Is Superman Perfect?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

of course not, how many times have people taken advantage of him. Superman is anything BUT perfect. He's just really cool... I just wish he didn't hate latinos so much

Wha (10 char)

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Chuck Austen should never be named around these parts.

Never.

Actually read this issue, and it's worse than it looks.

[The Beast]

I think there is a huge middle ground between Superman being a totally perfect and infallible and Superman being someone who gets thousands of people killed due to his recklessness.

I don't want perfect infallible Superman, because that drastically limits the amount of stories you can do with him. Superman is not God, he is still subject to same emotions as humans, for all his powers and intelligence, he is still subject to many the same limitations as humans. Superman is not omnipotent or omniscient, the fact he is not very effective against the Spectre proves that. So because he is not God, he is capable of making mistakes, even geniuses make mistakes. Superman is more inspiring if he does heroic things in spite of his ability to make mistakes, because if Superman can just instantly do the right thing, it sends the message that for Superman the right thing is just easy thing and that is not inspiring, is he doing the right thing because it is the right thing or the easy thing? Superman doing the right thing, not because its easy or because he can make no mistakes, but because he weighs the options carefully and takes the best course of action despite the fact he could be making a mistake more inspiring.

That being said, Superman should learn from his mistakes and he made a lot of them in MOS. I hope in the next movie Superman is far more careful and I don't think he should kill a sentient being in this movie franchise ever again. I can accept Superman, on very rare occasions, killing an opponent if there is no other choice. However I can understand people who think Superman killing at all ruins the fun and fantastic nature of the character. So even though I didn't have a big problem with Superman killing Zod, I could see why others would. But if Superman kills on a regular basis, you are missing an important point about the character, so I hope Superman doesn't kill again in this movie series and I hope both Zod's death and the almost total destruction of Metropolis is addressed in the next film.

I will say two of the best super hero movies of this year, involve the heroes doing the right thing over the easy thing (in Days of Future Past, young Xavier saves the future by convincing Mystique not to kill Trask and in Winter Solider, Captain America immediately opposes Project Insight) and both of them are rewarded for doing the right thing, even though its not easy. Superman should do the right thing, not because its easy, but because its right, give Superman a moral dilemma (not an easy one) and let him pass with flying colors, make him be hopeful in spite of his ability to make mistakes.

I've read this complaint about MoS repeatedly for the last year and it always strikes me as particularly odd. From who's perspective did Superman make mistakes? Not anyone from his universe; they have no preconceived notions on what Superman is "supposed-ta" be. Nobody from that Metropolis is going to look at his efforts to avert genocide as sub standard simply because there is no standard in his own universe. Everyone who complains about the collateral damage does so by comparing Superman's actions to their preconceived notions of what Superman is but nobody in his movie-verse has preconceived notions.

Personally, I think these types of criticisms are completely invalid. The movie is it's own narrative and should only be evaluated by those merits.

I'm sure Luthor will drum up xenophobia by pointing out that Superman is a huge threat due to the potential damage he is capable of and I wouldn't be surprised if Superman has some PTSD issues from killing Zod, not unlike a police officer who may seek counselling after having to oblige a criminal hell bent on "suicide by cop" but like the P.O., Superman had no choice in the matter and did what he did for the greater good. Other than that though, I think it would be disingenuous fan-service to make Superman overly repentant for his actions in Metropolis that day. Hopefully the sequence immediately after the death of Zod is indicative of the extent to which Superman is going to fall on his sword.

[Conch22]

Perfect ?

Great , i smash your car. Here you go , you can have my autograph and sell it on ebay.

This page is so insaneballs over the top awesome, I really want to read the issue. Though I actually enjoyed the
early issues of Austens Uncanny run and would read it over some other runs (fraction/ bendis). I also liked his female captain britain, even if the story was a bit 2 dimensional

[Dispenser Of Truth]

This page is so insaneballs over the top awesome, I really want to read the issue.

