Was postcrisis superman more complex?

[Vordan]

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 would agree with your reasoning up to a point. Yes there comes a point where Supes runs the risk of being little more than a bully himself, lording over a weaker species as Red Son Superman realized at the end. But I can’t quite agree that means Supes just has to be completely ineffectual outside of being a figurehead embodying “hope” or whatever. The subtext of Batman being a rich man with a trust fund who mostly uses his wealth to beat up the poor and mentally ill has been explored and alleviated by writers having Batman fund urban renewal in addition to crime fighting. Like I don’t see it as an all or nothing type deal. Supes should learn that he can’t punch everything into submission, but then he should realize there’s other avenues to explore.
He can use his Clark Kent identity to pursue leads and expose corruption:

He can take a stand on issues he feels strongly about also as Clark:
6B26459D-5C6F-4E07-B372-4A4CAFA9F482.jpg
He can use his status as Superman to draw attention to causes he believes in without necessarily fighting physically for them:


The Golden Age attitude of physically beating everything into submission obviously wouldn’t work like it did in Siegel and Shuster’s early stories as Morrison illustrated and you rightly point out. But I also can’t quite agree that means Supes can’t do anything similar to what he did in his early years.

There’s three great stories about the same thing, Superman fighting a wifebeater. In the Golden Age he throws the wife beater against the wall and that’s it, he never beats his wife again. In Post Crisis he does that too, but the guy ends up killing his wife after Superman leaves because he didn’t do enough to protect her. In the New 52 by Morrison, Superman beats up the wifebeater and takes the wife and her kid to a shelter where she can find safe haven and escape her abuser. That abuser becomes Kryptonite Man, literal toxicity who wants to beat his wife’s location out of Supes, which I thought was the best KM origin created. If I was in charge I would make all three of those stories canon because I think it’s a great way to show how Superman grows over the course of his career, that he makes mistakes and sometimes those mistakes have dire consequences, but he never stops trying. Creation, Deconstruction, Reconstruction.

[SiegePerilous02]

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.

All great points.

One of my most hated comic panels was in the Perez run of Wonder Woman where she is on a plane with Vanessa to Greece and she thinks about her recent meeting with Superman. She reflects that she was disappointed by him and doesn't think she could be with someone who protects the status quo instead of being an agent of change. I can't blame Perez for wanting to shut that crap down quickly, but I'm not at all wild about that reasoning. I also have to wonder why Superman has to be singled out as a guardian of society's status quos because he's too powerful, but Wonder Woman doesn't get hit with the same reasoning despite being almost as powerful as he is. Or maybe it's because DC doesn't spare as much thought towards her as they should?

There IS of course a lot of precedent for Superman defending the status quo all throughout his history...but, well, precedent doesn't mean it's "good." DC has a tendency to reinforce dumb ideas over and over again, doesn't make it any less dumb every time they do it. See man hating Amazons and going over the top with how much of an ******* Batman can be, so it's not limited to Superman.

[Ascended]

I also have to wonder why Superman has to be singled out as a guardian of society's status quos

Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Superman might not sell more than Batman anymore, but he's still the top of the mountain. Every character in comics, hell every character in any subgenre of fiction who claims to be a hero, gets measured against the Man of Tomorrow.

[manwhohaseverything]

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!

Well, mate the character acts can be entirely view through that lens. Superman is clark kent's praxis. It's not like i want the character to be that. but, he is. This is'nt some leftist or bleeding heart liberal nonsense. No, i am not an anarchist . He might not be intentionally that but his actions make him that. I would call superman the identity's existence a praxis. Those books scream ararchist philosophy. We only needs an opposition to so that he doesn't cause absolute chaos and destruction .That's more of a fear,than him taking control. The character doesn't like control. He hates it. He bows to no man. That doesn't mean he likes other to bow before him. It's standard nonsense, either you are king or subject. Well, this guy ain't neither.

No, it wouldn't.in the sense that he wouldn't destroy democracy. As said, luffy gets powerful. He wouldn't try to "rule". "Rule" or "creation" of any sort of hierarchy would be on the people. He isn't interested. Because he hates hierarchies and wouldn't live in them. Even if he did, he would go right to the bottom. He would be labourer, always. Why do i thino he isn't interested ? Because he doesn't beat up one good police man through goldenage.If the character was looking to start changing law and order with his power. He could and would have taken out law enforcement first. He doesn't. In fact, even though the police see him as threat and "bad" guy.Off the record, the good police men were supportive of the dude . Yeah! He would take down dictators.but,that wouldn't mean he would cause power vacuum nor does it mean he would use it fill it with himself. He would take over small countries as well, Only for protection. He would just let people decide what to do and would have friends from the said places who are not corrupt and competent .

