Superman's Fundamentals: A Discussion

[stargazer01]

It does seem that Smallville was one of the forerunners of a contemporary trend...of having a movie or TV show spin-off based on a character without actually featuring that character!

You have the Fantastic Beast movies which are basically Harry Potter movies without Harry Potter. A Jason Bourne TV show coming up that doesn't actually feature Jason Bourne (they first tried this with a film back in 2012). An X-men TV show (The Gifted) which doesn't feature any big-name X-men characters. Sony's spin-off Spider-Man franchise that probably won't feature Peter Parker himself.

And of course, there's Krypton, Gotham and the upcoming Metropolis and Pennyworth series!

Does make you wonder about all the arguments regarding 'fundamentals' of a character/franchise...



Your arguments are bang-on and exactly what I meant!

I suppose people would support Superman being a tyrant...as long as he's a tyrant for their side! But Superman, as a character, isn't interested in being a tyrant for anyone. Superman considers all of humanity to be under his protection - irrespective of race, gender or socio-economic position.

I think Superman wouldn't want to be a tyrant at all because he respects the laws, authority and free will of all men. He is here to give us a hand, to protect us and to lead with his example, but he is not going to do everything for us because that doesn't teach us anything. We need to learn from our mistakes. What Superman does better is that he believes in us that we can be better if we really want and try.

[Ascended]

Actually I was trying for a similar but different point. Not about the fictional DC character, but about what a real life super powerful activist would be like and why it might be a bad thing.

Ah, I see. Dude, if a real life superhuman showed up tomorrow and started grabbing d-bags by the throat? Riots in the streets and complete panic in government. The situation Superman holds in the DCU, where he is allowed to continue doing what he does, could never be maintained in reality. Humans have to feel a sense of control. We couldn't control a Superman, and thus even people who approved of this real Superman's choices (thus far!) would want him removed, or some form of accountability and control fostered upon him.

I'm more interested in the effect the fictional Superman can have in the real world.

Of course, in 2016, there is no question that he did the right thing. We've had 70 years of social change in that direction and Superman only got more popular since then.

It worked out pretty damn well. So why would it be unwise today? That's my question.

But you'll note that despite scoring one for racial equality there Superman and the JLA kept pretty quiet during the Civil Rights movement.

True, but that's besides the point isn't it? There's tons of examples when Superman didn't get involved in real issues but what about the times when he has?

Now ask yourself in a time when Captain Kirk kissing Lt Uhura would have network affiliates upset, what would have happened if DC had decided to publish a Superman story where Superman intervened in support of Civil Rights? I suspect that might have hurt DC Comics ever getting on southern newsstands again. Might have made the 1950's and Frederick Wertham look like the good 'ol days in comparison,

Perhaps it might have hurt DC and the character. But that's actually just an presumption, isn't it? If we look at the evidence of what happened when Superman was in fact put into a real world issue, we find that not only did his brand not lose value, but he actually had a quantifiable impact on that issue. So can we be sure that acting on an opinion is going to be detrimental to the brand? Obviously the business logic says so, but business logic can be wrong. Superman successfully smashing the klan proves the point.

And considering Clark's opinionated origins (which would be labeled as nothing less than liberal propaganda today) which launched him to super-stardom......I'm not convinced that Superman being written into current issues would necessarily be a bad thing for him, even if some of us don't like it. Perhaps the business logic that has governed this entire industry all this time, which has largely kept characters apolitical, hasn't been as right as we've always assumed. Maybe there's more wiggle room than we realize. We've never really tried it a different way to know for sure, have we?

[bat39]

Ah, I see. Dude, if a real life superhuman showed up tomorrow and started grabbing d-bags by the throat? Riots in the streets and complete panic in government. The situation Superman holds in the DCU, where he is allowed to continue doing what he does, could never be maintained in reality. Humans have to feel a sense of control. We couldn't control a Superman, and thus even people who approved of this real Superman's choices (thus far!) would want him removed, or some form of accountability and control fostered upon him.

