Nah I think there's a 100 different ways a Superman movie could be done right. Though imo it is hard to make a movie about him using same super hero movie formula that we've been seeing, simply as you said he's just too powerful and his weakness too specific and corny.
I don't think the issue is "getting" the source material. I really think the issue is the source material. There is simply not much that is terribly interesting about most DC mainstay heros. Batman being the obvious exception of course. I just can't think of a single thing that is compelling about Superman as a character. MoS had a brief glimpse of of on Krypton but then nothing was really interesting after that. Superman as a character is just written into a corner where nothing is threatening to him aside from macguffins and there is no real reason why he can't just punch his way out of any situation.
There are decades of source material for the characters. If Superman didn't have anything compelling about him, he wouldn't be so popular and iconic to begin with.
If Marvel can successfully create and market a movie with a talking raccoon and tree to the general audience, there is no excuse for WB/DC failing to deliver the goods on MoS and BvS.
There are decades of source material for the characters. If Superman didn't have anything compelling about him, he wouldn't be so popular and iconic to begin with.
He is popular and iconic partly (possibly mostly) because he was the first superhero. Let me ask you this. What do you find interesting about Superman?
There are decades of source material for the characters. If Superman didn't have anything compelling about him, he wouldn't be so popular and iconic to begin with.
He is popular and iconic partly (possibly mostly) because he was the first superhero. Let me ask you this. What do you find interesting about Superman?
Done correctly, he's the nicest guy in the world and he's constantly trying to help people. That's also actually part of why I like the Marvel Movie's Captain America.
Snyder's Superman loses so much kindness for the sake of gritty explosion spectacle.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
There are decades of source material for the characters. If Superman didn't have anything compelling about him, he wouldn't be so popular and iconic to begin with.
He is popular and iconic partly (possibly mostly) because he was the first superhero. Let me ask you this. What do you find interesting about Superman?
Done correctly, he's the nicest guy in the world and he's constantly trying to help people. That's actually part of why I like the Marvel Movie's Captain America.
Snyder's Superman loses so much kindness for the sake of gritty explosion spectacle.
Is there a way you can highlight that attribute without it coming of as campy? I am not saying that it needs to be dark or super serious but I don't think a superhero movie could be campy in this day and age.
Is there a way you can highlight that attribute without it coming of as campy? I am not saying that it needs to be dark or super serious but I don't think a superhero movie could be campy in this day and age.
Probably they'd have to shift the focus down from huge cities burning to a smaller scale. They could probably lift some humor styles from the Marvel movies: again, Captain America does the "really nice guy, is also a superhero" really well. The writers got some jokes and a bit of extra characterization from that kindness out of the elevator fight scene in The Winter Soldier. [reminder link]
Also, I feel Deadpool is pretty campy. It's a very silly movie, it's just also got lots of violence and sex.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Is there a way you can highlight that attribute without it coming of as campy? I am not saying that it needs to be dark or super serious but I don't think a superhero movie could be campy in this day and age.
Probably they'd have to shift the focus down from huge cities burning to a smaller scale. They could probably lift some humor styles from the Marvel movies: again, Captain America does the "really nice guy, is also a superhero" really well. The writers got some jokes and a bit of extra characterization from that kindness out of the elevator fight scene in The Winter Soldier. [reminder link]
Also, I feel Deadpool is pretty campy. It's a very silly movie, it's just also got lots of violence and sex.
There is a difference between being campy and being irreverent. As far as shifting focus downward I am not sure how that could be done with someone as powerful as Superman. What small focus issues could he fight that he would not instantly overcome?
Is there a way you can highlight that attribute without it coming of as campy? I am not saying that it needs to be dark or super serious but I don't think a superhero movie could be campy in this day and age.
Probably they'd have to shift the focus down from huge cities burning to a smaller scale. They could probably lift some humor styles from the Marvel movies: again, Captain America does the "really nice guy, is also a superhero" really well. The writers got some jokes and a bit of extra characterization from that kindness out of the elevator fight scene in The Winter Soldier. [reminder link]
Also, I feel Deadpool is pretty campy. It's a very silly movie, it's just also got lots of violence and sex.
There is a difference between being campy and being irreverent. As far as shifting focus downward I am not sure how that could be done with someone as powerful as Superman. What small focus issues could he fight that he would not instantly overcome?
