Legion of Super Heroes #1 preview

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

No, he felt like an outsider because he was for the most part. Why do you think he had legion anyway?the kid was an orphan, far too gifted for his own good and on top of that an alien. Now,fairly relatable . a pure Postcrisis superman doesn't have legion. He never was superboy.No, it wouldn't. Metropolis isn't the end of Clark's existence. It is just part of his world. He has an entire metaverse to travel. There is a reason why Norrin radd clark have so much in common. So, bruce wayne can up and leave his life as well. As i said, superman isn't everyman. You can do that. But he is freaking superman. His relatability comes from a different place. He isn't a guy with power. He is born gifted. He is like a gifted athlete or a scientist. Someone who is a cut above but doesn't feel like it. Who said he needs to abandon them? I certainly didn't. But, clark if he wants to can go on a space adventure flash gordon style with his pal jimmy, lois and even perry.He can take the entire Metropolis and make it fly like laputa. This is superman a genuis with no narcissistic tendencies whatsoever. He was called superman by the people. He didn't name himself. He was just a strong man running around with a police badge s on his chest.

Again, you are not answering the question of why Clark would want to abandon Metropolis if his family, friends, and career are all there. You are assuming that the Clark Kent part of his life is unimportant or ephemeral. Uh, that isn't the case. Hasn't been for quite a while. How many times have we seen Clark say that he sees himself as Clark first, Superman second. Not to mention the plethora of ethical, legal, and philosophical issues that would surround Superman just up and plucking an entire city from the Earth.

This isn't the Silver Age. Those wacky antics don't really fly anymore because comic book storytelling is more grounded now. So, again, why would Clark want to abandon his life in Metropolis when that is the place all of his friends and a majority of his family call home?

No, even in todays market superman severly lags behind in terms of popularity. So much so that people find refuge in characters like one punch man and all might. Nobody complains about all might's relatability. Why because goldenage superman is f-ing real deal? Even characters inspired by it are awesome. You don't need to make superman relatable. He is inherently that.A guy who smiles through the pain so that others feel safe. That's relatable and that's goldenage clark kent. The most relatable story superman has is "for the man who has everything". And it works cause its precrisis silverage kal el.

Then I must have imagined the numerous efforts on DC's part to do exactly that: make Superman relatable and relevant. And this is not a knock on the character because...they succeeded. However, one of the reasons they did succeed is that they stopped treating Superman as if he could just wave his hand and everything would be okay.

Also, him "smiling through the pain" as you put it literally has nothing to do with relatability. It speaks to his altruism and his virtue, which is an important aspect of the character, but not his relatability.

Superman's relatability, ironically, comes from his failure to live up to his own example. He isn't able to make everything okay, even if people think he is. And while I haven't seen many people point to "For the Man Who Has Everything" as a relatable Superman story (albeit a great one), its relatability likely comes from the fact that it showcases Superman with wants and desires yet unfulfilled. However, stories that more directly showcase how Superman is relatable would probably be the Death of Superman, What's so Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way, Infinite Crisis, etc. because they show a Superman who is wrestling with doubts and who, believe it or not, sometimes fails in his pursuits.

But this is way off-topic from even what we were talking about.

Yeah! Cause they decided to focus on jon kent. I find jon more, interesting currently in rebirth. And cause that was the end result of geoff johns envisioned. But, guess what? clark is superboy. Clark had been part of legion. That ain't postcrisis guy.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but the post-Crisis guy got the Legion back way before Flashpoint hit.

[manwhohaseverything]

Again, you are not answering the question of why Clark would want to abandon Metropolis if his family, friends, and career are all there. You are assuming that the Clark Kent part of his life is unimportant or ephemeral. Uh, that isn't the case. Hasn't been for quite a while. How many times have we seen Clark say that he sees himself as Clark first, Superman second. Not to mention the plethora of ethical, legal, and philosophical issues that would surround Superman just up and plucking an entire city from the Earth.

This isn't the Silver Age. Those wacky antics don't really fly anymore because comic book storytelling is more grounded now. So, again, why would Clark want to abandon his life in Metropolis when that is the place all of his friends and a majority of his family call home?



Then I must have imagined the numerous efforts on DC's part to do exactly that: make Superman relatable and relevant. And this is not a knock on the character because...they succeeded. However, one of the reasons they did succeed is that they stopped treating Superman as if he could just wave his hand and everything would be okay.

Also, him "smiling through the pain" as you put it literally has nothing to do with relatability. It speaks to his altruism and his virtue, which is an important aspect of the character, but not his relatability.

Superman's relatability, ironically, comes from his failure to live up to his own example. He isn't able to make everything okay, even if people think he is. And while I haven't seen many people point to "For the Man Who Has Everything" as a relatable Superman story (albeit a great one), its relatability likely comes from the fact that it showcases Superman with wants and desires yet unfulfilled. However, stories that more directly showcase how Superman is relatable would probably be the Death of Superman, What's so Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way, Infinite Crisis, etc. because they show a Superman who is wrestling with doubts and who, believe it or not, sometimes fails in his pursuits.

But this is way off-topic from even what we were talking about.



Uh, hate to break it to you, but the post-Crisis guy got the Legion back way before Flashpoint hit.

Comicbook grounding is a joke. It doesn't nean anything with all the nonsense that goes on. It only comes of as edginess. If you think you are above the wackyness and the running joke of clark kent secret id,which by the doesn't work anymore because too much seriousness. Then you are just missing out. As i said All star superman is best superman story last two decades. It had precrisis superman . And stop putting words in my mouth. Have i said anything about clark 'abandoning' anything? You been asking me to answer why, i haven't said anything like that. Clark had always taken his pal jimmy to do thing. Jimmy is his first side kick. Lois has had her own share adventures as well.Dude,byrne tried to base postcrisis guy on goldenage guy(it just wasn't as good for me). Goldenage guy was clark kent,whom people called superman. But, the real clark kent isn't the clumsy persona. That was the creation of real clark kent. Postcrisis superman didn't have a clumsy persona at all, he was just a nerd. Clark hid in plainsight.The secret id became too serious. People just started complaining about how flimsy it is because There wasn't much fun with it. Clark acknowledging the 4th wall was the best part about the id and it used to point out human fickleness and prejudice in a joke manner. Right, earth has faced getting swallowed by phantom zone, drowned, metal nonsense, crisis.. Etc. Superman can make it work. He only needs the consent of the Metropolis people. There isn't much ethical, legal or philosophical problems. Superman should be an agent of change like monkey d luffy. He has the ability to create a flying city like laputa or new genesis. Its time superman started being super again. As matter of fact, jimmy should start having his wierd adventures and transformations again. I would love for mr. Action or flamebird to return.

