Was postcrisis superman more complex?

[Kuwagaton]

I'm not the most familiar with IC. I only got the Superman tie in trade. But Johns is all about rebirthing classic characters. Hawkman, JSA, Legion, Green Lantern Rebirth, Flash Rebirth, DC Rebirth. I'm not so sure that the larger story was out to make Golden age Superman look anachronistic in the face of what comics had become in modern times. In the IC tie ins both Supermen fail equally.

As for manga, Captain Tsubasa is barely in the top twenty of longest running and it's been going since 1981. How many changes have there been to Superman in that stretch?

[manwhohaseverything]

I'm not the most familiar with IC. I only got the Superman tie in trade. But Johns is all about rebirthing classic characters. Hawkman, JSA, Legion, Green Lantern Rebirth, Flash Rebirth, DC Rebirth. I'm not so sure that the larger story was out to make Golden age Superman look anachronistic in the face of what comics had become in modern times. In the IC tie ins both Supermen fail equally.

As for manga, Captain Tsubasa is barely in the top twenty of longest running and it's been going since 1982. How many changes have there been to Superman in that stretch?

The attempt was literally to put precrisis to rest and justifying Post-Crisis storytelling . It's the same reason when superboy prime tried to punch it launched the head of from people.

But, he conflated goldenage with silverage. Anyways, Geoff johns started making ga superman call his world perfect for some reason. Ga superman's world wasn't "uncorrupted", it was secondworld war and depression era. What a bogus claim.It felt like ga superman had lost touch with himself and became as naive as postcrisis superman.Anyways, Intention was to critic nostalgia regarding the silverage precrisis superman or dc as this perfect age by the fans. See, this world is "complex" . Those older world were just "simplistic".

Geoff johns has changed since then. He has started to back up the goldenage guy in the recent years.He wrote a decent story ac#1000 as well.

superman in It was too stern. But, passable he still had to play up superman as this moral example aka the Savior though. Which was horrendous characterisation and it didn't fit goldenage guy at all. Sure, he would help out people. But, lecture them. Fat chance. Maybe he actually started reading these stories. He even called superman man of action in doomsday clock. Which is quite rare in modern comics.

Precisely the reason these things exhaust the audience. Furthermore, manga industry has no qualms ending series, largely . Its more competitive And healthy. One piece will end. Moreover, the franchises just need the pull, demand and backing for seasonal approach to work.Otherwise, the story just ends on beautiful note. It isn't bad. Evey story ends. Bid adue to the character. Dive in to, read again. feel the unadulterated character/message, not something that got lost.

[Kuwagaton]

"I'll always be here, it's not going to end, it's never going to end for us." I'm not convinced of what you imply from the death scene for a few reasons:

1. For all the nitpicks I've had with his writing, Johns is consistent and loyal to his ideas of what the characters are and should be. He's the guy who brought his fan suggestion to canon Pandaman style. His line about everything coming from Superman is featured in IC and repeated itself recently with the conclusion of Doomsday Clock. The idea that he wasn't familiar with the character in 2004 or did a shift in opinion doesn't seem to have a base.

2. In the process of IC he brought back the classic Green Lantern, had already worked on classic versions of other properties, and then used IC as a launchpad to restore Superman's pre crisis origin. If he's critical it's probably because he cares.

3. As a follow-up for point 2, he cares in the most explicit way with his meta. Wally's intro in Rebirth is literally what Johns himself said regarding the New 52. If there's a direct scene from IC on your point I haven't seen it yet.

[manwhohaseverything]

"I'll always be here, it's not going to end, it's never going to end for us." I'm not convinced of what you imply from the death scene for a few reasons:

1. For all the nitpicks I've had with his writing, Johns is consistent and loyal to his ideas of what the characters are and should be. He's the guy who brought his fan suggestion to canon Pandaman style. His line about everything coming from Superman is featured in IC and repeated itself recently with the conclusion of Doomsday Clock. The idea that he wasn't familiar with the character in 2004 or did a shift in opinion doesn't seem to have a base.

2. In the process of IC he brought back the classic Green Lantern, had already worked on classic versions of other properties, and then used IC as a launchpad to restore Superman's pre crisis origin. If he's critical it's probably because he cares.

