Superman opinions you're disdainful towards.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

It does raise the question of how overtly political he should be though.

I'd say he should come short of actually endorsing any candidates or major political parties.

Having policy positions and political positions would be fine, and how they make their way into stories is going to depend on the writer.

He shouldn't actively try to be appear apolitical like in that dredge that was DCU: Decisions. It shouldn't be a secret to the people of the DCU, and us as to what he believes politically.

Like, we know with Wonder Woman, her position on marriage equality is that she favors it from a liberal standpoint. That's in a comic, and made quite clear.

What about Superman though? Does he also favor it from a liberal standpoint? Does he disagree with it from a religious standpoint but still believes it should be legal? Does he not think it should be legal at all? Does he come at it from a queer theory perspective and disagree with on that basis, similar to someone like Michael Warner.

What would be his reaction if Maggie Sawyer invited him to her wedding? We know what the answer would probably be, but lots to explore.

On the economic font, those old Golden Age stories didn't make it a secret that Superman believed in things like regulation, and public housing. DC shouldn't be shying away from it now.

But I think even something as simple as Clark telling Jon that 'An Inconvenient Truth' is a documentary he should watch will anger a lot of people, so if it's a matter of not causing "division", that ship has long sailed.

I'm not doing the idea justice, but that's why I'm not a writer.

[Ascended]

But I think even something as simple as Clark telling Jon that 'An Inconvenient Truth' is a documentary he should watch will anger a lot of people, so if it's a matter of not causing "division", that ship has long sailed.

Oh, DC became terrified of angering people a long time ago, and Superman's been as apolitical as possible ever since.

Which is a shame, because if they had the stones to take a risk, Superman could benefit greatly. Social activism is baked into his DNA and without it he's often been rather bland. Yes, Clark having an opinion would piss off people.....but who cares? If they're so thin-skinned they can't handle a fictional character having a different political stance, screw 'em. Not like sales are setting the charts on fire anyway. And a successful, politically written Superman could draw new readers in to replace those who leave.

Now, I think the character should avoid any direct commentary on actual people or events. I don't think we should hear what Superman thinks of donald trump or the shooting in Vegas or the Paris accords.

And if Superman is going to delve into a political issue, I want to see all sides of the argument given their moment. I don't need Superman telling me that "guns are bad and should be regulated heavily!!" or that "Our nation was built on guns and the 2nd Amendment needs to be protected!!" but I'd love to see Clark Kent investigate the issue and interview people from all sides of the debate, with each opinion given a chance to make its point. Clark himself can have his own opinion on the matter, but I want to see a topic explored from every angle, not just one.

The "racism/free speech" issue of Peter David's Supergirl run from the 90's remains my golden example of how to tackle real world issues in comics.

And I think it should be Clark Kent who deals with political issues moreso than Superman. Clark can get away with things and have opinions Superman can't, and it'd give the Clark role a purpose in the narrative (which he's been missing for ages).

[DochaDocha]

I'm fine with Superman being somewhat politically bland as opposed to largely apolitical, but I gotta be upfront on this: I'd be pretty annoyed if whatever writer in charge decided to use Superman as a mouthpiece for his own fringe political beliefs, and turned Superman into one of those annoying talking heads you see on cable news TV or some dude with a blog and a Twitter account. Political discourse today is so bad, and I'd be pretty disappointed if Superman became more of the same stupid *@)#$( that we deal with on a daily basis.

[Lightning Rider]

Oh, DC became terrified of angering people a long time ago, and Superman's been as apolitical as possible ever since.

Which is a shame, because if they had the stones to take a risk, Superman could benefit greatly. Social activism is baked into his DNA and without it he's often been rather bland. Yes, Clark having an opinion would piss off people.....but who cares? If they're so thin-skinned they can't handle a fictional character having a different political stance, screw 'em. Not like sales are setting the charts on fire anyway. And a successful, politically written Superman could draw new readers in to replace those who leave.

Now, I think the character should avoid any direct commentary on actual people or events. I don't think we should hear what Superman thinks of donald trump or the shooting in Vegas or the Paris accords.

And if Superman is going to delve into a political issue, I want to see all sides of the argument given their moment. I don't need Superman telling me that "guns are bad and should be regulated heavily!!" or that "Our nation was built on guns and the 2nd Amendment needs to be protected!!" but I'd love to see Clark Kent investigate the issue and interview people from all sides of the debate, with each opinion given a chance to make its point. Clark himself can have his own opinion on the matter, but I want to see a topic explored from every angle, not just one.

The "racism/free speech" issue of Peter David's Supergirl run from the 90's remains my golden example of how to tackle real world issues in comics.

And I think it should be Clark Kent who deals with political issues moreso than Superman. Clark can get away with things and have opinions Superman can't, and it'd give the Clark role a purpose in the narrative (which he's been missing for ages).