I'm more interested in the effect the fictional Superman can have in the real world.



It worked out pretty damn well. So why would it be unwise today? That's my question.



True, but that's besides the point isn't it? There's tons of examples when Superman didn't get involved in real issues but what about the times when he has?



Perhaps it might have hurt DC and the character. But that's actually just an presumption, isn't it? If we look at the evidence of what happened when Superman was in fact put into a real world issue, we find that not only did his brand not lose value, but he actually had a quantifiable impact on that issue. So can we be sure that acting on an opinion is going to be detrimental to the brand? Obviously the business logic says so, but business logic can be wrong. Superman successfully smashing the klan proves the point.

And considering Clark's opinionated origins (which would be labeled as nothing less than liberal propaganda today) which launched him to super-stardom......I'm not convinced that Superman being written into current issues would necessarily be a bad thing for him, even if some of us don't like it. Perhaps the business logic that has governed this entire industry all this time, which has largely kept characters apolitical, hasn't been as right as we've always assumed. Maybe there's more wiggle room than we realize. We've never really tried it a different way to know for sure, have we?

I dunno...was the KKK really that popular back when that radio serial was out? Maybe people were willing to accept Superman taking on a bunch of people actively involved in murder and terrorism. Unless I know the specific content of the story, which I don't, I really can't comment much on its treatment of the issue.

What a lot of people seem to want today is for Superman to basically be a representative for their specific political views, and to act in accordance with those political views with no regard to the law or to the stability of society as we know it. Which, to me at least, means that Superman basically becomes a political extremist - one who has the raw power to let his extreme actions turn him into a literal tyrant.

Also, as far as pushing the envelope and making the character more political goes, why would DC/WB really want to risk that? They are petrified as it is of upsetting some part of the fanbase or the other with even cosmetic changes to the character and his mythos. Would they really want to throw in the exponentially more divisive topic of American politics into the mix? God knows, the arguments over Post-COIE Superman and New 52 Superman were vitrolic enough - do we really want the fanbase divided over Left-Wing Superman and Right-Wing Superman?!

[HeroVladimir93]

I dunno...was the KKK really that popular back when that radio serial was out? Maybe people were willing to accept Superman taking on a bunch of people actively involved in murder and terrorism. Unless I know the specific content of the story, which I don't, I really can't comment much on its treatment of the issue.

What a lot of people seem to want today is for Superman to basically be a representative for their specific political views, and to act in accordance with those political views with no regard to the law or to the stability of society as we know it. Which, to me at least, means that Superman basically becomes a political extremist - one who has the raw power to let his extreme actions turn him into a literal tyrant.

Also, as far as pushing the envelope and making the character more political goes, why would DC/WB really want to risk that? They are petrified as it is of upsetting some part of the fanbase or the other with even cosmetic changes to the character and his mythos. Would they really want to throw in the exponentially more divisive topic of American politics into the mix? God knows, the arguments over Post-COIE Superman and New 52 Superman were vitrolic enough - do we really want the fanbase divided over Left-Wing Superman and Right-Wing Superman?!

Yes, I agree that Superman shouldn't become a mouthpiece for a specific political viewpoint. We've seen way too many works of fiction get cluttered with political viewpoints or social commentary, that the people who work in those stories forget about the roles the characters play within their fictional stories and instead become more concerned about the impact they can have in real life. I don't think a politically correct culture should get in the way of telling a fictional stories, and the people who get put in charge of making fictional stories have to remember that they are making fictional stories, not saving the world. Works of fiction don't prove anything, they merely exist for entertainment.

Superman is, by an large, an escapist power fantasy that transcends political currents and can appeal to anyone, as long as his stories are handled with care and nuance. People read Superman comics and watch Superman movies and TV shows because they allow them to escape from the problems of the real world, not reminding them of the problems of the real world. Politics divide people, not unite them. Yes, Superman was created during the time of the Great Depression, but he evolved beyond those times and now can represent multiple roles depending on the story and era.