3. As a follow-up for point 2, he cares in the most explicit way with his meta. Wally's intro in Rebirth is literally what Johns himself said regarding the New 52. If there's a direct scene from IC on your point I haven't seen it yet.

They were standing in a grave stone in the next page. That's how story ended,not this way. If it were this iw ould have appreciated it much more.
Sure, i never said otherwise he is consistent with his vision. He likes "classic" stuff too. But i don't think he views goldenage as classic. Furthermore, the problem isn't that these were criticism. It is the opposite. These were defenses. Goldenage guy wasn't written as "good" guy in a real world sense. His existence and methods were meant to be point of contention. So criticism are always welcomed and acknowledged in story. But, here he uses goldenage superman as an excuse to say postcrisis can't do this or that, be this or that or be proactive. Because he would be seen as "bad" guy in a realistic setting. Which is a bad way of using the character(goldenage superman) and a bad way of to write superman in general in my opinion . Furthermore, geoff johns loves classic superman,i know. Donner superman with legion and kents. Not goldenage superman

As for his perspective change i could be wrong. Anyways, i loved this line in doomsday clock "i am a being of inaction, on a collision course with the man of action".That's all i have to say about geoff johns and goldenage superman. As for wally, he came back in kid flash costume . Proving he loves "classic". But, that doesn’t mean outliers would be given good treatment. Wally, golden superman, heck! Zack snyder superman ...etc are all outliers for the guy.So,he will turn them into "classic".

[JAK]

That exact quote or him trying to play the example or saviour stuff?

Examples of him presenting himself as a savior - not other people doing it, him actively doing so with no reservations. Post-Crisis Superman was (usually) VERY self-conscious about this and did not present himself as such. There's a difference between "presenting as" and trying to live up to the expectations of others.

[manwhohaseverything]

Examples of him presenting himself as a savior - not other people doing it, him actively doing so with no reservations. Post-Crisis Superman was (usually) VERY self-conscious about this and did not present himself as such. There's a difference between "presenting as" and trying to live up to the expectations of others.

1)formation of library of Alexandria 2.0
Why does he do it? To "save" civilizations, even if the people were to fall. Not because data collection is innate part of being a scientist and an explorer. Sure, the above might be an application and kal might forsee it. But as kal L the last son, he has innate nature to explore, collect and sometimes preserve artifacts.But this portrayal is something else
2)superman chooses none of the guilds in new krypton
He chooses none. What kinda joke was that? It was like luffy not choosing to be a pirate,bruce not choosing to be batman.. Etc. Worse he refuses to join Labour guild and calls them glorified slave. Yah! nincompoop,you are the definition of a working class. If they are treated worse than slaves. It would be your natural instinct to join them, especially. Work with them, live among them and fight against injustices they suffer. He stands their proudly like doofus and declares "i choose no guild". As if he is above everything. Worse he got drafted and made to work for the military. Talk about pathetic. He plays the outsider and savior. Got burned hard.Furthmore, he "saves" them as miltary dude. Instead of a champion, they got a savior. Champion would be one of them.
3)He says he hates vigilantes and Vigilantism , john byrne origin
It's a fine position to hold. Except this idiot is one. He says he doesn't consider himself a vigilante and even though he had been called one. Fine, then what is he? A hero. Nope! A hero saves people. True. But, it isn't compulsion,It's a choice. This guys acts like he must save people even from themselves. Hence, portrayals like point 4 and things like point 1.He beats himself up too much for not being able to save someone like pa,the daxamites that got poisoned by lead.. Etc. Heroes can't save everyone. He lives with it like bruce or barry. A sad fact. And a champion would mourn and accept pain, with a smile. (a stoic, like superman should be)
"You can't save everyone, but if you can reach them, then you should save them." - all might
Only Savior laments and tortures himself for those he can't reach. Sure, a champion feels the pain. But, he never laments.
4)Simplistic morals being preached like wisdom and teaching ala peace on earth.
I posted an image of goldenage superman being writtenas savior, right above. Even though, that's ga superman. That ain't his characterisation. That's entirely Post-Crisis portrayal.
Superman does a lot of preaching with out actually understanding hunger, poverty, war, sins and other weaknesses of humanity. He expects people to live by his moral standards (for tomorrow, batman be better.otherwise superman will be angry) . And worse of all. Metropolis people do. Infact, he geoff johns himself has deny he is a savior. People only stop because of him. He saves people from being unjust and asks them to not look for savior. But, his act send basically sends message that he is a savior . He should have punched lane himself. That would settled the debate . people wouldn't see much of a savior, in violent person. I mean, saviors are above sins and stuff. Anyways, when people don't follow his moral standards he throws a fit being disappointed (sacrifice), he leaves(kingdom come) or he begs or make's a show so that people follow the morality he set forward(what's so funny). Which brings me to my 5th point