He wouldn't literally take over. He would just give them his symbol and way of calling him for any needs. Why is that needed? Because smaller countries are often under the threat of bigger one's. No, idiot would dare strike country under the protection of the god damn superman. He would stop wars. How? Superman himself would become the third force and challenge both sides like he did when took both hitler and stalin by their belt. Any jackasses that wanna fight and be violent Will have to fight the man of might. That's how the guy used to work. He lifted up hitler and stalin took them for talks. He wouldn't just start destroying armies for no reason. No, it wouldn't look alot scarier. He didn't destroy the press. In fact, he had more opposition. He didn't "take" them out. He knew of faulies, worked and adapted. Furthermore, atleast the guy had opposition. They have accused superman of things he haven't even done. Yet, superman didn't care because he isn't about what other people's opinion of him, only their constructive criticism. Even then he has conviction. The current superman doesn't have any critics,except for batman who always has a point. Clark is entirely too naive. Even religion has opposition. Supermanisn doesn't. What superman is doing acquiring another form political power. Nothing more or less. This time people would be mindless sheeps. If the great cynic lois lane can fall for it.Normal people have no chance. The guy doesn't even know what he is doing himself. He is a naive farmboy. Something, the other guy wasn't.

People need to actually read those stories. Sheesh! Luffy and superman have a lot in common. The above is how it works. Expansion of power only means expansion of current working style and philosophy . You can't add in your own practices and fears. That's not objective. That's basically fanfic.furthermore, he would do criticisable things. He is allowed to. The current one has no capacity. He has no complexity. He is entirely one dimensional character with drama as superman. Clark kent is the only saving grace this guy has.Superman is power incarnate.the minute he arrived all the power structures of earth became irrelevant. Now, if he takes over it would counter to his very existence. Finally,he didn't just beat people to submission. He actually changed them. Not through lectures, but action.

[Kuwagaton]

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.

He catches Batman in the middle of coercion. Superman himself used intimidating techniques at the same time, but did not inflict violence. Like bat39 said, things change when Superman becomes more powerful. He may have been the strongest mortal conceived back when he debuted, but he could still be shoved off a boat or knocked out by conventional weapons. His idea of responsible and safe means to pursue justice change with time and ability even if technically he's not working within the law... it's complex.

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.

was actually pretty detached at the time (this was right about the time that Robinson did my least favorite run maybe ever) but it sounds like saving the Daxamites is still just in line with what he traditionally does. Daxam and Kandor don't really exist for the purpose of propping him up as a savior.

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.

All Might sounds about as simple as Luffy and both should ultimately fail in comparison, but they reoccur with your finer points on Superman in the positive sense.

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.

Superman has always been rich in the sense that virtually all of his income is disposable and if he didn't work he'd be able to self sustain with no difficulty. Spider-Man was extremely remarkable because he was working class where his predecessors weren't really.

The old saying from Peace on Earth is the entire point of him not being the savior. These scenes you mention don't seem to really support what you say with their text.

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.

Lack of intention and leading don't mix but again, the "show" wasn't his idea.

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

So he builds a backup library for world history after an alien attack, uses a broadcast without his consent to his advantage, tries to tackle world hunger for just one day, works on a cure for a terminal illness, and holds a hand out to those who would bite it. It gets hard to understand the case being built against him and how this lines up with Infinite Crisis, where the writers take entirely different issues in no small part based on lead in stories.

I would agree with your reasoning up to a point. Yes there comes a point where Supes runs the risk of being little more than a bully himself, lording over a weaker species as Red Son Superman realized at the end. But I can’t quite agree that means Supes just has to be completely ineffectual outside of being a figurehead embodying “hope” or whatever. The subtext of Batman being a rich man with a trust fund who mostly uses his wealth to beat up the poor and mentally ill has been explored and alleviated by writers having Batman fund urban renewal in addition to crime fighting. Like I don’t see it as an all or nothing type deal. Supes should learn that he can’t punch everything into submission, but then he should realize there’s other avenues to explore.
He can use his Clark Kent identity to pursue leads and expose corruption:

All well said but it's just funny to me that Superman #394 is such a blast from the past. I remember that two part story as my very first from Maggin but couldn't possibly remember that scene without searching. It's like my nerd equivalent of bumping into a third grade teacher.

[manwhohaseverything]

Superman has always been rich in the sense that virtually all of his income is disposable and if he didn't work he'd be able to self sustain with no difficulty. Spider-Man was extremely remarkable because he was working class where his predecessors weren't really.

The old saying from Peace on Earth is the entire point of him not being the savior. These scenes you mention don't seem to really support what you say with their text.



Lack of intention and leading don't mix but again, the "show" wasn't his idea.




So he builds a backup library for world history after an alien attack, uses a broadcast without his consent to his advantage, tries to tackle world hunger for just one day, works on a cure for a terminal illness, and holds a hand out to those who would bite it. It gets hard to understand the case being built against him and how this lines up with Infinite Crisis, where the writers take entirely different issues in no small part based on lead in stories.

