EXACTLY THANK YOU.

@@ordinaryguy8557 but raised on earth by human parents

@@ordinaryguy8557 u r talking like aliens can't have emotions.

Man of Steel was about this and it still failed to please you fans.

mos for me brought the man in superman

Yes!!! Writers should write more Clark Kent and less Superman

Even if what you said is true, that still means he has no weakness, not even a mental one, if you wanna fix the issue plaguing superman, make his powers a curse rather than just powers, invincible from the invincible series does this perfectly powers are a pain in the ass to control and if not used carefully can be dangerous, with superman he either has perfect control over his powers or the version we see of him already solved the "problem" I mentioned

@@dr.wolfenwho4310 I actually disagree with you because Superman isn't invisible, there is the clear weakness to kryptonite which everyone uses but also magic and anyone with super strength can damage him pretty well. It's just most writers don't write that factor in. Clark Kent should be the focus of all Superman movies. More so if Clark is focused on his friends are too and they can be easily used to motivate Clark to do more. But him seeing that his powers are something he needs to control is a big part of teen Clark.

Lois and Clark did this well back in the 90's.

Is it though? I always say that Superman is the backbone of so man character inspo’s because his concept is just “what if really strong guy, was just a guy” Aka what people love about saitama, goku and obviously Spider-Man, are the things people secretly love about dupes (when he’s not written like a knob) There’s an insane amount of easy heart and comedy you can wring from just the concept of a guy like Superman still having to go to the dmv💀 The fact that no one can see the obvious humor that comes out of a guy like Superman getting stomach cramps and having to take his shirt off just endure the bomb of a shit he’s about drop in a toilet is beyond me. Even simple things like catching a fly, must be insanely easy and annoying for a guy like him. When living alone, catching and releasing bugs in his house with his speed and power is probably the easiest thing in the world. So in public confined spaces, he obviously can’t just dispose of one the same way Superman would. Mild mannered Clark Kent can’t become too known for catching bugs since his whole thing is standing out less. So he either has to A. Just leave it be and let someone else catch it Or B. Find a way to catch himself But for a guy probably not used to lingering, buzzing, bugs with sensitive hearing, sitting around and willingly letting a fly buzz around and do its thing could drive him mad as far as minor inconveniences go. It’s a simple concept that: -gets to the core of his character -explains a bit of how Superman actually works and lives and uses his powers daily -is funny -and is so simple that it can be interpreted from anything between being relatable to people who hate bugs to people with sensory issues and trouble focusing The feeling of feeling powerless to stop something no matter what you do can be funny or tragic and its honestly a problem that everyone can relate to

Zod couldve just turned his eyes instead of his head to fry them, but ok

It's not like there was a special prison for people like zod or superman

@@Beel_zeebub true

@@Beel_zeebub the phantom zone?

Superman... Just fly with him a few metres in the air!

Aka whiplash

And Ironman made god bleed

@@fahim102 It's Megumin from Konosuba. I drew it myself.

@@user-ir1xo9jp8w Cool & thx for the reply

That is the problem with concept it favours power more than anything else

I liked how they made Superman kill in Man of Steel. Sometimes you end up with really boring and predictable scripts if you try to stick to the "perfect" man all the time. Cmon, they made a mediocre movie with all the possibilities open, what would they do by sticking only to the Superman's "normal life" issues? I get your point, and I think that would be interesting, but only as a secondary nucleus. Not for focusing all the attention to.

Elmin Legend, exactly! If you need to give Superman a real conflict, give him something he can't fight his way out of: disease. Someone important to him is dying and he can't do anything to save them. That would be a real emotional blow to him. I don't care how different they tried to make him in Man of Steel, he would have saved Pa Kent from that tornado, exposure or not.

you just copied batman's inner conflict and gave it to superman.... superman is not a complex ccharacter get over it

superman dosent have to be complex to be interesting most people arent when you get down to it we just need a character we can empathize with. and if these suggested struggles sound like they mirror batmans well i think that would have worked well for the narrative in batman vs superman when they needed a reason to see eye to eye instead using the fact that their mothers have the same name as their bases for common ground

Elmin Legend I see where you're coming from but there is one flaw in your argument. Peter Parker is human. He can and has failed. He'll lean more towards being spiderman and then suffer the consequences in his personal life. He'll try to put his own life first and fail as spiderman. It's when his two lives reach equilibrium that his life is finally balanced and the story has a happy ending. Superman is not human. He barely ever fails and in the odd chance that he does, he can just fly around the world so fast that it rewinds time. In fact, he can fly so fast that can solve any problem in his social life in less than a millisecond and no one would notice because it went by so fast. The only conflicts that he would ever have trouble with is if a villian is more powerful than him. And even then, he has a team of super heroes known as the justice League to help him. So basically, if he "stayed close to the source material" then his entire life would be a happy ending. This is why writing his character is so difficult.

His "cardboard world" speech is an amazing thing to listen to. He holds back because he could hurt thousands of people, one moment of inattention could kill someone he loves by holding a little too tight for a little too long.

Totally thinking the same thing!

I have that comic and I love it!

👍

And Superman for all seasons

All Star is good, but even Grant Morrison has expressed getting sick of that story being held up over all the others and wanting to move on from it.