[Jon Clark]

Yes, I agree that Superman shouldn't become a mouthpiece for a specific political viewpoint. We've seen way too many works of fiction get cluttered with political viewpoints or social commentary, that the people who work in those stories forget about the roles the characters play within their fictional stories and instead become more concerned about the impact they can have in real life. I don't think a politically correct culture should get in the way of telling a fictional stories, and the people who get put in charge of making fictional stories have to remember that they are making fictional stories, not saving the world. Works of fiction don't prove anything, they merely exist for entertainment.

Superman is, by an large, an escapist power fantasy that transcends political currents and can appeal to anyone, as long as his stories are handled with care and nuance. People read Superman comics and watch Superman movies and TV shows because they allow them to escape from the problems of the real world, not reminding them of the problems of the real world. Politics divide people, not unite them. Yes, Superman was created during the time of the Great Depression, but he evolved beyond those times and now can represent multiple roles depending on the story and era.

I think that part of the problem is that a lot of people are tied to modern viewpoints where there seems to almost be clear dividing lines on every possible subject. If Clark saves a town from a flood, it's immediately a treatise on global warming, the rights of fish vs people, or a chance to opine how Superman helped too much/not enough after the flood. The staff on the Supergirl show seem to go out of their way to twist their storylines into ways to comment on politics. And when an author doesn't come right out with a political stance in the story some comic site or poster on a message board will draw one for them.

It's a sign of the times. The news source you use, the way you bring home your purchases, your favorite musician, and probably the color of your underwear are all taken as political statements. Without trying to pick a horse in current US politics, I heard someone the other day comment about the TV playing in our company newsroom, "Do you remember when CNN actually reported on NEWS?".


Personally, I'd rather see a JLA story where there were a variety of political views with no lessons being learned by anyone than an apolitical team, but that apolitical team is preferable to one where either the JLA are all of the same opinion or worse one where a group of JLAers are shown the light and come around to the author's viewpoint by story's end.

[HeroVladimir93]

I think that part of the problem is that a lot of people are tied to modern viewpoints where there seems to almost be clear dividing lines on every possible subject. If Clark saves a town from a flood, it's immediately a treatise on global warming, the rights of fish vs people, or a chance to opine how Superman helped too much/not enough after the flood. The staff on the Supergirl show seem to go out of their way to twist their storylines into ways to comment on politics. And when an author doesn't come right out with a political stance in the story some comic site or poster on a message board will draw one for them.

It's a sign of the times. The news source you use, the way you bring home your purchases, your favorite musician, and probably the color of your underwear are all taken as political statements. Without trying to pick a horse in current US politics, I heard someone the other day comment about the TV playing in our company newsroom, "Do you remember when CNN actually reported on NEWS?".

Personally, I'd rather see a JLA story where there were a variety of political views with no lessons being learned by anyone than an apolitical team, but that apolitical team is preferable to one where either the JLA are all of the same opinion or worse one where a group of JLAers are shown the light and come around to the author's viewpoint by story's end.

This is my opinion, obviously, but I don't want Warner and DC using Superman comics to push forward an agenda. Superman works best as an escapist power fantasy that motivates the best in mankind. Yes, some of the problems he faces can be similar to those in real life, but those problems work better as high concepts instead of direct references (global warming, terrorism, violation of civil rights). The Oz Effect caused some controversy because Superman saved some Mexican immigrants from an angry white man and we all know that story in Action Comics #900 where Superman renounced his American citizenship in order to truly become a man of the world.

