Superman opinions you're disdainful towards.

[Soubhagya]

Yeah, I'm overthinking it (), but consider what the statement is comparing: (possibly) a pleasure trip, vs. something that's generally hard to accomplish that gets recognized by peers. It just seems weird to me to make that comparison, so I figure make the comparison more meaningful by making it between doing his "job" as reporter Clark Kent vs. "job" as a Justice Leaguer.

If the question is what is Superman (or anyone) going to take more pride in or enjoyment from, then it's so trivial that it's not even worth comparing.

Pleasure trip to the moon! Who would not want that? Who would want to fly in the sky as a bird? It would be great to simply go to the moon and sit quietly and gaze at the stars. It would be awesome to play with Krypto among the asteroids. This pleasure trip is not trivial imo.

Granted after Crisis he could not take Krypto for a walk but even then he experiences the world on a different level.

[Soubhagya]

Superman appointed himself protector of Earth and neighbouring multiverses.
He should not kill defeated enemies. He should not kill in anger. He should not kill premeditated (exception: Joker).
What he should do is on occasion kill in self-defence or more likely the defence of others. That is something everybody in Superman's line of work should accept as part of the job.

I accept that. When it was absolutely necessary to kill to save lives both his and others he shall take a life. No one shall be dogmatic. Especially not Superman. I think during Max Lord situation Superman was not on the side of Diana. That is bad writing and perpetuates the view that Superman is not intelligent. Sometimes one has to kill to protect lives. To think otherwise is idiotic.

At the same time i have very less faith in the writers to handle this carefully. It shall be shown that Superman tried to find the better way. He tried to the best of his ability. But there was no way. He had to kill. There must be remorse too. Taking a life is not desirable. Even in defence of others. Show that remorse that it was such a waste. I tried everything. If it could have turned out differently. You know handling this sensitively and with care.


Superman is about using his powers wisely. That is the backbone, the DNA of the character. If that wisdom is not shown while killing we get into a danger zone. A fearsome alien who does whatever he wants. Luthor would be more correct then we give him credit.


I would not be against killing Joker. Batman shall never kill. Almost all his villains are insane. They need treatment. But this Joker is too much. He lives and breathes death. Superman would do a service to the world if he kills him. And i have disdain for the view that one killing will turn him into evil. He somehow becomes less compassionate then normal by killing Joker. Yes Joker shall get all chances to be reformed. But when he kills 700 people just to see them smiling it would be better to kill him. But death is not permanent in DCU. That is not from comics fans. Actual characters say that. During i am Bane the Robins of present and past were talking of that. Send him to the phantom zone. Or paralyze him permanently. Or kill him after thinking of all options. His body count is insane. Superman would do that. But DC will not allow that.

[Kuwagaton]

I didn't like bringing back Carter Hall over Katar. It's almost as bad as merging them. Geoff Johns seems to really like his heroes being humans from America. But with Superman, in fairness to Johns, that scene where Clark freaks out has him at what, 15 years old? Hard to judge a kid for that.

[TheCape]

At the same time i have very less faith in the writers to handle this carefully. It shall be shown that Superman tried to find the better way. He tried to the best of his ability. But there was no way. He had to kill There must be remorse too. Taking a life is not desirable. Even in defence of others. Show that remorse that it was such a waste. I tried everything. If it could have turned out differently. You know handling this sensitively and with care.

I think that "Exile" is the closest thing to this kind of story tell in continuity.

[jason white reborn]

That superman needs to be single or unmarried or without any family


I'm sorry but superman does not need to be a a lonely EMO to be compelling

[Jackalope89]

That superman needs to be single or unmarried or without any family


I'm sorry but superman does not need to be a a lonely EMO to be compelling

Agreed. He's supposed to be about Hope and Optimism. Making him all emo goes against that. Giving him a loving family though? It fits him.

[TruthAndJustice]

It's not so much that Superman is against killing at all times. He's against himself killing, and against all superheroes killing, because it's "too easy" and would lead down a slippery slope until the League and the Titans and so on become entirely above any law, doing whatever they want. Batman is much the same way.

