Superman post-Convergence spoiler

[Ascended]

Its sad to see traditional fans angry at this.

Dude, traditional fans get angry at everything. I've literally seen fans get mad because Clark claimed his favorite food was mustard covered pretzels, because in another issue years before, he said it was Martha Kent's apple pie. And this is the internet, the land of mock outrage.

What the f%$# is the whole point of this is my only thought.

Honestly, I think this is the beginning of re-building Clark and Lois' relationship (maybe not into a couple, but still). They'll start at rock bottom, and Clark will have to come to grips with whatever greater good propelled Lois to out him, Lois will have to come to grips with Clark's true nature. They'll see each other in a new light, and while there's certainly going to be drama and angst, they'll find themselves becoming closer than they have in years as they work through this newest shift in their dynamic.

But the point of all this is just to sell comics and make money. That's as far as that goes. You can always trust businessmen to worry about the bottom line first and foremost. Which is sort of nice in an odd way, you dont have to worry about ulterior motives. They'll do what they think will sell, and while their own opinions obviously influence that choice, they dont get to act like idiot fanboys and get on with all the ridiculous arguments and ideas we do here. No one wants to be the guy who made a long-running and popular character fall to ruin, after all. They'd end up in trouble at work, possibly fired, then unemployable afterwards. No one wants to hire the guy who ruined a popular and long-running character either. Their families would starve and friends, sensing the stench of pariah-ness, would abandon them. Hellfire would rain upon their homes, and disease would run rampant through their halls.

Clark can't deal with people asking him for help and can't accept criticism. Not really much of a man is he?

You're really not a Superman fan are you? You're also ignoring a lot of things from the past. We've seen Superman attempt to cure cancer and speak publicly about the larger, complex problems in the world. But even if he could solve all our problems (which he cant) what would be the point then? A dictator telling everyone what's best for them? Isnt that the plot of Injustice? Now I do agree that I'd like to see some real socio-political changes in the DCU, but corporate comics are never going to allow their settings to evolve beyond being a reflection of the real world. That's why, in post-Crisis, there was no such thing as a cosmic energy powered car, despite the technology existing since before World War II.

[misslane]

Stopping a yearly net loss of life in the millions doesn't make Superman the messiah or even close to it. Mankind has a backlog of issues and more mounting on the horizon that are in no way solved by him trying to keep as many people alive as possible instead of brushing it off as not being his problem. We're not going to end up in the Wall-E future just because more people get to live year round rather than Superman just saying "tough" and blocking out things he doesn't want to hear.

No, stopping the millions of deaths does not make Superman a messiah, but your suggestion that he do away with his private life as Clark Kent because it's holding him back from serving as a more proactive savior to mankind does bring him closer to one. Look, the sort of systemic problems that cause and will continue to cause the problems facing the world today are not problems that Superman can solve. That sort of change requires public support and political will. The kind of hero you're describing hews closely to the sort of hero envisioned in the Injustice series. It makes little sense to me to suggest that the world would be a far better place if only everyone knew Clark and Superman were the same guy, and Superman didn't have Clark to come back to for some kind of private life. There's no way that being Clark Kent causes Superman to view the world's problems as not his problems. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Being Clark Kent is Superman's way of affecting the sort of justice and change that he wants to see in the world without the scrutiny and red tape that would hamstring him as Superman. Clark Kent is a help not a hindrance, in other words.

Clark can't deal with people asking him for help and can't accept criticism. Not really much of a man is he?

I don't know if you really don't get it or if you're being deliberately obtuse because I didn't say anything about Clark choosing to ignore or run away from all requests for help or criticism. What I said, and I know you know that I said this, is that he uses Clark as an escape from that part of his life. He gets plenty of that as Superman; when he is Superman. He can still be a thoughtful, responsive, and receptive man and hero by keeping his Superman life and his Clark life separate.

[William300]

I wonder if Superman will start to lose some of humanity. This seems to be the end of Clark Kent. I always thought that he kept the Clark identity after finding out about his true heritage as a way to stay human, stay close to his "fellow" man and not get absorbed by his god like powers. He's losing a piece of himself.

