Action Comics #31 Preview

[misslane]

i never said it bothered me lol, just that for the sake of a critic it is pointless. as for your lack of interest in seeing the storyline, when you emphasize how much you dislike seeing the storyline despite knowing the state of clarks mind, it just seems like crying over spilled milk. by all means, feel free to do so but don't get mad at me for laughing at it.

Let me be clear, I don't dislike the storyline despite knowing Clark's state of mind. I dislike it because his mind was contrived (by the creative team) to be in this state in the first place AGAIN.

so your complaining about the plot existing in the first place? i guess you must really hate jean grey then lol. i can understand not liking a certain plot but the point i'm stressing is that you still have to acknowledge that it makes sense, and for that purpose alone it has a right to exist.

Yes, I don't appreciate this plot being revisited again with only a few variations. And, again, I don't have to acknowledge anything because I never denied it. I have only said I'm tired of seeing this same plot (Superman does bad things) with the same justification (Superman's out of his mind) played out again. That means I never questioned whether it made sense or had a right to exist. I only ever said that I am sick of it.

okay, so a total of seven so called pedestal moments are overkill? see that's funny because during and after the whole trinity war storyline, batman, lex luthor, booster gold, steve trevor, apollo, strife, zod and faora have expressed critiques against them. so this overload of positive sentiment for smww is highly exaggerated. best example, the consensus amongst people during the news outbreak in smww4/5 was mixed. i just don't see the how fairly mixed reception equates to mary sueing here.

According to descriptions of Mary Sue-ness, having people obsess and comment on you excessively for positive or negative reasons has the same effect. From the entry, "most Sues by this definition combine both types of attention: they're loved by every sympathetic character they meet and hated by every unsympathetic character. It's true that most fictional characters are designed to be charismatic, striking individuals who inspire strong reactions in the audience, but it's also true that in the real world, no matter how charismatic you are, most people you know just don't spend all their time thinking about you." It's the fact that everyone in the universe is so obsessed with Superman and Wonder Woman that everything stops so that narration bubbles or dialogue have a chance to insert an obligatory comment about them whether excessively positive or excessively negative. At the rate everything's going with the commentary of both sorts, the level of noise coming from people's thoughts or comments in these books will become deafening, suffocating the life out of the couple and storyline.

['Dax]

It's a common trope for heroes to punch bad guys when punching bad guys is the only way to protect people. Punching a bad guy when he's not an imminent threat, is not typical of the trope unless you're dealing with a flawed hero.

With Superman's powers, he would almost never need to punch anyone. Oh, but he does, and always has, even when he didn't really need to. Because he is flawed. At least, certainly, he's not perfect. And, honestly, all heroes are flawed. What's a perfect hero? Well, that's just getting into deeper philosophical territory. The whole idea of costumed vigilantes standing for good is contradictory, but you don't need me to tell you that. Many authors have already addressed that.

(Didn't read the rest of the thread yet when I posted this. But this statement of yours just really bothered me.)

[misslane]

With Superman's powers, he would almost never need to punch anyone. Oh, but he does, and always has, even when he didn't really need to. Because he is flawed. At least, certainly, he's not perfect. And, honestly, all heroes are flawed. What's a perfect hero? Well, that's just getting into deeper philosophical territory. The whole idea of costumed vigilantes standing for good is contradictory, but you don't need me to tell you that. Many authors have already addressed that.

(Didn't read the rest of the thread yet when I posted this. But this statement of yours just really bothered me.)

One punch I could get, but this Superman? He's being cheered on by people in the thread for punching someone repeatedly until he's bleeding profusely, and who looks to have broken his arm for good measure. Someone who, yes, is being annoying, but who's also trying to help. This is a man Superman went to see in prison to remind himself to keep his cool with H'El, because he had once lost his temper with Lex so badly he injured him and regretted it and didn't want to repeat that mistake with another adversary. This is a Superman who threatened to punch Orion not until he was subdued, but until he needed to be treated at a hospital's Intensive Care Unit. This is a Superman who saw Hal Jordan have to take the fall for Wonder Woman losing her cool so badly in public, that a scapegoat was needed so the Justice League could save face.

Sure characters can have flaws, but it's up to the individual to decide whether those flaws are acceptable and endearing or lamentable examples of a person who is too out of control, too stupid, too selfish, and too impulsive to care about how his momentary pleasure at pounding someone will hurt not only that person but also his friends and his reputation. Obviously enough people have read the scene and hoped that Superman's not in his right mind because the alternative would make Superman look not just flawed, but awful due to the severity and hot headedness of his actions. Even Diana believes in using her new God of War mantle to encourage people to see violence and war as a last resort, not easy satisfaction. Such behavior on Superman's part should make us cringe, not make us cheer.

