It's irrelevant whether or not Superman is a good dad or husband.

[The World]

It's not what the character is about. Modern Superman's biggest flaw is that the focus is on irrelevant side elements and the central stuff this character is about is in total disregard and disrepair.

[manwhohaseverything]

It isn't about him being a good father or not.He can be flawed. But, irredeemable that's a whole different thing. Superman should face consequences.and furthermore he needs to be respectable human being. Some champion of the oppressed or defenceless he is if he cannot even protect children.
This is superman


This an inexperienced guy trying to deal with a kid. This is flawed. Yet, he isn't irredeemable.He would be damned before anything happens to the baby.

[Agent Z]

Put ten different Superman fans in the same room and you'll get at least six different perspectives on what he's supposed to be about.

[manwhohaseverything]

Put ten different Superman fans in the same room and you'll get at least six different perspectives on what he's supposed to be about.

You might, but ultimately there is a guy that preceded all of those interpretation. Goldenage guy is the basis of all supermen. Even snyder superman (who is said to be not "my superman" ) has direct influences from the guy. This notion that superman has to be irredeemable as a father is bogus. Look, at the nonsense he does with the baby in the panels i showed you. Yet, he is still the champion of the defenceless. Furthermore, unlike current illogical things like superman wearing underwear outside without a reason , ma and pa pushing the guy to be a vigilante,him taking selfies with police.. Etc this was a time when superman was very much grounded and went the boyscout route.

[The World]

Put ten different Superman fans in the same room and you'll get at least six different perspectives on what he's supposed to be about.

Yes and that is the very problem. Had DC handled the character better we wouldn't have this. IIRC in that SYFY interview John Byrne estimated that's why he was brought onto the books, to make things as different as possible. That's how you treat Z-tier characters that crashed and burned out the gate not a guy who's the predecessor to most of your universe and has something like 600 million comics sales the vast majority of them probably being from his early days.

[The World]

It isn't about him being a good father or not.He can be flawed. But, irredeemable that's a whole different thing. Superman should face consequences.and furthermore he needs to be respectable human being. Some champion of the oppressed or defenceless he is if he cannot even protect children.
This is superman

No I'm not playing this game about how awful Superman is because he let Jon go off with Jor-El because I really don't care what happen with Jon or Jor-El or whatever. All I've seen on this forum since Post-Crisis Superman left and came back was the endless discussion about the family, the farm, the marriage. It's as if that's all the Post-Crisis guy is to his fans. He's not a champion of the oppressed and he never was. He's not the Man of Steel or the Man of Tomorrow, or Action Ace or any other moniker that the character built up during the Pre-Crisis days because he's totally different person that the Pre-Crisis Superman. The world he left in 2009-2010 is far, FAR worse than the world he was handed in 1987 and since he came back he hasn't shown to be even slightly better at the Superman gig. It's been business as usual with him prancing around on some farm as if that's the way things have been since Action Comics 1. The fact that this character went through some huge 12 issue 3 year mega event to get back his parents while the supervillains continue to treat the world like it's their personal playground is such a beautiful encapsulation for what this character is. Someone who has so clearly taken his eye off the ball and become distracted by meaningless side drivel that wasn't there for the longest time.

He's just hilariously bad at being Superman, because he never wanted to be Superman he wanted to be Clark Kent. If you write Superman then you better write a guy who's actually wants to be Superman. No wonder the guy takes L's to everyone and their mother, dude barely even wants to do his damn job.

Also taking time to take care of a kid isn't the same as derailing your Superhero career to deal with your own kid. The bit where Superman asked everyone else to pitch in while he was raising Jon with Lois is one of the most unSuperman things I've ever read.

