Altruism, I truly believe, is humankind's finest quality. Studies have found it's not exclusive to our species, but we have such incredible potential to do it right. That is what makes me a Superman fan.
The discussion of unrelatability and distrust of people who are "too good" - like Superman - reminded me of the attitudes many people had about Mr. Rogers.
My thoughts exactly. It baffles me how so many people accept without question the notion that Superman is unrelatable, when I personally find him to be the most relatable comic book hero. The best Superman stories are less about what he can do and more about what he should do. Don't we all face questions about what we should and shouldn't do every day?
Superman is and will always be my favorite superhero. While I do enjoy his powers, it's Superman's humanity, his desire to do good, how he cares about everyone that I enjoy the most.
One of my favorite Superman stories is DC Comics Presents #50. Superman and Clark Kent are split into separate people. (Long story.) We see Clark still being himself, but Superman has been fighting evil and saving lives nonstop. He's agitated, losing touch with the people, and Clark calls him out on both. Superman needs Clark Kent to keep his humanity and remain the same hero as always, as well as take a break because even a super man can be overworked.
This is a really good analysis of the reason why Superman is such an iconic character, and why Superman is so difficult to do well. The original Superman is so well made, and the others either can't be as good as the first one or don't understand the altruism of Superman and the true meanings of both his fathers' beliefs on what Superman can do with his powers. I loved your piece on the morality of Superman, something I never gave much thought to. As a kid, the last time I recall watching the original Superman film, I just thought Superman was doing the right thing because he wants to help and save lives. I never wondered why Superman didn't just use his powers for selfish reasons or just turn his back on Earth or humanity. I need to watch the first Superman films again now that I'm older.
a key foundational imperative of this character is that Superman is the mask. Clark Kent is who he really is. Tho born a child of Krypton, Clark doesn't remember all that, having been rocketed away from his birthplace as an infant. All he knows prior to discovering his powers is being a farmboy. His adopted father's son. When he learns about Jor-El, it's after well over a decade of being Jonathan's son. Being Kryptonian is always alien to him, even after he embraces it. Deep down he's a boy from Kansas. He was brought up to do the right thing. Perhaps some can't relate to Clark Kent because they feel nowadays it's not possible to be brought up a boy scout and never make a mistake. More recent DC films involving Superman don't seem to get this right. They see Clark Kent as the persona he puts on for other human beings but Superman is who he really is, and that attitude is going to create a Superman to which audiences can't relate.
With Reeve's Superman, however, Clark Kent (in name only) is the disguise while Superman is his true identity. He was raised as Clark, but the man Clark became was Superman, while the name Clark was then attached to a mask. Make of that whatever you will.
It's frustrating that modern movies have such difficulty getting a handle on Superman. There really is no excuse, especially given how Marvel has adapted Captain America with all his traditional values intact and not a hint of irony.
indeed! although i think Superman Returns got him right, despite the film's many flaws. but when it comes to the man of steel superman... he's this selfish, dangerous alien dude who happens to look like superman.
It's great to see someone rebut the common and ultimately obtuse criticism of Superman being unrelatable or overpowered. This video and your critique of the DCEU is a breath of fresh air.
I like that you went over the Superman counterculture. Maybe being a cinnamon bun in the DC universe isn't as entertaining, but to say you dislike a character because of their better judgement or benevolence is questionable.
Growing up I thought Superman was boring because you always knew what he was going to do: "The most /good/ thing he can pull off." Now that I'm older, Superman is awesome because he will always do the most /good/ he can reasonably do within his (amazing) limits. And as far as aspirations go, it's pretty hard to beat that in my book..
I really do enjoy your work. Going beyond 'it's just a movie'. You extol the virtues of storytelling, stories that have been told by generations beyond count, by highlighting the message behind the flash and bang of cinema. You Sir have my admiration and respect
Thank you Leon, especially for that last part about how we shouldn't fall into the same thought pattern as Lex Luthor. I actually had a similar conversation with a friend about the character of Alyosha Karamazov. He didn't get why I liked that character so much, and I just had to say that in a world with so much horrible stuff in it, sometimes it's just good to admire someone who only wants to bring good into the world.
Another reason for him to live as Clark Kent is to stay grounded, the feel as a part of humanity so he can always relate to them despite his powers. If he was living as Superman all the time, on a completely different level as normal humans, he might end up thinking of humans as less and lose the ability to relate to them.
Regarding your point about Superman needing some down time as Clark Kent, after the Death of Superman arc when DC brought out 4 new characters who could potentially be Superman reborn. One of the 4 was written with the intent of showing what Superman had been like if he'd never had a human father. If all he'd had to go on was his Kryptonian upbringing. The result was a ruthlessly logical vigilante that had no qualms with killing (if he felt it was justified) and came off as arrogant, cold and only assisting humanity out of a sense of noblesse oblige.
It's a shame how Zach Synder's Superman is not motivated by altruism very much. This video makes a good case that Superman's values are what defines his character. Synder's Superman isn't very motivated to help people and his parental figures even discourage him from helping others if it turns out to be too much of an inconvenience.
Not true. How did you come to the conclusion that he isn't altruistic? He even sacrificed his life to save Earth. Pa Kent didn't want him to show his powers as a child because he feared the Government would take him away and study him like a lab-rat. That was actually one of the most interesting dilemmas of Man of Steel. Jonathan Kent had to struggle with "let Clark save the kids in the bus" or "let them die so you won't be taken away from me". The 2 movies approach Superman from different perspectives. The Reeves movie is a romanticised version, while the Cavil one is a down to earth one.