Mental health and suicide. Mass incarceration and extralegal murder of minority groups (not a small issue, but one that can't be punched away easily). Both of those were plotlines in the comics. The first one is often hailed as one of the better issues [questionably legal link], and the second made Fox News really mad (which was hilarious).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Mental health and suicide. Mass incarceration and extralegal murder of minority groups (not a small issue, but one that can't be punched away easily). Both of those were plotlines in the comics. The first one is often hailed as one of the better issues [questionably legal link], and the second made Fox News really mad (which was hilarious).
Very interesting comic strip thanks for that. Unfortunately I am not sure that kind of stuff could be a feature length film.
Mental health and suicide. Mass incarceration and extralegal murder of minority groups (not a small issue, but one that can't be punched away easily). Both of those were plotlines in the comics. The first one is often hailed as one of the better issues [questionably legal link], and the second made Fox News really mad (which was hilarious).
Very interesting comic strip thanks for that. Unfortunately I am not sure that kind of stuff could be a feature length film.
They could (for example) make the film a week in the life of Superman, with scenes of varying content strung together by an overlying threat (eg Supes is going to die because alien bull*****, so he's helping people before he dies) and leading into a final knock down fight that clears up that threat. Idk. Give me a few million and a team of co-writers and I'll see what I can do.
Mental health and suicide. Mass incarceration and extralegal murder of minority groups (not a small issue, but one that can't be punched away easily). Both of those were plotlines in the comics. The first one is often hailed as one of the better issues [questionably legal link], and the second made Fox News really mad (which was hilarious).
Very interesting comic strip thanks for that. Unfortunately I am not sure that kind of stuff could be a feature length film.
They could (for example) make the film a week in the life of Superman, with scenes of varying content strung together by an overlying threat (eg Supes is going to die because alien bull*****, so he's helping people before he dies) and leading into a final knock down fight that clears up that threat. Idk. Give me a few million and a team of co-writers and I'll see what I can do.
Now that does indeed sound like an interesting concept for a film.
Mental health and suicide. Mass incarceration and extralegal murder of minority groups (not a small issue, but one that can't be punched away easily). Both of those were plotlines in the comics. The first one is often hailed as one of the better issues [questionably legal link], and the second made Fox News really mad (which was hilarious).
Very interesting comic strip thanks for that. Unfortunately I am not sure that kind of stuff could be a feature length film.
They could (for example) make the film a week in the life of Superman, with scenes of varying content strung together by an overlying threat (eg Supes is going to die because alien bull*****, so he's helping people before he dies) and leading into a final knock down fight that clears up that threat. Idk. Give me a few million and a team of co-writers and I'll see what I can do.
EDIT: :3
I don't think you even need the alien threat. Build a new type of superhero story. One not defined by the fight scenes and the action, but by the emotion and humanity of the hero. Have Superman in his life, trying to do good; while up against Lex Luthor. The conflict is that Lex believes the worst in humanity, Superman the best in them. Let him be a symbol for hope, a symbol against oppression, against the things we can never truly defeat but can keep trying to. The climax isn't Lex in a kryptonite suit trying to kill Superman, because Superman could beat him in a second. But he won't, because he is Superman. He works to expose Lex's misdeeds as Clark Kent, and he fights Lex's ideology as Superman. The climax is the two of them talking, culminating in some sort of scene that shows the best in humanity. Not every film has to be a high budget action flick, why not tell a human story.
Anyone thinking Superman is inherently boring because he's too powerful is looking at the character the wrong way. The drama doesn't come from his powers and his fights, it comes from his humanity and the constant emotional turmoil he lives with.
Superman is a guy who has nearly god like powers and could easily rule the world but doesn't. Instead he chooses to use his powers for good and to be a beacon of hope and morality to the world. And the kicker is, he doesn't want to do either! He he just wants to live a normal life, fit in, and not have the constant weight on his shoulders that being Superman creates.
The conflict in the story could be coming from people at large, and western governments, urging him to do more. To intervene in various military conflicts around the world and stop the evil bad guys and things of that nature (which could be done really well given today's geo-political landscape). This could make for a great movie with compelling drama because those are things Superman would never do because he knows it's not his place. He's not one to impose his will and beliefs and world views with force on people who disagree with him. That's not how the good guy does it. And while not intervening there's the inner turmoil because deep down he wants to reshape the world but he doesn't because it's not the right thing to do morally. He's not human so it's really not his place to dictate how the human race evolves and interacts with each other and governs each other. This is why he is force to deal with the micro and not the macro. Saving lives and stopping minor crimes is ok but taking down governments isn't.
