>>213864582
>Well here's the counterpoint, if you're an invincible god alien, why should he give a fuck? All these stories just operate on the assumption that Superman is going to use all his energy and time constantly saving people. Why are we human projecting that burden on him?
It's almost like that's the point of the type of portrayal people are advocating for. He could be anything but he chooses to be good.
Going back to the roots of the character it was a not-so-subtle fuck you to the way that the Nazis had co-opted the idea of the ubermensch. Captain America is a similar kind of deal. The ultimate man is here, and he's decided he wants to uplift people instead of lord over them.
The 'point', if there is one, is that he identifies with his humanity. Not in the sense of humans versus kryptonians, but in the sense of the vulnerability and fallibility inherent to all living things. He's a good person before he's a demigod, and he sees the latter as his ability to make good on the former. His powers make him super but they don't make him a hero, which is the core truth at the heart of the entire genre really.
I like some of the takes on evil superman but it's not as novel an observation as people seem to think it is. No shit if his moral compass was weaker or his humanity missing he'd be a menace, the point of the original character is that he rejects those.
Both MAWS and the 2025 film play a little metatextually with the idea that people in-universe just can't get past the idea that he has to have an angle. He's got to secretly be an evil superman just waiting for his moment.
>>213864681
Homelander is one I really liked, in as far as I watched The Boys anyway, because it really got into the idea that he was this fundamentally malformed, stunted person handed the persona. He's not 'evil' in the sense of cackling villany to spite the heroes, he's just a very sad husk of a man. He'd just be a sad case if he didn't have godlike powers and a head full of bad ideas.