5)He is about what others think of him ala whatso funny


He is absolutely about being an example. Leading people with something you do and being a moral example are two different things. How? People decide to mimic something you do in the former. The former isn't intended, it just happens. In the later, he tries to be something mimicable.A champion would be in the former. He wouldn't care if his beliefs are being laughed at.


He doesn't need to present himself the saviour. He acts like one therefore people see one. See, i haven't even included all star superman or donner movies . What expectations?who's expectations? Why should he care?People want a savior and he plays along? While he says "he isn't one", he does things to be moral example. That is so wrong on so many levels. It's reverse psychology . Superman didn't become superman to fulfil some expectations. His existence is opposite of the expectation. Expectation was for him to turn a blind eye towards lies, corruption and injustice. He didn't, so superman was born. He didn't, because it was the right thing to do. The vigilante exists because of his sense of altruism,corrupt structures.. Etc.

[bat39]

I think a major factor a lot of people are ignoring here is Superman's power levels in most incarnations as compared to Siegal/Shuster (or the early New 52 version).

When Superman dangles a corrupt businessman of a building or bashes up a wife-beater or destroys a slum...he's technically little more than a vigilante with exceptional strength and speed and really tough skin. Theoretically, he could be destroyed by the Army if it got its act together. He can't really be everywhere all the time. So the scope of his work is limited and there are risks involved.

But once he has the power to fly anywhere in the world in under an hour (or even less), survive a nuclear explosion, tear apart entire armies with minimal effort or spy on every single human being more efficiently than every spy agency on the globe put together ever could...then Superman is no longer just a 'vigilante' is he continues down that path. He's basically a tyrant. A benevolent dictator at best, an alien overlord at worst.

This transition, and the necessary change in Superman's thinking, was what Morrison tackled in Action Comics # 7. The Justice League has just been formed and Superman recently discovered his power of flight and got a major power boost overall (not to mention a Kryptonian armor that gives him added protection). He's still in his "champion of the oppressed" vigilante mindset though and discusses the possibility of the League 'changing the world'. The other members are of course profoundly uncomfortable with that and talk him down from it.

I think this is really what makes it necessary for Superman to be a status quo-ist...or at any rate, not someone actively working to topple the status quo. Because, in a world where he's the only superhero, it'd be too easy for him to take over and rule and impose his will. And in a world with other heroes, he'd have to go through them first. Or if they all came around to his way of thinking, you'd have the Justice League all being tyrants ruling the world.

Now I don't think this was the original reason for Superman becoming more of an establishment figure in the Golden Age. It'd be interesting to see if Superman would have continued to be powered up had he continued with his vigilante crusader persona...and if so, how would they stop him from going down the slippery slope of becoming a God-like tyrant.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think a major factor a lot of people are ignoring here is Superman's power levels in most incarnations as compared to Siegal/Shuster (or the early New 52 version).

When Superman dangles a corrupt businessman of a building or bashes up a wife-beater or destroys a slum...he's technically little more than a vigilante with exceptional strength and speed and really tough skin. Theoretically, he could be destroyed by the Army if it got its act together. He can't really be everywhere all the time. So the scope of his work is limited and there are risks involved.

But once he has the power to fly anywhere in the world in under an hour (or even less), survive a nuclear explosion, tear apart entire armies with minimal effort or spy on every single human being more efficiently than every spy agency on the globe put together ever could...then Superman is no longer just a 'vigilante' is he continues down that path. He's basically a tyrant. A benevolent dictator at best, an alien overlord at worst.

