Controversial Superman Opinions

[Kuwagaton]

I hear people talk about pre crisis Superman as if he was Mork but that sounds more like a pushback from later takes than its own reading.

Thinking about the battery idea from the mention of his drawing from the sun, I have to say that I'm indifferent because I like Action #300 and #786 about equally, as two typical stories of the difference. Sundipping is rare enough and the inherent flaw of having to run away balances it for me. There will always be a request to see a more powerful Superman, but I guess they haven't found a way yet besides just making him faster or stronger, even though his strength and speed are already incalculable .

[Ascended]

Yeah, but my take is Superman's differences are experiential rather than physiological or psychological. He doesn't have miniature suns in the blood or as cells in his body. He doesn't have weird biological tics like a mating urge every seven years. He can't rotate his head 360 degrees.

How do we define humanity, if not through shared experience and feelings? Isn't that the crux of many stories about androids, aliens, clones, etc., throughout fiction? Clark's "human".....just not biologically. Biologically, he *is* different. Even if he doesn't have the urge to mate every seven years, or have green blood, or can't rotate his head 360 degrees, he gets powers from a yellow sun. We don't. Biologically he's different than we are no matter how you slice it, but his soul is all human. I feel like Clark's status as "human" is honorary, it's certainly not literal.

As for K's idea that the idea of pre-Crisis Superman being seen as more "alien" is a pushback against newer versions....I think to a point there's truth to that, but it's also a result of deeper literary analysis that the source material wasn't built for. That kind of analysis is a double edged sword, because you're trying to apply concepts and theory and social norms that didn't exist then and you can get weird results from doing it. But when it comes to comics, I don't think it's too dangerous; the source material is thin in the first place so any evaluation is going to have to dig deeper than the author intended just to get an evaluation at all. And the serialized nature of the medium screws with results anyway, as the characters evolve and shift along with the changes to cultural norms, to maintain their ethical/moral positioning relative to us.

[marhawkman]

How do we define humanity, if not through shared experience and feelings? Isn't that the crux of many stories about androids, aliens, clones, etc., throughout fiction? Clark's "human".....just not biologically. Biologically, he *is* different. Even if he doesn't have the urge to mate every seven years, or have green blood, or can't rotate his head 360 degrees, he gets powers from a yellow sun. We don't. Biologically he's different than we are no matter how you slice it, but his soul is all human. I feel like Clark's status as "human" is honorary, it's certainly not literal.

As for K's idea that the idea of pre-Crisis Superman being seen as more "alien" is a pushback against newer versions....I think to a point there's truth to that, but it's also a result of deeper literary analysis that the source material wasn't built for. That kind of analysis is a double edged sword, because you're trying to apply concepts and theory and social norms that didn't exist then and you can get weird results from doing it. But when it comes to comics, I don't think it's too dangerous; the source material is thin in the first place so any evaluation is going to have to dig deeper than the author intended just to get an evaluation at all. And the serialized nature of the medium screws with results anyway, as the characters evolve and shift along with the changes to cultural norms, to maintain their ethical/moral positioning relative to us.

Yeah, golden age superheroes had few if any qualms against killing. I mean, in the Joker's first appearance Batman apparently killed him... intentionally. Why? because that was apparently the best way to stop him.

Also a big part of what made it the golden age was that the writers could basically do whatever they wanted and not worry about continuity.

[Jim Kelly]

The first Joker story in BATMAN No. 1 (Spring 1940), in the way the Joker falls, maybe was inspired by the ending of THE MAN WHO LAUGHS (which I only recently watched). But it's Robin's fault that Joker falls (the Boy Wonder was defending himself) and it's Batman that saves the Joker. The second Joker story in that issue, it seems to me it was the Joker's fault that he got stabbed by his own knife and Batman wasn't to blame. The Joker survives rather than dying, because Whitney Ellsworth realized this was a good villain, so he had Bill Finger change the ending so they could bring the Joker back.

[Agent Z]

Many Superman writers and fans have outdated and borderline offensive views about heroism and masculinity.

[Ra-El]

Many Superman writers and fans have outdated and borderline offensive views about heroism and masculinity.

Can you give examples? Not of fans, but writers, because the people who writes for Superman also have written or will, for several other characters on the Big Two, and I don't see anything on the past 2 or 3 runs of Superman that would make him stand out among other characters in that way.

[Agent Z]

Can you give examples? Not of fans, but writers, because the people who writes for Superman also have written or will, for several other characters on the Big Two, and I don't see anything on the past 2 or 3 runs of Superman that would make him stand out among other characters in that way.

In regards to masculinity, Frank Miller is one such example, especially when it comes to writing the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship. Actually, the way the Super Wonder relationship is often written comes across like the writers feel the need to assert Superman's dominance or chastise him for lack of it no matter who is writing it. For the heroism part, see just about any "heroes don't kill" example starring Superman. I also recall a a few times writers had Superman scold a hero wanting to make money off their services even though Clark has used his powers to get information for a story multiple times.

I also recall Chuck Austen talking about how he liked Golden Age Superman violating human rights and his writing of Lois and Lana did not speak well of his views on gender.

[manwhohaseverything]

Why does superman fan "no kill" thing connect to heroism, anyway? I mean, i don't particularly find it heroic.If he has a code, good for him. But, what's so heroic about it? Sure, enough it can be a sign of resolve and will to stick to the code. But, superman doesn't do it limit himself or strengthen his moral will and resolve. He uses the "code" to judge others by it.So, how does it feel heroic?