Good post. Showing the nuances of all sides and having Clark handle the more controversial stuff with his journalism is something I'm a fan of. I also think Superman's political acts should be prioritized by scale. Someone brought up Gay Marriage; I don't think Superman should ever be ripping the roof off of courthouses demanding marriage equality. But if the US decides to Nuke or bomb a city full of civilians? I see him stepping in more directly. Global warming? No harm in re-freezing the arctic ever so often. Abortion? There's no way he pesters the abortion clinics, or starts giving them out for free. Police brutality/killings? A cautious intervention where absolutely necessary for the preservation of human life, which is #1. Healthcare? Maybe he donates and contributes to a free Star Labs clinic, but isn't endorsing candidates.

That's how I see it anyways.

[The World]

Thank you, marhawkman. It's always blown my mind that being an athlete is a cause for scorn. How strangely, ironically backwards. I don't even like football, but credit where it's due. QB is basically shorthand for team captain, tactician, or one who puts the best mix of mental and physical game together (you have guys willing and able like Michael Vick, though mostly "winners" like Tom Brady). Outside of comics or movies about high school I haven't heard it used to specifically reflect:

To put this into perspective the most I've ever seen the term get bandied about in recent was when he was dating Wonder Woman. No one uses it as a compliment it's simply a grouping of the two most notorious complaints against him.

1. He's too perfect
2. He's too hard to relate to

There was a torrent of whining about the Football Quarterback dating the cheerleading captain. It was a mantra that was repeated over and over, you don't honestly think that was a compliment do you? It's always been a nerd rage scorn and it has nothing to do with his capabilities or his intellect which people love to play down in favor of others.

I mean if you think about it for a second if you really think this was what people meant by this don't you think you would have seen Batman referred to his more prominently, or at least as well. He's been depicted as whipping Superman's behind in the past and has absolutely been exalted as the team tactician and the brains of the operation even by highly regarded writers; why doesn't anyone call him a QB if it's such a term a compliment for superheroes. Batman has certainly eclipsed Superman in popularity.

[Ascended]

I'm fine with Superman being somewhat politically bland as opposed to largely apolitical, but I gotta be upfront on this: I'd be pretty annoyed if whatever writer in charge decided to use Superman as a mouthpiece for his own fringe political beliefs, and turned Superman into one of those annoying talking heads you see on cable news TV or some dude with a blog and a Twitter account. Political discourse today is so bad, and I'd be pretty disappointed if Superman became more of the same stupid *@)#$( that we deal with on a daily basis.

This would be my concern as well. Even if I happened to agree with the writer, I dont think this is the forum for preaching at an audience.

Which is why I think it should be mandated that if you're going to tackle a political issue, you present all sides' arguments. I think there are two benefits to this. First it decreases the amount of preaching; even if Clark openly states that he agrees with one side over another, the other side/s get their say too. And secondly, I think forcing a writer to explore both sides will reduce the amount of superfluous, cheap political stories told. If you've gotta dig into all sides of an issue fairly, you're only going to do it if you really believe in the story you're telling. You're not going to get to write a story just because you saw a news report and you're angry and venting your frustration and opinion through the character.

Good post. Showing the nuances of all sides and having Clark handle the more controversial stuff with his journalism is something I'm a fan of. I also think Superman's political acts should be prioritized by scale. Someone brought up Gay Marriage; I don't think Superman should ever be ripping the roof off of courthouses demanding marriage equality. But if the US decides to Nuke or bomb a city full of civilians? I see him stepping in more directly. Global warming? No harm in re-freezing the arctic ever so often. Abortion? There's no way he pesters the abortion clinics, or starts giving them out for free. Police brutality/killings? A cautious intervention where absolutely necessary for the preservation of human life, which is #1. Healthcare? Maybe he donates and contributes to a free Star Labs clinic, but isn't endorsing candidates.

That's how I see it anyways.

Yeah, involving Superman in a political issue is dicey. I think Superman would involve himself in matters where there's a clear-cut "right" side. He'll pull a corrupt politician out of his office, a wife beater out of his apartment, or a racist, violent cop off the street. Because we're all agreed that corruption, domestic violence, and hate crimes are wrong. But he's going to stay quiet about immigration, abortion, or healthcare. Topics like that don't have clear-cut lines of "wrong" and "right" and I think Superman would avoid those issues simply because he knows how influential he is.

Clark Kent however, can tackle immigration and healthcare and get away with it.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Superman getting political? Are we talking about the same character that make people losing their sh*t just by saving immigrants or saying in a panel that he's a veggie? Do you want him being crucified by Fox News on a daily basis?

