Superman Complaint Thread

[LoveStar]

Yeah, he definitely needs the far more relatable struggles that come with of dating a gorgeous, white, immortal, invincible royal demigod who can take his super dick and be a brood mare to a super race of god kids. Really non-generic "struggles" that are far more relatable. Rebirth wasn't perfect, but the idea that its inherently worse or "easier" than what came before is ridiculous. There were no "struggles" for New52 Superman.

My complaint is that really "relatability" has become a meaningless buzz word with Superman and that all these attempts to make him "relatable" are a mess and will never work. No one knows what it means or what it actually is supposed to serve. Some of the most popular characters or franchises in fiction are not "relatable" in any way shape or form. James Bond, Fast & Furious, the MCU, etc. Batman isn't "relatable" in the same sense that Superman is criticized for. Spider-Man isn't "relatable" in the same sense either. The majority of both the comic fandoms are middle aged white men. Superman is actually - in all his incarnations - far more relatable than either. Most people just mean that they don't like the character or the stories.

Superman and his stories aren't cynical enough, that is the problem. And one I don't want fixed actually. There would be the same reaction to everyone's pet versions of Superman across the board for that reason. Relatability is a strawman at best. PJK's Superman isn't "relatable" and neither is Morrison's. Yet both are pretty much the gold standard for modern versions.

Diana isn’t American, and is treated as such. She is seen as an “exotic” foreign goddess in a way that’s crude and childish for male fantasies. It goes far beyond “looks” which is brought up in such an insecure manner as you have. However, same can be said with Lois being a glorified housewife during rebirth, or this perfect American city girl that get away with have a bad obnoxious attitude thinking it’s some girl boss power.
The struggle between Superman and Wonder Woman is that their “humanity” goes into question if they dare acknowledge being the outsiders they are as well as not being tied to American love interests. Or where do they actually fit but come to realize being different is what they should represent instead of conforming.
Superman’s identity reveal under Bendis was that he was oddly widely accepted with little to no fall out and not questioned at all. Instead was propped as President or King of Earth.
New52 Superman was propped to lose everything when his identity was revealed and went through hell. He lost the Kents early on but learned on his own how to move forward and be a man instead of having the privilege of flying home when things got a little tough. Or the fact that they were brought back for post-crisis/rebirth Superman to have his perfect family. New52 also wasn’t praised easily but had to earn his way.
Jon Kent is supposedly being propped up as the “one true” Superman and stronger, better than Clark, a full fledged Kryptonian. He is better and special because being part human. So pot calling kettle black here don’t you think?
At least any kids Clark and Diana have would be unique instead of copies.

Bold: Superman is suppose to be for everyone no matter age. That’s where the relatability comes from. Risks are taken with Batman and Spider-Man. But middle aged white men want to self insert themselves in to the character. Any changes with Superman to even try to push him to the modern era even with getting rid of the red undies is met with backlash. New52 Superman wasn’t for the middle aged and wasn’t full of self hate because he wasn’t a normal American.
I actually like what Superman should stand for but don’t like that his potential is wasted on the bare minimum or that he is written as a naive simpleton with outdated views.

[Frontier]

Diana isn’t American, and is treated as such. She is seen as an “exotic” foreign goddess in a way that’s crude and childish for male fantasies. It goes far beyond “looks” which is brought up in such an insecure manner as you have. However, same can be said with Lois being a glorified housewife during rebirth, or this perfect American city girl that get away with have a bad obnoxious attitude thinking it’s some girl boss power.
The struggle between Superman and Wonder Woman is that their “humanity” goes into question if they dare acknowledge being the outsiders they are as well as not being tied to American love interests. Or where do they actually fit but come to realize being different is what they should represent instead of conforming.
Superman’s identity reveal under Bendis was that he was oddly widely accepted with little to no fall out and not questioned at all. Instead was propped as President or King of Earth.
New52 Superman was propped to lose everything when his identity was revealed and went through hell. He lost the Kents early on but learned on his own how to move forward and be a man instead of having the privilege of flying home when things got a little tough. Or the fact that they were brought back for post-crisis/rebirth Superman to have his perfect family. New52 also wasn’t praised easily but had to earn his way.
Jon Kent is supposedly being propped up as the “one true” Superman and stronger, better than Clark, a full fledged Kryptonian. He is better and special because being part human. So pot calling kettle black here don’t you think?
At least any kids Clark and Diana have would be unique instead of copies.

