Where does Superman fail in these key areas, compared to Batman and Spider-Man? How could they effectively be addressed?

[Prime]

From what I read, it's seems we need Morrison new 52 Superman back.

[Auguste Dupin]

From what I read, it's seems we need Morrison new 52 Superman back.

Well, there's a reason it's the most successful run in the New 52.

[Prime]

Well, there's a reason it's the most successful run in the New 52.

That's where this conversation is heading. I really love that Superman. Pak has in some ways kept him.

[Auguste Dupin]

That's where this conversation is heading. I really love that Superman. Pak has in some ways kept him.

Pak's is the one version of Superman that you can believe is the same guy as Morrison's.

[Prime]

We really need for Pak to become the main guy in the Superman line.

[Ascended]

We really need for Pak to become the main guy in the Superman line.

This a million times over.

In Pak we trust.

[Eyeswithoutaface]

I also the issue of being less relatable than Batman or Spider-man is partially true. I have saved a cat from a tree & people looked at me like I was crazy. People can understand Batman's ambition to be the best. Superman is kind & humble. Do people admire someone who's humble anymore? They admire someone who has drive but not so much someone who is kind hearted.

I think this touches on what I suspect is true. Values have changed in the past 75 years. In general, people don't trust someone with that much power anymore. When someone who isn't an underdog rescues a cat, they think that it's a facade or that there's an ulterior motive. When Lex Luthor says 'Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light' in the Batman V Superman trailer, all of the jaded grim and gritty advocates do the seal clap in unison. Somehow, anyone who has power is evil and must be exploiting their position for their own self interests, while the underdog is always good and can do no wrong.

[Ascended]

I think this touches on what I suspect is true. Values have changed in the past 75 years. In general, people don't trust someone with that much power anymore. When someone who isn't an underdog rescues a cat, they think that it's a facade or that there's an ulterior motive. When Lex Luthor says 'Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light' in the Batman V Superman trailer, all of the jaded grim and gritty advocates do the seal clap in unison. Somehow, anyone who has power is evil and must be exploiting their position for their own self interests, while the underdog is always good and can do no wrong.

I think you're close, but I think it has more to do with restraint.

How many videos go viral where someone does a good deed, like returning a long-lost wedding ring, or a picture of a young cancer patient being labeled as "beautiful"? Quite a few, and you see news outlets like CNN run human interest pieces about this sort of thing all the time. People like that nice, warm, feel-good stuff, even if they move on to the latest scandal pretty quickly.

What people dont seem to get is holding back and not doing everything you're capable of, even when that might not be a good idea. And Superman is all about restraint. He's about the guy who *could* rule the world, but doesnt even try. He *could* crush Lex's skull, but he chooses the harder, longer, tougher path of proving his point by example. He *could* do a lot of things, but those things probably wouldnt be in humanity's long term best interests. And that's something people dont get; we're taught to run as hard as we can, work as much as we can, do as much as we can, achieve as much as we can. And its hard to look at Superman, who *could* do everything, and accept that maybe holding back is the better option.

[Jon Clark]

I think you're close, but I think it has more to do with restraint.

How many videos go viral where someone does a good deed, like returning a long-lost wedding ring, or a picture of a young cancer patient being labeled as "beautiful"? Quite a few, and you see news outlets like CNN run human interest pieces about this sort of thing all the time. People like that nice, warm, feel-good stuff, even if they move on to the latest scandal pretty quickly..

Yes, but there also is a cynical tendency to want to peel back the good deed and find something base under it. Wasn't there some feel good story a tear or so back about a homeless guy getting a pair of shoes. Soon after it became some type of expose about how the guy didn't need shoes or something. You heard the second part of the story for a longer time than you heard the first. People cheer for the underdog until he becomes the champion, then they cheer louder for the next person in line to tear him down.

