Gods, the Übermensch, and the "Unrelatable" Nature of Superman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Why is Superman considered “unrelatable” by so many? This look into his history and philosophy ponders why.
All third party clips are used under Fair Use.
Follow me on Twitter: / kylekallgren
Tumblr: / actuallykylekallgren
Support me on Patreon: / kkallgren
I think this whole video is kind of ignoring Clark's parents part in defining Superman. Zack says his aversion to killing is "unexplained", but it's not: it's just part of how he was raised. Superman might not be human, but he was raised on human values, and *that's* what makes him super.
His powers are alien. His heroism is not.
Thank you! I was thinking back to Linkara's comments on the matter of that whole "Kent is a parody of humans" clip and how bs it is the whole time. Clark was raised human and has fundamentally human instincts. He's no less human that anyone with a disability or innate talent. He's just another decent human being trying to help the world using what means he has. The idea that he needs a reason to not be antisocial, violent, perverse, or megalomaniacal that is above the reasons we'd expect other people to hold feels hypocritical.
Snyder comes from an era of cynicism and believes that nobody can be good unless they have a VERY GOOD REASON.
This is going to sound silly, but thank you
Snyder sent Superman to the modern heartland, where Randian objectivism has infected the once altruistic worldview of middle America. Superman can't learn morality from the Kents because the Kents of today would vote for Lex Luthor as president. He is stuck having to discover his core virtues instead through trial and error.
How can heroism exist without sacrifice ?
Not ashamed to say that I teared up at the end.
Superman was, for me, the biggest formative influence I had from fiction growing up. As someone who grew up with undiagnosed Aspergers, dealing with intense emotions day-after-day and not knowing what to make of them, I saw a little of myself in it. I cried when I saw people get hurt - felt their pain as though it were my own, and needed to be calmed down. I thought something was wrong with me. After all, how could everyone else go through life without breaking down under the weight of it all but I could not?
Superman provided me with an alternative; the idea that caring so deeply for others that it moved you could be a GOOD thing. I saw in him someone that cared so much about others, felt their pain so acutely that he couldn't stand by, and the world was a better place for it. I wanted to be like him.
Superman did for me what he does for those in the comics. He offered me a guiding light, and an example to follow. I'm not perfect, but he made me want to be better.
That's what makes this modern idea that Superman's goodness is unrelatble so painful to me. That somehow, by virtue of being powerful and kind, he cannot be real. That everything I looked up to and aspired to is somehow wrong, because no one can buy into the idea of altruism anymore.
I hope that some day, people can believe in decency again.
cryptidsci56 Now that's something I can really get behind I am with you 100%
BoMah:) so what's the plan petition for a reboot and and organizing the fanbase
BoMah:), but for me, that's exactly what Man of Steel did. It did exactly that for me. Sucks it didn't work out that for anyone else.
And I don't think there's a need to reboot, honestly.
Have you read American Alien? It's not perfect, but it's not cynical, which makes it great.
"It's not that we can't believe a man can fly. We can't even believe that a man can know that it's wrong to kill."
This is so sad.
How is that sad? That's perfectly realistic.
@@TheGeorgeD13 Idk. Realistic isn't always happy it can be sad.
@@TheGeorgeD13 eres imbecil?
Superman having to kill Zod wasn't so he could learn that killing was wrong.
It was to engage, challenge and establish Superman's boundaries ~
We saw that Clark showed boundaries when he restrained himself during the bullying scene.
@@dignerds And besides, if he didn't kills Zod, Zod would just kill everyone
The ending was amazing. I literally gaped and "Ohhh"d. This did it for me. I finally pieced together what Nietzsche 's most famous quote actually meant. And you'd set it up beautifully and understatedly earlier in the video. This is possibly your greatest work in terms of construction. The final point didn't require any supplementary explanation. It all clicked together like a puzzle being given its final piece. Great work, Kyle.
This, coupled with this: ruclips.net/video/jG3bBnRPa_c/видео.html
Is it a wonder why Superman is not the perfect Superhero?
Superman is dead. Superman remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the critics of all critics? What was most virtuous and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our scrutiny: who will wipe this blood off us? What reboot is there for us to clean ourselves? What crossovers of atonement, what fanservice shall we have to invent?
Thinking of Superman as being dead is subjective ~ No one gets to declare this for someone else ~
What misgivings are there to be had with the DCEU. To me, the DCEU is a perfectly realistic interpretation of those heroes of what they would be like in our world. The Kents would be fearful and would parent the way they did in MOS. Superman would be pretty close to a sociopath. A god disconnected from humanity. Batman would eventually get corrupted and become a mass murderer. Batman would be the kinda psycho that would triggered by his mother's name. Our world is so desperately devoid of hope that the only reason Batman and Superman teamed up to save the world from Lex Luthor and Doomsday is by some coincidence that their mothers had the same name. Zack Snyder was given ONE JOB. To make a dark and gritty Superman movie. He did that correctly. He did TOO GOOD of a job, actually. Then he gave the most realistic Batman ever depicted.
So, why do you have misgivings? Makes zero sense to have misgivings, considering Warner Brothers' original goal with this universe was... Snyder did his job to the letter.
And we don't need a reboot. They scrapped Snyder's vision and he has ZERO say in JL and replaced it with the generic blockbuster shitfest of Marvel and other blockbuster franchises besides a couple actually legitimately good franchises. But Marvel is complete and utter shit that truly doesn't understand it's characters and doesn't take any narrative risks. DC at least has balls to do something like this. Sure, it completely backfired on them and as a business decision, it was a STUPID move, but I admired the ballsiness, nonetheless.
I will always appreciate this kind of thing over comic book accurate films as those tend to be shitfests.
George Daugherty But that's the whole reason why the DCEU sucks. These heroes are SUPPOSED TO represent ideals of higher morals, decency and altruism. No true fan of them wants a dark, cynical movie where their characterization is completely off the rails and they're all unrepentant psychopaths. Also, I fully disagree with even the idea that this is at all a realistic take on their characters. If we say that, then we say no one can be altruistic or decent, and absolutely no one can live their lives without murdering someone. That's fucking bullshit.
Batman = Ubermench
Superman= the Messiah
A fantastic movie that cuts right to the heart of Superman and how and why he works the way he does is Superman vs. the Elites. The movie is, essentially, a counter argument to those who say that Superman is unrealistic in the modern day and that heroes have to kill and be violent to be relevant to today's audience. The Elites are the definition of "modern" anti-heroes, gritty, power, violent, angry, nihilistic, and misanthropic and they are put as loggerheads with Superman who does things the "old-fashioned" way. The Elites are definitely powerful and everyone in the world, or at least everyone in America is pretty much on their side, but Superman manages to prove his point in the end and show that, even if his way seems unrealistic, maybe that makes it even more relevant than ever. I highly recommend anyone to check out the movie.
Reminds of the themes explored in the great comic Kingdom Come.
*****
Yeah, I know. :)
"What so funny about truth justice and the American way."
I saw it and disliked it a lot. The story is structured in such a way as to make those "modern" heroes the bad guys and to make Superman the good guy without seriously examining the morality of their positions. The reason why a character's moral position is right cannot be simply because of plot structure.
KAGEHOSHI, it wasn't because of plot structure AT ALL. You kind of need to watch the movie again.
I have heard dozens of people say that Superman is too powerful to be so good, that he's boring, that he's too powerful and perfect to be relateable. Every time I hear that, I say "A character is more than a list of abilities". Superman is not his powers any more than batman is a cape and cowl. People look at Cap and say "wow he's a complex figure who's evolved over time" , and he is, even though he's just as perfect and just as unobtainable as Superman. The source of the complaints is not about power. There are other equally powerful characters who people do relate to. It's not about struggling with what's right and wrong. Yes he's Superman, we know what he'll do in the end, but he struggles as much as other characters and more than some. It's not about lacking a nuanced personality. It's not about being a "boyscout". It's that he's an archetype in people's minds so that's all people see when they look at him, so they never look closer. Well, if you're not going to look into a character's depth, you're not going to find any.