Bold: Superman is suppose to be for everyone no matter age. That’s where the relatability comes from. Risks are taken with Batman and Spider-Man. But middle aged white men want to self insert themselves in to the character. Any changes with Superman to even try to push him to the modern era even with getting rid of the red undies is met with backlash. New52 Superman wasn’t for the middle aged and wasn’t full of self hate because he wasn’t a normal American.
I actually like what Superman should stand for but don’t like that his potential is wasted on the bare minimum or that he is written as a naive simpleton with outdated views.

That's an...interesting take on Lois' sassiness I've never heard before. Like, she's snarky and witty, but I don't think she's mean-spirited about it (or at least she shouldn't be). She's not perfect but human yet courageous in a way that represents everything Superman believes about humanity (Ideally).

I agree on the issue with Bendis' handling of his identity being revealed, but I think that's more on Bendis than that specific interpretation of Superman. Of course I'm a classic fan but I'm also pretty young so I've never related to him as a middle aged white man. I was 17 when the New 52 hit but I just could never 100% get into New 52 Superman and his mythos like others did. I understand to some extent why they embraced him but he just never felt quite right or as whole to me.

[Yoda]

Diana isn’t American, and is treated as such. She is seen as an “exotic” foreign goddess in a way that’s crude and childish for male fantasies.

I agree the focus on Wonder Woman being a sex toy for him from people like Frank Miller is crude and childish. As is the focus on her being somehow more worthy of him than Lois because of the fixation that can would be one of the few people to be able to have sex with him. Should add I don't think that's a legit reason for anything. It shouldn't be a factor.

It goes far beyond “looks” which is brought up in such an insecure manner as you have. However, same can be said with Lois being a glorified housewife during rebirth, or this perfect American city girl that get away with have a bad obnoxious attitude thinking it’s some girl boss power.

Also, no complaints from me on this. I don't like Lois as a housewife or shut-in writer. version of Lois from Rebirth and Bendis' run. PKJ actually has done a great job with Lois recently, and Bendis did as well when he actually had her doing things. Really it's a bad writing issue rather than a Lois issue. I don't think she's been written as a "girlboss" any more than Wonder Woman is written as one. I mean, Wonder Woman has become a stereotypical "Strong Female Protagonist" where she's some badass killer. It's just as tired as the "girlboss" idea. I will say I find a lot of people who find Lois "obnoxious" seem to have issues with strong women in general and I find the dynamic Lois & Clark have is a fun bantering one where they go back and forth. Being secure this is actually a fun dynamic.

The struggle between Superman and Wonder Woman is that their “humanity” goes into question if they dare acknowledge being the outsiders they are as well as not being tied to American love interests. Or where do they actually fit but come to realize being different is what they should represent instead of conforming.

Except neither are really outsiders at all and all attempts to force them to act like them come off as weak whining. They want for nothing in life and have boatloads of friends who have greater burdens than either of them ever will. The "outsider" status is the same tired "we're heroes and no on can understand the burdens we have" trope that is played out in every single super hero adaptation. I mean, it's no where near as deep as you seem to think it is and definitely never rose above those tired tropes before.

Superman’s identity reveal under Bendis was that he was oddly widely accepted with little to no fall out and not questioned at all. Instead was propped as President or King of Earth.
New52 Superman was propped to lose everything when his identity was revealed and went through hell. He lost the Kents early on but learned on his own how to move forward and be a man instead of having the privilege of flying home when things got a little tough. Or the fact that they were brought back for post-crisis/rebirth Superman to have his perfect family. New52 also wasn’t praised easily but had to earn his way.

I mean, why wouldn't he be accepted in any way shape or form? If anything the New 52 reveal was dumb as hell. He's saved the world multiple times. There are literally hundreds of known alien races in the universe. The only consequence that makes any sense is one related to reporting and in that sense, Bendis' take was far more realistic, because any media organization would gladly have Superman on staff.

Jon Kent is supposedly being propped up as the “one true” Superman and stronger, better than Clark, a full fledged Kryptonian. He is better and special because being part human. So pot calling kettle black here don’t you think?
At least any kids Clark and Diana have would be unique instead of copies.