I disagree. I have pointed it out above. Batman has the means to take over the world if he choose to do so. He is the most powerful being on the planet. It's standard american comics slippery slope nonsense. It's nonsensical. I don't find any value or truth in it. The american comics are entirely based on kantian paradigm. Hence, the fans refuse change. They only view in black and white. It all or nothing for people. Superman being "good" guy or "boyscout" is a disservice to the complexity of the character. See, i find something critisciable as complex. The superman's messiah status is the only complexity the character has currently. that goes against the character's essence in my view. Furthermore, it is never criticised. Only miller has criticised it.

Lo and behold! The savior has been struck down by lightning. Now, he will become the parasite that once he considered some undesirables in his society to be.


I would take superman being simple over convoluted drama. It's soap opera like moore said or critiqued, nothing more and nothing less. They way i see, combine luffy and all might bam!you got ga superman. If complex stuff is what i got in Post-Crisis i would take the simple stuff from goldenage. The only thing i really loved was that issue with krypto trying to beat atlas. bibbo was the real champions of postcrisis for me. Those two characters need more air time along with jimmy. Superman needs to go back to his more herculean roots with samson and atlas as well. That's atleast more tolerable . Give me atleast a quintessential action hero. Give me something like max fleischer cartoons or my hero academia. The character would find people liking it,more.But nope! I stuck with superman changing diapers and being called an angel or saviour. Sheesh! No that isn't bad persay. It's just bad for superman.

No, i didn't get an ounce of elitism from goldenage, american alien, superman for all season.. Etc. There fore i like it. I despise the sun nonsense and s being symbol of hope or coat of arms. I don't like "el". I would prefer Jor - L, Lara and Nira-Q . The formers adds to savior motif. Superman actually not needing anything just doesn't work for me. Superman is working class. He was meant to be their champion. People, just began to see and change the champion into savior. Nothing in the old books primarily say anything about him not needing the job.Sure, he was unethical regarding his work when it came to superman. It was a compromise.

Jesus christ failed. Buddha failed. Krishna failed. Zarathustra failed. Current Superman therefore fails and gives simplistic moral like his predecessors. His failure doesn't negate his saviourness. Only adds to it.

How? He atleast decided to make a show for elites to see,even if not the world. Ga superman would just punch him and tie him up. Call hik an idiot. Yes, it matters lack of intention should be an integeral part of leading by example . Otherwise, it's bad. Even with that it can be bad. Because there is no such thing perfect. Idolisation of one person as such can be catastrophic. Gandhi is an example of leading by example having bad outcomes. Millions died in the partition and his advice for the jews were stupid outright bad. So, bad sides of leading by example needs to be acknowledged. It can create a cult of personality.

Where did i say, i was building a case against postcrisis superman? I didn't.@jak wanted me to show him 5 instances of savior in Post-Crisis Superman. I did. From the things you said, don't you see one?i do. Goldenage superman is a distinct different character with a different philosophy and working style. He isn't a savior. He was champion. The little guy was his first priority . That was my point. A savior figure is just as dangerous in my mind as totalitarian or authoritarian. There is darkseid the totalitarian. There is zod the authoritarian. There Joker the entirely immoral anarchist/devil superman the messiah.All four of them would be villains one way or another. Atleast, the other three has opposition. Superman has none, other than batman. He is the man.Therefore superman becomes the villain and batman the hero. That's how it should be. I support it. If superman is messiah. Then the spirit and struggle of man should triumph in the face of tragedy . Guts from berserk fights the white knight savior of his world. Batman fights superman. Its entirely nietzschean. "Superman/god is dead" . I am speaking in symbolism.See, people find superman boring for a reason. Just think about what i am saying is all.Savior have created bad out comes in the world. If i was writing superman. There would be people treating superman as just a guy. He would criticised like one. He can play the Savior. There would be people in the books that don't buy it. It's not like i have read these books. I was just struck badly by them.

i refuse to believe superman was created as Savior. There is no ounce of those motifs or influences in characterisation in the first stories.Donner movies cemented superman as a savior. I despise it. Not the movies, but the aftermath.

[JAK]

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

Wow. So, then every library curator has a savior complex? That's a bit of a hot take. Also, this is not Post-Crisis Superman, it's Pre-Flashpoint Superman. Which goes back to what I was saying in the other thread: they're linked to a degree, but they're not the same - and most of the characterization problems I have with the Pre-Flashpoint Superman started around the time of Birthright or a little before (soft reboot happened around the time of Godfall but characterization changes started to come as early as 2001-ish), and many of the examples I see from both you and others are Pre-Flashpoint. If you want to complain about Pre-Flashpoint Superman, be my guest; I may even join in a bit, since the perception that started there has taken over how Superman is seen in ways that drive me nuts.. But to lay this on Post-Crisis as if that's the problem? Nope.

But the way you're reading into that is still twisting what's there so much that it'd be hard not to think that you just want to read what you want to read into it to justify the opinion you already had.

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 military dude. Instead of a champion, they got a savior. Champion would be one of them.

