Should Superman be an agent of change or a maintainer of the status quo?

[Kuwagaton]

Rocky IV effectively ended the Cold War two years prior and Superman IV was on the bandwagon.

The face of war changes and so does the response. There were times in media where we saw the WWII approach used to portray the American role and it felt dead wrong. Superman operating in black and white or even gray can’t help but draw critics... based on measuring him by old respnoses imo. If I had a chance I’d use him to look not at how win the war became end the war, but what comes after that.

Renouncing citizenship was something pretty interesting and powerful because he’s basically Steve Rogers’ dad. But pretty dishonest to the path of the comics as they are.

[Agent Z]

Falling back on simple solutions to complex socio-political problems would make the Superman comics foolish. And if Superman can't change the world, then it's just the myth of Sisyphus all over again.

Nevertheless, the Man of Tomorrow has persisted in changing the world through the decades--people just don't remember that as part of the stories. Folks think that the comic where Superman had a giant ant-head was some silly "Silver Age" lunacy. They don't recall that the Man of Steel actually did that as a hoax to force the world leaders (especially the USA and the USSR) to disarm their nuclear weapons and negotiate for peace--as Supes was afraid what would happen if there was a nuclear war. And that comic book (ACTION COMICS 296) came out just a month after the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly averted a global nuclear war, so who's to say Superman wasn't successful in his ruse?

Was Christopher Reeve so naive to make THE QUEST FOR PEACE? Not long after the movie came out, there were many positive changes in the world, the Soviet bloc fell, the Cold War was over. The world breathed a collective sigh of relief as we seemed much further away from doomsday than we had been for three decades. But how many thanks did Superman Reeve get for saving our bacon? Folks nowadays just think SUPERMAN IV was a goofy movie and don't understand what it accompished for humanity.

They don't teach this stuff to kids in school these days. More's the pity.

Yeah, none of that happened because of The Quest For Peace.

[Ascended]

Renouncing citizenship was something pretty interesting and powerful because he’s basically Steve Rogers’ dad. But pretty dishonest to the path of the comics as they are.

I'm not sure if it was as out of character as some make it out to be.

Superman didn't want his actions to reflect on the American government. He didn't want to have to worry about causing international incidents just because he saved a family from a mob, or a burning building, or sat with a group of protesters. It's not that he didn't love his country or had decided he was too good/too big for it, he just didn't want his actions to cause undue problems for the American people. And you'll notice that nothing is said about Clark Kent renouncing his citizenship, that guy was still a proud American citizen.

I did think the move was about as naive as Superman's solutions in the Golden Age though. Just because Superman publicly is no longer considered an American doesn't mean that America wouldn't be blamed for his actions.

Im not sure if that whole story was out of character, but I lean towards it fitting. He might have gone about it in a poor way, but Clark was trying to protect people, even from the consequences of his own actions. That seems like Superman to me. >shrug<

[Netherman14]

Superman should always be a leftist-agent of change, during the early part of the New 52 period in the T-Shirt and Jeans era. not in a "I'm just going to become a dictator now" way, but ïn a "everyone's doing what they can, I can just do more than most" way as Adekis has put it.

But in order for that to happen, I fear that Superman would have to be moved out of the larger DCU into a smaller solo-universe.

Superman_Prime_Earth_0002.jpg

[talja_l]

Superman should always be a leftist-agent of change, during the early part of the New 52 period in the T-Shirt and Jeans era. not in a "I'm just going to become a dictator now" way, but ïn a "everyone's doing what they can, I can just do more than most" way as Adekis has put it.

But in order for that to happen, I fear that Superman would have to be moved out of the larger DCU into a smaller solo-universe.

Superman_Prime_Earth_0002.jpg

That just invites someone to remind you that leftest politics have enslaved millions of people in the last century.

Superman stories are best to be apolitical. They can be a commentary on social issues without being left or right wing, but they don't have to do that either. They can just be stories about Superman.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't think Superman should be on the left or the right. However, it isn't the right or the left that have enslaved people--it's opportunistic demagogues who exploit sound political theories and good people for their own ends. Most of the democratic world, including the United States, practices a kind of socialism because leaving someone to die in the street, just because they have no money, is not ethical. Any good person, left or right, has the moral duty to take care of his fellow man. It's how to go about that that ethical people disagree on.

It's best if Superman is above political posturing and just does the right thing. That might get him in trouble with the powerful elites that run the world. Still, if I was handling the Superman stories, I wouldn't play favourites and have Superman side with one group over another.

[Carabas]

They can be a commentary on social issues without being left or right wing...

This is literally not a thing that can be done. Commentary doesn't work like that.

[Kuwagaton]

I don't think Superman should be on the left or the right. However, it isn't the right or the left that have enslaved people--it's opportunistic demagogues who exploit sound political theories and good people for their own ends. Most of the democratic world, including the United States, practices a kind of socialism because leaving someone to die in the street, just because they have no money, is not ethical. Any good person, left or right, has the moral duty to take care of his fellow man. It's how to go about that that ethical people disagree on.

It's best if Superman is above political posturing and just does the right thing. That might get him in trouble with the powerful elites that run the world. Still, if I was handling the Superman stories, I wouldn't play favourites and have Superman side with one group over another.

Very much agreed. The most explicit I think he's been in being "for one side" didn't have him operate differently. Even as the ideas of right and wrong change across politics, it wouldn't be hard for him to understand ways to help regardless of that.

[Francisco]

This is literally not a thing that can be done. Commentary doesn't work like that.

Left wing: Let's feed fish to the hungry. Right wing: Let's teach the hungry how to fish. Superman: (And pretty much anyone with a brain) Let's do both.

[gwhh]

Keep the best. Get rid of the worst.

[HeroVladimir93]

Look, the last thing I want Superman to do is to stop fighting General Zod and Brainiac and instead attend to the Black Lives Matter rally and stand in the freeway or something. That kind of stuff gives Marvel superheroes a lousy reputation and DC doesn't need that.

[Jim Kelly]

It's hard to establish a villain's bona fides if all he does is endanger some blue aliens in another galaxy. Luthor established himself by maniplulating the war in Europe and extorting money from wealthy businessmen. Brainiac wasn't a threat to Superman as long as he was shrinking cities on other aliens' planets, but when he shrunk a city on Superman's native planet then it got personal.

The criminality can't be abstract, it has to mean something to the reader. So Mr. Potter threatening to evict Pauline and her uncle from their farm if they don't pay what they owe on their lease to Potter's bank--that means something. The stakes have to be real enough that readers can get suitably angry about it.

[Carabas]

Left wing: Let's feed fish to the hungry. Right wing: Let's teach the hungry how to fish. Superman: (And pretty much anyone with a brain) Let's do both.

That would be taking a political centrist position. He'd be Obama.

[Kuwagaton]

Look, the last thing I want Superman to do is to stop fighting General Zod and Brainiac and instead attend to the Black Lives Matter rally and stand in the freeway or something. That kind of stuff gives Marvel superheroes a lousy reputation and DC doesn't need that.

Have you honestly read a comic where those things youdescribed have happened? A Marvel character stopped fighting a villain to attend any sort of BLM organization, really?

The closest I can even imagine would be... the unpublished Superman/Black Lightning comic.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/08...vor-von-eeden/

[bat39]

That would be taking a political centrist position. He'd be Obama.

The world could do with a lot more centrism these days...