There's a writer I'm good friends with who have worked with DC comics many times, and he shared this on Facebook. I was a little disappointed, because he's always been a fan of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, and it was difficult for me not to rant in the comments.

I'm not sharing the article itself, because I don't want to contribute to the traffic. It's an older article (2018) and the writer likes Man of Steel, but it still reeks of this desperation to revert the character to something he never really was.

They say "earnest" as though a Superman who gives himself over to the government, calls his mom at night, meditates conversations with his dead father, brings his partner flowers and cheers her up when she's distressed and walks into a court hearing discussing HIM isn't earnest.

They say "unhip" about a Superman that has been called "emo" "edgy" "grimdark" "gritty" etc in a climate where those things are considered anything but hip.

And the comments under the link are all 40+ men repeating how Richard Donner's Superman is the be all end all of the character.
In their time with the character, Superman's creators Joe Schuster and Jerry Siegel developed him and let him grow.

Then the comics code came in to play and brought in a much safer, sanitised version of the character. Now, historically, the comics code came from something that I describe as literary puritanical fascism.

Donner's movie was effectively an adaptation of the Superman of that era, and while I love it, and revisit it often, I think it should remain a part of the character's history, along with the comics code.

It's so bizarre to me how these people act as though the character is so precious and sacred, and yet refuse to let him grow. They are so desperately afraid of change, that a fictional character can never be more than an ideal they set as children.

I'm sensing a change now, what with #ZackSnydersJusticeLeague happening, Henry Cavill seemingly still in the role, @ATT being way more on the pulse about who the fanbase is, bnot to mention the influence and support of @JimLee amongst others.

But it's insane that I've been a fan of the character my whole life, and I've probably spent more time arguing with people about him than celebrating him.
So I didn't rant in the comments. I don't want to argue. It's pointless.

Superman was a friend when I had none, when an abusive father failed me, when an abusive partner hurt me, when I failed myself. I grew up understanding that the discomfort of growth ends in something better than comfort. Happiness.

The character was with me the whole way, because I always needed a friend. I know that sounds cheesy, but it's true.
I kept seeing this friend grow, and seeing others drag him back down.

Like the people who wanted me to be a certain way; the typical boy's boy or the stoic breadwinning obedient partner, these people would only allow this character to be one way. And they didn't care who they abused to maintain that.

This is melodramatic, I know. But the character Superman has been woven into my mental health since childhood.
He's symbolic to me not of power and escapism, but of inspiration and overcoming challenges.

Maybe he's finally overcoming one of his greatest challenges now, that of the burden and weight of expectation and creative subjugation. I sure hope so.
And what is Superman if not a symbol of hope?