I'm just gonna come right out and say it: I think the people complaining about how "THIS ISN'T SUPERMAN!!!" are a bunch of blowhards posturing as "purists" but who haven't read that many comics or seen that many episodes of a given TV series. There's a tendency to laud the Christopher Reeve movies, but if that's the case, they don't seem to remember them well.
1) Obviously, these people are a reaction to the "they have to modernize everything" crowd who seems to hate everything pre-1986 with the possible exception of the original Siegel/Shuster comics, and sometimes the Fleisher animated series or early black & white live-action stuff. They, themselves are a reaction to haters whose body of knowledge seems to be the Reeve films and/or Super Friends cartoons, which are largely rooted in the '50s/'60s comics. To all parties mentioned herein: we get it!
2) To that end, they seem to idealize the Silver Age era Superman which is all well and good, but not the original, hence not any less of an arbitrary point than the '90s. Also, many of these people seem to be of strong political opinions—usually either on the left or the libertarian right—and it's odd that they're so sentimental toward that relic of the Eisenhower era.
3) As well, they often laud the Christopher Reeve films (or, to those in the know, the first two) when all they seem to remember is everything between "easy, Miss, I've got you," and "almost forgot to time ourselves," especially a certain comic critic who tweeted that Superman smiles throughout the first film. Untrue, of course, in that Jonathan dies of a heart attack right after a heart-to-heart of the "why can't the other kids accept me," nature and Clark is appropriately anguished. As well, when [spoiler]he finds that Lois has been killed in the aftermath of the missile hitting California, he picks her up out of the car, screams to high Heaven, and races back in time to save her[/spoiler] which is, again, perfectly appropriate, but gives scant support to the idea that he never has any moments of sorrow. This, combined with every line relating to their "relationship" in Superman II, begs the question, "who you calling emo?"
4) And don't get me started on Superman II.
5) As for "dark" Superman material, where were these people in 1992/'93? You know, the one where Superman fights this big scary monster and they end up killing each-other. Then, four impostors (counting Steel and Superboy) show up, one of whom wantonly kills criminals, and the other [spoiler]turns out to be the bad guy and frags an entire city, then when the real Superman comes back with a Captain America-like level of powers, he's dressed in black and forced to use a bunch of guns[/spoiler]. Anyone remember that one? Oh, it wasn't the only Superman story where "dark" stuff happens or that has a "dark" atmosphere, but it's by far the most famous.
6) Also, why don't these people ever complain about [i]Justice League Unlimited[/i]? In the season where Lex runs for president, Superman gets angrier and angrier, especially in the episode where Captain Marvel appears.
7) Now, onto complaints about Cavill: he's British. How can a British actor play an American icon? Gee, I don't know, ask Daniel Day Lewis, who won an Oscar for playing the ULTIMATE American icon. Besides, how ridiculous is it to say a man from another country can't play a man from another planet?
8) These people also complain about how Cavill's "too short." At 6'1." You know, because in Superman: the Movie, he says he's 6'4." Or in the trading cards for the comics, he's listed as 6'3". Two or three inches too short. Friggin' size queens.
9) Oh no, Lawrence Fishburne is black! In an era where disagreeing with our beloved president runs the risk of being called "racist," these people at-least have balls. But balls don't change the fact that he otherwise resembles the character (compare with Michael Clarke Duncan) or that his race never plays into his adventures in the film. Interesting note: in the comics of the '90s, Perry White adopted a black son named Keith (a character introduced in 1991 as an orphan who befriends Superman) but the character kind-of disappeared in the '00s.
10) People complained that the film wasn't enough like the Christopher Reeve films. But that they recycled the same villain: General Zod (as well, Faora and the male bruiser who joins her in fighting Supes are similar enough to Ursa and Non) and elements of the same story. Oookay!
10a) Just as an aside, is Mc Kenzie Grey's character—Zod's science officer—the closest we're gonna get to a Brainiac on screen?
11) BTW: a lot of the Reeve loyalists forget that those films didn't start the Superman phenomenon and that they were attacked by people loyal to GEORGE Reeves in much the same way this movie is being attacked.
12) And yes, he killed General Zod, but Snyder says that this was to explain his aversion to killing. I don't feel they need to explain that, but it does have precedence in the comics (in a very pivotal story, he kills Zod and feels terrible about it) and it was clearly not just done so a bunch of testosterone heads would go, "BOO YEAH!!"
13) This film marks the first time anyone has ever complained about something being "too realistic," especially when—y'know—it's about a man who can fly and lift a car over his head and has to fight off an invasion from residents of his old planet. What they mean, of course, is that they're trying to make the character seem more three-dimensional which was what SOME scenes in the Chris Reeve films attempted, but you know, don't let that stop you from a good bitch-fest. Alternatively, they might mean they want more jokes and flamboyance like in the Iron Man films, but when they did that in 1983, they didn't like it.
14) "Oh no, they're turning him into Batman." An incredibly short-sighted concern, especially since the Batman of Chris Nolan's films isn't as much of a vicious anti-hero as other versions.
15) And, finally, yes the costume is unfaithful, but if red trunks are that paramount to your enjoyment of the character, I just think you might be missing the point.