Jon's not being propped up as a new race of god kids to rule over the lowly humans. His humanity is being played up. Again, this idea that physical strength and power is something that makes one better is inherent in things like Miller's weirdly supremist take on Superman. You know, the literal "Golden Child". And the whining about Jon replacing Clark is also separately kinda ridiculous when it's part of the 5G stories where Superman is older and far more powerful years after Jon's lost to time. Again, this is really insecurity of Superman fans playing out through Jon. I don't disagree that playing up Jon in this way is kinda lame, but really it's not the focus of the stories. His humanity is actually being played as the stronger aspect, which I think would make him a little more relatable than demigod status.

Bold: Superman is suppose to be for everyone no matter age. That’s where the relatability comes from.

I don't disagree he should be for everyone. But I just don't see how anything you're talking about makes that more or less true. What does "relatable" mean here? Because you're arguing on one had that he needs to be unlike a certain subset of people to be relatable to another and I don't agree with that.

Risks are taken with Batman and Spider-Man.

How exactly? Spider-Man has been in the same costume for 60 years. Batman too. They literally have Spider-Man stunted as a perpetual man child, going so far as to have him make a deal with the devil to get rid of his wife and go back to being single. What risks do they take with Spider-Man? They just reset the status quo in the MCU back to the basics! Same questions for Batman, what risks or growth do they do with Batman? The formulas for both are pretty vanilla and basic.

I actually like what Superman should stand for but don’t like that his potential is wasted on the bare minimum or that he is written as a naive simpleton with outdated views.

Again, we're seeing the Superman you think is outdated being used by PKJ and Morrison to tell these type of stories. There's no outdated views, naivety, etc. The issue is really bad writing.

[Yoda]

That's an...interesting take on Lois' sassiness I've never heard before. Like, she's snarky and witty, but I don't think she's mean-spirited about it (or at least she shouldn't be). She's not perfect but human yet courageous in a way that represents everything Superman believes about humanity (Ideally).

It's a pretty common complaint from certain corners. It doesn't read as mean spirited to me at all either. Erica Durrance's Lois embodies it to a great extent, which I love. Bantering back and forth is great.

Not to say it can't be done badly. Sometimes it definitely can. But I don't find it to often be a good faith criticism.

[manwhohaseverything]

How exactly? Spider-Man has been in the same costume for 60 years. Batman too. They literally have Spider-Man stunted as a perpetual man child, going so far as to have him make a deal with the devil to get rid of his wife and go back to being single. What risks do they take with Spider-Man? They just reset the status quo in the MCU back to the basics! Same questions for Batman, what risks or growth do they do with Batman? The formulas for both are pretty vanilla and basic.

Spiderman has a bunch of costume changes.Batman has as well.The general idea of the costume is what kept.Golden child is a reference to buddha.Gold is auspicous.Saying that's supremecist is like saying gandhi was facist.
"He really sort of developed as a little floating Buddha"

[Yoda]

Spiderman has a bunch of costume changes.Batman has as well.The general idea of the costume is what kept.Golden child is a reference to buddha.Gold is auspicous.Saying that's supremecist is like saying gandhi was facist.
"He really sort of developed as a little floating Buddha"

Spider-Man had had one basic suit that has had minor stylistic upgrades in 60 years paired with a second black and white suit that is a alternate. Sound familiar? Batman pretty much the same. The shades of color and minor stylistic upgrades over the years but it’s all the same basic design.

Miller views their children as ultra powerful special gods above humanity. Just like he views Superman as above humanity who are fragile little bugs to them. There are creepy supremist undertones to Miller’s take on Superman. But the point was that somehow Clark & Lois’ Jon isn’t worthy of his place but from people who salivate over Miller’s version is hypocritical and entire based on a shipping preference. I’m well aware of the double meaning to Golden Child. It reinforces the point I was making.

[Prime]

Going to lodge my complaint here that it’s infuriating we’re likely going to never see Clark and Brainiac fight on the big screen. Thanks Snyder.

...f*ck. Thanks a lot indeed Hack Snyder.

[LoveStar]

That's an...interesting take on Lois' sassiness I've never heard before. Like, she's snarky and witty, but I don't think she's mean-spirited about it (or at least she shouldn't be). She's not perfect but human yet courageous in a way that represents everything Superman believes about humanity (Ideally).

