Worst versions of Superman?

[manduck37]

I enjoyed Kingdom Come and still do. That's because I honestly don't think Waid was making any kind of commentary on Superman as he functions in a story or what would cause him to abandon his mission. Kingdom Come isn't about Superman quitting or why he would do it. It's a commentary on the industry at the time. The comic reading audience seemed to want those violent heroes and that 90's extremism. Characters like Superman were seen as old fashioned, out of touch and too simplistic to be effective. So really, KC is just meta commentary on the industry. What happens in KC? The world wants violent and "effective" heroes, things spiral out of control, then everyone realizes that they need Superman and his "old fashioned" sensibilities. It's just Waid's way of saying that Superman still had a place in the industry at that time and while it may seem like he was going away, he'd still be there. So I actually don't mind this version of Superman or the story told.

Now, True Brit and Act of God, those were some truly terrible versions of Superman. Not a fan of Injustice Superman either as it caters to the "Lois keeps him grounded" trope.

[superduperman]

I tend to give KC some slack simply because I see it as more society rejecting HIM more than him rejecting society. He was, to some degree, giving them what they wanted by going away. When he comes back ten years later, it's more of a "Do you get it, now?" type of thing. They got what they wanted and figured out that they were wrong. Superman comes back with all the old heroes and sets things right. Now, there is a good argument that he shouldn't have left in the first place but with society more or less rejecting him, it would just be him cleaning up after the younger generation all the time and nobody learning anything. By going away, they figure out that maybe Superman and his colleagues were onto something by doing things the way they did with restraint.

[Agent Z]

I enjoyed Kingdom Come and still do. That's because I honestly don't think Waid was making any kind of commentary on Superman as he functions in a story or what would cause him to abandon his mission. Kingdom Come isn't about Superman quitting or why he would do it. It's a commentary on the industry at the time. The comic reading audience seemed to want those violent heroes and that 90's extremism. Characters like Superman were seen as old fashioned, out of touch and too simplistic to be effective. So really, KC is just meta commentary on the industry. What happens in KC? The world wants violent and "effective" heroes, things spiral out of control, then everyone realizes that they need Superman and his "old fashioned" sensibilities. It's just Waid's way of saying that Superman still had a place in the industry at that time and while it may seem like he was going away, he'd still be there. So I actually don't mind this version of Superman or the story told.

Now, True Brit and Act of God, those were some truly terrible versions of Superman. Not a fan of Injustice Superman either as it caters to the "Lois keeps him grounded" trope.

Superman was starring in at least two comic ongoings, and had a popular tv show at the time. Not to mention this was the era that saw the likes of Cass Cain, Wally West and Kyle Rayner at the height of their popularity. The idea that 90s antiheroes were eclipsing Superman was nothing more than DC's usual paranoia and fear of competition. And even ignoring that, if your character is being eclipsed in popularity by a different brand of hero, maybe you should look at what you're doing wrong with him instead of writing a comic series that paints your audience as a bunch of stupid, ungrateful lemmings for daring to like someone other the One True God, I mean, Hero.

I tend to give KC some slack simply because I see it as more society rejecting HIM more than him rejecting society. He was, to some degree, giving them what they wanted by going away. When he comes back ten years later, it's more of a "Do you get it, now?" type of thing. They got what they wanted and figured out that they were wrong. Superman comes back with all the old heroes and sets things right. Now, there is a good argument that he shouldn't have left in the first place but with society more or less rejecting him, it would just be him cleaning up after the younger generation all the time and nobody learning anything. By going away, they figure out that maybe Superman and his colleagues were onto something by doing things the way they did with restraint.

Except they didn’t reject him. They just decided he wasn’t the only type of hero it was okay to like.

[manduck37]

Superman was starring in at least two comic ongoings, and had a popular tv show at the time. Not to mention this was the era that saw the likes of Cass Cain, Wally West and Kyle Rayner at the height of their popularity. The idea that 90s antiheroes were eclipsing Superman was nothing more than DC's usual paranoia and fear of competition. And even ignoring that, if your character is being eclipsed in popularity by a different brand of hero, maybe you should look at what you're doing wrong with him instead of writing a comic series that paints your audience as a bunch of stupid, ungrateful lemmings for daring to like someone other the One True God, I mean, Hero.


Except they didn’t reject him. They just decided he wasn’t the only type of hero it was okay to like.

Keep in mind, I'm saying that this was Waid's perspective. There were plenty of good things going on with Superman in the 90's. Waid can be a be reactionary at times, to put it gently.

