single issue 20+ years ago and have never been seen since.

I think Deadpool kinda flirted with Spiderman, and he said something gay to Thor maybe once. Long forgotten outside of Cracked pages, I guess.

Pansexual might count what with his relationship with death, and his marriage to a demon which was last year I think (And seemed to be quickly forgotten about even though she got her own series), both aren't human, but take up the forms of human women, more or less. A large alien woman around his team deadpool era when he was blowing up "Id" the relative of Ego the living planet. It's a little cheating, IMO. They aren't far removed from being straight by virtue of going after women.

I agree that labels don't really matter if they aren't lived up to. It's cheap to have a character temporarily not straight, then have them straight for the rest of their existence.

I've seen other lists. The one presented is better formatted than most, is what I meant to say.

 

[Cicada 5]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

You see that way I see it as this:

A beacon of light and hope shines admist the darkness and desolation.

But a basic critical analysis backs up my presentation as the one they were trying to get across.

Everything from the muted colours to the destruction porn of Man of Steel shows them trying to put across a more grim and edgier Superman, a Superman who is willing to let innocents die - even his own family - to protect himself and his identity.

This isn't coming from someone who hates DC and Superman, he's my favourite superhero and I love his renditions in comics like All-star Superman, Superman Beyond and classic issues of his own comic like What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American way (Action Comics #775) and even good guest appearences (Hitman #34 springs to mind. However just because I like Superman, that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he's had many different writers some great, some good and some godawful - as well as various different presentations and characterisations. There is no one single true version of Superman, but rather a spectrum of different Supermen that vary depending on the story. Not all of them fit the archetype you're aiming for.

"Letting people die" and "failing to save people" are not the same thing.

 

[Overhead]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

You see that way I see it as this:

A beacon of light and hope shines admist the darkness and desolation.

But a basic critical analysis backs up my presentation as the one they were trying to get across.

Everything from the muted colours to the destruction porn of Man of Steel shows them trying to put across a more grim and edgier Superman, a Superman who is willing to let innocents die - even his own family - to protect himself and his identity.

This isn't coming from someone who hates DC and Superman, he's my favourite superhero and I love his renditions in comics like All-star Superman, Superman Beyond and classic issues of his own comic like What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American way (Action Comics #775) and even good guest appearences (Hitman #34 springs to mind. However just because I like Superman, that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he's had many different writers some great, some good and some godawful - as well as various different presentations and characterisations. There is no one single true version of Superman, but rather a spectrum of different Supermen that vary depending on the story. Not all of them fit the archetype you're aiming for.

"Letting people die" and "failing to save people" are not the same thing.

Yes, when Superman chose to let his father die rather than reveal his identity (or try something that could possibly keep his identity hidden) that is an example of him letting someone die, exactly.

Compare it to Jonathan Kent's death in, say, All-Star Superman and it gives a completely different characterisation of Superman. In Man of Steel Superman doesn't save his father even though he could, in All-Star he tries to save his father even though he can't. Those speak to two very different takes on Superman.

 

[Overhead]

Remember when Iceman came out, and people were ticked that he'd come out as gay when he wasn't before? Lets just say I don't trust the industry to not do that in reverse with other characters.
Like I said, if a "gay" character is never written as gay, it kinda loses impact. I won't say they stop being LGBT if they never have another LGBT relationshp ever again, but they may as well be straight if all they have are straight relationships.
I mean if deadpool were to do straight relationships long enough that people forget he's really pansexual, then he doesn't have that normalizing presence that might help get over real pansexuals when all is said and done.

This somewhat strikes a chord with me and I can see some of those characters mentioned, like Deadpool, should certainly be excluded from the list.

Deadpool has been described as pansexual in the promoting of his movie, but really he's only ever been displayed in media as completely heterosexual. All his relationships have been with women (even gross alien women) and potential homosexuality is only ever used as a joke, not anything serious.

By appropriating the label of pansexual while writing him as a completely ordinary heterosexual, it does dis-service to real bisexual people and is just appropriating the label without actually including any of that oh-so-icky "two men kissing and having real emotions for one another" that the concept would require if it was actually run with.

There are some other problems with that list like characters being listed multiple times (Lucy in the Sky is also listed under her real name), names in the wrong lists, dead characters and overall questionable inclusions as well as very minor characters that appeared in a single issue 20+ years ago and have never been seen since.

I think Deadpool kinda flirted with Spiderman, and he said something gay to Thor maybe once. Long forgotten outside of Cracked pages, I guess.

Pansexual might count what with his relationship with death, and his marriage to a demon which was last year I think (And seemed to be quickly forgotten about even though she got her own series), both aren't human, but take up the forms of human women, more or less. A large alien woman around his team deadpool era when he was blowing up "Id" the relative of Ego the living planet. It's a little cheating, IMO. They aren't far removed from being straight by virtue of going after women.