I agree on the issue with Bendis' handling of his identity being revealed, but I think that's more on Bendis than that specific interpretation of Superman. Of course I'm a classic fan but I'm also pretty young so I've never related to him as a middle aged white man. I was 17 when the New 52 hit but I just could never 100% get into New 52 Superman and his mythos like others did. I understand to some extent why they embraced him but he just never felt quite right or as whole to me.

What’s “classic”, varies. Pre-Crisis or Post-Crisis? That the “classic” starts from 1986, shouldn’t be the idea. New 52's Superman was more a modern take on pre-Crisis Superman.

I agree the focus on Wonder Woman being a sex toy for him from people like Frank Miller is crude and childish. As is the focus on her being somehow more worthy of him than Lois because of the fixation that can would be one of the few people to be able to have sex with him. Should add I don't think that's a legit reason for anything. It shouldn't be a factor.

And people focus on Diana being a foreign Goddess that takes away Clark’s humanity and makes him not human when she is the one from Earth and he is an alien from another planet.

Also… my initial response has nothing to do with Diana or Lois. You are the one that brought this up. So yeah none of this shouldn’t be a factor. It’s fanboy talk that does nothing for any of the characters. I don't care for it.

Also, no complaints from me on this. I don't like Lois as a housewife or shut-in writer. version of Lois from Rebirth and Bendis' run. PKJ actually has done a great job with Lois recently, and Bendis did as well when he actually had her doing things. Really it's a bad writing issue rather than a Lois issue. I don't think she's been written as a "girlboss" any more than Wonder Woman is written as one. I mean, Wonder Woman has become a stereotypical "Strong Female Protagonist" where she's some badass killer. It's just as tired as the "girlboss" idea. I will say I find a lot of people who find Lois "obnoxious" seem to have issues with strong women in general and I find the dynamic Lois & Clark have is a fun bantering one where they go back and forth. Being secure this is actually a fun dynamic.

I have issues with Diana’s warrior woman and well bad mediocre writing has been the issue for a very long time, hasn’t it?
As a woman myself, the whole girlboss thing with any character is obnoxious overall. There’s a difference between bantering and belittling and sometimes (blame bad writing) it comes off just as that.

Except neither are really outsiders at all and all attempts to force them to act like them come off as weak whining. They want for nothing in life and have boatloads of friends who have greater burdens than either of them ever will. The "outsider" status is the same tired "we're heroes and no on can understand the burdens we have" trope that is played out in every single super hero adaptation. I mean, it's no where near as deep as you seem to think it is and definitely never rose above those tired tropes before.

Yes they are. Diana doesn’t feel exactly in place on Themyscira, nor with the Olympians nor man’s world. While Clark is just living a lie everyday making himself be someone he isn’t. The don’t want anything but they give everything. They have boatload of friends, but can still feel alone.

To say complaining about being outsiders is weak whining, shows how that aspect you either don’t understand nor connect with. And that’s fine. But some people do understand and connect with it. Sure, just like every single trope there is, but it’s still something about the outsider aspect that works for them. Even DC uses the trope in encyclopedias as one of the main parts of their character descriptions. So that’s that.

And like is said, it’s what they were suppose to represent overall as characters just in a more modern way especially in reality when we have this push for more representation of diversity.

I mean, why wouldn't he be accepted in any way shape or form? If anything the New 52 reveal was dumb as hell. He's saved the world multiple times. There are literally hundreds of known alien races in the universe. The only consequence that makes any sense is one related to reporting and in that sense, Bendis' take was far more realistic, because any media organization would gladly have Superman on staff.

He was young, didn’t have the Kents, and like I said actually acknowledged his alien side. He wasn’t saluting the American Flag and actually going against the government.

Those hundreds aren’t shown. Superman was hiding which in reality people can’t do, had a job writing articles on himself or even Lois writing stories which was unethical and being rewarded as King/President of Earth? Yeah that’s realistic….

