Was the New 52 an objective mistake in regards to Superman?

[Yoda]

She went behind a desk to try and do what she felt needed to be done to save the profession that she loved. She wasn't doing it just for more money or because she was tired of the game. It weighed on her too, that much was made perfectly clear but she was willing to make sacrifices to save the Planet. That's definitely how I see Lois Lane. Clark on the other hand was not so willing to adapt to that degree. And neither were painted as wrong. I would have loved to see where it all went.

Clark as a blogger was an interesting idea too, but this had tons of potential in its own right.

Batman giving up being a vigilante to put his money to use reforming Gotham because he realized it would be a better course of action and was needed to save the city would be an interesting intellectual exercise as well, but it would still be a misuse of the character. And yes, that's a hyperbolic example, but Lois Lane as a character was synonymous with being a hard nose, tenacious reporter as much as Batman is with being a vigilante.

[Sacred Knight]

It would depend on the length of time such a storyline took place, for one. Second I still don't find it all that comparable in the first place. Your Batman scenario has him giving up being a superhero. Lois on the other hand did not give up her livelihood. She changed positions within said livelihood to try and help her paper, which in every incarnation of Lois I've ever read she adores more than most things. She didn't take on a whole new profession. Everything she was doing she was doing for, and still doing within, the Daily Planet.

[Yoda]

That's not really comparable in my view. Your Batman scenario has him giving up being a superhero, which indeed defeats his purpose as a character. Lois on the other hand did not give up her livelihood. She's changed positions within said livelihood to try and help her paper, she didn't take on a whole new profession.

Batman's stated purpose is to fight and eliminate crime, saving Gotham and people from experiencing his same tragedy. By using his money to eliminate the underlying causes of crime he achieves that goal. He's changing his position, but working towards his goal. I'm sure it would weigh on him as well, he'd rather be out there punching the Riddler. But he knows he needs to do this to save Gotham. He's just not using his fists to do it anymore because he needed to sacrifice that aspect of his career to achieve his goals.

Lois as a character is a tenacious, crime fighting reporter. Like Batman is a crime fighting vigilante. She's not middle management to save media.

[Sacred Knight]

Batman's a superhero. Lois is a reporter. In your scenario Batman is no longer a superhero for a while. He's helping people, but not as a superhero. Lois was never not a reporter. Her official position changed, but she was still a reporter. She was still reporting the news Hell she still managed to do investitive work still in that very story. So I still don't think its a compareable at all.

And again, if it meant saving her paper, the institution she loves and believes in with all her heart, I believe Lois would ten times out of ten do what she did. Hell she's done A LOT worse to save it in the past. She was willing to give Luthor a pass on a crime for the sake of the Daily Planet.

[Yoda]

Sacred Knight, I do appreciate your points and I enjoy going back and forth on this. I think I tend to look back at the New 52 era with a much more negative view than is warranted.

And intellectually I agree it's an interesting idea to pursue. But it was not a good use of Lois Lane as a character or really all that interesting in the context of a Superman story.

Bendis is coming at a similar idea I think, it a much more interesting way that is keeping with the spirit of both Clark and Lois as characters.

[Sacred Knight]

I'm enjoying the conversation too. I respect your position, I certainly don't expect to change your mind and I don't think you're looking to change mine. Just a good little back and forth.

We'll see what Bendis has in store for her. #1004 rubbed me the wrong way in regards to her son, but I hope things start to make more sense as it goes on.

[Yoda]

Batman's a superhero. Lois is a reporter. In your scenario Batman is no longer a superhero for a while. He's helping people, but not as a superhero. Lois was never not a reporter. Her official position changed, but she was still a reporter. She was still reporting the news Hell she still managed to do investitive work still in that very story. So I still don't think its a compareable at all.

And again, if it meant saving her paper, the institution she loves and believes in with all her heart, I believe Lois would ten times out of ten do what she did. Hell she's done A LOT worse to save it in the past. She was willing to give Luthor a pass on a crime for the sake of the Daily Planet.

I don't recall her doing much investigating or reporting in that opening arc. I recall her doing a lot of "walking and talking" and directing the actual reporters.