I agree that labels don't really matter if they aren't lived up to. It's cheap to have a character temporarily not straight, then have them straight for the rest of their existence.

'Flirting' isn't what I'd call it, with homosexuality being the punchline to the joke of "Wow, look how zany Deadpool is, he'd want to make out with a dude!"

He's never been portrayed as being seriously interested in a homosexual relationship and if we start including people who have dated aliens who don't really look any more different than a random woman with superpowers (Prof X and Lillandra for instance) as pansexual, then that doesn't really do the label any credit as a component of it is meant to be bisexuality.

 

[Cicada 5]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

You see that way I see it as this:

A beacon of light and hope shines admist the darkness and desolation.

But a basic critical analysis backs up my presentation as the one they were trying to get across.

Everything from the muted colours to the destruction porn of Man of Steel shows them trying to put across a more grim and edgier Superman, a Superman who is willing to let innocents die - even his own family - to protect himself and his identity.

This isn't coming from someone who hates DC and Superman, he's my favourite superhero and I love his renditions in comics like All-star Superman, Superman Beyond and classic issues of his own comic like What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American way (Action Comics #775) and even good guest appearences (Hitman #34 springs to mind. However just because I like Superman, that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he's had many different writers some great, some good and some godawful - as well as various different presentations and characterisations. There is no one single true version of Superman, but rather a spectrum of different Supermen that vary depending on the story. Not all of them fit the archetype you're aiming for.

"Letting people die" and "failing to save people" are not the same thing.

Yes, when Superman chose to let his father die rather than reveal his identity (or try something that could possibly keep his identity hidden) that is an example of him letting someone die, exactly.

This is the only instance in the film of him doing that and even then it's only because his father tells him to. The first thing we see him do as an adult is save people from an oil rig and they actually see him. Hell, the only reason Lois is able to find him is because he's been saving so many people and left a trail.

 

[Overhead]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

You see that way I see it as this:

A beacon of light and hope shines admist the darkness and desolation.

But a basic critical analysis backs up my presentation as the one they were trying to get across.

Everything from the muted colours to the destruction porn of Man of Steel shows them trying to put across a more grim and edgier Superman, a Superman who is willing to let innocents die - even his own family - to protect himself and his identity.

This isn't coming from someone who hates DC and Superman, he's my favourite superhero and I love his renditions in comics like All-star Superman, Superman Beyond and classic issues of his own comic like What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American way (Action Comics #775) and even good guest appearences (Hitman #34 springs to mind. However just because I like Superman, that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he's had many different writers some great, some good and some godawful - as well as various different presentations and characterisations. There is no one single true version of Superman, but rather a spectrum of different Supermen that vary depending on the story. Not all of them fit the archetype you're aiming for.

"Letting people die" and "failing to save people" are not the same thing.

Yes, when Superman chose to let his father die rather than reveal his identity (or try something that could possibly keep his identity hidden) that is an example of him letting someone die, exactly.

This is the only instance in the film of him doing that and even then it's only because his father tells him to. The first thing we see him do as an adult is save people from an oil rig and they actually see him. Hell, the only reason Lois is able to find him is because he's been saving so many people and left a trail.

1 > The amount of innocent people that should die as a result of Superman's outright refusal to save them.

Superman isn't Spider-man and even in Spider-man's case he would have stopped the robber in a heartbeat if he'd had reason to believe it would have saved Uncle Ben.

Also the second thing we see him do is passively aggressively refusing to directly confront a dude about his behaviour to a waitress, only to then go and destroy his truck and livelihood just before running away.

 

[mduncan50]

DC comics can be smart, adult and satirical.
Marvel comics tend to be aimed at a much younger audience and hardly contain deep, thoughtful elements.

That's how it was, but recently DC has become a joke.

All due respect, that sounds like someone who has never actually taken the time to read some Marvel comics. They tackled civil rights first, they dealt with drugs first, they bucked the Comic Code before anyone else, they included black and gay heroes before DC. And they absolutely have deep and thoughtful elements to them. And I'm not bashing on DC, like I said at the beginning of this thread, I love them just as much as Marvel, but they've always been slower to change with the times, whether it be because they're the senior brand or because they're part of a larger corporate structure, I don't know.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Remember when Iceman came out, and people were ticked that he'd come out as gay when he wasn't before? Lets just say I don't trust the industry to not do that in reverse with other characters.
Like I said, if a "gay" character is never written as gay, it kinda loses impact. I won't say they stop being LGBT if they never have another LGBT relationshp ever again, but they may as well be straight if all they have are straight relationships.
I mean if deadpool were to do straight relationships long enough that people forget he's really pansexual, then he doesn't have that normalizing presence that might help get over real pansexuals when all is said and done.

This somewhat strikes a chord with me and I can see some of those characters mentioned, like Deadpool, should certainly be excluded from the list.