Jon's not being propped up as a new race of god kids to rule over the lowly humans. His humanity is being played up. Again, this idea that physical strength and power is something that makes one better is inherent in things like Miller's weirdly supremist take on Superman. You know, the literal "Golden Child". And the whining about Jon replacing Clark is also separately kinda ridiculous when it's part of the 5G stories where Superman is older and far more powerful years after Jon's lost to time. Again, this is really insecurity of Superman fans playing out through Jon. I don't disagree that playing up Jon in this way is kinda lame, but really it's not the focus of the stories. His humanity is actually being played as the stronger aspect, which I think would make him a little more relatable than demigod status.

Where was that ever written about god kids ruling over lowly humans? If anything that’s the perception you have or of course a character like Lex or someone random thinking the worst. But that’s never been.
You keep bringing up Miller? I mean his world is twisted, not really to be taken serious. So again that’s your perception on this subject not the reality if it ever came about from somewhere other than Miller’s elseworld take.
Lara was hidden away from the government as a child growing up to have a cynical view of the outside world while Jon was taken to jail for 45 minutes and written to act like it was torture.
Frank Miller’s little Jonathan is basically a regular anime toddler character.

It’s not insecurity when it was said to be so and written on page from time to time. What’s so special about his humanity? He is no different in that regards than Clark or Diana or any other hero. It seems more so you have a dislike of the Demigod status. And that’s goes back to my initial response again of xenophobic subtext.

I don't disagree he should be for everyone. But I just don't see how anything you're talking about makes that more or less true. What does "relatable" mean here? Because you're arguing on one had that he needs to be unlike a certain subset of people to be relatable to another and I don't agree with that.

Instead of being spoon fed or Clark’s self righteous speeches while he on another end seems to have this happy go lucky privileged life, give him more of struggles, personality, etc that can actually be something impactful to the modern era

How exactly? Spider-Man has been in the same costume for 60 years. Batman too. They literally have Spider-Man stunted as a perpetual man child, going so far as to have him make a deal with the devil to get rid of his wife and go back to being single. What risks do they take with Spider-Man? They just reset the status quo in the MCU back to the basics! Same questions for Batman, what risks or growth do they do with Batman? The formulas for both are pretty vanilla and basic.

Thinking outside of comics, the GA doesn't care or know about making a deal with the devil nor that he is stunted. Somehow there’s enough creativity still to keep gaining popularity and that goes for Batman too. Batman can be placed in different settings regardless what it is. Their basics might be vanilla, but somehow it’s still appealing today to a larger audience than Superman’s basics.

Again, we're seeing the Superman you think is outdated being used by PKJ and Morrison to tell these type of stories. There's no outdated views, naivety, etc. The issue is really bad writing.

It’s a few relics here and there for Superman. The views, naivety are from the bad uncreative writing of whoever is writing then in that case.

[Frontier]

What’s “classic”, varies. Pre-Crisis or Post-Crisis? That the “classic” starts from 1986, shouldn’t be the idea. New 52's Superman was more a modern take on pre-Crisis Superman

I get that, it just didn't really do it for me.

And people focus on Diana being a foreign Goddess that takes away Clark’s humanity and makes him not human when she is the one from Earth and he is an alien from another planet.

Diana is from Earth but coming from Themyscira, a literal female utopia cut off from the outside world, I think definitely skews her perspective somewhat. Not that it has anything to do with her lacking humanity, because she doesn't, but I don't think the way they've written their relationship at times helped.

I have issues with Diana’s warrior woman and well bad mediocre writing has been the issue for a very long time, hasn’t it?
As a woman myself, the whole girlboss thing with any character is obnoxious overall. There’s a difference between bantering and belittling and sometimes (blame bad writing) it comes off just as that.

I don't think most Lois's come off like that, but that's just my POV.

Yes they are. Diana doesn’t feel exactly in place on Themyscira, nor with the Olympians nor man’s world. While Clark is just living a lie everyday making himself be someone he isn’t. The don’t want anything but they give everything. They have boatload of friends, but can still feel alone.

Well, it depends which interpretation we're talking about when it comes to how comfortable she is in Themyscira, but usually she's depicted as being happy there, if a little listless before Steve Trevor shows up. Of course that's also true for how much of a lie "Clark Kent" is.

I know certain interpretations have her feeling isolated because of the circumstances of her birth or being the only little girl on the island who grew up, but at the end of the day she's usually embraced by her sisters (expect in the New 52, I guess?)

