Why do people want to think Superman is a fascist with absolute power?

[JAK]

All it takes is that one right story that hits at the right time. Or at least, I'd like to think so....but DC has spent a lot of years doing stuff that looks an awful lot like they're actively trying to hold the character back. You don't put a sexual predator in charge of a franchise you give a **** about. But new owners and new people in charge so who knows? This time next year we could be talking about the new HBOMax series that's getting ready to launch with movie sized budgets and a cast that's made the fanboy in all of us squee like kids seeing Reeves for the first time. Anything is possible.

But I suspect it'll be Clark entering public domain that ushers in a new golden age for him. Assuming Disney and WB don't successfully lobby for an extension in the law again, there are a lot of people out there who would love to get their hands on Superman, people always seem ready to give him a chance no matter how badly the last attempt went (people are predisposed to love Clark, and have to be taught to hate him...much like Mandela's observations about hate), and the Golden Age version (which is all that'd be hitting public domain initially) is arguably more relevant today than he was when he was created.

Agreed. And as soon as the latter happens, I'll finally get to make my Golden Age movie with nothing in the way.

[DABellWrites]

I don't think we can say that proxies work "better" since we've never had a public domain Superman to make the comparison before. If and when the character enters the domain, it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out, whether successful adaptations come of it or not (and some of the failures might be more entertaining than the ones that pull it off!). The original Superman bears little resemblance to the Superman the average person knows, and in many ways is far removed from the archetype that those proxies and analogues play with. But it's still Superman, and that name carries weight.

And as far as I know, we've never had a character enter the public domain while trademarks and other rights were still held by a specific entity, so that's another wrinkle to consider (if I'm right, anyway).

In any case I don't wanna derail the thread. The idea of these characters entering the PD is intriguing to me, but this ain't the spot for it. I started a thread about this topic in the indie forums earlier in the year if anyone wants to revive it but let's not get off on too big a tangent.

Old Captain Marvel stories are in the public domain while the trademark and copyright is owned by DC/WB. Probably the closest we'll get to that.

[Jim Kelly]

I guess for you young guys, it's potentially possible that this heaven you imagine will occur in your lifetime. I expect to be dead in the ground by the time Superman reaches the holy public domain. To me it's a waste of time to speculate about that and live for that day to come. Be here now and don't build up ice cream castles in the air.

[Ascended]

Old Captain Marvel stories are in the public domain while the trademark and copyright is owned by DC/WB. Probably the closest we'll get to that.

Oh yeah, I forget about that. The legality of the Captain Marvel stuff is convoluted and half of it seems to exist within legal limbo, without strong precedent behind it. But good catch, somehow Captain Marvel always slips my mind in these discussions despite my being a fan of both Billy and Marvel's Carol Danvers.

I guess for you young guys, it's potentially possible that this heaven you imagine will occur in your lifetime. I expect to be dead in the ground by the time Superman reaches the holy public domain. To me it's a waste of time to speculate about that and live for that day to come. Be here now and don't build up ice cream castles in the air.

I don't know how old you are Jim, but assuming the law isn't changed again Clark would be hitting public domain in....2033, I think? Still a good ways out, and who knows what will happen between now and then, but it's not so far off either. I expect I'll probably still be kicking around then, though I'm not quite "young" anymore myself (and we live in turbulent times, who knows whom among us will be sucking air by then?). But I figure, this is about more than my own enjoyment too. If I'm dead by the time Clark hits the domain, there will still be kids who need to discover this character, like I did, and maybe they'll find what they need beyond the limited vision and corporate bullshit of DC.

[catman]

I am sorry. It's my fault, not yours. I should have written more clearly. Your English is quite good--much better than my attempts at other languages.

Why does stuff happen in comics? The answer with the fewest assumptions is usually the best (Occam's razor).

Why do the things in comic books happen? Because they look good.

Comics are visual. It's all about creating images to excite the reader. Of course, they could just have page after page of cool pictures, with no story--which some comic books try to get away with. But if there's a story, then the pictures need a purpose.

If a story is only eight pages, it can't waste its time. It has to get to the cool pictures fast. So characters are pushed into actions they wouldn't normally do, in order for the spectacular visuals to happen.

Often it's Superman using his powers to push other characters into those scenes. But it can also be an outside forcing pushing Superman into the spectacle. Either way, the characters do what they do for a cool looking scene in the story--which is also often featured on the cover or the splash page in old school comic books.

You don't need to invent a more complicated answer. Just the same, people invent complicated reasons for why the characters are so hell-bent on doing weird stuff. Since the characters are forced into these weird situations, some people decide there's a fascist forcing the characters to do these things.

Really the "fascists" are the people creating the visual story. They are forcing characters to do things they wouldn't normally do. They have authority over the story, so you could say that's fascist. Of course, that's a silly thing to say. The creators are just trying to give readers a thrilling experience--in a cheap ten cent comic book.

Form follows function. The function is to provide visual entertainment. The form has to provide spectacular images. To do that characters and things have to be mashed up in a scene. It all has to be pushed together. That pushing can be remixed and remastered to look like fascism.