[Auguste Dupin]

I wonder if Superman will start to lose some of humanity. This seems to be the end of Clark Kent. I always thought that he kept the Clark identity after finding out about his true heritage as a way to stay human, stay close to his "fellow" man and not get absorbed by his god like powers. He's losing a piece of himself.

For, like, 10 months.

[hellacre]

Stopping a yearly net loss of life in the millions doesn't make Superman the messiah or even close to it. Mankind has a backlog of issues and more mounting on the horizon that are in no way solved by him trying to keep as many people alive as possible instead of brushing it off as not being his problem. We're not going to end up in the Wall-E future just because more people get to live year round rather than Superman just saying "tough" and blocking out things he doesn't want to hear.

Clark can't deal with people asking him for help and can't accept criticism. Not really much of a man is he?

Good points. As Superman fans we want him to be called the greatest example of having humanity and greatest hero but ironically while trying to blend in, he does get away scotch free from the things other people in authority or powerful positions, ie they are expected to be open and accountable and not just hide away as and when they feel like it. The guy is not just a reporter but a man who can change the world. The idea of Clark Kent is to help him stay humble yes but Clark Kent is not all that he is. Clark Kent can't ever be forever. Clark Kent can't hide away and avoid what other regular people have to grapple and deal with. Can't a Superman openly as Clark/Kal stay humble? I think he should be able to. He also as you say should be able to man up to the truth. He can't have it both ways and roll as he pleases. I am sure this won't stick and we might go back to the status quo...but there needs to be a lesson to teach Clark...Clark is not all is he and Superman is not what he does. I would like to see him embrace the fallout. Not whine and run or hide. The people are going to react to him in all sorts of way and he should be ready for that. As a reporter he of all people should be ready for it. Ready that one day it could happen as well.

Lois should not have to apologize for doing her job. Not sure what circumstances are but this is a huge huge story and a reporter worth his/her salt...who do they owe? The people they owe the truth or one guy who hide a crucial truth while being a reporter? I don't know but I could see Lois being genuinely torn but...her first duty is to the truth. Else makes a mockery of what she dedicated her life to. He never confided in her and this best friends thing was just Lobdell trying to put forward a dynamic that had no evidence to support it. They colleagues and friends...good friends...but besties who share everything? Never saw it other than it being said. Told. Never shown. But that in itself puts her in a difficult position. She should not have to compromise her journalistic standards. Even back when they dated or married I always has questions on both her and Clark's ethics as reporters etc with the conflict of interest. But people often let it slide because of tradition and well real world rules were not really adhered to. I hope in the end Clark thanks her for allowing him the chance to face his fears and responsibilities and embrace his identity even if they go back to him getting back his id etc. This could be a defining story for the evolving SM mythology if told well.

[Punisher007]

Plus if she DID bury the story, then the obvious question would be "well did she only bury it because he's her friend." And that'd make her both a bad reporter, and an unethical one as well. Personally, I'm kind of interested to see where this goes.

[misslane]

Good points. As Superman fans we want him to be called the greatest example of having humanity and greatest hero but ironically while trying to blend in, he does get away scotch free from the things other people in authority or powerful positions, ie they are expected to be open and accountable and not just hide away as and when they feel like it.

No, he doesn't. Superman does not avoid accountability just because he has secret identity. There have been plenty of stories in which Superman has been challenged and criticized. Superman isn't hiding as Clark Kent. He's just trying to have a life that allows him to affect change in different ways and to gain some perspective away from the spotlight. My experience of the Superman/Clark dual identity is that Superman uses Clark to find injustices and to get a real picture of what ordinary people think of his heroic alter ego. He doesn't turn off the Superman side of himself completely as Clark Kent.

The guy is not just a reporter but a man who can change the world. The idea of Clark Kent is to help him stay humble yes but Clark Kent is not all that he is. Clark Kent can't ever be forever. Clark Kent can't hide away and avoid what other regular people have to grapple and deal with.

Clark Kent can't be forever, but Superman can have many human identities throughout his lifetime if it's something he feels benefits himself and the world. Being Clark isn't Clark's away of avoiding what regular people have to grapple and deal with. Clark Kent is Superman's way of experiencing for himself, as best he can, what it is like to be human and deal with human things. It allows him to get close to the needs and interests of humanity without the glare and interference of the Superman symbol. He investigates and experiences as Clark Kent, and either brings that knowledge to his role as Superman or he uses Clark Kent's profession as a journalist to make a difference.

