Superman Represents Social Change - An Analysis

[stargazer01]

I could be wrong, but that's why Superman was original created. A powerful man that could change the destiny of humanity. That's the same thing the film Man of Steel tried to say, right?

I found this video analysis of Superman: Man of Tomorrow animated movie quite interesting. The movie may not be perfect, but the ideas explored were really good, imo.

Thoughts?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I could be wrong, but that's why Superman was original created.

Superman was created by two artists working in pulp fiction, coming up with a concept for children's entertainment that they hocked to a company, National Comics, that was a front for the mob, and who promptly swindled them out of their deal.

That's it.

There wasn't any real grand plan or design there.

Superman was cobbled together from the pop culture of the 1930s -- Glasses because Haroly Lloyd wore it, Metropolis because silent films at repertory theaters were a popular hangout for comics artists, Clark Kent because Clark Gable was a big movie star in that time and played a reporter in It Happened One Night, one of the most popular movies of that time. He was not in any sense an avant-garde cultural product, nor was he the forerunner of changes in storytelling and creativity in the medium.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I could be wrong, but that's why Superman was original created. A powerful man that could change the destiny of humanity. That's the same thing the film Man of Steel tried to say, right?

No, that's what should have happened but it didn't. All we got was a pointless media montage ending with "Superman is," and politicians wanting to bring in Superman because Lex framed him and an unearned king's funeral for Superman for a world that we never really got into their opinions about him. Sure some people got creepily obsessed with him, but that's normal - soccer players get that acclaim. That's right, when he died the government finally put together a super powered team to protect the president if Superman tried to forcefully abduct him and put Harley Quinn on it. I like Harley, but really?

I found this video analysis of Superman: Man of Tomorrow animated movie quite interesting. The movie may not be perfect, but the ideas explored were really good, imo.

Thoughts?

I might examine this later. But maybe going us the gist of what the argument is would help? Not everyone is going to watch a 12 minute video before posting.

[Stanlos]

Superman was created by two artists working in pulp fiction, coming up with a concept for children's entertainment that they hocked to a company, National Comics, that was a front for the mob, and who promptly swindled them out of their deal.

That's it.

There wasn't any real grand plan or design there.

Superman was cobbled together from the pop culture of the 1930s -- Glasses because Haroly Lloyd wore it, Metropolis because silent films at repertory theaters were a popular hangout for comics artists, Clark Kent because Clark Gable was a big movie star in that time and played a reporter in It Happened One Night, one of the most popular movies of that time. He was not in any sense an avant-garde cultural product, nor was he the forerunner of changes in storytelling and creativity in the medium.

Harshly stated but no less accurate. LOL

[jb681131]

I could be wrong, but that's why Superman was original created. A powerful man that could change the destiny of humanity. That's the same thing the film Man of Steel tried to say, right?

I found this video analysis of Superman: Man of Tomorrow animated movie quite interesting. The movie may not be perfect, but the ideas explored were really good, imo.

Thoughts?

You should read the very good aftewords of "Gene Luen Yang" in "Superman smashes the Klan".

[manwhohaseverything]

There wasn't any real grand plan or design there.

Is that needed?Chance can create cool things. Some of the coolest things are created by inspired exploration on a blank canvas . Moreover, they had been working on the concept for years in their mind. They had prototypes, something to say and a means to deliver. So, they did. The pulp character status is one of the coolest thing a character could hope to have.

Actually, superman wore glasses in story to hide his great strength so that people won't be afraid of him. Fighting fear is what clark does. While, he does have the capability to cause it as well. Those who are innocent need'nt be afraid of him. Sure, the fake id was inspired by harold Lloyd glasses and was mostly poking fun. Well, the act was needed for the purpose of diversion from superman's otherness. Just like his human appearance allows humans to be at ease with him.

To the OP agree with the video posted. The movie actually tries with superman.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Is that needed?

Not at all. It's just that I am getting tired of people burdening with Superman with grand ideas, statements, and sentiments. There's nothing wrong with those sentiments and ideas but it shouldn't come at the expense of treating Superman as a character in a story and a genre. Superman should work as a character first. If he can work as a character then he can be icon/idea/symbol/myth or an other 5-dollar words you want to add to this mix.

"Superman is about hope"...no Superman is about Marlon Brando wandering around on the set of Donner's movie and figuring that he should have Superman's logo on his costume to prove he's the Dad of the character and draw more eyes on him because he's a big f--king movie star. That's what the Superman's logo stands for.

When you put mealymouthed ideas like "Superman represents Social Change" you start doing real damage and understanding to how comics creation and storytelling works, and also start distorting comics' history, all for the sake of adding baggage on to a character who needs to have less rather than more baggage. Comics in the Golden Age weren't default superhero comics for one thing. Most people got their comics from the newspapers and the magazines. The most creatively adventurous and experimental comics and influential titles were Prince Valiant, The Spirit, stuff like that. In terms of superhero comics, Superman was a big success, at first, then in the 1940s Fawcett Comics' Captain Marvel outsold him and started merching their way into movies and other stuff.