No, they didn't mate. People complain about Superman incessantly. I am glad and i went back decided to read his older stuff. Especially, goldenage comics it blew my mind. I couldn't believe superman was this tintin-esque, the phanom style vigilante. It was awesome. Who said anything about hand waving? As matter of fact it happens more now than it did in forties. Do you even know how much clark used to run from the police? And post crisis superman doesn't even face consequences as much as the past. Its worse since its taken sooo seriously in a bad way. Clark will work to get stronger, smarter and more intelligent. His intelligence will be tested.He will have problem solving capacity. Not just punching things. Even the laputa example i mentioned will be something clark has to work towards. Making an entire city fly is monumental, herculean task. Clark should be about herculean efforts.Hello, precrisis supermen both of them had failed more than they achieved. Otherwise, their sadness and loneliness is pointless. They have more lose than postcrisis guy could ever even bare. I mean, unlike postcrisis guy who runs back to ma and pa every chance he gets. Precrisis guys didn't have the luxury.Even their friends can't know the real him all the way, all star touched on it. When clark comes out for lois during his last days. They made mistakes. Course corrected on their own. Got stronger.That's superman.

Smiling through the pain is relatable cause many people do that. So, they can empathise with it. Clark is herculean. That's why he used to where gladiator like boots.Clark didn't used to just be someone who cheats his workout. The sun protein shake nonsense is really getting on my nerves now a days. It was better with his original explanation of his physiology being the reason. Its was like the first x-gene or meta gene explanation.

The difference is superman as an agent of change should not just sit around. He should be a problem solver. Even in sorrow guy in "for the man who has everything" he was working towards.He has to be the man of tomorrow again or the man of action again. He should be creative. If superman ain't that he becomes boring. Yeah! None of the stories were remotely relatable for me.i have major issues with "what's so funny about truth, justice and American way". And death of superman is pretty generic. tomasi's death of superman movie was a decent atleast. But, both of them were not as good for me as allmight retiring in my hero academia. Now, that was epic. The true symbol of peace. United States of smashhhh!!!! Go beyond, plus ultraaaa!!


Infinite crisis was blah! What they did goldenage superman and even superboy prime was prime example geoff johns not being able to understand any other versions of the character other than donner superman. He even made postcrisis superman turn into donner superman. Allmight and superman smashes the klan are better tribute to the goldenage superman than "infinite nonsense" . I hope geoff johns stays away from the character,although he did write that one shot in action comics#1000 which was decent. Best postcrisis writer for me is jurgens. Jurgens constructed the character even though it was byrne's creation.

[Tugger]

I was a MASSIVE Legion fan back in the 80's and it's so depressing to see what has happened to such a once great team and title over the years.

Don't forget that LSH was one of DC's most popular biggest selling titles back then, which is why it was one of two titles chosen to be relaunched (NOT rebooted!) on Baxter paper.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Comicbook grounding is a joke. It doesn't nean anything with all the nonsense that goes on. It only comes of as edginess. If you think you are above the wackyness and the running joke of clark kent secret id,which by the doesn't work anymore because too much seriousness. Then you are just missing out.

Obviously, it's not, since Marvel literally branded themselves on that. And again, you are misinterpreting what it actually means to "ground" the story. Its not a reference to the idea of Superman's power or even what he has the ABILITY to do. It refers to how the world would behave around him and what he has the AUTHORITY to do. Sorry, but the idea that Superman would just up and steal a city without there being any repercussion or backlash is just not realistic nor is it an honest reflection of human behavior.

Nobody is saying comic books shouldn't have fantastical elements. But those should still at least be couched in some sort of realism.

As i said All star superman is best superman story last two decades. It had precrisis superman.

It had the trappings of pre-Crisis Superman. Not necessarily his character.

And stop putting words in my mouth. Have i said anything about clark 'abandoning' anything?

You literally implied that Clark doesn't need any of the things Metropolis offers him. Except I've told you that his friends and pretty much his whole adult life is built there. And you still haven't answered the question of why he would want to leave all those people behind.

You been asking me to answer why, i haven't said anything like that. Clark had always taken his pal jimmy to do thing. Jimmy is his first side kick. Lois has had her own share adventures as well.Dude,byrne tried to base postcrisis guy on goldenage guy(it just wasn't as good for me). Goldenage guy was clark kent,whom people called superman. But, the real clark kent isn't the clumsy persona. That was the creation of real clark kent. Postcrisis superman didn't have a clumsy persona at all, he was just a nerd. Clark hid in plainsight.The secret id became too serious. People just started complaining about how flimsy it is because There wasn't much fun with it. Clark acknowledging the 4th wall was the best part about the id and it used to point out human fickleness and prejudice in a joke manner. Right, earth has faced getting swallowed by phantom zone, drowned, metal nonsense, crisis.. Etc. Superman can make it work. He only needs the consent of the Metropolis people. There isn't much ethical, legal or philosophical problems. Superman should be an agent of change like monkey d luffy. He has the ability to create a flying city like laputa or new genesis. Its time superman started being super again. As matter of fact, jimmy should start having his wierd adventures and transformations again. I would love for mr. Action or flamebird to return...

Okay. I'm gonna be honest here. I can't follow what you're trying to argue here. This doesn't seem to make much sense.

[manwhohaseverything]

Obviously, it's not, since Marvel literally branded themselves on that. And again, you are misinterpreting what it actually means to "ground" the story. Its not a reference to the idea of Superman's power or even what he has the ABILITY to do. It refers to how the world would behave around him and what he has the AUTHORITY to do. Sorry, but the idea that Superman would just up and steal a city without there being any repercussion or backlash is just not realistic nor is it an honest reflection of human behavior.