And yes, giving Luthor a pass was worse. I thought that was pretty poor characterization of her as well.

And assuming my recollection of that arc is tainted by my overall distaste for her handling in the New 52 in general, would a more comparable example be Batman giving up active crime fighting because he realized his talents for strategizing as an Oracle type character directing Nightwing, Batgirl and the rest were necessary to save Gotham and protect his Batfamily from harm? He's still a superhero and still fighting crime. Just not "out in the field." And to clarify, not old retired Batman ala Batman Beyond. This is in his prime Batman.

[Vordan]

I admit there is still much about the comic book industry that I don't understand. At least, that explanation justifies the marketing push DC did in favor of Brian Michael Bendis. Maybe in the future, I'll look back on the New 52 with fonder eyes, but for now, I'd rather look forward instead of looking back.

I'm gonna have to disagree with some of those pre-Flashpoint comics, as I certainly loved Grounded and Reign of Doomsdays; but considering the large amount of pre-Flashpoint content, there is bound to be some truly awful and lore-breaking stories out there. There were benefits to the New 52, I won't deny that, but I personally disagreed with some of the creative decisions made during that era. I'm just glad Rebirth gave Superman a stronger sense of purpose and direction and a support network, both of which he lacked during the New 52.

We’ll have to agree to disagree because I found both of those stories absolutely awful, and it was why I was almost happy to get a reboot.

[Yoda]

I'm enjoying the conversation too. I respect your position, I certainly don't expect to change your mind and I don't think you're looking to change mine. Just a good little back and forth.

We'll see what Bendis has in store for her. #1004 rubbed me the wrong way in regards to her son, but I hope things start to make more sense as it goes on.

I'm more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on leaving Jon in space. For one, in the context of their insane lives I'm hoping Bendis at least gives her some reasons to trust that Jor El was a good guardian for Jon or that Jon was handling his own. Even if it turns out neither was. And two, I think the outcome of Doomsday Clock will recontextualize Jor El in Man of Steel.

[Vordan]

New 52 feels like an Elseworlds story to me. i dont know this Superman/Clark he's so different from the Superman i grew up with, the suit, the powers and even the personality. tbh i feel like he don't have any obligation to protract this earth, i mean why should he? all the people that make his life meaningful on earth was gone. his parents dies and Lois is not his. his connection with these mere mortals that make him Clark Kent/Superman, make him want to protract the earth with all his strength. as a human, i don't care about his relationship with other gods. they live above us. when the New 52 Superman died, i don't feel anything ..i was like welp! he's dead lol. actually i was quite happy because we are getting Superfamily. finally they let Clark Kent/Superman and Lois grow as charterer after 80 years.

It isn’t enough for him to have spent most of his life here, and been taught by the Kents to do what’s right? Clark needing his mommy and daddy alive to constantly tell him to do the right thing is a terrible look for the character imo. It’s why so many of the recent evil Superman stories have him jump off the slippery slope after Lois or whoever dies. It makes him look weak-willed and it’s not an interpretation I support. Clark should be a hero because it’s what he was taught, but also because it’s what he WANTS.

[Yoda]

It isn’t enough for him to have spent most of his life here, and been taught by the Kents to do what’s right? Clark needing his mommy and daddy alive to constantly tell him to do the right thing is a terrible look for the character imo. It’s why so many of the recent evil Superman stories have him jump off the slippery slope after Lois or whoever dies. It makes him look weak-willed and it’s not an interpretation I support. Clark should be a hero because it’s what he was taught, but also because it’s what he WANTS.

Recently read an argument on twitter that the Clark in Injustice had a psychotic break as a result of the trauma from killing Lois and his child. It's not that he abandoned his morals because Lois was killed. Basically with a break of that nature his morals and upbringing would not matter anymore. Seems far more consistent than abandoning his beliefs because Lois was killed. Also seems far more consistent with the Joker wanting "one bad day" to break someone.

[DochaDocha]

Recently read an argument on twitter that the Clark in Injustice had a psychotic break as a result of the trauma from killing Lois and his child. It's not that he abandoned his morals because Lois was killed. Basically with a break of that nature his morals and upbringing would not matter anymore. Seems far more consistent than abandoning his beliefs because Lois was killed. Also seems far more consistent with the Joker wanting "one bad day" to break someone.