These are ideas that should be explored in the next Superman film. No big villain or anything posing this but an average person. Why should he save anyone and also why doesn’t he save everyone? Great video and you have my mind swirling with possibilities.
I know you're only discussing the films, but your point about Superman vs. Free Will brings up thoughts of Superman: Red Son, a graphic novel about an alternate world where Kal-El lands in the Soviet Union and is raised on different values. He's still a good person, and has that innate desire to help and save people. But raised in a different environment, he takes a more... altruistic authoritarian approach. He stops people from doing bad things, but sometimes that's not enough. He needs to go further, and stop people from being CAPABLE of doing bad things. It's an interesting comparison, at least.
I've always loved this film. I saw it in '78 when I was a child--and it moved me. Star Wars did the same a year earlier, but SW was something still unfamiliar to me--I knew Superman. I probably started reading comics when I was 5 or 6--watching the old George Reeves tv on local NYC tv while reading the DC comics at the same time. The scene that moved me at 12 yr old and still moves me today as an adult is with Jonathan Kent (Glenn Ford) telling a young Clark Kent (Jeff East) that he was sent here for a reason and it wasn't to kick field goals. Clark's initial question is actually fair...is it wrong for a bird to fly? Why shouldn't I use my abilities to make touchdowns every time? Out race a train? Or anything else? It is Jonathan's Kent answer is the most moving and still makes me choke. He reminded his child that he's here to do more than be super strong or superior--he reminded him of his true potential. Snyder "hostility" towards to what Superman represents or should represents says loads about him than I'd care to investigate.
What about Kirk Alyn and George Reeves? They came before him and those generations thought them to be the man of steel. And PS, it Christopher Reeve, not Reeves.
George Reeves was probably my second Favorite Superman. But Christopher Reeve and George Reeves portrayed the character pretty differently. Christopher Reeve played the "Gods Among Us" Superman and George Reeves play the "Tough on Crime" Superman. But what made them both great was they both had Charm and Charisma. I never really cared for Kirk Alyn. But everyone who has played Superman since Christopher Reeves. Has hold a candle to either of Christopher or George.
Renegade Cut Ok, but you have inspired my new head canon. And it involves Lex Luthor becoming sentient, exiting the comic world, donning a wig, and making movies.
We should have a Clack Kent movie. It's a shame that he's just treated as a disguise for Superman, the fact that he's a journalist is never really focused on. There could be Superman in the film, but would focus on the dilemmas brought up in this video.
One of my favorite Superman-analogue stories is the first issue of Astro City. It's basically about answering one simple question: "Does Superman ever get to simply enjoy flying?"
Great review, Leon. Definitely makes me want to watch the first two Superman movies again. I haven't seen the third and fourth, but I kind of want to now, just to view under the light of the examples that you used. Thanks again. Keep up the great work!
As a Batman fan, I must say.. very good video! Not sure if you've done such a vid for the Bat, but sure gonna check out the content of your channel. Now, talking about the Bat, there's a story which would have served this video well as a side note.. it's a comic in which Batman gets Superman's powers for a short while, and there's this part of the story where he flies to the stratosphere, and while looking at Earth from up there he kind of weeps (yes! tears!) as he thinks "I can hear everything. I can see anything. I can go anywhere. Mother, father.. at last.. I can save everyone". In that same comic, there's also an exchange of words between the Big Blue and the -now super- Caped Crusader, in which Batman tells him: "You don't get it, for me it's not hard at all. To never have to stop. To be everywhere, anytime. To save everyone." And all along that story he keeps working as "super-bat" 24/7. Of course, eventually the power takes its toll on his sanity (whatever he may have, that is XD), but I wouldn't want to spoil the story, should someone be interested. All in all, I mention it because I guess it would have added to the video as a perspective on "Positive duty". Cheers!
Thank you. As always, you are not disappointed with the analysis. Only 5 years ago I read "All Stars of Superman". Before he met Strazhynsky's comic strip (700 ... I will be an honest comedy through the review of this comic book about your colleagues, Lina). And this is one of the best videos for this character. And thank you for paying attention to some aspects of Batman (on the previous video) you opened my eyes to this character. Thank you again.
Dear God, there are not enough likes to give this video! 😭Thank you for putting into plain words every thing _right_ with this character! Bless you, and your work, my dude!👍👍👍👍👍
Question: "Ought implies can" doesn't mean the same thing as, "Can implies ought." But it sounds like you're using them interchangeably here. When I hear, "Ought implies can," I hear a caution against judging people for not doing things that they realistically can't do. I don't hear a statement that if you can do something, then you ought to. Is this just a matter of the meaning of a phrase getting mutated over time and discussion? I've never heard the phrase before, so I'm just interpreting it based on my understanding of the English language. :) Thanks for this video, btw. I've felt the same, though not in such a well-expressed way. It is kind of frustrating to see complaints about Superman (and in a semi-related way, about people doing good) online. It's just so... backwards.
"Ought implies can" doesn't mean the same thing as, "Can implies ought." But it sounds like you're using them interchangeably here." No. I'm not using "Ought implies can" that way at all. When I discuss whether something ought to do something, that is related to positive rights vs. negative rights. These are two different topics in the video. It's not interchangeable. It's two different topics.
I don't think Superman is necessarily hard to relate to, but he is damn hard to write for. The interesting thing about Superman from a narrative perspective is that he really has very little that offers a direct threat against him. Superman is therefore at his best when he's used as an examination of morality, and his best challenges are ones that represent moral dilemmas. Something that they understood in the Christopher Reeves movies, but not in the Zack Snyder movies.