Nobody is saying comic books shouldn't have fantastical elements. But those should still at least be couched in some sort of realism.



It had the trappings of pre-Crisis Superman. Not necessarily his character.



You literally implied that Clark doesn't need any of the things Metropolis offers him. Except I've told you that his friends and pretty much his whole adult life is built there. And you still haven't answered the question of why he would want to leave all those people behind.



Okay. I'm gonna be honest here. I can't follow what you're trying to argue here. This doesn't seem to make much sense.

I am trying to say superman should be super. An agent of change. A problem solver. Not the guy stuck in a wierd mediocrity. He should be an example for us to lift ourselves from the same, Simple. For the sake of the relatability superman is made too safe and mediocre. Clark is the guy that tears of mediocrity to reveal the extraordinary or the super. Writers don't do creative stuff cause of "maturity" nonsense, yet comics are more convoluted than ever. One minute superman is vegetarian, the next he is a meat eating pacifist, the next a no nonesense punch you in the face vigilante. One minute he adopted a son, the next he has real one in place of the old one. This ain't grounding, my friend. So, instead of trying to appeal to readers with fake realism and "maturity". They should be creative. Have superman and pal's be wierd and fantastic, at the same time have them be do relatable things. Morrison's example, everyone walks their dogs. Superman does as well. Well, he just walks it past saturn.Many girls like dressing up. Well, Superman's wife can be a witch or elastigirl or superwoman... Etc on whims and fancies. Many of us have friends with wierd eccentric nature. Jimmy is that and whole lot more.

Everything that works for marvel doesn't for dc. Marvel largely is the work of three men's cohesive vision and much more linear. DC ain't that. Really? Postcrisis superman had zero to do with how people would react to superman like character. He was almost instantly embraced. Goldenage guy was a wanted guy for years as a vigilante. Who said up and steal? Did i say that? Clark is a problem solver. He can and will work towards doing something. Unlike lex clark works for others.if the people of the city embrace clark's action and agree with it. Outsiders opinions are inconsequential. If they have some bad opinions they can put it forward.he will face them and rebute them, (if he can) in a debate using his brain. You know like a man of tomorrow should . And, that doesn’t mean he is answerable to them. He is only answerable to the people of Metropolis. He can and should try to make Metropolis, a true city of tomorrow. Have you ever read one piece? In it there is a character named iceburg. He is working towards making his entire island float on water. That's a herculean task. That's what Superman should be about. It isn't just a blink and miss storyline either. It is a running plot point. That shoukd be how clark does his herculean tast. It isn't just about making a city fly, that's just my stupid crestive example. It's about advancing the civilization to the next stage. That's superman's job.

He doesn't. Metropolis has nothing to offer to clark except for love, friendship, mentors, growth as a person.. Etc. It never had. Material things are inconsequential for him. On the flipside, the question was always what clark owed the city. It turns out he owed everything in return for the things he got that i mentioned. Because you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said clark needs to leave anybody or anything. Show me a place i did. All i have said material things like money aren't needed for clark. He doesn't need to live in an apartment. He could make a pocket dimension and go to work from their. He can take his colleagues to wierd adventures.he can do almost anything, provided he works for it. He is the goddamn superman. He isn't a man or a god. He is both and neither.

No, all star superman doesn't just have precrisis trapping. It is a love letter to him. It is that guy in every true sense of the word. He certainly ain't postcrisis superman, that's for sure.in fact all star superman had more in common with donner superman, than postcrisis. Even, the donner influence is abysmal. Its barely there.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I am trying to say superman should be super. An agent of change. A problem solver. Not the guy stuck in a wierd mediocrity. He should be an example for us to lift ourselves from the same, Simple. For the sake of the relatability superman is made too safe and mediocre. Clark is the guy that tears of mediocrity to reveal the extraordinary or the super. Writers don't do creative stuff cause of "maturity" nonsense, yet comics are more convoluted than ever. One minute superman is vegetarian, the next he is a meat eating pacifist, the next a no nonesense punch you in the face vigilante. One minute he adopted a son, the next he has real one in place of the old one. This ain't grounding, my friend. So, instead of trying to appeal to readers with fake realism and "maturity". They should be creative. Have superman and pal's be wierd and fantastic, at the same time have them be do relatable things. Morrison's example, everyone walks their dogs. Superman does as well. Well, he just walks it past saturn.Many girls like dressing up. Well, Superman's wife can be a witch or elastigirl or superwoman... Etc on whims and fancies. Many of us have friends with wierd eccentric nature. Jimmy is that and whole lot more.

What are you talking about? You're conflating two things that really have nothing to do with each other.

Everything that works for marvel doesn't for dc. Marvel largely is the work of three men's cohesive vision and much more linear. DC ain't that. Really? Postcrisis superman had zero to do with how people would react to superman like character. He was almost instantly embraced. Goldenage guy was a wanted guy for years as a vigilante. Who said up and steal? Did i say that?

Uh, relatable characters is not something that Marvel invented. Its been a tenet of storytelling for, well, as long as there's been storytelling. Marvel just pioneered it for comic-book superheroes, who up until that point had been presented as very one-dimensional and out-of-touch in some regards because it was considered "kids' entertainment." So, when DC saw that it actually worked, they applied it to their comics. And it worked. Some of the best stories from the entirety of the DC canon follow characters' private struggles and personal lives, not just their costumed adventures.

Clark is a problem solver. He can and will work towards doing something. Unlike lex clark works for others.if the people of the city embrace clark's action and agree with it. Outsiders opinions are inconsequential. If they have some bad opinions they can put it forward.he will face them and rebute them, (if he can) in a debate using his brain. You know like a man of tomorrow should . And, that doesn’t mean he is answerable to them. He is only answerable to the people of Metropolis. He can and should try to make Metropolis, a true city of tomorrow. Have you ever read one piece? In it there is a character named iceburg. He is working towards making his entire island float on water. That's a herculean task. That's what Superman should be about. It isn't just a blink and miss storyline either. It is a running plot point. That shoukd be how clark does his herculean tast. It isn't just about making a city fly, that's just my stupid crestive example. It's about advancing the civilization to the next stage. That's superman's job.