Thank you so much
You know Synder, someone doesn't need to kill once to have an aversion to killing
+Cascade Hellsing Yea even if he didn't kill watching batman slaughter a billion people should have done it for him
+Cascade Hellsing I always think about Cassandra Cain, but that's how her character was. It made more sense for her case, but not for Superman.
+AnonJl1 Yea. Cass was brought up to kill, experienced it once, and in a moment of supreme empathy, turned her back on it forever. Superman was brought up to be good and empathic, and also an observer who sees the consequences of actions and reports on it as Clark Kent, he doesn't need to be shown it, he's seen it.
+Cascade Hellsing Doesn't it supposedly work the opposite way? A sane, moral human being is averse to killing, then is put in a situation where he/she has to kill over and over again before becoming desensitized to it? Even then, most characters have a very heavy set of jaded ethics dictating when it is and isn't permissible to kill.
Not to defend Snyder but, Superman does kills a lot in the comics, he kills Zod in the Christopher Reeves movie (funny how people seem to ignore that) and even in the animated series he send Zod to a black hole. So, where does people took the idea that Superman does not kill?
Superman does not kill HUMANS that is, because humans are weak, will be the equivalent to a human killing bunnies just for fun. But, a human killing another human in self defense or (like in the Snyder film) to save the live of some bunnies, there's the moral dilemma. Superman has to kill another of HIS species in order to save human lives, it is a hard choice for anyone, is a little like in Avatar when some humans side with the Na'vi against the US Army, a moral choice but not one that everyone will be willing to take.
I'd like to share my favourite quote about the nature of Superman, from Kingdom Come:
"Of all the things you can DO... All your POWERS... The GREATEST has always been your INSTINCTIVE KNOWLEDGE... Of RIGHT... And WRONG.
It was a GIFT of your OWN HUMANITY. You never had to QUESTION your CHOICES. In ANY SITUATION... Any CRISIS... You KNEW what to DO.
But the MINUTE you made the SUPER more important than the MAN... The day you decided to turn your BACK on MANKIND... That COMPLETELY COST you your instinct. THAT took your JUDGMENT away.
Take it BACK.
If you want REDEMPTION, Clark... It lies in the VERY NEXT DECISION you MAKE.
Make it AS a man... And make it RIGHT."
Superman is dead. Superman remains dead. And we have killed him.
No.
That is simply not true.
Superman is such an enduring icon that he can't be killed. No matter how much people like Wertham try to destroy him, no matter how much people like Snyder and Goyer besmirch him, no matter how many people say he's unrelatable, Superman will always be there. Superman is as strong as he needs to be to overcome that which opposes him.
And yet, I think there's a craving for this out there. Oh, it's pooh-poohed by critics and film school grads, which means people don't often get it, but when you look at something like "The First Avenger," what makes the movie work (and even its sequel, which takes a darker view of the surroundings) is the notion of Steve Rogers as someone whose morality is inherent, who *does* know, in his bones, the difference between right and wrong, who wants to fight for good and stand up to evil.
+babs3241 the difference is that we see Steve assert his morality even when he is comparatively powerless, because he knows the struggle is important and giving in to evil is wrong. we dont get to see that with many Superman interpretations, and as such we find it harder to see why he would ahdere to a morality similar to our own. did that make sense or did I just muddy the waters?
+696190 That's where the Kents usually come for, in most media and in the comics before New 52, Clark's parents raised him to be a good person and taught him to help others, they're one the reasons of why he has his own particular moral code. Besides, just like other comments are saying with Zack Snyder reasoning, in that you don't need to kill to know that killing is wrong, you don't need to be a victim to know that you should help others.
+Claudia Lomelí Superman was raised to believe that killing humans was wrong. Zoe isn't human
+Anna Melissinos That's a bit of a leap of logic there.
Also though, we get to watch Steve become less certain about the goodness of "truth, justice, and the American way." He's GOOD, fundamentally so, but he's also imperfect. He has his little dick-measuring contests with Iron Man, he's profoundly awkward and out of touch about a lot of things, and he sincerely struggles sometimes with what's the right thing to do.
The problem I've always had with Superman, and the thing that separates him for me from Cap, is that, in so many of his incarnations, the right thing to do is easy, both to figure out and to accomplish. The source of Superman's struggles mostly seems to be how to navigate among the foolish humans, not so much being a foolish human himself. . . . Now, my understanding of both Superman and CA comes from the movies; I'm not a comics fan, so I might be outdated or misinformed, but that's how I've always seen them.
To me the character that embodies everything that superman's mortality, dreams, ideals is Captain Marvel/Shazam/Billy Batson, everything Superman hopes humanity can become is personified in Billy who tries lives his life by what superman tries to teach humanity to the point where he is proof that humanity can reach it.
Have you seen the recent captain marvel? Authoritarian
@@claudeyaz
Which one?
And yet too many writers/stories try to put these two against each other despite these are the two biggest Boy Scouts who are proud of being Boy Scouts
This shows how Superman seems to be stuck in a weird cultural limbo.
He's one of the biggest icons in pop culture history and the genesis of what we've come to expect from superheroes. He's almost always depicted as being inherently good, embodying the best of what humanity can accomplish. However, since his story has never been one about struggle (re: getting over something/ overcoming a major hangup/obstacle), some feel his stature of power is undeserved, which is more or less the way Lex Luthor sees him as. And when so people, intentionally or not, agree him to such a degree, that just feels wrong.
I believe the world deserves a modern Superman film that shows him for the best of what he can be: a God living amongst mankind who's one true struggle is not about winning fights, but about whether he's doing the right thing for others and what that inspires in people, both the good and, to be fair, the bad. We live in a world where Captain America, another similarly "square" superhero, is a key element in one of the biggest entertainment entities today. If he can get there, so can Superman. He only needs someone who understands, someone with the conviction (and also guts) for it.
+Arturo Garza wrote "I believe the world deserves a modern Superman film that shows him for the best of what he can be: a God living amongst mankind who's one true struggle is not about winning fights, but about whether he's doing the right thing for others and what that inspires in people, both the good and, to be fair, the bad."
You just described Saitama, a.k.a. One Punch Man (the manga/anime superhero).
But yes, I agree with you. But that would result in a philosophical superhero comic best written by Neil Gaiman or the late Sir Terry Pratchett. Not really the type of comic for teenage boys who are still DC's target demograpgic I think.
+TF2CrunchyFrog I'd disagree with that. Look at the All Star Superman run by Grant Morrison. It's a much quieter and more reflective Superman story that is still very well regarded, if I'm not mistaken.
+TF2CrunchyFrog "A God living amongst mankind who's one true struggle is not about winning fights, but about whether he's doing the right thing for others" is exactly what Zack Snyder has focused the most on with Man of Steel and BvS. It's what makes me love those movies so much, that struggle Superman has to understand what is good.
+Brian D Except Synder believes that in order to know what good and what's bad, you have to do the "very bad thing". Some things are just written in our DNA, are universal concepts that were taught at a young age never to do. No one should have to struggle to figure out if something is clearly good or bad if it was spelled out for you already. That's why, as a characterization of Superman, the Synder films failed.
No offense, of course, to your opinion of MOS and BvS. I actually got a kick out of Man of Steel as an action flick, and I'm one of the few people I know who liked Henry Cavill as Superman.
+Brian D It is perfectly, okay to have a difference of opinion.... But I really hate MoS and BvS and they capture nothing about Superman that is interesting, he is not a GOd among people in those movies, he is another whining batclone that is paranoid and always apart from people. Superman is interesting because again he is an individual with powers among people, as in he lives amonst us and needs no FUCKING love interest to tell him he is a part of the earth and humanity, not above them or apart from them like he portrays. All he is in those movies is a whiney emo that -has a stalker relationship with Lois Lane. If I sound angry in this comment please note I am not mad at you, if you like these movie thats okay, I just hate them and they ruin one of my favorite characters.