All valid points, except for the "very little that offers a direct threat against him" bit. Superman's own roster of villains and the DC universe at large are rife with entities who can either match Superman pound for pound or could annihilate him with ease if provoked. That's one of the big reasons why we have the Justice League, The New Gods, and a still-growing "Super-family." It's a pity that the movies and shows never seem to escalate that far, otherwise general audiences would be more aware of them.
If Superman were to be Superman all the time and not be grounded in human interaction as Clark Kent, it would be easy for him to become akin to Dr. Manhattan in "Watchman", a hero who becomes indifferent to human life and suffering because he is no longer able to relate to it.
One the "Positive / Negative Duty" question, I think Super man should do good not simply because he can, but because he is the ONLY one who can. Superman's abilities are something that very few possess, and most who have them in the film use them for their own means. Superman is the only person who can stand up to them, and if he does not, than nobody does. As for Superman being "unrelatable," I just think his powers are boring. Superman CAN and HAS been written well, but his base set of abilities are uninteresting by themselves.
*Slow Clap* Excellent Analysis. I have a friend who'd agree with everything you said here (besides the Shazam thing, but she's stubborn about that). Frankly, we could use more of the Real Superman, and less of Snyder's SuperRand. Also, apparently Lex Luthor saw this video 3 times.
Christopher Reeve was so good in that role that, even in the goofier movies of the series, HE never came off as goofy. His Superman was able to rise above (fly above?) the material at all times. I wish WB/DC weren't so determined to reshape the character as "edgier" or "darker" or "broodier" or any other such nonsense. Let him be a superhero who saves cats from trees and waves at children in the street with a genuine smile on his face. Also, regarding people's dislike for the character, I find that it's usually not this particular incarnation but rather the more recent incarnations that people can't stomach. I heard, in some theaters, people were cheering as Batman punched him repeatedly during Batman v Superman. But let's pretend that movie came out back in 1985 and Batman went up against THIS Superman. Would audiences have cheered? Or would they say, "What the hell?! Why is Batman doing this?!" I suspect the latter. If WB/DC gave us THIS Superman, audiences would love him. The movie would still have to be good to get real acclaim but at least they'd have the character right.
Very interesting analysis, Leon. I'm glad this topic was chosen (either by you or your commissioning patron), Superman has always been endlessly fascinating to me as an ethical figure. In fact, the talk of Superman's utilitarianism and "ought implies can" reminds me of one of my favorite Superman fanfics, "The Metropolitan Man". It's a philosophical examination of Superman and his ethics mixed with a cool noirish mystery, following the human characters rather than the Man of Steel himself. Has some of my all-time favorite interpretations of Clark, Lois Lane and Lex Luthor. I'd recommend it to anyone who appreciates mysteries and ethical discussions, especially as they pertain to superheroes and god-like beings like Superman. Good stuff, I think, if you like analyses like Leon's. www.fanfiction.net/s/10360716/1/The-Metropolitan-Man
"There are worse characters than the man that always wants to do good". It sums well Magog's own conclusion, in the comics miniseries "Kingdom Come". [Spoilers ahead for K.C. - but it is a 1996 mini-series, so... ] K.C. is a deconstruction of the "dark age of comics", the '90s era of dark, "realistic" anti-heroes. In it, Magog is a "cool", "modern", "realistic", gritty anti-hero that challenged Superman and "forced" him into "exile". And yet, in a pretty poignant moment of the story, it is Magog himself that observes: "They choose me over you [Superman]. They choose the man that would kill over the one that never would. And now they are dead". Of course, this could be said also of the executives at Warner Brothers and their decisions for the DCEU. They choose to go with Zack Snyder "vision", even though it was akin to one that in the comics had started feeling stale since the last half of the '90s. No wonder it led them into troubles.
Does no one just believe that good people just want to do good and right by others however fictional? Sometimes there isn’t a why. ;) (The writers don’t plan that far ahead my video essayists lol)
Well here I go reading Red Son again. I don't know if you ever read comics but, it's one of the three I own and it's a great... what if? thought experiment? alternate history? Thanks for the vid!
Have you seen *Superman Vs The Elite*? I'm curious to hear your opinion on the conflicting comicbook ideoloies presented in the film. It's very Christopher Reeve's Superman vs the collected works of Frank Miller. For me, the film defines how I view the role of a classical superhero story in modern society.
Id say the "superman is boring" thing comes down to the paladin problem. If you have ever roleplayed a paladin it often becomes a joke or boring to all other players, as you are rather set in what your options are (aka lawfull good). A charecter like thor in the comics at least i would not concider lawfull good...more neutral good which broardens his options. While i have not see the old Donner films i can gleam that they try to make him interesting in a good way..in opposition to man of steel or bm vs sm. I think we need more exploration of the percived divinity of superman and perhaps the mental toll of his responsibility and that perception of him...i mean anyone would be stressed that the world counts on you to solve everything. After all one can only play a good paladin if you explore what would drive a man to make that choice and how he upholds it.
Perhaps we are more Lex Luther because we have learned that the men who say they want and appear to only want to do good, are often really doing quite the opposite. Fathers, leaders, priests.
Thank you for the analyzes, i kinda needed that, the points you make really makes one wonder why Superman, and the "Altruistic character" are not so popular anymore, and even seem as childish.