Thank you and true respect for your answer.
And, I am sorry for my late reply.I was busy dealing with my work in 2021&New year.

In fact, without some toxic stories slandering Superman as right authoritarian or Elseworld that Superman's character is intentionally different, I have never thought that Superman is a bunch of fascist because Superman is historically anti-ubermensch and anti-fascism and anti-nazi. His whole existence has been for hope and everyone's equality and justice. Whether he is liberal or conservative in each age doesn't matter.
Even Alan Moore and Garth ennis don't even think Superman is fascist because they respect Superman and the idea of Superhero, They only appllied grim dark real logic（humanity is not so kind and people insisting they are hero are often psychotic, Goverment and commercial industry use propaganda to advertise their poliy, TRUE superheroes don't exist in real world in the first place）into comic book. So I think calling Superman and superheroes fascist based on their works is very irrelevant.
I wanted to know why western people call Superman fascist with wrong information and reasoning.
But you and other people in this thread answered my question well. I didn't know the word fascism lost it's meaning and become meaningless buzzword for slandering people or fiction they hate.
Thank you for answering my question.

[Jim Kelly]

I wrote this a couple of weeks ago, but then didn't post it (at least I don't think I did), but I'll post it now--

Many years ago now, I was in the bookstore and came across a book of essays on Alan Moore comics. I was flipping through it when I landed on an essay about a certain Tom Strong story that I had read a few years before. The essayist pointed out a bunch of symbolism in the story that I had totally missed, which was all about fascism. The essayist was trying to prove how great Moore was for deliberately putting these messages into the story. But it had the opposite effect on me. Now that I saw Moore had intended this rigid meaning to the story and everything in the story existed for that purpose, it made the story less fun.

I think the best stories are those that come from our unconscious. The writer discovers the story as it's being written. What makes the story good is how it naturally flows from an unknown part of our psyche. When the writer purposefully manufactures a story to deliver a clear message, it's less engaging.

If you look at a Hitchcock movie, there are many compelling images in them. You can psychoanalyze Hitchcock and come up with theories for why those images exist, but the truth is probably that they came out of his psyche and he felt the need to put them in his movies. In THE BIRDS, for example, there are a lot of striking images of birds, but what it all means is hard to put your finger on. It's something that goes beyond our rational thought.

In comics, especially super-hero comics, the plot is in service of creating arresting images. The elaborate plotting in Weisinger era comics is there for the sake of allowing these spectacular scenes to happen. That's why characters do the things they do. That's the basic explanation for it all. There's an image that needs to be in the story and the writer has to find a way to get to that image. And it has to happen within a limited number of pages and panels. So the characters must move like pieces on a chessboard to get to that square as quickly as possible.

[DochaDocha]

I always use this example as a reason why Superman wouldn't want to be in charge of things. If we should ever get another dictatorial Superman story, I hope it's written sort of in this vein, in which Superman is the grumpiest, most miserable person alive because being in charge of every mundane decision would be a hellish life. I'd just not make the world a crumbling dump like 1987 Shredder would.

[Agent Z]

I always use this example as a reason why Superman wouldn't want to be in charge of things. If we should ever get another dictatorial Superman story, I hope it's written sort of in this vein, in which Superman is the grumpiest, most miserable person alive because being in charge of every mundane decision would be a hellish life. I'd just not make the world a crumbling dump like 1987 Shredder would.

You could say this about any villain who wants to take over the world.

[DochaDocha]

You could say this about any villain who wants to take over the world.

Where I might disagree is that some villains are probably sadistic enough that they would enjoy pushing people around and wouldn't care about a lot of people's lives being in disarray. The argument for characters like Injustice and Justice Lord Superman is that he wants an ordered world and supposedly is so paternalistic he wants people to live his vision of an idealized world of no crime and blah blah, so 30 million people living in substandard housing and without water and electricity would bother him whereas it might not bother another generic evil villain.

In my version of a supreme ruler Superman story, it would be that the corrupt people in power begged Superman to rule the world, and he ended up making things better, throughout the most part, and for the time being Superman was content. But then corrupt people ended up hating Superman, and the non-corrupt people got lazier and lazier and just expected Superman to fix everything from world hunger to the energy crises and Superman made a sucker out of himself and caught himself in a vicious, unending cycle.

[Ascended]

That's actually a reason the comics use for why Clark doesn't solve the big problems isn't it? And one of the arguments Lex makes against Superman.

And I think there's real merit to it, honestly. If Clark, I dunno, got rid of all pollution in the world....wouldn't that just mean that people would keep polluting, knowing that someone else would take care of their problem? Wouldn't corporations start dumping more trash, knowing it would be taken care of before it became a major PR problem for them?

I like a politically active and socially minded Superman, someone who gets his hands dirty and involves himself in the real problems of real, average people. But there's a fine line between Clark being engaged with real issues, and solving everyone's problems for them.

