| Hynad said:
|
And this is the attitude that disgusts me the most. It's exactly what I meant by our country's post-2001 cynicism. That the idealistic Superman is "stuck in the past."
Superman vs The Elite released last year. That's hardly Christopher Reeve's era. Now bear in mind that I am far from the only person who was disappointed by Man of Steel.
I'm not a huge Superman buff. I don't really care about him. I don't have a "history" to go back to -- I'm not going to be revisiting Superman Returns, that's for sure. But I do like him, and I know what I like about him.
It takes little strength to kill a man. You or I could do it, and do it easily. What puts the "Super" in Superman is that he is strong enough to not kill. So I guess what I'm saying is that Zack Snyder's Superman is weak. Too weak to not kill. Which means there's nothing "Super" about him.
Previous live-action Superman films have been FAR from perfect. There's a cheesy charm to the very first one, but it doesn't exactly pass for great story-telling. Nonetheless, there is exactly ONE facet of that film -- and of all later Superman films sans the latest, as far as I can recall -- that absolutely, perfectly, completely encapsulates everything that Superman stands for. The epitome of Superman, in my opinion. And now I understand why that one thing is excluded from Zack Snyder's Superman. It doesn't fit his "vision," or the way I see it, his "vision" doesn't fit Superman. I guess that's why they went with "Man of Steel." Maybe they were afraid of being sued for false advertisement if they used Superman's name in the title.
It's just a comic book, or a movie. It's a fictional character living in a fictional world. It doesn't have to be realistic... that's the point. Saying "realistically this is what would happen" is laughable in a series about an alien who is anatomically identical to humans but gets GODLIKE powers from the SUN of all things.