I'd say either Booster Gold, Blue Beetle, and Plastic man are the most iconic comic relief characters, but if I were to say who would be the most iconic superhero it would have to be Robin.

XxFaZeNoScoper360doesNoScopes420BlazeItxX what the hell? Who doesnt know Booster Gold

@@xxfazenoscoper360doesnosco2 someone who can beat superman with kryptonite knuckles

@@xxfazenoscoper360doesnosco2 booster gold is a character from the Justice League Ultimate 2004 cartoon series which if u haven’t seen u should because it’s one of the best Superhero cartoon shows ever definitely beating DC movies now and on par with marvel

@@RoronoaZoro-ur6hr You forgot squirrel girl too

Clark is a disguise

No he's right, that's why it makes me laugh when people claim he's not relatable as far as the Justice league goes Clark has just about the MOST relatable and humble origins. So I dont get this bs ''oh he's a poweful god'' when he literally grew up raised by two humans. You never see people say that crap about Wonder woman despite her being a literal god, and overpowered as well. It's a dumb excuse.

This is correct. Modern superheroes under play the secret identity and altruistic nature of heroism

That is the thing, superman never needed to have another identity, or a family, he could have just hid out in random locations each night or stayed at batmans place, but instead he chooses to have a family, partly because he wants to be human and partly because he cares about them. Because superman always has to be perfect, because superman cannot cry, he cannot falter - Clark has to do it for him.

Often there isn't much of a difference between Kent and Superman. I think writers need to go back to the much more fun and lively Siegel and Shuster version and see what made him work (minus the bullying and murder). For one thing, Superman had a sense of humor. This could be used to make him unlike Kent and Batman. I think writers need to establish more of a divide between the two identities while still showing them as being the same person. People behave differently in different contexts and roles. This is the social truth that made the character compelling. Though I think Kal El has to believe Kent is the true identity for his dynamic with Lois to make sense, even if this isn't true.

Yeah that is pretty accurate, Superman is extremely humble and Lex Luthor is very prideful and egotistical

@@KainSpada09 I mean I would be egotistical too if I was the richest and smartest human on earth....

Yes!! Having Superman show more humanity than Lex is super important!

yeah but in doing this you're straying from the character of superman which is a main point the video was trying to make. If you confront superman witch a problem that he doesn't know how to fix or his powers cant fix then he becomes not so super.

@@RenFClark Basically, making him Saitama. (A satirical take on how he use to be like.)

@@tellmesomething2412 no not exactly. I wrote a whole thing on how to write superman

@@RenFClark Can u copy and paste it, so I may read it? There I can base my opinion

@@tellmesomething2412 yeah, but its long

*YES! THANK YOU!*

You also need to not make him overpowered all the time, maybe make him gain more powers over time and be like storm from the xmen where he only has all of his powers when its fully recharged. You don't make him perfect, you give him struggles and maybe a little bit of character weaknesses. Man of Steel almost got this right by making him reckless and collateral damage but they didnt go the full route with it. Another thing you dont do is constantly make him evil, which the comics and videogames constantly are doing. Stay true to the heart of the character being a symbol of hope but make him modern and edgy and make him have to learn and grow like other characters. And have him fight beings powerful than he is. Give him character driven stories and dont make it a generic action movie.

@@SuperCosmicboy100 Yes, I agree with what you say, but I don't think Man of Steel isn't the best example, as even though yes, Superman does have him do some reckless things, there's 2 problems with that: 1) he only feels bad about it after killing Zod, and not after killing all these innocent civilians, who had little, if anything to do with Zod. Plus, Zod was the one who killed all these people, often with Superman's indirect help, but he only feels bad after Zod, the offender, dies. 2) Superman never grows from these mistakes. He goes to Africa to deal with terrorist, he just kills them left and right. When Lex kidnaps Martha, it's not morals keeping him from killing Lex, it's the fear of his mom's death. If you ask me, Superman 2 and Superman: Peace on Earth did giving Superman flaws better.

​@@SuperCosmicboy100 read All-Star Superman. That story alone disproves the idea that he's too powerful to be in an interesting story.

​@@TommyTallNose have a few problems with your take on MOS and BVS Superman. Superman didn't kill those people. He never smashes through buildings. First of all, few people remained in that area because that part of the city was abandoned and most of the people still there were dead. Not everybody of course, but he wasn't responsible fir anyone's deaths, even indirectly. Whenever he does go through buildings, it's because Zod throws him or punches him through them. Throughout most of their fight, Zod is the one largely dominating the encounter and trying to do the most damage, and when Clark does get a hit in, he tried to jettison him out of the city only to be thrown back in. The only solution was to end the fight as soon as possible because Zod was going for maximum damage. Remember also that this is literally his first or second day on the job with just as much combat experience going up against an elite soldier. He didn't exactly have time to go save cats out of trees when he was getting blasted across the city for most of that that. Even excluding Lois, when he has enough space to breathe, he saves people multiple times throughout the movie. People really need to pay closer attention to detail. Killing Zod was also not a mistake. It doesn't violate his character because he literally tries every other solution until they're all taken away from him. His one nonlethal option got spent and broke, and it failed to capture Zod, leaving him with no other known means of incapacitating a guy who was becoming more powerful and skilled in the use of his powers by the minute. As for your second point, I don't blame you for thinking he goes in their destroying everybody in Africa, but it's an actual plot point that he didn't. The only guy he takes out was the one dude who had a gun to Lois's head. The awful studio edit that got released to theaters mangled the plot and made what actually happened in Africa almost indiscernable. The proper Ultimate Edition makes it much more clear that Superman was being framed for the destruction of the village by Lex Luther and KGBeast. There in that movie you also see him going out of his way to save lives.

