Superman post-Convergence spoiler

[Ascended]

Yeah I was just using it as an example of how theyve tried to get rid of everything prominent except getting him out of the book itself.

No, they did that during World of New Krypton. And that lasted, what, three years? Two? Something like that. Or maybe it was two years for Superman and three for Action, since that Luthor story came in after WoNK.

I forget, I tend to try to forget those years ever happened.

[Cypher]

No, they did that during World of New Krypton. And that lasted, what, three years? Two? Something like that. Or maybe it was two years for Superman and three for Action, since that Luthor story came in after WoNK.

I forget, I tend to try to forget those years ever happened.

Um, yeah.

Not sure what youre trying to tell me here.

[Ascended]

Um, yeah.

Not sure what youre trying to tell me here.

You were listing the things they've changed and/or done right? And you said the only thing they haven't tried yet is taking Superman out of his own books. I was just saying, they've done that too.

[Cypher]

Yeah I was talking about New52.

I also mentioned they did it pre-flashpoint the post before that.

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

[Ascended]

Yeah I was talking about New52.

I also mentioned they did it pre-flashpoint the post before that.

Whoops, my bad. Missed that part.

[misslane]

This is is far from the truth it is laughable. This Superman goes out of his way to help people, to understand people, he does not run and hide when things get tough...he steps up...he does not whine and walk across America or define his goodness because of a love interest.

What Superman are you even talking about here? No Superman that I'm aware of ever solely defined his goodness as a byproduct of his relationship with a love interest. Which Superman are you referring to who ran and hid? Kingdom Come Superman? That version of the character belonged to a dystopian Elseworld that also portrayed Wonder Woman as incapable of filling the inspirational and leadership gap the superior Superman left behind but also led Superman astray with her more extreme methods for restoring the world to sanity. It was a Superman who gave up, just like Moore's Superman gave up in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? because he felt as though justice had not been done. Even when Superman walked across America in the Pre-Flashpoint universe during "Grounded" he did not stop helping people. You do know that, right? Just because he was walking around America didn't mean he completely gave up on people. More importantly, you seemed to have completely missed the fact that "Grounded" era Superman was whining on his trip across America because his mood was being influenced by a lost Kryptonian relic. Context matters.

Morrison and Pak have bent over backwards to make this clear that Clark is compassionate and selfless even with his losess. That says more about a character than one who had life pretty easy and most things went his way...ie he basically got it all. From his parents alive, doing well in his job , with no problems juggling a secret ID and his boss and associates not knowing anything, to getting the girl/ wife. It's no wonder many elseworld has him go psycho when life tosses a curve ball at him. So everything has to be easy for him to be he is supposed to be? He needs to be babied? That's a weak character.

Did Superman have his parents and eventually find love? Yes, he did. Was his life always easy? Absolutely not. Clark always had a difficult time at his job. Kurt Busiek's Camelot Falls and even the ending of Up, Up, and Away emphasize how challenging it was for Clark to fulfill his responsibilities at work. Clark lost his son, Chris, twice. He also lost the entire Kryptonian diaspora during World of New Krypton. He had loads of problems juggling his secret identity, including stories surrounding the fact that he was seen with a wedding ring. Ultimately, he did lose his father to a heart attack. His courtship and marriage to Lois was by no means easy and their relationship was subjected to numerous tests and challenges.

How can that be Superman? Who is supposed to have ingrained goodness? Instinctively would fight for what is right nor matter what? What does that have to do with him having humanity? You're selling the character short. Batman has the most tragedy and he can fail yes but he never betrays his moral code. Yet you saying Superman can't stay true to his own principles. Makes me wonder if Superman/ Clark is only as good as the life span of his parents and Lois etc. That is not a good message to send nor is it good for the character's own growth. The character should be stronger than that.

I don't think that was what William300 meant. I think he literally just means that Superman would lose his connections to humanity and his own humanness, which is quite different than saying he will lose the quality of humanity. So there's being human (i.e. the literal state of being and living a human life) and there's one's humanity (i.e. one's empathy, compassion, emotion, goodness, etc.). While Superman will always possess humanity or goodness, he can lose his connection to what it means to be human if he no longer lives or engages in a human life. He'll become more of a benevolent god, in other words.

End of the day Clark wants people to account to him ( both as a reporter/ hero he questions the behavior and actions of others) yet he does not want to account to people. That's double standards and it needs addressing especially from a character who DC wants to be the moral compass of the DCU.

You're not making any sense. He does not want to account to people? What does going public as Clark Kent have to do with being held accountable? Regardless of whether we are dealing with Superman or Clark Kent revealed as Superman, the public will still be dealing with man who is so powerful he does not have to answer to anyone if he does not have to or want to. Superman loses privacy not power when his secret identity is revealed to the public.

