Timeline of the New 52 reality's creation

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

No, he didn't do it alot. Not with enough meaning behind it.

Yes, he did. That's just a fact.

No, Morrison's superman fought to protect the weak not because of sense of anger. but, because it was the right thing to do. If the soceity is corrupt and laws oppress people and structures become shackle that hurt the little guy. You are damn right, superman will break those laws.

Dangling a guy off a building is a sign of serious anger issues. And no, Superman shouldn't break those laws. Superman is a hero, not a freaking terrorist. Its know its "kewl" to say "screw the rules," but you know what happens when people do that? We get things like the Charlottesville riots and people mailing pipe bombs to political figures. And in the end, it ends up hurting people more than helping.

1)dude. mongol, cyborg superman and asmodel.. Etc aren't exactly known for their great intellectual prowess.

You realize Henshaw is a genius, right? He's DC's pastiche of Reed Richards.

But in teamup books connected to larger dcu. He isn't. Especially, when batman is around. As far as, Batman/superman book is concerned he is treated as naive guy who just "believes" in good.

Yeah, this Superman is such a pushover when he teams up with Batman...


Also, what is wrong with believing in good? That's the point of superheroes. They believe in the good of people. Captain America and Wonder Woman have that same belief. Nobody calls them naïve. Even Batman believes in the goodness of people.

Just believing in good is naivety. Believing in good while the bad is not only possible but hard and real is optimism. Understanding(keyword)/experiencing harshness of the world and still saving the day with a smile on the face optimism.

No, its not. Believing you don't have to fight for what's good is naïve. Superman believes in inherent goodness, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know that forces of evil will win if he doesn't do anything. That's why he fights for good.

These kind of nonsense is what i am talking about.
2) and 3)no,i said. Making it center piece of batman existence is nonsense regarding batman. He is still loved and has things going for him.bruce had people in his life. Trauma doesn't justify this nonsense of always saying bruce's life is hell. He has all the resources and luxuries anyone could ever ask for. His life is far from hell.

Clark still has things going for him!! Jesus. Clark is a successful journalist with a beautiful wife who loves him and was brought up by people who loved him and instilled in him what it meant to be a good person.

Also, again Bruce witnessed his own parents' murders. Do you honestly think that's something anyone could just bounce back from?? Nobody is saying it justifies his being an ass, but his obsessive drive and obvious commitment issues? Yeah, that would do it.

He has to live among people that will never be able to understand him fully. He has to act like an idiot just to so that he can help people to his full potential . He thought for a time that he might not be able To have a family or kids because of his secret(telling lois was big decision in every version) and his biology(jon is still made into miracle baby) . Still, he would never dwell on these things but forge onwards. His life has darkness. But because he is the light, he seems like " the man who has everything". This white washing always makes it seem like superman has no darkness in his life.

Bruce isn't fully darkness nor is clark fully light. Nuanced position needs to be there more. That is what i am advocating for.

I'm honestly not getting what you're advocating for. Are you asking for Superman to be more like Batman? Again, no. We don't need Superman to ape Batman's personality and in fact, that has proven quite an unpopular and inauthentic take on the character. Superman isn't morose. He doesn't brood. That doesn't mean he hasn't experienced darkness or that he hasn't had his ideals challenged. They have been. I'd think as someone who has read Superman for years, you'd know that.

4)there is. But, many writers think and portray optimism as naivety. Which is what i am against.it's easy for preflashpoint superman to be not dragged down by loss. Because he doesn't understand what he lost(keyword "understand". Understanding and knowing are different. Understanding requires emotion and personal involvement) . He doesn't remember his world. He doesn't know what he lost. Only that he knows he lost something and its monumental. His ma, pa,friends.. Etc are all alive and kicking(in goldenage and in silverage they weren't. Heck! Even in donner movie had a lose) . His understanding of any loss is negligible.

