It's not what the character is about. Modern Superman's biggest flaw is that the focus is on irrelevant side elements and the central stuff this character is about is in total disregard and disrepair.
It's not what the character is about. Modern Superman's biggest flaw is that the focus is on irrelevant side elements and the central stuff this character is about is in total disregard and disrepair.
It isn't about him being a good father or not.He can be flawed. But, irredeemable that's a whole different thing. Superman should face consequences.and furthermore he needs to be respectable human being. Some champion of the oppressed or defenceless he is if he cannot even protect children.
This is superman
[IMG]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/Sh_a5QdUKD1EObiWCZIgpg81XMjDGe7M6r4pg5XMDKMJMWM5sq2zNJb6cMMD8NZ5ktTN87CJVKvu=s1600[/IMG]
[IMG]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/k7xjgWAgRaUWQxqaGPug6_GiFsPXdlszkUDZFDVwQQYMc1vUQeIz-ISfzG5edJ83zXRxwfKg8itO=s1600[/IMG]
This an inexperienced guy trying to deal with a kid. This is flawed. Yet, he isn't irredeemable.He would be damned before anything happens to the baby.
Put ten different Superman fans in the same room and you'll get at least six different perspectives on what he's supposed to be about.
[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;4923245]It isn't about him being a good father or not.He can be flawed. But, irredeemable that's a whole different thing. Superman should face consequences.and furthermore he needs to be respectable human being. Some champion of the oppressed or defenceless he is if he cannot even protect children.
This is superman
[/QUOTE]
No I'm not playing this game about how awful Superman is because he let Jon go off with Jor-El because I really don't care what happen with Jon or Jor-El or whatever. All I've seen on this forum since Post-Crisis Superman left and came back was the endless discussion about the family, the farm, the marriage. It's as if that's all the Post-Crisis guy is to his fans. He's not a champion of the oppressed and he never was. He's not the Man of Steel or the Man of Tomorrow, or Action Ace or any other moniker that the character built up during the Pre-Crisis days because he's totally different person that the Pre-Crisis Superman. The world he left in 2009-2010 is far, FAR worse than the world he was handed in 1987 and since he came back he hasn't shown to be even slightly better at the Superman gig. It's been business as usual with him prancing around on some farm as if that's the way things have been since Action Comics 1. The fact that this character went through some huge 12 issue 3 year mega event to get back his parents while the supervillains continue to treat the world like it's their personal playground is such a beautiful encapsulation for what this character is. Someone who has so clearly taken his eye off the ball and become distracted by meaningless side drivel that wasn't there for the longest time.
He's just hilariously bad at being Superman, because he never wanted to be Superman he wanted to be Clark Kent. If you write Superman then you better write a guy who's actually wants to be Superman. No wonder the guy takes L's to everyone and their mother, dude barely even wants to do his damn job.
Also taking time to take care of a kid isn't the same as derailing your Superhero career to deal with your own kid. The bit where Superman asked everyone else to pitch in while he was raising Jon with Lois is one of the most unSuperman things I've ever read.
[QUOTE=Agent Z;4923254]Put ten different Superman fans in the same room and you'll get at least six different perspectives on what he's supposed to be about.[/QUOTE]
You might, but ultimately there is a guy that preceded all of those interpretation. Goldenage guy is the basis of all supermen. Even snyder superman (who is said to be not "my superman" ) has direct influences from the guy. This notion that superman has to be irredeemable as a father is bogus. Look, at the nonsense he does with the baby in the panels i showed you. Yet, he is still the champion of the defenceless. Furthermore, unlike current illogical things like superman wearing underwear outside without a reason , ma and pa pushing the guy to be a vigilante,him taking selfies with police.. Etc this was a time when superman was very much grounded and went the boyscout route.