If a writer could come up with a way to write that story, I could be interested, but its also incredibly unrealistic to the point that its farcical. One Piece takes place in a completely alternate reality and alternate Earth that doesn't have the same countries or mores or even the same basic geography as ours does. The DC Universe, unlike One Piece, is at least superficially a version of "our universe." Things like the U.S. government and law and order still exist. Metropolis, despite being fictional, is still a part of the United States in the DCU. So, by taking it, Superman would essentially be appropriating a piece of a sovereign nation, and not only that, but the most powerful nation on Earth and the one where he makes his home. That's...illegal. At least under our laws and customs. And if he went through with something like that, not only would it be out of character, he'd be cementing himself as above human laws and customs and proving almost everything that Lex and Sam Lane say about him true.

He doesn't. Metropolis has nothing to offer to clark except for love, friendship, mentors, growth as a person.. Etc.

You mean, all of the things that make a character relatable and enjoyable to read??

[Sutekh]

Gosh, a Legion of Super-Heroes thread that's all about Superman, and not the actual Legion relaunch currently underway. Nice to see it's provoking such enthusiastic and relevant discourse.

[manwhohaseverything]

What are you talking about? You're conflating two things that really have nothing to do with each other.



Uh, relatable characters is not something that Marvel invented. Its been a tenet of storytelling for, well, as long as there's been storytelling. Marvel just pioneered it for comic-book superheroes, who up until that point had been presented as very one-dimensional and out-of-touch in some regards because it was considered "kids' entertainment." So, when DC saw that it actually worked, they applied it to their comics. And it worked. Some of the best stories from the entirety of the DC canon follow characters' private struggles and personal lives, not just their costumed adventures.



If a writer could come up with a way to write that story, I could be interested, but its also incredibly unrealistic to the point that its farcical. One Piece takes place in a completely alternate reality and alternate Earth that doesn't have the same countries or mores or even the same basic geography as ours does. The DC Universe, unlike One Piece, is at least superficially a version of "our universe." Things like the U.S. government and law and order still exist. Metropolis, despite being fictional, is still a part of the United States in the DCU. So, by taking it, Superman would essentially be appropriating a piece of a sovereign nation, and not only that, but the most powerful nation on Earth and the one where he makes his home. That's...illegal. At least under our laws and customs. And if he went through with something like that, not only would it be out of character, he'd be cementing himself as above human laws and customs and proving almost everything that Lex and Sam Lane say about him true.



You mean, all of the things that make a character relatable and enjoyable to read??

Where is Metropolis in real world? Where is kahdaq, bialiya.. Etc? I didn't know lex was our president. DC unlike marvel takes in different world similar to ours, that may or may not have similar countries, cities.. Etc.That excuse doesn't hold weight. Writers can and should run wild with their imagination rather than conforming to realism that doesn't work. As for illegal, dude he is vigilante strongman. He made a career out breaking the law for the people. He can and will do the same if he believes he can make something that's good for them,only requirement he needs is the consent of the people. Otherwise, he can do anything. Now, he isn't above human law. He is just a criminal. You know, like luffy but he has always been that. Legal repercussions can be a great storyline as well. You know clark makes the city fly and the government goes after him.it would have great topic to discuss and chew on. So, that just makes it interesting.

Lex cares squat about others. He's just bitten by a bug called envy. Sam on the other hand has legitimate criticism and it's true to some extent. Superman was never meant to be "not dangerous".Clark like steve is dangerous . He has fangs. Clark isn't harmless. Fear is something that comes naturally to clark,unlike bruce. But, clark doesn't choose fear his overwhelming empathy, optimism.. Etc leads people away from fear. Once, they are away from fear they get to dream and hope for better tomorrow, by working to better themselves. There is a reason why this was superman's first words to lois. This was always the crux of superman.

What do you mean costumed adventures?inside, he is super. His private life is part of the super. But, the problem is making it uninspiring, unimaginative and mediocre. If not presented properly even the fantastic can be quite boring, let alone the mundane. Jerry siegel hated mundane taking precedence over the fantastic(cough!cough!Cw superman changing diapers) . It's the reason why he didn't want clois married in main continuity. He felt superman will be competing in a space where he will never be first.Superman will play second fiddle to spiderman, if he plays by his rules. An example of the fantastic that became boring, superman's flight. Did you know clark was freaking agile? It wasn't just a pose and you are up in the sky. There is a reason why his earlier writers and artists used to put in extra effort into Clark's movements and posture. especially jerry siegel, max fleischer and joe shuster.. Etc. Clark did stuff like flips, summersaults and dives. It was dynamic to look at. Now, it ain't. So, presentation matters. My problem is not clark being relatable.my problem is how Superman is made relatable .it being at the expense of the fantastical or scifi element of the character. You know the super. Superman isn't a story about a guy who got powers. That shouldn't be how it's approached. Powers are him. He is the man of tomorrow. Powers aren't a tool. It's his very being, like his personality and individuality . He was born great. You can't takeaway the super out of Superman, you will be left with zero. You might be able to take away his strength. But, even then he will be intelligent, resourceful,will have advanced mind and body.. Etc.

No,i am not conflating two issues. You say that postcrisis was mature. Yet, superman red and blue (a precrisis story) is part of his history. Post crisis superman ain't mature, mate. Comics are still viewed as "for kids" in many countries including America. Marvel didn't do squat. Some, people just didn't gave up on it. So they stuck with it even after becoming young adults or adults .This isn't a knock on them. But, superman can do stories for everyone, not just college guys/gals, highschool kids, coming of age people ...etc. That's the beauty of the character. He doesn't need to skew like spiderman or wolverine. He can be for everyone, that includes kids and especially them. In fact, i would argue superman would be more embraced if the company targeted non-comicbook crowd. Instead of making the character into just a comicbook superhero. Treat the character like a tintin, sherlock holmes, zoro, phantom .. Etc.

When did i say marvel invented "being relatable"? They just had characters that need things like rent, collage fees, food.. Etc. That kind of relatability is great. But, it ain't necessary requirement for superman. He has a different kind relatability. The best stories past year has been superman up in the sky and superman smashes the klan. Both were really relatable. The former had superman the athlete, the compassionate hero and the idol/public figure. While the later has superman the immigrant, the alien and the champion of the oppressed.

