At what point do you think writers were trying to "fix" Superman

[Tzigone]

The comics code required that police and other authority figures be shown in a good light at the time. So it's not like the status quo for Superman was any different than any other character. It was Miller's warping of that that stuck. Superman wasn't a lackey to corrupt politicians any more than Batman was the psycho Miller created in DKR's. That was an invention of Miller.

I tend to agree that Superman was no different than any other hero in that respect (friendly with authority figures, etc.) in the '50s and '60s. I've never read that story of Miller's (just not my genre), though I don't like the sound of it. Do hate what happened to Batman which Miller certainly set in motion, but can't deny the commercial success.

Superman has gone through lots of changes. I don't like the deathbed instruction, and do think it screams CCA (and is rather clunky and poorly executed). There was tons of upping (really flat-out creating) Superman's connection to his Kryptonian heritage in the era and distancing him from regarding himself as human. I'm not fond of it at all, but don't think it was done to "fix" anything, but rather just normal character changes and taking advantage of sci-fi being popular in the 50s and going a route that would sell well. Don't care for the rewritten origin making Krypton a depressing place.

I actually find the movie responsible for a lot of issues, which may be strange to some, considering how beloved it is. I hate the "Jesus Superman" motif, which has at least been prominent in movies (haven't noticed very much in comics, but certainly haven't read entire library). For me, Kal-El was sent away to save his life, nothing to do with being intended to guide or lead or save humanity. If the planet hadn't been about to blow up, they have kept him there and raised him. Also for the "naive farmboy" or "salt of the earth" or whatnot, ascribing wholesomeness and honesty to small towns and Clark's cover persona or Superman's values. Yes, he originally grew up on farm. Because farming was a very common occupation in the 1910-1920s. It wasn't some fundamental important part of him that he must be rural or that his values could only be obtained in such a place. And he wasn't treated like some sort of bumpkin compared to everyone else, nor did his values seem to differ from those of the city-folk around him.

[Yoda]

DKR influenced the Batman/Superman dynamic more than Superman himself. Major modern influences on Superman's perception are probably Donner and Byrne.

Donner maybe for non-comic readers. Bryne and Man of Steel have a fraction of the influence that DKR's has had. They started walking back Bryne in the 80's. We've been seeing people still playing and writing against the perception of Superman created by DKR's Superman for decades.

[superduperman]

Most people's perception of Superman, or any hero, is largely shaped by outside media, not comics. Yes, that includes Batman. How many people are Batman "fans" who have only seen the Nolan movies or BTAS? Donner is probably the biggest influence on Superman though as time goes on, that will probably be moved forward to something like STAS or Smallville. Either way, I think it's a bit too optimistic to say that Miller is the reason the outside world sees Superman as a flake. It's highly unlikely most people in the outside world have picked up a Superman comic in years.

I see this lock down as a chance to undo things like 5G and just do a hard reboot where they fix this stuff. Whatever Didio had in mind is obviously out the window now. With his history being a mess they have an opportunity to fix it while everyone is busy elsewhere. I know everyone hates origin reboots again but this could be a chance at a truly clean slate.

[Kuwagaton]

DKR's is not just an alternate future story. It, along with Watchmen, are the single most influential comics of the last 40 years. It's driven the characterization of Batman (and Superman) for the last 4 decades. That is likely the most widely read portrayal of Superman that comic & non-comic fans see. It's influence on Superman is undeniable as that has become the portrayal that highlights all the issues people see with him.

Being one of the most influential comics and specifically influencing a separatefranchise are two different things though.

As for Byrne, the popular writer and artist brought in to revamp Superman, being a fraction of Miller... What would you say are points of influenced tied to Miller that outweigh Superman's best selling reboot itself and the nearly fifty years of presidential compliance before that?

[Yoda]

Most people's perception of Superman, or any hero, is largely shaped by outside media, not comics. Yes, that includes Batman. How many people are Batman "fans" who have only seen the Nolan movies or BTAS? Donner is probably the biggest influence on Superman though as time goes on, that will probably be moved forward to something like STAS or Smallville. Either way, I think it's a bit too optimistic to say that Miller is the reason the outside world sees Superman as a flake. It's highly unlikely most people in the outside world have picked up a Superman comic in years.

I see this lock down as a chance to undo things like 5G and just do a hard reboot where they fix this stuff. Whatever Didio had in mind is obviously out the window now. With his history being a mess they have an opportunity to fix it while everyone is busy elsewhere. I know everyone hates origin reboots again but this could be a chance at a truly clean slate.

We're not talking about Superman's general public perception though. We're talking about comic book's trying to "fix" Superman. Miller is a far greater influence on comic book creators and readers than the Donner movies.