[QUOTE=Agent Z;4923254]Put ten different Superman fans in the same room and you'll get at least six different perspectives on what he's supposed to be about.[/QUOTE]
Yes and that is the very problem. Had DC handled the character better we wouldn't have this. IIRC in that SYFY interview John Byrne estimated that's why he was brought onto the books, to make things as different as possible. That's how you treat Z-tier characters that crashed and burned out the gate not a guy who's the predecessor to most of your universe and has something like 600 million comics sales the vast majority of them probably being from his early days.
[QUOTE=The World;4923261]No I'm not playing this game about how awful Superman is because he let Jon go off with Jor-El because I really don't care what happen with Jon or Jor-El or whatever. All I've seen on this forum since Post-Crisis Superman left and came back was the endless discussion about the family, the farm, the marriage. It's as if that's all the Post-Crisis guy is to his fans. He's not a champion of the oppressed and he never was. He's not the Man of Steel or the Man of Tomorrow, or Action Ace or any other moniker that the character built up during the Pre-Crisis days because he's totally different person that the Pre-Crisis Superman. The world he left in 2009-2010 is far, FAR worse than the world he was handed in 1987 and since he came back he hasn't shown to be even slightly better at the Superman gig. It's been business as usual with him prancing around on some farm as if that's the way things have been since Action Comics 1. The fact that this character went through some huge 12 issue 3 year mega event to get back his parents while the supervillains continue to treat the world like it's their personal playground is such a beautiful encapsulation for what this character is. Someone who has so clearly taken his eye off the ball and become distracted by meaningless side drivel that wasn't there for the longest time.
He's just hilariously bad at being Superman, because he never wanted to be Superman he wanted to be Clark Kent. If you write Superman then you better write a guy who's actually wants to be Superman. No wonder the guy takes L's to everyone and their mother, dude barely even wants to do his damn job.
Also taking time to take care of a kid isn't the same as derailing your Superhero career to deal with your own kid. The bit where Superman asked everyone else to pitch in while he was raising Jon with Lois is one of the most unSuperman things I've ever read.[/QUOTE]
Right, your notion of a superman is him having no personal life at all. Well, that's pretty much bogus as well. Many of the best precrisis stories are based on his intimate side of superman. Furthermore, siegel wrote the issues with lyla, which lead to for the man who has everything.Superman might have responsibilities and he might be flawed. But, this notion that he can shove kara in some orphanage or mon el in phantom zone with out having to face any consequences from it, cannot and will not be tolerated.I am sorry to say that's what happened in precrisis. Superman was of scottfree.The year of villain would have always happened regardless of the era. Why? Because many of superman's earlier foes didn't just stop. The world will always have villains. They would always run around. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for superman. Furthermore, superman isn't a totalitarian. He is the antithesis of totalitarian. He values freedom above all else as the chain breaker. just because he has responsibilities doesn't mean he doesn't have desires and doesn't act on them. He isn't some sage who gives up his personal life for the sake of world. Alan moore stories are based on how Clark's perspective changes. Superman is of healthy mindset. He isn't batman.
There is a fineline between a badass and shallow guy who is all about beating people up. Superman being shallow isn't welcome.He is a strongman. His ethics are based on that. Regardless, of the l or w he takes. The original guy had a instinct to help people. But, he was hiding himself from the world. He didn't grow up thinking, " ah! One day i will grow up to be a great vigilante". It was an instinct and a reaction that lead to superman the vigilante. Furthermore, it was the real clark kent showing himself to the world. There can be no superman without clark kent. There is difference between that guy and the fake persona, though .
This very issue has him deciding to stay with a baby rather than go of do reporting gig. Superman can't be everywhere at once so he would always priorities things.there are thousands of heroes. A guy who thinks the world can't go on without him is a narcissist. Superman isn't a narcissist. Ofcourse, he would take the safety of his son into consideration and go into hiding. Furthermore, he didn't exactly stop being superman. Like when he started, superman used to do the saving in hiding in the original comics as well before revealing himself as superman . I am not interested in a hollow figure going about helping people and fighting villains without any internal processes . Superman used to actually interact with people and take the time to hear them out and solve their problems. Heck! He has even trained people on body building and self defence. The character was never that shallow. Ofcourse, the drama is new. At the end of the day writing superman like in the case of mon el or kara without any consequences will have backlash. So, drama will find a way in, regardless.Also, a character like superman requires a good world. If he doesn't the character seizes to be good. I am not interested in superman being drama centric. But, this idea that superman should be a hollow figure with no relationships, friends, family .. Etc is underwhelming.