[manwhohaseverything]

Gosh, a Legion of Super-Heroes thread that's all about Superman, and not the actual Legion relaunch currently underway. Nice to see it's provoking such enthusiastic and relevant discourse.

Yeah! Sorry for hi-jacking the thread.

[kilderkin]

Gosh, a Legion of Super-Heroes thread that's all about Superman, and not the actual Legion relaunch currently underway. Nice to see it's provoking such enthusiastic and relevant discourse.

I was looking forward to seeing this new book, but if what I hear of 5g is true, I'll be saving me some money from the DC mythos

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Where is Metropolis in real world? Where is kahdaq, bialiya.. Etc? I didn't know lex was our president. DC unlike marvel takes in different world similar to ours, that may or may not have similar countries, cities.. Etc.That excuse doesn't hold weight. Writers can and should run wild with their imagination rather than conforming to realism that doesn't work.

Uh, Wakanda? Latveria? Madripoor? Genosha? I didn't know these were real-world places. Marvel's canon takes place in just as fictional a world as DC's does. However, in both cases, some things are consistent between that fictional reality and our real-world reality. Writers can't just discount those things. One of the functions of art is to provide a realistic reflection of real life. Why do you think many reviews (whether for movies, books, TV shows, etc.) or even just audience comments tend to take the form of "oh, that would never happen in real life!"?

Ignoring factors that weigh on reality is a sign of bad writing, even if the story is fictional, because ART MIMICS LIFE at least in the basic foundation of how people behave. Having characters act in a way that is untruthful or, in some cases, egregiously unrealistic makes it hard to take a story seriously.

As for illegal, dude he is vigilante strongman. He made a career out breaking the law for the people. He can and will do the same if he believes he can make something that's good for them,only requirement he needs is the consent of the people.

Except he doesn't openly and flagrantly disrespect the U.S. government. Even though he's far from a tool of the U.S. government, that doesn't mean he is going to intrude on their sovereignty. That is so out of character for Superman.

Otherwise, he can do anything. Now, he isn't above human law. He is just a criminal. You know, like luffy but he has always been that. Legal repercussions can be a great storyline as well. You know clark makes the city fly and the government goes after him.it would have great topic to discuss and chew on. So, that just makes it interesting.

Superman is not Luffy. They are two wildly different characters. Luffy acts without real regard for consequence or repercussions. Superman DOES NOT DO THAT. Up and plucking a city from the ground would cause so much havoc not just for that city, but for everything surrounding it. Now, could such a story be pulled off? Maybe. But it would have to include so many additional factors before it could make sense. It wouldn't be Clark thinking to himself "I'm gonna rocket this city into space so it could meet it 'true potential.'" Clark is a rational person. Rational people don't decide to endanger the entire population of a city in order to meet this obtuse, immeasurable goal.

Lex cares squat about others. He's just bitten by a bug called envy. Sam on the other hand has legitimate criticism and it's true to some extent. Superman was never meant to be "not dangerous".Clark like steve is dangerous . He has fangs. Clark isn't harmless. Fear is something that comes naturally to clark,unlike bruce. But, clark doesn't choose fear his overwhelming empathy, optimism.. Etc leads people away from fear. Once, they are away from fear they get to dream and hope for better tomorrow, by working to better themselves. There is a reason why this was superman's first words to lois. This was always the crux of superman.

Clark doesn't willfully put people in harm's way. That's foundational to the character. What you're suggesting is that he do just that.

But yeah, that's about it on this topic for me.

[manwhohaseverything]

Uh, Wakanda? Latveria? Madripoor? Genosha? I didn't know these were real-world places. Marvel's canon takes place in just as fictional a world as DC's does. However, in both cases, some things are consistent between that fictional reality and our real-world reality. Writers can't just discount those things. One of the functions of art is to provide a realistic reflection of real life. Why do you think many reviews (whether for movies, books, TV shows, etc.) or even just audience comments tend to take the form of "oh, that would never happen in real life!"?

Ignoring factors that weigh on reality is a sign of bad writing, even if the story is fictional, because ART MIMICS LIFE at least in the basic foundation of how people behave. Having characters act in a way that is untruthful or, in some cases, egregiously unrealistic makes it hard to take a story seriously.



Except he doesn't openly and flagrantly disrespect the U.S. government. Even though he's far from a tool of the U.S. government, that doesn't mean he is going to intrude on their sovereignty. That is so out of character for Superman.



Superman is not Luffy. They are two wildly different characters. Luffy acts without real regard for consequence or repercussions. Superman DOES NOT DO THAT. Up and plucking a city from the ground would cause so much havoc not just for that city, but for everything surrounding it. Now, could such a story be pulled off? Maybe. But it would have to include so many additional factors before it could make sense. It wouldn't be Clark thinking to himself "I'm gonna rocket this city into space so it could meet it 'true potential.'" Clark is a rational person. Rational people don't decide to endanger the entire population of a city in order to meet this obtuse, immeasurable goal.



Clark doesn't willfully put people in harm's way. That's foundational to the character. What you're suggesting is that he do just that.

But yeah, that's about it on this topic for me.

Those kind of comments happens to spiderman comics or any for that matter. The problem with that logic is, its an imagniary story like all of them. Sheesh! As superman fan you should know that.marvel has two sides. There is a fantasy side. There is the semi realistic side.wakanda,latveria..etc are countries for the main fantasy heroes/villains that are tied to that entirely, for example dr. Doom, blackpanther, namor.. Etc. Superman should be like those guys. He lives in Metropolis . He shouldn't be like peter parker who lives in Newyork. A comprise will be fantastic four, but even then those guys aren't mundane. They do the fantastic and deal with fantastic settings more than the mundanity of Newyork. The main problem is it won't be problem if reeds adventures doesn't affect the normal people of the city and the city has no advancements. Because reed isn't a hero. Heroics is something he does to bring some sort of happiness to his family for all he put them through .superman on the other hand it would be. He is a hero. He is meant to share his knowledge.