Can't a Superman openly as Clark/Kal stay humble? I think he should be able to.

I don't think it's an issue of humility. I don't think there's a danger of Superman becoming arrogant with or without a dual identity. For me, it's an issue of what sort of lifestyle facilitates Superman's and Clark's mission best. Superman is a better hero because he allows himself to rest in a private life. Superman is a better hero because living a facsimile of a life as a regular guy gives him a perspective on the world and himself that he may not get otherwise. That's not to say that blurring the lines between Superman and Clark Kent would irrevocably destroy Superman's ability to best serve the public and his own personal needs, but I don't think it's a hindrance either.

He also as you say should be able to man up to the truth. He can't have it both ways and roll as he pleases. I am sure this won't stick and we might go back to the status quo...but there needs to be a lesson to teach Clark...Clark is not all is he and Superman is not what he does. I would like to see him embrace the fallout. Not whine and run or hide. The people are going to react to him in all sorts of way and he should be ready for that. As a reporter he of all people should be ready for it. Ready that one day it could happen as well.

I don't think wanting Superman to be able to maintain a secret identity implies that one wants him to run away from the truth or consequences once it is exposed.

Lois should not have to apologize for doing her job. Not sure what circumstances are but this is a huge huge story and a reporter worth his/her salt...who do they owe? The people they owe the truth or one guy who hide a crucial truth while being a reporter? I don't know but I could see Lois being genuinely torn but one way or the other...her first duty is to the truth. Else makes a mockery of what she dedicated her life to.

That's interesting. Why is the onus on Lois? It's Clark (and now Jimmy) who actually should feel most responsible to the truth. Does Clark's integrity as a journalist mean so little to you that you hold Lois to a far higher standard than you hold him? The code of ethics for journalists requires journalists to only report and expose truths like this one if the cost of keeping the secret is greater than the cost of revealing it. There must be a clear and imminent danger to the public linked to Superman's secret identity to warrant exposing it. It is quite possible that may be the case, but it certainly would never be about simply landing a big story for Lois.

He never confided in her and this best friends thing was just Lobdell trying to put forward a dynamic that had no evidence to support it. They colleagues and friends...good friends...but besties who share everything? Never saw it other than it being said. Told. Never shown.

Never shown? Both the "Doomed" and "Psi-War" arcs showed us that Lois would risk everything for Clark, Superman, and the world. They worked together and were close friends during the five year gap in New 52 continuity. As seen in the Morrison/Fisch run, they would regularly hang out at his apartment or go out to lunch together. Clark never confided in Lois because he was afraid to endanger her life. It wasn't an issue of trust, affection, or closeness, but an issue of Clark not wanting to lose one more person he loved. That's the New 52 canon.

Plus if she DID bury the story, then the obvious question would be "well did she only bury it because he's her friend." And that'd make her both a bad reporter, and an unethical one as well. Personally, I'm kind of interested to see where this goes.

If Lois buried the story because there was no need or impetus for the truth to be revealed, then she would be acting ethically rather than unethically. A good reporter does not reveal truths like this one unless the cost of keeping the secret exceeds the cost of revealing it. Unless there is a very clear context within the story that necessitates the world knowing that Superman has a human identity, then it would be unethical and unprofessional for Lois to run the story.

[manofsteel1979]

Dude, traditional fans get angry at everything. I've literally seen fans get mad because Clark claimed his favorite food was mustard covered pretzels, because in another issue years before, he said it was Martha Kent's apple pie. And this is the internet, the land of mock outrage.

Hey...it's beef bourguignon with Ketchup!!! Obviously you aren't a REAL Superman fan!!!! Begone, heathen!!!!!

Honestly, I think this is the beginning of re-building Clark and Lois' relationship (maybe not into a couple, but still). They'll start at rock bottom, and Clark will have to come to grips with whatever greater good propelled Lois to out him, Lois will have to come to grips with Clark's true nature. They'll see each other in a new light, and while there's certainly going to be drama and angst, they'll find themselves becoming closer than they have in years as they work through this newest shift in their dynamic.