[manwhohaseverything]

The comics code required that police and other authority figures be shown in a good light at the time. So it's not like the status quo for Superman was any different than any other character. It was Miller's warping of that that stuck. Superman wasn't a lackey to corrupt politicians any more than Batman was the psycho Miller created in DKR's. That was an invention of Miller.

Yeah! I know. I genuinely understand where code is coming from. i would say the older comics (older than 53) need atleast pg rating. Regardless, superman had hit a change and perception that was indivorcable for the character with arrival of the code's restrictions, later on.Batman on the other hand, had different evolution that helped the character. Furthermore, we caricaturise to criticise. So, blaming miller isn't going to help superman . Superman very well earned that, in my opinion.

I do believe, its not just miller warping. Fans of superman (the core audience) do want clark to be this paragon or messianic figure. For them, it's not about the complex narratives. It's about how it makes superman look.Look at the reaction to superman killing zod in the movie. Would readers of superman before 1949 or 1948 have had it? I don't think so. Why? Clark wasn't meant to be this figure that follows kantian ethics to a t. With the donner movies and subsequent postcrisis reboot and adaptations that took largely from it, like superman tas. Superman became standin for those values, instead of "truth and justice". It was only cemented then, not born ofcourse. His core audiences changed completely, that's it. Byrne ofcourse, had not meant any of that. I mean, he had zod killed as well. But, his superman basically borrowed stuff like the setting from donner superman. People started equating the two as basically the same thing.Many do the same with new52 superman and dceu superman. Even though the reality is totally different. Internet, lack of full information and outraging culture have also had a hand in why byrne superman killing zod didn't have much of a backlash,while man of steel did.

This also happens to bruce now. He is more of a boyscout than clark is most of the time. But, he does not have the perception because of his personality and reputation as the "cool bad boy". Furthermore, the readers of batman want the "bad boy" with good heart. So he isn't effected that much. Writers have more freedom.Batman also follows the "thou shall not kill" kind of ethics. But, were he comes from with it, is exceptable for people. Why? Because its more based on his existential struggle and has selfish core to it. Skeptics can easily latch on to it. While superman being the way he is, has none.You see, superman can't convince people that are looking for a catch along with his perceived good action. So to speak.These people would prefer the utmost honesty than superman's brand of goodness(regardless of wether superman is truly that good or not) . For many, that aren't his audience, it rings hollow. For them, he is basically a stand in for two face in modern times. So, they avoid him. He is viewed as the guy who is boyscout/white Knight , until he isn't. For his audience, it's different. Superman must be the paragon with no green in the blue eyes. Skeptics can't digest that. With characters like allmight,naruto the explanation of optimism as a coping mechanism to handle pressure and loss is much more acceptable for the skeptics.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Donner maybe for non-comic readers. Bryne and Man of Steel have a fraction of the influence that DKR's has had. They started walking back Bryne in the 80's. We've been seeing people still playing and writing against the perception of Superman created by DKR's Superman for decades.

I can't see much of Miller's influence on Superman that isn't Batman-related. Like BM can beat SM with prep time, they are day/night with opposite views... stuff like that.

[Yoda]

Being one of the most influential comics and specifically influencing a separatefranchise are two different things though.

As for Byrne, the popular writer and artist brought in to revamp Superman, being a fraction of Miller... What would you say are points of influenced tied to Miller that outweigh Superman's best selling reboot itself and the nearly fifty years of presidential compliance before that?

DKR's has outsold Man of Steel likely 5 fold by this time. People who don't read comics regularly, have read DKR's and couldn't pick Bryne's Superman out from Bendis'.

The obvious points of influence that Miller cemented into the consciousness of Superman fans and comic fans in general are that Batman is smarter, better, and more ruthless and can steal Superman's lunch any day of the week. That Superman is some government lackey that will follow a flag to his and the public's detriment. That Superman is an enforcer of the status quo no matter how corrupt it becomes. All that is cemented and highlighted into DKR's. Miller drove that into the character like a stake and nothing anyone has done in the last three decades can undo that.

Now I'm sure someone can pull some citation out of some 1970's Superman book that no one except 4 people on this forum have read in 30 years and say "No, Superman was a lackey for years before DKR's" but the point is that that doesn't matter compared to DKR's portrayal cementing those ideas into the consciousness of even casual fans to this day.

I can't see much of Miller's influence on Superman that isn't Batman-related. Like BM can beat SM with prep time, they are day/night with opposite views... stuff like that.