Great video! And I agree about your general point, but I must say something (Something that might be seen as a defense of the Superman-haters, but it's really not): The difference between Superman and other perfect superheroes is the fact that he's both all-powerful AND all-good. Thor and Hulk are all-powerful, but they're not all-good - Thor begins his story as a "vain, greedy, cruel boy", and Hulk is literally a monster. Characters like Captain America, on the other hand, are all-good, but they're not all-powerful - Cap will always choose to make the right choice, but he doesn't always have the power to do so. Superman is the only major superhero that's THIS close to perfection, and this DOES raise a potential problem - if the hero is all-powerful AND all-good, then where is the conflict of the story? That is an issue... But it's also a strength. After all... Why do we watch stories about superheroes at all? Why not watch stories about normal people? The answer: Because superheroes are about FANTASY - they give us the things that we want and can never have. Batman gives us the fantasy that we can achieve anything through sheer force of will, and that bad guys will get what they deserve. Iron Man gives us the fantasy that we can achieve anything through logic, and that bad people can redeem themselves. Captain America gives us the fantasy that goodness will be rewarded, and that the little guys can be the heroes. and Superman? Superman gives us the BEST fantasy - the fantasy that absolute power does NOT corrupt absolutely. The fantasy that you can be all-powerful AND all-good at the same time. He gives us the fantasy that there's someone out there who will always save us when we fall, because he's unbeatable and incorruptible. Is it unrealistic? Yes. But THAT'S THE POINT. That's the appeal of superheroes - they're fantastical.
the real reason Captain Marvel is now "shazam" is a) dc got boned on the name by marvel and b) ppl nowadays are to stupid to understand that Shazam is the wizard, not the hero. and i could care less for the bs excuse the morons in charge of dc say. they didn't create him, they stole him from Fawcett.
Yeah, I never get it when people say Superman is unrelatable or uninteresting. I think millenials are just ridiculously cynical, and are raised to believe that no person can be completely good and that goodness is an idea that should be taken with extreme skepticism. That's not saying the whole escalation of Superman's powers over the years isn't ever a problem to creating good stories, but that's more superficial.
It really isn't a millennial thing. As a millennial who is a Superman fan (thanks to Christopher Reeve) I would constantly hear lots of people trash Superman in those ways and quite few of them were Gen X'ers and Boomers.
First act was brilliant but the rest has dated badly, with Reeves being the consistently good part of it. I love Gene Hackman but he was way too over the top in this to be taken seriously as a threat.
I find jarring that without even questioning or looking at it, this analysis goes with the default idea that he is Superman first and foremost and Clark Kent a distant second.
Pre-1987, that is the way that it was. Superman often said in the comics that "Clark Kent is a disguise". You see it in the film, in Metropolis he hunches, speaks with a stuttering wimpy tone, acts clumsy. It's an act. It was the 1987 story Man of Steel that flipped it and made it "Clark Kent is who I am. Superman is just what I can do". This was more a throwback to the original Superman of the 40's and 50's. Then it was just a costume change. Clark Kent was very much the same person that Superman was with a slightly different tone. (with was invented for radio Program of the 30's and 40's) "This looks like a job, (his voice deepens) FOR SUPERMAN". With Superman he puffs his chest a little so that identity was more of an act in the Golden age. Though looking at the earliest stories, his parents where not very important in his life, or didn't exist at all until the SuperBOY comics which contradicted the earliest stories. But to your point, I prefer the Clark first mentality and that who raised him and how are the primary things that make him super. Biology and our yellow sun don't mean nothing if he isn't raised right and now how to relate to us, to see himself as one of us.
Altruism, I truly believe, is humankind's finest quality. Studies have found it's not exclusive to our species, but we have such incredible potential to do it right. That is what makes me a Superman fan.
Happy to see a positive take on the big blue boy scout, I think we should always have characters like that to admire. Great work as always!
Pendragon; well said.
The discussion of unrelatability and distrust of people who are "too good" - like Superman - reminded me of the attitudes many people had about Mr. Rogers.
My thoughts exactly. It baffles me how so many people accept without question the notion that Superman is unrelatable, when I personally find him to be the most relatable comic book hero. The best Superman stories are less about what he can do and more about what he should do. Don't we all face questions about what we should and shouldn't do every day?
And that, my friends, is why Man of Steel and BvS suck: they present Superman as a powerhouse, not as an actual human being!
Yeah, come at me!
Superman is and will always be my favorite superhero. While I do enjoy his powers, it's Superman's humanity, his desire to do good, how he cares about everyone that I enjoy the most.
Superman will always be my favorite superhero.
One of my favorite Superman stories is DC Comics Presents #50. Superman and Clark Kent are split into separate people. (Long story.) We see Clark still being himself, but Superman has been fighting evil and saving lives nonstop. He's agitated, losing touch with the people, and Clark calls him out on both. Superman needs Clark Kent to keep his humanity and remain the same hero as always, as well as take a break because even a super man can be overworked.
This is a really good analysis of the reason why Superman is such an iconic character, and why Superman is so difficult to do well. The original Superman is so well made, and the others either can't be as good as the first one or don't understand the altruism of Superman and the true meanings of both his fathers' beliefs on what Superman can do with his powers. I loved your piece on the morality of Superman, something I never gave much thought to. As a kid, the last time I recall watching the original Superman film, I just thought Superman was doing the right thing because he wants to help and save lives. I never wondered why Superman didn't just use his powers for selfish reasons or just turn his back on Earth or humanity. I need to watch the first Superman films again now that I'm older.
Oh man do I love that Big Blue Boy Scout. Big fan of his cousin too.