God I hope so. Perhaps it is, and if one rationally coldly looks at it, then it is the most likely story reason. However, as a reader burned by the current regime repeatidly...I can't discount that this has less to do with writing a good story that rebuilds and restores a damaged part of the mythology, but instead more to reinforce the new mythology they seek to build on the bones of the old, a new, more marketable mythology that distances itself as far from the old as possible. I guess the next few months will tell the tale.

But the point of all this is just to sell comics and make money. That's as far as that goes. You can always trust businessmen to worry about the bottom line first and foremost. Which is sort of nice in an odd way, you dont have to worry about ulterior motives. They'll do what they think will sell, and while their own opinions obviously influence that choice, they dont get to act like idiot fanboys and get on with all the ridiculous arguments and ideas we do here. No one wants to be the guy who made a long-running and popular character fall to ruin, after all. They'd end up in trouble at work, possibly fired, then unemployable afterwards. No one wants to hire the guy who ruined a popular and long-running character either. Their families would starve and friends, sensing the stench of pariah-ness, would abandon them. Hellfire would rain upon their homes, and disease would run rampant through their halls.

True, and I don't think that anything is done with the intention of being a failure financially.I'm sure they think getting rid of the costume, getting rid of Lois Lane as a love interest in favor of Wonder Woman and (in this case) removing, for a time, Clark Kent from the equation will generate profits. The Wonder Woman/Superman t-shirts at Hot Topic seem to sell well. Good for them.

However, the argument at the heart of it is, if you keep changing this or that or this other thing piece by piece just for the sake of sales and marketing, eventually you wont have Superman...but an entirely new character that they can use an existing IP to market. Superman and comic book characters have almost always had sales gimmicks attached to push comics...but when you look at things in total, it does seem like there is a movement within Warner Bros to totally transform Superman into something unrecognizable, mainly due to the fact they think the old Superman was flawed and bad in the first place. They don't (or I suspicion, choose not to) see their own tinkering is what has damaged the brand. As Michael Bailey eloquently states here at the end, The corporation that holds the keys to Superman doesn't seem to particularly like him all that much, and their constant bids to "fix" that problem and to make him "sell" is the over riding issue. Until someone wakes up and realize their attempts to "fix" things is what is killing the brand, well, we will still likely keep getting these changes to the point where the only things left are the logo and "S" shield....IF that.

[Auguste Dupin]

God I hope so. Perhaps it is, and if one rationally coldly looks at it, then it is the most likely story reason. However, as a reader burned by the current regime repeatidly...I can't discount that this has less to do with writing a good story that rebuilds and restores a damaged part of the mythology, but instead more to reinforce the new mythology they seek to build on the bones of the old, a new, more marketable mythology that distances itself as far from the old as possible. I guess the next few months will tell the tale.

You sound damaged.
You should write that on your forehead.

[Ascended]

You sound damaged.
You should write that on your forehead.

Ha! You sir, get Ten Awesome Points*!

*Awesome Points may be turned in for Awesome Phat Loots wherever Awesome Points are Redeemed.*

Manofsteel is right however, in that WB's blind spots are what is keeping the franchise in troubled waters (still much better off than it was a few years ago, but not as healthy as it could be). Its not that they want to ruin Superman or any of the related characters, including Lois, they just cant figure out how to *fix* the property they broke decades ago.

And that is why we're all worried about this latest development. With, I think, a well-earned degree of cynicism. Most of us still remember the mess of the 00's, after all. I happen to agree with Manofsteel; if this is a story fueled by Pak and Yang (likely built from the Romita pitch) then okay, we'll likely be fine and this will be Lois Lane finding a new place in Superman's life (until the Wonder Woman pairing runs its course). But if this is some edict from a suit at WB who is out of touch with the real world and comics both, then it'll be a complete mess, and when DC realizes that it wont work (or proves it; just because WB forces a move doesnt mean anyone at DC agrees with it), we'll end up with a sloppy backpedaling to undo the damage.

[manofsteel1979]

You sound damaged.
You should write that on your forehead.

I see what you did there!

[Cypher]

Dude, traditional fans get angry at everything. I've literally seen fans get mad because Clark claimed his favorite food was mustard covered pretzels, because in another issue years before, he said it was Martha Kent's apple pie. And this is the internet, the land of mock outrage.



