Kal-El (Injustice)

Hello, ladies and gentlemen! A few days ago, Superman redditor Tammi1545 made a post in which he dismissed the Henry Cavill vs Tyler Hoechlin debate, saying that both Supermen are equal in their legitimacy and that people are allowed to like both Supermen, and you know what? I agree with him, which motivated me to make a post (both here and on Reddit) in which I debunked, or at least tried to debunk, the idea of a definitive version of Superman and argued that each version of Superman had their own legitimacy and their own appeal to a particular audience.

You can consider this post as a fun little addendum to my previous post, and now I begin to ask: is it even fair to compare the multiple versions of Superman? Let's use Henry and Tyler as examples. In a logical world, Henry and Tyler wouldn't be compared because the Supermen they play live in completely separate worlds and their stories are very different. The Superman played by Henry is an insecure rookie trying to find his place in a world that fears and mistrusts superhumans, while Tyler portrays a veteran Superman that has started a family in a world that has largely accepted superhumans as part of daily life.

Some people would say that the only thing these stories have in common is that Superman is featured in them, although that's not entirely true. Yes, it's the obvious element between them but there are other similarities. There is the very serious and dramatic tone, there's the presence of Kryptonian antagonists in both stories (although Man of Steel is more direct in its depiction of Kryptonians), there is Superman's association with the U.S. military, and of course, there's the fact that both stories are full reboots of the Superman saga. But even then, that's not really enough to justify a full comparison because of how those respective stories develop.

It would be like comparing Batman to the Punisher. They're similar, but only in very superficial ways, and in the end, you'd find that a comparison wouldn't be entirely fair because, invariably, you'd find more differences than similarities between the characters, so the question is "should these Supermen even be compared?". Normally, I would have said "no", but let's face it, we're Superman fans. We were bound to compare these Supermen (Henry and Tyler, in particular) sooner or later. It was inevitable.

Both Supermen star in different stories. On one hand, you have a movie series that focuses on Superman's origin and struggles to become a symbol of hope, and on the other hand, you have a TV show with a veteran Superman who has also carved out a place for himself in the world and whose biggest struggle right now is how to raise a family. Both stories take different approaches in their storytelling, but at the same time, those approaches are inspired by past versions of Superman, whether they are comics, movies or TV shows, while still adding new elements. As a result, both versions of Superman have the potential of being the definitve version of Superman for an entire generation.

But then, come the long-term fans, myself include. We've all formed our opinions on the stuff that's come beforehand, and suddenly, here's something brand new. Naturally, we were gonna get excited and we were gonna talk about it and because there are so many of us, opinions were going to be very different. Now, suppose that you're talking to a fellow fan about these new stories and he has the exact opposite stance that you do. No, I'm not gonna specify which one it is, whichever you think is better, he thinks the opposite. Well, you'll want to know why, won't you? And if the other guy starts dishing out reasons that appear to miss the point or are just flat-out lies and are kinda disparaging to the character that disagrees with him, you'll want to set him straight, and thus we have a debate.

The more passionate people are about which one is better, the more stubborn they will be about it and suddenly, the debate will turn ugly. Next thing you know, this debate is no longer about the quality of the story, it's the about the quality about the people talking about these stories. The main point is suddenly "you aren't a true fan because you like that Superman story. That means you don't understand Superman, not like me. I like this story and I do understand Superman. I'm a truer fan than you." And this brings my journey back full circle to my previous post, in which I tried to debunk the idea that somewhere, out there, is a true Superman, a single, definitive version by which all the others are judged and can't measure up to. There are Superman stories I genuinely dislike, but I still stand by what I said: "the definitive Superman does not exist".

Even if there are versions of Superman I dislike, such as the Clark Kent from Smallville (he doesn't even call himself Superman), the tyrannical dictator from Injustice or the flying plot device from Young Justice, they are still considered true versions of Superman, at least as far as I'm concerned, and thus the "you're not a true fan of Superman because you like that movie/TV show/comic book/whatever" is rendered completely invalid. Hell, both Warner and DC consider those Supermen I mentioned as legitimate and valid, so why should my opinion be any different from those of the official creators?

Let me ask you something: what is Superman to you? Everyone has a different idea/interpretation for the character. Some stick to the aggressive and intimidating vigilante from the Golden Age, some prefer the campy and light-hearted superhero from the Silver Age, others prefer the more serious and grounded character from the John Byrne era. They're all Superman.

There are many different aspects of Superman's personality that have been emphasized over the years. The DC Extended Universe and the Arrowverse emphasize different aspects, but they are still both valid interpretations of Superman, no matter which way you slice it. Therefore, saying that one or the other is a greater validation of one's fandom is nonsensical. You cannot base your understanding of this whole franchise on just one story. You can't even base it on 10 stories! Your understanding of Superman must take everything into consideration and I do mean everything, including comic books, movies, TV shows, video games, and so on and so forth.

Although the core elements of Superman have remained intact over the years, the fact is this: Superman is whatever society needs him to be at the time. When society needs him to be a champion of social justice, he'll be a champion of social justice. When society needs him to be an intergalactic protector, he'll be an intergalactic protector. Hell, Injustice even proved that Superman can work as a villain, of all things! Obviously, not every version of Superman will appeal to everyone, but there's nothing wrong with that. The same can be said for every other long-running character in the realm of fiction, like Sherlock Holmes, Godzilla and James Bond.

This is ultimately the reason this debate has gotten as ugly as it has. It's not that one story is inherently better than the other (criticism and preference are subjective, after all), it's that people have been using it to boost their own egos and tear others down. Like I said, a comparison between these two stories was always gonna happen. Debates between those who make those comparisons were always an inevitability. The ugliness, though? That's avoidable. That's something that, honestly, never should have happened and this is why I have approached this topic the way I have.

This is a debate about a subjective topic. Neither side was ever going to win. We can only speak for ourselves as individuals. I certainly won't discourage debate or discussion, so long as it remains civil. I'm sick and tired of debates about the "definitive Superman". They just need to stop. We're all fans here, we just see things differently. Is it really so hard to understand that we can want different things out of the same stories? This whole debate is basically anathema to what Superman stands for! Superman is supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart!

In closing here, this post was never meant to be a definitive answer on which is the definitive and perfect Superman. It's meant to be an example on how anyone, regardless on which side they fall on, should approach the topic.

Well, that's all I have for you this time. Now, it's your turn to tell me what do you think about all of this. As always, this is the start of a dialogue and you have my thanks for participating in it and for taking the time to read what I had to say. Posting my opinions in this website doesn't make them any greater or more valid than yours and I'm just glad to have this privilege and this honor to share my opinions with you, although I do admit I did hijack this particular topic a little bit. The only thing I ask of you is to deliver your opinions in a polite and civilized manner. We're all Superman fans here, we just see things differently. This post is also present on Reddit, so feel free to check it out, leave a comment below, thanks for your time and stay safe out there!

"Who is the best Superman" is a meaningless debatereddit

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbr.com/grant-morrison-evil-superman-trope-ridiculous/amp/

Grant Morrison Explains Why the Evil Superman Trope is 'Ridiculous' (Exclusive)CBR