It's Clark's relationships that show the positive impact he is having on the world and how he inspires people. That is the secret as to why the triangle era was so good. It wasn't just Ma and Pa and Lois. It was Maggie Sawyer and Dan Turpin adapting to a world of super-powered criminals and heroes and becoming better cops. It was Bibo becoming inspired to be more than just a drunk and become a pillar of his community because he met Superman. It was Emil Hamilton finding purpose in life. It was John Henry Irons and Linda Danvers seeking redemption for the sins of their pasts and becoming heroes thanks to his inspiration. Heck, it was even Batman learning to be a bit more hopeful thanks to Superman. This is a huge part of why I adore 90s Superman comics and can't stand 2000s Superman comics. Especially in comics which are long-form and don't end, this is how you show how Superman is making the world a better place, through the people he interacts with on a regular basis.
Neil Gaiman once said that whenever someone says they don't like something, they're always right, but when they explain why they don't like it, they're usually wrong. I think this applies to a lot of the people who claim post crisis Superman or Bendis' Superman isn't heroic for some reason.
[QUOTE=Agent Z;4923328]Neil Gaiman once said that whenever someone says they don't like something, they're always right, but when they explain why they don't like it, they're usually wrong. I think this applies to a lot of the people who claim post crisis Superman or Bendis' Superman isn't heroic for some reason.[/QUOTE]
I think the complaint isn't that postcrisis superman isn't heroic. Its more he is wet towel,compared to the goldenage guy or silverage guy. See, superman had this larger than life persona. He had personality, charm and real confidence coming from taking hits and giving it back. Postcrisis is drama centric. Superman before that was never about drama. Drama was sure part of the parcel, but they never took it that serious. Its always action that propelled the character.Superman was more like allmight. Than let's say something like lois and clark.
As for Bendis's superman, that guy is also about drama. But, the difference is its nonsensical. Superman banging lois while his son is being tortured. Lois leaving her kid with a guy she barely knows. A kid like jon who couldn't handle the first time he saw a dead body and who had trouble coping with Manchester black's torture.Now,suddenly had been tortured on daily basis for years by a guy who looks like his father and walks aways without any problems/perfectly alright. It's nonsensical.Furthmore,it ticks me of that clark and lois pay no price for it. They aren't feeling any of the consequences after being neglectful and borderline abusive parents. What is this? An ad for child abuse.
[QUOTE=Agent Z;4923328]Neil Gaiman once said that whenever someone says they don't like something, they're always right, but when they explain why they don't like it, they're usually wrong. I think this applies to a lot of the people who claim post crisis Superman or Bendis' Superman isn't heroic for some reason.[/QUOTE]
Which doesn't always make a lot of sense since art is subjective. What some perceive as flaws for their valid reasons for disliking something, others may not perceive as flaws, and vice versa. There is also the fact that emotion goes into story telling a lot of the time, and that's not always easy to articulate.
Anyway, for me it's not that post-Crisis Superman is un-heroic. Because every superhero DC publishes has "heroic" as a default characteristic, that's about as basic as it can get. It's more that he just comes across as boring. Despite the accusations that he was too perfect and powerful before hand, the attempts to "Marvel-ize" him and make him more grounded succeeded in making him more boring than a lot of the pre-COIE setup ever managed. He had a lot more quirks/neuroses and flaws that were erased, he was too powerful for street crime but not as powerful to deal with threats he did previously, his mythos was stripped almost bare and not replaced with anything as interesting or improvements, etc. Like the Bronze age writing wasn't always great and he needed a shake up, but the fundamentals and mythos were at least in place and could be utilized or added to more easily. The reboot just screwed him up and we pay for it to this day (ditto Wonder Woman, though she needed something along those lines more than he did).