This all leads into the drama of his relationship with Lex. Because unlike Superman, Lex would use the power to rule the world. And since he thinks this way, he is convinced that it's only a matter of time before Superman changes his tune and takes over. And in Lex's mind the only one on the planet fit to do that is Lex.
If the writers focused on these aspects of the characters the movie would be a hit and it would resonate with people. And it would still have room for Superman to show off his powers doing his thing saving lives. The climax could be some sort of evil plan hatched by Lex to make Superman look like the bad guy to the public by framing him for some sort of calamity that has Superman zipping around the world trying to stop.
Basically...to do Superman right his powers have to be a part of the story, not the reason for the story. The focus needs to be on the man, not the super hero.
Also the way Pa Kent is written in MoS is completely wrong. That just bugs me.
Superman is a guy who has nearly god like powers and could easily rule the world but doesn't. Instead he chooses to use his powers for good and to be a beacon of hope and morality to the world. And the kicker is, he doesn't want to do either! He he just wants to live a normal life, fit in, and not have the constant weight on his shoulders that being Superman creates.
I have to take issue with this. Superman fundamentally likes being Superman. Sometimes the responsibilities he takes on become onerous, of course, but he doesn't have that "I wish I didn't have powers" angst going on. (That's more the X-Men's schtick.) When Superman loses his powers or is forced to give them up for some reason, his emotional reaction is almost always the same: (a) frustration that he is no longer able to help people as effectively; and (b) resolve to continue helping people regardless. Superman's characterization has changed dramatically over the decades, but this has been a constant since "The K-Metal from Krypton" in 1940.
The conflict in the story could be coming from people at large, and western governments, urging him to do more. To intervene in various military conflicts around the world and stop the evil bad guys and things of that nature (which could be done really well given today's geo-political landscape). This could make for a great movie with compelling drama because those are things Superman would never do because he knows it's not his place. He's not one to impose his will and beliefs and world views with force on people who disagree with him. That's not how the good guy does it.
This is a really complicated issue, and different writers in different eras have handled it in different ways. The Golden Age had to come up with excuses for why Superman didn't just fly over and grab Hitler, in order to maintain some verisimilitude between the comics and the real world -- his nonintervention arose from practical concerns. Then, in the Silver Age he was portrayed as basically an agent of the American government, back when the comics were intended to be read by ten-year-olds and were more "Gee whiz, Mr. President!" than Bay of Pigs.
But as the readership has gotten older and the Zeitgeist has turned against trusting the government, the modern Superman is generally established to be a man who doesn't take orders from Washington and acts only according to his own conscience. What that means depends on the writer's politics, in particular how he thinks Uncle Sam is screwing things up this time. Is America being too assertive and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? Then some general will demand that Superman assist in some military intervention, and Superman will pointedly refuse. Or is America being too cautious and doing what's easy at the expense of what's right? Then some senator will demand that Superman overlook a human-rights crisis because his intervention would be embarrassing, and Superman will pointedly intervene.
This latter arc, you'll notice, was a subplot in Batman v. Superman. And shoddily written as it was, that doesn't make the basic outline a bad one. I don't think many people these days would expect Superman to go unilaterally topple the North Korean government. But it's hard to imagine Clark Kent watching ISIS indiscriminately murder innocents on the news and not flying over there to stop it because that would be "imposing". Hell, he fights fictional terrorist organizations all the time. The reason we don't see Superman fighting ISIS, or fishing Osama bin Laden out of his hole, is the same reason readers didn't see Superman capturing Hitler in 1941 -- real-world writer practicality, not in-character principles.
And then we get to the difficult questions, the ones for which there are no good answers and hence the ones that can, written properly, be rich sources of drama. For example: what would Superman have done if he were around on June 4, 1989?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He is popular and iconic partly (possibly mostly) because he was the first superhero. Let me ask you this. What do you find interesting about Superman?
Superman is a humble man from a small town in Kansas who learns that he is one of the only survivors of a lost world. In this moment, Superman learns his parents are not his biological parents, his home of Smallville not his original home, Earth is not his original planet. He has been given the identity of Clark Kent by his Earth parents, but he is also Kal-El, an alien from the planet Krypton who, through his alien origins, has boundless power.
Yet, his reaction to this is to continue living as a human being and dedicating his life to helping people. Far from desiring power, Clark Kent not only does not desire to be a god, he actually fears what his powers could do if unleashed upon the human race, and thus restrains himself from ever using them fully. He views his powers as instruments to allow him to help others.