I swear, every time I see one of your videos, it deserves a standing ovation.
And i dont feel compelled to slow him down to .75..
Sub'd.
This reflection is masterfully made.
There is however something people must understand: it doesn't matter if superman is a God or not. That is only relevant to the jealous ones, the ones who fail to grasp what he is all about.
Superman doesn't see himself as a God. Mankind does, because it doesnt understand him. His education is human. He sees himself as someone with the obligation to share his gifts with mankind. THAT is his message.
Him being a God is just a plot requirement for the things he does. What matters is what he represents.
Superman and Batman represent different ideals within the spectrum of virtue.
Batman aims at using your animal self, your shadow self, for good. Embrace it, and use all your rage and sorrow for a greater purpose.
Just like batman doesn't kill, and he has all the reasons in the world to do it, you must also never kill. Never give in to your darker self, and uphold your moral code like it's made of iron. Never compromise, never quit. Never go the easy way.
Superman aims at excellence of the good-willed. You are good-hearted? Do you have skills? Great. Then put yourself to some use and help others. Are you strong? Are you determined? Then stand for those who can't stand for themselves.
Just like superman saves the world, you must save your own world. The people who you love and all those you come across that are alone in life.
If we all are batman and superman in our personal lives, we save the world. It's corny and cheesy as hell, but it feels good because it's RIGHT. it's FAIR. Always do the right thing.
Paraphrased from SFDebris "A better world review"
"In a Post- WaterGate era of Pessimism, Cynicism, a ME generation that had given up, Richard Donner gave us a Hero who was not only optimistic about the future but about the human race as well "
I watched it again and now I regret some of what I wrote, previously. I love Superman, it is hard to see that soo many people do not want to believe in hope, kindness, compassion and help others.
I have never seen someone who knows presumably as many comics and as much about superman as I do... that truly doesnt get it. You arrived at the Lex Luthor rationale from Alan Moore's Secret Revealed. It doesn't make sense for Superman not to be a God using his powers and looking down on us at all times. He simply wouldn't hide among us as an ordinary person.
Clark Kent isn't Superman... Superman is Clark Kent. He doesn't even want his abilities, and often-times looks at them as a curse not a gift. The mild-mannered everyman, is the true nature of the character.
For this reason, Superman, or rather Clark Kent is the single most relatable and inspiring hero.
+Josh Krubner I don't think Superman sees his powers as a curse. He understands how much he can help others with his abilities. He accepts it, and is happy to help. Now, given the choice, it is true that he would rather be a normal human and live a normal life. An alien that wishes to be human
Well, at least that's one interpretation. Superman has been around for so long, that more than one interpretation is valid. Clark being the true persona, and Superman being the "disguise", I think was pretty much introduced by John Byrne (my prefered version of Superman). It was Byrne that made the Ma and Pa Kent his moral touchstone. Before Byrne, the Kents were dead (except in Superboy comics). I've always felt that the in the Golden Age and Silver Age Superman was the real person, and Clark Kent was the disguise. I'm not sure, but I think that's the case for New52 too (I don't care)?
Another reason why it's better when Clark Kent is the real persona, is that it better contrasts with Batman. In Batman's case, Bruce Wayne doesn't really exist, there's only Batman, Bruce Wayne is a costume he puts on.
To be fair just like with superman is the question is batman batman or Bruce Wayne a question that answer deviates based on the version and writer while most have it the way you say some like the Brave and the Bold Cartoon series have it that Batman is the disguise for Bruce.
Ryno Behnke I personally believe that Superman is who Jonathan and Martha Kent raised him to be, that Superman is the embodiment of all the values they taught him, and Clark Kent is just a name. But, again, more than one interpretation is valid, yet that's how I personally see it.
In the video, you argue that Superman is more of a symbol than an actual character, a sentiment that, from my personal experience with the character, I very much disagree with.
The traits and themes that most resonate with me in Superman point to a very clearly defined, very nuanced, and very human character.
Clark Kent was a child raised by an adopted family. He loves his parents, truly and deeply, and he thinks of them as his parents and himself as their son. But like anyone with such a huge glaring question hanging over their past, he always wondered. "What were they like?" "Why did they leave me?" "What about who I am comes from them?" And when he finally learned who his biological parents were, he finds that they are dead. Their world is dead. Everything he could have inherited from them is ash in space. After however long he searched for the answer of his parentage, he found that it was permanently out of his grasp, existing only in holo-recordings and history books. And so this man who has everything he could ever need and most of what he could ever want is left with this quiet, gnawing hunger for something he can never have, that he can never justify to himself.
While the circumstances are very different, as someone who has struggled with anxiety and depression and has had them put enormous strain on his relationships, leading him to fear from time to time that the people who love him most in the world will abruptly abandon him, that feeling of longing amid plenty, and the guilt that comes with it, is very real and very human.
Clark Kent is a man who always feels like he is on the outside looking in. He is different. Even though he was raised human, even though he thinks and feels as a human does, he isn't human, and he knows this. And yes, most people he encounters will never know that he is not human, but that DOES NOT MATTER. Because he knows. The fact of his inhumanity is always present, always acting as a barrier between himself and the people around him. And because of his inhumanity, he has experienced things, both subtle and gross, that few of his peers ever will, and he will never be able to explain these things to them in a way that will allow them to understand them as he has experienced them.
Again, as a person who's struggled with a whole host of mental health issues, this is very real to me. Even when I am surrounded by people who know me and love me and who cannot, in that moment, see the swirling winter inside my mind, of often feel set apart, because it is there, and I know it. And so many times, I have attempted to explain my experiences to people, and they have only ever heard it in the context of their own politics, or their relationships with their family, and I've never been able to get them to see what I have felt as I have felt it.
Clark Kent is a man who wants to experience small triumphs and subtle pleasures of life. He does not want fame or glory. He does not want wealth or a crown. He wants to have a job that fulfills him, but that he can still complain about with his coworkers from time to time. He wants to go to the bar or a ballgame with his friends. He wants to go on grueling car rides to visit his parents for the holidays. He wants to come home at night, eat a slightly burnt dinner, and watch sit on the couch with his wife and watch mediocre television. He wants to feel like a PERSON.
But, at the same time, he wants to be excellent. He wants to explore what remains of his Kryptonian heritage. He wants to embrace and indulge his powers. He wants to savor the ecstasy of flying above the clouds. He wants to feel the security and the certainty of being strong. He wants to perform great works and leave a positive impact and make the world a better place.
He has the very human experience of wanting two mutually exclusive things. And so, he struck a compromise. He adopted a secret identity, not so much to protect his friends and loved ones, but more so that he could indulge both of his divergent impulses without having to sacrifice either.
As mild mannered reporter Clark Kent, he can be a person in the world. He can go to work, hang out with friends, make love to his wife, and be someone who isn't especially famous or important. He can, in this regard, be himself.
As Superman, extra-terrestrial champion of the downtrodden, he can be a great and powerful hero of legend. He can use and delight in his powers freely and openly. He can effect great change upon the world. He can save lives and fight for a better tomorrow. He can feel like there is no problem he cannot solve with some quick thinking and a well timed application of super strength. He can, in this regard, be himself.
But it's not perfect. As he cannot completely commit himself to either aspect of his identity, then neither feels completely fulfilled. As Clark Kent, burdened by deadlines and all the tiny indignities and frustrations that come with daily living, he does from time to time look out the window, impatient for the moment when he can fly. As Superman, burdened with the unimaginable responsibility of fighting battles where the fate of all life on Earth literally hangs in the balance, he does from time turn his gaze back to the tiny blue dot, impatient for the moment where he can playfully argue with Lois about what to watch on Netflix. And this tension, this constant back and forth between two lives and two senses of identity, is something he can share with very few people besides himself.