Who said art isn't mimicking life? Why do you think superman has a dog and not an alien creature? See, that's what you are missing. You want superman to have dog that's mundane and normal. I want superman to have a dog that flys, but still a dog with all the attributes of dog like cuteness, loyalty, protectiveness.. Etc. The dog is a metaphor by the way.
A guy coming up an invention and solving a problem - that's realistic.
Guy trying to use it to help other,(altruism). but goes through unforseen consequences. But, tries to manage - relatable.
The guy makes a city fly-the fantastic.
The prior two conditions is clearly mimicking life. Get it, its mimicry. The key word.not life itself. Its an imaginary story.

Wow! You really need to read superman stuff,again. Clark has no trouble beating up the army or saying go to hell to the government or any authority for that matter . If people are being tormented, if he feels the government is wrong. Clark fights for truth and justice. Like steve, clark has qualm in going against government for the ideals.He would go fugitive for the sake of doing tbe right thing like steve. He would plant his feet like a tree and say no. It's true that superman was cheering the us army during ww2. But, the flip he has smashed their tanks as well. He doesn't give a damn about sovereignty of any state. His first priority is its people. That's dangerous. That's clark.

Superman isn't luffy, Not my argument. He is like luffy,my argument. Because its true.the only difference between luffy and clark is that, luffy isn't a hero. Clark is. Clark is a meddling guy and he shares everything, even his own share of things. Luffy doesn't . Luffy acting with repercussions, what a joke!! Dude, He has been loosing people and failing non stop. Does continuing plot point of a story mean anything to you? Does it sound like "up and pluck a city"? Herculean tasks require its own pace and story telling speed to be fleshed out. Clark being a hero of the people and a problem solver in characterisation would try to solve any discomfort with his intelligence.it won't be easy or fast, hence herculean task. Granted, clark has reckless streak but not to that extent. No, keeping an entire people stuck in misey when he can bring real change is irrational. Clark being mediocre or mundane is irrational. He shouldn't. He is the freaking superman. He should be creating the city of tomorrow. He should be making Metropolis into new genesis. That's isn't irrational. That's being romantic and passionate about advancing the society.

He hurts the corrupt and those who use their power to step on people who are in a helpless state for the time being.But, other that no, clark building a city of tomorrow is not hurting them. Clark finding the cure for cancer isn't hurting them. Clark teaching kids advanced sciences together with ethics to handle powers is'nt hurting them. Challenging his contemporaries(lex, bruce.. Etc) to out do him in helping others isn't harming them. Clark should challenge people to be men/women/other of tomorrow so that he becomes a man of yesterday himself.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Those kind of comments happens to spiderman comics or any for that matter. The problem with that logic is, its an imagniary story like all of them. Sheesh!

No, those kinds of comments are applied to any story ever. All forms of art, from sculpture to storytelling serve to portray a snapshot of life. That is what makes us relate to art in the first place. So, when a story doesn't even bother to pay heed to realism or basic human behavior, that's just a sign of bad writing.

As superman fan you should know that.marvel has two sides. There is a fantasy side. There is the semi realistic side.wakanda,latveria..etc are countries for the main fantasy heroes/villains that are tied to that entirely, for example dr. Doom, blackpanther, namor.. Etc. Superman should be like those guys. He lives in Metropolis . He shouldn't be like peter parker who lives in Newyork. A comprise will be fantastic four, but even then those guys aren't mundane. They do the fantastic and deal with fantastic settings more than the mundanity of Newyork. The main problem is it won't be problem if reeds adventures doesn't affect the normal people of the city and the city has no advancements. Because reed isn't a hero. Heroics is something he does to bring some sort of happiness to his family for all he put them through .superman on the other hand it would be. He is a hero. He is meant to share his knowledge.

Well, for starters, two of those guys you mention are villains at worst and antiheroes at best. Secondly, no, Superman is not like those guys because of the simple fact that he is not the king of Metropolis. For the millionth time, Metropolis is a fictional city, but it's established as being part of the United States of America in the DC comics canon. Superman can't just do whatever he wants with Metropolis because Metropolis is not his to do whatever he wants with it. That's pretty basic logic. Also, I think it's fairly obvious that Superman wouldn't even WANT to rule Metropolis. He is not arrogant enough to think he has all the answers to the world's problems.

Who said art isn't mimicking life? Why do you think superman has a dog and not an alien creature? See, that's what you are missing. You want superman to have dog that's mundane and normal. I want superman to have a dog that flys, but still a dog with all the attributes of dog like cuteness, loyalty, protectiveness.. Etc. The dog is a metaphor by the way.

No, I don't want Superman to have a normal dog. I like Krypto. But having a flying dog is not the same as thinking you can take over an entire city as if its your own. One is fantasy, the other a super villain origin story.

A guy coming up an invention and solving a problem - that's realistic.
Guy trying to use it to help other,(altruism). but goes through unforseen consequences. But, tries to manage - relatable.
The guy makes a city fly-the fantastic.
The prior two conditions is clearly mimicking life. Get it, its mimicry. The key word.not life itself. Its an imaginary story.

You forgot the part about making a city fly...therefore putting all its people in danger and committing what is essentially tantamount to an invasion of U.S. soil. That's not fantastic, that's completely unjustifiable. Storytelling isn't just throwing things against a wall.

Wow! You really need to read superman stuff,again. Clark has no trouble beating up the army or saying go to hell to the government or any authority for that matter . If people are being tormented, if he feels the government is wrong. Clark fights for truth and justice. Like steve, clark has qualm in going against government for the ideals.He would go fugitive for the sake of doing tbe right thing like steve. He would plant his feet like a tree and say no. It's true that superman was cheering the us army during ww2. But, the flip he has smashed their tanks as well. He doesn't give a damn about sovereignty of any state. His first priority is its people. That's dangerous. That's clark.

So tell me, what is the government doing wrong by simply...existing and exerting its sovereignty over a U.S. city??? Superman's had no problem telling the government that they're wrong, but he's not arrogant enough to say "I'm just gonna take your city because I can do a better job than you. Okay, bye."