Captain America becoming a rebel as he did, and refusing to have any oversight, preferring to be a fugitive, may be the character being overly idealistic, at least not what many people would consider traditionally idealistic or straightforward.

Superman might come from Krypton, but he was still raised by humans. They were good people, but still flawed like all humans, so the statement that Superman is perfect sounds inaccurate to me. Physically, he is very hard to defeat but he has other flaws that can be explored in ways that show compelling aspects of his characters such as his morals and the people he loves. That's why i would say that Superman is not perfect and a very compelling character.

Here's the thing. What makes CA work is that he is thrown out of his depth. The ideals he held can no longer be as black and white as before. Something that was so straightforward is no longer so. So he is forced to bend his ideals. That's change is what makes him work. His flawless character becomes a flaw

@@triplemoyagames4195 I agree, a lot can be done exploring how superman thinks his power should be used and whether or not it's causing good or bad. One example is how Moore made Superman quit because he tought that he had violated his moral code by killing someone, and therefore, he has no right to exert this power anymore, seeing he could cause a lot of damage in the future.

That's what kingdom come did, and it was awesome

Actually, I think MoS did a decent job of showing how strong Supes' moral code was (despite Pa Kent's idiocy). It could have been better, but it was obvious he valued life. That's what made it so jarring when he participated in Metropolis' destruction.

@Pazuzu4All I guess I could see your point. My criticism is based more on a filmmaking perspective. That whole entire destruction scene, the audience sees buildings were torn apart and people just barely surviving. Then there's a scene with Superman and Lois Lane kissing in the middle of all that destruction and people covered in dust saying he saved us. Superman has no remorse over the destruction and after he kills Zod and cries about it for a few seconds, he moves on like nothing happened. There's isn't any consequence to the actions of him killing Zod. Superman doesn't really change because he killed Zod and there hasn't been a proper sequel to prove me wrong.

mufaro guzha Great comments. I absolutely agree. Even though Man of Steel is the only DCEU movie I can say that I *really* like, it's far from a flawless film. I'm still disappointed that Zod's death didn't affect him in any meaningful way, even though it should've.

That and the fact that the situation in the film makes no sense because superman could've done a million things to stop Zod from killing that family. Cover Zod's eyes or fly away.

And the people could have just walked away like any rational person would've done.

It wasn't his fault! You guys don't get that Zod HAS ALL Sup's powers, Kal can't simply fly him elsewhere. The fight represents two immovable objects colliding, Kal can't stop it, but he does his best, killing Zod is the only thing he refuses to do, but in the end he realizes it's his only choice. But he himself didn't kill one single person aside from Zod.

@@amazingjay3957 I agree, Snyder were probably more interested in filming an epic fight. But again, the movie never shows Sup smashing anyone, all the deaths are either directly atributed to Zod's deathcount, or never really showed. Anyway, the movie's likability were never in the fight scenes for me =D

@@amazingjay3957 I look back at the fight and find it comical. (Not in a funny way though.)

Doing the same thing he does in Justice League animated series? They fight in middle of the city all the time and destroy buildings as much as they like. Superman even punches Dark Seid through buildings without worrying about who might be in those buildings. They also hide Lex Luthor in middle of city full of people where Amazo comes in to kill him. And heroes don't even bother protecting the people. The source material does the same things as Man of Steel did. People are just blind about it. 🙂

@@SuperArppis "From the window to the wall..." - Lil Jon

The reason why they're afraid to do that is Superman Returns. It was an homage to the Reeve's Superman movies in many ways, and it did not do well. Meanwhile, Nolan Batman movies did great. And so WB decided that Superman needed to be more like Batman, because that, and not the myriad of flaws in Superman Returns, must have been why it did poorly. And when that next movie didn't do as well as they'd hoped, they canceled the sequel and instead tried to make it even more Batman, by adding Batman to it. And that, of course, also under-performed. As Gunn said when talking about Deadpool, studios have a tendency to take completely the wrong things from a movie's success or failure.

The only good szperman villain is lex luthor, and they even managet to ruin him at times by making him a narcissist insted of a human supermacist.

@@Axterix13 Yup. Superman Returns has a lot of flaws, but making Clark Kent a "square" isn't one of them. Nor is it being too "light." It's the fact that it's long, slow, ponderous, and doesn't have much to actually say about much of anything. It's that the plot involves Lex Luthor creating an island and the climax is Superman lifting it into space. It's that over the runtime of a 2 and a half hour movie, the only real action sequence involving Superman is a 10 minute plane crash scene that - while good - is similar to stuff in the Reeve movies., and the only OTHER action sequence of note is a boat sinking where Superman isn't even involved. It's that it retreads well worn ground in the hopes of homaging the Donner/Reeve movies without adding anything to any of them. It's that it wastes a well-cast Lex Luthor (in spite of what we later learned about Spacey) by making him do a cheap imitation of Gene Hackman's version. It's that it does nothing to carve it's own identity or voice and everything it DOES add is dumb or simply unpleasant. And yet... it's still a better Superman movie than Man of Steel.