Superman's greatest power is, and always has been, his ability to do the right thing just because it's the right thing.
a key foundational imperative of this character is that Superman is the mask. Clark Kent is who he really is. Tho born a child of Krypton, Clark doesn't remember all that, having been rocketed away from his birthplace as an infant. All he knows prior to discovering his powers is being a farmboy. His adopted father's son. When he learns about Jor-El, it's after well over a decade of being Jonathan's son. Being Kryptonian is always alien to him, even after he embraces it. Deep down he's a boy from Kansas. He was brought up to do the right thing. Perhaps some can't relate to Clark Kent because they feel nowadays it's not possible to be brought up a boy scout and never make a mistake. More recent DC films involving Superman don't seem to get this right. They see Clark Kent as the persona he puts on for other human beings but Superman is who he really is, and that attitude is going to create a Superman to which audiences can't relate.
With Reeve's Superman, however, Clark Kent (in name only) is the disguise while Superman is his true identity. He was raised as Clark, but the man Clark became was Superman, while the name Clark was then attached to a mask. Make of that whatever you will.
It's frustrating that modern movies have such difficulty getting a handle on Superman. There really is no excuse, especially given how Marvel has adapted Captain America with all his traditional values intact and not a hint of irony.
Hell, they even handled Wonder Woman better than they've handled Superman lately.
Spencer Malley Zack Snyder is Lex Luthor but thinks he's Superman, that's why.
I liked Captain America but my problem was Chris Evans just pales in comparison to Christopher Reeve.
indeed! although i think Superman Returns got him right, despite the film's many flaws. but when it comes to the man of steel superman... he's this selfish, dangerous alien dude who happens to look like superman.
Great point.
It's great to see someone rebut the common and ultimately obtuse criticism of Superman being unrelatable or overpowered. This video and your critique of the DCEU is a breath of fresh air.
Thanks for putting this into words, I always loved Superman as a kid and these modern iterations made me feel like a crazy person
I like that you went over the Superman counterculture. Maybe being a cinnamon bun in the DC universe isn't as entertaining, but to say you dislike a character because of their better judgement or benevolence is questionable.
Oh cool! A companion piece to the marvel /normative ethics! That video, BTW, is one of my favorite UA-cam videos ever.
To quote Lex Luther in Red Son as a point to guide, not guard, humanity.
"Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, Superman?"
"Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I do". Keeping that in mind is the key to getting Superman right...
Pre-Snyder Superman is my favorite superhero too. :)
Growing up I thought Superman was boring because you always knew what he was going to do: "The most /good/ thing he can pull off."
Now that I'm older, Superman is awesome because he will always do the most /good/ he can reasonably do within his (amazing) limits. And as far as aspirations go, it's pretty hard to beat that in my book..
I really do enjoy your work. Going beyond 'it's just a movie'. You extol the virtues of storytelling, stories that have been told by generations beyond count, by highlighting the message behind the flash and bang of cinema. You Sir have my admiration and respect
Thank you Leon, especially for that last part about how we shouldn't fall into the same thought pattern as Lex Luthor. I actually had a similar conversation with a friend about the character of Alyosha Karamazov. He didn't get why I liked that character so much, and I just had to say that in a world with so much horrible stuff in it, sometimes it's just good to admire someone who only wants to bring good into the world.
Another reason for him to live as Clark Kent is to stay grounded, the feel as a part of humanity so he can always relate to them despite his powers. If he was living as Superman all the time, on a completely different level as normal humans, he might end up thinking of humans as less and lose the ability to relate to them.
Regarding your point about Superman needing some down time as Clark Kent, after the Death of Superman arc when DC brought out 4 new characters who could potentially be Superman reborn. One of the 4 was written with the intent of showing what Superman had been like if he'd never had a human father. If all he'd had to go on was his Kryptonian upbringing. The result was a ruthlessly logical vigilante that had no qualms with killing (if he felt it was justified) and came off as arrogant, cold and only assisting humanity out of a sense of noblesse oblige.
It's a shame how Zach Synder's Superman is not motivated by altruism very much. This video makes a good case that Superman's values are what defines his character. Synder's Superman isn't very motivated to help people and his parental figures even discourage him from helping others if it turns out to be too much of an inconvenience.
Birb Face you mean his Year One version?
Not true. How did you come to the conclusion that he isn't altruistic? He even sacrificed his life to save Earth. Pa Kent didn't want him to show his powers as a child because he feared the Government would take him away and study him like a lab-rat. That was actually one of the most interesting dilemmas of Man of Steel. Jonathan Kent had to struggle with "let Clark save the kids in the bus" or "let them die so you won't be taken away from me". The 2 movies approach Superman from different perspectives. The Reeves movie is a romanticised version, while the Cavil one is a down to earth one.
@@CyclonusTheProwl Yes,but the fact that altruism in Snyder`s vision equals death reveals his Objectivist bias.
These are ideas that should be explored in the next Superman film. No big villain or anything posing this but an average person. Why should he save anyone and also why doesn’t he save everyone? Great video and you have my mind swirling with possibilities.
"I think I should probably go to bed now, it's almost 1AM...." *sees this video in my subscription feed* "NOPE"
It doesn't happen to me too often with UA-cam videos, but I actually started tearing up at the end of this analysis. Thank you for this.
I know you're only discussing the films, but your point about Superman vs. Free Will brings up thoughts of Superman: Red Son, a graphic novel about an alternate world where Kal-El lands in the Soviet Union and is raised on different values. He's still a good person, and has that innate desire to help and save people. But raised in a different environment, he takes a more... altruistic authoritarian approach. He stops people from doing bad things, but sometimes that's not enough. He needs to go further, and stop people from being CAPABLE of doing bad things. It's an interesting comparison, at least.