I'm just gonna come right out and say it: I think the people complaining about how "THIS ISN'T SUPERMAN!!!" are a bunch of blowhards posturing as "purists" but who haven't read that many comics or seen that many episodes of a given TV series. There's a tendency to laud the Christopher Reeve movies, but if that's the case, they don't seem to remember them well.
1) Obviously, these people are a reaction to the "they have to modernize everything" crowd who seems to hate everything pre-1986 with the possible exception of the original Siegel/Shuster comics, and sometimes the Fleisher animated series or early black & white live-action stuff. They, themselves are a reaction to haters whose body of knowledge seems to be the Reeve films and/or Super Friends cartoons, which are largely rooted in the '50s/'60s comics. To all parties mentioned herein: we get it!
2) To that end, they seem to idealize the Silver Age era Superman which is all well and good, but not the original, hence not any less of an arbitrary point than the '90s. Also, many of these people seem to be of strong political opinions—usually either on the left or the libertarian right—and it's odd that they're so sentimental toward that relic of the Eisenhower era.
3) As well, they often laud the Christopher Reeve films (or, to those in the know, the first two) when all they seem to remember is everything between "easy, Miss, I've got you," and "almost forgot to time ourselves," especially a certain comic critic who tweeted that Superman smiles throughout the first film. Untrue, of course, in that Jonathan dies of a heart attack right after a heart-to-heart of the "why can't the other kids accept me," nature and Clark is appropriately anguished. As well, when [spoiler]he finds that Lois has been killed in the aftermath of the missile hitting California, he picks her up out of the car, screams to high Heaven, and races back in time to save her[/spoiler] which is, again, perfectly appropriate, but gives scant support to the idea that he never has any moments of sorrow. This, combined with every line relating to their "relationship" in Superman II, begs the question, "who you calling emo?"
4) And don't get me started on Superman II.
5) As for "dark" Superman material, where were these people in 1992/'93? You know, the one where Superman fights this big scary monster and they end up killing each-other. Then, four impostors (counting Steel and Superboy) show up, one of whom wantonly kills criminals, and the other [spoiler]turns out to be the bad guy and frags an entire city, then when the real Superman comes back with a Captain America-like level of powers, he's dressed in black and forced to use a bunch of guns[/spoiler]. Anyone remember that one? Oh, it wasn't the only Superman story where "dark" stuff happens or that has a "dark" atmosphere, but it's by far the most famous.
6) Also, why don't these people ever complain about [i]Justice League Unlimited[/i]? In the season where Lex runs for president, Superman gets angrier and angrier, especially in the episode where Captain Marvel appears.
7) Now, onto complaints about Cavill: he's British. How can a British actor play an American icon? Gee, I don't know, ask Daniel Day Lewis, who won an Oscar for playing the ULTIMATE American icon. Besides, how ridiculous is it to say a man from another country can't play a man from another planet?
8) These people also complain about how Cavill's "too short." At 6'1." You know, because in Superman: the Movie, he says he's 6'4." Or in the trading cards for the comics, he's listed as 6'3". Two or three inches too short. Friggin' size queens.
9) Oh no, Lawrence Fishburne is black! In an era where disagreeing with our beloved president runs the risk of being called "racist," these people at-least have balls. But balls don't change the fact that he otherwise resembles the character (compare with Michael Clarke Duncan) or that his race never plays into his adventures in the film. Interesting note: in the comics of the '90s, Perry White adopted a black son named Keith (a character introduced in 1991 as an orphan who befriends Superman) but the character kind-of disappeared in the '00s.
10) People complained that the film wasn't enough like the Christopher Reeve films. But that they recycled the same villain: General Zod (as well, Faora and the male bruiser who joins her in fighting Supes are similar enough to Ursa and Non) and elements of the same story. Oookay!
10a) Just as an aside, is Mc Kenzie Grey's character—Zod's science officer—the closest we're gonna get to a Brainiac on screen?
11) BTW: a lot of the Reeve loyalists forget that those films didn't start the Superman phenomenon and that they were attacked by people loyal to GEORGE Reeves in much the same way this movie is being attacked.
12) And yes, he killed General Zod, but Snyder says that this was to explain his aversion to killing. I don't feel they need to explain that, but it does have precedence in the comics (in a very pivotal story, he kills Zod and feels terrible about it) and it was clearly not just done so a bunch of testosterone heads would go, "BOO YEAH!!"
13) This film marks the first time anyone has ever complained about something being "too realistic," especially when—y'know—it's about a man who can fly and lift a car over his head and has to fight off an invasion from residents of his old planet. What they mean, of course, is that they're trying to make the character seem more three-dimensional which was what SOME scenes in the Chris Reeve films attempted, but you know, don't let that stop you from a good bitch-fest. Alternatively, they might mean they want more jokes and flamboyance like in the Iron Man films, but when they did that in 1983, they didn't like it.
14) "Oh no, they're turning him into Batman." An incredibly short-sighted concern, especially since the Batman of Chris Nolan's films isn't as much of a vicious anti-hero as other versions.
15) And, finally, yes the costume is unfaithful, but if red trunks are that paramount to your enjoyment of the character, I just think you might be missing the point.