Why has WB struggled with Superman on the big screen?

Lois is but one of MANY emotional ties to humanity. After becoming his wife she would climb to be nearing the top of importance if not at the top, but he certainly doesn't need her to retrain his humanity. The Kents instilled that in him when he was young, and he can hold onto that even when they are not around (probably why it's probably better to keep them dead once he reaches adulthood). He also has other friends besides her. Perry, Jimmy (both of whom totally know his secret as I'm sure he is aware on some level), Lana, Pete, the Legion, Kara, Krypto, Bruce and Diana are the major ones.

This trend of making Lois the only thing keeping him from becoming a psychotic alien tyrant needs to just eff off already. It creates an obnoxious perception of him. And it also makes her nothing more than a pacifying object for her man. No thank you.

Yep. When I argue these things it isn't even me necessarily suggesting that Superman should be out on his own with little ties, either. That falls into an area of subjectivity of what one wants to see story-wise. All I'm saying is that he could make it that way if that's the way it were. He wouldn't fall apart. Tested? Sure. But he's tested all the time, regardless, that's never going to change because the Earth is never going to be a utopia. So he'll always be tested on those grounds, but he's faced those tests before when alone and he won out then. So he wouldn't love Earth less. He wouldn't see the inherent beauty of its people any less. Because he had those things going in, they're not something that can be lost that easily. If it were, the tests he experienced when he first gained his powers and when he could first hear those cries of pain and when he could first see the violence and harm people do to each other, it would have broke him then. It didn't and that's a testament to his resolve and the immense love he has going into his career.

Grounding, in the context that is so often used in that he outright needs a human lover, or a human wife (and now a child), or needs his parents to still be alive to stay that way, is just such a poor take. Right next to "Clark is what I am, Superman is what I can do", this is greatest sin that post-Crisis dumped on the character and the mythos. Its a wound that has needed cleaning for a long time. Over time has gone through various stages of festering, but its lingering way too long. And I dunno, maybe the New 52 scrubbed too hard too fast. But I still feels it needs to be properly cleaned even today nonetheless. And again that's not saying that all this stuff has to be wiped out. Not perpetuating that he's incapable of standing alone isn't the same thing as forcing him to always stand alone. That part is subjective. I prefer an unmarried Superman who's not a father. But I'm not trying to argue it can't be done. Just don't tell me the character can't be the character he was for more than half a century without it, is all.

Look I don't mean to try and push my thoughts onto anyone or to cast down certain view points or preferences other have. To a degree I do think a strength of this 80 year old character is that he's got different viewpoints people can latch onto.

That having been said this thing where he's constantly groveling on the floor trying to prove how human he is. That stuff just makes him come of as weak and lacking any pride in who he is. Trying to fight with the Batman or Spiderman fans and prove that he's actually more human than Peter or Bruce is a fight that isn't worth fighting and is really just distracting the character from what is actually important which is the superheroics which is what Superman helped pioneer.

[QUOTE=Sacred Knight;3914226]Agreed. I am so sick and tired of the concept of grounding. He's grounded as much as he needs to be well before he even becomes Superman. And even after he loses his parents, he remains as grounded as he needs to be. It is [I]not [/I]essential to the character to keep having to drive this home. Its pre-packaged into his origin. Nor is it is primary appeal. His appeal was, and always has been, nuanced. Not 100% anything. And I'm sorry but there is absolutely nothing of importance in Superman settling down and having a family. You [I]can[/I] do it. But you don't [I]have [/I]to do it. Its the furthest thing from paramount to the character. Hence why in his 80 year history he's only had a family for all of 2 years.[/QUOTE]

I find the concept of Superman as a father worth exploring. The comics have teased the idea for a long time. I feel it's one of the things Clark always wanted to experience, his own child. His own legacy as a person. I also find the idea of his child being part human, part Kryptonian interesting if written well.


[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;3914325]Lois is but one of MANY emotional ties to humanity. After becoming his wife she would climb to be nearing the top of importance if not at the top, but he certainly doesn't need her to retrain his humanity. The Kents instilled that in him when he was young, and he can hold onto that even when they are not around (probably why it's probably better to keep them dead once he reaches adulthood). He also has other friends besides her. Perry, Jimmy (both of whom totally know his secret as I'm sure he is aware on some level), Lana, Pete, the Legion, Kara, Krypto, Bruce and Diana are the major ones.