This transition, and the necessary change in Superman's thinking, was what Morrison tackled in Action Comics # 7. The Justice League has just been formed and Superman recently discovered his power of flight and got a major power boost overall (not to mention a Kryptonian armor that gives him added protection). He's still in his "champion of the oppressed" vigilante mindset though and discusses the possibility of the League 'changing the world'. The other members are of course profoundly uncomfortable with that and talk him down from it.

I think this is really what makes it necessary for Superman to be a status quo-ist...or at any rate, not someone actively working to topple the status quo. Because, in a world where he's the only superhero, it'd be too easy for him to take over and rule and impose his will. And in a world with other heroes, he'd have to go through them first. Or if they all came around to his way of thinking, you'd have the Justice League all being tyrants ruling the world.

Now I don't think this was the original reason for Superman becoming more of an establishment figure in the Golden Age. It'd be interesting to see if Superman would have continued to be powered up had he continued with his vigilante crusader persona...and if so, how would they stop him from going down the slippery slope of becoming a God-like tyrant.

Except, its irrelevant. Goldenage Superman is the most powerful thing on his world. Furthermore, he is supposed to be dangerous.Goldenage superman is a moral anarchist. You know, what that means. He is opposite of authoritarian dictator or totalitarian or even a messiah. Have you read one piece? Luffy gets pretty powerful. Furthermore, the character isn't in the business of controlling people. Superman is the chainbraker. He hates them. Where do you think that symbolism came from?The character values people's and his own freedom in everyway. It would be against the very essence of the proletariat hero who is inspired by zorro. Superman was inspired from gladiators like spartacus. They were slaves seeking freedom . Not people seeking to save world. Goldenage superman was'nt looking to be saviour of the world in anyway, either through moral example(messiah), enforcing social norms or through brute force(totalitarian /authoritarian dictatorship). Any changes he brought on was simply by doing the right thing. He isn't trying to substitute himself as law and order itself .

You need to come up with better excuse. Yeah! He is scary.that's the point. He is a sentient gun. He is supposed to be. He would take out an army if needed be. But, he wouldn't needlessly. Why? Because he has morals and values as a good person . Comics and their stupid slippery slope arguments.Ofcourse,there are pitfuls and temptations. But, that doesn’t mean the protagonist is going to become that. Technically, batman can take over the world in his current level. If he wants. He doesn't. Why? Because he is the same as goldenage superman.

[Kuwagaton]

1)formation of library of Alexandria 2.0

Sorry, not that I speak for JAK but I'm still just curious about these criticisms. I'm not even drawing a faint image, I just don't know this one. To which story do you refer?

3)He says he hates vigilantes and Vigilantism , john byrne origin
It's a fine position to hold. Except this idiot is one. He says he doesn't consider himself a vigilante and even though he had been called one. Fine, then what is he? A hero. Nope! A hero saves people. True. But, it isn't compulsion,It's a choice. This guys acts like he must save people even from themselves.

What he tells Batman, after the guy threatens to blow up a citizen, is that he doesn't like vigilantes *but* he understands that Batman is suited for the job in Gotham as he sees that it's different from Metropolis. The best I can give you is that he does literally save Batman from self destruction, but that's by backing off, and he has no clue that Batman is even targeting himself. By no means is there a compulsion.

Hence, portrayals like point 4 and things like point 1.He beats himself up too much for not being able to save someone like pa,the daxamites that got poisoned by lead.. Etc. Heroes can't save everyone. He lives with it like bruce or barry. A sad fact. And a champion would mourn and accept pain, with a smile. (a stoic, like superman should be)

"You can't save everyone, but if you can reach them, then you should save them." - all might
Only Savior laments and tortures himself for those he can't reach. Sure, a champion feels the pain. But, he never laments.

These examples seem to spiral out wildly. Like I'm not sure what you mean about being able to save pa... the Johns Brainiac story? Are you talking about the Daxamites from Invasion, too? Pretty odd examples at the very least because they're specifically drawn from the same pre crisis stories that gave us essentially identical scenes in All Star Superman.

Unrelated joke, but I also just realized that the critical title you had for Superman was "All Good" and your example of a better Superman is "All Might."

4)Simplistic morals being preached like wisdom and teaching ala peace on earth.
I posted an image of goldenage superman being writtenas savior, right above. Even though, that's ga superman. That ain't his characterisation. That's entirely Post-Crisis portrayal.

