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

[manofsteel1979]

The Jurgens and Tomasi run felt like an odd mashup between the Triangle era (Jurgens book) and evocative of the Loeb era (Tomasi). Bendis' run so far feels more like the bronze age mixed with the supporting cast building of the early triangle era, with a touch of the rebirth era all filtered through Bendis' particular brand of writing.

But as Ascended said, all eras of Superman have felt different because you have different writers who each see The character differently and chose to expand on certain aspects and deemphasize others. The issue is when within an era there needs to be some modicum of internal consistency. The Triangle era did. The Loeb/Kelly run did. The Johns and Busiek era did. The New 52 often didn't and that was it's fatal flaw. The weakest eras have often suffered from a lack of consistency.

[Lokimaru]

According to the Injustice Annual it's Lois that makes Superman Superman. In not having her be as close to Superman as people feel she should be he just wasn't Superman enough for some people. A lot of New 52 critics hated New 52 Superman because they thought the writers were disrespectful to Lois Lane.

[rpmaluki]

I don't believe any Superman fan actually takes Injustice seriously. I know I don't. As long they chose to depict Superman as a villain I will choose to ignore its existence.

[Lokimaru]

I don't believe any Superman fan actually takes Injustice seriously. I know I don't. As long they chose to depict Superman as a villain I will choose to ignore its existence.

What is a villain? The only thing the seperates a Hero from a Villain is who's telling the story.

[Ascended]

I don't believe any Superman fan actually takes Injustice seriously. I know I don't. As long they chose to depict Superman as a villain I will choose to ignore its existence.

I enjoy the hell out of the games, but that's because this isn't Superman. It's an alternate reality version of Superman. We might as well get upset because Ultraman is evil. I am not bothered by evil Injustice Superman any more than I'm bothered by Marvel's evil Hyperion; neither are the "true" Superman, but just shadows of him seen through a different lens.

And oddly enough, Injustice sort of confirms the power and influence Clark has. Who else could take over the entire world and rule it (fairly) successfully despite conflict from all corners, including gods and wizards and the ever-obnoxiously self-righteous Bat?

[HeroVladimir93]

I don't believe any Superman fan actually takes Injustice seriously. I know I don't. As long they chose to depict Superman as a villain I will choose to ignore its existence.

My favorite Injustice game was the first one, and that's mostly because it featured the noble and heroic Superman we all know and love. Don't judge me.

[SiegePerilous02]

I enjoy the hell out of the games, but that's because this isn't Superman. It's an alternate reality version of Superman. We might as well get upset because Ultraman is evil. I am not bothered by evil Injustice Superman any more than I'm bothered by Marvel's evil Hyperion; neither are the "true" Superman, but just shadows of him seen through a different lens.

And oddly enough, Injustice sort of confirms the power and influence Clark has. Who else could take over the entire world and rule it (fairly) successfully despite conflict from all corners, including gods and wizards and the ever-obnoxiously self-righteous Bat?

Some people do take issue that Clark's descent into villainy also involved several other heroes joining him, despite how incredibly OOC it would be for most of them. Just because Superman is leading them isn't really a good reason.

I don't care for the entire thing, nor do I view it as other characters being sacrificed to prop up Superman because he ain't exactly being propped up here (incorruptible, pure Bat-God seems to be though), but I've seen that view.

[Ascended]

My favorite Injustice game was the first one, and that's mostly because it featured the noble and heroic Superman we all know and love. Don't judge me.

I expect that guy, the *proper* Superman, to return in the third installment.

Really, the whole game is easier to accept as a Super-fan if you think of Injustice Clark as a variation on Ultraman or the Justice Lords, and not the *proper* Man of Tomorrow.

Some people do take issue that Clark's descent into villainy also involved several other heroes joining him, despite how incredibly OOC it would be for most of them. Just because Superman is leading them isn't really a good reason.

I don't care for the entire thing, nor do I view it as other characters being sacrificed to prop up Superman because he ain't exactly being propped up here (incorruptible, pure Bat-God seems to be though), but I've seen that view.

Well, I dont read the comics and the games dont go too deeply into why the heroes who joined Clark sided with him, but I really dont think its a hard sell. Metropolis was nuked. That's a level of escalation where I can see some heroes deciding they're not doing enough. Raven and Cyborg lost their friends too, that's hefty motivation. And, at the end of the day, most heroes take their cue from Clark. If he says something is the right call, most people are just going to agree with him because he's Superman, they assume he knows better than they do.

I did enjoy watching Barry come to the realization that the Regime was wrong and try to find his way back out. That felt really "right" to me.

Now, the Bat-wanking is something I definitely agree with you about. It's pathetic really. It's kind of interesting with Injustice simply because the morality seems to be flipped between Clark and Bruce; I think most people who know the characters would say that if either of them would snap, it'd be Batman. So its kind of fun to see the reverse of that and Clark does make for a hell of a villain.....but yeah, I've been sick of DC's obsession with Batman for years. If this were just people, someone would've gotten a restraining order, DC's so far up Batman's ass.

[SiegePerilous02]

Well, I dont read the comics and the games dont go too deeply into why the heroes who joined Clark sided with him, but I really dont think its a hard sell. Metropolis was nuked. That's a level of escalation where I can see some heroes deciding they're not doing enough. Raven and Cyborg lost their friends too, that's hefty motivation. And, at the end of the day, most heroes take their cue from Clark. If he says something is the right call, most people are just going to agree with him because he's Superman, they assume he knows better than they do.