[Cypher]

Whoops, my bad. Missed that part.

No problem.

What Superman are you even talking about here? No Superman that I'm aware of ever solely defined his goodness as a byproduct of his relationship with a love interest. Which Superman are you referring to who ran and hid? Kingdom Come Superman? That version of the character belonged to a dystopian Elseworld that also portrayed Wonder Woman as incapable of filling the inspirational and leadership gap the superior Superman left behind but also led Superman astray with her more extreme methods for restoring the world to sanity. It was a Superman who gave up, just like Moore's Superman gave up in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? because he felt as though justice had not been done. Even when Superman walked across America in the Pre-Flashpoint universe during "Grounded" he did not stop helping people. You do know that, right? Just because he was walking around America didn't mean he completely gave up on people. More importantly, you seemed to have completely missed the fact that "Grounded" era Superman was whining on his trip across America because his mood was being influenced by a lost Kryptonian relic. Context matters.



Did Superman have his parents and eventually find love? Yes, he did. Was his life always easy? Absolutely not. Clark always had a difficult time at his job. Kurt Busiek's Camelot Falls and even the ending of Up, Up, and Away emphasize how challenging it was for Clark to fulfill his responsibilities at work. Clark lost his son, Chris, twice. He also lost the entire Kryptonian diaspora during World of New Krypton. He had loads of problems juggling his secret identity, including stories surrounding the fact that he was seen with a wedding ring. Ultimately, he did lose his father to a heart attack. His courtship and marriage to Lois was by no means easy and their relationship was subjected to numerous tests and challenges.



I don't think that was what William300 meant. I think he literally just means that Superman would lose his connections to humanity and his own humanness, which is quite different than saying he will lose the quality of humanity. So there's being human (i.e. the literal state of being and living a human life) and there's one's humanity (i.e. one's empathy, compassion, emotion, goodness, etc.). While Superman will always possess humanity or goodness, he can lose his connection to what it means to be human if he no longer lives or engages in a human life. He'll become more of a benevolent god, in other words.



You're not making any sense. He does not want to account to people? What does going public as Clark Kent have to do with being held accountable? Regardless of whether we are dealing with Superman or Clark Kent revealed as Superman, the public will still be dealing with man who is so powerful he does not have to answer to anyone if he does not have to or want to. Superman loses privacy not power when his secret identity is revealed to the public.

Hellacre doesnt appear to have read any Post-Crisis comics in his life and has said some silly things like that before.

We went over that in one of the other thread, probably best to not to react too seriously.

[Prime]

No problem.



Hellacre doesnt appear to have read any Post-Crisis comics in his life and has said some silly things like that before.

We went over that in one of the other thread, probably best to not to react too seriously.

Hellacre is a she though.

About this I'll just wait and see what made Lois do this and how it plays out before I say anything. You guys need to relax. New 52 Superman has had his ups and downs, but in the end he is better than Post-Crisis Superman in his later years.

[Blacksun]

As terrible as those stories were, and as bad as the sales got by Superman standards, they were still consistently strong enough sales for the accountants to not be worried. Or at least not so bad that people started hitting the "PANIC!" button. And did those stories make Superman "fail"? No. He remained in publication. He remained one of the biggest merchandising properties in this genre. A bad story line or a bad run does not equate "failure". It equates to a bad story line or a bad run. That's it. Every comic out there has its low points and its high points. Hitting the level of actual "failure" would mean sales so low they're not providing a profit consistently over time and have left such a bad taste in fans' mouths that they're no longer willing to give the property a chance.

Hawkman hit that level of failure a few decades ago; his sales weren't strong enough to carry a book and, in their attempts to right the ship, DC messed his character up so badly the entire franchise was untouchable for many years. The same thing has happened with Ghost Rider and several others. Superman has never hit that level of sales, and the closest his history has come to that kind of trouble was in the 00's when his origin was multiple choice.

Oh, and James Robinson does not work for DC anymore, and hasnt since he finished The Shade four years ago (which itself is a story from twenty years ago during the Jack Knight era of Starman, and only finally got published with the debut of the 52).

And of course you see more about editorial tastes than anything; you dont miss a chance to paint DC in a negative light, even when you're completely off base. Wasn't there a quote from an interview just a page or so back that says this story is coming from the writers and not editorial? That proves you wrong right there.

EDIT: My bad, that interview is quoted on this page, not a previous one. Here's the relevant dialogue: "All of the writers of these books [Yang, Greg Pak and Peter J. Tomasi], we got together for a conference in New York a couple weeks ago to just talk through the character, talk through some sort of a premise that would be able to go through all those books. That was the tricky part, coming up with some kind of a premise that would both give us as writers the freedom to tell stories with our own voices, but also give all of these books a sense of unity" This does not appear to be editorially driven. Which is a good thing, if it were, it'd likely be terrible beyond compare. But if the writers are behind it, there's a much better chance of it being a decent story that respects the mythos without being a slave to stunt-marketing and tradition.