So GA is written as a savior, but that's not him. Post Crisis Superman is written as a savior and that's him?

Superman does a lot of preaching with out actually understanding hunger, poverty, war, sins and other weaknesses of humanity.

What does Superman say about war, poverty, or hunger that flies in the face of his inability to be hungry or poor? Is he a rich guy joking about thugs raking up high hospital bills when he gets through with them?

5)

If he's asking for advice does he know best?

Superman was inspired from gladiators like spartacus. They were slaves seeking freedom. Not people seeking to change the world or save it.

So he shouldn't seek change? Does he have a choice when it comes to changing the world? His existence changes the world.

[Ascended]

like your explanations. I haven't read Huck but isn't it a story where Millar deliberately makes him simple as a contrast? With Man of Steel 2013 no less, according to the interviews.

I've never read any interviews with Millar about it, but I'd assume so. The entire book was a riff on not just the Superman archetype but Clark himself. So yeah, I'd say Millar knew the contrast he was establishing.

This would just be fluff,even condescending fluff at worst .

And yet I've seen dozens and dozens of people talk about how that single panel inspired them and helped them through their problems, or stopped them from doing something awful to themselves.

Maybe you think it's fluff. That's you. A lot of other people took it differently.

[manwhohaseverything]

I've never read any interviews with Millar about it, but I'd assume so. The entire book was a riff on not just the Superman archetype but Clark himself. So yeah, I'd say Millar knew the contrast he was establishing.



And yet I've seen dozens and dozens of people talk about how that single panel inspired them and helped them through their problems, or stopped them from doing something awful to themselves.

Maybe you think it's fluff. That's you. A lot of other people took it differently.

Did i say it was fluff? It would be condescending fluff had kal el not been dieing himself and was down himself and stand by that.

[manwhohaseverything]

Sorry, not that I speak for JAK but I'm still just curious about these criticisms. I'm not even drawing a faint image, I just don't know this one. To which story do you refer?




What he tells Batman, after the guy threatens to blow up a citizen, is that he doesn't like vigilantes *but* he understands that Batman is suited for the job in Gotham as he sees that it's different from Metropolis. The best I can give you is that he does literally save Batman from self destruction, but that's by backing off, and he has no clue that Batman is even targeting himself. By no means is there a compulsion.




Unrelated joke, but I also just realized that the critical title you had for Superman was "All Good" and your example of a better Superman is "All Might."




So GA is written as a savior, but that's not him. Post Crisis Superman is written as a savior and that's him?




What does Superman say about war, poverty, or hunger that flies in the face of his inability to be hungry or poor? Is he a rich guy joking about thugs raking up high hospital bills when he gets through with them?





If he's asking for advice does he know best?




So he shouldn't seek change? Does he have a choice when it comes to changing the world? His existence changes the world.

There was a story line were superman creates a library. He fights galactic golem with paragon and a bunch of daxamites show up calling for mon el's blood for being a heretic . I don't remeber the issue number or when it happened. I remember it because paragon was pretty awesome and i love galactic golem. Anyways, superman reasons for creating the library should be innate and linked to kal el identity. It fekt really odd that the reason he creates a library is this,not innate curiosity.

Nah! I think he straight up doesn't think of himself as a vigilante. Bruce timm got the idea of his meeting batman and superman from this one.
"i don't like vigilante's. Even though, i've been called on myself". He doesn't say "even though, i am one". There is big distinction. Small wording difference. He knows others see him as a vigilante. He just doesn't like to think of himself as one.

Daxamites from the same story. The reason he decides to create the library was because daxmites were basically killing their own civilization and letting it rot away. They were a bunch of zeolites.

Allmight isn't better superman. Superman is better superman. Allmight is just written more as champion and the guy makes sense. There are contrivances. He is straightforward . He only gives advices and lectures as teacher.which is his job. Even then bakugou basically flips him off. Not that all might can't handle the kid. He is just "die! Die! Die" all the time. You know. He's like a kid with video games.