This trend of making Lois the only thing keeping him from becoming a psychotic alien tyrant needs to just eff off already. It creates an obnoxious perception of him. And it also makes her nothing more than a pacifying object for her man. No thank you.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I really don't like a Clark/Superman who emotionally depends on Lois to that degree. It's not healthy. It makes him look too weak and immature and not a great hero. A great hero is someone who risks his life for the sake and safety of others no matter the cost. If Superman can't be that then he is not Superman. And yes, he has plenty of human friends who can help him heal in the case Lois died.

[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;3914325]Lois is but one of MANY emotional ties to humanity. After becoming his wife she would climb to be nearing the top of importance if not at the top, but he certainly doesn't need her to retrain his humanity. The Kents instilled that in him when he was young, and he can hold onto that even when they are not around (probably why it's probably better to keep them dead once he reaches adulthood). He also has other friends besides her. Perry, Jimmy (both of whom totally know his secret as I'm sure he is aware on some level), Lana, Pete, the Legion, Kara, Krypto, Bruce and Diana are the major ones.

This trend of making Lois the only thing keeping him from becoming a psychotic alien tyrant needs to just eff off already. It creates an obnoxious perception of him. And it also makes her nothing more than a pacifying object for her man. No thank you.[/QUOTE]

This is taking the argument to an extreme = straw man argument. Nobody said Lois's connection was keeping him from going psychotic. In Injustice, it was the fact that he was manipulated into killing her that drove him over the edge, not just her absence.

Superman as an alien loner wasn't an idea until the Byrne reboot. (Although he did reintroduce an "alive" Ma & Pa Kent which gave him a family connection until the marriage to Lois came along in the 90's. The real point is Clark was raised in the Midwest by a loving couple, and would have no memories of Krypton (except what he learned later as an adult), so would therefore have a strong connection to Earth. Kara is the one who would be the alien loner, because she was raised on Krypton.

[QUOTE=astro@work;3914527]This is taking the argument to an extreme = straw man argument. Nobody said Lois's connection was keeping him from going psychotic. In Injustice, it was the fact that he was manipulated into killing her that drove him over the edge, not just her absence.

[/QUOTE]

Well, unfortunately, Lois-has-died-now-Superman-is-insane stories do pop up far too frequently. If your knowledge base of Superman comes from the last 20 years, you'd probably assume that Superman is at risk of going off the deep end as soon as the story writer introduces Ms. Lane to the proverbial refrigerator.

[QUOTE=The World;3913855]Compassion isn't a trait exclusive to humans in the DCU. Plenty of aliens express most or all of the characteristics that define the human race so Superman's bid for humanity really has no inherit weight or value. Frankly this groveling the Superman franchise has been put through for the last quarter century with Superman trying to appeal to people that don't like the character because he's an alien has only demeaned the character. It produces things like BvS where Superman is basically flogged to prove something to the general audience.[/QUOTE]

I never said it was exclusive to humans. But plenty of aliens can be killed like any normal human, so this idea of a "human pretense" is also garbage. That was my point. The groveling has been to the Batman franchise imo, not the Superman one, in valuing this false idea of "humanity" and detracting anything else. Clark is human in the way that we understand how humans should treat each other. That's not demeaning, that's a strength.

[QUOTE=The World;3914066]That Gerry Conway/JGL story shows how bizarre Superman looks when he's trying to fit in rather than just being himself. Most of the stuff he does in that story are things John Byrne went on to try earnestly in the reboot. The difference is that the bronze age story acknowledges how silly Superman looks trying to pose himself as some kind of football playing casanova that every guy wants to be, where as the Post-Crisis take on Superman legitimately thinks thats cool and enhances the character. Feeling out of place or awkward around other people are perfectly normal things that people feel and that's [I]without[/I] having to deal with being a survivor of a dead race or having a secondary life they can't tell anyone about. Humanity is not just the high points of the human race rather it is it's uniqueness amongst all the other animals on the planet and it's range of expression that makes it different.[/QUOTE]

That was the Post-Crisis take on a high-school Clark, not on Post-Crisis Superman - and Pa used it as a lesson to show him he needs to think about his actions. It's not the only way to do it, and I can see how some might not like it, but it's not character-breaking. It's a lesson. And I agree that feeling out of place/etc is normal, and there have been great takes on the character that do that, too. Post-Crisis adult Clark is by no means a Casanova.

[QUOTE]When action comics launched way back in the day Superman headlined that book with many other characters and yet he Supes is the only one to outlive them all. The difference between them was that Superman was SUPERhuman and along with his regular street level antics also fought weird scific threats, Mxy, Luthor, Ultrahumanite, etc. Pep Morgan, Hop Harrington, and the rest were just regular people that led action packed but regular lives. Superman is weird and different and we shouldn't be watering himself down to appeal to others.[/QUOTE]

Nothing wrong with Superman being weird and different. But he can be weird and different and *still* be "human" in the way I've described.

