Mark Millar says the bulk of D.C. roster is not "Cinematic".

Eh, once Luthor shows up it's more Luthor who carries the film.



He gives up his powers (that will save millions of lives) to be with a Nutbag like Kidder's Lois (especially when SMII and Quest for Peace gives us much better love interests in Lana and Lacy) despite her being an illiterate, chain smoking scatter brain. Then when he's repowered he sadistically tortures Zod (even if he does or doesn't kill him) with a smile on his face, goes back to beat up that redneck trucker and then violates Lois' mind for...reasons.

Sorry, that ain't Superman.



Compare her personality to someone like Steve Rogers', and you see difference between an archetype and a character.



I can think of at least two things wrong with that movies' title.

Eh, Clark drives the story UNTIL Luthor shows up and then it all comes to a screeching halt. Bu the hero being overshadowed by the villain was very typical back in those days.



In this case, a crappy character. Now we have the OPPOSITE problem.



The only time I remember him doing that was in "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and that was a finale story anyways.




She hasn't seemed to have changed all that much compared to Steve, though. And I had problems with how the movie didn't seem to be willing to put her in real danger the whole way through, even in her battle with Ares.

What he's saying is that, at DC, she's Wonder Woman 1st and Diana Prince 2nd. 

And he's wrong. Diana's personality is a big part of the story.

Well... yes. I've been saying this for some time now. It's really hard to make multiple movies about a superhero who doesn't have that much of a personality and who's defining characteristic is their powerset... at least for this generation of viewers. Modern audiences like more personality, more intricacies from movie lead characters. This is why Hulk movies have trouble becoming successful. This why Nolan's TDK trilogy became so successful: Because they stopped concentrating on Batman and instead focused on Bruce Wayne being Batman. 

In a way Wonder Woman and Superman are the same in that they are that superhero character disguising themselves as regular people.  Only difference is that Diana's is a conscious decision as an adult while Clark is something put on Kal El to hide since when he was a baby.  Bruce Wayne basically died when he was a kid and another person took on that identity as a cover for Batman. Characters like the Flash became the Flash and has to hide as Barry by slowing himself down.  He doesn't put on the speed. 

Spider-man is his strength.  He's Peter Parker before he is Spider-man.  The explanation he gave the kid in TASM about the mask making him stronger is how he is in the comics.  The mask is what gives him his confidence. 

When he goes on the date with Lois and is about to tell her his secret.  When he stands up straight, that's the real person.  He became Superman and shrugged off Clark.  He does the same thing in Superman 2 when he stuck his hand in the fire and got upset when she ultimately figured him out.  Same goes for when they are together in the FoS and when he's talking to his holo mom.  That's all the real Clark.  Yes, he's putting on a show when he tells her flying is the safest way to travel.  You can see that he's trolling her when he turns around and smiles. 

Part of it, yes.  The trying to be the "messenger of hope" Superman.  But the Kal El that's with the Justice League is the real one.  There is the Superman that's talking to journalist or a crowd, Clark Kent, and the Kal El that hangs with the Justice League and others that know his secret and grew up in Smallville.  That Kal El is usually different than the Clark in Metropolis.  And, yes, he does take pride in that article because that is not something that came to him from birth.