Page 63 of 79 FirstFirst ... 135359606162636465666773 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 945 of 1179
  1. #931
    Incredible Member SuperX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    This is where I'm in direct conflict with the current DC's approach. I don't see Superman as just a title for anyone who acts the part on any given Earth. It was for example the most lasting and awesome message of Reign of the Supermen so long ago. There can be those who are inspired by him and be great heroes in their own right but there is only one Superman. I am supremely disappointed to see that now after so long they're trying to turn the approach into that of Flash or Green Lantern.

    I agree with you, the name is not a title it's a person, and thst person is Clark Kent, and always will be.

    You can tell who really has no strong connection to a character by how easily they would take everything away from them.
    Where is my damn Tactile Telekinesis?
    - Conner Kent /kon-el

  2. #932
    Mighty Member manduck37's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperX View Post
    I agree with you, the name is not a title it's a person, and thst person is Clark Kent, and always will be.

    You can tell who really has no strong connection to a character by how easily they would take everything away from them.
    I also agree. Superman is not a legacy superhero and never has been. Making him one suddenly doesn't fix any of the issues with Superman. It does, however, make me want to not read Superman anymore. Which is a shame as he's my favorite character. If they want to sideline him for someone else, I guess I'm not the target audience.

  3. #933
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    IDK here guys I'm a big believer in retirement from the hero life not being an option for Kal but on the other hand I'm also a big believer in the big guy not being into all the over the top pageantry about what does and doesn't make someone a hero or a "Superman". Much like Clark Kent and Kal-El they're just names and if one day someone else is going by it as long as Clark is still out there kicking ass and solving problems I really don't think it matters much what people call him. Hell how many storylines have had Superman get dragged off to be a gladiator or a soldier in some army, yet I don't really see anybody calling him a warrior. The guy's probably built more robots than %99 of the DCU but no one really calls him a roboticist.

    Imo actions are more important than titles in the Superman line of work.
    Rules are for lesser men, Charlie - Grand Pa Joe ~ Willy Wonka & Chocolate Factory

  4. #934
    Astonishing Member LordUltimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,894

    Default

    I think the problem is that this is happening all at once. If they had Jon grow up naturally, and had teased the idea of Jon becoming his successor for at least 5-10 years, people might have warmed up to it.

    I mean, not EVERYBODY, I think plenty of people on this board would disagree heavily, but the backlash probably wouldn't have been quite as strong.

  5. #935
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,017

    Default

    I think it would have been, honestly. The only thing I think that would have prevented was the separate anger from Jon fans over his rapid aging. There's a two-pronged effect here of Superman fans being mad over him being replaced and Jon fans still being mad he was aged up a couple years ago in the first place. That latter prong would've probably been avoided in such a situation you describe, but not the former. In the end I don't think its about proper build-up, I think its just that by and large Superman fans are there for him. Not successors. Its just not something the evidence shows the overall fandom has ever been receptive to, regardless of a couple success stories that might have been had with the idea in the past with other franchises. Not every mythos is created equal in terms of its collected fandom.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 01-18-2021 at 03:43 PM.
    "They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El

    "“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer!”

  6. #936
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Yeah I agree. Many people can take over for Clark after a certain point in time, but I see no reason for them to take the name Superman.

  7. #937
    Mighty Member Blue22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordUltimus View Post
    I think the problem is that this is happening all at once. If they had Jon grow up naturally, and had teased the idea of Jon becoming his successor for at least 5-10 years, people might have warmed up to it.

    I mean, not EVERYBODY, I think plenty of people on this board would disagree heavily, but the backlash probably wouldn't have been quite as strong.
    ^Bingo^

    If they hadn't force-grown Jon the way that they did, I wouldn't have nearly as much venom for this new direction as I do now. I'd still be upset since the man that Jon's become is about as interesting and unique as a loaf of store bought white bread. But if the previous version had been around for a lot longer, I at least wouldn't think it was too soon to age him up. Especially if said aging up was gradual, like it should have always been. I wouldn't feel like one of my favorite characters was unceremoniously killed and replaced. I'd just...feel like he grew up into someone I don't wanna follow anymore. Disappointing but not anger inducing.