Honestly, I think this is the beginning of re-building Clark and Lois' relationship (maybe not into a couple, but still). They'll start at rock bottom, and Clark will have to come to grips with whatever greater good propelled Lois to out him, Lois will have to come to grips with Clark's true nature. They'll see each other in a new light, and while there's certainly going to be drama and angst, they'll find themselves becoming closer than they have in years as they work through this newest shift in their dynamic.

But the point of all this is just to sell comics and make money. That's as far as that goes. You can always trust businessmen to worry about the bottom line first and foremost. Which is sort of nice in an odd way, you dont have to worry about ulterior motives. They'll do what they think will sell, and while their own opinions obviously influence that choice, they dont get to act like idiot fanboys and get on with all the ridiculous arguments and ideas we do here. No one wants to be the guy who made a long-running and popular character fall to ruin, after all. They'd end up in trouble at work, possibly fired, then unemployable afterwards. No one wants to hire the guy who ruined a popular and long-running character either. Their families would starve and friends, sensing the stench of pariah-ness, would abandon them. Hellfire would rain upon their homes, and disease would run rampant through their halls.

Doesnt sound like anything to rebuild. Lois just comes off as an ******* pretty much.

And yeah we all get its for money, thats why theyre trying every gimmick in the book untill it fails. Im pretty sure this is to try to appeal to non-fans yet again, and I bet its not going to work, yet again. Even non-fans dont want to get on the boat.

Lets just go down the list


1) Getting rid of his physical looks and turning him soft-faced and boyish
2) Turning him into a lonesome alien
3) Having him kill early in the series
4) Giving him a costume that has nothing iconic and is overly complicated
5) Having people fear and hate Superman
6) Giving him 4 costume changes in 5 years (technically 5)
7) Getting rid of secret identity
8) Getting rid of Lois

There is literally nothing left to ruin or try a gimmick on. Why dont these editors go try some of this stuff on other characters, why bother writing Superman.

[William300]

Doesnt sound like anything to rebuild. Lois just comes off as an ******* pretty much.

And yeah we all get its for money, thats why theyre trying every gimmick in the book untill it fails. Im pretty sure this is to try to appeal to non-fans yet again, and I bet its not going to work, yet again. Even non-fans dont want to get on the boat.

Lets just go down the list


1) Getting rid of his physical looks and turning him soft-faced and boyish
2) Turning him into a lonesome alien
3) Having him kill early in the series
4) Giving him a costume that has nothing iconic and is overly complicated
5) Having people fear and hate Superman
6) Giving him 4 costume changes in 5 years (technically 5)
7) Getting rid of secret identity
8) Getting rid of Lois

There is literally nothing left to ruin or try a gimmick on. Why dont these editors go try some of this stuff on other characters, why bother writing Superman.

Yea, Convergence was a chance to fix a lot of the problems with the current continuity, but it looks like they may be making it worse.

[The World]

So the answer is for Superman to be an almost benevolent dictator? A caped big brother who imposes what he thinks is right for all of humanity? To tower over them as a God to be worshiped? A Superman in which Clark Kent plays no role other than his legal name?

I'm sorry but that is not Superman in the least. I don't mean to be offensive, but you simply seem to be someone, from your other posts here and other threads that doesn't seem to like Superman all that much and want to see him changed into something you would like more. That's a valid opinion...and you are welcome to it, but I hope and pray that people with that mindset stay the hell away from writing his stories beyond perhaps alternate realities.

Or perhaps that IS the problem. Maybe those people have been in charge of the Keys to the Superman franchise for the last 12 years, thus the morass he seems to be constantly in.

Dictator? Because he would saves lives on a global scale? Gosh I don't think any definition of the word mean what I just described. Usually when we talk about dictators we're describing someone who tries to have complete authority over the autonomy of people in some particular country. They usually have a strangle hold on the media, economy, education, etc. Often the lives of their people are the least of their concerns.

If anything I would think people world wide would probably breathe a sigh of relief knowing that a being is actually looking out for them and examining the way their government treats them. Someone who doesn't believe in the concept of there being a problem too small or too big and feels every life is important rather than feeling there are some people who are just in bad situations and have to suffer the consequences. If he stops some DC Earth equivalent of the Peshwar school massacre I don't see a dictator, I see someone who holds life very dear for every individual. Unless you believe it's the right of extremist groups to kill children to propagate their message, at which point I'd argue your opinion is invalid because it's evil.