As anyone who's felt overwhelmed by the myriad of life choices before them, and the disparate needs and longings that make up their identity, this dichotomy between the Super and the Man is at once both alluring and heartbreakingly resonant.
Superman is a character. A character who is always searching for what he cannot attain, always an outsider even in a room full of loved ones, always trying to balance the seemingly contradictory but ultimately interdependent facets of who he sees himself as and what he needs without ever getting that balance quite perfect.
Superman is a character who is very very sad.
And yet, in spite of all of that, he gets up every day. He goes to work. He battles giant robots. He fulfills his obligations. As both Clark and Superman, he goes out of his way to offer his help to others however he can, whether it's lending a sympathetic ear and a comforting hug to a coworker who is going through a messy divorce, or carrying several tons of medical supplies into a remote village experiencing an outbreak of a deadly disease. And he does all of this with a smile on his face and a kind word to say about everyone (who isn't Lex Luthor or Brainiac, anyway).
This is what is truly empowering about the character, and this is what makes him very truly human.
But, ultimately, that's the strength of the character. He can be so many different things to suit so many different stories, and still inarguably remain Superman.
This is my Superman.
What's yours?
RevHBSnood I agree mostly but I think that those two things are not mutually exclusive
"He adopted a secret identity, not so much to protect his friends and loved ones, but more so that he could indulge both of his divergent impulses without having to sacrifice either."
I've been trying to figure out why the secret identity aspect of his character exists for a while now, or at least come up with a good headcanon for why *I* think he adopted it. The best idea I had was that he simply doesn't want too much attention, but I think there's something very resonant about this interpretation. In fact, I think this entire comment was a really fascinating take on the character, and I just wanted to say thanks for sharing it.
This is the best superman interpretation I've read.
This is a very beautiful description of what Superman means to you.
Hollywood needs to put your Superman on the big screen!
I literally clapped when you said your final line and the video ended. Bravo, sir, bravo.
Although now I'm kinda sad.
Great video once again, Kyle
Adn GOOOOD that quote from Snyder at the end shows how LITTLE he understood superman. His goodness and unwillingness to kill didn't come from NOTHING, it came from his education and growing up as a human on earth. FROM THE KENTS. Superman was made GOOD by humanity and therefore he embodies the good of humanity. that is the IDEA of the character and what makes him so great.
Also it would've been interesting to see you comment on the idea of DC's "trinity", that is Superman Wonder Woman and Batman who each stand for a central element of their heroism. Batman stands for Justice, Wondy for Truth and Superman for Hope. It is exactly this role as the "Beacon of Hope", that makes him so great!
+Conankun66 I also liked the birthright series (and i believe it was also in all star) where his super perception makes him feel life, in a super empathetic way, explaining his inability to sit by.
As much as I am bored by superman's physical power, forcing authors to create ridiculous oppososition for any conflict to occur, this spiritual side of superman is actually very interesting. It would be interesting exploring a superhero that has no significant power but this kind of connection to life.
+Conankun66 I completely agree. To take it a step further, there's a particular scene in All-Star Superman where during Jonathan's funeral, Clark states: "And he showed me by example how to be tough, and how to be kind and how to dream of a better world. Thanks Pa. Those are lessons I'll never forget."
It's shown his sense of morality really did come from his upbringing, his childhood, and it's the same case in other comics as well. To say Superman's morality came from a vacuum and that such an idea needed to be rectified, reveals that Synder mistook cynicism for realism - and as you said, it's an unfortunate interpretation of the character.
Yeah that quote may be the dumbest thing about superman I heard... I mean Seriously by Snyders logic you have to kill to really know its wrong... What the fuck dude?! -_-
+Conankun66
Yeah, I'm definitely for a video talking about the DC Trinity, given that Kyle managed to do such a good job on Superman. Would be great if something similar is done for Bats and Wondy and then compared and contrasted with each other in that, despite them being different in tons of ways, the DC Trinity represents such a tour de force of goodness.
+Conankun66 So according to Zach Snyder no human on Earth knows not to kill unless they murder someone first. :p
*Let's introduce some science into this Superman analysis:*
Empathy and altruism are NOT solely human traits. There are documented examples found in many social animals( primates, dolphins, elephants, corvids..etc.)
The idea that humans are born narcissistic and corrupt and must learn to feel empathy and be "civilized" is outdated and unscientific. If anything developing minds are often influenced by learned behaviors like tribalism.
We are born with the innate ability to care for others, as our brains are just as much a product of evolution and biology as those animals.
So, Superman being innately kind and unselfish even though he is attractive and powerful may not be so unrealistic after all.
I think the point wasn't about being kind or empathetic, but being moral. Those are different things. Morality is defined by the culture we grow up in, and is something we learn. As a hypothetical example, anyone would agree that feeding your children is the right thing to do, but what if you are forced to steal to do it? Our kind, caring selves instantly side with the children, but we have also as a culture agreed that stealing is wrong. You could ask any number of people what would they do and do they think it's right, and get many different answers. Even if we all understand the importance of kindness, altruism and unselfishness, HOW we put them into practise is by no means clear-cut. Hence the endless scriptures, philosophies, religions and laws trying to answer the question "how to be good?". In this video, the central theme is "how does a superior, alien being like Superman abide by our understanding of morality, and what does it say about us when we can't relate to it". Not "Superman is an alien and so he wouldn't be capable of kindness" and definitely not "Superman is attractive and powerful so him being unselfish doesn't make any sense".
@@undertasty Answer: he was raised by humans and lived among them since he was a baby. He identifies with humans. He even looks human! Human values are all he knows. Also, he is probably grateful for his adoption and happy childhood.
"Clark is the soul of superman" how do so many creators get that wrong?
It's sad that the excellent injustice comic, and else world story where "Clark" loses everything and superman become a dictator, gets this concept better than BvS.
Quentin Tarantino's line there in Kill Bill isn't actually Tarantino's interpretation. He explained that somebody explained that interpretation to him and he found it interesting.
I'd actually say that BVS understood this perfectly. He's yet to truly become Clark Kent. Kal-El died. Clark Kent is the one that will come back. Not sad at all. It's more sad that real Superman fans don't even get this, but I digress.
Not saying BVS is a good film, but it understood Superman perfectly.
In terms of creators understanding the character and whatnot... I think it's actually more on us, the readers and viewers, to understand the essence of the characters as presented. Under the theoretical framework of "Death of the Artist," the moment a piece of art is completed and unleashed upon the world, from that point forward it exists solely in the minds of those who view it. Since characters like Superman and Batman have existed for almost a century, at this point it may be more practical to view their various incarnations not as fragments of some platonic ideal of the characters, but as unique but full expressions of everything they are.
I wouldn't say Injustice was excellent.
Some ussues here and there. Mainly involving Superman himself.
Honestly it baffles me that Zack decided THAT was the reason for making Superman kill, because like. Maybe it's my tendency towards fannish overanalysis and filling in fictional gaps that lead me to this, but it always seemed kind of OBVIOUS to me why Clark never killed.
Not even just because "hey killing is wrong" which is certainly part of it, but because like. He's already operating on a level far above most humans. He's already not playing fair. I always felt like he kinda knew that if someone on his level went past subduing people and straight into killing them he'd cross right over the line into "weird and a bit scary if you think about it but ultimately helpful" into "terrifying alien monster".
Hey Zack Snyder, who did *you* kill to realize that killing was wrong?
+BloodylocksBathory Why is it wrong?
Killing isn't wrong, murder is. There is a difference. Sometimes lethal force is sadly a necessary tool, though it's not something that should be handled lightly. Still, sometimes there is no other choice, such as the Zod example. Anyway, the difference between the two is that murder is the intentional, premeditated killing of another with malicious intent. And the reason I say murder is wrong because it's the power of destruction misused and harms innocence. Killing meanwhile depends. It's way more complicated, but regardless, the subject matter isn't black and white.