I've always loved this film. I saw it in '78 when I was a child--and it moved me. Star Wars did the same a year earlier, but SW was something still unfamiliar to me--I knew Superman. I probably started reading comics when I was 5 or 6--watching the old George Reeves tv on local NYC tv while reading the DC comics at the same time. The scene that moved me at 12 yr old and still moves me today as an adult is with Jonathan Kent (Glenn Ford) telling a young Clark Kent (Jeff East) that he was sent here for a reason and it wasn't to kick field goals. Clark's initial question is actually fair...is it wrong for a bird to fly? Why shouldn't I use my abilities to make touchdowns every time? Out race a train? Or anything else? It is Jonathan's Kent answer is the most moving and still makes me choke. He reminded his child that he's here to do more than be super strong or superior--he reminded him of his true potential. Snyder "hostility" towards to what Superman represents or should represents says loads about him than I'd care to investigate.
WB needs to watch this.
Reeves was Superman. Everyone after him walks in his shadow.
What about Kirk Alyn and George Reeves? They came before him and those generations thought them to be the man of steel.
And PS, it Christopher Reeve, not Reeves.
George Reeves was probably my second Favorite Superman. But Christopher Reeve and George Reeves portrayed the character pretty differently. Christopher Reeve played the "Gods Among Us" Superman and George Reeves play the "Tough on Crime" Superman. But what made them both great was they both had Charm and Charisma. I never really cared for Kirk Alyn. But everyone who has played Superman since Christopher Reeves. Has hold a candle to either of Christopher or George.
Newbern is a slightly different superman from Reeves. Want to do good but can be flawed on an understandable level.
I miss when movies let Superman be Clark Kent, especially considering he is Clark Kent well before Superman, it's who he is
Its hard to find youtube vids that dont nick pick the Superman franshise. Thank You.
Thank you so much! I am very happy to see someone eloquently argue what I've felt myself for years. :) Excellent job as always.
Thank you. You've reinforced my thoughts on why Superman is my all time favorite super-hero.
Those last few sounded a little pointed *cough*zachsnyder*cough*
Renegade Cut Ok, but you have inspired my new head canon. And it involves Lex Luthor becoming sentient, exiting the comic world, donning a wig, and making movies.
Renegade Cut Great video dude!! Supes is my all-time favorite hero! Great work! Oh by the way, it's Christopher REEVE.
I swear, this video was one that got me right in the feelings. Seriously, seriously great work.
Yep, it deserves two 'seriously's'.
We should have a Clack Kent movie. It's a shame that he's just treated as a disguise for Superman, the fact that he's a journalist is never really focused on. There could be Superman in the film, but would focus on the dilemmas brought up in this video.
One of my favorite Superman-analogue stories is the first issue of Astro City.
It's basically about answering one simple question: "Does Superman ever get to simply enjoy flying?"
The first, and arguably, still the best superhero movie...
This is a really good look at what makes Superman such a good hero and I'll pretend I didn't tear up at the end a little bit.
I really like this series as it gets under the skin of films and how even something seemingly simple can be very complex.
Great review, Leon. Definitely makes me want to watch the first two Superman movies again. I haven't seen the third and fourth, but I kind of want to now, just to view under the light of the examples that you used. Thanks again. Keep up the great work!
As a Batman fan, I must say.. very good video! Not sure if you've done such a vid for the Bat, but sure gonna check out the content of your channel.
Now, talking about the Bat, there's a story which would have served this video well as a side note.. it's a comic in which Batman gets Superman's powers for a short while, and there's this part of the story where he flies to the stratosphere, and while looking at Earth from up there he kind of weeps (yes! tears!) as he thinks "I can hear everything. I can see anything. I can go anywhere. Mother, father.. at last.. I can save everyone".
In that same comic, there's also an exchange of words between the Big Blue and the -now super- Caped Crusader, in which Batman tells him: "You don't get it, for me it's not hard at all. To never have to stop. To be everywhere, anytime. To save everyone."
And all along that story he keeps working as "super-bat" 24/7. Of course, eventually the power takes its toll on his sanity (whatever he may have, that is XD), but I wouldn't want to spoil the story, should someone be interested. All in all, I mention it because I guess it would have added to the video as a perspective on "Positive duty".
Cheers!
THIS! It's baffling (and troubling) how people doesn't understand this.
I can't believe you analyzed Superman 4.
Thank you. As always, you are not disappointed with the analysis. Only 5 years ago I read "All Stars of Superman". Before he met Strazhynsky's comic strip (700 ... I will be an honest comedy through the review of this comic book about your colleagues, Lina). And this is one of the best videos for this character. And thank you for paying attention to some aspects of Batman (on the previous video) you opened my eyes to this character. Thank you again.
I was looking forward to this video and was not disappointed .very well said with all the points
Now if they can bestow these qualities on Henry Cavills Superman instead of trying to make him Batman we could have a great film.
Dear God, there are not enough likes to give this video! 😭Thank you for putting into plain words every thing _right_ with this character! Bless you, and your work, my dude!👍👍👍👍👍
Question: "Ought implies can" doesn't mean the same thing as, "Can implies ought." But it sounds like you're using them interchangeably here. When I hear, "Ought implies can," I hear a caution against judging people for not doing things that they realistically can't do. I don't hear a statement that if you can do something, then you ought to. Is this just a matter of the meaning of a phrase getting mutated over time and discussion? I've never heard the phrase before, so I'm just interpreting it based on my understanding of the English language. :)
Thanks for this video, btw. I've felt the same, though not in such a well-expressed way. It is kind of frustrating to see complaints about Superman (and in a semi-related way, about people doing good) online. It's just so... backwards.
"Ought implies can" doesn't mean the same thing as, "Can implies ought." But it sounds like you're using them interchangeably here."
