Quote Originally Posted by misslane View Post
Does it balance out? Because, despite your All Star Superman and other "good" AU stories, the same terrible ideas from awful AU books in the 80s and 90s are still popping up in pop culture hits of today. Bad stories, in my opinion, aren't damaging at all; they are typically forgotten. The most damaging AU's, however, are often the most popular. Even worse, one popular AU story from one author seems to give the same author carte blanche to keep telling terrible stories that just amplify and double down on the damage.
Well good news then - the writers who use popular AU depictions to inform their storytelling without knowing what made those AUs great are just going to make bad stories which will be forgotten. Your so called "damaging" stories hasn't stopped there being tons of great Superman stories being written since then, even now. I don't think Superman has been damaged by any of these AU stories, I think maybe you're just so focused on the bad stories inspired by these takes and a certain odd segment of the comics/gaming fandom that you're forgetting all the good Superman stuff we also get. If you include all the great stuff in your calculations I really do think it balances out if not outright leans in the favor of good.

I don't think Nelliebly was referring to one's preference for a status quo change, but moreso whether or not the status quo change was rooted in organic storytelling. Clark and Lois having a son after several years of marriage is not a lightswitch development: it didn't come out of nowhere. Whether or not you like Jonathan or the idea of a canon child for Clark and Lois is really not the point.
I don't think there's anything organic in fundamentally changing a character that should hopefully survive for at least another hundred years. I mean Superman growing old, retiring, dying and being replaced by his son in canon could be considered organic, but I have no interest in the continuity progressing that far and more in canon.

Ultimately, even if a status quo shift like Superman and Lois having a child isn't your thing, it's not as damaging to Superman as a character as popularizing him as a leader of dystopian nightmares, a conservative government lackey, or a broken man motivated to acts of great evil from tired women in refrigerator tropes. These are "gimmicks" that turn Superman into something he's not and shouldn't be, but a dad? A dad isn't a bad thing to be. Maybe dad stories suck for you, but Superman as a dad is better than a broken Superman.
Disagree - a popular AU take can always be nullified by another popular AU take. It is really that simple. But a status quo change that lasts years, maybe even a couple decades in continuity? What nullifies that?
And a broken Superman doesn't interest me, but most stories and most AUs aren't a broken Superman. You can always ignore the stories that tell about a broken Superman. But if DC goes all in on Superdad to the point where even most AUs have him a daddy, how do you avoid that?