His dreams speech is quintessential superman. Does it have the same impact from this superman , though? My answer is no. Here is why,. from a guy with high paying job (and without the whole village idiot act. Preflashpoint superman hid in plain sight. Whatever that means ) ,one of the most talented and beautiful woman as wife and mainly from a well of happy family/background. It doesn't mean much or have have the same impact . His story isn't rags to richess or orphan to family man. His dreams are never challenged or crushed by harsh realities of the world.
This was something substantial.This was the only time clark had been challenged, personally. their(clois) struggle for the kid and with kids is exactly the reason the kid's(jon or Chris) addition had impact. Even though lack of kids thing affected lois more. One more thing, Clark's ship landed in america not in a war torn nation or something .he is freaking blessed. Especially, now. That's why his speeches come across naive. Because he doesn't have it hard enough.atleast not in my book.

Again, it really just seems like you want Superman to be like Batman. Also, you're mischaracterizing history. A lot of comics actually show Clark having studied Kryptonian culture and having a longing to know more about the world he lost. Also, and I really can't stress this enough: a hero doesn't have to have a miserable life to be relatable. Yeah, Clark's parent's were alive and yeah, he was married to Lois. Does that mean he is immune to having any sort of personal struggles or internal conflict???? NO, it doesn't. Any belief that it does is just so rididulous. Many, many stories actually show Clark dealing with internal conflict and doubt like Peace on Earth and Action 775. Also, if you recall, a lot of classic Superman stories deal with troubles in Clark's personal life. Remember this from Action #720?



So, yeah, the idea that Clark's never had to deal with loss before the New 52 is absolutely and demonstrably false.

Also, you forget that that speech from Action 775 was so impactful because in the exact same issue, Clark has serious doubts about his role in the world.



But that's Superman. He has doubts about himself and personal issues and hardships just like any other character. However, he doesn't allow that to make him into something he's not. He doesn't take it out on other people. And in all honesty, his life is probably more relatable than most superheroes. Most people don't have their parents slain right in front of them. Most people aren't edgelords who go around dangling people from rooftops. Most people go through tough times, sometimes even traumatic, but they don't then become sullen about everything. Its only cases where extreme trauma is involved (like say seeing your parents murdered in front of you) that lead to people becoming like insane and depressed. However, even Batman is lighthearted at times.

His actions allowed the initially weak and scared to get the strength to fight for even him. Source, of the speech matters a great deal.

The right Superman delivered the speech. If New 52 Superman had given it, it would have ended with "break into peoples' houses and kill them in the middle of the night" or some other insane nonsense.

There's a difference between being a champion of the people and being a reckless and dangerous psycho. Anyway, this is all moot.

[manwhohaseverything]

original post.
.

No, i want superman to be superman but more precrisis than anything postcrisis.you do know batman took the striking fear into badguys aspect from superman not the other way around, right.

what fact? I don't see any meaning behind his stuff. It's all surface level nonsense.

If goldenage guy/morrison's superman was really angry he would be snapping that guy like a twig.

Tell that to the original superman. Superman is a hero. What kind of hero?he is a vigilante. You seem to not be able to grasp that. That guy was willing to let people die and may have caused the deaths of many workers. He was just corrupt business man. If he can be reformed with fear superman the original guy would have done just like morrison's superman. Morrison's superman is the embodiment of the original superman. Its not about "kewl" it's about doing the right thing. If the system is corrupt and authorities are don't do anything. Clark woukd strive to make the system better. Even, if breaking some rules have to be part of it. The little guys matter, more. i said it wasn't complex.but,it is in character of "the champion of the oppressed". Yours is a slippery slop argument that has no validity. Cause guess what? Both goldenage clark/ morrison's clarm has faced real adversity and has the character to handle power. He won't sit down while the corrupt use the system to oppress a the little guy. He was the green arrow before green arrow. The original superman's philosophy isn't meant for wide scale. He knows that. He didn't advocate it so that it will lead to totalitarianism. His lack of hate and anger for the corrupt, his upbringing.. Etc caused him not to resort to extremist actions or terrorism. There is a distinction between a vigilante and a terrorist. And Original superman had broken into people's houses before.

