Subject Matter Inappropriate for a Superman story

[The Overlord]

I remember back in the 90s, the writers tried to make Toyman more edgy by turning him into a child killing psychopath. No one seemed to like that and it was eventually retconned away. That leads me to ask, what subject matter do you think is inappropriate for a Superman story?

[SmokeMonster]

Nothing really. If it can be told well then anything.

But if we're talking about appropriate content for the main in-continuity default Superman status-quo kind of book, then ya, maybe don't get too dark. Or at least follow it up with the appropriate amount of optimism and positivity.

[Flash Gordon]

I think it was wrong to retcon that.

Toyman makes sense as a guy who preys on kids, a horrible bloke who Superman needs to stop.

[Starchild]

Didn't Toyman have Peter Pan Syndrome or something? It wouldn't make sense for him to prey on kids. And I don't think there is no such thing as inappropriate subject matter. You can have a Superman arc where he's dealing with human trafficking crimes. Why not? Maybe Intergang is involved somehow. There's nothing you can't do with Superman or any other superhero.

[Agent Z]

I think it was wrong to retcon that.

Toyman makes sense as a guy who preys on kids, a horrible bloke who Superman needs to stop.

Problem with making a character like that so monstrous is that it draws attention to how usless the hero is if they don't do something about them permanently. If you're not going to kill Toyman lock him up in the Phantom Zone.

[Kuwagaton]

There's technically a way to do anything, but it's not like I trust that most writers have the skill to pull off anything.

A villain who attacks children is particularly tough. Knock out Doomsday? High five. Reverse the shrink ray on Brainiac? High five. A victory over *that* Toyman? Doesn't feel like a victory.

[t hedge coke]

Problem with making a character like that so monstrous is that it draws attention to how usless the hero is if they don't do something about them permanently. If you're not going to kill Toyman lock him up in the Phantom Zone.

If the hero remains useless, though, that's the bad writing at fault, not the characters or basic plots. We've seen Spider-Man console a kid who was being groomed for abuse. Superman's saved suicides. Wonder Woman and Midnighter have convinced horrible people to turn over a new leaf and try to live right.

Not everything has to be solved with a punch, and sometimes, when it is, it's just laziness or shortsightedness on the part of the writer.

[Old Man Ollie 1962]

If the hero remains useless, though, that's the bad writing at fault, not the characters or basic plots. We've seen Spider-Man console a kid who was being groomed for abuse. Superman's saved suicides. Wonder Woman and Midnighter have convinced horrible people to turn over a new leaf and try to live right.

Not everything has to be solved with a punch, and sometimes, when it is, it's just laziness or shortsightedness on the part of the writer.

Matt Murdock really went above and beyond to help Melvin Potter turn his life around.

[Agent Z]

If the hero remains useless, though, that's the bad writing at fault, not the characters or basic plots. We've seen Spider-Man console a kid who was being groomed for abuse. Superman's saved suicides. Wonder Woman and Midnighter have convinced horrible people to turn over a new leaf and try to live right.

Not everything has to be solved with a punch, and sometimes, when it is, it's just laziness or shortsightedness on the part of the writer.

I understand that. At the same time, you have to make sure your non-violent solution makes sense and doesn't feel like an ass pull. I really can't see child killer Toyman turning over a new leaf just cause Superman had a heart-to-heart with him.

[DrNewGod]

I understand that. At the same time, you have to make sure your non-violent solution makes sense and doesn't feel like an ass pull. I really can't see child killer Toyman turning over a new leaf just cause Superman had a heart-to-heart with him.

And that's okay. I'm of the camp there's no story you couldn't put Superman on with a good writer.

Inability of Superman to convert hideous people into decent people is a good limitation for Superman to contend against. And the fact that he would insist on turning such monsters over to the courts, placing faith in us to deal with such monsters justly (however naive), is one of the things that distinguishes Superman from other the Punishers of comics. The one limitation is that Superman versus a child killer might have to be a more cerebral tale about Superman as a detective, and about his struggles with what is right versus what would soothe his anger.