[FishyZombie]

Like, we know with Wonder Woman, her position on marriage equality is that she favors it from a liberal standpoint. That's in a comic, and made quite clear.

What about Superman though? Does he also favor it from a liberal standpoint? Does he disagree with it from a religious standpoint but still believes it should be legal? Does he not think it should be legal at all? Does he come at it from a queer theory perspective and disagree with on that basis, similar to someone like Michael Warner.

What would be his reaction if Maggie Sawyer invited him to her wedding? We know what the answer would probably be,

I'm more uncomfortable with the idea of Superman being religious than political honestly. I can see why some would want him to be Jewish like his creators, but in my mind it should be ambiguous or him just not being particularly religious. I don't like the idea of Clark's values coming from faith, rather his own experience and opinions.

[Sacred Knight]

Characters having political values certainly only helps make them more three dimensional. The only problem is 99% of the industry is incredibly liberal, so in the end the only thing that would be accomplished is that every superhero would far-left, which rather defeats the purpose of the depth as the depth is lost when everyone is the same. Slippery slope.

[Ascended]

Superman getting political? Are we talking about the same character that make people losing their sh*t just by saving immigrants or saying in a panel that he's a veggie? Do you want him being crucified by Fox News on a daily basis?

Yes.

Most of the greatest novels ever written are on a bunch of banned book lists. Many of the most influential people in history were social deviants. Hell, even Donner's first Superman film got mixed reviews. If you've got something of value to say, you're gonna make some people mad when you say it.

Remember that poster from the 50's where Superman is telling school kids about equality being an American value? You think that didn't rub a lot of parents the wrong way?

These days, anyone with an opinion is going to piss people off. I'd rather Superman have an opinion and anger people who aren't reading his book to begin with than say nothing for fear of offending some uber-sensitive moron.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Yes.

Most of the greatest novels ever written are on a bunch of banned book lists. Many of the most influential people in history were social deviants. Hell, even Donner's first Superman film got mixed reviews. If you've got something of value to say, you're gonna make some people mad when you say it.

Remember that poster from the 50's where Superman is telling school kids about equality being an American value? You think that didn't rub a lot of parents the wrong way?

These days, anyone with an opinion is going to piss people off. I'd rather Superman have an opinion and anger people who aren't reading his book to begin with than say nothing for fear of offending some uber-sensitive moron.

DC doesn't have the balls to do that with Superman, even if they will try, they'll chicken out a few months later and go backwards. How many times it's already happened?

[Agniwolf]

I'm more uncomfortable with the idea of Superman being religious than political honestly. I can see why some would want him to be Jewish like his creators, but in my mind it should be ambiguous or him just not being particularly religious. I don't like the idea of Clark's values coming from faith, rather his own experience and opinions.

dont wanna rain on you parade (im a hypocrite, because i do want to ) but religion is politics. it is even on the level of interfering on many things that could be useful in the long run because of it

[Kuwagaton]

I mean if you think about it for a second if you really think this was what people meant by this don't you think you would have seen Batman referred to his more prominently, or at least as well. He's been depicted as whipping Superman's behind in the past and has absolutely been exalted as the team tactician and the brains of the operation even by highly regarded writers; why doesn't anyone call him a QB if it's such a term a compliment for superheroes. Batman has certainly eclipsed Superman in popularity.

I'd imagine it doesn't get used for Batman because he... never actually played football in a main origin. The idea that Superman is "perfect" is one we can probably all agree is silly. And if so, so is believing that who he dates or marries is part of the problem. He's Superman, and was never going to end up with Alice. Why would he? Maybe Diana gets some of the same criticisms so their union is doubly dull, but it's also pretty normal for people with a ton in common in the same profession to hook up.


Also, I think people get way too hung up on Batman beating Superman. It probably happens "so often" because it commands so much attention.

Do you want him being crucified by Fox News on a daily basis?

Or he could very well run afoul of the DCU equivalent of whatever obnoxious counterpart the left has for Fox. Bipartisan politics are garbage and I'm happy that the Superman office doesn't try to convince me otherwise.

[_Feely_]

DC doesn't have the balls to do that with Superman, even if they will try, they'll chicken out a few months later and go backwards. How many times it's already happened?

Absolutely.

There's that problem with the Man of Steel in that he's far more valuable as brand merchandise to those collecting than he is as the Iconic embodiment of The Better Way. And more's the pity, I reckon.

"I'll make your S a dollar sign".

He wasn't wrong.

[Ascended]

DC doesn't have the balls to do that with Superman, even if they will try, they'll chicken out a few months later and go backwards. How many times it's already happened?

Too true.

This is why they need to kick Berganza out and give me editorial control of the franchise. I'll edit the property back to glory, dragging WB execs kicking and screaming into positive revenue if I have to!!!