Please people, we all the know the real best superhero is Aquaman.

YES!

You're my new best friend new. Wait, never mind. You're that guy who keeps on trying to put me in jail.

So anyway, I'm glad that we've come to some sort of mutual respect and understanding of each other's views. I'm not out there to convert anyone (conversion of this type should properly be done through one of those "A ha!" moments while watching or reading a Superman story, which is what happened with me and the first episode of Smallville), but it's nice when I can help people consider the relevance of Superman in the comic-book world, and so that the pillars of the comic book narrative gain their proper respect for what they are, regardless of whether we love them or not. I remember when Entertainment Weekly published its list of greatest popular culture heroes of all time, and it put Superman at number three. I was a bit incredulous at first, but my mother said "Trust me, everyone at one time has put on a cape and pretended to fly", and the more I see it, the more I understand how he fits up there with James Bond and Indiana Jones as a strong character and symbol. It's worthwhile to note that this was even back in 2009, when two of the Dark Knight movies had come out, and Batman was at 19 and Spiderman was at 10. I certainly question some of the people put above Batman, though. I mean, Foxy Brown? They could have thought of other people to back the list. But stuff like Captain Kirk I agree with.

Anyway, Superman is consistently put high on any list and always put at #1 on lists regarding comic book characters. People wonder why, and some people say that it should be Batman, but there's a reason for him being where he is, and that's because the spot naturally belongs to him. He's the #1 superhero, and that's just the way it is. There are others who come up with really cool stories, but Superman's will always be the quintessential story, and he's the face for the comic book world at large. For those who question that, or even vehemently complain about it (or even brood over it), I wish to make the case that he belongs there. And Batman, in spite of my cautionary attitude toward him, definitely belongs in the top three, objectively speaking. But he's no the man with the superpowers. He's the action hero. We've seen action heroes plenty of times. He could be the face of action heroes if it wasn't for the John McClains and the Rocky Balboas and the Rambos and the Ellen Ripleys that more properly define the genres. For which Batman isn't quintessential of either genre, and creates a hybrid. He's the action hero and the detective brought into the superhero world, which is Superman's world. Yet, of all the hybrids that are out there, he has found success and rose the ranks to become one of the most significant superheroes out there.

Because of his staying power, we got Superman Returns. That might have not been perfect, but people wanted that tribute to the original. There was something lasting about it, something timeless, and another installment could be done. The Tim Burton films didn't have that immediate sense of "Wow, this is Batman in the flesh." Nolan was fortunate that no other version of Batman was quite like the the Superman movies in terms of just how beloved the main character and the actor who portrayed Superman were, so that was much more readily given up for complete reimagination. The original Superman movies, however, were a testament of how the golden age of cinema could still exist in today's world. Returns managed to keep that classic cinema alive, and for that I am grateful, if not sad that people turned on it. now the faults of the movie are associated with its style. It's still a worthy tribute, but its faults are definitely beyond debate.

I, too, recall the problems within. This was, of course, something I thought was stupid, but while watching it I kept in mind the question of whether or not my mother would like it, and up until the point where Superman's parenthood was confirmed, I thought she would. Then he was represented as a father, and in a really terrible fashion. He felt more like a teenager and not really as a manly figure, and I really didn't think that this part of his journey was appropriate, or at least not until the actor grew older. That was the single worst part of the movie.

The depiction of Lex Luthor, while not ideal, was as good as it could get, and certainly appropriate, given that it was still within the same storytelling structure of the original two movies, and I understand completely why the original Gene Hackman version was more flamboyant, because it was the seventies, and even then the movies had a sense of old school Hollywood about them, which for the first incarnation of Superman ever on screen was appropriate. It's hardly my favorite depiction of Lex Luthor, but somehow he still manages to remain beloved by me. Seeing only that, I can understand how some people might really misunderstand what Lex Luthor's character is supposed to mean.

However, over time I have decided to focus more on the film's positive aspects and leave the things that I didn't like on the back burner, since they weren't what was intended to define the film. They weren't part of the bigger picture for the director's vision. I'm presuming that the director's vision and what was relevant to him was that he could convey what he had in the teaser trailer, and what the teaser trailer let on was incredibly good. Too bad a really bad plot twist ended it on a foul note, as well as the stalking. I don't want to blame Bryan Singer for that, but he's one of the three people credited for writing the script. Between the three, I really want to know who to blame to I can throw tomatoes at him.

As for Portalfig's two cents: You do sum it all up - everything in my blog is one giant wall of text! You know, I've considered changing my username to Wall of Text these last few days and it gets funnier the more I think about it.

Actually, even though that idea's been done a number of times, it's cool to see that poster, and you're right in that it really says something about Superman's character. This doesn't quite sum up my wall of text; it more specifically addresses the point about him not being above the law. But it's still interesting to see what this might predict about the movie.

24601

In favor of Luthor:

The Joker is often interpreted to represent chaos as opposed to Batman's order. Batman works ceaselessly to replace chaos on the streets with his version of order (law does not necessarily come with it, though. Until he got government endorsement with the Justice League, he was technically an outlaw.)

Luthor on the other hand, represents corruption as opposed to Superman's purity. Superman is incorruptible, always supportive of what is right, even if it is inconvenient towards fighting criminals like Luthor. Luthor, by representing corruption, shows the one thing that Superman can't fight directly. Luthor circumvents the law where Superman allows the law to take first place. Luthor causes politics and business that he engages to corrupt through bribery and graft, while Superman works to clean Metropolis of Luthor's organizations. And most of all, Luthor tries to corrupt the people that Superman works to motivate to do right.

For instance, they can be compared to Mr. Potter and George Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life. Bailey gives up his dreams and works to save his town from Potter's corrupt business dealings, and it turns out that without that purifying agent, Bedford Falls would have turned into the slum of Pottersville. Superman, like George Bailey, is the purifying agent of Metropolis, and the world in general, and motivate the people to resist what Luthor would turn their society into if given the chance.