On paper, sure. But, his feats with intelligence is not impressive. If he was really stand-in for reed. He would be doing amazing thing. Not generic nonsense. The only thing similar is the origin which was intentional. Besides, i don't particularly care for cyborg superman as a villain . Especially, after what they did to mongol for him. Mongol was the guy that toyed around with wonderwoman.

Ah yes! Same monotonous nonsense from monotonous book. Need i remind you the prior issues was all the Superman - light and batman-dark nonsense. Leob did a number on Superman/batman team ups.
go here to see the previous issue
This is naivete. I am talking about.i could show you panels where he was a wet towel like the time he went on a walk across America.

Nothing's wrong with believing in good. But, turning a blind eye to anger caused by suffering is naive. Also, humans have shadows. They can be satan to jesus. And everything in between. If the former is very much real. The joker is a thing. The difference is the source. Wonder woman isn't naive because when oush comes to shove she is willing to let her codes like "thou shall not kill, steal or lie" for the sake of good. Wonderwoman although born talented had to forge her morality through experience in man's world. Her upbringing was just a seed. Same for captain america. He was a little guy. He experienced what it's like being the little guy. Then he got his powers realised how to use his power because of that experience based on that morality.that's different than postcrisis Clark's morality which was basically a handouts from pa and ma. Pre crisis supermen had no one like that. Their upbringing was tested by the environment he was in. His morality was a result of that. Postcrisis superman just relies on "thought for the day" from his parents.

He fights for good but he has no idea what's evil. That's what makes him naive. He knows evil. He doesn't understand it. As i said, there is a big difference between the two. Postcrisis superman doesn't confront his shadow that often because his pa has ready-made answers .so, his fights for good come of naive.

Never said, he didn't. The current version of superman does. That wasn't even the point.the point is making it seem like superman's (especially pre crisis supermen) life is a day full of sunshine is not great or true. Which happens often in Batman/superman teamups.

Yes, people can and do generally pick themselves up. It is hard and tough . It would impact the life going forward. But, people have a tendency to bounce back from worse trauma than killed parents. Especially, if you have other loved ones like bruce does.

Studying a culture and understanding a culture are too different things. Postcrisis superman has no idea about krypton. He even rejected his heritage at first.i have already made it clear he(post crisis superman ) know his culture.

His big doubts is about why people aren't automatically following him. The struggle was flimsy at best. It didn't even actually address the issue. It's impact was negligible for me. Those pages don't elicit anything in me. They don't touch me. It's all surface level. Like i said it takes more than that. I want books like "for the man who has everything".by saying that i don't mean keeping repeating this story line or copying it. The peace on earth can work wayyy better with other original or silverage guy or morrison's supes. It is not a story that can be specific to your superman. Alex ross is basically inspired by goldenage supes in his drawing. The story had clark remembering Jonathan who was gone like the precrisis guys. His upbringing was tested like i said. His morality was put through fire to be forged. He basically reaffirmed his dad by teaching others to plant seeds to feed themselves.

I never said superman's life has to be miserable. His life isn't miserable. He knows it. But there is darkness in it. Especially, if he is any of precrisis guys.who said anything about brooding? You are attributing things to me that i haven't said. And don't talk about being edge lord your guy went mister. rambo after he returned. Postcrisis guy can be bigger edge lord (for tomorrow, new krypton and grounded are also him).like Walking across America to prove a point isn't edgy.why was he blaming wonder woman for a kill? Its not like the guy wouldn't kill himself. He killed doomsday and has killed zod.

You are right. A hero's life doesn't have to be miserable to be relatable . But, those heroes who through hell/experience losses and stil smile have greater resolve in their smile. Their smiles are worth more. wally grew when he lost barry.wally isn't edgy. Smile of these guys are worth more than the smile of postcrisis superman.