Also, for reference, the original Doomsday storyline was a commentary on violence and how violence begets violence. I can only hope that this new take on Doomsday has something equally profound to say rather than be yet another excuse to not write Superman as Superman and instead write him as someone infected with a villain or mind control that provides a convenient justification for him to act the dark, villainous character who's ironically a damsel in distress as well as the object of attacks from all sides -- friend and foe alike -- DC evidently prefers him to be because they like it and sense that the masses might just like it too. DC Comics is so ashamed of Superman and thinks he and their properties are so lackluster that they've decided that the evil versions of the Trinity in Trinity War and Forever Evil as well as the dystopian gore of Future's End weren't enough of a showcase of their characters in a state of corruption and infighting. Maybe it'll be a quick tidy bow they put on it at the end after we get through Doomed and Enemy of the State. It's an ingenious formula really, you can still tell a face saving story where good triumphs over evil with maybe a little hallmark moral at the end, but most of the time you get to spend turning your hopeful and upright superhero into a mindwhammied victim and villain. If that's what it takes for DC to finally get this crap out of their system so we can *fingers crossed* go one year without Superman literally becoming a villain for months at a time, I guess I can deal.

[Sacred Knight]

This is a Superman who saw Hal Jordon have to take the fall for Wonder Woman losing her cool so badly in public, that a scapegoat was needed so the Justice League could save face.

Huh? What does Superman have to do with this? This was purely Wonder Woman and Hal's malfunction. Superman tried to stop it and earned a kick for his efforts. Of which he did not retaliate and add to the mayhem. He tried to play peacemaker. How is any of what Diana and Hal did on Superman? Hal taking the fall for what was partly his fault was his own decision, no one forced it on him.

[misslane]

Huh? What does Superman have to do with this? This was purely Wonder Woman and Hal's malfunction. Superman tried to stop it and earned a kick for his efforts. Of which he did not retaliate and add to the mayhem. He tried to play peacemaker. How is any of what Diana and Hal did on Superman? Hal taking the fall for what was partly his fault was his own decision, no one forced it on him.

Simple. It's called observational learning. Superman, from observation, would have seen the cost of such behavior even if he didn't personally engage in it or experience the consequences. In other words, if this was a uncorrupted Superman (and I'm framing it this way because the issue is whether what Superman did to Lex in the preview is something one should want and cheer him doing in his right mind) he would know that attacking Lex like that for a moment's satisfaction would have a huge cost to himself and his friends based on what he learned from observing others' experiences.

[Sacred Knight]

Ah, well in that case I'll leave that to those who do want him to do such things when in his right mind, as I don't. I still don't feel sorry for Luthor, there are much better and much more innocent people whom could have been an unfortunate victim of an infected Superman's wrath, but I don't and never have supported a Superman who would attack anyone, especially a human being, physically unprovoked (unless of course said being was physically attacking others).

[Robotman]

Action has been one of the best books out there since Pak and Kuder took over!

[Lokimaru]

One punch I could get, but this Superman? He's being cheered on by people in the thread for punching someone repeatedly until he's bleeding profusely, and who looks to have broken his arm for good measure. Someone who, yes, is being annoying, but who's also trying to help. This is a man Superman went to see in prison to remind himself to keep his cool with H'El, because he had once lost his temper with Lex so badly he injured him and regretted it and didn't want to repeat that mistake with another adversary. This is a Superman who threatened to punch Orion not until he was subdued, but until he needed to be treated at a hospital's Intensive Care Unit. This is a Superman who saw Hal Jordan have to take the fall for Wonder Woman losing her cool so badly in public, that a scapegoat was needed so the Justice League could save face.

Sure characters can have flaws, but it's up to the individual to decide whether those flaws are acceptable and endearing or lamentable examples of a person who is too out of control, too stupid, too selfish, and too impulsive to care about how his momentary pleasure at pounding someone will hurt not only that person but also his friends and his reputation. Obviously enough people have read the scene and hoped that Superman's not in his right mind because the alternative would make Superman look not just flawed, but awful due to the severity and hot headedness of his actions. Even Diana believes in using her new God of War mantle to encourage people to see violence and war as a last resort, not easy satisfaction. Such behavior on Superman's part should make us cringe, not make us cheer.