Again, not the Post-Crisis Superman. But setting that aside: He's there to keep an eye on Zod. Being drafted makes that easier. He plays chess and you're pissed because he's not playing checkers instead?

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.

His meeting with Batman is definitely Post-Crisis, so one point for you on that front.

On the rest:
A: Yes, he doesn't see himself as a vigilante. Characters have dichotomies all the time, especially in their early character arcs. Though people at the time obviously didn't think of him as one, either, because in the very next issue, he's deputized by the Mayor of Metropolis.
B: "acts like he must save people"... yeah, because he can't stand by while they're in trouble? "Even from themselves" is a very cynical reading on your part, and I'd say it's not accurate in the slightest.
C: "he beats himself up too much" - you don't have to be a savior to have high standards for yourself, or to feel it when you can't help. You're knocking the guy for having empathy? You realize that generally goes hand in hand with the strong desire to help, right? What you're describing more is a soldier. Or, to use a phrase you use often, you're describing the gun. Superman is not the gun, no matter how badly you want him to be.
D: Superman should not be stoic. He should be determined and a (much) less passive character than the Pre-Flashpoint comics tended to portray him as, but stoic isn't it. I wouldn't consider Golden Age Superman stoic, either.

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

That's entirely incorrect. Also, Peace On Earth is a one-shot; it's only vaguely in-continuity. But of all the things I'd call "Peace On Earth," simplistic isn't one of them.

Also, there's this quote: "Pa said it would take a special individual with no personal agenda to make everyone realize with that world has to offer." ... "I don't pretend to think I am that person, though I have always tried to be there for others."

So... that refutes that right there.

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).

Some versions do a lot of preaching, yes. I don't tend to care for those versions, overall, even if I can find some enjoyment in them. Post-Crisis wasn't one of them (at least not generally).

For Tomorrow: Pre-Flashpoint. Sacrifice: Pre-Flashpoint. Kingdom Come: one of several possible futures, and not in continuity. For "What's So Funny," he's showing what their own code looks like when turned against them - though to be fair, it's not a great story (more on that below).

A little tip about Geoff Johns: his Superman is the Reeve Superman, which is why - as much as he absolutely has done good things for the character - he's also injected some of my least favorite Pre-Flashpoint-esque characterizations into Superman as a means of trying to make him "relatable." Bronze Age had his mopey moments, sure, but they're balanced out (imo) by a lot on the other side of the personality spectrum - in Pre-Flashpoint, that same balance (imo) wasn't struck.

5)He is about what others think of him ala whats so 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.

No, he's not "about" that. People put that on him, but he's not about that. There's a difference. He's not telling people to mimic him or presenting himself as a paragon, so this one doesn't fly, either. It *is* a pretty ham-fisted story, and uses things like this to contrast what was popular in comics then (and still has a fair bit of popularity today), so while I'll defend the idea in general as something worth exploring... you won't often see me defend the actual story (other than a few larger points).

He doesn't need to present himself the saviour. He acts like one therefore people see one.

He doesn't act like one. You read him taking other people's perceptions into account as if he's saying "I am your savior and great example." That's ridiculous on it's face. It's false.

Besides, I told you 5 examples of Post-Crisis Superman presenting himself as one, explicitly, without hesitation. I see a half of one in there (Byrne's "Man of Steel #3"), if I squint.

See, i haven't even included all star superman or donner movies.

Which is good, because they're not part of the topic, though neither are half of the examples you *did* mention.

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.

Wanting to not set a bad example when he can help it and telling people he's an example they should follow are two very different things. That someone can't tell the difference, frankly, isn't Post-Crisis Superman's problem.

[bat39]

It seems that this argument is going around in circles around two extreme interpretations of Superman. One the one hand is the idea that Superman is some kind of anarchist who should use brute force to make the world a 'better place' while somehow also not being a tyrant. On the other hand is the idea that Superman is just some paragon spouting homilies and being a 'boy-scout' while being completely ineffectual.

My ideal Superman lies somewhere in the middle. He's mature and tempered enough to realize that he can't just reshape the world and humanity has to ultimately choose its own destiny. At the same time, he doesn't bow down before anyone and does what he has to do to save lives and fight evil in the moment - a "man of action" in that sense.

Actually, this is the reason why the Cavill/Snyder Superman is one of my favorite interpretations. He's very much a man of action, ready to do whatever it takes to save lives - even if it means snapping the neck of one of his fellow last survivors of Krypton. He's ready to respect human authorities and be accountable to them up to a point, but will never submit to their authority entirely (I loved the part in MOS where he surrenders to the military and lets cuffs be put on him as a gesture, but breaks the cuffs off during his interrogation to demonstrate that he's under no obligation to be there). And he doesn't want to burdened by the idea of being humanity's 'savior', even though that's what inevitably happens.