[manwhohaseverything]

Not at all. It's just that I am getting tired of people burdening with Superman with grand ideas, statements, and sentiments. There's nothing wrong with those sentiments and ideas but it shouldn't come at the expense of treating Superman as a character in a story and a genre. Superman should work as a character first. If he can work as a character then he can be icon/idea/symbol/myth or an other 5-dollar words you want to add to this mix.

"Superman is about hope"...no Superman is about Marlon Brando wandering around on the set of Donner's movie and figuring that he should have Superman's logo on his costume to prove he's the Dad of the character and draw more eyes on him because he's a big f--king movie star. That's what the Superman's logo stands for.

When you put mealymouthed ideas like "Superman represents Social Change" you start doing real damage and understanding to how comics creation and storytelling works, and also start distorting comics' history, all for the sake of adding baggage on to a character who needs to have less rather than more baggage. Comics in the Golden Age weren't default superhero comics for one thing. Most people got their comics from the newspapers and the magazines. The most creatively adventurous and experimental comics and influential titles were Prince Valiant, The Spirit, stuff like that. In terms of superhero comics, Superman was a big success, at first, then in the 1940s Fawcett Comics' Captain Marvel outsold him and started merching their way into movies and other stuff.

I can get behind that sentiment.The character rarely entertains.i mean,for me goldenage stories are entertaining first and foremost.The problem with superman is that creatives actively believe action genre is beneath the character.That removes everything from the character.A pulp action character that does'nt pursue action avenues is wierd for me.

[stargazer01]

Superman was created by two artists working in pulp fiction, coming up with a concept for children's entertainment that they hocked to a company, National Comics, that was a front for the mob, and who promptly swindled them out of their deal.

That's it.

There wasn't any real grand plan or design there.

Superman was cobbled together from the pop culture of the 1930s -- Glasses because Haroly Lloyd wore it, Metropolis because silent films at repertory theaters were a popular hangout for comics artists, Clark Kent because Clark Gable was a big movie star in that time and played a reporter in It Happened One Night, one of the most popular movies of that time. He was not in any sense an avant-garde cultural product, nor was he the forerunner of changes in storytelling and creativity in the medium.

I never said there was a big plan, but it's clear the creators wanted a powerful character that could help the weak against the abusers and evil doers in the world. Superman was a game changer. He was more than just an action hero.

Of course Superman represents much more than just social change. I never said he didn't.

No, that's what should have happened but it didn't. All we got was a pointless media montage ending with "Superman is," and politicians wanting to bring in Superman because Lex framed him and an unearned king's funeral for Superman for a world that we never really got into their opinions about him. Sure some people got creepily obsessed with him, but that's normal - soccer players get that acclaim. That's right, when he died the government finally put together a super powered team to protect the president if Superman tried to forcefully abduct him and put Harley Quinn on it. I like Harley, but really?



I might examine this later. But maybe going us the gist of what the argument is would help? Not everyone is going to watch a 12 minute video before posting.

I was talking about the film Man of Steel not BvS. BvS really failed to make people care about Superman, imo. MOS is much better for me.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I never said there was a big plan, but it's clear the creators wanted a powerful character that could help the weak against the abusers and evil doers in the world.

Every genre of heroic storytelling has that element. The populist elements of Superman weren't out of place in the early 30s. One didn't have to be a subscriber of the Daily Worker (the US communist party journal) to feature such elements.

And you know a strongman defending the weak against the powerful, evil, and abusive people...that cuts across all political lines. It's not inherently leftist by any means.

Captain America punching Hitler in the jaw on the cover of his first comic...now that's leftist propaganda right there, especially given it was published before Pearl Harbor at a time of isolationism and so on.

Superman was a game changer.

He was but that didn't mean he signified social change or any grand idea.

I was talking about the film Man of Steel not BvS. BvS really failed to make people care about Superman, imo. MOS is much better for me.

Man of Steel's finale has Superman blithely indifferent to collateral damage on a scale of about ten 9/11s, and also ends with him snapping Zod's neck.

Revisionism about Man of Steel has gotten out of hand.

[stargazer01]

Every genre of heroic storytelling has that element. The populist elements of Superman weren't out of place in the early 30s. One didn't have to be a subscriber of the Daily Worker (the US communist party journal) to feature such elements.

And you know a strongman defending the weak against the powerful, evil, and abusive people...that cuts across all political lines. It's not inherently leftist by any means.

Captain America punching Hitler in the jaw on the cover of his first comic...now that's leftist propaganda right there, especially given it was published before Pearl Harbor at a time of isolationism and so on.



He was but that didn't mean he signified social change or any grand idea.



Man of Steel's finale has Superman blithely indifferent to collateral damage on a scale of about ten 9/11s, and also ends with him snapping Zod's neck.

Revisionism about Man of Steel has gotten out of hand.

I'm not talking about Politics or the left.. the video I posted showed how Superman from the start represented a powerful man that could truly challenge evil. He was the champion of the weak. He wasn't just a local hero but a hero of the world. Didn't the Superman Smashes the Clan story come from the radio serials in the 40s? I believe it really had an impact in real society of that time.