[manwhohaseverything]

No I'm not playing this game about how awful Superman is because he let Jon go off with Jor-El because I really don't care what happen with Jon or Jor-El or whatever. All I've seen on this forum since Post-Crisis Superman left and came back was the endless discussion about the family, the farm, the marriage. It's as if that's all the Post-Crisis guy is to his fans. He's not a champion of the oppressed and he never was. He's not the Man of Steel or the Man of Tomorrow, or Action Ace or any other moniker that the character built up during the Pre-Crisis days because he's totally different person that the Pre-Crisis Superman. The world he left in 2009-2010 is far, FAR worse than the world he was handed in 1987 and since he came back he hasn't shown to be even slightly better at the Superman gig. It's been business as usual with him prancing around on some farm as if that's the way things have been since Action Comics 1. The fact that this character went through some huge 12 issue 3 year mega event to get back his parents while the supervillains continue to treat the world like it's their personal playground is such a beautiful encapsulation for what this character is. Someone who has so clearly taken his eye off the ball and become distracted by meaningless side drivel that wasn't there for the longest time.

He's just hilariously bad at being Superman, because he never wanted to be Superman he wanted to be Clark Kent. If you write Superman then you better write a guy who's actually wants to be Superman. No wonder the guy takes L's to everyone and their mother, dude barely even wants to do his damn job.

Also taking time to take care of a kid isn't the same as derailing your Superhero career to deal with your own kid. The bit where Superman asked everyone else to pitch in while he was raising Jon with Lois is one of the most unSuperman things I've ever read.

Right, your notion of a superman is him having no personal life at all. Well, that's pretty much bogus as well. Many of the best precrisis stories are based on his intimate side of superman. Furthermore, siegel wrote the issues with lyla, which lead to for the man who has everything.Superman might have responsibilities and he might be flawed. But, this notion that he can shove kara in some orphanage or mon el in phantom zone with out having to face any consequences from it, cannot and will not be tolerated.I am sorry to say that's what happened in precrisis. Superman was of scottfree.The year of villain would have always happened regardless of the era. Why? Because many of superman's earlier foes didn't just stop. The world will always have villains. They would always run around. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for superman. Furthermore, superman isn't a totalitarian. He is the antithesis of totalitarian. He values freedom above all else as the chain breaker. just because he has responsibilities doesn't mean he doesn't have desires and doesn't act on them. He isn't some sage who gives up his personal life for the sake of world. Alan moore stories are based on how Clark's perspective changes. Superman is of healthy mindset. He isn't batman.

There is a fineline between a badass and shallow guy who is all about beating people up. Superman being shallow isn't welcome.He is a strongman. His ethics are based on that. Regardless, of the l or w he takes. The original guy had a instinct to help people. But, he was hiding himself from the world. He didn't grow up thinking, " ah! One day i will grow up to be a great vigilante". It was an instinct and a reaction that lead to superman the vigilante. Furthermore, it was the real clark kent showing himself to the world. There can be no superman without clark kent. There is difference between that guy and the fake persona, though .

This very issue has him deciding to stay with a baby rather than go of do reporting gig. Superman can't be everywhere at once so he would always priorities things.there are thousands of heroes. A guy who thinks the world can't go on without him is a narcissist. Superman isn't a narcissist. Ofcourse, he would take the safety of his son into consideration and go into hiding. Furthermore, he didn't exactly stop being superman. Like when he started, superman used to do the saving in hiding in the original comics as well before revealing himself as superman . I am not interested in a hollow figure going about helping people and fighting villains without any internal processes . Superman used to actually interact with people and take the time to hear them out and solve their problems. Heck! He has even trained people on body building and self defence. The character was never that shallow. Ofcourse, the drama is new. At the end of the day writing superman like in the case of mon el or kara without any consequences will have backlash. So, drama will find a way in, regardless.Also, a character like superman requires a good world. If he doesn't the character seizes to be good. I am not interested in superman being drama centric. But, this idea that superman should be a hollow figure with no relationships, friends, family .. Etc is underwhelming.