Honestly, Superman as a character has seldom been political in the way various sections of the fanbase have wanted him to be. Everyone wants to be able to project their political ideas onto Superman. I think that's where Superman being a status quo-ist comes from...from a real-world perspective, DC/WB can't alienate any section of the fanbase, especially not now during these highly polarized times. But even if you look at it in-universe...if Superman is to upend the status quo, what would his endgame be? Even assuming he isn't trying to take over the world himself, what's the kind of new world he wants to bring about? What are the human political forces he would support? There are people who interpret the Siegal/Shuster stories to mean that Superman will bring about some kind of socialist utopia. Realistically speaking, that would only be possible if the writers, and indeed DC themselves, decide to turn the character explicitly towards the Left. Alternatively, you could have the writers and DC take a right-wards stance and double-down on 'the American Way', or have Superman be a libertarian icon. Whichever way he returns, one side would view Superman as the ultimate hero, and the other side as a tyrant...with most people in the middle being alienated - in and out of universe.

[JAK]

I disagree. I have pointed it out above. Batman has the means to take over the world if he choose to do so. He is the most powerful being on the planet. It's standard american comics slippery slope nonsense. It's nonsensical. I don't find any value or truth in it. The american comics are entirely based on kantian paradigm. Hence, the fans refuse change. They only view in black and white. It all or nothing for people. Superman being "good" guy or "boyscout" is a disservice to the complexity of the character. See, i find something critisciable as complex. The superman's messiah status is the only complexity the character has currently. that goes against the character's essence in my view. Furthermore, it is never criticised. Only miller has criticised it.

That the savior-esque comparison is too prevalent? Totally agree. You're absolutey right. That it needs to be criticized, especially by Superman himself? Yes! I would LOVE that. That it's the only complexity the character has in the comics? Totally false. What's true in one-shots and live/animated adaptations isn't nearly as much the case in the comics themselves - particularly not the comics era listed in the topic. In live action, particularly, it's become unbearable - I am with you 100% there.

I would take superman being simple over convoluted drama. It's soap opera like moore said or critiqued, nothing more and nothing less. They way i see, combine luffy and all might bam!you got ga superman. If complex stuff is what i got in Post-Crisis i would take the simple stuff from goldenage. The only thing i really loved was that issue with krypto trying to beat atlas. bibbo was the real champions of postcrisis for me. Those two characters need more air time along with jimmy. Superman needs to go back to his more herculean roots with samson and atlas as well. That's atleast more tolerable . Give me atleast a quintessential action hero. Give me something like max fleischer cartoons or my hero academia. The character would find people liking it,more.But nope! I stuck with superman changing diapers. Sheesh! No that isn't bad persay. It's just bad for superman.

Here's how we know you're not talking about Post-Crisis Superman: Post-Crisis Superman's emblem was a version of a old Kent emblem (if you consider "The Kents" in continuity) and was designed by the Kents. It wasn't originally a Kryptonian symbol. I think they started to soft-retcon parts of it before Birthright iirc, but that was more a Birthright thing.

Where did i say, i was building a case against postcrisis superman? I didn't. @jak wanted me to show him 5 instances of savior in Post-Crisis Superman. I did.

Actually, no. I could build a better case against the Pre-Flashpoint Superman, which is moreso what you were doing.

i refuse to believe superman was created as Savior. There is no ounce of those motifs or influences in characterisation in the first stories. Donner movies cemented superman as a savior. I despise it. Not the movies, but the aftermath.

This, I agree with. That characterization needs to go. File 13, and set ablaze with heat vision until it's a charred husk of a failed idea. However, that characterization doesn't belong at the feet of Post-Crisis, but largely what came after (as far as emphasis goes). It came to the forefront of the character's overall presentation around the time of "Smallville" (2001) and "Birthright" (2003), though they were absolutely picking up pieces of what was presented in the Donner films and running with them.

[JAK]

It seems that this argument is going around in circles around two extreme interpretations of Superman. On the one hand is the idea that Superman is some kind of anarchist who should use brute force to make the world a 'better place' while somehow also not being a tyrant. On the other hand is the idea that Superman is just some paragon spouting homilies and being a 'boy-scout' while being completely ineffectual.

Actually, I'd say this argument is going around between what you're saying being one side, including "the idea that Superman is just some paragon spouting homilies and being a 'boy-scout' while being completely ineffectual" being forcefully grafted onto a version of the character that doesn't fit it, and those that say "that's not accurate."

My ideal Superman lies somewhere in the middle. He's mature and tempered enough to realize that he can't just reshape the world and humanity has to ultimately choose its own destiny. At the same time, he doesn't bow down before anyone and does what he has to do to save lives and fight evil in the moment - a "man of action" in that sense.