The problem with the Joker is that he's killed way, way too many people and he's not actually insane in the proper sense of the term. A sociopath, a psychopath, but not someone who can't help what he does. So he doesn't belong in Arkham Asylum. He belongs in a maximum security prison, apart from those who really can't help what they do, like Two-Face. But writers don't acknowledge this.

[Soubhagya]

I cared for Superman only after he got his family. Granted i tried to read Superman in New 52 and dropped the books very early because i found them very weird. But Superman as father and husband appealed to me right away. I always had respect for Superman. But never love. Rebirth changed that right away. With that single line 'My dad is Superman' Jon instantly made everything click in place. It was as if i found Superman for the first time. As if someone flicked on a switch and i was seeing Superman in a way i always knew but was always out of my reach.

Rebirth run gets all credit to make me a Superman fan. I love him surrounded by family and friends.

[friendly-fire-press]

- "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do."

Nothing COMPLETELY misses the point of the character more. And it was staggeringly the status quo for two decades.

- Superman needs Lois/his parents/others to ground him.

No, he doesn't. In the first place, he belongs to the skies, literally and figuratively. Moreover, he isn't so mentally fragile that he constantly needs others to reaffirm his role on planet Earth, both as Superman and as Clark Kent. Even further, there's an interesting pathos to be had with the character that despite everything, he doesn't feel 100% fully embraced all the time. Feeling alone sometimes and dealing with that, successfully, is part of the charm as a character. He was never meant to have the best of both worlds on both sides of his identity. Now that he truly is the man who has everything, something is lost.

^^^ Pretty much this took the words out of my mouth ^^^

[Adekis]

I will say, I'm not disdainful to the enjoyment of Superman having a family, but I am disdainful to the attitude that it's the only way Superman can be. I think Jon could have been successfully and easily relegated to a Superman Family book, leaving a single Superman to have adventures without a wife and son. With Convergence and the L&C mini, they could even have taken place in the same 'verse, or not, depending on whims, basically... I understand why DC didn't do that, they wanted a unified brand, but frankly brand unity is totally out the window with Superman anyway.

That said, I really dislike Superman to be a moping loner, and frankly I don't see why being an unmarried man doesn't mean that he can't still have a great time with friends! That's what Jimmy's for, you know?

[Agent Z]

I accept that. When it was absolutely necessary to kill to save lives both his and others he shall take a life. No one shall be dogmatic. Especially not Superman. I think during Max Lord situation Superman was not on the side of Diana. That is bad writing and perpetuates the view that Superman is not intelligent. Sometimes one has to kill to protect lives. To think otherwise is idiotic.

At the same time i have very less faith in the writers to handle this carefully. It shall be shown that Superman tried to find the better way. He tried to the best of his ability. But there was no way. He had to kill. There must be remorse too. Taking a life is not desirable. Even in defence of others. Show that remorse that it was such a waste. I tried everything. If it could have turned out differently. You know handling this sensitively and with care.


Superman is about using his powers wisely. That is the backbone, the DNA of the character. If that wisdom is not shown while killing we get into a danger zone. A fearsome alien who does whatever he wants. Luthor would be more correct then we give him credit.


I would not be against killing Joker. Batman shall never kill. Almost all his villains are insane. They need treatment. But this Joker is too much. He lives and breathes death. Superman would do a service to the world if he kills him. And i have disdain for the view that one killing will turn him into evil. He somehow becomes less compassionate then normal by killing Joker. Yes Joker shall get all chances to be reformed. But when he kills 700 people just to see them smiling it would be better to kill him. But death is not permanent in DCU. That is not from comics fans. Actual characters say that. During i am Bane the Robins of present and past were talking of that. Send him to the phantom zone. Or paralyze him permanently. Or kill him after thinking of all options. His body count is insane. Superman would do that. But DC will not allow that.

Few, if any, of Batman's villains are insane. They know the difference between right and wrong, they just don't care.

I also have to wonder why superheroes Killing gets fans riled up no matter the context, but torture, assault, privacy violation, and child endangerment which are far more controversial in real life seem more accepted by fans.

[Jon Clark]

Few, if any, of Batman's villains are insane. They know the difference between right and wrong, they just don't care.

I also have to wonder why superheroes Killing gets fans riled up no matter the context, but torture, assault, privacy violation, and child endangerment which are far more controversial in real life seem more accepted by fans.