He was young, didn’t have the Kents, and like I said actually acknowledged his alien side. He wasn’t saluting the American Flag and actually going against the government.

Those hundreds aren’t shown. Superman was hiding which in reality people can’t do, had a job writing articles on himself or even Lois writing stories which was unethical and being rewarded as King/President of Earth? Yeah that’s realistic….

I think people overplay Superman as a government agent versus Superman who just so happens to work with the government when necessary to help others.

Instead of being spoon fed or Clark’s self righteous speeches while he on another end seems to have this happy go lucky privileged life, give him more of struggles, personality, etc that can actually be something impactful to the modern era

Even happy people struggle. He lost his entire planet and culture, and that's always going to be with him one way or another.

[LoveStar]

I get that, it just didn't really do it for me.

We all have different preferences is all. That’s why there’s so many different iterations of characters. They’ll connect to some more than others. That’s fine.

Diana is from Earth but coming from Themyscira, a literal female utopia cut off from the outside world, I think definitely skews her perspective somewhat. Not that it has anything to do with her lacking humanity, because she doesn't, but I don't think the way they've written their relationship at times helped.

That still comes off like saying she might be from earth but she is from a foreign island therefore she doesn’t have what defines “humanity” which boils down to coming from America or being American. How I see it, and maybe it’s because of being a POC, understanding different views of different cultures not one being above all. And isn’t that the point of Diana leaving in the first place? To learn and explore the world as a whole?

Their relationship isn’t perfect. No pairing is but never has it come off as them seeing themselves as Gods above humans on page. Unless OOC evilness from Injustice where again both Clark and Diana are pretty much shown as weak minded and emotionally unstable because of the loss of human love interests.

Well, it depends which interpretation we're talking about when it comes to how comfortable she is in Themyscira, but usually she's depicted as being happy there, if a little listless before Steve Trevor shows up. Of course that's also true for how much of a lie "Clark Kent" is.

I know certain interpretations have her feeling isolated because of the circumstances of her birth or being the only little girl on the island who grew up, but at the end of the day she's usually embraced by her sisters (expect in the New 52, I guess?)

She’s happy but it’s still the underlying base narrative of being different, wanting more and wants to do more. She isn’t just an Amazon, a Goddess or a Princess.

And with “Clark Kent”…it’s an ongoing argument. For me, he needs balance. He was born Kal-El, raised as Clark Kent but Kal/Clark/Superman is one in the same.

That’s what makes them the complexed characters they are and shouldn’t be watered down as something over the other.

I think people overplay Superman as a government agent versus Superman who just so happens to work with the government when necessary to help others.

It’s a fine line when it comes to Superman though.

Even happy people struggle. He lost his entire planet and culture, and that's always going to be with him one way or another.

Yeah, everybody struggles, but reality is that there’s no easy outs. Like I said, Superman often makes these empty speeches like in rebirth Superman (conversation with Batman) because he has his bubble protected and that’s often all that seems to matter for Superman. But losing his entire planet and culture is something many writers want to ignore as if it doesn’t matter. That he is only from a farm. He is written that way from time to time as well.

[Frontier]

That still comes off like saying she might be from earth but she is from a foreign island therefore she doesn’t have what defines “humanity” which boils down to coming from America or being American. How I see it, and maybe it’s because of being a POC, understanding different views of different cultures not one being above all. And isn’t that the point of Diana leaving in the first place? To learn and explore the world as a whole?

Their relationship isn’t perfect. No pairing is but never has it come off as them seeing themselves as Gods above humans on page. Unless OOC evilness from Injustice where again both Clark and Diana are pretty much shown as weak minded and emotionally unstable because of the loss of human love interests.

Like I said it, Diana isn't lacking for humanity, it's more of a culture shock (although I feel like she was written a little "above humanity" somewhat in terms of SM/WW, at least from the issues I remember).

She’s happy but it’s still the underlying base narrative of being different, wanting more and wants to do more. She isn’t just an Amazon, a Goddess or a Princess.

And with “Clark Kent”…it’s an ongoing argument. For me, he needs balance. He was born Kal-El, raised as Clark Kent but Kal/Clark/Superman is one in the same.

That’s what makes them the complexed characters they are and shouldn’t be watered down as something over the other.