Same. That's not what I get from Snyder's Superman, but that's a topic for another (million) thread(s). lol

Honestly, Superman as a character has seldom been political in the way various sections of the fanbase have wanted him to be. Everyone wants to be able to project their political ideas onto Superman. I think that's where Superman being a status quo-ist comes from...from a real-world perspective, DC/WB can't alienate any section of the fanbase, especially not now during these highly polarized times. But even if you look at it in-universe...if Superman is to upend the status quo, what would his endgame be? Even assuming he isn't trying to take over the world himself, what's the kind of new world he wants to bring about? What are the human political forces he would support? There are people who interpret the Siegal/Shuster stories to mean that Superman will bring about some kind of socialist utopia. Realistically speaking, that would only be possible if the writers, and indeed DC themselves, decide to turn the character explicitly towards the Left. Alternatively, you could have the writers and DC take a right-wards stance and double-down on 'the American Way', or have Superman be a libertarian icon. Whichever way he returns, one side would view Superman as the ultimate hero, and the other side as a tyrant...with most people in the middle being alienated - in and out of universe.

Taking the politics out of your point, Superman can only do so much from a narrative perspective before the world doesn't resemble ours at all and the stories have nowhere to go (or they become pure Science Fiction instead of a blend that includes it as an element). And keeping the world somewhat like our own in at least certain ways has often been the way writers have approached the stories. In that way, I think Infinite Crisis provided the most utopian interpretation of what would happen if Superman was proactive in the way that he could be (when Pre-Flashpoint lived Golden Age's life).

[manwhohaseverything]

Library didn't have a complex. It's creators intention for its existence did. The way is see it as long as replacement or a reboot hadn't happened the characterisation and direction remains the same. It's the same continuity. Pre-Flashpoint and therefore postcrisis are the same deal for me. So, you can call it whatever. The direction was the same for superman. Only some things from precrisis was added on top like legion, the dog and the cousin. That doesn't much change the character . That's it. The rest i have said my peace. We will just never agree.i only see a savior in superman. I don't care for him as such.

People should be their own light. Superman being a seen as example itself is not in character at all. To me a champion is worth a hundred saviors."I don't want to set a bad example" that's how a savior acts. Comics fans toute it as boyscoutishness. Books portray it as a parallel to christ or moses thinking it complex. Yeeesh!!!! And peace on earth is entirely simplistic morals. Just be honest about it. Don't pretend like it's complex. Superman as character would need to content with the likes of dostoevsky, nietzsche.. Etc with the philosophy he brings to the table and the way he does it.

As if others perception is what drives my view. I just took those into consideration. And looked for evidences in the books. I sacnned books from every era and the books i had in Post-Crisis. Postcrisis i found the most evidence for it. My own premises was "superman was champion/hero, not a savior".i was hit hard and proven wrong is all. I didn't even know what superman was and never thought much about. Some, guy made a joke of superman being an idiot for hating vigilante's like batman when he is one. I wondered why superman was in action comics when all the character brought to the table was soap opera drama on tv. So,i wanted to know what superman truly is.i read the stuff because i was bored by the new52 after a while with a different people. I read the older stuff cause of morrison and moore. Donner did cement the saviour. It wasn't his intention. He just wanted to make the story rich with religious symbolisms.Anyways, I would take superman as zorro,hercules, tarzan.. Etc. I would take my iron giants, allmights and astroboy.. Etc.As it stands now superman is boring character for me and you can't say i haven't read his stuff or something. I have come to realise that why people like timm view/prefers to write something like superman gods and monsters. Than do a good job with real one. They are right from their perspective .The character is mired in expectations and has to absolutely abide by them. Hopefully, jon doesn't turn out like clark.So, "Hope" is on the kid for me.

[manwhohaseverything]

Taking the politics out of your point, Superman can only do so much from a narrative perspective before the world doesn't resemble ours at all and the stories have nowhere to go (or they become pure Science Fiction instead of a blend that includes it as an element). And keeping the world somewhat like our own in at least certain ways has often been the way writers have approached the stories. In that way, I think Infinite Crisis provided the most utopian interpretation of what would happen if Superman was proactive in the way that he could be (when Pre-Flashpoint lived Golden Age's life).

I agree, regarding zack snyder superman being man of action. I don't see much of that in him. snyderman is unsure, introverted,.. Etc

Again, why does he need a world like ours to tell something? He doesn't. superman is more fantastical than realistic. It has always been allegorical . He doesn't fit in the mold of realism. Metropolis is entirely fictional. That was his "world".The realism of that world was upto the author.Furthermore,those who make the claim that superman doesn't need politics. Fine. I agree, as entertaiment. Does superman provide that? No. He doesn't have great fight, his comedy has become stale. It always drama. People treated it as some kind blasphemy for me to call superman an action hero.They just want to keep the story going like endless soap opera. Moore is entirely right about the industry. I don't need to be an anarchist like moore himself (i believe)to see that.

[JAK]

Library didn't have a complex. It's creators intention for its existence did. The way is see it as long as replacement or a reboot hadn't happened the characterisation and direction remains the same. It's the same continuity. Pre-Flashpoint and therefore postcrisis are the same deal for me. So, you can call it whatever. The direction was the same for superman. Only some things from precrisis was added on top like legion, the dog and the cousin. That doesn't much change the character . That's it. The rest i have said my peace. We will just never agree.i only see a savior in superman. I don't care for him as such.