[Jon Clark]

This is my opinion, obviously, but I don't want Warner and DC using Superman comics to push forward an agenda. Superman works best as an escapist power fantasy that motivates the best in mankind. Yes, some of the problems he faces can be similar to those in real life, but those problems work better as high concepts instead of direct references (global warming, terrorism, violation of civil rights). The Oz Effect caused some controversy because Superman saved some Mexican immigrants from an angry white man and we all know that story in Action Comics #900 where Superman renounced his American citizenship in order to truly become a man of the world.

I think were are in sync on what a Superman story should be. I just don't think some authors know how not to politicize things and some readers can't read a story where Superman crosses the street without seeing it as a political commentary. And to be fair unless a writer is really clever, in most cases I'd rather read about Superman dealing with Charlottesville literally rather than a thinly veiled story where an alien race is clashing about whether their toast is buttered on the top or the bottom. I might prefer not reading about Charlottesville at all, but I think too many people feel the need to work out their feelings on current issues through their work.

[Agent Z]

I think that part of the problem is that a lot of people are tied to modern viewpoints where there seems to almost be clear dividing lines on every possible subject. If Clark saves a town from a flood, it's immediately a treatise on global warming, the rights of fish vs people, or a chance to opine how Superman helped too much/not enough after the flood. The staff on the Supergirl show seem to go out of their way to twist their storylines into ways to comment on politics. And when an author doesn't come right out with a political stance in the story some comic site or poster on a message board will draw one for them.

It's a sign of the times. The news source you use, the way you bring home your purchases, your favorite musician, and probably the color of your underwear are all taken as political statements. Without trying to pick a horse in current US politics, I heard someone the other day comment about the TV playing in our company newsroom, "Do you remember when CNN actually reported on NEWS?".


Personally, I'd rather see a JLA story where there were a variety of political views with no lessons being learned by anyone than an apolitical team, but that apolitical team is preferable to one where either the JLA are all of the same opinion or worse one where a group of JLAers are shown the light and come around to the author's viewpoint by story's end.

There have always been dividing lines on subjects. What's changed now is people being more aware of it because of social media.

[bat39]

I think were are in sync on what a Superman story should be. I just don't think some authors know how not to politicize things and some readers can't read a story where Superman crosses the street without seeing it as a political commentary. And to be fair unless a writer is really clever, in most cases I'd rather read about Superman dealing with Charlottesville literally rather than a thinly veiled story where an alien race is clashing about whether their toast is buttered on the top or the bottom. I might prefer not reading about Charlottesville at all, but I think too many people feel the need to work out their feelings on current issues through their work.

The funny thing is, these debates predominantly end up happening with Superman more so than any other character! There are plenty of other characters who's stories and actions can be seen in a political light, but we tend not to get too bogged down in politics while interpreting those. Whereas, when it comes to Superman, not a day goes by when there isn't some kind of political discussion about him on this and other forums.

I may be wrong, but I feel that a part of this is because of Superman's fairly 'generic' nature as a superhero - being the basis for the entire genre. Because he can be a lot of things and represent a lot of viewpoints, people feel that he can represent their viewpoint.

Another factor could be that Superman is viewed as this beacon of ultimate justice and morality - so having him represent one's viewpoint can be seen as a kind of validation for it.

[Jon Clark]

There have always been dividing lines on subjects. What's changed now is people being more aware of it because of social media.

You could be right, but I somehow doubt outside of guys like Wertham there were people reading Superman comics in the 1940's and seeing his actions through a prism of US politics. Or that in the 1950's people were thinking about those early Action issues as proof Superman was a socialist.

[Ascended]

I dunno...was the KKK really that popular back when that radio serial was out? Maybe people were willing to accept Superman taking on a bunch of people actively involved in murder and terrorism. Unless I know the specific content of the story, which I don't, I really can't comment much on its treatment of the issue.

I don't know if the klan was still a major force when the radio serial tackled them, but I think ultimately the popularity of the klan at that particular point in time is secondary; Clark went after organized bigots in an era where bigotry was still the (largely accepted) norm, which certainly pissed off a lot of people, and Clark still made a positive impact on the real world without losing any sales or popularity. Or at least, not being hurt enough for it to be noticeable, as far as any of us know.