I guess I would argue that Superman would overcome "one bad day." Unfortunately, the plot dictated that Superman wasn't going to.

I hate Injustice. To be fair, I accept the possibility that later seasons were good, but the first season-plus I read kept pissing me off I quit reading it. I believe it was concocted by the camp of creators who believe Superman is inherently uninteresting therefore they have to change things up.

[Yoda]

I guess I would argue that Superman would overcome "one bad day." Unfortunately, the plot dictated that Superman wasn't going to.

I hate Injustice. To be fair, I accept the possibility that later seasons were good, but the first season-plus I read kept pissing me off I quit reading it. I believe it was concocted by the camp of creators who believe Superman is inherently uninteresting therefore they have to change things up.

I liked the story in the first game, because you see the real Superman take him down. Tom Taylor is pretty vocal about being a massive Superman and Lois fan. I've only read a handful of the comics, but last months Injustice Annual 2 was probably one of the best Superman/Batman/Lois stories I've read in a long time.

[Kuwagaton]

The idea that he needs his parents to validate his role simply because they live is like the extreme of how them being dead makes him a roughneck Poochie.

I agree it's civil, I'm just one who isn't fond of how quick the forum often is to put down post-Crisis, even in jest.

As a Superman fan I find it pretty disappointing but it's kind of interesting how that springs into how people interpret the whole thing. Like how a thoughtful discussion about the New 52 still can't help but invoke thoughts of Byrne and how those people defined Superman for us.

With story elements, I agree the character works best as a balance. One side being the "true self" and the other being a complete disguise is a disservice to both. But I took "Clark is who I am" differently - as more of a statement that Superman would be the same person even without powers, and that his convictions are not defined by his abilities. I think writers who followed Byrne did a much better job of refining that concept and more clearly portraying it.

That's a nice way of looking at the characterization. Im not sure if Ive ever seen anyone spin it like that before. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying; the powers dont make the Superman. But with everything else Byrne did, such as Clark brushing off his homeworld as a "curious memento" I can't get behind your interpretation. I like it, but I cannot believe that this is what Byrne meant. Im sure he meant exactly that; Superman was a costume, nothing more. There was no duality; there was just a guy from a farm who happened to be an alien with powers and wore a cape for reasons.

Honestly, along the lines of what Truman said, I don't think Byrne really had the time to develop that line of thought. So when the question comes up later he can really admit to being both guys when he's being honest, and it works. That or he was fine just leaving it as a take on George Reeves anyway.

I may overstated the prop part, but that closing scene of Superman 1 is just gross in my opinion. Clark looks pathetic. Lois looks terrible. It's just bad.

Man I was not kind about that. Now it's funny and a little sad because of how the run ended up. The obvious appeal was that there was an all new Superman to try. Dunno who opted for the Peter Parker kind.

[Vordan]

Recently read an argument on twitter that the Clark in Injustice had a psychotic break as a result of the trauma from killing Lois and his child. It's not that he abandoned his morals because Lois was killed. Basically with a break of that nature his morals and upbringing would not matter anymore. Seems far more consistent than abandoning his beliefs because Lois was killed. Also seems far more consistent with the Joker wanting "one bad day" to break someone.

I really don’t care how they justify it to be perfectly blunt. It’s a crap characterization that Timm and Dini (who have admitted to not really liking the character) pushed in the DCAU. Zack Snyder was going to use it too before his plans were mercifully cut short. Given how many heroes have dead parents, or spouses, or whatever Clark going so far off the deep end every time Lois dies makes him look terrible. Also NRS doesn’t like the character and have admitted that, so I don’t give a damn what justification people come up with. He’s evil so they can wank off Batgod, simple as that.

Also Joker is supposed to be wrong about one bad day. He’s wrong in The Killing Joke as proved by Gordon. He’s wrong in the Dark Knight as the boat scene shows. Batman literally calls him out on being wrong in both stories. Making him right, and making him right with ******* SUPERMAN is adding insult to injury and is pure edgelord stuff.