If Clark really is trying to aim humanity at that bright future he saw with the Legion (which is my preferred take on his Never Ending Battle; he's got a plan and a goal in mind, he's not just trying to vaguely inspire people to some vague concept of "better") then part of that is knowing that people need to get there on their own, if he makes the choices for us then we're not actually getting better as a species, and that bright future won't come to pass.

[Robotman]

I think it's pretty telling when people say that "Superman is only cool with he's an evil tyrant" or they just "don't get Superman". If the idea that someone with absolute power would use that power to help others is a concept they can't comprehend or even hope for, then that's pretty sad. It says a lot about a person who can only envision a being with power using it for selfish and totalitarian reasons.

Some people can't grasp the idea of a hero embodying altruism.

[Jon Clark]

I think it's pretty telling when people say that "Superman is only cool with he's an evil tyrant" or they just "don't get Superman". If the idea that someone with absolute power would use that power to help others is a concept they can't comprehend or even hope for, then that's pretty sad. It says a lot about a person who can only envision a being with power using it for selfish and totalitarian reasons.

Some people can't grasp the idea of a hero embodying altruism.

It's the zeitgeist.

The person needing help is always assumed to be trying to get something for nothing. The beggar on the street is probably pulling in more than you. The person standing by the side of the road with the car hood open is waiting to rob whoever stops.

The person offering help is probably got an ulterior motive. If you offer to buy a new ice cream cone for the kid who just dropped theirs, you are probably a pervert. If you hold a door open, you are patronizing the person behind you.

And since I know I am corruptible, how dare you insinuate anyone is more virtuous than I am.
Plus even if they are acting altruistically- well how do i know that what they thnk I want is really what I want, They might enforce a version of "good" i disagree with.

[manwhohaseverything]

Insinuating someone is more virtuous isn't big deal.most people are better people than myself.And i assume most people feel the same about themselves.Regardless of me being wrong,i hate the " in your face" reverence that's given to the character's "good" in universe and outside.

If people said "eff of clark" more often.Treated the character as just that, outside the universe and inuniverse as just a dude.I would be fine.If the character ain't,i think i've read and seen more virtuous dudes kicking ass.People don't doubt them cause they get the genuinety.

For example,batman does good despite his issues.Spiderman does good despite him being a kid that messes up with power.Even when they are hated they do good.Superman does good with out any issues other than great power.I would say batman and spiderman are more virtuous.That's just how i feel.

Clark in reality ain't more virtuous for me dispite these writers trying to shove that thought into my head with heavy artillery and hype. Especially since writing doesn't back it up.

Moreover, it's not that Superman(books i mean) says something.It's how he says it.Very much in patronizing manner.I have no pride in being good nor do i think i am.if someone calls me the devil i will probably laugh it off.Superman fans and writers take pride in superman's morality.That's why it hurts to see the guy evil.For me, it's pretty stupid.The idea of taking pride in morality.

[Jon Clark]

For example,batman does good despite his issues.Spiderman does good despite him being a kid that messes up with power.Even when they are hated they do good.Superman does good with out any issues other than great power.I would say batman and spiderman are more virtuous.That's just how i feel.

To me it's modern Batman's flaws and issues that make him non-virtuous. His driving force is "Someone hurt me when i was a kid, I'll hurt them and everyone like them back". His belief is that his ends always justify his means. Torture his teammates- if it gets the job done Bruce is game. If you try to kill the Joker. Bruce'll stop you. If Bruce decides to kill the Joker, well that is different. Batman is the lowest common denominator- the guy who does what we all want to do- hurt those who hurt us. He doesn't ask you to be any better than you are.

I'll give you Spider-man is virtuous but he's the virtuous people like- the kind with feet of clay. He is the guy who strived to do good, but fails as often as he succeeds. He'll protect the innocent- but only if Aunt may doesn't need him at home. He needed crime to personally touch him to motivate his heroism. His first instinct with his powers was to earn himself some money. His go-to tactic is to throw his costume in the trash when things get hard.

Moreover, it's not that Superman(books i mean) says something.It's how he says it.Very much in patronizing manner.I have no pride in being good nor do i think i am.if someone calls me the devil i will probably laugh it off.Superman fans and writers take pride in superman's morality.That's why it hurts to see the guy evil.For me, it's pretty stupid.The idea of taking pride in morality.

And that is what I am talking about. people today treat morality or a code of ethics as something disposable. They no longer want to see someone better than themselves and emulate it, they instead see someone better than themselves and want to tear it down. It's too hard to actually have to live up to our ideals- so we need stories that show us that no one can live up to their ideals. We want heroes who are as screwed up as we are so we don't have to try. We don't want a Superman to show us how to solve our problems, we want a failed Superman to reassure us that even if we were far more powerful we'd still be just as base and corrupt so there is no need to put forth effort at doing good.

[Timothy Hunter]

This infatuation with the concept of an "evil Superman" might be a form of self loathing on the part of certain comic book fans. Some of them might have a need for their superhero stories to be deconstructionist, self depreciating, and cynical to justify to themselves reading superhero comics without being embarrassed.