Well, there's another fine line because as much as Diana is exceptional in Themyscira she is also the product and scion of that entire society and embodies that in her identity, which goes into her complexity as a character. The desire to go out and do more is inherent in a lot of Superheroes.

Yeah, everybody struggles, but reality is that there’s no easy outs. Like I said, Superman often makes these empty speeches like in rebirth Superman (conversation with Batman) because he has his bubble protected and that’s often all that seems to matter for Superman. But losing his entire planet and culture is something many writers want to ignore as if it doesn’t matter. That he is only from a farm. He is written that way from time to time as well.

I don't see them as empty speeches but I guess that's just because I feel 100% sincerity from any Superman. Part of it is that the loss of Krypton is in abstract (compared to, say, Kara) but also just his general personality and demeanor.

[LoveStar]

Like I said it, Diana isn't lacking for humanity, it's more of a culture shock (although I feel like she was written a little "above humanity" somewhat in terms of SM/WW, at least from the issues I remember).

You must be talking about Tomasi because he rewrote their first meeting having Diana more warrior woman that was sword happy. He was called out but said he wanted conflict for story and contrast from Soule. He intentionally wrote her as that. While Soule had Diana talking to young girls, going shopping with Hessia, wanting to go to night clubs etc.

Ironic that Tomasi recently wrote Diana in the black/gold issue with the same warrior woman sword happy problems.
So no, it’s still not the relationship as a whole, it was the intent of one writer wanting unnecessary contrived OOC conflict.

Well, there's another fine line because as much as Diana is exceptional in Themyscira she is also the product and scion of that entire society and embodies that in her identity, which goes into her complexity as a character. The desire to go out and do more is inherent in a lot of Superheroes.

Diana acknowledges this time and time again going against the idea of being stuck on the island and or just being a Princess. She comes to the realization fairly quickly her motives are a bit naive so she learns and teaches.

Yeah it is in a lot of Superheroes but Superman and Wonder Woman are put to be the guides/leads of the other heroes.

I don't see them as empty speeches but I guess that's just because I feel 100% sincerity from any Superman. Part of it is that the loss of Krypton is in abstract (compared to, say, Kara) but also just his general personality and demeanor.

I mean they are suppose to be feel good uplifting speeches but sometimes coming from Superman depending on the situation feels empty.

His personality shouldn’t be so easily dismissive of Krypton still. Coming off ungrateful (like after Byrne's reboot). He wouldn’t have the powers if it weren’t for them. He shouldn’t wear the \S/ either.

[DochaDocha]

Speaking of Tomasi, can someone name a worse run on a Super-title than Tomasi on S/WW?

Besides Chuck Austen.

[Gaius]

Speaking of Tomasi, can someone name a worse run on a Super-title than Tomasi on S/WW?

Besides Chuck Austen.

[Jim Kelly]

What’s “classic”, varies. Pre-Crisis or Post-Crisis? That the “classic” starts from 1986, shouldn’t be the idea. New 52's Superman was more a modern take on pre-Crisis Superman.

In 1992, the publisher put out ten comics called DC SILVER AGE CLASSICS. Nine of these were facsimile reprints of issues from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. One wasn't a reprint per se--DC SILVER AGE CLASSICS SUGAR AND SPIKE 99 was new in the sense that it published Sheldon Mayer material that hadn't appeared in the U.S., but had appeared overseas.

The blurb in all these books said "For 37 years, DC comics have been printed at World Color Press in Sparta, Illinois. Now that era comes to an end as DC switches to new printing processes...but DC's not forgetting that part of its long history. DC presents the DC SILVER AGE CLASSICS, the last books printed on these presses."

So for me the hard line when Classic comics ended was in 1992 when those comics came out and the Sparta letterpress printings ended. Although for most comics I would say the cut-off is around 1985. So if in a post I refer to Classic comics, I mean comics from that earlier time. If I say post-Classic, I mean anything after that time.

I can't say I've been consistent on this. If I say something is classic (small 'c') then I could mean it's vintage or definitive. But for me the Classic Superman includes everything from 1938 through 1985. Anything after that is post-Classic. I prefer that because then it doesn't get into all the sub-categories of "Golden Age," "Silver Age" or such like. It's all the foundational texts for Superman in the Classic era--which have all been revamped and reiterated in the post-Classic era.