No. I'm not using "Ought implies can" that way at all. When I discuss whether something ought to do something, that is related to positive rights vs. negative rights. These are two different topics in the video. It's not interchangeable. It's two different topics.
I don't think Superman is necessarily hard to relate to, but he is damn hard to write for. The interesting thing about Superman from a narrative perspective is that he really has very little that offers a direct threat against him. Superman is therefore at his best when he's used as an examination of morality, and his best challenges are ones that represent moral dilemmas.
Something that they understood in the Christopher Reeves movies, but not in the Zack Snyder movies.
All valid points, except for the "very little that offers a direct threat against him" bit. Superman's own roster of villains and the DC universe at large are rife with entities who can either match Superman pound for pound or could annihilate him with ease if provoked. That's one of the big reasons why we have the Justice League, The New Gods, and a still-growing "Super-family."
It's a pity that the movies and shows never seem to escalate that far, otherwise general audiences would be more aware of them.
I've really appreciated the recent comics where he's raising a powered son with Lois.
If Superman were to be Superman all the time and not be grounded in human interaction as Clark Kent, it would be easy for him to become akin to Dr. Manhattan in "Watchman", a hero who becomes indifferent to human life and suffering because he is no longer able to relate to it.
And that's why Zach Snyder doesn't understand Superman (among other characters).
One the "Positive / Negative Duty" question, I think Super man should do good not simply because he can, but because he is the ONLY one who can. Superman's abilities are something that very few possess, and most who have them in the film use them for their own means. Superman is the only person who can stand up to them, and if he does not, than nobody does.
As for Superman being "unrelatable," I just think his powers are boring. Superman CAN and HAS been written well, but his base set of abilities are uninteresting by themselves.
Awesome video, as always, and thought provoking too.
*Slow Clap* Excellent Analysis. I have a friend who'd agree with everything you said here (besides the Shazam thing, but she's stubborn about that). Frankly, we could use more of the Real Superman, and less of Snyder's SuperRand. Also, apparently Lex Luthor saw this video 3 times.
I really enjoyed this. Thanks for the philosophical analysis.
excellent video, Leon. thanks for your work!
current superhero movies should be grateful for this classic from almost 40 years ago!!
Holy jeez. This was excellent examination!
This was beautiful. Thank you.
Christopher Reeve was so good in that role that, even in the goofier movies of the series, HE never came off as goofy. His Superman was able to rise above (fly above?) the material at all times. I wish WB/DC weren't so determined to reshape the character as "edgier" or "darker" or "broodier" or any other such nonsense. Let him be a superhero who saves cats from trees and waves at children in the street with a genuine smile on his face.
Also, regarding people's dislike for the character, I find that it's usually not this particular incarnation but rather the more recent incarnations that people can't stomach. I heard, in some theaters, people were cheering as Batman punched him repeatedly during Batman v Superman. But let's pretend that movie came out back in 1985 and Batman went up against THIS Superman. Would audiences have cheered? Or would they say, "What the hell?! Why is Batman doing this?!" I suspect the latter. If WB/DC gave us THIS Superman, audiences would love him. The movie would still have to be good to get real acclaim but at least they'd have the character right.
If it really wants to do good with Man of steel, they should have looked at the old Superman movies. And also read Superman Lois and Clark
You need to say something about Kitano's Sonatine.
Very interesting analysis, Leon. I'm glad this topic was chosen (either by you or your commissioning patron), Superman has always been endlessly fascinating to me as an ethical figure.
In fact, the talk of Superman's utilitarianism and "ought implies can" reminds me of one of my favorite Superman fanfics, "The Metropolitan Man". It's a philosophical examination of Superman and his ethics mixed with a cool noirish mystery, following the human characters rather than the Man of Steel himself. Has some of my all-time favorite interpretations of Clark, Lois Lane and Lex Luthor.
I'd recommend it to anyone who appreciates mysteries and ethical discussions, especially as they pertain to superheroes and god-like beings like Superman. Good stuff, I think, if you like analyses like Leon's.
www.fanfiction.net/s/10360716/1/The-Metropolitan-Man
thank you, Leon ^^
Teared up a bit at the end there :')
"There are worse characters than the man that always wants to do good".
It sums well Magog's own conclusion, in the comics miniseries "Kingdom Come".
[Spoilers ahead for K.C. - but it is a 1996 mini-series, so... ]
K.C. is a deconstruction of the "dark age of comics", the '90s era of dark, "realistic" anti-heroes.
In it, Magog is a "cool", "modern", "realistic", gritty anti-hero that challenged Superman and "forced" him into "exile".
And yet, in a pretty poignant moment of the story, it is Magog himself that observes:
"They choose me over you [Superman]. They choose the man that would kill over the one that never would. And now they are dead".
Of course, this could be said also of the executives at Warner Brothers and their decisions for the DCEU.
They choose to go with Zack Snyder "vision", even though it was akin to one that in the comics had started feeling stale since the last half of the '90s. No wonder it led them into troubles.
I love this movie.
Does no one just believe that good people just want to do good and right by others however fictional? Sometimes there isn’t a why. ;)
(The writers don’t plan that far ahead my video essayists lol)
I absolutely love this. Great job!
Well here I go reading Red Son again. I don't know if you ever read comics but, it's one of the three I own and it's a great... what if? thought experiment? alternate history? Thanks for the vid!
Impressive analysis as always. Hopefully the next Superman movie will be closer to the Reeves films.
Thank you for this.