People support capital punishment, police using lethal force in the line of duty, warfare, etc. Superman killing Zod is more akin to that than murder. Legally, engaging in vigilante behaviour that results in a death probably qualifies as premeditation.
Ryan Alarie It actually wouldn't count as vigilantism in the Zod case. A citizen is allowed to apply reasonable force to stop someone in the defense of oneself or another and in fact, some states have laws that criminalize inaction. Given the circumstances, Supes is 100% covered legally to kill Zod.
When it comes to ethical arguments where one just says it's wrong, I take more contention because I'm curious as to why is it. Since, as you best summarized, it's akin to that than murder.
I'm just not fond of making blanket statements as opposed to assessing the circumstances, even beyond the law, but with regards to using reason and facts instead of feelings. I'm not a fan of killing people, but I do say one should use reasonable force to the threat.
+PrimeofPerfection I have not seen the movie nor Batman v Superman but from what I have heard the Zod kill has problems in that its hard to deal how Superman feels about it. There is no discussion about it, after the seen and even in Batman v Superman. The reason is Snyder as stated in an interview from 2008 he enjoyed comics where people hit each other and have sex. So, in his eye this is normal, or this is what he wants to see. But, we also have writers who may disagree with his views. As a result, we have movies where we don't know what is the "correct" interpretation. This Superman is like Miracleman. His moral compass and his views on humanity are so warped he is a greater threat than Zod.
Knowing killing is wrong is an entirely different thing than having an experience that causes a no kill policy....I know killing is wrong, however let someone break in my home and attack my kids...I will kill them..and be totally justified in doing so ...with my morality in tact ~
Wonderful video. But i do not know if I really agree with your interpretation of Nietzsche ubermensch, specifically relating to supermans ethics since I have always interpretated Superman has getting his ethics from his parents and his own internal necessity, it is only really in the movies where his mission is stated from the heavens by JOr-El and I always felt that it was wrong, that his mission comes from his own internal source, his own intuition, his own history, his intentionality. Also I have always look at the Truth and Justice more from the perspective of Foucault with his truthtelling and self-creation ethics. But i do agree that it is sad that Snyder just does not understand nor want to understand the character. FUCK HIM!
How did he not understand the character? Did he not give hope the conflict it deserved?
He did understand the character, so and so. It's exactly what he said here: he kills once and never again. And he killed Zod because he was about to kill those people in front of him. It's not your usual thief pointing a gun at you, here Supes had to act in seconds and maybe, just maybe he could've left him unconscious before the lazors would hit the people but who's that rational in front of an immediate threat?
My only concern is how much destruction was in that movie overall, and most of it is caused by Zod and co., and I'm kinda ok with it 'cause Kal only truly became Superman a few days prior... but Supes had several ocasions to minimise the destruction and didn't. So that scene with Zod in particular actually made the most sense to me.
ruclips.net/video/RL25a-yM6aM/видео.html Superman is an Übermensch with or with out his powers if you do not see this than I thing you have missed the point of Superman
Wow, Kyle, just...
You never fail to make me feel so many emotions ;~; I've always loved your between the lines series just because of how in depth they are, but this just...Well, it makes me wish that some film makers would think about Superman this way rather than with the joyless and pessimistic view they're using now. Thank you so much for this, can't wait til the next :>
Excellent job as always.
I've never understood the whole 'Superman is unrelatable' idea to begin with, and to me Man of Steel was a travesty of the character. Why is it so hard for people to understand that someone might be moral simply because they're innately good?
I love your work, thank you for sharing your insights :)
+Silvershadowfire - How is Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman in Man of Steel *not* "inherently good"? He is? Why do you feel he wasn't? Because he killed Zod instead of letting Zod eradicate mankind? Even the famous German theologian and pacifist Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) who was murdered by the Nazis in the concentration camp Flossenbürg on direct order of Hitler (because Bonhoeffer had actively and vocally spoken against the Nazis even prior to WW2, and conspired against their regime), wrote that if he saw a madman in a car purposefully run over pedestrians, and if he, Bonhoeffer, had a gun, and the only way to stop the madman's killing spree was to shoot him, he would do so to save lives.
+TF2CrunchyFrog
Zack Snyder's Superman learned a terrible lesson from his parents who should be his moral compass. Pa Kent tells him not to reveal himself because he'll be in danger even though he's freaking Superman and in BvS, Ma Kent tells him he doesn't owe the world anything and he can choose not to save it. Snyder's an out and out Objectivist (he's adapting "The Fountainhead" to film) and he puts that into the character of Superman who has never ever been an Objectivist outside of some Elseworld story.
In the Smallville fight, Superman rammed Zod through 2 nuclear power plants (thanks for giving Smallville a lot of nuclear radiation, Superman!), destroyed an iHop and blew up a gas station. In the Metropolis battle, Superman doesn't lure Zod away from the city at all. The whole "well Zod was genocidal and wanted to kill everything" excuse doesn't work because Zod wasn't interested in anything except getting his revenge on Superman for ruining his goal of recreating Krypton. Why couldn't Superman just punch or throw Zod into space or away from the city? They fought for a little while in space so why couldn't Superman keep him there? I mean, it's really something when Superman 2 has Superman up against 3 genocidal Kryptonians and not causing nearly as much in collateral damage and the fact that his concern for the people was used against him by Zod. Hell, the fight had better choreography and cinematography and wasn't just two guys hitting each other and flying through buildings. There's no consequences or stakes here for either character if the super punches aren't doing anything but killing everyone around them. Snyder's Superman would have destroyed the world just to kill Zod which isn't all that different from how Alan Moore wrote Miracleman but there's a huge difference here. Alan Moore wrote Miracleman as a deconstruction of Superman, Captain Marvel and the original Miracleman as written by Mick Anglo. Snyder's Superman is supposed to be this generation's definitive cinematic Superman and yet it fails in so many ways. The fact that Snyder just had to put his Objectivist ideals into it really *pisses* me off and I'm not coming at this as a "superheroes shouldn't have politics in them" but rather, Snyder obviously doesn't know that as political as Superman got in the Golden Age of Comics, he was a socialist and a social crusader, something no Objectivist would ever agree with.
+TF2CrunchyFrog
You make a good point that sometimes killing is reprehensible but necessary, and I personally agree. However, that really isn't my point. My point is that by making Superman's aversion to killing a consequence of his actions rather than an inherent bias, Zack Snyder is completely changing the character; he acts now from a personal rather than a moral imperative. He's effectively making him Batman.
Let me explain.
First of all, a question... why does Batman not use a gun? It would be far for efficient than batarangs and martial arts if stopping criminals is his end goal. Indeed, there have been arguments made that he should kill - some of his rogues gallery are psychopaths in the extreme (see Joker). But Batman doesn't use a gun, and Batman doesn't kill. Indeed, in the DCAU he finally retires as Batman because he realizes that the only way he can fight criminals now that his body has begun to fail him is with a gun (see the first episode of Batman Beyond). Rather than make that choice, he retires. Why?
I would contend it is because of his parent's death. His parents were killed by a man with a gun. Shot down in the alley. It traumatized him, set his life on the path it would follow through near death, paralysis and the death of those close to him. Batman refuses to use a gun or to kill because he fears that by doing so, he becomes his father's killer. He will lose his moral authority over the criminals he fights and become no different than they; a crazy killer in a costume.
In his comics, Superman doesn't kill because it's morally wrong. He was raised with a strong moral upbringing. Do right to others. Help others. Don't kill. And that was needed, because he could do so very easily. He has the power of a god, and that morality is his humanity. It is the human heart that keeps him from becoming the monster he could so very easily become.
So why do I say that the movie was a travesty of the character?