What a lot of people seem to want today is for Superman to basically be a representative for their specific political views, and to act in accordance with those political views with no regard to the law or to the stability of society as we know it. Which, to me at least, means that Superman basically becomes a political extremist - one who has the raw power to let his extreme actions turn him into a literal tyrant.

People have always wanted Superman to reflect their political views. And they'll fudge the details to make it work in their own heads. And not just Clark, but whatever entertainment and characters they consume.

And yes, Clark dealing with political issues could very well make him be viewed as an extremist, but isn't he one already? He breaks the law and pursues his own agenda whether a government agency approves of it or not. Simply by putting on the cape Clark is making a statement about politics (that the system doesn't work and he can do better without it). No one cares because superheroes are supposed to be the "good guys" and know Clark's got good intentions so we give these actions a free pass. But the bottom line is; if Clark *wasn't* an extremist of some kind he wouldn't have ever put on the cape, he'd have joined the army, become a scientist, politician, professional athlete, or whatever. But instead, he went against the grain of society and became a "noble outlaw." He's already an extremist.

Also, as far as pushing the envelope and making the character more political goes, why would DC/WB really want to risk that? They are petrified as it is of upsetting some part of the fanbase or the other with even cosmetic changes to the character and his mythos. Would they really want to throw in the exponentially more divisive topic of American politics into the mix? God knows, the arguments over Post-COIE Superman and New 52 Superman were vitrolic enough - do we really want the fanbase divided over Left-Wing Superman and Right-Wing Superman?!

What WB would or wouldn't want to do is a non-starter. Putting aside the fact that their mismanagement has, for thirty years, driven Superman's popularity and relevance into a downward spiral and their ineptitude alone is to blame for it, just because WB/DC holds this position doesnt mean it is the only correct position. It doesn't even mean that it's the most profitable. Yes, this apolitical approach is the default setting, the standard practice, and there's good business theory for it. There is. But it's not the *only* viable approach. It's just the path of least resistance.

Nor am I concerned about the fans arguing. We do that already, and if there's nothing at hand for us to argue about we'll invent an issue or drag one out of the past. We'll argue no matter what, but at least this way we'd have something worth arguing about. If some people don't like it? Good! A little controversy can be good for business, when it's handled right. And for every reader who stalks off in a huff because they're not having their own view validated, someone else might come in to replace them because of that exact same view.

And just so I'm clear, I'm not saying Clark *should* be written into political or social issues. Im just saying I don't see a compelling reason why he *couldnt* be. Im playing devil's advocate here.

I may be wrong, but I feel that a part of this is because of Superman's fairly 'generic' nature as a superhero - being the basis for the entire genre. Because he can be a lot of things and represent a lot of viewpoints, people feel that he can represent their viewpoint.

Another factor could be that Superman is viewed as this beacon of ultimate justice and morality - so having him represent one's viewpoint can be seen as a kind of validation for it.

I also think, at least for some of us, Clark's origins in the Golden Age play a role in it too. Superman wasn't expressly a political character in '39, but he did pursue a particular agenda aimed at helping the "little guy" that, by today's standards, is political commentary. So for those of us who really lean into those old Golden Age roots, we don't see this as a new twist on the character, we see it as a return to what was already there and we'll be quick to point out that this "champion of the people" and his socio-political leanings are what made Superman a household name in the first place. Perhaps the real mistake was backing away from that?

But yes, it's also everything you said. Without doubt if Superman expressed an opinion that happened to agree with someone, that person would feel pretty confident in their view; after all, if Superman supports it, it must be right! And if Superman expressed the opposite opinion, well then, the writer clearly doesn't understand Superman at all and the whole thing is a mess that might as well be a direct attack on America itself!

Perhaps its better to have Superman say something worth saying even if some disagree with it, than to have him say nothing and ultimately mean nothing. Perhaps.