What people dont seem to get is holding back and not doing everything you're capable of, even when that might not be a good idea. And Superman is all about restraint. He's about the guy who *could* rule the world, but doesnt even try. He *could* crush Lex's skull, but he chooses the harder, longer, tougher path of proving his point by example. He *could* do a lot of things, but those things probably wouldnt be in humanity's long term best interests. And that's something people dont get; we're taught to run as hard as we can, work as much as we can, do as much as we can, achieve as much as we can. And its hard to look at Superman, who *could* do everything, and accept that maybe holding back is the better option.

That's a good point. You can see it in a lot of people. The idea that "I" know how everyone should behave. We elect leaders based on the hope they will enact laws that criminalize (or at least penalize) activities we don't like. Whether it's who you sleep with or what food you eat or how much you pay employees. And it only follows that we'd favor heroes who'd be equally interested in using their powers to the utmost to promote what they believe.

If we are in favor of marriage between any two people who are consenting, then we want a Superman who'd actively fight for those rights. And if we believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman then we want a Superman who'd use his powers to battle against a broader definition of marriage. The same with reproductive rights. Or terrorism. Or religious persecution. ...

Heck, even if Superman is on the opposite side from us, we'd at least understand his passion.

What we might have less understanding for is a Superman who says "I have an opinion of these issues. As Clark Kent I may even argue for my side of the debate. But at the end of the day I don't think the fact I have the power to make people accept my views means that I should do so". Fanatics, we love or hate. But those who don't actively fight for one side or the other ... They tend to be hated by both sides,

[magha_regulus]

Superman becoming a rebel who stands up for the little guy is a GREAT idea. That may be the very thing Superman needs to get back on top.

I've heard Batman fans say that one of the things that makes Batman so popular is his status as a wish-fulfillment character. EVERYONE dreams of being rich, powerful, and capable of taking down any enemy who gets in their way.

Superman used to be another wish-fulfillment character as well. Everyone has also dreamed about having godlike power, and the ability punish the bullies and the powerful who abuse their power.

The fantasies Superman was created to embody are just as strong today as they were back in the beginning. Perhaps more so. Let Superman get back to addressing these issues, and people may very well fall in love with him again.

Seriously? Who DOESN'T wish that Superman would come streaking out of the skies over North Korea, grab Kim Jong Un, and smack him around like a little punk, showing the people of North Korea that he's just a sad little man with no real power? Who DOESN'T want to see Superman fly to the Middle East and send ISIS running for their lives? Who DOESN'T want to see Superman opposing corporate excesses or government corruption?

I also like the idea that Superman doesn't just save the little guy. He also tries to teach us how to stand up for ourselves, instead of just waiting around for him to come to the rescue.

Some people don't like it, but MOS had Superman doing the whole rebel thing. He told an Army general that he would never control him. In Dawn of Justice? Looks like Superman is going to go on being the rebel. These are definitely steps in the right direction. If DC can keep this up, then that may help Superman reclaim his throne and his unique position in the DCU.

Right on!You abuse your power thn superman is coming for you and he'll give the people the power to get you off their back so that you can never harm them again.

[Auguste Dupin]

That's a good point. You can see it in a lot of people. The idea that "I" know how everyone should behave. We elect leaders based on the hope they will enact laws that criminalize (or at least penalize) activities we don't like. Whether it's who you sleep with or what food you eat or how much you pay employees. And it only follows that we'd favor heroes who'd be equally interested in using their powers to the utmost to promote what they believe.

If we are in favor of marriage between any two people who are consenting, then we want a Superman who'd actively fight for those rights. And if we believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman then we want a Superman who'd use his powers to battle against a broader definition of marriage. The same with reproductive rights. Or terrorism. Or religious persecution. ...

Heck, even if Superman is on the opposite side from us, we'd at least understand his passion.