Superman isn't luffy, Not my argument. He is like luffy,my argument. Because its true.the only difference between luffy and clark is that, luffy isn't a hero. Clark is. Clark is a meddling guy and he shares everything, even his own share of things. Luffy doesn't . Luffy acting with repercussions, what a joke!! Dude, He has been loosing people and failing non stop. Does continuing plot point of a story mean anything to you? Does it sound like "up and pluck a city"? Herculean tasks require its own pace and story telling speed to be fleshed out. Clark being a hero of the people and a problem solver in characterisation would try to solve any discomfort with his intelligence.it won't be easy or fast, hence herculean task. Granted, clark has reckless streak but not to that extent. No, keeping an entire people stuck in misey when he can bring real change is irrational. Clark being mediocre or mundane is irrational. He shouldn't. He is the freaking superman. He should be creating the city of tomorrow. He should be making Metropolis into new genesis. That's isn't irrational. That's being romantic and passionate about advancing the society.

Who says Metropolis is stuck in misery, though??? You're making things up to back your argument when there's no evidence of that to speak of.

And no, Superman is not like Luffy because Luffy doesn't think through his actions. Most of the time, he acts without giving thought to what will happen if he takes this course of action. Of course he fails and loses people a lot. Because he doesn't seem to have foresight.

He hurts the corrupt and those who use their power to step on people who are in a helpless state for the time being.But, other that no, clark building a city of tomorrow is not hurting them. Clark finding the cure for cancer isn't hurting them. Clark teaching kids advanced sciences together with ethics to handle powers is'nt hurting them. Challenging his contemporaries(lex, bruce.. Etc) to out do him in helping others isn't harming them. Clark should challenge people to be men/women/other of tomorrow so that he becomes a man of yesterday himself.

Well, again, who says that Clark's only way to solve corruption is to rocket Metropolis up into the sky? Secondly, have you ever heard the story of the comic strip Seigel and Shuster chose not to publish? The one where he flies to Germany and the Soviet Union and picks both Hitler and Stalin up by their necks and flies them to the Hague to stand trial? Yeah, the reason the writers chose not to publish that story was that they felt that it was disrespectful to real-world servicemen and servicewomen who were putting their lives on the line to fight overseas in WWII. And that makes sense. If you have Superman basically solve WWII in a few pages, you basically tell real people who are serving overseas that they aren't good enough. Don't you think the same thing applies to cancer doctors or cancer victims? Or even to teachers?

On top of that, part of Superman's character is that he doesn't have all the answers despite people thinking he does. That is part of the humanity of the character and what makes him relatable. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

[manwhohaseverything]

No, those kinds of comments are applied to any story ever. All forms of art, from sculpture to storytelling serve to portray a snapshot of life. That is what makes us relate to art in the first place. So, when a story doesn't even bother to pay heed to realism or basic human behavior, that's just a sign of bad writing.



Well, for starters, two of those guys you mention are villains at worst and antiheroes at best. Secondly, no, Superman is not like those guys because of the simple fact that he is not the king of Metropolis. For the millionth time, Metropolis is a fictional city, but it's established as being part of the United States of America in the DC comics canon. Superman can't just do whatever he wants with Metropolis because Metropolis is not his to do whatever he wants with it. That's pretty basic logic. Also, I think it's fairly obvious that Superman wouldn't even WANT to rule Metropolis. He is not arrogant enough to think he has all the answers to the world's problems.



No, I don't want Superman to have a normal dog. I like Krypto. But having a flying dog is not the same as thinking you can take over an entire city as if its your own. One is fantasy, the other a super villain origin story.



You forgot the part about making a city fly...therefore putting all its people in danger and committing what is essentially tantamount to an invasion of U.S. soil. That's not fantastic, that's completely unjustifiable. Storytelling isn't just throwing things against a wall.



So tell me, what is the government doing wrong by simply...existing and exerting its sovereignty over a U.S. city??? Superman's had no problem telling the government that they're wrong, but he's not arrogant enough to say "I'm just gonna take your city because I can do a better job than you. Okay, bye."



Who says Metropolis is stuck in misery, though??? You're making things up to back your argument when there's no evidence of that to speak of.

And no, Superman is not like Luffy because Luffy doesn't think through his actions. Most of the time, he acts without giving thought to what will happen if he takes this course of action. Of course he fails and loses people a lot. Because he doesn't seem to have foresight.



Well, again, who says that Clark's only way to solve corruption is to rocket Metropolis up into the sky? Secondly, have you ever heard the story of the comic strip Seigel and Shuster chose not to publish? The one where he flies to Germany and the Soviet Union and picks both Hitler and Stalin up by their necks and flies them to the Hague to stand trial? Yeah, the reason the writers chose not to publish that story was that they felt that it was disrespectful to real-world servicemen and servicewomen who were putting their lives on the line to fight overseas in WWII. And that makes sense. If you have Superman basically solve WWII in a few pages, you basically tell real people who are serving overseas that they aren't good enough. Don't you think the same thing applies to cancer doctors or cancer victims? Or even to teachers?

On top of that, part of Superman's character is that he doesn't have all the answers despite people thinking he does. That is part of the humanity of the character and what makes him relatable. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.

No, it isn't mate. Art isn't just realism. There is surrealism, impressionism, expressionism... Etc. None of tge supers adhere to realism. Only emotional realism. And even some defy that like harley or deadpool. So, realism isn't necessary. Emotional realism and human behaviour being part is of a superman, story is not bad. I have never said it is. But, realism as a whole and setting is'nt Clark's thing.

Dude, what are you talking about? I am not talking about characters or their status as face or heel. I am talking about, Clark lives in an entirely fictional city. Not a real one. Like those guys. That's it. So Metropolis can be made into anything A city of fire, A city of vampires.. Etc. It can progress in ways limited only by imagination. So what of it? Superman is a criminal. He can be a fugitive of the state of us. He can make a city with people's consent. You don't get it. Do you? Captain america in civil war became fugitive or criminal . He was still a hero. Clark is and can be both. Who hell is talking about ruling anything? I didn't. Your idea, i don't have answers for all the problems in the world. My idea, clark searches for ideas to solve the problems of the world even if he doesn't have it. He works for it. He fails sometimes and manytimes he succeeds. Dude, gifted people advancing society doesn't mean dictator. You i have a couple of engineer friends. They decided to quit their job and move to a village in third world country , that had problems. And guess what? They made things better for the people in the village in india with their skills. That's how Superman should be.