I saw zero neck snappings in this video. Terrible
could you do natural born killers 1994 think you could give a great insight about it.😁
Have you seen *Superman Vs The Elite*? I'm curious to hear your opinion on the conflicting comicbook ideoloies presented in the film. It's very Christopher Reeve's Superman vs the collected works of Frank Miller. For me, the film defines how I view the role of a classical superhero story in modern society.
However, given the topics you discussed in your BVS video and your comments in this video, I could probably guess the gist of what you would say.
please do snyder's version of superman, or whatever cavill was supposed to be, thanks
This really opened my eyes!
Man, oh man, do I love Superman!
Great video loved it!
... Snyder!
Id say the "superman is boring" thing comes down to the paladin problem. If you have ever roleplayed a paladin it often becomes a joke or boring to all other players, as you are rather set in what your options are (aka lawfull good). A charecter like thor in the comics at least i would not concider lawfull good...more neutral good which broardens his options. While i have not see the old Donner films i can gleam that they try to make him interesting in a good way..in opposition to man of steel or bm vs sm. I think we need more exploration of the percived divinity of superman and perhaps the mental toll of his responsibility and that perception of him...i mean anyone would be stressed that the world counts on you to solve everything. After all one can only play a good paladin if you explore what would drive a man to make that choice and how he upholds it.
great vid nice work
This is going to be interesting.
Excellent !
Great work Leon
Perhaps we are more Lex Luther because we have learned that the men who say they want and appear to only want to do good, are often really doing quite the opposite. Fathers, leaders, priests.
Except in Injustice!
A m a z i n g !!!
Thank you for the analyzes, i kinda needed that, the points you make really makes one wonder why Superman, and the "Altruistic character" are not so popular anymore, and even seem as childish.
Great video! And I agree about your general point, but I must say something (Something that might be seen as a defense of the Superman-haters, but it's really not):
The difference between Superman and other perfect superheroes is the fact that he's both all-powerful AND all-good. Thor and Hulk are all-powerful, but they're not all-good - Thor begins his story as a "vain, greedy, cruel boy", and Hulk is literally a monster. Characters like Captain America, on the other hand, are all-good, but they're not all-powerful - Cap will always choose to make the right choice, but he doesn't always have the power to do so. Superman is the only major superhero that's THIS close to perfection, and this DOES raise a potential problem - if the hero is all-powerful AND all-good, then where is the conflict of the story?
That is an issue... But it's also a strength. After all... Why do we watch stories about superheroes at all? Why not watch stories about normal people? The answer: Because superheroes are about FANTASY - they give us the things that we want and can never have. Batman gives us the fantasy that we can achieve anything through sheer force of will, and that bad guys will get what they deserve. Iron Man gives us the fantasy that we can achieve anything through logic, and that bad people can redeem themselves. Captain America gives us the fantasy that goodness will be rewarded, and that the little guys can be the heroes. and Superman? Superman gives us the BEST fantasy - the fantasy that absolute power does NOT corrupt absolutely. The fantasy that you can be all-powerful AND all-good at the same time. He gives us the fantasy that there's someone out there who will always save us when we fall, because he's unbeatable and incorruptible. Is it unrealistic? Yes. But THAT'S THE POINT. That's the appeal of superheroes - they're fantastical.
Captain Marvel*
Good video.
Renegade Cut people just really hate the fact he's called Shazam now.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Marvel_(DC_Comics)
We are both getting info odd wiki so whatever.
Rothur The Paladin Major L
the real reason Captain Marvel is now "shazam" is a) dc got boned on the name by marvel and b) ppl nowadays are to stupid to understand that Shazam is the wizard, not the hero. and i could care less for the bs excuse the morons in charge of dc say. they didn't create him, they stole him from Fawcett.
CthulhuChow It's not stealing if it was legally stolen.
Yeah, I never get it when people say Superman is unrelatable or uninteresting. I think millenials are just ridiculously cynical, and are raised to believe that no person can be completely good and that goodness is an idea that should be taken with extreme skepticism. That's not saying the whole escalation of Superman's powers over the years isn't ever a problem to creating good stories, but that's more superficial.
A lot of Gen X'ers feel similar about Superman.
It really isn't a millennial thing. As a millennial who is a Superman fan (thanks to Christopher Reeve) I would constantly hear lots of people trash Superman in those ways and quite few of them were Gen X'ers and Boomers.
And Zack Snyder doesn't understand any of this!
First act was brilliant but the rest has dated badly, with Reeves being the consistently good part of it. I love Gene Hackman but he was way too over the top in this to be taken seriously as a threat.
I find jarring that without even questioning or looking at it, this analysis goes with the default idea that he is Superman first and foremost and Clark Kent a distant second.
Pre-1987, that is the way that it was. Superman often said in the comics that "Clark Kent is a disguise". You see it in the film, in Metropolis he hunches, speaks with a stuttering wimpy tone, acts clumsy. It's an act.
It was the 1987 story Man of Steel that flipped it and made it "Clark Kent is who I am. Superman is just what I can do". This was more a throwback to the original Superman of the 40's and 50's. Then it was just a costume change. Clark Kent was very much the same person that Superman was with a slightly different tone. (with was invented for radio Program of the 30's and 40's) "This looks like a job, (his voice deepens) FOR SUPERMAN". With Superman he puffs his chest a little so that identity was more of an act in the Golden age. Though looking at the earliest stories, his parents where not very important in his life, or didn't exist at all until the SuperBOY comics which contradicted the earliest stories.
But to your point, I prefer the Clark first mentality and that who raised him and how are the primary things that make him super. Biology and our yellow sun don't mean nothing if he isn't raised right and now how to relate to us, to see himself as one of us.