He is popular and iconic partly (possibly mostly) because he was the first superhero. Let me ask you this. What do you find interesting about Superman?
Superman is a humble man from a small town in Kansas who learns that he is one of the only survivors of a lost world. In this moment, Superman learns his parents are not his biological parents, his home of Smallville not his original home, Earth is not his original planet. He has been given the identity of Clark Kent by his Earth parents, but he is also Kal-El, an alien from the planet Krypton who, through his alien origins, has boundless power.
Yet, his reaction to this is to continue living as a human being and dedicating his life to helping people. Far from desiring power, Clark Kent not only does not desire to be a god, he actually fears what his powers could do if unleashed upon the human race, and thus restrains himself from ever using them fully. He views his powers as instruments to allow him to help others.
You don't find that interesting?
It is not an uninteresting backstory I will give you that, but what about him as a character is interesting? What would make you want to see a film about superman and not just a different superhero with a similar backstory and powers?(untold examples of which exist in the annals of comic book history.)
It is not an uninteresting backstory I will give you that, but what about him as a character is interesting? What would make you want to see a film about superman and not just a different superhero with a similar backstory and powers?(untold examples of which exist in the annals of comic book history.)
Erm...
Quote from Highroller »
Yet, his reaction to this is to continue living as a human being and dedicating his life to helping people. Far from desiring power, Clark Kent not only does not desire to be a god, he actually fears what his powers could do if unleashed upon the human race, and thus restrains himself from ever using them fully. He views his powers as instruments to allow him to help others.
He is popular and iconic partly (possibly mostly) because he was the first superhero. Let me ask you this. What do you find interesting about Superman?
Superman is a humble man from a small town in Kansas who learns that he is one of the only survivors of a lost world. In this moment, Superman learns his parents are not his biological parents, his home of Smallville not his original home, Earth is not his original planet. He has been given the identity of Clark Kent by his Earth parents, but he is also Kal-El, an alien from the planet Krypton who, through his alien origins, has boundless power.
Yet, his reaction to this is to continue living as a human being and dedicating his life to helping people. Far from desiring power, Clark Kent not only does not desire to be a god, he actually fears what his powers could do if unleashed upon the human race, and thus restrains himself from ever using them fully. He views his powers as instruments to allow him to help others.
You don't find that interesting?
It is not an uninteresting backstory I will give you that, but what about him as a character is interesting? What would make you want to see a film about superman and not just a different superhero with a similar backstory and powers?(untold examples of which exist in the annals of comic book history.)
Superman has never been interesting because of what he can do, he's interesting (when written well) because of what he can do but chooses not to do. He could easily take over the world and enslave humanity but he doesn't. He struggles with being the ultimate outsider. It's a fish out of water story on an epic scale.
As I and others in this thread have pointed out, read All Star Superman. You could also read The Dark Knight Returns for an interesting take on Superman. There's plenty of stories about Superman that are shallow (him just punching stuff), but there's also plenty of interesting things to mine from the character and things that have been explored. Unfortunately, the interesting things that could be explored about Superman are brought up in one scene in Batman V Superman and then completely forgotten later in the film (for example, the idea of him being worshipped as a God or his two scenes of him struggling with the idea of even being Superman, both of which are abandoned without a satisfying conclusion because Zack Snyder and David Goyer have the story telling skills of four-year-olds).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
As I and others in this thread have pointed out, read All Star Superman. You could also read The Dark Knight Returns for an interesting take on Superman. There's plenty of stories about Superman that are shallow (him just punching stuff), but there's also plenty of interesting things to mine from the character and things that have been explored. Unfortunately, the interesting things that could be explored about Superman are brought up in one scene in Batman V Superman and then completely forgotten later in the film (for example, the idea of him being worshipped as a God or his two scenes of him struggling with the idea of even being Superman, both of which are abandoned without a satisfying conclusion because Zack Snyder and David Goyer have the story telling skills of four-year-olds).
Yeah. Lex (ugh) even has a line in the movie about Superman not being a god, but rather just a man who's trying to figure out good and evil just like the rest of us. He means it as an insult, but that's kind of the core of what makes Superman so relatable in spite of his vast power. He does not have a direct line to Jesus Christ. He does not always see clearly the moral course of action. He's a good man, but he's still just a man. And he is aware of his limitations, and from this humility stems much of his restraint. To go back to an earlier example, he doesn't refrain from taking down the North Korean government because he knows that intervention is not the right thing to do. He refrains from taking down the North Korean government because he doesn't know that intervention is the right thing to do.