And regarding Man of Steel, he clearly showed sadness after killing Zod. He wasn't indifferent. He felt he had to do that because Zod wanted to kill all human life. Sure, maybe the film didn't do the best job at showing how Clark was feeling all the time, but it did show enough, imo.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I'm not talking about Politics or the left.. the video I posted showed how Superman from the start represented a powerful man that could truly challenge evil. He was the champion of the weak. He wasn't just a local hero but a hero of the world. Didn't the Superman Smashes the Clan story come from the radio serials in the 40s? I believe it really had an impact in real society of that time.

This subject is rife in politics, both back in the Golden Age and with films now. Superman, like Captain America, was a political reaction to events in the 30's. What "evil" they were fighting wasn't ambiguous. Are you talking about in-universe or in our world?

And regarding Man of Steel, he clearly showed sadness after killing Zod. He wasn't indifferent. He felt he had to do that because Zod wanted to kill all human life. Sure, maybe the film didn't do the best job at showing how Clark was feeling all the time, but it did show enough, imo.

This is an understatement. The film itself and the films afterward did nothing with that, that's been a big problem with those movies. Other characters, like Batman, had a deeper connection to the aftermath of the Battle of Metropolis than Superman did. It showed him yelling out once and pouting once, for something which should be a life changing event with how he reacted but we get nothing of substance from the person who snapped Zod's neck. People go into therapy for years and talk to their loved ones constantly about things like that, but not this Superman. He bottles everything up.


In my post I was talking about the changes he made in the DCEU after Man of Steel, since MOS was the event itself. There wasn't time to show what that would have had on society or the characters fully in MOS, which we didn't get.

[Agent Z]

Man of Steel's finale has Superman blithely indifferent to collateral damage on a scale of about ten 9/11s, and also ends with him snapping Zod's neck.

Revisionism about Man of Steel has gotten out of hand.

Yeah, from people who hate it. There is a difference between being indifferent and not being able to do anything about collateral damage. Nor is this the first Superman to even fight without a care for collateral damage.

[Agent Z]

This subject is rife in politics, both back in the Golden Age and with films now. Superman, like Captain America, was a political reaction to events in the 30's. What "evil" they were fighting wasn't ambiguous. Are you talking about in-universe or in our world?



This is an understatement. The film itself and the films afterward did nothing with that, that's been a big problem with those movies. Other characters, like Batman, had a deeper connection to the aftermath of the Battle of Metropolis than Superman did. It showed him yelling out once and pouting once, for something which should be a life changing event with how he reacted but we get nothing of substance from the person who snapped Zod's neck. People go into therapy for years and talk to their loved ones constantly about things like that, but not this Superman. He bottles everything up.


In my post I was talking about the changes he made in the DCEU after Man of Steel, since MOS was the event itself. There wasn't time to show what that would have had on society or the characters fully in MOS, which we didn't get.

Most movie superheroes who kill don't go to into therapy or even angst that much about it yet it's MOS Superman who gets vilified for it even though he has more of a reaction than most of them. The only other movie superhero who reacts to killing someone for the first time is Dr Strange and he spends about as much time mulling over it as Superman did.

Also, no he does not bottle everything up. He actually does talk about his problems to those close to him but you would know that if you actually paid attention to the films instead of cherrypicking.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Most movie superheroes who kill don't go to into therapy or even angst that much about it yet it's MOS Superman who gets vilified for it even though he has more of a reaction than most of them. The only other movie superhero who reacts to killing someone for the first time is Dr Strange and he spends about as much time mulling over it as Superman did.

Many movie super-heroes have emotional states which are openly talked about and/or heavily implied to be in mental distress ver their actions and many are constantly being self aware about how being a super-hero is destroying their life and hurting their sanity when they kill. There also less of a burden since we know what they're thinking, they're not blank slates. Dr Strange has a longer and more human reaction to killing someone than Superman does, and he's a mental wreck over it. When Tony Stark kills people in the first movie he's such a basket case Pepper calls him out on how he's not acting like himself any longer and he defines his life by his "mission" - none of this applies to Superman. Black Widow's life is defined by how many people she's killed and it's heavily implied she hates herself for it, ergo "red on her ledger." It drove their characters forward, after MOS Superman can watch Batman brutally murder numerous people in public, and not bat an eye lash over it.

Also, no he does not bottle everything up. He actually does talk about his problems to those close to him but you would know that if you actually paid attention to the films instead of cherrypicking.

Sure he does, Snyder's Superman's not a talker. He's miserable we're supposed to think yet the movies never go into why that is. He's not presented as someone who would got to therapy as an option, even if he was able to. The problem is I did pay attentioin and the movies made him look bad by his actions. So many questions abut his mental space and opinions on the world and he's more interested in doing anything other than looking sad. And if he'd want to, all he has is Lois and his mother. He's not looking for anyone like himself to talk to.

Edit: Superman is supposed to be standing up for things, but what does Snyder's stand for? He stands for nothing but doing whatever he wants. Does he think maybe government should naturally be wary of a god-like being who levels cities? The implication of the drone is that he won't hesitate to burn them if sees them, that's all we get.