The thing about it all is that there are two factors that made me come to a very strange conclusion about Superman. There is a quote from a play I watched a ways back that I think describes the attitude of modern Supes pretty well.

“You're so nice. You're not good, you're not bad, You're just nice."

Clark isn't more compassionate than Bruce, he's not a better person than Bruce, he's not a better hero than Bruce. He's nicer than Bruce. He'll pull out a chair for the ladies, he'll help old ladies across the street, he'll hold doors open for people but it's a coin toss when it comes people who have serious **** going on in their lives. If it doesn't involve some kind of diabolical plot he seems kind of lost a lot of the time, like a child. We can say a lot about Bruce, what we can't say is that he doesn't try his hardest to help people. DC wants there to be this dichotomy between Clark and Bruce where Clark is the light and Bruce is the darkness, but it just isn't there outside of the the aesthetics. Bruce has simply done too much good and Clark been too negligent for the image to work anymore. They both save lives and they're both responsible for the death of some people but when I look at the pantheon Bruce has built up his good is far more tangible and real compared to the hypothetical scenario future Clark is banking on. If there is a light between the two of them it's definitely Bruce.

The other thing was recently in the Justice League comic where Lex brought up Clark's ability to see disease and wondered why he didn't do more to help the people of Earth. Clark had no real response for him besides looking angry and I realized I was agreeing with Luthor. I agreed with Superman's arch-nemesis over Superman himself, I've never done that with The Joker, The Riddler, or Ra's. There is something profoundly wrong there.

The funny thing is when I got into comics back in '03-'04 I tried to get into the character back in 03'-04' I nearly wrote him off as a character who was merely existing on good credit built from years past. He seemed shoddily put together and inconsistent in his ability to tell good modern tales. I unintentionally gave him a second chance when I purchased an archived edition of his earliest tales from the S&S era, it put everything into perspective and actually gave me a renewed interest in the character, so I looked deeper into his exploits over the years. I found certain things I liked and things I didn't but I realized something looking through it. Even DC understands that S&S were onto something in those early days before editorial came down on them, every time they reboot they go back to those first couple of years as inspiration. Bryne and Morrison both understood they weren't just dumb teenagers that got lucky, there was a method to their madness; granted those first years don't cover the totality but it is what allowed the character to be successful in the first place. There was no compromise in those early days, he sought out the injustices of the world and did his best to right them, every fiber of his being was devoted to the betterment of mankind probably because he was a member of it. Now all he seems to do is make compromises left and right accepting that some poor schmuck somewhere is doomed to some horrible fate. So whenever I grow tired of listening to Superman ramble about how he can't do this and how x deaths will lead to a better tomorrow I usually crack open those old archive editions and try to remember what an actual hero looks like.

You're really not a Superman fan are you? You're also ignoring a lot of things from the past. We've seen Superman attempt to cure cancer and speak publicly about the larger, complex problems in the world. But even if he could solve all our problems (which he cant) what would be the point then? A dictator telling everyone what's best for them? Isnt that the plot of Injustice? Now I do agree that I'd like to see some real socio-political changes in the DCU, but corporate comics are never going to allow their settings to evolve beyond being a reflection of the real world. That's why, in post-Crisis, there was no such thing as a cosmic energy powered car, despite the technology existing since before World War II.

The plot of Injustice is a man with the mind of a child but the powers of a god throwing a world wide temper tantrum because something bad happened to him. It is in no way nor was it ever suppose to be some kind of nuanced approach to the character, just a generic Evil Superman slobber knocker. You know this when his biggest fantasy involves him sacrificing his so called best friend to deal with his problems.

[Cypher]

Yea, Convergence was a chance to fix a lot of the problems with the current continuity, but it looks like they may be making it worse.

I also forgot to add

9)Getting rid of his powers
10)Getting rid of him at the Planet

I was hoping for the same but now its just entering soulless gimmicks/marketing.

Theres only one more thing to do, and its get rid of him all together and take him out of his own books. Which as happened before. And I wouldnt be surprised if it happened again now.