This off topic, so i am ending this. Let's just agree to disagree.you are wrong i haven't been reading for that many year. I joined with new52, but was a casual postcrisis fan. Hated the status quo even though i loved morrison's superman. I decided to read older stuff like pre crisis stuff. Which made me crazy about Superman . Rebirth made me love the status quo and return. But after jon factor was taken away by bendis . I realised, this superman in wasn't for me.i only like this guys as superdad. Nothing more or less.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

No, I want superman to be superman but more precrisis than anything postcrisis.you do know batman took the striking fear into bad guys aspect from superman not the other way around, right.

No, Batman just had it from the beginning. The difference is that its more natural. Not on Superman. Also, for a large part of pre-crisis, Superman was exactly the guy I'm talking about.

what fact? I don't see any meaning behind his stuff. It's all surface-level nonsense.

That's YOUR opinion. To the majority of Superman fans, it's not surface level.

If golden age guy/Morrison's superman was really angry he would be snapping that guy like a twig.

You're kind of proving my point. If you think it's okay to go around "snapping" people "like a twig" for having disagreements, that's an issue. No reasonable adult person behaves that way. Not even Batman or Wolverine go that dark.

Tell that to the original superman. Superman is a hero. What kind of hero?he is a vigilante. You seem to not be able to grasp that. That guy was willing to let people die and may have caused the deaths of many workers. He was just corrupt business man. If he can be reformed with fear superman the original guy would have done just like morrison's superman. Morrison's superman is the embodiment of the original superman. Its not about "kewl" it's about doing the right thing. If the system is corrupt and authorities are don't do anything.

Funny because classic Superman has always managed to do the right thing without being a violent psychopath or breaking laws. That's what you don't seem to get. Superman doesn't have to break into peoples' houses and dangle them off the sides of buildings to be doing the right thing. In fact, doing those things tend to not help and allow bad guys to play the victim. Superman knows when and where to use his power. The guy who punches down is not Superman. The guy who stands with protesters and keeps them safe by his very presence?? That's Superman.

Clark woukd strive to make the system better. Even, if breaking some rules have to be part of it. The little guys matter, more. i said it wasn't complex.but,it is in character of "the champion of the oppressed". Yours is a slippery slop argument that has no validity. Cause guess what? Both goldenage clark/ morrison's clarm has faced real adversity and has the character to handle power. He won't sit down while the corrupt use the system to oppress a the little guy. He was the green arrow before green arrow. The original superman's philosophy isn't meant for wide scale. He knows that. He didn't advocate it so that it will lead to totalitarianism. His lack of hate and anger for the corrupt, his upbringing.. Etc caused him not to resort to extremist actions or terrorism. There is a distinction between a vigilante and a terrorist. And Original superman had broken into people's houses before.

Well, for one, you're arguing a few things that aren't linked and one of them is based on a flawed premise.

1) Again, you're arguing that Pre-FP Superman never faced adversity or loss when he absolutely did. Maybe you should actually read some of those comics.

2) You're also saying that someone can't be a champion of the oppressed when they haven't had a traumatic upbringing and are morose and sullen about their lives. That's just wrong. Look at Captain America. Look at Wonder Woman. They have the same an/or similar personalities to Superman. However, they are not these edgelord characters that have to come from a place of "**** the world." The thing that makes them relatable is that, yes they get angry at the same things I get angry at, but they also know that what they can do about it is limited by basic rules of decency and ethics. Unless someone is actively engaged in violence against people through illegal means, they can't really go break into their house because that's illegal and unethical!! Green Arrow doesn't do that. Wonder Woman doesn't do that Captain America doesn't do that. You know who does break into peoples' houses to kill them? The Punisher.

On paper, sure. But, his feats with intelligence is not impressive. If he was really stand-in for reed. He would be doing amazing thing. Not generic nonsense. The only thing similar is the origin which was intentional. Besides, i don't particularly care for cyborg superman as a villain . Especially, after what they did to mongol for him. Mongol was the guy that toyed around with wonderwoman.

Except there are numerous examples of Superman being shown to possess an almost genius-level intellect. Maybe you should, ya know, read them.

Ah yes! Same monotonous nonsense from monotonous book. Need i remind you the prior issues was all the Superman - light and batman-dark nonsense. Loeb did a number on Superman/batman team ups.
go here to see the previous issue
This is naivete. I am talking about.i could show you panels where he was a wet towel like the time he went on a walk across America.