No, you don't. Aside from when he encounters a couple regular criminals, asks them a question and when they don't respond in time, jokingly goes "BZZZT! Time's up!" and throws them through a reinforced glass window, it turns out the whole thing is because The Littlest Cancer Patient died and Superman was throwing an issue-long temper tantrum.

[Custodes]

No one is perfect. Superman and Captain America come pretty close to the impossible though. Thought-wise and action-wise.

[The Overlord]

I've read this complaint about MoS repeatedly for the last year and it always strikes me as particularly odd. From who's perspective did Superman make mistakes? Not anyone from his universe; they have no preconceived notions on what Superman is "supposed-ta" be. Nobody from that Metropolis is going to look at his efforts to avert genocide as sub standard simply because there is no standard in his own universe. Everyone who complains about the collateral damage does so by comparing Superman's actions to their preconceived notions of what Superman is but nobody in his movie-verse has preconceived notions.

Personally, I think these types of criticisms are completely invalid. The movie is it's own narrative and should only be evaluated by those merits.

I'm sure Luthor will drum up xenophobia by pointing out that Superman is a huge threat due to the potential damage he is capable of and I wouldn't be surprised if Superman has some PTSD issues from killing Zod, not unlike a police officer who may seek counselling after having to oblige a criminal hell bent on "suicide by cop" but like the P.O., Superman had no choice in the matter and did what he did for the greater good. Other than that though, I think it would be disingenuous fan-service to make Superman overly repentant for his actions in Metropolis that day. Hopefully the sequence immediately after the death of Zod is indicative of the extent to which Superman is going to fall on his sword.

A lot of people who saw the movie had the complaint that Superman caused too much collateral damage and that is the most important factor, considering many people made this criticism in the real world. That is more important then how the fictional world of MOS sees those actions, the people in the world of a movie are just tools of the writer, they can react any way the writer wants. Movies often have characters idolize people who don't deserve it, look at Twilight. MOS did not need a bunch of disaster gorn to be relevant and Superman would have been far more heroic if he manged to limit property damage and didn't seem get a bunch of people killed through his recklessness. Heck if Superman made more of an effort to limit the damage during his fight with Zod, more people would have been more forgiving.

I think MOS, got such a mixed critical reaction, because a lot of critics didn't like all the damage and Superman's rather reckless attitude causing a loss of life that seemed preventible.

[Conch22]

No, you don't. Aside from when he encounters a couple regular criminals, asks them a question and when they don't respond in time, jokingly goes "BZZZT! Time's up!" and throws them through a reinforced glass window, it turns out the whole thing is because The Littlest Cancer Patient died and Superman was throwing an issue-long temper tantrum.

Did he write this after his Draco arc in Uncanny? He really started phoning it in, internationally screwing with fans after that. That page reads like the godfather street beating scene, capped off with supes going full on Rodman and compensating a pedestrian for damages with his signature, which hey, still more responsible than the MoS method of oh, I just wrecked half a city, gonna go make out with that lady, the one who stalked me, spent more time with my dad than I did. And our public displays of affection will cure all the life threatening injuries & PTSD in the immediate vicinity.

Also, the fans won. Chuck Austen, to my knowledge, hasn't had a career in comics in nearly a decade! Maybe lay off the has been that alienated his audience from Internet trolling

[JackDaw]

Did he write this after his Draco arc in Uncanny? He really started phoning it in, internationally screwing with fans after that. That page reads like the godfather street beating scene, capped off with supes going full on Rodman and compensating a pedestrian for damages with his signature, which hey, still more responsible than the MoS method of oh, I just wrecked half a city, gonna go make out with that lady, the one who stalked me, spent more time with my dad than I did. And our public displays of affection will cure all the life threatening injuries & PTSD in the immediate vicinity.

Also, the fans won. Chuck Austen, to my knowledge, hasn't had a career in comics in nearly a decade! Maybe lay off the has been that alienated his audience from Internet trolling

But how does it get past the editors??