[QUOTE]The Lois grounds him stuff is post-crisis talk through and through and frankly validates concepts like Injustice Superman. That isn't Superman.[/QUOTE]

I agree that it's not Superman, but that's not Post-Crisis talk, actually... [U]it's Pre-Flashpoint Post-IC talk[/U]. Post-Crisis Clark about let Lois die because he wouldn't kill the Joker. "Grounding" is a Geoff Johns mentality, not a Dan Jurgens mentality.

[QUOTE=Comic-Reader Lad;3914174]I think that Hollywood in general is a very cynical place, and they simply don't know how to do "uplifting" without apology or undercutting it with irony and sarcasm. I'll get a little political here and say that it's a leftist thing. They view honesty and niceness as being corny and outdated and they simply don't know how to write a character like that. If they gave it a real try, it would still feel off because they would lean so far into it that it would come across as overly and mawkishly earnest -- the big blue boyscout syndrome that Superman really needs to escape from.[/QUOTE]

It's not a leftist thing - it's a "drama" thing, and a bit of a cynical thing, and those cross political lines pretty easily. It just seems that way because Hollywood writers got addicted to it.

[QUOTE]We'll never see the full character arc that Snyder had planned for Superman, and that's a shame because I was interested in where Snyder was going.[/QUOTE]

I don't mind Superman learning, in fact I love the idea "on paper," but he was pushing so many storylines at once that they'd have to have six 5-hour movies before we got to a Superman I'd feel like watching. Superman learning, done right, takes a cinematic focus that was never going to happen - or would take more movies than the public would sit through to get there, imo.

[QUOTE=Sacred Knight;3914387]Yep. When I argue these things it isn't even me necessarily suggesting that Superman should be out on his own with little ties, either. That falls into an area of subjectivity of what one wants to see story-wise. All I'm saying is that he could make it that way if that's the way it were. He wouldn't fall apart. Tested? Sure. But he's tested all the time, regardless, that's never going to change because the Earth is never going to be a utopia. So he'll always be tested on those grounds, but he's faced those tests before when alone and he won out then. So he wouldn't love Earth less. He wouldn't see the inherent beauty of its people any less. Because he had those things going in, they're not something that can be lost that easily. If it were, the tests he experienced when he first gained his powers and when he could first hear those cries of pain and when he could first see the violence and harm people do to each other, it would have broke him then. It didn't and that's a testament to his resolve and the immense love he has going into his career.[/QUOTE]

That's a great take. I love it.

[QUOTE]Grounding, in the context that is so often used in that he outright needs a human lover, or a human wife (and now a child), or needs his parents to still be alive to stay that way, is just such a poor take. Right next to "Clark is what I am, Superman is what I can do", this is greatest sin that post-Crisis dumped on the character and the mythos.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's just me since I started reading in 1991 (a few years later), but I saw that statement as a starting point, not an end point. By RoS, he had his human roots but didn't seem to have that mentality anymore. Some said it was moving back to what came before, but I saw the change as progression of his character. If that makes any sense.

But I do agree that this idea that he needs "grounding" is a bad one. He doesn't need it. He would want it, as would anyone. But he won't fall apart if he doesn't have it.

[QUOTE=astro@work;3914527]This is taking the argument to an extreme = straw man argument. Nobody said Lois's connection was keeping him from going psychotic. In Injustice, it was the fact that he was manipulated into killing her that drove him over the edge, not just her absence.[/QUOTE]

I speak in exaggerations of course...buuuut not by much, I don't think. Injustice is the most extreme example and the most prominent and recent, but as DochaDocha pointed out, the idea that Superman cannot be grounded without Lois is not a new idea. The DCEU toyed with the idea even if the final version was pretty unremarkable, and one of the main criticisms against the Clark/Diana romance is that both characters (him in particular) need a mortal partner to ground them, which is a pretty detrimental view to have towards both characters. There are a multitude of reasons for SM and WW to not be a couple, but that one is low hanging fruit that doesn't give Clark much credit.