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 He's both narcissist and a human supremacist. He's BOTH. They didn't ruin him by making that apart of his character. That IS his character.

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Lex has ALWAYS been a narcissist.

Yes! Make Lois a fully fledged character and not a one-note damsel in distress, and make Lex a believable and powerful villain!

@@reat964 You would like the "Superman Animated Series" (think it was in the 90s). Lois and Lex were done well in that series.

Also a great example of why Superman doesn't kill. It isn't because he has a code or something. But because he is so powerful he can find another way. That's who Superman is, he finds another way and he does all he can to save lives.

Didn't he actually win the confrontation mostly because of his superior strength?

@@suarezguy Strength, yes, but he also used his brain, planning events to happen to take place both on the moon and on earth. He basically became full-on Batman in the end.

@@acrsclspdrcls1365 basically showing his superiority and perfection to be the better man.

I agree

I loved that show :)

It's not superman again it's the fans that don't want him challenged. Superman is easy to write it's the fans that are the problem.

Simply the Best I agree totally it's a problem with a large part of all superhero fanbases'. Any deviation is criticised. Mos and bvs had flaws for sure but I did like how the writers tried to do something different with superman . Perhaps broody and a touch darker wasn't the best choice . But he doesn't have to be the paragon of perfection all the time . He needs flaws to 'humanize ' him

The thing is in order to get to the paragon of perfection one must go through trial and error. This is what this superman is discovering.

But Superman isn't perfect, he's just a dude trying to do the best he can with what he's got to work with.

Not really Zod said he was never going to stop until he kills every single one of them

If he flown, it’d be worse, Zod and Supes would have caused more collateral damage

@@KazukiVA Exactly

First off the dumbass family could have just ran and Superman just I don’t know maybe thrown zod to the floor and then snap his back knock zod out and then put him into the phantom zone

L0n3ly Art1st although I agree with you about the option of incapacitating zod over killing him, it's not that simple. Superman is essentially fighting himself; someone with an arguably equal amount of strength, ability, and powers. Logically it'd be difficult to do major damage like that to someone equal to themself, only a lethal attack like the snap of the neck would be something easy enough while minimizing casualties. But the movie doesn't aim to deliver that perfect boy-scout Superman people blindly seek. It gives a more vulnerable take on Superman, a man with so much power and ability, yet with hardly a guidance on what to do with all of his abilities. It's only until he discovers his heritage that he knows his purpose on earth, also that he decides to become the hope people need. It's a complex story, with its faults, but one MUCH preferred over the other bland Superman stories.

To be fair, Doomsday is pretty much a giant meat robot, so, that's a thing.

I feel it mostly felt stupid because the scene in no way sold the idea that killing Zod was the only option. If you can snap someone's neck you can turn someone's neck away so the innocent's don't die. These people were constantly wrestling each other and hitting each other and now you tell me that Superman can just kill him like that but not just incapacitate him in some way?

@@imperialmarchinhumanbowels5726 Imagine your parents almost 1 inch away from getting heated up by Zod heat vision,you wouldn't think that much but do the easiest solution much less Superman.

@@barryallen9786 Imagine superman actually being able to move and think at superhuman speeds eh? Apart from that yes in such a situation you don think that snapping the neck opposed to just turning it away is the only solution.

@@imperialmarchinhumanbowels5726 Batman and Flash will have no more job lol.

Yeah being powerful is a super dumb excuse considering wonder woman an flash are also overpowered. Friggin fox made a good sho about a reality warping mutant, you can write a good story about anything, so the ''too powerful'' excuse is just that, an excuse, a lame one at that considering most of the JL is full of overpowered characters.

Colton Altamyre just because you try to live a normal life doesn't mean your human or have human attributes.

In my opinion, Batman is even more unrelatable, perfect, and inhuman than Superman. Anyone who says otherwise had not read the comics or is biased.

Superman is NOT human. He can lie to himself into thinking he's a human, but it will NEVER be true.

Batman, on the other hand, is physically vulnerable, but nearly invulnerable emotionally.

There's only so many times I can see the whole "Lois hostage scenario" before it gets old.

There's only so many times I can see the whole "psychopath wants to destroy/rule Gotham" before it gets old. That is a problem all superheroes face. They've got years of history, and there's only so many stories to tell. Hence why the companies like reinventing the heroes all the time, so they can explore new angles on things.

Dash Bannon what??????? just because his family is in jeopardy doesn't mean he has human relationships. do you know what human relationship is.

Aaron Appiah, do you? Because the point wasn't that people being in jeopardy was what makes Supes's relationships human. Its that he's human and thus the relationships are important to him and thus a weakness. Hell I'll leave Batman's words here: "It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then... he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him."

Hell just be like any other hero then.

@@sonicsucks20 like a person is just like any other person?

@@ShionTheHollow That's the thing: Superman isn't supposed to be "just like any other hero". He is supposed to be *the* hero.