First, I said the curator, not the library. On the rest: actually, that not quite accurate. It was stated that at the end of Godfall (2004) that the reality that Superman "returned" to wasn't quite the same one he'd left. It was a soft reboot. The first of several, actually. That was when the emotional thrust of the stories started to change more, as did characterization. I know this because others were put off by changes at the time, too, and that was the answer given to them.

To give another example, Bronze Age and Silver Age are (imo rightly) considered two different iterations of the character because the approach became vastly different. However, there's not a massive reboot there, either. So, the same applies here. In the Post-Crisis/Triangle era, you don't see much of the "the character is the problem" mentality that you see from the approach in the Pre-Flashpoint era.

You see a savior because you've conflated Pre-Flashpoint with outside interpretations and they've melded into one entity for you, and I can understand that (hell, I knew that would happen back when those books were coming out). But when one attempts to add Post-Crisis to that, which had a very different approach to the books, then I give push-back. I hated what it was doing back then when it was in it's infancy (I dropped the books for awhile), and I hate it now. Possibly more than you do, because I had to watch it as it happened.

People should be their own light. Superman being a seen as example itself is not in character at all. To me a champion is worth a hundred saviors."I don't want to set a bad example" that's how a savior acts. Comics fans toute it as boyscoutishness. Books portray it as a parallel to christ or moses thinking it complex. Yeeesh!!!! And peace on earth is entirely simplistic morals. Just be honest about it. Don't pretend like it's complex. Superman as character would need to content with the likes of dostoevsky, nietzsche.. Etc with the philosophy he brings to the table and the way he does it.

"People should be their own light." I agree. And Superman, in that book, says as much. You seem to have a problem with Superman wanting to spend any effort to encourage people to help each other and conflate that as a savior, but they're not the same. Normal people do that every day. If you're reading Christ into that one in particular, that's on you. There's a large number of better examples I can list to show the point you were trying to make, but I don't feel this was quite one of them.

"Entirely simplistic morals," you say? Do share for the class, then. If it's simple, it should be easy.

As if others perception is what drives my view. I just took those into consideration. And looked for evidences in the books. I sacnned books from every era and the books i had in Post-Crisis. Postcrisis i found the most evidence for it. My own premises was "superman was champion/hero, not a savior".i was hit hard and proven wrong is all. I didn't even know what superman was and never thought much about. Some, guy made a joke of superman being an idiot for hating vigilante's like batman when he is one. I wondered why superman was in action comics when all the character brought to the table was soap opera drama on tv. So,i wanted to know what superman truly is.i read the stuff because i was bored by the new52 after a while with a different people. I read the older stuff cause of morrison and moore. Donner did cement the saviour. It wasn't his intention. He just wanted to make the story rich with religious symbolisms. Anyways, I would take superman as zorro,hercules, tarzan.. Etc. I would take my iron giants, allmights and astroboy.. Etc.As it stands now superman is boring character for me and you can't say i haven't read his stuff or something. I have come to realise that why people like timm view/prefers to write something like superman gods and monsters. Than do a good job with real one. They are right from their perspective .The character is mired in expectations and has to absolutely abide by them. Hopefully, jon doesn't turn out like clark.So, "Hope" is on the kid for me.

True on Donner - though to be fair to Donner, part of the "blame" should also go to Ilya Salkind, who had the idea to make Superman as grandiose as possible in his initial pitch to his father about the concept. Especially in a late 70's U.S. context, religious parallels would make for good/easy symbolism to provide that - even if it, as you say (and I agree), led to a lot of bad effects later.

The "evidence" you found in the books is little-to-nothing of the kind. As I said, I could put together a better list to make your point, as long as we're talking Pre-Flashpoint. Everything you're saying about "soap opera" etc is overgeneralization and shows me that, while you may have read some of it, at least a certain amount of context was lost. And guy who "made a joke of Superman" isn't a good place to go for deeper info.

But you asked in the original post if you were missing something, if Post-Crisis Superman was more complex than Golden Age. It's an ironic question, because the start of Post-Crisis was an attempt to get back to certain aspects of the Golden/George Reeves vibe (with some bits of Reeves visualization) and place some of them in a modern context. By the end of the Post-Crisis era, I'd say he was more complex. Not in the same way that Bronze Age Clark was, to be fair, but moreso than Golden Age. Once Pre-Flashpoint came (I still blame Didio), it was more about "complicated" and less about "complexity," and it led down some not-so-great roads that we're still dealing with today.

Bruce Timm, I'd argue, doesn't really "get" Superman. Iirc, he's said as much. So while he certainly has a perspective, and at times I can enjoy it (others it's maddening), I'm hoping that the future brings some new voices that can sift through what's come before and make something refreshing - that does away with most of the symbolism, and gets Clark back into action.