That's only two story arcs or so. Not that much by today's standards.

the sales were weak as hell and superman was in really bad state that they had to reboot the character. Superman will always be one of the biggest properties on merchandising independent of comic book sales

hawkman and ghost rider are another level of characters, b+ and Clist characters. Much harder to have a fanbase like Superman has.

J. robinson got out because DC was screwing up his earth 2 run, he was so right.

DC paint theirselves badly. That is writers said, I know very well how PR works. Assuming it is true, I don't trust the writers to do a job that won't disrespect superman mythos. None of them did something to earn my trust. This llok exactly like a stunt marketing thing.

[Sacred Knight]

How can you distrust a group of writers to not disrespect a mythos when you're not at all familiar with said mythos? With all due respect, so much of what you say about Superman is so wrong, you're clearly unfamiliar with the bulk of it. Which in of itself isn't a criminal thing, everyone starts somewhere, but to be new but act like an expert at the same time is well...it doesn't really fit.

[Blacksun]

How can you distrust a group of writers to not disrespect a mythos when you're not at all familiar with said mythos? With all due respect, so much of what you say about Superman is so wrong, you're clearly unfamiliar with the bulk of it. Which in of itself isn't a criminal thing, everyone starts somewhere, but to be new but act like an expert at the same time is well...it doesn't really fit.

I think I know enough of the core of the character. Like Lois won't betray superman.

This was actually my first thought when I read this. Something about the second image screamed tsundere to me. And honestly despite the fact that I'm not the biggest Clois fan, I'd be pretty excited for that to be the case. I've always longed for a story that tells the story of their romance from the true beginning (i.e. not having Clark fall in love with her practically at first sight), and neither Smallville or the older comics had worked for me. I could see them using this event to basically reset Clark and Lois' relationship to the beginning and start rebuilding from there. Of course to do that Lois would need a reason for having done what she had done beyond just "getting a scoop". (and that does seem to be the case to me)

Granted the reason I'm able to be more optimistic about this than others is probably due to the fact that I've never particularly cared for Lois Lane. (As I've said elsewhere, I've wanted to but as of yet I haven't developed a taste for her). I do however realize that this sort of thing must be very stressful for the hard core Lois fans, so I hope you don't take my optimism as a lack of empathy since I do hope the story turns out well for you guys.

well thanks.

It's really easy see why people got angry:
1. Lois has getting a love of negative traits on new 52
2. when they decide to highlight her, she betrays superman?!
3. if she really betray superman, that opens for smww. That is really scary and very possible. Wouldn't be the first time DC butcher a character on new 52;

I would like to be optimistic, but i can't be. I really don't want to take another punch from DC.

Unless there is a good reason for Lois revealing the secret(not lame ones like I thought it would be better for you, people need to know the truth), there is better ways to start bringing together the Lois and Clark relationship;

[brucekent12]

It doesn't seem right to get so upset about this story, when all we know are what the solicitations tell us. And they are written to get us readers to buy the book to read that story. I'm sure that these writers will have an interesting and compelling reason why Lois does what she did, hopefully we will be accepting of the reasons.

[Sacred Knight]

3. if she really betray superman, that opens for smww. That is really scary and very possible. Wouldn't be the first time DC butcher a character on new 52;

You can't "open up" something that's already open as it is. They're already together and doing their own thing.

[misslane]

It doesn't seem right to get so upset about this story, when all we know are what the solicitations tell us. And they are written to get us readers to buy the book to read that story. I'm sure that these writers will have an interesting and compelling reason why Lois does what she did, hopefully we will be accepting of the reasons.

I believe this comic is free for Free Comic Book Day, so the sensational aspects of the solicit aren't really necessary to convince readers to spend their money on the book.

You can't "open up" something that's already open as it is. They're already together and doing their own thing.

I think this might be a language barrier thing. I will add, though, that Superman and Wonder Woman originally got together after Lois was painted as a corporate sell out at Morgan Edge's PGN news. As soon as the "power couple" was established, Lois miraculously returned to her old job at the Daily Planet. She then spent the debut year of Superman/Wonder Woman a psionic mess who was in and out of comas and other forms of mind control. It's just curious that Superman and Wonder Woman getting together and doing their own thing took place in that context.

[Sacred Knight]

In that first case, Lois was never intended to look like a sell-out, and as such was not written that way by Perez. If anything Clark was the one who looked kinda goofy. Lois looked like someone working to save her medium, someone who understood an undeiniable fact that Clark just wasn't wanting to see. This was actually a time in which Lois was still being used in a pretty positive light.