User blog comment:Nausiated/Your Grandfather's Superman was a Jerk/@comment-1895174-20160523184746/@comment-61022-20160524153856

The article was also a work of satire to be honest. But it does have a point that really is that Superman has gone through many changes in personality and tone over the years. At the end of the day, Snyder's version is just another interpretation. If I were to write something a little more serious I probably would have found instances where Superman hasn't always been the altruistic Boy Scout everyone paints him as.

In all honestly, I think the Snyder Superman is the closest reflection to the character that Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster first created and what they intended him to be. To call them "installment weirdness" is dismissing what the creators intended to do with the character. They were forced to soften the character when Whitney Ellsworth created an editorial mandate in the 1940s that basically forced writers to make their characters more light hearted. Superman was late castrated further in the 1950s when the industry was forced to adopt the CCA.

Everyone who adapted Superman from that point forward went with this watered down, neutered version that was a pale reflection of what the creators intended him to be. If you want to talk about not being true to the nature of the character, people haven't been true to the nature of Superman for 76 years.

I'd say that through his perceived dislike of the character, Snyder brought Superman right back to his roots. A powerful being with his own sense of right and wrong and the power to do it mostly unopposed. The world around him either reveres him as a hero or considers him a reckless vigilante. That is the absolute essence of the original character. The difference between the two is simply that Snyder had the benefit of 76 years of material for window dressing.

And yes, long time fans are naturally repellant of anything outside of the norm. God forbid somebody try a new idea. Stagnation = comfort. People who speak out about the way the character is represented in this film are part of a tiresome group of fanboys who haven't figured out the simple fact that Hollywood isn't making a movie to sell to them. They already have the fanboy dollar regardless. They are making a film that tries to appeal to as many viewers as possible, which greatly outnumber the fanboys. This is a reality. If they made a movie that appealed only to fans it would be an economic failure. That's the reality.

Batman v. Superman was not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. However it was still entertaining. If you're watching a movie because you expect it to be exactly with whatever you grew up with not only are you continuing to repeat an almost constant path to disappointment, then you're never objective enjoy to enjoy anything in life. Comedian Patton Oswald would very likely describe these people as he would the idiotic hecklers he deals with on stage. They're the type of people who will "miss everything cool and die angry". If there is any apt explanation that can be applied to modern Fandom that one is the most apt. A prime example of this need only be done by typing in the word "Ghostbusters" into YouTube and watching everything you find.

Anyone who believes that if you remake something and follow the source material to the letter has never seen the remake of Psycho. A shot-for-shot remake of the original Hitchcock classic with very little by way of modernizing the story. It's boring. If you're going to remake something and not do anything different than what was previously established, then where's the point?

End of the day: Everything gets remade. It's never going to be like the original. Get used to it. There's also no such thing as an original idea left in comics, if you go back far enough you can find something that's been done before.