Deadpool has been described as pansexual in the promoting of his movie, but really he's only ever been displayed in media as completely heterosexual. All his relationships have been with women (even gross alien women) and potential homosexuality is only ever used as a joke, not anything serious.

By appropriating the label of pansexual while writing him as a completely ordinary heterosexual, it does dis-service to real bisexual people and is just appropriating the label without actually including any of that oh-so-icky "two men kissing and having real emotions for one another" that the concept would require if it was actually run with.

There are some other problems with that list like characters being listed multiple times (Lucy in the Sky is also listed under her real name), names in the wrong lists, dead characters and overall questionable inclusions as well as very minor characters that appeared in a single issue 20+ years ago and have never been seen since.

I think Deadpool kinda flirted with Spiderman, and he said something gay to Thor maybe once. Long forgotten outside of Cracked pages, I guess.

Pansexual might count what with his relationship with death, and his marriage to a demon which was last year I think (And seemed to be quickly forgotten about even though she got her own series), both aren't human, but take up the forms of human women, more or less. A large alien woman around his team deadpool era when he was blowing up "Id" the relative of Ego the living planet. It's a little cheating, IMO. They aren't far removed from being straight by virtue of going after women.

I agree that labels don't really matter if they aren't lived up to. It's cheap to have a character temporarily not straight, then have them straight for the rest of their existence.

'Flirting' isn't what I'd call it, with homosexuality being the punchline to the joke of "Wow, look how zany Deadpool is, he'd want to make out with a dude!"

He's never been portrayed as being seriously interested in a homosexual relationship and if we start including people who have dated aliens who don't really look any more different than a random woman with superpowers (Prof X and Lillandra for instance) as pansexual, then that doesn't really do the label any credit as a component of it is meant to be bisexuality.

I'll give you that his non-straight relationships seemed more a joke than anything. Moreover, is the fact he's had real, deep, straight relationships before than anything else. Siryn comes to mind easily, but that was ages ago.

But to be fair to Deadpool, and admit a mistake, his space girlffrined was actually his space wife, and she

Spoiler: looks like this

Which is vaguely human at best. ... he does get married a lot, which is weird.
Still, a woman, so pansexuality comes to a sticky place. Pansexual in that he will date aliens, demons, and cosmic beings? Sure, but they're women. He's hardly judgmental about the women, though, which is a nice virtue.
But on a technicality, I'd say Deadpool is indeed pansexual, but only for a lack of a better word. It doesn't have the impact it should have, though.

 

[Overhead]

Which is vaguely human at best. ... he does get married a lot, which is weird.
Still, a woman, so pansexuality comes to a sticky place. Pansexual in that he will date aliens, demons, and cosmic beings? Sure, but they're women. He's hardly judgmental about the women, though, which is a nice virtue.
But on a technicality, I'd say Deadpool is indeed pansexual, but only for a lack of a better word. It doesn't have the impact it should have, though.

Two arms, two legs, hands, feet, fact, breasts. If she were typical superhero proportions but otherwise kept her alien physique, she's be no more strange than say Sif and Beta Ray Bill (who had a romance but who i don't think people would consider pansexual) - in fact aside form her girth she seems physiologically quite similar to bill.

The biggest difference in a world where people date all kinds of humanoid looking aliens is probably that she's very fat, which makes sense for Deadpool being a 'chubby chaser' is a character trait for Deadpool (Example [http://i.imgur.com/l1iOxY1.jpg]), though for some reason he also goes to the opposite extreme with Death and the like.

Pansexual, googling the definition specifically, means "not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity."

As we've agreed gender does matter to Deadpool and he's not actually homosexual or bisexual, he specifically does not meet the definition.

 

[Cicada 5]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

You see that way I see it as this:

A beacon of light and hope shines admist the darkness and desolation.

But a basic critical analysis backs up my presentation as the one they were trying to get across.

Everything from the muted colours to the destruction porn of Man of Steel shows them trying to put across a more grim and edgier Superman, a Superman who is willing to let innocents die - even his own family - to protect himself and his identity.

This isn't coming from someone who hates DC and Superman, he's my favourite superhero and I love his renditions in comics like All-star Superman, Superman Beyond and classic issues of his own comic like What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American way (Action Comics #775) and even good guest appearences (Hitman #34 springs to mind. However just because I like Superman, that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he's had many different writers some great, some good and some godawful - as well as various different presentations and characterisations. There is no one single true version of Superman, but rather a spectrum of different Supermen that vary depending on the story. Not all of them fit the archetype you're aiming for.

"Letting people die" and "failing to save people" are not the same thing.

Yes, when Superman chose to let his father die rather than reveal his identity (or try something that could possibly keep his identity hidden) that is an example of him letting someone die, exactly.

