Your DC-Only controversial opinions (part II)...

[Ascended]

I hate that you made me put Clark in Trump's position, by the way. Just for that, I'm cursing you to another three years of living Kents.

That's cold bro.

Stone cold.

It's why I'm softer on 775. I can't in good conscience take it to task over something that I let pass elsewhere, though I admit your critique of it is pretty solid.

You're right, punching is usually Superman's way. And usually I give that a free pass because he's a man of action and gratuitous violence is how we solve our problems in the DCU. But the fatal flaw with 775 is that it's not framed the same way other superhero narratives are; it's literally a debate; not a metaphor or allegory or escapist fantasy, but a straight up conversation/argument about a real-world issue, with two sides trying to prove their stance to the other. That changes the rules of engagement in my mind. If you're gonna write a story where Clark argues instead of fights, the endgame can't be "Clark punches his problems away." Or, if you're gonna stick to that endgame, then Clark should at least get a few good points into his argument first.

Besides, there *are* valid reasons and arguments against capital punishment and lethal force. They're easy to Google, and were easy to find back in '01 when 775 came out. That's the thing that really kills me with that issue; there *were* good arguments Clark could have made. But he didnt make them.

But again, this is just me. If you or Midnight or whoever likes the issue I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's a lot of ways to look at these characters and "my" Superman might not be "your" Superman, but that doesn't mean one of us is wrong.

[Jim Kelly]

While I respect the reaction anyone would have nowadays to reading something from the before times, I think half of the fun of reading books and comics or watching movies and TV shows from before you were born is putting yourself in the shoes of those people. It's a chance for you to time travel and you don't need to split any atoms to do it. Yet a lot of people rigidly hold onto their "I'm a person in 2020" outlook and refuse to see the past from any other perspective.

Someone picking up a Superman comic in 1938 would have their socks knocked off. That has so much edge because it's a vision of reality that no one had experienced before. I can just imagine the excitement those comics must have generated. They challenged all the accepted norms.

[Will Evans]

While I respect the reaction anyone would have nowadays to reading something from the before times, I think half of the fun of reading books and comics or watching movies and TV shows from before you were born is putting yourself in the shoes of those people. It's a chance for you to time travel and you don't need to split any atoms to do it. Yet a lot of people rigidly hold onto their "I'm a person in 2020" outlook and refuse to see the past from any other perspective.

Someone picking up a Superman comic in 1938 would have their socks knocked off. That has so much edge because it's a vision of reality that no one had experienced before. I can just imagine the excitement those comics must have generated. They challenged all the accepted norms.

Part of it is the Information Age. For the last twenty years you could get a synopsis of what those issues were about by just clicking online. Even read other people’s reviews on them.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I enjoyed the joke in the recent Justice League Dark movie but I liked the idea of a John Constantine/Harley Queen pairing.

It's probably not that controversial.

[90'sCartoonMan]

Action 775 is framed as a political debate and, at every single turn, Clark loses the argument. He provides an opinion in each scene, Manchester Black counters with valid arguments and Clark, not once, has a good rebuttal. Then at the end he beats everyone up and preens as if he won the debate. Clark's argument ultimately boils down to "getting murdered is scary!" while Black can cite multiple, logical (cold blooded, but logical) reasons why lethal force saves lives in the long run. But Clark beats him up in the end and calls himself the winner. Imagine if Biden and trump got on the debate stage, and after two hours of losing arguments trump walked over and punched Biden in the nose. That's basically the plot of Action 775.

While it wasn't part of the debate with Black, one of the things that disturbed Clark about the Elite was that children were saying it's fun to kill. Action 775 does make the argument that the Elite are unnecessarily glorifying violence whereas Superman minimizes it as much as he can.

Besides, there *are* valid reasons and arguments against capital punishment and lethal force. They're easy to Google, and were easy to find back in '01 when 775 came out. That's the thing that really kills me with that issue; there *were* good arguments Clark could have made. But he didnt make them.

And then there's the Superman vs. the Elite movie, which expands the story and allows Superman to talk about having oversight and having to respect governments and the like, which counters the "Might Makes Right" idea the Elite stand for.

[Midnight_v]

While it wasn't part of the debate with Black, one of the things that disturbed Clark about the Elite was that children were saying it's fun to kill. Action 775 does make the argument that the Elite are unnecessarily glorifying violence whereas Superman minimizes it as much as he can.



And then there's the Superman vs. the Elite movie, which expands the story and allows Superman to talk about having oversight and having to respect governments and the like, which counters the "Might Makes Right" idea the Elite stand for.

Bruh... That's what where talking about in book form "What's so funny about truth justice and the American way"/Action Comics 774 = Superman V. Elite

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah! Superman has never been honest about his violence. A kid could punch people and learn that he messed up after trying to emulate it. So, if that's the case the superman himself is also guilty. Moreover, superman being role model for kids is big joke. The guy is a freaking vigilante. Sure, there are things worth emulating. But, his work as vigilante ain't it. The character should make that clear.

Finally,Superman caring about governments is pretty funny. The guy wouldn't exist if he respected system. He only exist because the system is corrupt. Moreover, it wouldn't be might makes right if a person acts with will and representation of the people and justice is served,Not vengeance. Superman not acting at all has been bogus.

[Ascended]

While it wasn't part of the debate with Black, one of the things that disturbed Clark about the Elite was that children were saying it's fun to kill. Action 775 does make the argument that the Elite are unnecessarily glorifying violence whereas Superman minimizes it as much as he can.

There was indeed. You're right, the issue itself makes the argument that the Elite's brand of justice is gratuitous. Shame that Clark couldn't muster even that much of a rebuttal to defend his own values.