IDK, I think it's right that the superhero community looks to Clark as their leader, but not to the point that they blindly follow his lead even if some of his decisions may clash with their own morals.

I have little knowledge of Injustice beyond the broad strokes because there's nothing about it that appeals to me, but Diana seems to slide into some ridiculous Lady Macbeth type role really easily, and I don't think Clark would get her to do that if she was in character, no matter what he did or said. I also know that Harley Quinn needs to convince her to spare Cheetah's life or something, which sounds absolutely bonkers.

[Vordan]

The idea that people just blindly follow Superman has always been really dumb. I’ve never agreed with that viewpoint, not when Clark has shown how fallible he is repeatedly throughout his history. That they had to write everyone as being massive morons to get it done just made it even stupider.

[Vordan]

According to the Injustice Annual it's Lois that makes Superman Superman. In not having her be as close to Superman as people feel she should be he just wasn't Superman enough for some people. A lot of New 52 critics hated New 52 Superman because they thought the writers were disrespectful to Lois Lane.

That’s a crap viewpoint and one I don’t support. It’s also one I blame for Supes decline in popularity over the years. When everyone else has multiple dead loved ones but still chooses to be a hero while Clark can’t handle even one death without doing a complete 180 morality-wise, he ceases to be a hero and instead is just a hypocrite and a time bomb. It’s why I never want Taylor writing Superman if he honestly thinks Lois is why Clark is a hero. Clark began being Superman long before he met Lois. She’s not the reason he’s a hero.

What is a villain? The only thing the seperates a Hero from a Villain is who's telling the story.

No offense but that’s a stupid viewpoint. Clark kills kids, declares himself God-Emperor, threatens anyone who gets in his way with murder, and basically throws a temper tantrum throughout the entire series. They literally compare him to Zod. There is 0 nuance on display here, he is the villain end of story. Anyone who thinks this conflict is “grey” is delusional.

[Vordan]

It's definitely different from what Tomasi was doing (probably Jurgens too? Didn't read his Action). But that can be said of most creators. Loeb's run felt different, and took Clark in different directions, than Stern, Jurgens, and the rest of the triangle era crew did. And those guys did something different than what Byrne had done before them. Johns did a totally different Superman than Austin or Kelly (and wrote the same guy in the New52 later on, which was completely different from what Pak and Morrison and Lobdell did).

I wouldn't say Bendis has done nearly enough to call this a different version of Superman. At least not yet. It's just a different take on the same guy from a different writer.

Yeah every era of Superman brings different tones to the table. That’s a good thing in my opinion, keeps things from being stale and repetitive. But it’s also something common across the industry, just look at Batman. Snyder’s Batman never shuts up, and he has these long internal narration monologue boxes. King’s Batman is relatively terse, doesn’t do internal narration nearly as much, and is much more subdued.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

That’s a crap viewpoint and one I don’t support. It’s also one I blame for Supes decline in popularity over the years. When everyone else has multiple dead loved ones but still chooses to be a hero while Clark can’t handle even one death without doing a complete 180 morality-wise, he ceases to be a hero and instead is just a hypocrite and a time bomb.

To be fair, wasn’t just one person who died, it was his entire city, which he was responsible to protecting. And it wasn’t just that she and everyone else died, it’s that he was manipulated into killing them. I get not liking injustice conceptually or seeing Superman as 100 percent incorruptible. But if anything could cause him to lose his marbles, that’s as good a scenario as any.

[Vordan]

To be fair, wasn’t just one person who died, it was his entire city, which he was responsible to protecting. And it wasn’t just that she and everyone else died, it’s that he was manipulated into killing them. I get not liking injustice conceptually or seeing Superman as 100 percent incorruptible. But if anything could cause him to lose his marbles, that’s as good a scenario as any.

No one ever brings up Metropolis though. It’s just Lois all the time. The average person came away from that seeing Lois as a switch for his morality. It’s not that I think Supes is 100% incorruptible, it’s just I freaking hate that Lois has become an on-off switch for whether or not Clark’s a hero. I think that’s bs.

[Yoda]

Taylor has never said Lois Lane makes Superman a hero. And even in Injustice Superman doesn't turn evil because Lois isn't around. He starts a slow slide into it because a villain Batman has repeatedly let go tricks him into murdering Lois, their child, and the entire city of Metropolis. I don't recall there ever being any statement that she is what makes him a hero. Nor is that what the Injustice 2 Annual says.

And blaming Lois Lane for the decline in Superman's popularity is like blaming Wonder Woman for making him a despot. It also ignores that the most popular, well known, and financially successful interpretations of the character all feature her prominently as a co-star, co-lead, and in a relationship with him or the start of one. And if the New 52 tells us anything, it's that you don't need Lois Lane to tell terrible Superman stories as we had 5 years of declining story quality where her role was reduced or absent from entire runs.

No one ever brings up Metropolis though. It’s just Lois all the time. The average person came away from that seeing Lois as a switch for his morality. It’s not that I think Supes is 100% incorruptible, it’s just I freaking hate that Lois has become an on-off switch for whether or not Clark’s a hero. I think that’s bs.

It is BS. Ending Battle is the way any story where Lois was killed would go. Just because some people take the wrong message away from a story doesn't make it the right one.