[QUOTE=astro@work;3914527]Superman as an alien loner wasn't an idea until the Byrne reboot. (Although he did reintroduce an "alive" Ma & Pa Kent which gave him a family connection until the marriage to Lois came along in the 90's. The real point is Clark was raised in the Midwest by a loving couple, and would have no memories of Krypton (except what he learned later as an adult), so would therefore have a strong connection to Earth. Kara is the one who would be the alien loner, because she was raised on Krypton.[/QUOTE]

No I think Superman being an alien loner existed way before Byrne. He didn't have a regular partner like Batman did, he just had his dog and his cousin who had her own stuff going on, and Bruce and Diana have always been the few superheroes he's close to. He cannot come out and share his secret to his immediate closest friends/co-workers. The Fortress of Solitude exists for a reason. He is not human, he doesn't have our biology. He will always lean closer to Earth than Krypton having been raised here, but he will always be of two worlds and be apart from us to a degree. That doesn't mean he is without humanity.

[QUOTE=DochaDocha;3914572]Well, unfortunately, Lois-has-died-now-Superman-is-insane stories do pop up far too frequently. If your knowledge base of Superman comes from the last 20 years, you'd probably assume that Superman is at risk of going off the deep end as soon as the story writer introduces Ms. Lane to the proverbial refrigerator.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Angers me to no end. It’s the favorite tool of hack writers who believe Supes is a hero only because there’s no “hardship” in his life, and the moment anything goes wrong he’ll snap. If that’s true than he’s hardly the “world’s greatest hero” is he? He’s just a fair weather psychopath who’s only good when things go his way. He’s a weaker man than any hero who’s ever lost a loved one. Screw that.

My opinion on the alien loner aspect? For all his claims of “working alone”, Batman has built a sizeable replacement Family for himself. Bats has always had partners and sidekicks while Supes tended to work alone. Superman on the other hand, despite flanderization painting him as everyone’s friend, has always kind of stood alone. Who is he really good friends with besides Bruce? Even Diana feels removed these days. Despite being [I]friendly[/I] I feel like Supes doesn’t actually have many [I]friends[/I]. He lets very few people into his private life, even people he should be closer with like Kara.

[QUOTE]Siegal and Shuster only created the Krypton backstory as a rationale to explain his powers. They never intended for him to be an 'alien character'. [/QUOTE]

He was a love interest for Lois Lane

[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;3914770] one of the main criticisms against the Clark/Diana romance is that both characters (him in particular) need a mortal partner to ground them, which is a pretty detrimental view to have towards both characters. There are a multitude of reasons for SM and WW to not be a couple, but that one is low hanging fruit that doesn't give Clark much credit.[/QUOTE]

Actually, grounded in this context is a totally different animal, though it may have led to the "grounded" idea that was taken to the extreme by "Injustice." When in the context of Clark & Diana, grounded just means that Clark being with Lois (or neither, but still) helps to keep his stories grounded on a narrative level that wouldn't be there as much if he were with Diana. Diana lives a fantastical life, so between hers and his they wouldn't necessarily have as much opportunity for "normal" as they would with someone who doesn't have that (not that it can't be done, just that it's a lot harder to pull off). Personally, I prefer the idea that each is drawn to someone "normal" from not just a standard narrative standpoint, but a "romantic narrative" one, as well - but I can see why others disagree.

[QUOTE]No I think Superman being an alien loner existed way before Byrne.[/QUOTE]

Byrne's Superman had his share of alone time, but I'd say the Silver/Bronze Age Superman was more of a loner, at least mentally. Post-Crisis Clark was much more social, imo, despite keeping his various secrets from people.

[QUOTE=The World;3914066]
Also the concept of Superboy and the super childhood was supported by Siegel IIRC. I remember seeing pictures of early concepts for Superman as a young boy that did in fact show him homesick for Krypton, so it really isn't just some idea some wacky silver age guys idea it's a part of the characters DNA. Even still by the mid to late 40's Superman had a full blown Superboy childhood given that the Superboy comic started in like '47 and he had been appearing in other comics before that. Beyond that Siegel second run did show him as a person that had a certain amount of longing for his birth planet while still loving Earth. Stuff like that makes the character more 3 dimensional.

If being normal was really what made the character tick we would have dumped the Superman bit by now and be reading about Clark Kent Ace Report not SUPERMAN ACTION ACE.[/QUOTE]

I never said anything against him having a Superboy career. While I'm personally not in favor of him being a full-blown Superboy in current continuity, I kinda like the idea of him secretely using his powers in Smallville, and being a member of the LOSH during his teen years.