What we might have less understanding for is a Superman who says "I have an opinion of these issues. As Clark Kent I may even argue for my side of the debate. But at the end of the day I don't think the fact I have the power to make people accept my views means that I should do so". Fanatics, we love or hate. But those who don't actively fight for one side or the other ... They tend to be hated by both sides,

Well, yes, why shouldn't Superman take position in these issues? I mean, nobody's asking him to beat up anti gay marriage supporters or to invade Congress to force them to pass the bill or anything but really, is there any reason why Superman should pretend he doesn't have an opinion, or even debate in its favour? Did Ghandi pretend he didn't have an opinion on the British occupation of India? Did Luther King pretend he didn't have an opinion on the place of Afro Americans in the US? Of course not. Surprisingly enough, people who help others because it's the right thing to do in real life don't find a character who lets injustice happen because it's "not his place to intervene" very relatable or inspiring.
Now, it's not about having Superman making pamphlets about actual social issues in his comics. It's about him being a character who actually tries to make the world a better place.If the problem is real life issues being too "real life", there's lots of comic book stand in for them that can do the trick, like alien rights or whatever.

[Francisco]

I don't think Superman should use substitutes for any social issues. If he is pro marriage equality the writers have to make it obvious in the pages of the comics. They don't have to have Superman speechifying about it just acting. How do we know he is not a bigot/closeted homophobe? He's got gay friends and coworkers. Have him attending a same sex wedding (s). And just like he kicked KKK butt back in the day. He can kick some violent antigay fanaticism now. (4 thugs attacking a lesbian couple just because they're gay) stuff like that. The important thing is the stories must be well crafted. If the stories suck the social commentary will be lost. That terrible Mohammed X story from a decade or so ago comes to mind.

ps: When dealing with social issues the writers should remember Superman has super senses. He is well aware of how the world works. He knows how a large amount of people is polite and well behaved when in your presence but when you turn your back they sling insults and bigoted comments at you. (they say good things too) So cut the naivety nonsense.

[Ascended]

The problem I have with social commentary in comics has less to do with the message and more to do with the execution. I really dont care what a particular character is saying so long as its well written.

Ollie Queen for example, used to be a knee-jerk liberal. Now, I lean to the left myself, but Ollie was way beyond what I agreed with. However, that never diminished my enjoyment of the character, just as Icon being a Republican (at first) never hurt my enjoyment of his title. I dont have to agree with the politics a fictional character is written as having. I mean, jesus, is anyone so frail in their beliefs that they need a comic book character to agree with them or they'll have a temper tantrum? And sometimes its interesting to get the "other side" of a topic, and comics can do that in a way where you dont have to get into a debate with someone to achieve it, you just have to keep reading.

But it has to be well done. There was a stand alone issue of Peter David's Supergirl back in the 90's that tackled free speech and racism, and the dynamic between them. And it was intelligent, thoughtful, and presented both sides of the argument as well as possible (we are talking about bigots, there's only so much you can do). I remember reading the letter pages about that issue, and a college English professor using that comic in his course. Then there's Action 775, and its heavy-handed, poorly conceptualized attempt to defend Superman's stance against lethal force. The Supergirl issue was well crafted and intelligent, Action was terribly handled, with logic holes large enough to drive an aircraft carrier through.

Ultimately, I think comics have a responsibility to breach these social topics. After all, these are stories that kids read, or at the least adults who maybe arent as well informed as they should be. Talking about things like gay marriage, terrorism, and other hot-button issues means informing the audience, and I support that. How that's done is another matter. I tend to dislike poorly veiled analogues, but sometimes thats the best way to do it. And sometimes the writing is just piss poor so no matter what the message is, even if I agree with it I find myself rolling my eyes and complaining about it online.

In regards to Superman in particular, I absolutely think he needs to address these things. You know why Superman doesnt matter anymore? Because he stopped tackling the real issues facing people, and retreated to a place where he just deals with alien invasions and simple, black and white morality plays. Once upon a time, he took on corrupt politicians and the KKK. He used to deal with dictators and the evils facing humanity. Then DC got afraid of offending someone, and put a stop to it. And Superman hasnt mattered since. He needs to be a rebel, he needs to be socially aware and, more importantly, socially accountable and involved. If he stands up for gay marriage (either directly or through analogues) and it pisses someone off, who cares? If you're not making someone mad, you're not doing anything worth doing.