There’s probably a better argument that Golden Age and Bronze Age Superman are more irrelevant considering the versions that have been most successful in the last 40 years focus on the “irrelevant” side elements.
[QUOTE=Yoda;4923411]There’s probably a better argument that Golden Age and Bronze Age Superman are more irrelevant considering the versions that have been most successful in the last 40 years focus on the “irrelevant” side elements.[/QUOTE]
I don't think a "champion of the oppressed" take will ever be irrelevant, that along with the immigrant story are the most timeless elements of the core concepts.
Does he sell what he used to, relative to the respective time periods? Comics in general don't sell anywhere near as much as they did before, and Superman's been toppled by Batman for a while. "Successful" among the increasingly insular mainstream Wednesday Warriors isn't nearly as impressive as being the top seller back when comics were far more easily accessible.
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;4923406]Which doesn't always make a lot of sense since art is subjective. What some perceive as flaws for their valid reasons for disliking something, others may not perceive as flaws, and vice versa. There is also the fact that emotion goes into story telling a lot of the time, and that's not always easy to articulate.
Anyway, for me it's not that post-Crisis Superman is un-heroic. Because every superhero DC publishes has "heroic" as a default characteristic, that's about as basic as it can get. It's more that he just comes across as boring. Despite the accusations that he was too perfect and powerful before hand, the attempts to "Marvel-ize" him and make him more grounded succeeded in making him more boring than a lot of the pre-COIE setup ever managed. He had a lot more quirks/neuroses and flaws that were erased, [B]he was too powerful for street crime but not as powerful to deal with threats he did previously,[/B] his mythos was stripped almost bare and not replaced with anything as interesting or improvements, etc. Like the Bronze age writing wasn't always great and he needed a shake up, but the fundamentals and mythos were at least in place and could be utilized or added to more easily. The reboot just screwed him up and we pay for it to this day (ditto Wonder Woman, though she needed something along those lines more than he did).[/QUOTE]
Actually I think this is a good example of Gaiman meant, particularly the bolded. Where does this notion that post crisis Superman wasn't strong enough to deal with cosmic threats come from? Post crisis Superman took on and defeated the likes of Darkseid, Brainiac, Doomsday, Maxima, Zod and Mongul. He wasn't weak just because he had a more limited yet still very large and versatile power set. He was doing things like moving mountains and tanking nuclear blasts. Yeah he had to work a lot harder for his victories now but it didn't make him the weakling some people paint him as.
If anything, the bolded criticism fits the Golden Age version better.
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;4923430]I don't think a "champion of the oppressed" take will ever be irrelevant, that along with the immigrant story are the most timeless elements of the core concepts.
Does he sell what he used to, relative to the respective time periods? Comics in general don't sell anywhere near as much as they did before, and Superman's been toppled by Batman for a while. "Successful" among the increasingly insular mainstream Wednesday Warriors isn't nearly as impressive as being the top seller back when comics were far more easily accessible.[/QUOTE]
All superheroes are champions of the oppressed. As for the immigrant story, that has the problem of applicability. Much like how the X-Men's "mutant metaphor" has been (not unjustly) criticized as a poor and at times incredibly insulting substitute for stories about real marginalized groups.
DC sales as a whole were so pitiful in the early 80s even compared to today. Here's a chart of the top 100 best-selling comics from June 1984.
[url]https://comixace.tumblr.com/post/103862919029/samhumphries-marvel1980s-1984-junes-top[/url]
Note how Superman is selling under 15K and Batman and Detective Comics are both selling under 20k. Batman and Superman. And this was after Batman had been reinvented and brought into a darker and more respectable tone in the 70s.