In short, Siegel and Schuster were giving Nietzsche a very deliberate poke in the eye when they called him "Superman".
But at the same time, he doesn't let his uncertainty paralyze him, either. There are some things he is certain of: that love and kindness and fair play are right, that theft and bullying and murder are wrong. That's where he becomes inspirational. He's in the same epistemic boat as everybody else, and he still finds ways to make the world a better place. Not because he has powers, but because he has values.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As I and others in this thread have pointed out, read All Star Superman. You could also read The Dark Knight Returns for an interesting take on Superman. There's plenty of stories about Superman that are shallow (him just punching stuff), but there's also plenty of interesting things to mine from the character and things that have been explored. Unfortunately, the interesting things that could be explored about Superman are brought up in one scene in Batman V Superman and then completely forgotten later in the film (for example, the idea of him being worshipped as a God or his two scenes of him struggling with the idea of even being Superman, both of which are abandoned without a satisfying conclusion because Zack Snyder and David Goyer have the story telling skills of four-year-olds).
This is what seriously pissed me off about this film.
Snyder effectively spends a lot of time philosophizing about what Superman means to the entire world and what being Superman means to Clark Kent and the people he knows. I liked where this was going. I really liked where he seemed to be going with with Superman saving Lois Lane and then inadvertently causing a bunch of civilians to be killed. Yes, Luthor was the instigator of that whole mess, but the question of who Superman is and what he should be doing was an interesting one.
And then the film pretty much devolves into a JLA set-up and people hitting each other for no purpose whatsoever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are decades of source material for the characters. If Superman didn't have anything compelling about him, he wouldn't be so popular and iconic to begin with.
If Marvel can successfully create and market a movie with a talking raccoon and tree to the general audience, there is no excuse for WB/DC failing to deliver the goods on MoS and BvS.
Snyder's Superman loses so much kindness for the sake of gritty explosion spectacle.
Art is life itself.
Also, I feel Deadpool is pretty campy. It's a very silly movie, it's just also got lots of violence and sex.
Art is life itself.
Art is life itself.
EDIT: :3
Art is life itself.
I don't think you even need the alien threat. Build a new type of superhero story. One not defined by the fight scenes and the action, but by the emotion and humanity of the hero. Have Superman in his life, trying to do good; while up against Lex Luthor. The conflict is that Lex believes the worst in humanity, Superman the best in them. Let him be a symbol for hope, a symbol against oppression, against the things we can never truly defeat but can keep trying to. The climax isn't Lex in a kryptonite suit trying to kill Superman, because Superman could beat him in a second. But he won't, because he is Superman. He works to expose Lex's misdeeds as Clark Kent, and he fights Lex's ideology as Superman. The climax is the two of them talking, culminating in some sort of scene that shows the best in humanity. Not every film has to be a high budget action flick, why not tell a human story.
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Art is life itself.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
Well that explains where I got my idea.
Anyone thinking Superman is inherently boring because he's too powerful is looking at the character the wrong way. The drama doesn't come from his powers and his fights, it comes from his humanity and the constant emotional turmoil he lives with.
Superman is a guy who has nearly god like powers and could easily rule the world but doesn't. Instead he chooses to use his powers for good and to be a beacon of hope and morality to the world. And the kicker is, he doesn't want to do either! He he just wants to live a normal life, fit in, and not have the constant weight on his shoulders that being Superman creates.
The conflict in the story could be coming from people at large, and western governments, urging him to do more. To intervene in various military conflicts around the world and stop the evil bad guys and things of that nature (which could be done really well given today's geo-political landscape). This could make for a great movie with compelling drama because those are things Superman would never do because he knows it's not his place. He's not one to impose his will and beliefs and world views with force on people who disagree with him. That's not how the good guy does it. And while not intervening there's the inner turmoil because deep down he wants to reshape the world but he doesn't because it's not the right thing to do morally. He's not human so it's really not his place to dictate how the human race evolves and interacts with each other and governs each other. This is why he is force to deal with the micro and not the macro. Saving lives and stopping minor crimes is ok but taking down governments isn't.
This all leads into the drama of his relationship with Lex. Because unlike Superman, Lex would use the power to rule the world. And since he thinks this way, he is convinced that it's only a matter of time before Superman changes his tune and takes over. And in Lex's mind the only one on the planet fit to do that is Lex.