[Lightning Rider]

I tend to give KC some slack simply because I see it as more society rejecting HIM more than him rejecting society. He was, to some degree, giving them what they wanted by going away. When he comes back ten years later, it's more of a "Do you get it, now?" type of thing. They got what they wanted and figured out that they were wrong. Superman comes back with all the old heroes and sets things right. Now, there is a good argument that he shouldn't have left in the first place but with society more or less rejecting him, it would just be him cleaning up after the younger generation all the time and nobody learning anything. By going away, they figure out that maybe Superman and his colleagues were onto something by doing things the way they did with restraint.

That's an excellent point actually. The lesson learned by his exile is far greater than had he simply stuck around ineffectually cleaning up after more violent heroes and probably causing more conflict with the new breed, resulting in more problems. A case of "you don't know what you got till its gone".

I'm sure it would depress him.

But humanity embraced and celebrated violent men long before Magog. And some of them were peers of Clark (Peacemaker and Red Hood comes to mind). The only difference between someone like Peacemaker and Magog is that Magog became more popular than Superman. And if humanity was losing sight of their better ideals, as embodied by Magog, then it was up to Clark to double down on his efforts, not abandon humanity.

As for whether he kept saving lives out of the public eye, nothing on the page indicates that he did.

Bottom line, for me, is that Clark gave up. That's not something Superman does. He does not surrender. He doesn't have it in him. No amount of reasons and circumstances will make that okay. Clark can be broken hearted and depressed and confused and doubt the rightness of his actions, but he does not give up.

And Im not trying to ruin Kingdom Come for you. I'm glad you enjoy it. I enjoy it quite a lot myself. I just think Waid missed the mark badly with Superman. But to each their own of course!

It does all come down to preference, I just think that if no circumstances can make Superman give up, even for a short time, it devalues his heroism somewhat, because it takes no effort and is separated from his character as a person. Though I'd argue his return means he didn't give up, its just that the ideological challenge to his "brand" so to speak was intertwined with Lois's tragedy. Magog one-uped him in such a personal way, avenging his wife in a way he didn't "have the balls" to do. Very different in my book than Manchester Black for example. But 10 years is quite a long time, I can see why it bothers people.

[Ascended]

It does all come down to preference, I just think that if no circumstances can make Superman give up, even for a short time, it devalues his heroism somewhat, because it takes no effort and is separated from his character as a person. Though I'd argue his return means he didn't give up, its just that the ideological challenge to his "brand" so to speak was intertwined with Lois's tragedy. Magog one-uped him in such a personal way, avenging his wife in a way he didn't "have the balls" to do. Very different in my book than Manchester Black for example. But 10 years is quite a long time, I can see why it bothers people.

Oh, nothing says that Clark not giving up makes it easy. Giving up is the easiest thing in the world, it takes real balls to keep fighting.

And while I dislike how Clark was handled in the story, I still love Kingdom Come and as someone else mentioned, its a commentary on the industry and the actions everyone takes, including Billy and Bruce and Diana, can be seen through that lens. To that end, I enjoy KC a lot. I just dont think Clark was written in-character (and several others weren't exactly on point either, but it advanced the narrative Waid was telling). Because that was Waid's aim, I'm cool with it. I'm just saying it's not a great example of how to write Clark "properly."

I'd likely have less of an issue with Clark abandoning humanity if his return hadn't been rife with problems. Superman's return to the world didn't fix the issues, in fact it complicated things and made the entire situation more dangerous.

Before Clark returns, the kids and new heroes seem to fight randomly; there's no real sides, no heroes or villains.....just kids with too much power and nothing to direct their energies at. They're dangerous and have created a status quo that is not sustainable. Clark returns and that forces lines to be drawn in the sand, creating two rival armies with a lot more purpose and drive than a couple dozen superhumans punching each other for fun.

And Clark is behind the gulag as well, which anyone should have been able to see was a poor idea. And that pressure cooker eventually boils over, which is what lead the UN to launch a nuke out of desperation and fear. A whole lot of people died because of that. It was a disaster of the highest order, and the burden of that falls on Clark's shoulders.

Clark's return didn't really make things all that much better. At best, he forced a conflict-resolution to the problem which otherwise might have dragged on for years and ended with far more disastrous results. So I think the best we can say is that he did the "right" thing in the same way the US did when it nuked Japan; it wasn't a good thing and caused one of the greatest travesties in human history, but it "ended the war by five years and saved millions of lives."