Yeah! In the above example of ga. It just largely doesn't fit his characterisation. Butch is the same guy ga superman gave a wedgy too. Him coming back to tell the dude "be better" is wierd. Its like luffy coming back to celestial dragon being "don't be a racist or slave trader. I know there is good in you"after punching his lights out.These guys abducted lois. Who knows what he would have done with her. Sure, luffy and goldenage superman meets with redeemable people. But, this is plain nonsense.

Well, peace on earth was basically about poverty and hunger. The guy doesn't admit he doesn't have an answer. Yet, parades the old saying as some kind of greatness. I still didn't understand what the book was about or its point.Is it to show superman's compassion? Anyways, superman isn't rich. But, he acts like it and his powers basically add on to that. He feels elite and superman shouldn't feel elite like that. He is basically working guy.

He is asking advice. He doesn't know best. Yet, he tries to be the example by putting on a show either for the elite or the world. Which is bogus. As said, leading by example should be an unintentional process. Here its a mess.

No, he shouldn't. If change is to happen it would come naturally. The character should just stick to doing the right thing.Superman doing the right thing will naturally change the world. That includes inappropriate things and things that maybe seen as "bad" . Luffy doesn't seek to change the world. It just happens. Change of the world should always be an aftermath. Hence, the legion's existence not the goal of the man. Superman is a working class man's struggle for truth and justice. Let's keep that humble as it can get. Don't foirce in s is symbol of hope,kryptonian coat of arm.. Etc. As said, it was pretty bad for me reading superman talking about the labour guild of Krypton. He is one of them. I would have preferred he was their champion.New krypton was just wasted on so many levels.

The main problem with postcrisis Superman is. His morality is for limiting others,not himself. That's bad.

[bat39]

Except, its irrelevant. Goldenage Superman is the most powerful thing on his world. Furthermore, he is supposed to be dangerous.Goldenage superman is a moral anarchist. You know, what that means. He is opposite of authoritarian dictator or totalitarian or even a messiah. Have you read one piece? Luffy gets pretty powerful. Furthermore, the character isn't in the business of controlling people. Superman is the chainbraker. He hates them. Where do you think that symbolism came from?The character values people's and his own freedom in everyway. It would be against the very essence of the proletariat hero who is inspired by zorro. Superman was inspired from gladiators like spartacus. They were slaves seeking freedom . Not people seeking to save world. Goldenage superman was'nt looking to be saviour of the world in anyway, either through moral example(messiah), enforcing social norms or through brute force(totalitarian /authoritarian dictatorship). Any changes he brought on was simply by doing the right thing. He isn't trying to substitute himself as law and order itself .

You need to come up with better excuse. Yeah! He is scary.that's the point. He is a sentient gun. He is supposed to be. He would take out an army if needed be. But, he wouldn't needlessly. Why? Because he has morals and values as a good person . Comics and their stupid slippery slope arguments.Ofcourse,there are pitfuls and temptations. But, that doesn’t mean the protagonist is going to become that. Technically, batman can take over the world in his current level. If he wants. He doesn't. Why? Because he is the same as goldenage superman.

You're applying a lot of political theory to GA Superman, but the truth is that in practical terms he's basically a vigilante - using brute force to dispense justice as he sees fit. Yes, Superman himself is fundamentally the 'good guy' on the side of right. So even if he works outside the law, beats up wife-beaters, threatens corrupt politicians, demolishes slums etc. we can get behind him and view him as the 'hero' because in his own small way he's helping make the world a 'better place'.

But once he starts getting more powerful and you expand the scope of that mindset, he ceases to just be a 'vigilante' or just some 'moral person' doing right. Suddenly, you'd have Superman destroying the armies of sovereign countries to bring about world peace. Or threatening elected world leaders who's policies he disagrees with. He basically has the sheer power to dispense his brand of justice on a global scale, with few, if any, ways to stop him. And at that point he ceases to be the 'hero' and is more of a tyrant, or at best, a benevolent dictator.

Everybody supports a tyrant if he's on their side. The idea of a Superman who shares your political beliefs and will use his powers to enforce them as he sees fit is an appealing one on some level, I guess. Just remember that if such a version of Superman doesn't share your political beliefs, then the situation will look a LOT scarier!

[SiegePerilous02]

I think a major factor a lot of people are ignoring here is Superman's power levels in most incarnations as compared to Siegal/Shuster (or the early New 52 version).