    Case in point. Damian. Dude's been around since like 2006. If they wanna age him up now? I'm cool with it. They already started by finally making him a teenager...he just hasn't physically aged yet lol

  8. #938
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordUltimus View Post
    I think the problem is that this is happening all at once. If they had Jon grow up naturally, and had teased the idea of Jon becoming his successor for at least 5-10 years, people might have warmed up to it.

    I mean, not EVERYBODY, I think plenty of people on this board would disagree heavily, but the backlash probably wouldn't have been quite as strong.

    Well I can honestly say I don't really care what happens to Jon. He can become Superman or not Superman that means nothing to me. I'm just defending Clark from the idea that his name or other adornments is what makes him Superman or that he's suddenly going to retire because his kid or someone else is going by Superman now.

    As for wacky things happening to Jon. I see it the same way that Lois get pushed to the side. Its because modern Superman is a really dreary and dull person despite his "bright and sunny" persona. He's a seriously weak central pillar for the franchise and his personality needs a near total overhaul if he's going to be the main character here. At this point he just completely lacks potential or possibility all of which has been robbed from him by the numerous attempt to ground him over the past couple decades. Like seriously his current backstory is he was on a farm until he was 18 and then he became Superman; that's absolutely unacceptable for someone who had hundreds of issues dedicated to his backstory at one point. What happen to Superman's knack for robotic engineering? The old Kryptonian almenac he used to have? Where's the fun and whimsy with this dude? Where's his Golden Age preemptive passion for justice? It's night and day the way Batman and Wonderwoman treat Finger&Kane/Marston and the way Superman treats Siegel&Shuster. If this character is going to live the modern writers need to respect Siegel and Shuster.
    Rules are for lesser men, Charlie - Grand Pa Joe ~ Willy Wonka & Chocolate Factory

  9. #939
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    11,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    This is where I'm in direct conflict with the current DC's approach. I don't see Superman as just a title for anyone who acts the part on any given Earth. It was for example the most lasting and awesome message of Reign of the Supermen so long ago. There can be those who are inspired by him and be great heroes in their own right but there is only one Superman. I am supremely disappointed to see that now after so long they're trying to turn the approach into that of Flash or Green Lantern.
    Agreed. There are some who believe that every superhero identity is just a title and the natural order of things is to pass them down, but it's really not that clear cut. There is a lot more wiggle room with IPs like the Flash and Green Lantern or even further down with the likes of the Atoms. But Superman? He's been Clark Kent since 1938 with no substantial long lasting successor. The title is a huge part of his character that you can't really separate the two. He was old when I met him, and he was still new to me. Even though the IP is much weaker than it used to be, it is still one of the bigger ones that moves merchandise based on name/logo recognition.

  10. #940
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,017

    Default

    Yup. You can then turn and ask, well what about an IP like Batman, where Bruce Wayne is almost as old? Why was Dick Grayson successful in a replacement role even if temporary? Well, Dick Grayson has been a beloved stalwart of the mythos as the classic sidekick for the vast majority of the franchise's existence. That's why bumping him up on occasion works.
    "They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El

    "“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer!”

  11. #941
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Also, Bruce Wayne ages and it becomes less reasonable for him to be the main player in Gotham City. That doesn't happen to Clark

  12. #942
    Extraordinary Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    7,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Also, Bruce Wayne ages and it becomes less reasonable for him to be the main player in Gotham City. That doesn't happen to Clark
    In theory anyway, but there’s always the Lazarus Pits and any aging is arbitrary anyway. The characters age only if DC allows them too, otherwise Batman is a 30-40 year old forever.