@@sonicsucks20 i’m confused by yr comment cuz imo differentiating him and giving him a more fleshed out personality would make him stand out more versus the flat quality he is now

@@mekingtiger9095 Yes but he is that because of who he is not because of his superpowers.

I thought Scott Lobdell's take on the young, New 52 Superman worked really well. He gave Superman (and Kent) a sarcastic sense of humor and had him act more human. His stories were crap, but this characterization helped humanize him. Writers need to understand why Supergirl works much better than Superman. She's not a boring character like him. Making him married with a son was a huge mistake in the long run, and they maybe won't be able to negate it. Splitting Peter and Mary Jane created massive nerd rage. One good thing about Superman's first marriage with Lois is that it was so sterile, nobody gave a shit that it was negated. This is likely why they gave him a son. Lois just seemed like Superman's lesbian buddy and roommate. They aren't married, but the Clark and Lois relationship in the new movies works much better, though I'm sure it enrages feminists. My problem with this relationship is that it is pretty mature for what should be a kid/teen's character. It's likely off putting to younger consumers with disposable income.

@@markj6606 Actually no. The reason why giving him a son worked in the first place was they actually treaded new grounds with the character. Superman being a dad was something refreshing which is why many people loved it.

Extremely well said. I felt exactly the same way about the closing remarks here. I hope all is well with you too. Life can be strange, but a gift all the same. Best wishes my friend.

Neo B. Jover Which wouldn’t have existed without Supes (or been relevant)

sorry. people talks about superman vs goku..not spiderman vs goku😂

Neo B. Jover Christian Bale and Tom Holland hands down

Nope. Most iconic: Squirrel girl

@Jude Barkey That doesn't change anything. Superman laid the foundations for all heroes.

George Daugherty okay. And he did. But not in the way that he should've. A well-written failure can make a character more human, this is true, but a poorly written failure just makes the character poorly written. My point was that superman didn't even attempt to limit casualties. He picked fights with Zodd in populated areas not once, but TWICE in MoS. Even after the movie established earlier that superman had the strength to carry Zodd across miles of land. My point was that this scene was meant to be a trapped-in-a-corner scene, with no other option than to kill the villain. But the problem was, there WERE other options, and superman came off as a dumb character that couldn't register them.

Your are completely wrong. Superman could have not taken the fight elsewhere. He was dealing with others like him. He couldnt have not flown away. ZoD had the strength to hold him self in place. He also presented him with the ultimate dilemma. Stop me know I will continue, it will never end more will die. Either fans like you are dense or just don't want him challenged.

Simply the Best No, I want him challenged. I just don't want him to be stupid. Nothing in the scene indicated that Zodd was holding him down. They could've had him fly up only for Zodd to force him back to the ground, but they didn't. They could've had him try to take the fight elsewhere, then Zodd forces him against the wall, pinning him in place, but they didn't. No, they made both characters sit in the center of a room, unconfined, and pretended that it was the "ultimate dilemma" that you referenced. Add to that the fact that superman already moved "others like him" quite easily earlier in the movie, and it becomes just bad writing. I want my heroes challenged, but I don't want the challenge to be so poorly written that even the audience can think of better options.

Jus Kayo but flying Zod somewhere with less people would mean that 1) supes wouldn't have to worry about collateral damage (although he didn't seem too concerned anyway) and 2) Zod would be far less capable of hurting people, allowing supes to focus on the fight. And again, given that earlier in the movie, they established that superman CAN pick up and carry one of his own for miles (im referring to the scene on his farm), it makes no sense that supes just decides to fight in a hugely populated area, and at no point tried to move Zod away from the people. It's not the fact that he killed Zod that I have a problem with, it's that the whole situation was contrived and made Superman look like a moron that only cares about people when it suits him.

FearingVirus And you think Zod would've just allowed Superman to fly him away with no problem? And what then? They'd fight for days then kiss it out? Don't be ridiculous. There were only ever 2 options once Superman blew up the world engine. Either Zod killed Clark and annihilated humanity or Clark kills him

Aaron Barlow didnt you read the new comics... he is a TRAITOR ! 😲

Aaron Barlow Agreed. The world has become darker, and even though he's no longer the soldier who follows orders, he is still Captain America. He hasn't changed or compromised his morals. He is, in many ways, what Superman in the DCEU should have been. Marvel didn't shy away from his boy scout personality.

True, but Marvel always kept it light and breezy with simplistic morality. They never delved deeply into character motivation or social issues. I expect their movies to be the same popcorn affairs--fun and not challenging

he became an ageny of hydra ._.

It's less that he himself has become darker, he has just become more cynical to adapt to a different time.

there was a leak that WB Montreal are making a Superman game next!

Which is exactly why Captain America the Winter Soldier works and Man of Steel doesn’t. Marvel wasn’t afraid to let Cap be a square character who followed his moral code. DC just followed suit of Nolan’s Batman. Man of Steel wasn’t inspiring to me. Superman rarely saved as many people as he could’ve. Oil tankers are thrown and Superman dodges them instead of catching them. When Zodd is about to kill innocent civilians, Superman didn’t rush to the innocent and fly them out like I expected him to, he chose to break Zodd’s neck. This version of Superman feels so confused and convoluted. There’s little to no optimism. Some ideas about trust were mentioned but I’m upset that they weren’t explored more. Instead we got an hour long CGI transformers fight of god like aliens being thrown through buildings and causing collateral damage. A complete waste of a conclusion. Don’t mind my rant, I completely agree and just wanted to share my cynicism for this movie

Farhan Shameel I think you are absolutely correct 😀.

Cap and Supesbhave totally different motives and distinctions for being the cape of their respective franchises. Both comic and movie wise.

@@farhanshameel7810 Pretty sure superman would have stood in front of the laser, sacrificing himself so that the family can run away or something.

Yeah. Kind of like Paddington. The main protagonist isn't flawed but the people around him are and it's because of his actions and interference that they change.

fabroc8 or watch Superman vs the elite

Another good example...

I don't read comic books so I'm out of my element here. But isn't what you are saying happening in Man of Steel? The circumstance of either saving the family or letting Zod kill the family. I would say that is one of the most interesting circumstances he can be in. I saw an argument saying he could have done something different instead of killing Zod, but that wasn't the point. The movie only presented the two options, so those are the two options that should be considered. With the lose-lose situation in the film, it made an impossible decision for Superman: kill or let innocent people get killed (again don't bring up the destruction of Metropolis). His morals wouldn't have allowed for that to happen, but he _had_ to choose one. I thought it was an interesting scene, but I'm also no comic book fan.

That is a complicated one, because even while I agree with you that the scene can be quite interesting, putting Superman in that narrative was the mistake. It brought Warner/DC a lot of trouble for it, so if they are not ready for the consequences or don't even own up to them (just as the problems in BvS where Snyder says his Superman and his Batman don't kill, but we can clearly see otherwise. If you are going to do such things own them, Tim Burton back in the day said his Batman killed, not that I liked that but at least he owned it), then they shouldn't have put Superman in that situation in the first place.

I disagree about it being a mistake to put him in the narrative. People go through lose-lose situations everyday, but they have to make the decision. Why should Superman be exempt from such a choice too?

Superman: The Animated Series was my Favorite. It's timeless and iconic.

First of all thanks for your response. The reason him saying "he cares too much" is a problem is not because that is his weakness. Its because that is his BIGGEST weakness. Every superhero has that 'weakness' if you could even classify it as a weakness at all. Kryptonite is not a character weakness. When I said always get the girl that was just a figure of speech. I didn't mean literally every story ends with him literally getting the girl. Its just a phrase that means it nearly always ends happily ever after for him. Also I'm not even joking that idea you just had for that superman story has already been done XD There is an animated film called Superman Unbound which is exactly that with braniac as the villain and supergirl feeling controlled because of Superman's strict supervision. Kind of proves how hard it is to be original with him. Hope you found my response interesting, not trying to be evil just having a conversation :)

I can't believe Nicholas improvised Unbound w/out knowing it... I wouldn't have believed my eyes if you (Closer Look) didn't point it out... I'm prone to thinking writers can write their way out of anything, but if the Unbound thing doesn't make your point a strong one, I don't know what does.

The Closer Look Damn. Forgot about the film. At the same time though, Batman/Superman: Apocalypse did the same themes of control. My idea for Supergirl is moreso of that of a kid & not as a teenager to separate it from that story & the TV show. But still there are more themes you could do. Adapt Superman What's So Funny About Truth Justice & The American Way (yes I know Superman vs the Elite happened as an animated film) using the themes of Justice vs punishment. Involve Parasite in a film where the theme is power. Use a film with Lobo where he captures Superman & takes him off planet. The point is we are so use to the same old Lex & Zod when Superman has some great rogues with new themes we have yet to see in a live action film

Honestly Nicholas... I may have even been thinking of Apocalypse... whatever the case... no matter what her age, there's only so many times we'll see Supes micro-manage Supergirl's life and not reject it eventually. The good angles on new stories need to be less connected to certain characters and more connected to the dynamic we're discussing tweaked different ways for different characters Supes interacts with.. Heck, has anyone done a "having to decide to, or not to put Krypto down" story? Seriously though... a micro-managing of Batman's life was what was needed to be amped up and more nicely formed in the very film that has got us peeved about the current state of the Superman character in film overall. As far as "What's So Funny..."/"Superman Vs. The Elite" concept/story? I'm hard-pressed to think of any BETTER story than that one to tell in live-action (that story is simply pure Superman (AFAIC)... of course there's some great Alan Moore stuff like "For The Man Who..." Anyways.... good discussion!

I mostly agree with you Nicholas.The problem is the writers don't capture the human part of him. Reeve's superman was pretty human and likable (though his movies haven't aged well...) and was more the overall story and other characters that made those movies meh (but I love Christopher Reeves though. He's my superman through and through). The only part I really disagree with you with is that the problem is the villains, and I don't fully think that's true. sure more variety would be nice, but I'd argue they havent even done his more iconic villains well. if they can't doa good lex, why should we bother with a parasite? Almost everyone who's played joker has done either a great job or has simply failed to stand out (thus not bad, but nothing special). basically every batman franchise has a joker. yeah they delve into his other villains as well, but joker is a constant. And lex is supermans joker. his foil. his arch nemesis. his equal but opposite. and I'd say we haven;t gotten a truly good lex. hackman was too jokey imo, spacey could have been amazing but his movie suuuuuuuuuuucked (and he was technically playing hackmans lex), and eisenbergs....oh god i think i just threw up in my mouth a little. its not the variety of the villains, just the quality of the ones we've been given. mind you we dont need lex and ONLY lex like the Reeves superman movies gave us (even when zod was there, lex was there too =/), but if we got a ledger level lex, we'd be fine. I don't think theres any one single issue with his movies. its just a bunch of things. His movies and the characters in them are poorly written and/or acted and/or cast. they don't humanize him...he isn't a god pretending to me a man, he's a man who discovered he has the powers of a god, but the movies seem to always want to reverse that. emotional conflicts feel forced and unorganic. relationships with the people around him feel fake. they should have us spend more time with clark, not with superman...and not in the man of steel way, because there it was superman pretending to be Clark essentially whow as also unsure if he even wanted to be superman...because reasons. and to "the closer look" (i either forgot or just dont know your name, sorry friend). I overall love your videos but I disagree on a tiny little thing here outside of what I already said. The zod scene in MoS. I disliked it. not because superman killed. no. if they truly forced a no win scenario, then i'd be ok with it. the issue was...it was a forced and fake no win scenario. there are several options superman had that I and friends of mine have come up with just for this scene alone. and I'm sure others could think of more. -zod not only didn't have full power yet, but i dont think theres a kryptonian super power that causes them to become super heavy...lift him in the air. fly away from the family. -he's invulnerable. it'd hurt, but just put your hand in front of zods eye you idiot! -he's strong enough to snap his neck and move his head to the totally opposite direction...so why not turn his head slightly/keep it totally steady and have the family run away. -or just keep it steady and let the family stand there..heat vision is actually one of the more draining kryptonian powers. it'd take a while, but zod would be burning solar energy faster than he'd be absorbing it. he should run out. even if that would take far too much time, its still expensive and would gradually weaken him making it easier to do ANY of the above steps -counter with your own heat vision. if the hand thing wont work because somehow the heat vision is so much stronger than their invulnerability that blocking it with his hand isn't an option, then either use your heat vision on his to cancel it out or redirect it OR soot yours at his back ina non-lethal way to disable him I'm fine with putting him in a no win scenario..but this was NOT no win. it wasn't as forced as "martha!" but its still BS. the zod neck snap was winnable, the villains were uninteresting, the main character was unlikable, the supporting cast had no character, no ones motivations made sense, too many cut to flash backs (just start the movie as a kid and go from there! stop going back and forth for no real reason!), seemed like nobody was ever happy making the whole movie seem dreary ( a movie about hope personified should NOT be that dreary), and the action was dull. it didn't feel fun, i didnt feel invested, and i didn't care about anything that was going on, emotional moments made me more angry/frustrated than sad/hurt.

1 isn't necessary, 2 absolutely is.

I know right.

Meh is good but i don't think is the masterpiece than everyone think it is i prefer comics like watchmen better

@@juanmanikings Watchmen is just a critic of the genre. Read Kingdom come it's a nice answer to Watchmen

@@juanmanikings Watchmen is an overrated edge piece

@@eldritchpumpkinghost2968 I find much better written than all star superman

Thanks dude, that really means a lot :D

He has human problems, but it's hard to think of a human who deals with their problems better than Superman.

Magalinnda Clavien what human problems

Aaron Appiah he got "super" human problems like enventing super condom just to have sex without shotgun effect on his ending)

"Despite the fact I think Supes has become obsolete a long time ago..." 1. You also apparently think 'become' and 'became' are interchangeable. Hint: they're not. 2. You also apparently think all you need to see what wealth a country has is its GDP. 3. Explain this to me: how is Superman obsolete? And don't give me the usual bullshit about how Paragon heroes are obsolete or powerful heroes are obsolete because they evidently aren't since there are many examples of Paragon heroes and powerful heroes in media today that are both cherished and have obsessive fanbases over them that keep arguing for them in versus battles.

Most of the main superheros are the same character with slight variations. The one exception is maybe Matt Murdock. This is a character who got some really good writers and was allowed to be a flawed human being. Saying Superman is fundamentally different from other superheroes is preposterous. They are all based on him, including Batman. Supergirl works just fine.

Wolverine is also somewhat different than the other superheroes, but the difference isn't that great.

Mark J lol wolverine is very different. Moon Knight is different.

+Old Man Hogan Wolverine was different in the 70s and 80s comics. In the modern ones, he's basically the same guy as everyone else with superficial differences. The movie Wolverine is a great character though. I dread what Disney will do to him and Jackman is not replaceable. Moon Knight is written as a lunatic sometimes in the comics, so he is different and sometimes barely a hero. I don't see Disney making a comic accurate movie about him. TV maybe. What's interesting about Matt Murdock is that he is written with major flaws that get him in trouble sometimes. And his motivations are not completely altruistic. He's a character for adults. They toned him down for the TV show. The gray Hulk is also a great character, but I don't see Disney doing him either. And of course Deadpool is unique. And there are other lesser known characters like Jack Knight. I don't count Constantine as a superhero. But the vast majority of superhero characters are basically the same guy, sometimes with superficial differences.