This is the only instance in the film of him doing that and even then it's only because his father tells him to. The first thing we see him do as an adult is save people from an oil rig and they actually see him. Hell, the only reason Lois is able to find him is because he's been saving so many people and left a trail.

1 > The amount of innocent people that should die as a result of Superman's outright refusal to save them.

Superman isn't Spider-man and even in Spider-man's case he would have stopped the robber in a heartbeat if he'd had reason to believe it would have saved Uncle Ben.

Also the second thing we see him do is passively aggressively refusing to directly confront a dude about his behaviour to a waitress, only to then go and destroy his truck and livelihood just before running away.

Funny how the comics have pointed out that Superman can hear the suffering of people all across yet is shown as not being able to stop it but that doesn't make him less heroic.

And as for the trucker I fail to see why this is so deplorable. The Silver Age version did far worse things and the Reeve version as well. This is the guy who beats up a bully who doesn't even know that Superman has some beef with him thanks to Clark reversing time again (that thing his biological father told him not to do) and trashes the bar while doing it. And let's not forget the mind wipe kiss and then leaving her alone for years with a baby she didn't even know how she got thanks to said kiss. Face it, there a re version of Superman that have done far worse things than Snyder's version and I say this as someone who doesn't care for much of Snyder's work.

 

[Overhead]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

One of these is not like the other.

And that is?

Assuming I'm on the same page as the guy who said it: The last picture, where Superman is no longer pictured as a colourful figure of supreme hope but is shown in muted colours and surrounded by darkness to match the tone of the series.

You see that way I see it as this:

A beacon of light and hope shines admist the darkness and desolation.

But a basic critical analysis backs up my presentation as the one they were trying to get across.

Everything from the muted colours to the destruction porn of Man of Steel shows them trying to put across a more grim and edgier Superman, a Superman who is willing to let innocents die - even his own family - to protect himself and his identity.

This isn't coming from someone who hates DC and Superman, he's my favourite superhero and I love his renditions in comics like All-star Superman, Superman Beyond and classic issues of his own comic like What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American way (Action Comics #775) and even good guest appearences (Hitman #34 springs to mind. However just because I like Superman, that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he's had many different writers some great, some good and some godawful - as well as various different presentations and characterisations. There is no one single true version of Superman, but rather a spectrum of different Supermen that vary depending on the story. Not all of them fit the archetype you're aiming for.

"Letting people die" and "failing to save people" are not the same thing.

Yes, when Superman chose to let his father die rather than reveal his identity (or try something that could possibly keep his identity hidden) that is an example of him letting someone die, exactly.

This is the only instance in the film of him doing that and even then it's only because his father tells him to. The first thing we see him do as an adult is save people from an oil rig and they actually see him. Hell, the only reason Lois is able to find him is because he's been saving so many people and left a trail.

1 > The amount of innocent people that should die as a result of Superman's outright refusal to save them.

Superman isn't Spider-man and even in Spider-man's case he would have stopped the robber in a heartbeat if he'd had reason to believe it would have saved Uncle Ben.

Also the second thing we see him do is passively aggressively refusing to directly confront a dude about his behaviour to a waitress, only to then go and destroy his truck and livelihood just before running away.

Funny how the comics have pointed out that Superman can hear the suffering of people all across yet is shown as not being able to stop it but that doesn't make him less heroic.

Compare it to Jonathan Kent's death in All-Star Superman. In All-Star Superman is fighting a monstrous creature with some other superheroes when he hears his father's heart stop beating as he dies of a heart attack. He rushes over there as fast as he can, despite there being nothing he can do.

Despite the fact that he couldn't save his father, he still tried to do so. This is the complete opposite situation from the movies where he could save his father but didn't try to. Both say very different things about the character.

And as for the trucker I fail to see why this is so deplorable. The Silver Age version did far worse things and the Reeve version as well. This is the guy who beats up a bully who doesn't even know that Superman has some beef with him thanks to Clark reversing time again (that thing his biological father told him not to do) and trashes the bar while doing it. And let's not forget the mind wipe kiss and then leaving her alone for years with a baby she didn't even know how she got thanks to said kiss. Face it, there a re version of Superman that have done far worse things than Snyder's version and I say this as someone who doesn't care for much of Snyder's work.

The silver age version got in contrived situations where the only possible response was to do something incredibly convoluted, hence all those bizarre covers (when they weren't dreams or imaginary stories or whatever).

The situation Clark finds himself in is one that could literally be dealt with by a normal human person. Instead he is completely passive aggressive, doesn't confront the root of the problem at all (the trucker's attitude towards women) and just wrecks the dude's livelihood.

Also although other versions of Superman have been weird, they don't ruin the core of the character as Snyder's does. At heart, Superman is someone who will help others. Therefore when he doesn't help others and lets them die, it's very bad. Pulling random powers out of his ass to remove people knowing his identity is at least consistent with his silver-age nonsense.