It's characters like Batman that have limits to what they can be used for. Batman versus Brainiac should equal a dead dark knight.

[t hedge coke]

I understand that. At the same time, you have to make sure your non-violent solution makes sense and doesn't feel like an ass pull. I really can't see child killer Toyman turning over a new leaf just cause Superman had a heart-to-heart with him.

I'm more concerned with his victims, in those circumstances, than with Toy Man being a better person later.

[Ascended]

There isnt inappropriate subject matter for Superman, there's just inappropriate ways to tell the story.

Going with the child killer Toyman as an example, since everyone else is....

Telling the story of Superman/Clark Kent using his investigative skills and powers to hunt down Toyman, free his victims, console the survivors and/or the parents who lost their children, and turn Toyman over to Arkham is a perfectly valid story. It highlights a skill set that Superman doesnt get to display as often as he should, it explores neighborhoods in Metropolis we might not normally see, and it forces Superman to confront some themes that hit an emotional chord. If Superman fails to save every child (as he did in the 90's) then that's fine too; the idea of Superman not being able to save everyone is a common troupe and if that happens to be a child then it's that much more resonant. And if Toyman ends up in Arkham or some other prison, that's a perfectly valid ending. Yes, he's a monster, but he's not the kind of monster who cannot be held by regular means. In fact, people worse than him are held in real world prisons all the time. If Toyman is defeated and taken off the streets, its a win and a serviceable ending, even if we the readers might just want to see Clark melt him with heat vision.

This is a perfectly valid story to tell. Some people may not want to be confronted with the subject material but that does not mean its inappropriate, it just means those particular people dont want to read it. And that's fine.

What would not be appropriate is to show Toyman's actions in detail. No one wants to see that, this isnt an Image book. It wouldnt be appropriate for Superman to decide to help him, or turn a blind eye because its none of his business or he thinks the cops can handle it. If Toyman gets away or Superman allows him to escape, that's not a viable ending either (most likely). But you can say that of any villain. No one wants to see Zod escape either; we want to see him defeated and punished accordingly. For Zod that means the Phantom Zone. For Toyman it means a small cell where the guards, hopefully, will turn a blind eye to whatever the other inmates to do him (child molesters and kid killers arent looked fondly upon, even in jail).

There isn't a character in comics as versatile as Superman. You can do any kind of story with him and as long as he's written in character it all works. You can do gritty pulp stories with him where he confronts social injustice, mysteries where he hunts down a missing husband who may have run afoul of the wrong crowd, comedies where he struggles to find the perfect birthday gift for Aquaman, sci-fi adventures where he deals with aliens, cosmic stories where he explores higher dimensions, adventure stories where he hunts down strange relics in exotic lands, time travel stories where he has to decide if he should stop Hitler before WWII begins, romantic stories where he goes on a date with someone....there's no limit.

About the only thing Superman comics should avoid is frontal nudity, on-panel drug use, excessive swearing (and by that I mean the actual words, not just &%#@* type stand-in gibberish) and as-it-happens sex scenes. These things can be implied and hinted at, but probably shouldnt be shown directly. Beyond that? Sky is the limit.

[superduperman]

Well, there was that one story where he made a porno with Big Barta. That went a little too far. Kinda surprised DC let Byrne get away with that.

[Vinsanity]

Well, there was that one story where he made a porno with Big Barta. That went a little too far. Kinda surprised DC let Byrne get away with that.

Was kind of funny.

There was a story with Superman's past where a robot took over a girl named Misty and that was Clark's first.

[MeloDet]

Well, there was that one story where he made a porno with Big Barta. That went a little too far. Kinda surprised DC let Byrne get away with that.

*Almost made a porn with Barda. IIRC the villain couldn't get them to actually go through with it before they escaped/were rescued (don't remember that bit). Barda did apparently do solo stuff before they brought in Superman though, so it was still a massive slap in the face to Kirby.

Either way though it was an unnecessary attempt at adding "maturity" to Superman comics. I don't really have many things I'd actually limit; though there are a few topics that writers should be careful with if they're planning to use them.