[sunofdarkchild]

It's Clark's relationships that show the positive impact he is having on the world and how he inspires people. That is the secret as to why the triangle era was so good. It wasn't just Ma and Pa and Lois. It was Maggie Sawyer and Dan Turpin adapting to a world of super-powered criminals and heroes and becoming better cops. It was Bibo becoming inspired to be more than just a drunk and become a pillar of his community because he met Superman. It was Emil Hamilton finding purpose in life. It was John Henry Irons and Linda Danvers seeking redemption for the sins of their pasts and becoming heroes thanks to his inspiration. Heck, it was even Batman learning to be a bit more hopeful thanks to Superman. This is a huge part of why I adore 90s Superman comics and can't stand 2000s Superman comics. Especially in comics which are long-form and don't end, this is how you show how Superman is making the world a better place, through the people he interacts with on a regular basis.

[Agent Z]

Neil Gaiman once said that whenever someone says they don't like something, they're always right, but when they explain why they don't like it, they're usually wrong. I think this applies to a lot of the people who claim post crisis Superman or Bendis' Superman isn't heroic for some reason.

[Celgress]

It's not what the character is about. Modern Superman's biggest flaw is that the focus is on irrelevant side elements and the central stuff this character is about is in total disregard and disrepair.

I agree with you, to an extent. Take Goku from Dragon Ball for example (a character heavily inspired by Superman in certain respects). Goku is the premiere hero of the franchise but he is also a terrible neglectful father and an absentee husband, yet he is admired by everyone. Heck, even the franchise itself pokes fun at how Piccolo is more of a father to Gohan than Goku is. So yes, being a good husband and a good father is not necessary to be an effective hero. That said, I feel Superman having a family adds a flavor of authenticity to the narrative and his character. These aspects make him more relatable. He has the same desire for hearth and home we "normal" people do. He faces similar struggles to us balancing his "work" with his family life.

[Kuwagaton]

Even before making him relatable (which is rightly questionable I admit, because it requires such balance) I think if Batman, Popeye, and Dick Tracy could do it, was inevitably gonna be a thing with Superman.

No disputing that it was a sales success at the time, and what they thought the character needed. In the short term, I think it worked. But IMO, it not only doesn't hold up to YO, it also falls short of even Perez's Wonder Woman. Which sort of feels like a cross between an 80s superhero book and a Vertigo book (must be the Karen Berger influence).

Although I usually just mention how it's subjective, I do think YO is phenomenal. But then it's like... Batman spends a lot of time trying to live up to that himself and it proves pretty difficult.

That feasting scene you mention is probably the best Batman moment in comics. Besides modern stuff like All Star and Birthright I think there's a lot of cool definitive moments lost to time, but probably nothing makes someone feel like that one scene does in its proper context.

who slapped him?
If it was Lois, does it count and was it undeserved (probably not)?

In world's finest #143, Batman lashes out and decks him out of his frustration from botching an earlier case and Superman not letting him be. Not the golden age but I think it's pretty easy to see how it's not so far from the golden age Superman throwing fights to essentially give us more of a story.

Spidey seems to do decntly. Batman stories and live action does as well. That fight with batman and shredder was pretty damn good. Its not like superman is less agile than these guys.He is more, yet his movements are nowhere near as impressive as goldenage guy. The best he has did was pull of some kicks, which even looked wierd.That's another thing i wonder. I had no problem with goldenage guy clinging on walls, running on electric lines, running up a building , doing flips, dives and kicks..etc.yet,when postcrisis superman does it in modern stories, it feels wierd. Its like someone is doing something that he isn't supposed to. I don't particularly know why that is.

Live action? I hadn't thought of that. For all I like about Begins and TDK, I think they made Batman look slow as dirt in the fight scenes. Spider-Man though, I can agree plays out pretty perfectly.

[manwhohaseverything]

Batman fight was pretty damn good in bvs. The hand to hand was lit. Every bit the arkham games batman,only more brutal.Superman rarely has that level of hand to hand. Man of steel had decent hand to hand choreography, but the problem was fights dragged on. There was no reprieve. Hammering in a fight of that magnitude for that long can be tiring for the audiences . Furthermore, clark was still not much of fighter. He had no skill.Which is another thing that differentiates him from goldenage guy. Goldenage guy was a boxer and had even trained couple of guys. He had also trained people in fitness and self defence as well. Clark knew his stuff.