Miller's portrayal distilled the "Boy Scout" mentality into a poison pill. Bryne may have played with it, but the ideas that have been cemented are there in DKR's. And DKR's is far more influential than Man of Steel.

[manwhohaseverything]

Miller only criticized what's there to a degree. Superman has been a boyscout since 1948 . Miller just put a negative connotation to it. Donner movies also cemented that perception. Saying superman is in this "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation because of miller, is just putting more emphasis on the guy than he deserves. At the end of the day he was just writing a story about the underdog.People latched on to it. I am sure there might have been people who were sick of superman by then. Superman had become the authority figure by then.The character had evolved into this.Therefore,people found an alternative.

Also, you can't fault miller for the excess in drama and romance. instead of, what the character was meant for action. That's on donner movies, lois and clark,smallville... Etc. Also like i said , on writers marvelising or copying marvel formula for the character after it's success . Superman at the end is not spiderman. Making him second rate happier, older spiderman was big mistake.

[Yoda]

Miller only criticized what's there to a degree. Superman has been a boyscout since 1948 . Miller just put a negative connotation to it. Donner movies also cemented that perception. Saying superman is in this "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation because of miller, is just putting more emphasis on the guy than he deserves. At the end of the day he was just writing a story about the underdog.People latched on to it. I am sure there might have been people who were sick of superman by then. Superman had become the authority figure by then.The character had evolved into this.Therefore,people found an alternative.

Books that no one but a small minority in the last 30 years have read have had a greater influence on perception of the character among comic fans than one of the most popular and widely read comics in history? You're missing the point. Miller took and amplified things to a certain extent and the deifying of DKR's has ensured that those elements are the background noise to the character for the last three decades.

Also, you can't fault miller for the excess in drama and romance. instead of, what the character was meant for action. That's on donner movies, lois and clark,smallville... Etc. Also like i said , on writers marvelising or copying marvel formula for the character after it's success . Superman at the end is not spiderman. Making him second rate happier, older spiderman was big mistake.

He's been a romantic character since day one. That you focus on the "action" inherent in the early portrayal but completely discount the romantic hero aspect isn't surprising given we've gone back and forth on this many times. As is ignoring that Lois & Clark, Smallville, and now the CW have been some of the most successful and popular portrayals of the character at a time when comic fans were abandoning him. So really you've got this backwards. You can focus on elements from the first 6 months of his existence for your ideal, but beyond these forums that portrayal of Superman is basically completely unknown and has had next to no influence on the popular perception of the character among comic fans or the general public.

[manwhohaseverything]

Books that no one but a small minority in the last 30 years have read have had a greater influence on perception of the character among comic fans than one of the most popular and widely read comics in history? You're missing the point. Miller took and amplified things to a certain extent and the deifying of DKR's has ensured that those elements are the background noise to the character for the last three decades.



He's been a romantic character since day one. That you focus on the "action" inherent in the early portrayal but completely discount the romantic hero aspect isn't surprising given we've gone back and forth on this many times. As is ignoring that Lois & Clark, Smallville, and now the CW have been some of the most successful and popular portrayals of the character at a time when comic fans were abandoning him. So really you've got this backwards. You can focus on elements from the first 6 months of his existence for your ideal, but beyond these forums that portrayal of Superman is basically completely unknown and has had next to no influence on the popular perception of the character among comic fans or the general public.

As said, caricaturisation is part of the criticism. If superman isn't that, the character could have shaken that perception with something that's better.Superman hasn't been able to. So either miller is right or the writers have just been not able to prove miller otherwise. I believe miller is right to a large extent. Superman has denied the core nature of his character for years prior to miller getting the idea for Darknight returns.

Having romance and being a romantic character are two different things. Superman had comedy as well. Infact comedy was more important than romance anyday of the week. Does that mean he was comedic character? No. Romance with lois was one aspect for both of them. His banter and rivalry with lois was of more importance . Those are all mediocre shows that have not aged well. Will not sway the minds of superhero fans currently . At the end of the day, spiderman is sold as "the amazing spiderman".Him being a teenager is significant part of the character. But, people go in because he is a teenager that's "amazing". It isn't just part of the first six months. It was a gradual change into this drama, romance nonsense. Max fleischer superman was in 1941.Even in silverage, that action part wasn't seen as second rate to large extent. Postcrisis, donner treats drama and romance as superman, action as non-existent. When done it was done poorly like doomsday fight.it's like superman has no existence without romancing lois or being stuck in some sort of triangle with lois or his family giving him advice.

precisley the point, superman is less talked about outside because superman being the badass dude who fought for the little guy isn't cemented,but an afterthought. Superman being perceived as this uncool, lame ass character is because of drama, romance on top of the flat arc nature of the character from the get go and boyscout/saint mentality that stuck around after comics code. Blaming miller for any of this is shifting the blame of characters evolution on a guy that criticized it. I completely agree with his criticism. The writers and company had all the chances to change direction and realise the problem. They didn't, instead chose to copy another character which had different method and way of origin than superman. So, character still lives in the shadow of miller's criticism.