If the writers focused on these aspects of the characters the movie would be a hit and it would resonate with people. And it would still have room for Superman to show off his powers doing his thing saving lives. The climax could be some sort of evil plan hatched by Lex to make Superman look like the bad guy to the public by framing him for some sort of calamity that has Superman zipping around the world trying to stop.
Basically...to do Superman right his powers have to be a part of the story, not the reason for the story. The focus needs to be on the man, not the super hero.
Also the way Pa Kent is written in MoS is completely wrong. That just bugs me.
This is a really complicated issue, and different writers in different eras have handled it in different ways. The Golden Age had to come up with excuses for why Superman didn't just fly over and grab Hitler, in order to maintain some verisimilitude between the comics and the real world -- his nonintervention arose from practical concerns. Then, in the Silver Age he was portrayed as basically an agent of the American government, back when the comics were intended to be read by ten-year-olds and were more "Gee whiz, Mr. President!" than Bay of Pigs.
But as the readership has gotten older and the Zeitgeist has turned against trusting the government, the modern Superman is generally established to be a man who doesn't take orders from Washington and acts only according to his own conscience. What that means depends on the writer's politics, in particular how he thinks Uncle Sam is screwing things up this time. Is America being too assertive and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? Then some general will demand that Superman assist in some military intervention, and Superman will pointedly refuse. Or is America being too cautious and doing what's easy at the expense of what's right? Then some senator will demand that Superman overlook a human-rights crisis because his intervention would be embarrassing, and Superman will pointedly intervene.
This latter arc, you'll notice, was a subplot in Batman v. Superman. And shoddily written as it was, that doesn't make the basic outline a bad one. I don't think many people these days would expect Superman to go unilaterally topple the North Korean government. But it's hard to imagine Clark Kent watching ISIS indiscriminately murder innocents on the news and not flying over there to stop it because that would be "imposing". Hell, he fights fictional terrorist organizations all the time. The reason we don't see Superman fighting ISIS, or fishing Osama bin Laden out of his hole, is the same reason readers didn't see Superman capturing Hitler in 1941 -- real-world writer practicality, not in-character principles.
And then we get to the difficult questions, the ones for which there are no good answers and hence the ones that can, written properly, be rich sources of drama. For example: what would Superman have done if he were around on June 4, 1989?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yet, his reaction to this is to continue living as a human being and dedicating his life to helping people. Far from desiring power, Clark Kent not only does not desire to be a god, he actually fears what his powers could do if unleashed upon the human race, and thus restrains himself from ever using them fully. He views his powers as instruments to allow him to help others.
You don't find that interesting?
I've already answered that.
Superman has never been interesting because of what he can do, he's interesting (when written well) because of what he can do but chooses not to do. He could easily take over the world and enslave humanity but he doesn't. He struggles with being the ultimate outsider. It's a fish out of water story on an epic scale.
As I and others in this thread have pointed out, read All Star Superman. You could also read The Dark Knight Returns for an interesting take on Superman. There's plenty of stories about Superman that are shallow (him just punching stuff), but there's also plenty of interesting things to mine from the character and things that have been explored. Unfortunately, the interesting things that could be explored about Superman are brought up in one scene in Batman V Superman and then completely forgotten later in the film (for example, the idea of him being worshipped as a God or his two scenes of him struggling with the idea of even being Superman, both of which are abandoned without a satisfying conclusion because Zack Snyder and David Goyer have the story telling skills of four-year-olds).
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
In short, Siegel and Schuster were giving Nietzsche a very deliberate poke in the eye when they called him "Superman".
But at the same time, he doesn't let his uncertainty paralyze him, either. There are some things he is certain of: that love and kindness and fair play are right, that theft and bullying and murder are wrong. That's where he becomes inspirational. He's in the same epistemic boat as everybody else, and he still finds ways to make the world a better place. Not because he has powers, but because he has values.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is what seriously pissed me off about this film.
Snyder effectively spends a lot of time philosophizing about what Superman means to the entire world and what being Superman means to Clark Kent and the people he knows. I liked where this was going. I really liked where he seemed to be going with with Superman saving Lois Lane and then inadvertently causing a bunch of civilians to be killed. Yes, Luthor was the instigator of that whole mess, but the question of who Superman is and what he should be doing was an interesting one.
And then the film pretty much devolves into a JLA set-up and people hitting each other for no purpose whatsoever.