Are you creating a superman story ? I'm interested

You mean Clark Kent is interesting as Superman. Clark Kent is the person, the WHO, Superman is the archetype and career, WHAT he decides to do. There are plenty of superheroes who match or exceed Superman's list of powers and accomplishments, but its only Clark Kent as Superman that makes him the legend.

I hate super man, he is too powerful. He should be a villain

Nerd Zone! the issue is that rebirth is only as good as it is, because of the history tied to superman. in the dceu it would take at least 4 or 5 movies before rebirth movie would really work

I'm not stating that do a rebirth I'm just stating here's a good example for a good Superman story. Max Landis Superman comic ( I heard is really great), just starting writing a decent Superman isn't that difficult as it's perceived a good one, however, is difficult. Superman being flawed is fine as long as his moral code is in place and shows the spirit of the character. Superman isn't a hard character to write he's an alien, but lived his life as a human ( shows the best humanity), his non-biological father/mother taught him how to be a good man, choosing for himself to help people and bring a smile to their face. Superman isn't super interesting, just a guy who u wanna root for and has a sense of hope, but rather a good Superman movie needs to focus on a good villain ( rebirth we see the events in a child's perspectives Johns so doesn't apply as badly but action comics it does) thats why Lex Luthor and Brainiac is so recognisable, we need to see others peoples point of view and how it differs from superman. U need to make a good circumstance for the character, like a dark superman movie can work, but everywhere around him is depressing and dark while superman beaming sense of hope, that everyone roots for.

Making Superman married with a son may work temporarily, but eventually it's going to make him impossible to write or sell to children.

At least you didn't say The New 52 Superman

+HappyLarry The New 52 Superman was an appealing character under Lobdell, though his stories were bad. He (and Giffen) made Superman and Clark more likable and human and gave them a sense of humor. Clearly the company forced him and other writers to revert to something like the old, familiar, boring Superman.

Thanks :)

Deo Robinson u have hit it dead on the nose. I don't read much of supes( or many comics these days because of the Gary Stu aspects) but for me the best Superman I have read: Byrn's Man of Steel, Morrison's All Star Superman and Injustice. also Superman is great almost better as a background or secondary character like the way Miller used him in DK returns. sure he has the power of a god but his human upbringing could easily give him some political nationalistic view that is counter intuitive to understand. maybe put morrison and byrn in a room to come up with a story then have someone turn it into a screenplay.

Deo Robinson Thank you. I don't understand the zod killing hate if he killed him in the comics, had he been killing random petty criminals like Batman in BVS, the anger would be more justifiable.

I didn't know Rebirth was getting hate. I've heard nothing but praise from the recent Superman comics. Only thing I've heard people complaining about is lack of New52 Superman, but that has already been resolved.

The only thing rebirth superman is getting is praise.

Deo Robinson no it isn't. just write the character correctly by balancing ALL of his major portrayals you described into one complex multilayered character.

icthulu Superman and action comic rebirth

That's crap, if that were true he woudn't beas popular as he is today, and Smallville certaily wouldn't have lasted forr 10 seasons, longer than any other superhero tv show today might I add.

agree, In Civil War you see that Cap isn't just a pro american hero, they explore that he will to whatever it takes and go against even his friends to stay true to what he believes in, Justice, and doing the right thing. Even if it means loosing everything u cared for.

Veronica Agnelli Well....now he is a Nazi/Hydra agent....sooooooooooo

WROOOOOOOOONG. That was the Justice League episode "For the man who has everything"

Agreed

And caps more cynical than supes.

Cavill is actually a cheerful, witty, cool guy. What's boring and miserable is the script he has to follow.

snarkleton26 Watch Jl, Supes is less broody.

Lol Reeves isnt believable as superman at all superman needs to look physically intimidating. Reeves was not

You're right.

I just disagree with you on points 1 and 6. 1. He is hard to write for, movie wise. There haven’t been any “good” Superman movies since the 80/90s. 6. You don’t need to have a character be dark to be good, you just have to make him flawed and I think that’s what he is trying to say in the clip

@@luislima3476 It's more he's hard to find the right writers for him, as pretty much everyone in Hollywood is apparently allergic to straight up good guys these days.

His origin is not epic

@@KyanNezhad you're joking? It's beyond epic and the starting point of all great superhero mythos.

Movies

Lex Luthor is more intelligent than Superman in the Injustice comic series because of the fact that he was able to make a perfect clone of Superman, and he was able to make a pill that makes any person that takes the pill is as strong as Kyrptonians; Lex Luthor also makes Superman obey and abide by the adherence of the law in the Red Sun and the injustice comic series, but you're right on the other two view points about Supermans character.

Thanks, thats great to hear :)

Patrick Barnes Communism is frowned upon for a good reason. It led to hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide and can never realistically work without compromising anyone's rights.

That's a primary part of the conflict of Red Son Superman, it's not communism that's special in the context its him after all. How he affects the people around him. Superman the character being an inherently good person with this ideology is what the story is really about at its core.

I've read both the Injustice and Red Sun comic series, and I actually think that those are the best versions of Superman.

So what if he turned his head away? Zod still wants to destroy humanity and Clark.

Plot armor is not only bullshit, it's masturbation.