  13. #943
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    11,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    Yup. You can then turn and ask, well what about an IP like Batman, where Bruce Wayne is almost as old? Why was Dick Grayson successful in a replacement role even if temporary? Well, Dick Grayson has been a beloved stalwart of the mythos as the classic sidekick for the vast majority of the franchise's existence. That's why bumping him up on occasion works.
    Yeah, if Dick Grayson can't do it, it's hard to imagine anyone else would for Batman, or the other two members of the Trinity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Also, Bruce Wayne ages and it becomes less reasonable for him to be the main player in Gotham City. That doesn't happen to Clark
    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    In theory anyway, but there’s always the Lazarus Pits and any aging is arbitrary anyway. The characters age only if DC allows them too, otherwise Batman is a 30-40 year old forever.
    They can come up with any reason for the characters being ageless, if they need to bring it up at all, so specifically bringing in aging up characters as an excuse to phase them out and replace them with >insert reader favorite here< isn't really fool proof. Bruce can fall into the Lazarus Pit and have it shave off however many decades the writer wants; Clark and Diana have precedent for either being ageless or aging extremely slowly, etc.

  14. #944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The World View Post
    As for wacky things happening to Jon. I see it the same way that Lois get pushed to the side. Its because modern Superman is a really dreary and dull person despite his "bright and sunny" persona. He's a seriously weak central pillar for the franchise and his personality needs a near total overhaul if he's going to be the main character here. At this point he just completely lacks potential or possibility all of which has been robbed from him by the numerous attempt to ground him over the past couple decades. Like seriously his current backstory is he was on a farm until he was 18 and then he became Superman; that's absolutely unacceptable for someone who had hundreds of issues dedicated to his backstory at one point. What happen to Superman's knack for robotic engineering? The old Kryptonian almenac he used to have? Where's the fun and whimsy with this dude? Where's his Golden Age preemptive passion for justice? It's night and day the way Batman and Wonderwoman treat Finger&Kane/Marston and the way Superman treats Siegel&Shuster. If this character is going to live the modern writers need to respect Siegel and Shuster.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post
    I do get some element of it. Clark's myth has grown to astronomical levels and everyone has a very firm belief of who he is and isn't. Unlike others who mostly just have to be cool, Superman is also a symbol of the United States to many and as such a divided nation, both sides want to claim him. Clark has become too ingrained in the American identity. Jon doesn't have that problem. Their goal is a Superman that feels familiar without the preconceived notions on what he should or shouldn't do. Everyone thinks they know Superman, and they might, but that means any decision he makes in a film isn't going to just be a choice in the movie, it's going to be checked against the viewer's interpretation and if you don't hit every note, it's not Superman.
    Ironically enough, I was just reading Morrison JLA #6 (Fire in the Sky) and Superman hits on this very point himself rather poignantly.

    "I worry because everyone seems to look up to me and it's making me a little uncomfortable. I can try but I can't solve every problem. I don't know if I can live up to this myth they want me to be."

    A character is stacked up against impossible odds when they are forced to be all things to all people. I'm not sure if Morrison was the first to nail this (in 1997), but here we are still talking about the very same issues.

  15. #945
    Extraordinary Member Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    5,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Frog Bros View Post
    Ironically enough, I was just reading Morrison JLA #6 (Fire in the Sky) and Superman hits on this very point himself rather poignantly.

    "I worry because everyone seems to look up to me and it's making me a little uncomfortable. I can try but I can't solve every problem. I don't know if I can live up to this myth they want me to be."

    A character is stacked up against impossible odds when they are forced to be all things to all people. I'm not sure if Morrison was the first to nail this (in 1997), but here we are still talking about the very same issues.
    Was it Ennis in Hitman who had Clark mention that when he arrived on a scene, an astronaut was relieved because he knew Superman would save him. Clark had to hold a blast door closed and couldn't save the guy, but through it all up until he was vaporized, the astronaut looked as if he'd already been saved because Superman would never let him down. Clark had to internalize that.

    On some level, that transcends to him in the real world as well-- Superman is the man we created who would never let us down in our darkest hour, so if you see him do something you don't agree with-- he's not Superman! It's created a myth no character can overcome and I can understand why a writer or megacorporation is looking for a break-- that's a hard bar to clear, and if we know anything about modern business practices, you make the most money by operating lean, not by investing in the absolute best. Why bank on the Hail Mary when you can change the game where base hits can generate grand slam profits anyway?

    I'm not trying to disparage Jon with that analogy, but if you have to deliver a magnum opus to give Clark the kind of narrative that appeals to everyone-- you simply don't need to work as hard for Jon, but you may end with similar yields. At least that's what seems to be the intent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •