Yang Makes Clark Kent Face the "Truth" in "Superman"

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

This here is a quote directly from CV interview, decide for yourself. They aren't just teasing he can't hang on to his ideals, they want to write a story where he can't and won't.

Yang says it himself that they're hinting that he can't. That's what the next arc will be, Superman getting pushed to compromise his ideals. Some of the solicits are along the lines of "Will Superman be corrupted? Will he turn to the dark side?".

That's not going to actually happen, though, or at least it isn't likely to happen. We'll get something along the lines of how Morrison had Superman saying he could lobotomize that child killer, but not actually doing it, and then demonstrating kindness by taking care of his hamsters. They'll tease him going to extremes, that's where the drama will come from, but he's still going to be Superman by the end of it.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Thing is Morrison brought an attitude to Superman in a very smart way. That's not what Pak is doing in Superman. Morrison wrote a Superman that was intelligent, wanted to fight crime but he wasn't driven into action solely based on first emtion that caught him when something happened before him. Not to say he didn't feel, just that his actions were based on his smarts rather than being emotional about it and punch his way out of every situation. That's Pak's Superman in Truth so far. Also Morrison's Superman didn't like and enjoy the use of violence. Pak's Superman feels good while punch baddies. Morrison's Superman wasn't just defined by his powers, he used his brain just as much in every situation. Pak's Superman just uses his fist, never does he stop to think the situation through first. Morrison's Superman wasn't quick to lose his temper, Pak's Superman not only loses his tempe, he starts doing dumb stuff and can't calm himself down. Morrison set rhe standard for the best characterization of Superman we could ask of a reboot but nobody followed it up. Truth Superman is Pak's own take on dumb, violence loving not using his smarts angry dude.

Comparing Morrison's T-Shirts and Jeans Superman to Pak's 'Truth' Superman, and reducing Pak's Superman to a violent brute is not really fair. 'Truth' in Action Comics takes place weeks after everything Superman has gone through since losing most of his powers and having his identity exposed. It's also right after he's lost his costume and cape. He's at the lowest he's ever been in the New 52.

But besides all that, Pak's Superman in 'Truth' is not how you're trying to characterize him. For one thing, he's only enjoyed punching people one one occasion, the beginning of #41, where he's defending himself, and he also says that he's not proud about feeling good about that punch. This also occurred after Superman stopped the person from attacking someone else.

In the same issue he states that he has to take his time handling things, and he and Jimmy have a system to avoid wiretaps. Not really what you'd expect from someone that doesn't use their brains and only uses their fists.

There's also Superman acknowledging that sometimes he put police officers in danger, so it's understandable that they're upset with him, and that he has to set things right.

In the next issue, he checks to see if the Shadow Monster he's fighting is sentient, before taking it out. He also uses his wits to take it out, he doesn't just punch it out.

He first tries to stand with Kentville without attacking any of the police officers and only does so after it becomes obvious that the Shadow Monster cop isn't interested in a peaceful solution.

It was the same thing with Wrath, he got angry when other people were attacked because of him.

During his fight with Wrath he knew his anger was making her stronger, but at the same time he had no other way of keeping her from attacking others.

It's not unusual for Superman to get angry when someone's attacking innocent people.

At the end of the issue, Superman doesn't get angry or go after the people that likely trashed his apartment, and stops Jimmy from going after them.

In Pak's Batman/Superman, Superman was literally doing his best to find a non-violent solution to what was going on.

As far as characterization goes, Superman is still as much as Superman he can be under Pak. This is the same Superman Pak's always been writing.

Sacred Knight is completely right, Pak's Superman is always thinking over things.

[Superlad93]

Thing is Morrison brought an attitude to Superman in a very smart way. That's not what Pak is doing in Superman. Morrison wrote a Superman that was intelligent, wanted to fight crime but he wasn't driven into action solely based on first emtion that caught him when something happened before him. Not to say he didn't feel, just that his actions were based on his smarts rather than being emotional about it and punch his way out of every situation. That's Pak's Superman in Truth so far. Also Morrison's Superman didn't like and enjoy the use of violence. Pak's Superman feels good while punch baddies. Morrison's Superman wasn't just defined by his powers, he used his brain just as much in every situation. Pak's Superman just uses his fist, never does he stop to think the situation through first. Morrison's Superman wasn't quick to lose his temper, Pak's Superman not only loses his tempe, he starts doing dumb stuff and can't calm himself down. Morrison set rhe standard for the best characterization of Superman we could ask of a reboot but nobody followed it up

I don't know man, Morrison's Superman once heard a woman crying after being beaten by her husband so Superman busted in and threw him into the river from their building. The man broke some bones on the fall. Superman knew it wouldn't kill the man but he was very much counting on it hurting.....a lot. Later on the guy becomes K-man green and he confronts Superman and Superman stands by his actions.

He was also very emotional. He finds a pedophile as Clark Kent and then literally seconds later, after the guy closes the door on him, breaks the door down as Superman. He then proceeds to threaten the man with a heat vision lobotomy on all of the aspects that make the man a bad person. He clams himself down though.

If you remember Superman has a run in with Cap. Comet when his ID is killed off. He resolves the situation ironically by saying he's been doing too much thinking and pontificating. He says that he needs to do what he does best and put his faith in action. He then begins to literally turn off his brain and beats on Cap. Granted this was a great plan to fight a TP user. But Morrison's philosophy of sorts for the new character was that he was less introspective and more quick to action. He also said that he drew inspiration from the 70's bronze age cocky Superman who would blow on his fist during a fight. He also very plainly says that this Superman is much more of a punchy sort of due.

Morrison even ends his run with the image of a beaten, dirty, and battered Superman smiling after a hard fight. He caps it off by having Superman say "you should see the other guy". It was the perfect encapsulation of who this new guy was.

[Superlad93]

Thing is Morrison brought an attitude to Superman in a very smart way. That's not what Pak is doing in Superman. Morrison wrote a Superman that was intelligent, wanted to fight crime but he wasn't driven into action solely based on first emtion that caught him when something happened before him.

Honestly where Morrison and Pak's Superman disagree is in just how introspective and naval gazing Pak's Superman can be. In fact Pak's Superman thinks too much at times. He's put into these situations and he has to deal with it as just a man (super or not). Pak's Superman is more so trying to live up to this pre made legend that he (and others in the comics) hold over him. Morrison's Superman was more about making those legends.

I find both takes very compelling as the both have strengths and drawbacks in one way or another depending on what you like.

[Superlad93]

He should like a good fight. He should enjoy getting to use his powers. He likes his special heritage again. You don't have to have him abusing what he can do just by having him enjoy being a superhero. Its not an either or thing.

Well to be fair he doesn't have to enjoy fighting to enjoy his special heritage. He could very well be a full on pacifist and still love his heritage. I think he just likes fighting because he simply likes a good scrap, and breaking a sweat.

If you look back at the first origin in the golden age you'll see Jor-el hop into his house to see his new born son. It turns out his infant son, straight out the womb, strangled his doctor with his medical equipment. Jor-el's response? Something along the lines of "like father like son". Kal-el is discribed as a "roughneck" from birth by his mom Lara.

It could be that Morrison was drawing on this along with the overall punchy personality that Superman had in the golden age.

[Flash Gordon]

Honestly where Morrison and Pak's Superman disagree is in just how introspective and naval gazing Pak's Superman can be. In fact Pak's Superman thinks too much at times. He's put into these situations and he has to deal with it as just a man (super or not). Pak's Superman is more so trying to live up to this pre made legend that he (and others in the comics) hold over him. Morrison's Superman was more about making those legends.

I find both takes very compelling as the both have strengths and drawbacks in one way or another depending on what you like.

I guess that's what makes me strongly dislike Pak's Superman. Far too navelgazing, far too weak in the face of his own image. Superman doesn't care about his image, he just acts.

[Superlad93]

I guess that's what makes me strongly dislike Pak's Superman. Far too navelgazing, far too weak in the face of his own image. Superman doesn't care about his image, he just acts.

I can see that line of thinking but then again one of the greatest Superman related stories, Hitman #34 by Garth Ennis, gave us a super duper navel gazing Superman. It focused on the idea of Superman wrestling with his own impossible to live up to myth. It makes for a beautiful story and is pointed to as one of the best treatments the character has ever had.

I get when people aren't into such introspection. I can even agree on some levels, but I won't ever say that Superman shouldn't be depicted as weighing these things in his mind from time to time or version to version, because that opens up great story in it's own right.