[Francisco]

The problem I have with social commentary in comics has less to do with the message and more to do with the execution. I really dont care what a particular character is saying so long as its well written.

Ollie Queen for example, used to be a knee-jerk liberal. Now, I lean to the left myself, but Ollie was way beyond what I agreed with. However, that never diminished my enjoyment of the character, just as Icon being a Republican (at first) never hurt my enjoyment of his title. I dont have to agree with the politics a fictional character is written as having. I mean, jesus, is anyone so frail in their beliefs that they need a comic book character to agree with them or they'll have a temper tantrum? And sometimes its interesting to get the "other side" of a topic, and comics can do that in a way where you dont have to get into a debate with someone to achieve it, you just have to keep reading.

But it has to be well done. There was a stand alone issue of Peter David's Supergirl back in the 90's that tackled free speech and racism, and the dynamic between them. And it was intelligent, thoughtful, and presented both sides of the argument as well as possible (we are talking about bigots, there's only so much you can do). I remember reading the letter pages about that issue, and a college English professor using that comic in his course. Then there's Action 775, and its heavy-handed, poorly conceptualized attempt to defend Superman's stance against lethal force. The Supergirl issue was well crafted and intelligent, Action was terribly handled, with logic holes large enough to drive an aircraft carrier through.

Ultimately, I think comics have a responsibility to breach these social topics. After all, these are stories that kids read, or at the least adults who maybe arent as well informed as they should be. Talking about things like gay marriage, terrorism, and other hot-button issues means informing the audience, and I support that. How that's done is another matter. I tend to dislike poorly veiled analogues, but sometimes thats the best way to do it. And sometimes the writing is just piss poor so no matter what the message is, even if I agree with it I find myself rolling my eyes and complaining about it online.

In regards to Superman in particular, I absolutely think he needs to address these things. You know why Superman doesnt matter anymore? Because he stopped tackling the real issues facing people, and retreated to a place where he just deals with alien invasions and simple, black and white morality plays. Once upon a time, he took on corrupt politicians and the KKK. He used to deal with dictators and the evils facing humanity. Then DC got afraid of offending someone, and put a stop to it. And Superman hasnt mattered since. He needs to be a rebel, he needs to be socially aware and, more importantly, socially accountable and involved. If he stands up for gay marriage (either directly or through analogues) and it pisses someone off, who cares? If you're not making someone mad, you're not doing anything worth doing.

Yes. This. I agree with every word.

[Auguste Dupin]

I don't think Superman should use substitutes for any social issues. If he is pro marriage equality the writers have to make it obvious in the pages of the comics. They don't have to have Superman speechifying about it just acting. How do we know he is not a bigot/closeted homophobe? He's got gay friends and coworkers. Have him attending a same sex wedding (s). And just like he kicked KKK butt back in the day. He can kick some violent antigay fanaticism now. (4 thugs attacking a lesbian couple just because they're gay) stuff like that. The important thing is the stories must be well crafted. If the stories suck the social commentary will be lost. That terrible Mohammed X story from a decade or so ago comes to mind.

ps: When dealing with social issues the writers should remember Superman has super senses. He is well aware of how the world works. He knows how a large amount of people is polite and well behaved when in your presence but when you turn your back they sling insults and bigoted comments at you. (they say good things too) So cut the naivety nonsense.

Sometimes, I wonder if the early Siegel and Shuster stories didn't have the right idea when it comes to tackling social issues. When you read them, you realize that they never make a big deal out of having Superman fighting corrupt politicians, or mine owners who don't respect workers right, or whatever.They were treated as any common crook, and he would stop them like any other crook. I think it may make the message even more powerful, because it's treated as an obvious truth , it avoids the issue of preaching to your audience, and it makes for stories that don't feel overly dramatic, but instead like cathartic fun.
Of course, these issues were often downright naive and it would nowadays require more thought, but I think there's some merite to go this road.