I mean you'd think there'd be some sort of overall policy that said something like "Don't publish stuff that portrays Superman as a complete pillock". (After all DC has plenty of other heroes that have that slot well covered. Won't name them, of course… not now that we're all 100% positive on the new boards.)

[MikeP]

No he's not, but you wouldn't know that listening to some people go on about how he always makes the right decision and never has to make any difficult ethical choices.

[RobinFan4880]

Superman is designed to be on the just and moral side of any argument, even when it is unpopular. He fights in a manner similar to Goku, in that he always tries to be compassionate to his enemies and give them a chance to become better people. Superman has the power of a god but does not use that power for any purpose except to save people. Superman makes mistakes but most of those mistakes are in line with his default, boy scout, glass-is-half-full personality.

[Conch22]

But how does it get past the editors??

I mean you'd think there'd be some sort of overall policy that said something like "Don't publish stuff that portrays Superman as a complete pillock". (After all DC has plenty of other heroes that have that slot well covered. Won't name them, of course… not now that we're all 100% positive on the new boards.)

On the marvel side, after marvels late 90s bankruptcy crisis, Quesada basically said the policy was for writers to write the stories they wanted and that it was editorials job to find a way to explain away any continuity inconsistencies after the fact! Maybe DC decided to try a similar method with Austen?

Now my question with the criminals is did they contribute to the cancer kids death? Cuz if that's the case, I can go with supes teaching them a lesson/ messing with them, but if it's just some random criminals and supes decides to terrorize them because he's feeling blue, he then is acting like lex luthors evil clone in the 4th season of smallville, which, not a good parallel for that character

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Now my question with the criminals is did they contribute to the cancer kids death? Cuz if that's the case, I can go with supes teaching them a lesson/ messing with them, but if it's just some random criminals and supes decides to terrorize them because he's feeling blue, he then is acting like lex luthors evil clone in the 4th season of smallville, which, not a good parallel for that character

Nothing to do with it, he was just being pissy and venting on some (by Metropolis standards) petty thieves.

[Prime]

A lot of people who saw the movie had the complaint that Superman caused too much collateral damage and that is the most important factor, considering many people made this criticism in the real world. That is more important then how the fictional world of MOS sees those actions, the people in the world of a movie are just tools of the writer, they can react any way the writer wants. Movies often have characters idolize people who don't deserve it, look at Twilight. MOS did not need a bunch of disaster gorn to be relevant and Superman would have been far more heroic if he manged to limit property damage and didn't seem get a bunch of people killed through his recklessness. Heck if Superman made more of an effort to limit the damage during his fight with Zod, more people would have been more forgiving.

I think MOS, got such a mixed critical reaction, because a lot of critics didn't like all the damage and Superman's rather reckless attitude causing a loss of life that seemed preventible.

Metropolis was already destroyed by the time Superman got there.

[The Beast]

A lot of people who saw the movie had the complaint that Superman caused too much collateral damage and that is the most important factor, considering many people made this criticism in the real world. That is more important then how the fictional world of MOS sees those actions, the people in the world of a movie are just tools of the writer, they can react any way the writer wants. Movies often have characters idolize people who don't deserve it, look at Twilight. MOS did not need a bunch of disaster gorn to be relevant and Superman would have been far more heroic if he manged to limit property damage and didn't seem get a bunch of people killed through his recklessness. Heck if Superman made more of an effort to limit the damage during his fight with Zod, more people would have been more forgiving.

I think MOS, got such a mixed critical reaction, because a lot of critics didn't like all the damage and Superman's rather reckless attitude causing a loss of life that seemed preventible.

I know MoS got a mixed critical reaction because it didn't live up to their preconceived notions. I also know that WB/DC doesn't care due to the financial success of the movie and the Blu-ray sales. That's why Snyder and Goyer were promoted.

There's no logical reason for Superman to address the concerns of people on the other side of the 4th wall. Nobody on his earth would fault him for his efforts that day. Could you imagine how asinine some troll would sound in his world making the same complaints as detractors do here?

I do sometimes and it makes me laugh out loud.