[manofsteel1979]

Having read #44 and the GRAYSON annual side by side really illustrates what I think is the main overriding issue with the Supertitles.

First off #44 wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. There was some merit there and some nice character moments (I liked the scene with Lombard, Livewire and Clark)...but there's just this feeling of "meh" prevailing over it all. As Sacred Knight said earlier, there was nothing I could point to and say "OMG THIS WAS AWFUL!!!" (art aside...which was Romita's weakest and looked worse near the end.) but there was something I couldn't put my finger on...until I read the GRAYSON annual.

It's the lack of fun...the lack of whimsy. I was literally grinning reading the GRAYSON annual...I honestly can't remember the last time I had that much fun reading A story starring Superman. Even as much as I've enjoyed Pak and Kuder's run on ACTION, it just lacks the pure fun i had with GRAYSON.

I think what we need more than anything is an overall change in tone for the SUPERMAN line. Away from the dire doom and gloom and into the light again. I think a new editor would be a good start, as usually the editor sets the tone.

Superman comics should have serious moments for sure,but primarily they should be fun!

Oh...and yes ACTION #40 was another good example. More that and the GRAYSON annual and less, well...what we have as a whole elsewhere in the line.

[Flash Gordon]

I can see that line of thinking but then again one of the greatest Superman related stories, Hitman #34 by Garth Ennis, gave us a super duper navel gazing Superman. It focused on the idea of Superman wrestling with his own impossible to live up to myth. It makes for a beautiful story and is pointed to as one of the best treatments the character has ever had.

I get when people aren't into such introspection. I can even agree on some levels, but I won't ever say that Superman shouldn't be depicted as weighing these things in his mind from time to time or version to version, because that opens up great story in it's own right.

Makes for a good story, sure, but not every month. It gets tiring when Superman is CONSTANTLY navelgazing to the point where that random firefighter lady (Lee, is it?) Is both supportive of him but also condescending. Everyday people simply wouldn't talk that way to Superman.

[Superlad93]

Makes for a good story, sure, but not every month. It gets tiring when Superman is CONSTANTLY navelgazing to the point where that random firefighter lady (Lee, is it?) Is both supportive of him but also condescending. Everyday people simply wouldn't talk that way to Superman.

Yeah but then again you're generalizing Pak's take on the character to be honest. Introspection and thought doesn't equate to the level of navelgazing you're insinuating. It's there don't get me wrong, but not to the degree/intensity you say. Plus when it's used, it's actually used rather well. This sort of Superman isn't my default setting but I'd give credit were it's well due. He usually has great thematic lines that run through from story to story to story and build this take on the character. For what Pak is trying to do, he does it quite well.

As for Lee? Well in most incarnations does Lois not come at Superman from a position of extreme confidence and power when they first meet and so on? She's even usually skeptical of him and isn't (usually) simply sold on him being him. Lee is just another strong willed person with pride and confidence in herself, what she does, and where she lives. Lee doesn't see Superman the modern myth she's more pragmatic. She appreciates what he's done but she's gotta for what she can first.

Plus the situation in Truth has shifted perceptions of Superman the world over. Regardless of that though, I don't think everyone has to address Superman so formally or whatever if their personality doesn't suit it.

But I don't understand how his introspection informed how Lee reacted to him? If Superman had not been so introspective at the time I don't he'd change how she felt about him. That was all on Lee and what the actual situation was rather than Superman thinking (since no can hear him think)

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Having read #44 and the GRAYSON annual side by side really illustrates what I think is the main overriding issue with the Supertitles.

First off #44 wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. There was some merit there and some nice character moments (I liked the scene with Lombard, Livewire and Clark)...but there's just this feeling of "meh" prevailing over it all. As Sacred Knight said earlier, there was nothing I could point to and say "OMG THIS WAS AWFUL!!!" (art aside...which was Romita's weakest and looked worse near the end.) but there was something I couldn't put my finger on...until I read the GRAYSON annual.

It's the lack of fun...the lack of whimsy. I was literally grinning reading the GRAYSON annual...I honestly can't remember the last time I had that much fun reading A story starring Superman. Even as much as I've enjoyed Pak and Kuder's run on ACTION, it just lacks the pure fun i had with GRAYSON.