No, it's not. It's not naivete to not think about having to kill your friend/colleague. That's just being a normal person. Also, that scan isn't even from a comic written by Loeb.

Nothing's wrong with believing in good. But, turning a blind eye to anger caused by suffering is naive. Also, humans have shadows. They can be satan to jesus. And everything in between. If the former is very much real. The joker is a thing. The difference is the source. Wonder woman isn't naive because when oush comes to shove she is willing to let her codes like "thou shall not kill, steal or lie" for the sake of good. Wonderwoman although born talented had to forge her morality through experience in man's world. Her upbringing was just a seed. Same for captain america. He was a little guy. He experienced what it's like being the little guy. Then he got his powers realised how to use his power because of that experience based on that morality.that's different than postcrisis Clark's morality which was basically a handouts from pa and ma. Pre crisis supermen had no one like that. Their upbringing was tested by the environment he was in. His morality was a result of that. Postcrisis superman just relies on "thought for the day" from his parents.

And Wonder Woman was taught her morality by the Amazons. How in the world is that different than Clark having it instilled in him from his parents??? I'll give you the answer: its not. And guess what, its like that for MOST people. Your personality more often than not depends on how you were raised. Clark is no different from anybody else in that regard. That doesn't mean he never experienced loss or challenge because, as I've provided, there were numerous examples throughout Clark's life where he was presented with those things. You just seem intent on ignoring all of that to get your point across, even though its demonstrably false.

Never said, he didn't. The current version of superman does. That wasn't even the point. the point is making it seem like superman's (especially pre crisis supermen) life is a day full of sunshine is not great or true. Which happens often in Batman/superman teamups.

Except, again, those team-ups just paint him as the more optimistic of the two, which is true to his character. He wasn't portrayed as all sunshine and ponies. That's where you're missing the nuance in your argument.

This off topic, so i am ending this. Let's just agree to disagree.you are wrong i haven't been reading for that many year. I joined with new52, but was a casual postcrisis fan. Hated the status quo even though i loved morrison's superman. I decided to read older stuff like pre crisis stuff. Which made me crazy about Superman . Rebirth made me love the status quo and return. But after jon factor was taken away by bendis . I realised, this superman in wasn't for me.i only like this guys as superdad. Nothing more or less.

Well, speaking as someone who was reading before the New 52, I can tell you I'm not wrong. Maybe you should actually read those books. But the point remains that throughout the majority of the character's history, he's been the guy I'm talking about, even Pre-Crisis. That is the man who everyone thinks of when they think of Superman. Now, you can decide that that's not what you like. That's your prerogative. But that is what the majority of Superman fans love about the character. That is what makes him Superman to them. Don't just rely on my word. Talk to people like Mark Waid and Paul Dini and Alex Ross.

Anyway, this is all moot. The New 52 is gone.

[manwhohaseverything]

original quote .

Batman was inspired by superman when he debuted later(not instory. But the writers were) . Superman's success was what made batman, possible .superman did strike fear into hearts of enemies before batman existed. Batman took the vigilante aspect because of superman.

I never said it was good thing. I said, he could snap that guy like a twig but he doesn't. Therefore establishing morality. Morality is choices. He choses not to do it.

It is my opinion. I never claimed otherwise. For clark, it's never personal. That's my issue. He never has a skin in the game.
That's because postcrisis superman lives in Metropolis.a City that is very much clean. Metropolis should have that cyberpunk attributes to it.And every single superman including yours has broken the law. Just by being supeman you are taking law into your own hand. Superman has no legal authority to do so. Morrison's Superman isn't a violent psycopath. edgelord/psychopath is your perception. It has nothing to do with whats on paper. If he was any of that he would be damaging people irreparably. He is not. He has a reason for his actions.he has no trouble talking to normal people or being friendly. As a matter of fact he is the people's champion .He just doesn't mind roughing up pedophiles or scaring a corrupt business man whose policies cause death of many. He isn't punching down. He's not even punch that much. Right, playing the victim is what people do when a guy like superman knocks on door and says to knock it off. Anyways, clark had other proof he collected for that guy to convict him. But, he wanted to make statement to that guy and other corrupt people in the city. If you make shitty policies that cause damage to the little guy. Superman is coming for you. Diplomacy wouldn't work with these greedy jackals. It's not like these jackasses didn't know their policies were making life hell for the working men. They just don't care. Superman made them care.