Because the heroes only violate the rights of people we have no sympathy for. Look at the negative views of Superman in Superman Returns for his spying on Lois or the similar outrage when it seemed he had red her phone with his powers in an issue shortly after the New 52 launch. We accept Superman spying on Lex without much complaint because we now Lex needs to be watched. WE accept batman dangling that thug over the roof edge because he is a thug, but there might be more criticism if it was the guy's kid. And Clark or Bruce taking their kid along on a mission comes with us knowing the kids are better able to handle themselves than the average adult. And if the hero is wrong and beats up the wrong thug, violates the privacy of the wrong person, etc; we know that nothing too bad will happen in like 99% of stories.

Killing on the other hand is final (when the writers are playing fair) and we know that no hero can walk back what happens if they kill the wrong person. Look at the real world effect of any police shooting- the he said/she said about whether it was justified. The people who spend hours analyzing if a cop made the right call in an eyeblink. Then ask what the reaction would be if said cop had a Flash's ability or Superman's in regards to studying that same eyeblink decision themselves. If said cop was a person who was touted as having thought of every contingency and taken the prep time to prepare an appropriate response. Can the average Gothamite or Metropolitan ever really be sure their hero wasn't just out to kill an opponent and then claiming it was their only option.

[marhawkman]

Totally agree with you. I still remember laughing hard when I first saw it in theater. Batman was like, "f*cking hell, what am I gonna do now" lol. DCEU Clark was careful enough to try not to let Batman use Kryptonite on him again once he found out it could hurt him. If Supes had known of it's existence prior to their encounter, no toys Bruce bought might have been enough to scratch him. It would be hilarious to see Batman preparing to take down Superman, trying everything he has and failing hard to do the job. I still wonder why his freeze breath hasn't been introduced yet, hopefully we'll see that in Justice League.

Bats brings all the Kryptonite he can find... Superman brings his "time to fight Metallo" suit. Is that a glowing rock in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

[Soubhagya]

Few, if any, of Batman's villains are insane. They know the difference between right and wrong, they just don't care.

I also have to wonder why superheroes Killing gets fans riled up no matter the context, but torture, assault, privacy violation, and child endangerment which are far more controversial in real life seem more accepted by fans.

If there would be vigilantes in the real world i would oppose them. No one has the right to take laws in one's own hands.

But the world of comics is such that not only such law breaking acceptable but it is necessary. Because Batman is the one who has his name at the cover the stories are such that he is absolutely necessary. Bruce Wayne in real life would be better off writing checks, invest in police training, etc. He does that in comics too. (Wayne Foundation). But if a killer clown is poisoning the river you need Batman. Cops and the system can't stop Joker by usual means.

Same way you take every hero. The stories are so that you need Batman to assault or else Poison Ivy's poisonous plants will kill hundreds. Batman needs to violate privacy or Joker's bombs will blow up and cops can do nothing. He needs to torture criminals. Or else Mr Freeze's freeze canon may freeze the city killing everyone within it. You see cops can't tackle the likes of Riddler, Clayface, etc. They are helpless. So Batman has to step in.

And about his villains being insane. There are a lot of them: Joker, Two-Face, Maxie Zeus, Ventriloquist, Mad Hatter, Harley Quinn, Victor Zsaz, etc. Batman is a hero with roots in psychology. He does this to strike fear in the hearts of criminals who are a superstitious and cowardly lot. So the villains reflect that. A lot of his villains are insane.

And those who are not? Criminals are jailed to reform them. That is the original purpose of punishment. To change them from criminals to useful members of the society. If Batman kills those people he deprives them of a chance to reform. Criminal mentality may be due to various reasons. Upbringing, association with criminals, etc. Batman is not in a position to decide if someone lives or dies. Batman is like an unofficial special force for the police. That Bat-Signal is the proof.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I think various creators have done a pretty decent job justifying both Superman and Batman's no-killing policy. For Superman, it's about his unshakable hope that no matter how far someone has fallen or what atrocities they've committed, there's always a chance they can give redeem themselves, as shown beautifully by Luthor's arc in All Star Superman. With Batman, it's his unwillingness to step over the line that separates him from those he fights. They've done a far worse job justifying it with Wonder Woman.