I think what we need more than anything is an overall change in tone for the SUPERMAN line. Away from the dire doom and gloom and into the light again. I think a new editor would be a good start, as usually the editor sets the tone.

Superman comics should have serious moments for sure,but primarily they should be fun!

Oh...and yes ACTION #40 was another good example. More that and the GRAYSON annual and less, well...what we have as a whole elsewhere in the line.

If the first page of #41 is anything to go by, Yang's Superman will eventually become fun. I think while Superman is adjusting to the changes, everything is going to be gloomy, but after he makes peace with his situation, we get the Superman that's smiling while riding a areoplane.

It's just that Yang's Superman has been so slow, that it seems ages away.

[Superlad93]

Oh...and yes ACTION #40 was another good example. More that and the GRAYSON annual and less, well...what we have as a whole elsewhere in the line.

While Grayson was literally one of my favorite new 52 Superman stories ever, I wouldn't want that to be the mandate line wide. Same goes for Action Comics #40. One of the best things about the character is his range when it comes to stories he can star in and tones he can shift from. So I think going forward creators shouldn't be scared of a variety in tone rather than one extreme or the other (Doomed or Acton Comics #40).

I'd like to see stuff like a nior golden age inspired tale for a month or three, then a vertigo inspired adult off beat feel, then Pixar imagination, full on self aware corny pulp sci-fi, who done it mystery, and so on and so on. Run the spectrum.

But I do think they should take the idea that Pak used in issue #40 of Action and just have Superman show up in these situations and us as the reader either following the very subtle bread crumbs to understand how we got there or there being no explanation other than "life of a Superhero" needed. The books have become too one note and I'd rather they not just repeat the mistake with a new note.

[ManSinha]

On the contrary golden age Superman was ridiculously smart compared to moron we're getting now.

I have always personally liked the concept of an uber smart Superman - if his physical abilities are amped up why not his brain and processing power?

[manofsteel1979]

While Grayson was literally one of my favorite new 52 Superman stories ever, I wouldn't want that to be the mandate line wide. Same goes for Action Comics #40. One of the best things about the character is his range when it comes to stories he can star in and tones he can shift from. So I think going forward creators shouldn't be scared of a variety in tone rather than one extreme or the other (Doomed or Acton Comics #40).

I'd like to see stuff like a nior golden age inspired tale for a month or three, then a vertigo inspired adult off beat feel, then Pixar imagination, full on self aware corny pulp sci-fi, who done it mystery, and so on and so on. Run the spectrum.

But I do think they should take the idea that Pak used in issue #40 of Action and just have Superman show up in these situations and us as the reader either following the very subtle bread crumbs to understand how we got there or there being no explanation other than "life of a Superhero" needed. The books have become too one note and I'd rather they not just repeat the mistake with a new note.

Well...agreed. To clarify I don't want to see happy happy zany all the time,but Superman should have a little more of that than we've had over the course of the last decade really. It's not even a New 52/DC You issue, it's something within DC that seems to be running from the lighter side of the character and an over all tone of "this is serious business, gang!"...which is fine...but for goodness sake, does everything have to be life or death end of the world/city etc? All I know is I rather read the Superman we had in ACTION #40 and GRAYSON annual and less of the brooding guy with a chip on his shoulder we've seen through much of TRUTH and some of the previous issues of the New 52 era.

A more varied tone is needed I agree, and I think the first step is a new editor who is willing to change from the standard Superman house since the mid 2000's.

[bholderman]

This entire discussion is one of the reasons I stopped reading comics 30 years ago. Superman-classic is one of my favorite characters, but somewhere in the late 80s, the was an effort to alter/update the character which initially I was ok with. The problem was it seemed to occur repetitiously every few years, some radical, some minor, throw in some universe reboots and I gave up. Thirty years later, I come back to comics and its the same thing.

In a ot of respects, I really do like the Paul Bunyon aspect to this version of Superman, but not its context. If this was Superman, earlier in life whose powers still were developing, I'd be all in. But in the context of being de-powered, a plot device used on too many occasions across 75 years, it doesn't work, because we know at some point, the powers will return, more than likely with yet another addition or alteration to his power set and/or his costume.

Brace, brace, brace.