Pardon me, if i am being a little stubborn. But, My premises is perfectly sound. You are just misunderstanding my premises
1)i said, his adversity never allows him to face his shadow or demons. Making it hollow. I never said he doesn't face adversity. Playing cricket is an adversity for me. Since, i have no talent in it. But, does it make me confront anything in myself? No, it doesn't. Postcrisis Superman's adventures are like that.

2)no, i am saying morality is forged in the fire of experience. Even, if seeds are both nature(personality) and nurture(upbringing) . Wonderwoman and captain both forged their moralities. Postcrisis superman's morality isn't like that. Captain america can and has become a fugitive (law breaker) for the sake of freedom. He came to that decision by his experience. He even realises his mistake(collateral damage) in civil war and goes to jail.therefore establishing his morality . Wonderwoman had similar situations where she defies the norm or works against status quo because of her morality that has a firm basis.her decision to goto man's world is one of them. She has even killed for the sake of good.green arrow breaks laws for the little guy and protecting them is his priority.

Having moments by different writers is different than making it a staple/overall direction . Genius level intellect is silverage attribute by the way. Silverage guy was the true "man of tomorrow". Whenever guys that have a grasp of silverage supes like morrison write him. They write him superintelligent.all star superman is an example of silverage guy in action.

Nobody said anything about killing. My superman would have said he had contingency plans if push comes to shove . But, is very much sure that it won't be necessary since he believes in the greater good of the people. He would have been upfront and honest about it to his friends unlike bruce. But, he would have had something. It is very much possible that everyone including himself could go of the rail.it was leob who popularised that nonsense.nonsense being batman - dark, superman - light. It lacks any nuance.

No, her warrior code/bushido-esque principals where a result of her amazonian upbringing. Her morality was forged in man's world. You are confusing set of principles or codes and morality. The ten commandments are just a set of principles. It can become morality when it becomes causes of decisions in life. It becomes morality when its tested in the world and proven to be effective and causes least amount of suffering . I have never said anything about personality. have i?. The images i showed all have similar personality as clark, maybe except for guts from berserk. All might is basically superman to a t. I have answered why the moments feel hollow to me.



No, it paints him as naive. But, stereotypical naive farmboy. I hate to use the term cause i am a farmboy myself. He isn't. I never said he was. But, this overwhelming focus emphasis requires some counter balance. Balance is key(note:-i am not saying. He should be half and half. That isn't natural balance state. ) . It's the way(dao).Clark's darkness should be given its due in the teamup books. Nuaces should be there in portrayals which isn't In the current books.

I do listen to people like dini and waid. I have read those books. I prefer precrisis status quo for the guy than post crisis status quo. Waid wrote one of my favorite superman. Him being a vegetarian was really cool(being a vegetarian myself) . There to his morality was created by his choices in situations by upbringing or principles and applying it. Realising the extent of the effectiveness of it on an application level. Donner superman, secret origins, dcau(even though bruce timm doesn't get superman ).. Etc all have precrisis supermen in them more than maybe even postcrisis superman. Did you know dcau superman built his own fortress lke the golden age guy and the silverage guy by his very own hands(it was first called a citadel)all star superman is basically the return of silverage superman and morrison's action is the return of golden age superman.

Morrison's superman is'nt gone. He came back. Didn't you hear? He was in sideways. He is universe hoping with his buddies. I personally, want him to meet wally. Now that would be a teamup for the ages. I don't care for new52 superman or the armored costume . But, it is incorporated into reborn superman(blah! For me).