[bat39]

I don't know if the klan was still a major force when the radio serial tackled them, but I think ultimately the popularity of the klan at that particular point in time is secondary; Clark went after organized bigots in an era where bigotry was still the (largely accepted) norm, which certainly pissed off a lot of people, and Clark still made a positive impact on the real world without losing any sales or popularity. Or at least, not being hurt enough for it to be noticeable, as far as any of us know.

Here's the thing though. The clan was pretty much a militant organization indulging in acts of violence, not just a gang of 'organized bigots'. So people might have been okay with Superman taking down a bunch of domestic terrorists, even if they shared more than a few beliefs in common with members of that group.

People have always wanted Superman to reflect their political views. And they'll fudge the details to make it work in their own heads. And not just Clark, but whatever entertainment and characters they consume.

And yes, Clark dealing with political issues could very well make him be viewed as an extremist, but isn't he one already? He breaks the law and pursues his own agenda whether a government agency approves of it or not. Simply by putting on the cape Clark is making a statement about politics (that the system doesn't work and he can do better without it). No one cares because superheroes are supposed to be the "good guys" and know Clark's got good intentions so we give these actions a free pass. But the bottom line is; if Clark *wasn't* an extremist of some kind he wouldn't have ever put on the cape, he'd have joined the army, become a scientist, politician, professional athlete, or whatever. But instead, he went against the grain of society and became a "noble outlaw." He's already an extremist.

Clark does work outside the system, but he's not a political extremist. He doesn't carry out his actions on behalf of any particular ideological group or school of thought. He just acts when people need help.

The idea of a hero who swoops in to save the day appeals to everyone on some level. But the idea of a hero who swoops in to do the bidding of one political ideology or another? Not so much...

What WB would or wouldn't want to do is a non-starter. Putting aside the fact that their mismanagement has, for thirty years, driven Superman's popularity and relevance into a downward spiral and their ineptitude alone is to blame for it, just because WB/DC holds this position doesnt mean it is the only correct position. It doesn't even mean that it's the most profitable. Yes, this apolitical approach is the default setting, the standard practice, and there's good business theory for it. There is. But it's not the *only* viable approach. It's just the path of least resistance.

Nor am I concerned about the fans arguing. We do that already, and if there's nothing at hand for us to argue about we'll invent an issue or drag one out of the past. We'll argue no matter what, but at least this way we'd have something worth arguing about. If some people don't like it? Good! A little controversy can be good for business, when it's handled right. And for every reader who stalks off in a huff because they're not having their own view validated, someone else might come in to replace them because of that exact same view.

And just so I'm clear, I'm not saying Clark *should* be written into political or social issues. Im just saying I don't see a compelling reason why he *couldnt* be. Im playing devil's advocate here.

I appreciate the point you're making here, especially the part about you playing the devil's advocate. The fact though is that what you're saying is a moot point. WB owns the character and its in their interests to keep him apolitical.

And yes, a little controversy might be good for business. Marvel in particular dived a bit into politics a few years ago. Now I dunno how it worked for them sales wise but their turn towards politics was a tad divisive and didn't exactly get them universal good press. Its telling that the Marvel movies, which is where the real commercial potential of those IP's are realized, don't touch real-world politics with a barge-pole - even a movie like Black Panther, for all the real-world political commentary it inspired, didn't really take a political stand the way you're suggesting. And that might just have helped it gain the near-universal popularity that it has today, among fans and non-fans alike.

I also think, at least for some of us, Clark's origins in the Golden Age play a role in it too. Superman wasn't expressly a political character in '39, but he did pursue a particular agenda aimed at helping the "little guy" that, by today's standards, is political commentary. So for those of us who really lean into those old Golden Age roots, we don't see this as a new twist on the character, we see it as a return to what was already there and we'll be quick to point out that this "champion of the people" and his socio-political leanings are what made Superman a household name in the first place. Perhaps the real mistake was backing away from that?