The problem is that not that he killed Zod. The problem is that the movie changed his moral upbringing (I'm not going to get into what the movie did to poor Pa Kent) into one that is much fuzzier. To paraphrase +Blakk Jakk in his reply below, he lost his moral compass. Or more accurately, he was never given one to begin with. So now - in the director's own words - he needs a reason to not kill. And that reason is the guilt over and trauma of killing Zod. It changes his aversion to kill from an inherently good, moral imperative to a personal act of guilt.
So perhaps it was wrong of me to say that the character in the movie is not inherently good. But he no longer acts from a standpoint of 'this is right, so this is what I do'. His actions now come from a very different place: 'I have felt the guilt of doing wrong, and I don't want to feel that again, so I will no longer do wrong'. It becomes a personal rather than a moral imperative. And while there is nothing wrong with doing things from that viewpoint, it is I feel wrong for the character of Superman.
Silvershadowfire
Outstanding! Even though I think my post was a bit venomous (sorry about that, TF2CrunchyFrog, I'm still grouchy about BvS) but you've addressed everything else nicely. I mostly have an issue with Snyder's Objectivism because it's a "philosophy" (I put philosophy in quotes because Ayn Rand is not taken seriously by academia) that I am unable to agree with and throughout all of his history, Superman has never acted the way he acts in either film. As close to political as Superman ever got was in the Golden Age and Snyder's politics run counter to how Siegel characterized Superman. I wish that we got to see more of that honestly but I digress. You could make a case for Batman being an Objectivist but definitely not Superman. Honestly, the Objectivist label fits Lex Luthor a lot more because he sees himself as a Nietzschean Übermensch and acts on his greed and self interest. Since Superman is the ultimate altruist, it makes no sense to agree with a philosophy that demonizes the notion that altruism is morally wrong.
I honestly couldn't help but give the bird to my screen when the voice of Zack Snyder talked about letting Superman kill Zod in Man of Steel.
I did the exact same thing.
+AnonJl1 but didnt Superman killed Zod in Superman II?
He did, but those writers knew what they were doing. Zack Snyder said he had Superman kill Zod so that Superman would understand killing is wrong. I personally find this to be an incredibly stupid reason, because it implies he wasn't taught that. It not only hurts his character, but the character of Jonathan Kent, who raised him to be the good man he is.
Tyler Durham
not to defend Snyder, but Superman was taught not to kill humans, that's like we are taught not to kill little animals, to kill another kriptonian will be efectively homicide for him
Luppercus Why would Superman see killing people as more acceptable than killing a Kryptonian? He was raised among humans, and cares deeply for them. If he saw people as less than himself, he wouldn't dedicate his life to saving them the way he does. I know it's not part of the cannon, but when I think of Superman written well I think of Grant Morrison's All Star Superman. In it Superman is shown to be loving of humanity, and he firmly believes that they are capable of greatness. So I don't understand the animal comparison.
Kyle Kallgren, for what it's worth, I think you've outdone yourself. This is a gorgeous video essay that I'll be revisiting a lot in the years to come.
Also, thank you for introducing me to 'O Superman' by Laurie Anderson - probably the scariest song I've heard in a while.
I'm crying right now. I cry tears of joy and tears of sadness. Both tears of hope and despair. Thank you Kyle.
It actually bums me out that you don't have the number of subs you deserve yet. Your work is amazing.
This is an excellent video, but I have to disagree with that last point. Zack Snyder has gotten a LOT of things wrong, and he's probably ruined the chances for a good DC cinematic universe for years to come. However I can't believe that the idea of Superman itself is irreversibly tarnished. There will be other stories and eventually other films, so i have to believe that Superman is not dead, Superman will not remain dead and though we may have wounded him, we have not killed him.
Do you mean he isn't dead spiritual, or he isn't dead in the movie universe?
KidSnivy69 Spiritual, I couldn't care less about the Randian Snyderverse
SocialistSaxon Thanks
Well that ending was a bummer.
I'm just happy Blue Marvel got a shout-out.
I was jazzed when the Samaritan got a shout out 5 years later
So, like, is Zach Snyder just walking around thinking to himself "I don't know if killing is wrong, I should try it and find out"?
I've read all kinds of great reviews, thinkpieces, and postmortems on MoS/BvS this past week, but the ending of this video is the ultimate mic drop on the subject. Bravo.
Who doesn't love Clark Kent?
I liked Zack Snyder idea of superman learning that killing is not good by killing, but breaking zod's neck to save people isn't the way to go . Ignoring the fact that if superman had the strenght to break his neck he should be able to turn his head somewhere else, why should Zod be the one death he regrets? Superman has a great hearing abilities, and a bunch of people in the world died that day (some results of his fight, some out of his control), so wouldn't make more sense that Clark's disgust of murder come from hearing millions of people around the world simultaneously crying and screaming?
+DanielAvelan THANK YOU for pointing out my exact problem with that scene! It never made sense to me that he was mourning the villain instead of all the innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. I'm not a fan of "Man Of Steel", but so much about it could've been easily fixed.
The problem is bigger then that. The issue is that Superman killing isn't something that should be done in a throw away fashion. Man of Steel doesn't give Superman the respect he deserved in that scene and in many other scenes... and you know what? FINE you want to tell the story of an inexperienced Superman making mistakes and due to messing up he had to kill someone and vows to never allow it to happen again? DO IT!... But you have to actually do the work and set it up. How does Superman take killing Zod? Ehh gets over it next scene. How does Superman take the responsibility of destroying a big chunk of the city and probably killing tons of people? Ehh he doesn't consider it.
Nionivek That's true. The movie felt like it was trying to have its cake and eat it, too--consequences are teased at, but they never last beyond a moment of drama.
This is one of those videos that I keep coming back to every few months to watch or even every few weeks. It never fails to get a strong emotional response.
This was one of the most highly insightful critiques I have seen in a long time. Thank you for this.
10:24 cool moment of recognition to Omniman for fans of Invincible, who also took off to popularity through the Amazon show and Memes.
Heartfelt introspective analyses about Superman always make me even more disappointed that Superman is rarely actually written well.
I hate all the hatred the world has against Zack's vertion of Superman. And I hate all the overratetd stupid love for Batman.
Clark / Kal is not perfect. Henry's vertion of Superman is more human than any other Superman in the world - and Ironically enough hated by people for being too human.
The world loves Batman on an almost grotesque way - not because he is human - but because we see ourselves as more powerful than the gods, magic and everything else and we do not want to believe that something good could come from another race.
And ironically, Batman is in fact not very human. = He was born as an incredibly rich man who does not focus on much more than his own revenge and feeling of superiority over all others.
(Do not not get me wrong, Batman is a great hero, but he is also too overrated and unrealistic.)
What is the only real difference between Batman and Superman?
Batman is a internassionalt rich man who considers himself always better than all accredited in the world. :batman:
He was born as a millionaire heiress - who aspires to become a god and see himself as a god.
Superman's only capacity not inhuman is his humility and mutual respect for all other species around them. :superman:
He was born as a god - only struggling to become more human.
Which is a very important lesson.
In our real world, we hate Superman, because he had just come from another world.
And we also fear Superman, because the universe is so big.
So the possibility that there may well exist a people who are us humans utterly superior, is actually very realistic.
Yet Superman is not a tyrant who looks down on us humans.
In the legend of King Arthus, there is a scene where the sorcerer Merlin visiting The Lady Of the Lake and says he is unhappy for the mistakes he committed in his life. And she answer:
"It is human to make mistakes Merlin, and a part of you is human. The best part."
I think the comparison, better than any other, tells of Superman's real value. As a god, who is also a human being.
+casper Richter You're perspective is wholly wrong on why people hate the Zack's version of Superman, he is less human not more in that iteration.
I would say Zack Snyder killed him more than "we" as a whole :)
No. The fact that our collected population agreed that Superman is "less relatable" is what brings that kind of change in the first place. His attempt to make him more relatable is in result of the unanimous decision. True, smarter writers and storytellers could have been around to fix that notion, but nonetheless, this is the reaction we get.