And then there's the Superman vs. the Elite movie, which expands the story and allows Superman to talk about having oversight and having to respect governments and the like, which counters the "Might Makes Right" idea the Elite stand for.

As you may imagine, with me having such issues with 775, I never saw the cartoon.

The "respecting governments" thing is a slippery slope with Superman though. He tries to avoid having antagonistic relationships with duly elected authority, but outside a few exceptions he's more likely to tell the government to sod off and stay out of his business than he is to support them. Even Zach Snyder got that balance right. But having never seen the cartoon I can't really speak on the particulars here.

[Adekis]

Fact is, most of the more traditional "Silver Age Morals" that Superman is associated with have less to do with actual morality than they do with appeasing would-be censors. I do think there's a lot of times when having to be identified as a role model for kids holds Superman back. Certainly, the idea that Superman has to abide by established authority figures is extremely sketchy to me. That's not about behaving morally in the slightest, that's about hegemony, and enforcing conformity more than establishing justice.

But on the other hand, there's "role model" Supermen who are awesome. Look at George Reeves. George Reeves Superman just slaps bruv, he slaps the entire bod. He's not about conformity, he stands in front of an armed mob and tells them they're wrong in his very first appearance!

[manwhohaseverything]

As you may imagine, with me having such issues with 775, I never saw the cartoon.

The "respecting governments" thing is a slippery slope with Superman though. He tries to avoid having antagonistic relationships with duly elected authority, but outside a few exceptions he's more likely to tell the government to sod off and stay out of his business than he is to support them. Even Zach Snyder got that balance right. But having never seen the cartoon I can't really speak on the particulars here.

I watched the movie. It does provide more nuanced view. Clark is only against wanton murder and executions. But, the problem is superman even conflates it ,with him being a role model and him being restricted by law. The above is very much what Clark's ethics should be.i would have done the story a bit differently. The movie makes the case that superman shouldn't take out villain because? He is a role model "you taught us that superman". In other words his code of ethics isn't to restrict himself. But it's for being a moral authority for others to follow . In the movie, he does seem to act.my bad. But, still the law being a restriction for superman is very wierd.

[Frontier]

Fact is, most of the more traditional "Silver Age Morals" that Superman is associated with have less to do with actual morality than they do with appeasing would-be censors. I do think there's a lot of times when having to be identified as a role model for kids holds Superman back. Certainly, the idea that Superman has to abide by established authority figures is extremely sketchy to me. That's not about behaving morally in the slightest, that's about hegemony, and enforcing conformity more than establishing justice.

But on the other hand, there's "role model" Supermen who are awesome. Look at George Reeves. George Reeves Superman just slaps bruv, he slaps the entire bod. He's not about conformity, he stands in front of an armed mob and tells them they're wrong in his very first appearance!

Obviously the Silver Age ideals and morals were to make Superheroes safer and more appropriate for children but I feel like to some extent they've also become kind of merged into the genre and the characters' ethos in terms of how they operate past that era.

Although I guess when MCU heroes can kill people fairly willy nilly it's not as necessary now as it was back then.

[manwhohaseverything]

Obviously the Silver Age ideals and morals were to make Superheroes safer and more appropriate for children but I feel like to some extent they've also become kind of merged into the genre and the characters' ethos in terms of how they operate past that era.

Although I guess when MCU heroes can kill people fairly willy nilly it's not as necessary now as it was back then.

No, i see people making more of an issue with just superman and batman. With the rest it's mild. With batman it's internalised. It makes sense. He doesn't want to be be monster he fights. With superman it doesn't make any sense is all. He wouldn't become monster regardless. He values life, fair enough. But, life is full of contradictions. Superman needs to protect life, that entails he would be put in the position of a cop or a soldier many time. It's awfull. But, it happens. If even dragon ball had no trouble conveying that with gohan and android 16 characters that value life as much as superman. Then why does a superman narrative get criticized?

[Frontier]

No, i see people making more of an issue with just superman and batman. With the rest it's mild. With batman it's internalised. It makes sense. He doesn't want to be be monster he fights. With superman it doesn't make any sense is all. He wouldn't become monster regardless. He values life, fair enough. But, life is full of contradictions. Superman needs to protect life, that entails he would be put in the position of a cop or a soldier many time. It's awfull. But, it happens. If even dragon ball had no trouble conveying that with gohan and android 16 characters that value life as much as superman. Then why does a superman narrative get criticized?

Because Superman doesn't exist in a setting like DBZ and has to operate by different standards and operate differently. The DC Universe doesn't operate like a Shonen manga setting.

[manwhohaseverything]

Because Superman doesn't exist in a setting like DBZ and has to operate by different standards and operate differently. The DC Universe doesn't operate like a Shonen manga setting.

How does that matter? The same ethical conundrum is placed on focused character.Btw, battle shonen is for boys/kids.All i am saying, if you are gonna have that moral code it needs to be internalised without slippery slope argument and other nonsense.Ethical codes are for you to restrict yourself,not for showing off how good you are or better you are.
Edit-gohan becomes a superhero as well(parodying superman).

[Frontier]

How does that matter? The same ethical conundrum is placed on focused character.Btw, battle shonen is for boys/kids.All i am saying, if you are gonna have that moral code it needs to be internalised without slippery slope argument and other nonsense.Ethical codes are for you to restrict yourself,not for showing off how good you are or better you are.
Edit-gohan becomes a superhero as well(parodying superman).

Again, the world of the DCU just does not feel like it is relevant to be compared to the setting of a Battle Shonen manga world.

It's closest equivalent is Tiger & Bunny then DBZ.