When Superman dangles a corrupt businessman of a building or bashes up a wife-beater or destroys a slum...he's technically little more than a vigilante with exceptional strength and speed and really tough skin. Theoretically, he could be destroyed by the Army if it got its act together. He can't really be everywhere all the time. So the scope of his work is limited and there are risks involved.

But once he has the power to fly anywhere in the world in under an hour (or even less), survive a nuclear explosion, tear apart entire armies with minimal effort or spy on every single human being more efficiently than every spy agency on the globe put together ever could...then Superman is no longer just a 'vigilante' is he continues down that path. He's basically a tyrant. A benevolent dictator at best, an alien overlord at worst.

This transition, and the necessary change in Superman's thinking, was what Morrison tackled in Action Comics # 7. The Justice League has just been formed and Superman recently discovered his power of flight and got a major power boost overall (not to mention a Kryptonian armor that gives him added protection). He's still in his "champion of the oppressed" vigilante mindset though and discusses the possibility of the League 'changing the world'. The other members are of course profoundly uncomfortable with that and talk him down from it.

I think this is really what makes it necessary for Superman to be a status quo-ist...or at any rate, not someone actively working to topple the status quo. Because, in a world where he's the only superhero, it'd be too easy for him to take over and rule and impose his will. And in a world with other heroes, he'd have to go through them first. Or if they all came around to his way of thinking, you'd have the Justice League all being tyrants ruling the world.

Now I don't think this was the original reason for Superman becoming more of an establishment figure in the Golden Age. It'd be interesting to see if Superman would have continued to be powered up had he continued with his vigilante crusader persona...and if so, how would they stop him from going down the slippery slope of becoming a God-like tyrant.

I think it goes against his character to ever be a full status quo-ist. It's necessary for him to reign himself in more as he matures and becomes more powerful, but I don't think he should ever stop actively fighting the status quo. He exists to buck the status quo. If he isn't, something somewhere has gone wrong.

He would just find other ways to fight it, like through the stories he covers as Clark Kent. He should be "on" at all times, just giving his all in different ways depending on what phase of his life he is in. A reckless 22 year old is going to handle it differently than a wiser version in his mid-late 30s/early 40s.

[Ascended]

I think it goes against his character to ever be a full status quo-ist. It's necessary for him to reign himself in more as he matures and becomes more powerful, but I don't think he should ever stop actively fighting the status quo. He exists to buck the status quo. If he isn't, something somewhere has gone wrong.

He would just find other ways to fight it, like through the stories he covers as Clark Kent. He should be "on" at all times, just giving his all in different ways depending on what phase of his life he is in. A reckless 22 year old is going to handle it differently than a wiser version in his mid-late 30s/early 40s.

Agreed. When you start thinking of Superman as a defender of the status quo, you're no longer thinking about Superman properly.....even if that's what DC has made him into.

Hell, just the fact that DC itself has turned Clark into a defender of the status quo is a sign that this is the wrong way to look at the character.

The key is that there's different ways to fight for change. Throwing corrupt politicians into the river is one way, and it's a way I myself find extremely cathartic, but Clark writing an article that leads to the politician going to jail is also fighting for change; it's the same war, just going about it differently.

All powerful Superman has a problem that Golden Age Superman didn't; the ability to change the world by his own hands. Clark *could* make people treat each other right. But that's a self-defeating act; if Clark forces the world to bend to his whim, then he's not achieving that bright, shining future he saw with the Legion. All powerful Superman is limited not by his own ability, but by human nature. To win the never ending battle, Clark has to change human nature, he can't just force world leaders to do what he wants. This difference is actually the crux of the Clark-Lex rivalry; Lex would bend the world to him, and in so doing create the weak, dependent human race he fears Superman will build. Clark, on the other hand, by letting humanity chose to follow him instead of forcing them, will create a rich and self-sufficient humanity that can take care of itself.

It's like having kids. I can *make* my children do something and act correctly. But it's much better to show them *why* I want them to act that way and what the benefits are (now that they're old enough to understand that, anyway). And just like Clark, I have an endgame in mind; my kids' being happy and successful and self-sufficient. But they won't get there if I force them on the path and tell them what to do at every step, they'll get there by deciding for themselves to follow it and learning for themselves *how* to follow it.