[JAK]

I agree, regarding zack snyder superman being man of action. I don't see much of that in him. snyderman is unsure, introverted,.. Etc

Yeah - for me, he's "passive" in the narrative sense. People can point to individual smaller things, but few of them are really larger-plot-moving type things. I think of him less as action and more as reaction, if that makes any sense.

Again, why does he need a world like ours to tell something? He doesn't. superman is more fantastical than realistic. It has always been allegorical . He doesn't fit in the mold of realism. Metropolis is entirely fictional. That was his "world".The realism of that world was upto the author.Furthermore,those who make the claim that superman doesn't need politics. Fine. I agree, as entertaiment. Does superman provide that? No. He doesn't have great fight, his comedy has become stale. It always drama. People treated it as some kind blasphemy for me to call superman an action hero.They just want to keep the story going like endless soap opera. Moore is entirely right about the industry. I don't need to be an anarchist like moore himself (i believe)to see that.

It's true that Superman doesn't need the real world, per se... but he's always operated well when his city was like that in some sense. The Golden Age stories, for instance, are (in ways) more gritty and grounded in feel (partly that's due to the rudimentary but dynamic art style, but that's still the effect - at least for me). I love the wilder aspects of Superman, but I'd hate to lose the grounded ones in favor of that. Kinda like TMNT - I really like the space stories and they're part of the lore from the early comics.. but I'd hate to lose the New York stories in favor of just those.

On Superman being political... I think there's a line where it can't matter. Like, Superman should understand, in story, that certain things he'd try to do would have consequences beyond the direct action he want to take - or that Superman shouldn't take a stance on certain issues. But when Superman saves people from being shot/etc and people complain online (in the real world) or on a certain cable news network... at that point, screw those people, because they're just looking for something to make political.

As for the reaction to Superman being an action hero... it depends on how you're looking at it. I do see Superman as being partly an action hero. But I think that him being "just" that is limiting to his potential as a character. That doesn't mean I want "endless soap opera," it just means that I want more for/from Superman than just an action hero. But I agree that aspects of it do need to be a part of him. Part of that is due to what I think an "action hero" means. When I think "action hero," I think of that main characters from Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Demolition Man, etc. And while I love those movies for what they are, I'd hate to see a Superman movie that follows that pattern exactly. So part of the reaction could be due to what we think of when we read those words.

[Kuwagaton]

I disagree. I have pointed it out above. Batman has the means to take over the world if he choose to do so. He is the most powerful being on the planet. It's standard american comics slippery slope nonsense. It's nonsensical. I don't find any value or truth in it. The american comics are entirely based on kantian paradigm. Hence, the fans refuse change. They only view in black and white. It all or nothing for people. Superman being "good" guy or "boyscout" is a disservice to the complexity of the character.

We know Superman can take over the world because we've seen him do it. Batman? Would have the success of Lex or Vandal at best. I'm not going to say "nonsense" but the some of the assumptions I see here is seem to use little context and presume what others read and interpret. On top of

See, i find something critisciable as complex. The superman's messiah status is the only complexity the character has currently. that goes against the character's essence in my view. Furthermore, it is never criticised. Only miller has criticised it.

Lo and behold! The savior has been struck down by lightning. Now, he will become the parasite that once he considered some undesirables in his society to be.


I would take superman being simple over convoluted drama. It's soap opera like moore said or critiqued, nothing more and nothing less. They way i see, combine luffy and all might bam!you got ga superman. If complex stuff is what i got in Post-Crisis i would take the simple stuff from goldenage. The only thing i really loved was that issue with krypto trying to beat atlas. bibbo was the real champions of postcrisis for me. Those two characters need more air time along with jimmy. Superman needs to go back to his more herculean roots with samson and atlas as well. That's atleast more tolerable . Give me atleast a quintessential action hero. Give me something like max fleischer cartoons or my hero academia. The character would find people liking it,more.But nope! I stuck with superman changing diapers and being called an angel or saviour. Sheesh! No that isn't bad persay. It's just bad for superman.

No, i didn't get an ounce of elitism from goldenage, american alien, superman for all season.. Etc. There fore i like it. I despise the sun nonsense and s being symbol of hope or coat of arms. I don't like "el". I would prefer Jor - L, Lara and Nira-Q . The formers adds to savior motif. Superman actually not needing anything just doesn't work for me. Superman is working class. He was meant to be their champion. People, just began to see and change the champion into savior. Nothing in the old books primarily say anything about him not needing the job.Sure, he was unethical regarding his work when it came to superman. It was a compromise.

Jesus christ failed.

Missing the point in a way that at this point looks deliberate. Unless it really is like enjoying the roundly panned Atlas story and just not largely being on the same page as those who like and read the character other than some exceptional cases like Moore. But even All Star is glossed over (saying Superman as a savior doesn't describe the All Star work seems like a miss by Morrison's own words) with extremes and absolutes on top. So I guess my answer to your OP is now that Superman overall may be too complex.