Now I haven't read too many early Superboy stories, but I'm pretty sure that while they showed Clark initially struggling with how his powers set him apart from other kids, and then eventually using them as Superboy, they didn't focus on Clark considering himself an alien first and foremost. In fact, to my knowledge, the first time Superman discovered his alien heritage was Superman # 61, when he first encountered kryptonite and traveled back in time to trace its origins. The notion that Superboy was aware that he was from Krypton and that he remembered his life there only really came about in the Silver Age.

[QUOTE=astro@work;3914527]This is taking the argument to an extreme = straw man argument. Nobody said Lois's connection was keeping him from going psychotic. In Injustice, it was the fact that he was manipulated into killing her that drove him over the edge, not just her absence.

Superman as an alien loner wasn't an idea until the Byrne reboot. (Although he did reintroduce an "alive" Ma & Pa Kent which gave him a family connection until the marriage to Lois came along in the 90's. [B]The real point is Clark was raised in the Midwest by a loving couple, and would have no memories of Krypton (except what he learned later as an adult), so would therefore have a strong connection to Earth. Kara is the one who would be the alien loner, because she was raised on Krypton.[/B][/QUOTE]

This.

I'm not even remotely suggesting that Lois, or Jonathan and Martha Kents, are the only ones standing between Superman and being an alien tyrant.

All I'm saying is that Superman was raised as a human being, lives a major chunk of his life as a human being surrounded by other human beings, and primarily deals with the concerns of human beings.

So it makes sense that Superman would self-identify as a human, while also self-identifying as the sole surviving Kryptonian and respecting that heritage.

Supergirl, on the other hand, is the one who grew up on Krypton and who self-identifies as a Kryptonian.

Superman was raised as Clark Kent. That's the name he's answered to his entire life. To him, 'Clark Kent' is not an act or a false identity...it's who he is. Contrast this with Kara, for whom 'Linda Danvers' is an assumed identity that she uses to lead a normal life. Or 'John Jones' is an assumed identity and appearance for J'onn J'onzz.

Yeah Kara's civilian identity is a cover she uses to experience life on Earth from the perspective of a Human. But she was raised to be a good person and does this so that it's easier for her to understand Earth not because she has some hidden agenda. (Like when Car-vex assumed the identity of "officer Romundi")

[QUOTE=bat39;3915610]Superman was raised as Clark Kent. That's the name he's answered to his entire life. To him, 'Clark Kent' is not an act or a false identity...it's who he is. Contrast this with Kara, for whom 'Linda Danvers' is an assumed identity that she uses to lead a normal life. Or 'John Jones' is an assumed identity and appearance for J'onn J'onzz.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree with this. Also, I don't think we can use Siegel and Shuster's opinions as the ultimate authority on how the character should be written, because at this point, Superman is no longer the vision of Siegel and Shuster. He has evolved thanks to the talents of people like Christopher Reeve, Grant Morrison, Bruce Timm, Henry Cavill and many others. They all have delivered different yet equally valid interpretations of Superman that have shaped the opinions of millions all over the world.

I like the idea that Superman is emotionally human like the rest of us, but I also subscribe to the Moses parallels, and that essentially learning about his alien heritage is such a life-changing event that he fundamentally changes. He'll still feel the same emotions he always has, but he's not going to look at himself as a regular joe, for lack of a better term. I'm injecting my own feelings onto the character, of course, but if I were some teenage kid, and I was already plenty different from the other kids, learning that the universe (or in DC's case, multiverse) is a vast place, and I came from a different star system, and there's a lot of weird, fascinating, or dangerous creatures out there, I'd probably find indulging in only the hustle and bustle of normal human life to be a bit bland and unfulfilling. Plus, I'm the kid of immigrants, as are all of my closest friends. There was a time for many of us where we start either embracing or exploring our otherness, again for lack of a better term, and IMO Superman would, too. Plus, he for a long time thought he was the last remnant of his species, and the only one who could preserve it, so his alien-ness is something he would want to grow into.

I think there's a certain charm to the idea that he sees himself as a regular human, and wants what a regular human wants, and is uninterested in being a Kryptonian, but that's generally not my cup of tea. Maybe I'd split the difference and say he wants it all, and at times, he'd rather just do "human stuff."

[QUOTE=HeroVladimir93;3916095]Yes, I agree with this. Also, I don't think we can use Siegel and Shuster's opinions as the ultimate authority on how the character should be written, because at this point, Superman is no longer the vision of Siegel and Shuster. He has evolved thanks to the talents of people like Christopher Reeve, Grant Morrison, [B]Bruce Timm[/B], Henry Cavill and many others. They all have delivered different yet equally valid interpretations of Superman that have shaped the opinions of millions all over the world.[/QUOTE]

Triggered again. ;)