There are thousands of other characters with optimistic nature. Yet, superman is perceived as lame. Why? Because he is treated like one. That is the reason. Captain america's romance wasn't the main part of the character,in the movies until he actually got together with peggy. It was only a background noise. A fun background noise. Luffy would never have a romance other than his true romance for adventure . Iron giant didn't have any of that nonsense. Heck! Superman smashes the klan didn't have any of that. Superman's romance and drama with lois should have never taken the center stage. It did no good for both characters.

[lotchj]

I must be one of the few!! There is nothing wrong with superman!! He doesn't need to be fixed!! I think he's refreshing!! I think it is the writers that have a problem!! They like writing about drunks, heroes on drugs, guys that jump from bed to bed!! Characters that are on the edge of turning dark, becoming murders, heroes that can't be trusted!! All the heroes or characters should live in the gutter!! Superman doesn't live in the darkness, he walks in the light!! The writers find him boring. I like him being a family man!! Superman isn't a hero that is morally bankruptcy!! It make him more relatable!!

[manwhohaseverything]

I must be one of the few!! There is nothing wrong with superman!! He doesn't need to be fixed!! I think he's refreshing!! I think it is the writers that have a problem!! They like writing about drunks, heroes on drugs, guys that jump from bed to bed!! Characters that are on the edge of turning dark, becoming murders, heroes that can't be trusted!! All the heroes or characters should live in the gutter!! Superman doesn't live in the darkness, he walks in the light!!

Precisely, he is a torch in daylight. Totally useless. Real optimism is realising evil and darkness in oneself and the world. Despite that seeing the light. Real hope is the capacity of man to value empathy, more than fearing the unknown.

This is superman. This is the strongman who fights to protect those weaker than himself.

[Yoda]

As said, caricaturisation is part of the criticism. If superman isn't that, the character could have shaken that perception with something that's better.Superman hasn't been able to. So either miller is right or the writers have just been not able to prove miller otherwise. I believe miller is right to a large extent. Superman has denied the core nature of his character for years prior to miller getting the idea for Darknight returns.

Miller is given an outsized importance because of the cultural significance of DKR's. He hasn't done anything of value or quality in 20 years, but DKR's is still one of two of seminal works in comics. He wasn't "right" at the time. He turned Superman into a joke and based on that portrayal and it's importance in comics in general it took hold. It's not actually reflective of Superman. I'm not saying really that Miller created the problem. But his use of it in DKR's and that comic's continued importance poisoned the well and Superman can't move past that when for a lot of people their introduction to the character is in DKR's.

Having romance and being a romantic character are two different things. Superman had comedy as well. Infact comedy was more important than romance anyday of the week.

Other than your own personal preference, what exactly can you base this statement on? When has "comedy" ever been more important to Superman than romance?

Romance with lois was one aspect for both of them. His banter and rivalry with lois was of more importance.

The banter is based on romantic tension between the two. It's never been otherwise. So this distinction is completely false. I guess the one time they tried to do that was in the New 52. And well, that didn't really work out all that well.

Those are all mediocre shows that have not aged well. Will not sway the minds of superhero fans currently.

I really don't feel like getting into this again, but those shows had viewership numbers that dwarf comics and are still extremely popular on streaming. Smallville was one of the most popular streaming series on Hulu. You don't like them personally, so you discount them, but they are popular, culturally significant, and kept Superman in the public eye and popular at a time when comics just didn't matter.

There are thousands of other characters with optimistic nature. Yet, superman is perceived as lame. Why?

Because of Dark Knight Returns. I said that like 5 times.

Because he is treated like one.

And the most prominent and most well known portrayal of that is Dark Knight Returns.

That is the reason. Captain america's romance wasn't the main part of the character,in the movies until he actually got together with peggy. It was only a background noise. A fun background noise.

It's a plot line throughout the first movie. His loss of Peggy carries over into the rest of the movies, Avengers series, and Peggy even got her own series.

Luffy would never have a romance other than his true romance for adventure.

I don't know who Luffy is. Iron Giant is about a kid, but love and acceptance are major themes there so I don't know that that is a good example.

Superman smashes the klan didn't have any of that.

What? It certainly does. Lois's acceptance of him is a major plot beat in the third issue. His feelings for her are shown throughout.