Sovereignity is derived from the consent of the governed. Have you even read the declaration of independence. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . if the people of Metropolis choose clark and his vision for the city in their pursuit of happiness. Clark will continue with his vision. If the government of United States chooses to oppose their founding philosophy, right to better life and the right to disband political affiliation, with might. Clark can and will step in. Bullying a bully is what clark does best.

It is in relative way, it isn't new genesis or advanced like that. Metropolis is realworld city with problems like one. In a real world city, people have to face harsh realities. Clark is the man of tomorrow. He can and should strive to solve the unsolvable like cancer for example. Diseases, hunger, poverty, wealth gap, corruption .. Etc are still issues of Metropolis. They all cause misery. If Metropolis didn't have misery superman wouldn't exist or be needed.

Dude, clark is an alien strongman vigilante who jumped in to save a woman risking his secret and smashed the car of bad guys cause he was angry. He is as reckless as luffy. Luffy just lacks the intellect. But, other that they are fairly similar. Clark is as instinctive and reckless. Superman's body moves on his own in time of need. There is a reason allmight and deku characters reminds people of superman. No, it isn't because of lack of forsight(luffy) .it is because he is smack dab in the middle of conflicts and adventure, you know action as in action comics. Loss is the nature of the game. Luffy treasures his nakama precisely because of that. He puts in the extra effort, smiles and has extra fun because of that. Because of life being momentary and fragile,he lives life to the fullest. That's fairly similar.

He might not have the answer for everthing, but if he sits around taking it as the final word. He ain't superman.A late answer is better than no answer at all or worse being comfortable with have no answers to some questions. Your idea is clark should be comfortable with not having answers to some questions. My idea, clark isn't comfortable and searches heaven/hell for them,has fun while doing it. The journey is very much important.

You are taking the flying city thing literally. I have said its just an idea. The point is creating a city of tomorrow that doesn't have much corruption. First of all, that was during the war effort. They might have thought like you said it might demotivate them during that crucial period. Having hitler and stalin would be make the setting too real. Commenting like that would be inappropriate. If cancer is too real then make up a disease to replace it, that isn't. But, has been around the dc world. Again, coming back to one piece. Chopper wants to create a cure for all diseases. He doesn't at the moment. But, it's the intent and journey that matters. Clark and humanity along with him should have the same kind of journey as chopper,luffy,sanji..etc.

As i said, Clark's job is to challenge people. There are people with clarks abilities already like lex. If others feel they aren't good enough they need to get good enough. Sure, some might get motivated. But, humanity is tenacious like lois lane or john henry. in time, they will keep up and step into the sunlight. Seeing these guys(lois and others) keep up, those who feel demotivated will be inspired as well. They will work harder. That's the goal. Clark knows humanity enough to know their self determination. Clark doesn't just solve these things just like that or for them. What would be the fun in that. He will be one of the many to try. Sometimes he succeeds and other times, other people . There will be human becoming better remember. Clark is just sharing things he knows. This way clark will become truly one of us because The others become super.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Okay, this is just a wall of text. Please try to make it shorter.

No, it isn't mate. Art isn't just realism. There is surrealism, impressionism, expressionism... Etc. None of tge supers adhere to realism. Only emotional realism. And even some defy that like harley or deadpool. So, realism isn't necessary. Emotional realism and human behaviour being part is of a superman, story is not bad. I have never said it is. But, realism as a whole and setting is'nt Clark's thing.

Dude. What are you even talking about??? No. Stories require at least a touch of reality to be taken seriously. Characters need to behave truthfully under a given set of circumstances, even when the circumstances are out there. If the circumstance is that Metropolis is a city very much in the U.S. and subject to U.S. laws and governance, no rational person is going to be like "I'm gonna take this and go up into space with it." Unless of course you're Brainiac, in which case you're a villain.

Dude, what are you talking about? I am not talking about characters or their status as face or heel. I am talking about, Clark lives in an entirely fictional city. Not a real one. Like those guys. That's it. So Metropolis can be made into anything A city of fire, A city of vampires..

I feel like I shouldn't have to say why it'd be a bad idea to make Metropolis into a city of fire, but what the heck. Metropolis, from its very early days was presented as a representation of the "everyday American city." That's the context of it. It's SUPPOSED to be like New York or Philadelphia or Baltimore, except Superman lives there. And in fact, it's meant to GROUND Superman. It was meant as a signal to kids like "hey look, Superman lives in a city just like the one you live in. Isn't that neat?" Now, you could do a story where Metropolis turns into a city of vampires for a short period of time, but it would have to revert back eventually since again it's meant to be a stand in for real American cities.

Superman is a criminal. He can be a fugitive of the state of us. He can make a city with people's consent. You don't get it. Do you? Captain america in civil war became fugitive or criminal . He was still a hero. Clark is and can be both.

Captain America in Civil War wasn't trying to rocket away with Washington, DC.

Who hell is talking about ruling anything?

Taking a city away from the country of which it's a part usually signals that such person believes they own it or at least have the authority to decide its future. Clark is nowhere near that arrogant. It's shocking that you think he is.

Sovereignity is derived from the consent of the governed. Have you even read the declaration of independence. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . if the people of Metropolis choose clark and his vision for the city in their pursuit of happiness. Clark will continue with his vision. If the government of United States chooses to oppose their founding philosophy, right to better life and the right to disband political affiliation, with might. Clark can and will step in. Bullying a bully is what clark does best.

Okay. I don't know if you're actually serious with this or not...

Last I checked, the people of Metropolis hadn't appointed Superman their lord and savior nor had they renounced the U.S. government. And EVEN IF Superman approached them with this offer (which, again, he wouldn't), it would be incredibly unrealistic and just plain bad writing for all like 10 million people in Metropolis to be like "Oh yes, Superman, take us away from Earth and launch us into orbit. We trust you that much." That just wouldn't happen.

On top of that, flowery language from the Declaration of Independence aside, sovereignty is a concept that goes back way farther than that document. It's a basic tenet of international law. And breaching a nation's sovereignty is a serious offense. You really think the U.S. government wouldn't have a legitimate gripe if Superman just up and decided to steal one of their major cities?? You think they would just sit by an let it happen?? Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.