Nope. We killed him before Snyder ever could.
Brilliant video. Gets people thinking about the character and his motivation
I love the use of the old serials and cartoons, it gave the video a really nice vibe. Amazing work.
Your content is amazing Kyle. I´m gonna study animation in college, so all your videos have kinda inspired me to try new things and talk about new subject matter. I´ll just say this, when it´s done my first short goes out to you man.
His hatred for Kant will always get a chuckle from me.
I wonder if you ever read "What is so funny about Truth, justice and the American way?" aka Superman vs The elite, because its a deconstruction of the deconstruction, I wonder what your take on that would be. Because it plays right into the themes of what you alanyse here. in the comic and in the animated adaptation, Superman gets declared "obsolete" by a group of super beings calling themselves "The Elite" who take matters into thier own hands and basically use their superpowers to force peace, even going so far as to kill criminals, saying that because superman never had the guts to do it, they will.
They berate Superman for his ethics, his morals and how he, as a god like being, doesnt use his powers to rule over the "sheep" and why he even protects them and that he is not willing to go far enough. They also berate him for being well, alien, not knowing how it is to be human and to actually suffer.
However, Superman knows that the way The Elite does it, is wrong and he is even willing to die to stop them, the end battle is epic and shows how far superman can go, but at the same time, he breaks down the morals and ethics of The Elite, its amazing stuff, I highly recommend it. It show Supes from the most human side you can imagine, fighting for what he believes in.
+LtHavoc1983 Even though I loved some of the Authority comics (the Elite's chief influence) that film remains my favorite Superman movies to date. I love how they insert Superman's idealism into a nuanced, modern setting while aknowledging that Manchester Black's arguement has some merit. Daredevil essentially did the same thing in season 2 with the Punisher, a little more bleakly, granted.
But what I love most is Pa Kent's speech. It's what answers the question of the movie: Superman's brand of heroism will always be needed. The qualites he embodies are ones which we universally admire and strive towards.
I'm fine with Superman being in ways unrelatable. I like seeing all stories; from character as simple as bystander and supporting characters to the ones about those larger than life that we can only dream of being in our wildest dreams
Sorry my comment isn't about Superman, but I really appreciate it when people casually acknowledge that nonbinary people are a thing. It always puts a huge smile on my face. So thanks for that!
Brilliantly researched and well-presented. Heartbreaking too.
Times like this, I re-read Ennis and McCrea's Hitman #34. It does give me a Superman to believe in.
I'm sad now.
Okay, this was a very good video but I have one major criticism of it, as well as modern literary criticism in America. There's a popular line of thought among the critics these days that if a character or story has some connection to mythology, that mythological connection MUST be the reason why it was successful. So Superman MUST be successful because he is like an ancient god, and Star Wars MUST be successful because it is like ancient stories of heroes and quests against evil. There's no consideration that these stories were and are popular because of the modern sensibilities that the writers brought to the table.
But the best refutation of the critics' obsession with mythology is Disney's Beauty and the Beast. It is a movie that won audiences over more because of what it added to the fairy tale than what it took from the fairy tale; three-dimensional characters with agency, a romance that reflected modern sensitivities rather than age-old sexism, and a sense of humour brought to life through the new characters and musical numbers.
When I look at the most popular and long-lasting Superman stories, such as Lois & Clark, Superman: The Animated Series and All-Star Superman, I see the value more in what the new writers brought to Superman than what they took from the character. Superman is friendly and has a good relationship with his friends, he saves a girl from suicide, he has doubts but stays firm by his desire to make the world a better place. These are very human characteristics, the kinds of things you could see and appreciate in any non-Superman work of fiction.
Which leads me to my final point; the "Superman is an unrelatable mythical god-figure" argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It only exists because writers and critics either don't try to write Superman as a three-dimensional character or conveniently ignore the examples where writers have successfully written Superman as a three-dimensional character. And that in turn is because modern American literary criticism is obsessed with mythology to the detriment of other qualities.
By the way, after watching your "Star Wars minus Star Wars" video, I'm still eagerly awaiting your "Willow minus Willow" video. Because George Lucas tried to pull the same stunt twice making a movie out of mythical references and the Campbell Hero's Journey, and as you well know that film was a flop. It's almost like mythology is not that important in the grand scheme of things. Who da thunk?
Busiek has two: the Samaritan is a reflection of the idea of a truly tireless quest for truth and justice, while Atomicus was a discussion of the "Superman and Lois Lane" comics of the 50s. But this is some FANTASTIC discussion, Kyle: thanks for doing it.
I believe in you superman.
Super video, Kyle (no pun intended). Also loved the subtle inclusion of the Laurie Anderson song!
Haha. As amazing as ever, and that ending was a beautifully executed move. (Though I do kind of dislike the penultimate part where you imply that the cultural loss of morals is maybe not such a bad thing.)
Because it isn't a bad thing. It's not a good thing. It just is.
To Zack Snyder
FROM HIS PARENTS!
HE LEARNED NOT TO KILL FROM HIS FUCKING PARENTS!
YOU FUCKING HACK! YOU FUCKING FUCKING HACK! ARRRRRRRRRRRGGHGHGHGARRRRRRRRRRRGHGHGHAGHAHGHGA!
...but yeah, this was a great video, thanks Kyle!
+David Colby Yeah but in the Zack Snyder Superman movies his parents fucking suck, Pa Kent tells him it's okay to let people die so he doesn't reveal his secret identity HURRRR FUCK YOU
Yeah and Ma Kent tells him he owes humankind nothing. Which is especially frustrating seeing as in the mind of Clark Kent he owes humanity everything. He sees humankind as the society he cares about and is a part of. Humanity to him is the parents who took him in when he was in need of a home. To Superman he owes his life to humankind and he believes in the best of human-nature as being the best in every person. He has enough good will toward humankind that he values all life. So he wouldn't need to kill anyone.
The only think that I'll give Zack Snyder on the whole snapping Zod's neck is that, by the way the movie hadn't established Kryptonite in the first film, there'd be really no method of keeping Zod alive and him NOT killing people. Clark paralyzing the Zod wouldn't stick since Kryptonians can heal from things humans can't. I mean, the phantom zone is a possibility but the Donner movies nailed that and it'd be hard to pull off twice with the same character. BUT does that mean they should have done it that way? No. Snyder could have thought of something more suitable.
Most people believe Zack Snyder was talking about of his butt when he said that and just wanted to make Superman kill a guy. Especially since FOR SUPERMAN he gave absolutely no time to establishing Superman's code against killing OR the result of him killing.
You know, this is Snyderverse. Where human mercy and decency are meaningless.
In the Snyderverse, aversion to kill is seen as a weird quirk.
In the Snyderverse, Jesus' teaching "Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you" is "Strike first".
Basically it's Star Trek mirror universe.
It's a shame that you fanboys don't really understand what Snyder was trying to say there, but I digress. And he's not a hack at all. He just doesn't inherently understand Superman. If he did, he'd challenge David S. Goyer on his script.
Sups is my favorite hero and means a lot to me, the large misunderstanding of his character hurts sometimes, but if there’s a video that can help them understand.....thanks dude
A year later and I still come back to this magnificent vid. Thank you, Kyle.
Man, that was dark. But truthful.
Applause for the aesthetic presentation here. The use of animation and cardboard cut-out style visuals in some sequences gave the video a really polished and interesting look. I was waiting to see in the credits that you had someone work with you on the visuals but it seems it's all you. You have really upped your game. The amount of effort you put to your work is admirable and it really bares fruit. After following you for years it's great to see you develop a unique aesthetic for your videos. Also, the analysis was poignant and insightful, as always. Keep up the incredible work you do. I can feel the floods of subscribers coming your way.
Until there is a fundamental shift in how Superman is viewed by the public, there will only be two kinds of Superman we see in live action:
The one-dimensional hero with all the power, none of the consequences, no villains except for a certain bald a-hole and no character development beyond "Perfect American Gary Stu."