Superman's romance and drama with lois should have never taken the center stage. It did no good for both characters.

Obviously. Girls are icky. He just needs to punch people.

[manwhohaseverything]

Miller is given an outsized importance because of the cultural significance of DKR's. He hasn't done anything of value or quality in 20 years, but DKR's is still one of two of seminal works in comics. He wasn't "right" at the time. He turned Superman into a joke and based on that portrayal and it's importance in comics in general it took hold. It's not actually reflective of Superman. I'm not saying really that Miller created the problem. But his use of it in DKR's and that comic's continued importance poisoned the well and Superman can't move past that when for a lot of people their introduction to the character is in DKR's.

He was very much right. Otherwise, superman wouldn't have been turned into joke,Just because a writer used him in negative manner. The character has problems, still does. If people acknowledge that we can get past it. Miller had all the right to use the character the way he pleases. Other than the stooge nonsense, miller atleast acknowledges the old man of action. Other writers don't even do that.

Other than your own personal preference, what exactly can you base this statement on? When has "comedy" ever been more important to Superman than romance?

The fact that clark kent was based on harold lloyd. superman used to have all sort of slapstick. Superman used to also acknowledge the forth wall and was self aware. Romance with lois was also done jokingly. In fact superman works better in silence than with dialogue if you ask me.

The banter is based on romantic tension between the two. It's never been otherwise. So this distinction is completely false. I guess the one time they tried to do that was in the New 52. And well, that didn't really work out all that well.

Romantic tension being in the background is one thing. Having full-blown romance is another. If new52 didn't work just cause superman and lois was romantically linked, that means the audience isn't there for superman and only for romance. That's bad for superman.Superman will always be bigger than whomever clark kent romances,if at all.

I really don't feel like getting into this again, but those shows had viewership numbers that dwarf comics and are still extremely popular on streaming. Smallville was one of the most popular streaming series on Hulu. You don't like them personally, so you discount them, but they are popular, culturally significant, and kept Superman in the public eye and popular at a time when comics just didn't matter.

Comics don't mean much. What matters is superman having timeless shows of quality, that builds fandom. Smallville being streamed its fan and people who grew up on it doesn't change the fact that its outdated. It wasn't of high quality that a superman show needs to be. Dude! My liking of a particular show is besides the point. I am trying to be objective. I loved smallville, but Superman needs better than smallville has to offer.meanwhile, Batman tas, Darkknight trilogy, arkham game.. Etc builds batman popularity in modern times. These shows stand up even now.

Because of Dark Knight Returns. I said that like 5 times.And the most prominent and most well known portrayal of that is Dark Knight Returns.

The idea that miller made superman bad is preposterous,When the character was on the path before miller. Well, then why hasn't someone been able to counter that narrative?

It's a plot line throughout the first movie. His loss of Peggy carries over into the rest of the movies, Avengers series, and Peggy even got her own series.

bucky and falcon was given more importance than anything peggy has to offer. That isn't taking anything peggy. She was a background noise. A good noise,but a noise nonetheless. Loss of peggy hurt steve, but he wasn't that bent out of shape. The movies would have no problem standing on its own even without peggy.

I don't know who Luffy is. Iron Giant is about a kid, but love and acceptance are major themes there so I don't know that that is a good example.

Luffy is anime pirate who seeks freedom, dreams to be king, Romances adventure and fights bad guys. He is everything superman used to embody as a character . Iron giant's, themes aren't tied down by idiotic drama and romance of different kind is what i am saying. The love and acceptance in it had different context. There are tons of romantic novels, tv shows, series and movies. Why spoil a character like superman who is more than that?

What? It certainly does. Lois's acceptance of him is a major plot beat in the third issue. His feelings for her are shown throughout.

Lois looks on sees flying clark, decides to not be afraid and couple of panels for flashbacks. Yeah! That's basically on the background.That could have been jimmy and perry . It would have the same effect. That's acceptable.it has the same theme as the original superman and iron giant does. It isn't some teen romance thing were clark pines for lois or some stupid love triangle (silverage was drenched in this nonsense with lana/lois/clark and clark/superman/lois. But, atleast it was a big joke. Postcrisis even made that serious) or some angsty over-dramatic nonsense. Which is what character has become.

Obviously. Girls are icky. He just needs to punch people.

Nope! Girls are badass. Especially, when they are flying fighter aeroplanes, using tommy guns to defend themselves and kicking butt. When the character isn't involved in some stupid drama involving clark kent. Superman does need to punch people. Superman returns attest to that, it had plenty of clark/lois romance. It didn't help it and it made him boring.