Also, for reference, the original Doomsday storyline was a commentary on violence and how violence begets violence. I can only hope that this new take on Doomsday has something equally profound to say rather than be yet another excuse to not write Superman as Superman and instead write him as someone infected with a villain or mind control that provides a convenient justification for him to act the dark, villainous character who's ironically a damsel in distress as well as the object of attacks from all sides -- friend and foe alike -- DC evidently prefers him to be because they like it and sense that the masses might just like it too. DC Comics is so ashamed of Superman and thinks he and their properties are so lackluster that they've decided that the evil versions of the Trinity in Trinity War and Forever Evil as well as the dystopian gore of Future's End weren't enough of a showcase of their characters in a state of corruption and infighting. Maybe it'll be a quick tidy bow they put on it at the end after we get through Doomed and Enemy of the State. It's an ingenious formula really, you can still tell a face saving story where good triumphs over evil with maybe a little hallmark moral at the end, but most of the time you get to spend turning your hopeful and upright superhero into a mindwhammied victim and villain. If that's what it takes for DC to finally get this crap out of their system so we can *fingers crossed* go one year without Superman literally becoming a villain for months at a time, I guess I can deal.

You know , When Batman beats the **** out of the Joker no-one bats (heh) an Eye. Batman is to the Joker what The Rock is to Steve Errkel yet no one cares cause Batman's "Punching dirty turkeys in the face" to quote Kevin Smith. Lex is a Superman Villian present situation notwithstanding, If he didn't want to get Punched in the Face by his Arch he should have Worn a Helmet (Lex Luthor SUPperr GEEnius!). Supes just let Lex know who the F he was dealing with.


If it makes you feel any better just say it was for that P.A. that Lex pushed off his Building. Snug Bastard had it Coming.

[misslane]

You know , When Batman beats the **** out of the Joker no-one bats (heh) an Eye. Batman is to the Joker what The Rock is to Steve Errkel yet no one cares cause Batman's "Punching dirty turkeys in the face" to quote Kevin Smith. Lex is a Superman Villian present situation notwithstanding, If he didn't want to get Punched in the Face by his Arch he should have Worn a Helmet (Lex Luthor SUPperr GEEnius!). Supes just let Lex know who the F he was dealing with.


If it makes you feel any better just say it was for that P.A. that Lex pushed off his Building. Snug Bastard had it Coming.

So, according to you, a superhero should keep an account of wrongs of a villain and once they've hit their quota, the superhero should seek that villain out and give him his scheduled beating? You realize that people are acknowledging in this thread that Superman wouldn't and shouldn't do what he did to Lex, and they're only okay with it because he's likely not in his right mind, right? But, no, you're okay with Superman bloodying someone's face up and breaking their arms as being the norm for him. Should Superman seek out Lex and thrash him when he's cured of his Doomsday infection, because he's earned it? Lex isn't an idiot. He knows Superman is powerful enough to beat him up, and he has the scars to prove that Superman's capable of losing it with him. Lex isn't afraid. He's clever. He's clever enough to use Superman's violent outbursts against him, and it's because of that Lex is so successful as an arch nemesis. Sorry, but we're just going to have agree to disagree on this as I will never be okay with Superman reacting so violently to someone (if he was in his right mind, which I don't think he is here but you seem to have a problem with whether Superman's himself or not) in a situation that is not nearly as provocative in terms of taunting or threats to warrant such an extreme overreaction.

[misslane]

Ah, well in that case I'll leave that to those who do want him to do such things when in his right mind, as I don't. I still don't feel sorry for Luthor, there are much better and much more innocent people whom could have been an unfortunate victim of an infected Superman's wrath, but I don't and never have supported a Superman who would attack anyone, especially a human being, physically unprovoked (unless of course said being was physically attacking others).

I don't feel sorry for Lex, but that's partly because of his past wrongs and partly because I don't think sustaining physical injury would upset him. I can't tell from the preview, nor do I know Lex's recent history from his storyline in Forever Evil, so maybe Lex's presence on the team is the result of underhanded manipulation and his comments are intended to wound as part of a larger plan or for sport. However, from what I read from the preview, Lex didn't say or do anything that made it seem like any violent reaction was warranted. So, my guess is Lex would get some sick pleasure out of the fact that Superman is in such dire straits that he'd do something to make him not only look more scary to anyone in the public that might become aware of it, but also proves his fears about Superman correct in terms of how dangerous he can be as a result of his great power being vulnerable to exploitation, making an argument for some sort of force or strategy to manage him if the need arises. In short, it's hard to pity Lex when I think he'd perceive Superman hitting him as proof that he's right to fear him and hate him.

My primary feeling, though, is that I feel sorry for Superman. This isn't who he is (his wounds and infection are affecting him), and I hate that Lex has unsettled him so much in the past and in his current role that Superman is feeling so irritated around him.