But yes, it's also everything you said. Without doubt if Superman expressed an opinion that happened to agree with someone, that person would feel pretty confident in their view; after all, if Superman supports it, it must be right! And if Superman expressed the opposite opinion, well then, the writer clearly doesn't understand Superman at all and the whole thing is a mess that might as well be a direct attack on America itself!

Perhaps its better to have Superman say something worth saying even if some disagree with it, than to have him say nothing and ultimately mean nothing. Perhaps.

With regards to the original Golden Age Superman...well, we'll never really know how the character, or indeed the genre, would have turned out had they stayed the course. But given that Superman has spent the better part of the past 80 years as a largely apolitical character and was the most popular and iconic superhero character in the world for a large chunk of that period (and many would argue remains that too this day!), I don't see how it was a 'mistake'.

Also, the Golden Age Superman was more of a vigilante than some kind of activist for left-wing politics which people try to frame him as - though if you were to try to categorize him politically, I suppose he would tend towards the 'left' end of the spectrum. Superman was a crusader and maybe a bit of a bully, but his goal was ultimately to help people in need, same as it is today - he was just prepared to be a lot more violent and forceful about it back then. I do agree though that today, Superman's desire to help the 'little guy' could be framed as a political agenda - perhaps yet another reason why we can't really have the Golden Age status quo back in this politically obsessed day and age!

[Ascended]

And yes, a little controversy might be good for business. Marvel in particular dived a bit into politics a few years ago. Now I dunno how it worked for them sales wise but their turn towards politics was a tad divisive and didn't exactly get them universal good press. Its telling that the Marvel movies, which is where the real commercial potential of those IP's are realized, don't touch real-world politics with a barge-pole - even a movie like Black Panther, for all the real-world political commentary it inspired, didn't really take a political stand the way you're suggesting. And that might just have helped it gain the near-universal popularity that it has today, among fans and non-fans alike.

Well, Marvel's political push seemed largely wrapped up in new characters like Ms. Marvel, or older characters in new roles like Jane Foster-Thor. And as I understand it, that push was very successful for years, until Marvel ended up pushing all of their big, familiar names out of the spotlight in favor of these new, more socially conscious characters/narratives. The problem wasn't politically minded characters or stories, it was that Steve Rogers was evil (or dead), Banner was dead, Tony was in a coma, Thor was drunk in a corner, etc. Older fans realized that the characters they had spent decades enjoying were all gone and felt abandoned by Marvel, which lead to a decline in sales and now you notice how all the big names are back in action, and many of the new faces are gone or in smaller roles. But until Marvel went too far with replacements and legacies, socio-politics seemed to work just fine for them.

However, I think it's a unfair comparison. DC isn't Marvel. Even though most DC readers are also Marvel readers (and vice versa) people seem to want different things from the companies. Fans seem far more willing to accept new ideas and characters from Marvel, while they seem to want the classic names from DC. It's not unlike New Coke. New Coke tested better against classic Coke and Pepsi, but people didn't want it because it wasn't the "classic." It was better, but it didn't have that nostalgia factor and Coke drinkers (and people who only occasionally drank Coke) wanted that more than a soda that tasted better. DC fans seem to be like that; maybe a new direction or character is "better" but they don't want that; they want the big, famous, classic names, in their big, famous status quo's. So to that end, leaning into political commentary would certainly be met with resistance from fans. However, handled properly I don't see that as a problem. I see it as an opportunity. Would DC lose fans if they pushed into political commentary? Yes, there's no doubt. But there's also no doubt that there are other audiences who would step in to replace those of us who left.

[Ascended]

Also, the Golden Age Superman was more of a vigilante than some kind of activist for left-wing politics which people try to frame him as - though if you were to try to categorize him politically, I suppose he would tend towards the 'left' end of the spectrum. Superman was a crusader and maybe a bit of a bully, but his goal was ultimately to help people in need, same as it is today - he was just prepared to be a lot more violent and forceful about it back then. I do agree though that today, Superman's desire to help the 'little guy' could be framed as a political agenda - perhaps yet another reason why we can't really have the Golden Age status quo back in this politically obsessed day and age!