The flawed, darker Superman that almost everyone says is "NOT MY SUPERMAN."
They'll do him well in animation and maybe in novels but that's it.
Even the comics can't get a grip on him and if someone tries, hold on folks cuz a reboot's a coming!
This is one of my favorite videos on RUclips.
May I just say how glad I am that you acknowledged non-binary people.
I've always disagreed with Superman himself being unrelatable, most because he is one of my favorite characters. I mean I get it but a lot of people actively dislike him due to a preconceived unrelatablity that I just don't agree with.
How do you only have less than 50,000 views. This was wonderful!!
Superman's aversion to killing comes from him knowing that killing is WRONG! It's not fucking rocket science Zack Snyder.
Hey Kyle, is it possible to get a wallpaper of all the dummy Supermen at 10:42?
+Daniel Jones I would also like that, but I would also understand if that were for Patrons only.
+Daniel Jones Well if Kyle doesn't mind you could download the video then read it with say VLC media player and then take a screen shot of that part it will be in HD you just have to pause the video at the right time!
+Daniel Jones I'm just glad he brought up Omniman.
Just take a screenshot dude.
that ending ... to this video i mean.. really got to me. i remember watching that moment of man of steel. didn't shed a tear. ...now. i can't stop crying....
This just made me emotional.
You know, I never quite bought into the concept that Superman is "a god". Mainly because I always figured that a real god would be many, many times more powerful than Superman. It's a bit sobering, but you have to consider what it might mean if Superman is actually relatively low in the power spectrum and there are other being far more powerful than him.
He most certainly is. His powers are no doubt impressive but compared to the likes of someone like Dr. Fate, a master sorcerer and the vessel of a god like Nabu? He barely registers to either one. And then we get even more nuts with characters like all of the Endless, Mxyzptlkx the Spectre, Phantom Stranger, Anti-Monitor, etc. Superman may be a descendant of the god, Rao, but he's still an alien compared to the numerous cosmic entities in the DCU.
The most important title Superman has to understand him is that he is "The Man of Tomorrow". As powerful as he is, as moral as he is... He isn't meant to be untouchable but rather he represents a future where we can not only hold onto our morals without compromise (No killing for example) but act upon it as well. As for "A real god would be more powerful"... Maybe if you go by the Abrahamic Gods. Lets just say Thor in Marvel is MANY MANY times stronger then the mythological Thor is.
Nionivek
You should look at Shin Megami Tensei Thor. That guy is insanely powerful even if he is on the lower end of the totem pole comparatively speaking for all of the gods in the series. Although to be quite honest, religious stuff has a million different interpretations and you might writings of Thor where he's more powerful than either one. Thing to remember about Superman is he is representative of a Jewish ideal called, "Tikkun Olam," which means "repair the world." In Jewish theology, it means that Jews have to fix the world and leave it better for the next generation to come. To relate that to Superman, what he does is try to fix and better the world so that when he is done saving the world, it won't be the same one he discovered. A lot of superhero comics came from the minds of Jewish people though I think William Moulton Marston and Victor Fox weren't Jewish but I'm not entirely sure.
Adam Hoffman I mean, his actual name literally means “voice of god”
Superman is just another word for superhuman as well as God. Kal-El at his core equals fictional God.
I swear Kyle you have some of the best content on RUclips. Perhaps one day we'll see thousands more content providers who put as much thought and effort into your videos as you do. Keep up the awesome work!
10:39 "Where does that goodness come from? He simply couldn't be good." But we know where. Superman's goodness was instilled in him by his human parents. In that way, it is a reflection of humanity's own goodness.
Brilliant and insightful as always
Congratulations. You presented a detailed analysis regarding the concept of Superman. I would suggest you do a video about Alan Moore's "Miracleman".
The best way I have seen someone try to recapture Superman's ideals is not only in Shazam, but definitely in All Might. He was born without any powers in a world of powers, but still aspired to be a symbol of peace because he believed it needed to be so. When he got his powers, he helped others not for fame or admiration as others after him, but because it. Was. The. Right. Thing. To. Do.
And when he saw Izuku willing to save a classmate (who, may I remind you, was a near-remorsless bully) despite being powerless himself, All Might chose him to be the new vessel for his power.
My favorite Superman story was about how he was called to stop a jumper, but he didn't. He talked to her and begged her to find one more happy tomorrow of her own will. And, after a long and dramatic talk, she jumped off the building....and into the arms of the Man of Steel.
This is why I love superheroes.
This is why I love Superman.
Damn DAMN good work Kyle
God, i'm so happy i found your site. I love your videos
If this video helped me realize anything, the next great Superman anything should probably take a Steven Universe approach to the character; focusing on interesting interpersonal character dynamics while developing the people of Metropolis, which would compensate for how powerful the character can be at times.
Regarding Zack Snyder in the comics Superman actually did kill Zod once and it was one of my favourite stories because of how earnestly the writers tackled it. Superman Vol. 2 Issue 22 he straight up kills Zod and his two underlings after they eradicated all life on earth and made it clear that they'd never stop until they basically destroyed the universe. It's clear that Superman simply cannot stop them forever so he executes them by exposing them to kryptonite. After that Superman depowers himself and goes into a self-imposed exile because at the end of the day nothing can be harsher judge of that action than himself. It's a dark turn but an earnest expression of Superman's inert good that nothing can hurt him more than his own conscience.
8:54 O Superman is playing in the background. I'M CATCHING UP TO YOUR CLEVER MUSIC CHOICES KALGREN!!!
Damn it Kyle! You made the most amazing thing ever!
As a guy who has a fascination with gods and whose biggest project of fiction he is working touches on the nature of godhood, this video helped to give me some thoughts and ideas to play with in my story. Thanks Kyle. Mind I did wish that Dawn of Justice actually followed up on and explored that idea of Superman adopting his vow of non-killing set up at the end of Man of Steel, but considering the mess of just writing the damn script for the movie that apparently happen, I'm not surprised it was rather forgotten.
Great work man. I hope you know these videos in some way also help your subscribers in manyways. Greatings from Peru!
Another great video.
Keep up the awesome work.
Superman was never dead, some people lack the kindness to see superman for what he truly is.
Batman in himself is unattainable. He is luckiness incarcerate and the 'great man theory' incarnate. It's this self-delusion that this person made themselves powerful, they were just lucky to be born then and there.
It is with not one hint of cynicism, sarcasm, irony, or any form of intentional derision when I say, in simple terms, good job. Yours is a channel unlike any other.
I am coming back to this video two years after first seeing it to say that I don't know if I will ever be able to thank you enough for making it.
This video really made me cry, Kyle. You've outdone yourself.
This is pretty on point, exactly why it was such a disastrous mistake for Snyder to kill Clark Kent in BvS. It makes it impossible to make any more interesting Superman stories.
I wish Kyle would have mentioned Superman vs the Elite animated film (an expansion upon the short story "Whatever happened to truth, justice, and the American Way?" by the same writer), which addresses and explores some of those very same themes (though it doesn't have time to truly dwell on it, with a 1h15 minutes running time). In fact, the Wertham's quote about morality is practically lifted to form the ethos of the main antagonist of the story, Manchester Black.
Love your videos, especially between the lines. You're an engaging teacher.
Amazing as always Kyle. keep up the good work!
THIS WAS FUCKING FANTASTIC. i'm mesmerised by how good this video is!!
Fantastic work, as always
So it’s like back then. They dislike Superman because he’s unrelated and gives good morals which one should inspire only to change him.
Change him into something interesting for the “modern audience” to like. Almost like what’s happening to comics today.
(Apologies if someone already got this somewhere way down the thread.) Super as a prefix does also carry the meaning "above." The original Latin meaning does tend to get lost, but you can see it in some cases, such as Lake Superior being the highest of the Great Lakes on the map.