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Earth One

Young Justice

Kingdom Come: Great story, even a great Superman story, but the guy in there abandons humanity for not aligning properly with his values, returns to illegally imprison hundreds, and when humanity retaliates he nearly goes on a murderous rampage before magnanimously declaring it to be the fault of BOTH sides and setting terms for how things will work going forward, rather than honorably turning himself in for his numerous and tremendous crimes.

Donnerverse: Reeve's excellent performance and Routh's underrated efforts aside, he abandons humanity to get laid, roofies his girlfriend when that doesn't work out and goes to shove a dude's head through a pinball machine for having bullied him, declares to the President that he'll never leave us again and then immediately abandons us all for 5 years on a hunch while having left his roofied girlfriend pregnant, then returns to stalk her until she silently agrees to start seeing him again behind her fiance's back. He's scum.

Justice League-era DCAU

Injustice

New 52 Superman in the main Superman book and Justice League

DCEU (even if the character himself is a perfectly decent guy in-universe)

Smallville (I got a lot of love having grown up with it, but it is not exactly an ideal depiction of Clark Kent)

All-Star Batman & Robin's

[Lightning Rider]

Oh, nothing says that Clark not giving up makes it easy. Giving up is the easiest thing in the world, it takes real balls to keep fighting.

And while I dislike how Clark was handled in the story, I still love Kingdom Come and as someone else mentioned, its a commentary on the industry and the actions everyone takes, including Billy and Bruce and Diana, can be seen through that lens. To that end, I enjoy KC a lot. I just dont think Clark was written in-character (and several others weren't exactly on point either, but it advanced the narrative Waid was telling). Because that was Waid's aim, I'm cool with it. I'm just saying it's not a great example of how to write Clark "properly."

I'd likely have less of an issue with Clark abandoning humanity if his return hadn't been rife with problems. Superman's return to the world didn't fix the issues, in fact it complicated things and made the entire situation more dangerous.

Before Clark returns, the kids and new heroes seem to fight randomly; there's no real sides, no heroes or villains.....just kids with too much power and nothing to direct their energies at. They're dangerous and have created a status quo that is not sustainable. Clark returns and that forces lines to be drawn in the sand, creating two rival armies with a lot more purpose and drive than a couple dozen superhumans punching each other for fun.

And Clark is behind the gulag as well, which anyone should have been able to see was a poor idea. And that pressure cooker eventually boils over, which is what lead the UN to launch a nuke out of desperation and fear. A whole lot of people died because of that. It was a disaster of the highest order, and the burden of that falls on Clark's shoulders.

Clark's return didn't really make things all that much better. At best, he forced a conflict-resolution to the problem which otherwise might have dragged on for years and ended with far more disastrous results. So I think the best we can say is that he did the "right" thing in the same way the US did when it nuked Japan; it wasn't a good thing and caused one of the greatest travesties in human history, but it "ended the war by five years and saved millions of lives."

I agree with your conclusion that it was a messy "right" decision in that it escalated a conflict in the short term. I don't mind Superman making a costly decision when the conflict is so global, he was rightly mad about it. But it did seem to usher in a new peaceful age. When it comes to things like Gulag too, I'm thinking that it's in character for that Superman, a Superman definitely changed by the course of personal tragedy and history, not Clark as we know him.

(but the facts indicate we definitely did not have to nuke Japan to end the war or save lives!)

[Ascended]

Regarding KC and the gulag....I wonder if this Superman had access to the Phantom Zone? That seems like it might have been a much better alternative to throwing these guys into a prison on earth. I know he considered sending them to Orion's Apokolips, but that wasn't a viable option (I forget why). And....I think he talked to Orin about sending them to Atlantis? Or maybe that was just trying to get Aquaman back on the League......I honestly dont remember.

However you slice it, the gulag was a terrible idea. I have little problem with a tougher, rougher Superman.....but this just screamed "BAD IDEA!!!" all the way across the page....

[marhawkman]

I tend to give KC some slack simply because I see it as more society rejecting HIM more than him rejecting society. He was, to some degree, giving them what they wanted by going away. When he comes back ten years later, it's more of a "Do you get it, now?" type of thing. They got what they wanted and figured out that they were wrong. Superman comes back with all the old heroes and sets things right. Now, there is a good argument that he shouldn't have left in the first place but with society more or less rejecting him, it would just be him cleaning up after the younger generation all the time and nobody learning anything. By going away, they figure out that maybe Superman and his colleagues were onto something by doing things the way they did with restraint.