I tried to nail down what Clark's politics might be, taking from across his history, and I ended up placing him as a slightly left-leaning moderate with several conservative opinions, and some libertarian mixed in. And if you include the Golden Age stuff, there's probably a bit of a socialist streak in there too, though it seems to be more of a "Bernie Sanders" flavor of capitalist socialism than anything.

Doesn't totally line up with my personal views, but it does paint an interesting picture and I think you could really spin some great narratives out of Clark acting on his viewpoints.

[bat39]

Well, Marvel's political push seemed largely wrapped up in new characters like Ms. Marvel, or older characters in new roles like Jane Foster-Thor. And as I understand it, that push was very successful for years, until Marvel ended up pushing all of their big, familiar names out of the spotlight in favor of these new, more socially conscious characters/narratives. The problem wasn't politically minded characters or stories, it was that Steve Rogers was evil (or dead), Banner was dead, Tony was in a coma, Thor was drunk in a corner, etc. Older fans realized that the characters they had spent decades enjoying were all gone and felt abandoned by Marvel, which lead to a decline in sales and now you notice how all the big names are back in action, and many of the new faces are gone or in smaller roles. But until Marvel went too far with replacements and legacies, socio-politics seemed to work just fine for them.

However, I think it's a unfair comparison. DC isn't Marvel. Even though most DC readers are also Marvel readers (and vice versa) people seem to want different things from the companies. Fans seem far more willing to accept new ideas and characters from Marvel, while they seem to want the classic names from DC. It's not unlike New Coke. New Coke tested better against classic Coke and Pepsi, but people didn't want it because it wasn't the "classic." It was better, but it didn't have that nostalgia factor and Coke drinkers (and people who only occasionally drank Coke) wanted that more than a soda that tasted better. DC fans seem to be like that; maybe a new direction or character is "better" but they don't want that; they want the big, famous, classic names, in their big, famous status quo's. So to that end, leaning into political commentary would certainly be met with resistance from fans. However, handled properly I don't see that as a problem. I see it as an opportunity. Would DC lose fans if they pushed into political commentary? Yes, there's no doubt. But there's also no doubt that there are other audiences who would step in to replace those of us who left.

Again, considering what you've just written...does DC really have any incentive to 'go political' when it comes to Superman?

I tried to nail down what Clark's politics might be, taking from across his history, and I ended up placing him as a slightly left-leaning moderate with several conservative opinions, and some libertarian mixed in. And if you include the Golden Age stuff, there's probably a bit of a socialist streak in there too, though it seems to be more of a "Bernie Sanders" flavor of capitalist socialism than anything.

Doesn't totally line up with my personal views, but it does paint an interesting picture and I think you could really spin some great narratives out of Clark acting on his viewpoints.

Your analysis is interesting! Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if Clark Kent's politics are quiet close to what you've describe.

The operative phrase here being 'Clark Kent'.

I think as a citizen of the US and as a human being, particularly one engaged in an occupation like journalism, Clark Kent may well have political views and opinions. But I think he leaves those views behind when he puts on the cape and flies off to save people. As Superman, he's conscious of the fact that he's not an ordinary citizen. He's an alien, a superhero with God-like powers who is revered by many - a literally larger-than-life figure who is far above the ordinary considerations of human politics.

Personally, I think Clark would be a moderate, who respects both centre-left and centre-right opinions. I can see Lois as maybe leaning a little more rightwards in terms of personal values, but she's still more than prepared to take on corrupt corporate leaders and the military establishment if they step out of line. That doesn't mean I want stories to explicitly acknowledge these or any other political leanings - much less make them the focus of Superman's mission.