[Auguste Dupin]

You know , When Batman beats the **** out of the Joker no-one bats (heh) an Eye. Batman is to the Joker what The Rock is to Steve Errkel yet no one cares cause Batman's "Punching dirty turkeys in the face" to quote Kevin Smith. Lex is a Superman Villian present situation notwithstanding, If he didn't want to get Punched in the Face by his Arch he should have Worn a Helmet (Lex Luthor SUPperr GEEnius!). Supes just let Lex know who the F he was dealing with.


If it makes you feel any better just say it was for that P.A. that Lex pushed off his Building. Snug Bastard had it Coming.

Wasn't it established that Lex had a forcefield around his head?

[deadboy80]

It's finally here, been eating for this story for a while. Can't wait, c'mon Wednesday!!

[hellacre]

Looking forward to this!

[kidstandout]

Let me be clear, I don't dislike the storyline despite knowing Clark's state of mind. I dislike it because his mind was contrived (by the creative team) to be in this state in the first place AGAIN.



Yes, I don't appreciate this plot being revisited again with only a few variations. And, again, I don't have to acknowledge anything because I never denied it. I have only said I'm tired of seeing this same plot (Superman does bad things) with the same justification (Superman's out of his mind) played out again. That means I never questioned whether it made sense or had a right to exist. I only ever said that I am sick of it.



According to descriptions of Mary Sue-ness, having people obsess and comment on you excessively for positive or negative reasons has the same effect. From the entry, "most Sues by this definition combine both types of attention: they're loved by every sympathetic character they meet and hated by every unsympathetic character. It's true that most fictional characters are designed to be charismatic, striking individuals who inspire strong reactions in the audience, but it's also true that in the real world, no matter how charismatic you are, most people you know just don't spend all their time thinking about you." It's the fact that everyone in the universe is so obsessed with Superman and Wonder Woman that everything stops so that narration bubbles or dialogue have a chance to insert an obligatory comment about them whether excessively positive or excessively negative. At the rate everything's going with the commentary of both sorts, the level of noise coming from people's thoughts or comments in these books will become deafening, suffocating the life out of the couple and storyline.

fair enough, let's leave it at that

according to tv tropes, the most common definition of a mary sue is as follows
"The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment. She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye color, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing.
She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story. The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues, and are quick to adopt her as one of their True Companions, even characters who are usually antisocial and untrusting; if any character doesn't love her, that character gets an extremely unsympathetic portrayal. She has some sort of especially close relationship to the author's favorite canon character — their love interest, illegitimate child, never-before-mentioned sister, etc. Other than that, the canon characters are quickly reduced to awestruck cheerleaders, watching from the sidelines as Mary Sue outstrips them in their areas of expertise and solves problems that have stymied them for the entire series. (See Common Mary Sue Traits for more detail on any of these cliches.)
In other words, the term "Mary Sue" is generally slapped on a character who is important in the story, possesses unusual physical traits, and has an irrelevantly over-skilled or over-idealized nature."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue

in what way does any of the bolded statements fit diana?
1 diana does not exist to serve the author's ideal version of themselves (though one could say that for gail)
2 diana's looks in terms of hair and eye color are very common.
3 diana is a very normal name
4 her skillset is very common amongst the dcu
5 she has signifigant character flaws
6 her origin, especially in the new 52 is rather generic
7 batman was critical of her during trinity war and look what happened, he's the only trinity member not in a box and fighting the crime syndacate
8 i didn't see wonder woman take out darkseid by herself, and if you look at her solo, more often then not she is getting help.
9 tell me if this statement describes diana based on the last 8 points.

the only point you have that could support the idea of her being a sue is how people have been marveling at her over dating superman. that's not enough to justify calling her a sue and to entertain that notion is foolish

['Dax]

misslane, your post quoting me seemed more addressed to others than me, and I agree with most of what you said. I won't bother responding to that post specifically.

I find the Mary Sue talk in this thread pretty humorous, but I philosophically oppose the notion of the Mary Sue.

kidstandout, the text you bolded is not the usual definition of a Mary Sue. It's a description of the prototype Mary Sue from fan fiction. The definition varies, but the most broad definition of a Mary Sue is an idealized character, usually a form of wish-fulfillment and/or a self-insertion. (Obviously, this definition has problems.) The description provided by misslane, also, has problems. If a character did not possess any qualities or did not perform any actions to warrant the attention they receive, then I would understand labeling them as a Mary Sue. But I would say that Superman and Wonder Woman, individually and especially as a couple, most definitely have traits to justify the amount of attention they receive. I agree with misslane that for the most part in the New 52, Wonder Woman has been written poorly, but I wouldn't call her a Mary Sue.

In any case, I think Doomsday is a terrible character, boring and one-dimensional, a gimmick. I don't expect much from Doomed, but Pak and Kuder have been so consistent. I hope they can put out something good. This preview isn't giving me any faith though.