The problem with this idea is that this doesn't require letting people get wiped out by the hundreds. :/

To me KC only makes sense if you don't try to take the starting point seriously. then again, Supes seemed to regret it... soo.. maybe he learned his lesson?

[dancj]

Well obviously he didn't catch the missiles and Luthor before the launch Because it's clear from Lois frustrated response to Superman that the Earthquake still happened and we see Supes take Luthor to prison at the end of the movie both happened AFTER the time reversal.

It's 30+ years since I've watched it. I'd forgotten the earthquake still happened. In that case, yeah, it doesn't make sense.

[DieHard200904]

Injustice. Because every time when I thought this guy couldn't get any worse, he gets worse. I know Martian Manhunter and others were protecting Batman, but still, did he have to murder people who were his friends? Who just didn't want bloody tyranny. I mean WTF? I know life sucks but the levels this character drop to never felt either inspiring or even relatable to me.

Any number of lame Superman loses his powers and decides to be a normal guy ring to me, but how friggin long, the guy in JLA Act of God did this? That was low, especially when you had Supergirl, Captain Marvel, Metamorpho, and others making something out of their situations while he was stuck whining about it. ANd yep, the level of Batman worship in JLA: Act of God was off the charts.

[DieHard200904]

I enjoyed Kingdom Come and still do. That's because I honestly don't think Waid was making any kind of commentary on Superman as he functions in a story or what would cause him to abandon his mission. Kingdom Come isn't about Superman quitting or why he would do it. It's a commentary on the industry at the time. The comic reading audience seemed to want those violent heroes and that 90's extremism. Characters like Superman were seen as old fashioned, out of touch and too simplistic to be effective. So really, KC is just meta commentary on the industry. What happens in KC? The world wants violent and "effective" heroes, things spiral out of control, then everyone realizes that they need Superman and his "old fashioned" sensibilities. It's just Waid's way of saying that Superman still had a place in the industry at that time and while it may seem like he was going away, he'd still be there. So I actually don't mind this version of Superman or the story told.

Now, True Brit and Act of God, those were some truly terrible versions of Superman. Not a fan of Injustice Superman either as it caters to the "Lois keeps him grounded" trope.

True Brit was at least hillarious and kept me laughing through it. I guess the term would be "So Bad, It's Good" as was "Superman: At Earth's End". But I have to admit that you beat me to the social commentary part of KC though. I at least was glad that the violent antiheroes ended up causing collateral damage and taking it too far. When Marvel throws around the Punisher, and I have this hard time believing he could operate for so long without civilian casualties. Nothing against those who like Frank Castle/The Punisher, but it's more of a taste of mine, I guess.

[suemorphplus209]

I tend to give KC some slack simply because I see it as more society rejecting HIM more than him rejecting society. He was, to some degree, giving them what they wanted by going away. When he comes back ten years later, it's more of a "Do you get it, now?" type of thing. They got what they wanted and figured out that they were wrong. Superman comes back with all the old heroes and sets things right. Now, there is a good argument that he shouldn't have left in the first place but with society more or less rejecting him, it would just be him cleaning up after the younger generation all the time and nobody learning anything. By going away, they figure out that maybe Superman and his colleagues were onto something by doing things the way they did with restraint.

I still get hung up with the 10 year gap BS. A few months makes way more sense. Even if guys like Magog go ahead and replace Superman in terms of everything from killing the bad guys to pulling people out of buildings, I would have a hard time believing that even the Kansas explosion would actually have taken 10 years to happen. I could see the young, arrogant superheroes turning lawless if way less time, especially with them claiming judge, jury, and executioner. Although I think Injustice was cashing in on taking Kingdom Come and making it more extreme where Superman has no problem killing whomever gets in his way in that case.

DCAU was fine in his own series. That was 20 years ago.

[Ascended]

Injustice. Because every time when I thought this guy couldn't get any worse, he gets worse.

Since NetherRealm couldn't be bothered to make a PC port, I haven't played it. But I have watched the cut-scenes and Superman's ending.....that's so gods damn scary it totally overcomes my dislike of the over-used "Evil Superman" troupe and has me excited for where the next edition might go.

A Brainiac-fused Superman conquering his way across the multiverse with an army of cybernetically controlled heroes and aliens is just too wild to pass on. Plus it'd probably mean the return of the "good" versions from Injustice 1. And having a proper Superman around to kick Injustice Superman's ass does make the situation easier to accept.