I wonder, how much animation can be translated to live action. I mean, if something like fights in one punch man is picked and decently translated. Then i believe superman will been seen as the massive spectacle, that has never been seen before in live action.can you imagine a scene where superman is punched to the moon in live action? I can see people being genuinely shocked and clapping.

[SiegePerilous02]

In world's finest #143, Batman lashes out and decks him out of his frustration from botching an earlier case and Superman not letting him be. Not the golden age but I think it's pretty easy to see how it's not so far from the golden age Superman throwing fights to essentially give us more of a story.

I think that's different than today's post-TDKR context. Because they had a much different dynamic back then, and Bruce getting so frustrated wasn't as common. Plus it's all some weird plot to get Bruce out of his depressive funk that somehow works, and it's made explicit to the readers.

These days, Bruce is unpleasant almost 24/7 so it's a wonder why Clark is more patient with him, he doesn't really warrant it like past versions of him did.

[Nelliebly]

It's not what the character is about. Modern Superman's biggest flaw is that the focus is on irrelevant side elements and the central stuff this character is about is in total disregard and disrepair.

Lois Lane is the ::most:: central and consistent element of the Superman mythology. She existed before he could do literally all of the things that Superman fans prize and obsess over —-including fly. Their relationship is part of the spine of this myth.

Furthermore, Lois Lane was created as a :artner:: not just in life and in romance but distinctly in the fight against injustice.

Lois Lane is not a “side element” and it’s disingenuous to imply that she is. She is part of the spine of the myth.

The bottom line is that Superman being a good husband and father AND Superman/Lois/Clark fighting daily against injustice are not competing concepts and it’s bizarre that you are implying that they are. Superman is not a cipher. He’s not an empty shell. He’s a complex, deep, wonderful, frustrating person who is capable of truly extraordinary feats AND also capable of great love. Love is not trivial. Love is not nothing. Love is not a “side plot.”

Frankly, given the near constant display of toxic masculinity in our culture where men are often portrayed as insensitive, aloof, not emotionally connected and incapable of ::faithfulness:: its revolutionary to have a character like Superman showing that it does not threaten ones masculinity to love deeply, to be faithful and to be present as a father. These things ::are:: often rarer than they should be and, certainly, do not detract from the very idea that Lois and Clark and Superman, are constantly focused on fighting injustice.

[PCN24454]

Lois Lane is the ::most:: central and consistent element of the Superman mythology. She existed before he could do literally all of the things that Superman fans prize and obsess over —-including fly. Their relationship is part of the spine of this myth.

Furthermore, Lois Lane was created as a :artner:: not just in life and in romance but distinctly in the fight against injustice.

Lois Lane is not a “side element” and it’s disingenuous to imply that she is. She is part of the spine of the myth.

The bottom line is that Superman being a good husband and father AND Superman/Lois/Clark fighting daily against injustice are not competing concepts and it’s bizarre that you are implying that they are. Superman is not a cipher. He’s not an empty shell. He’s a complex, deep, wonderful, frustrating person who is capable of truly extraordinary feats AND also capable of great love. Love is not trivial. Love is not nothing. Love is not a “side plot.”

Frankly, given the near constant display of toxic masculinity in our culture where men are often portrayed as insensitive, aloof, not emotionally connected and incapable of ::faithfulness:: its revolutionary to have a character like Superman showing that it does not threaten ones masculinity to love deeply, to be faithful and to be present as a father. These things ::are:: often rarer than they should be and, certainly, do not detract from the very idea that Lois and Clark and Superman, are constantly focused on fighting injustice.

I wouldn't say that. Lois as a character definitely evolved and changed greatly since her debut.

Her more assertive and action girl-esque traits are definitely not innate to the character.