[Steel Inquisitor]

Why does superman fan "no kill" thing connect to heroism, anyway? I mean, i don't particularly find it heroic.If he has a code, good for him. But, what's so heroic about it? Sure, enough it can be a sign of resolve and will to stick to the code. But, superman doesn't do it limit himself or strengthen his moral will and resolve. He uses the "code" to judge others by it.So, how does it feel heroic?

Because killing isn't the only answer to solving problems. Leaving people alive shows mercy, and that they don't view everything in the lens of life and death and what if Superman's wrong? It's Superman meting out the death penalty. That's actually a big reason why characters like Superman do that. Holding back is much harder to do then being fully unleashed, there was an episode in Superman TAS about it.



How Superman captures criminals defines how he judges them and himself. What type of man does he want to be? What does he want to inspire in others who they see him? It's about his philosophy.

[manwhohaseverything]

Thinking about the battery idea from the mention of his drawing from the sun, I have to say that I'm indifferent because I like Action #300 and #786 about equally, as two typical stories of the difference. Sundipping is rare enough and the inherent flaw of having to run away balances it for me. There will always be a request to see a more powerful Superman, but I guess they haven't found a way yet besides just making him faster or stronger, even though his strength and speed are already incalculable .

It is about getting stronger.People generally hate out of the blue powerups that are unearned. Superman sundipping more than not feels like that. He just feels like a guy who doesn't need to struggle. I like to see superman break his limit by failing and falling. I generally don't care what level he is at. Wether he is leaping 1\8th a mile or out flying infinity. It robs tension from the story. There is also no draw back to this kind of sun dipping. Its not like superman lessens his life expectancy by taking the steroids . I just want a superman who has more tattered clothes and sweating bloody, you know. At the very least it feels like supes is doing something that's not good.Superman feels like he is cruising through life.

Because killing isn't the only answer to solving problems. Leaving people alive shows mercy, and that they don't view everything in the lens of life and death and what if Superman's wrong? It's Superman meting out the death penalty. That's actually a big reason why characters like Superman do that. Holding back is much harder to do then being fully unleashed, there was an episode in Superman TAS about it.



How Superman captures criminals defines how he judges them and himself. What type of man does he want to be? What does he want to inspire in others who they see him? It's about his philosophy.

Mate, it's hard to live by some "commandment" written on some stone thousands of years ago. Especially, when you are faced with contradictions of life, insurmountable odds... Etc. Dude, there is difference between murder or excution(if its done in public) and the kind of "killing" that i am talking about. As said, morality is something to limit yourself. If you can find a better solution. Good for you. But, you don't get to lecture others on how to live their life based on your morality. You will be nothing but a high and mighty jackass. He isn't going to inspire anyone with platitudes of naivete from his ivory tower. Superman farely feels like that many times. What's he gonna do? Start lecturing soldiers on how war is bad? Guy with everything looking down on people with limited options isn't appealing. It automatically makes people want to root for the underdog. Btw, his world of cardboard nonsense or "i hold back" thing sucks if he isn't taking a legitimate opponent who is look for fair competition. Its entirely disrespectful and condescending.Many a times, i automatically root for the other guy than Superman himself.Also, when people are doing their utmost to help people, by getting beaten bloody and broken backs. Even in that world, superman holds back. He isn't much of a hero for me. It's his choice. He Can choose that.But, i wouldn't call him a hero. Sure enough, wanting a personal life is one thing. Being complacent guy in the professional life you chose is another.
The best part i liked about superman and hitman was that he admits of his own nonsense.

[Robanker]

Ah yes, the world of cardboard speech. That old gem.

They build up to it and treat it like Superman finally gets his moment and is immediately **** on about ten seconds later. What an awful moment to end on for Superman.

The better scene to illustrate how Clark holds back is in the Doctor Destiny episode in which Clark's nightmare involves him growing into essentially the Hulk and killing everyone because he can't control his own strength. It utterly breaks him.

That does a lot more to illustrate just how much he needs to hold back and how omnipresent restraint is on his mind rather than him getting to punch Darkseid a few times then get one-shot for his troubles. The entire bit is predicated on Superman finally taking off his shackles, but if he's immediately chained up afterward it severely undercuts the moment.

[llozymandias]

Ah yes, the world of cardboard speech. That old gem.

They build up to it and treat it like Superman finally gets his moment and is immediately **** on about ten seconds later. What an awful moment to end on for Superman.

The better scene to illustrate how Clark holds back is in the Doctor Destiny episode in which Clark's nightmare involves him growing into essentially the Hulk and killing everyone because he can't control his own strength. It utterly breaks him.

That does a lot more to illustrate just how much he needs to hold back and how omnipresent restraint is on his mind rather than him getting to punch Darkseid a few times then get one-shot for his troubles. The entire bit is predicated on Superman finally taking off his shackles, but if he's immediately chained up afterward it severely undercuts the moment.

The weapon Darkseid used against Superman was implied to be something that would have hurt Darkseid. And yes, Darkseid was about to kill Superman. He was going to use kryptonite. Iow at no point in that encounter did Darkseid overpower Superman, he simply used his weaknesses against him.

[llozymandias]

A question for the people who hate Superman's code against killing, are you aware of the massive protests that have been going on around the US? The protesters say it's because of police brutality & cases where police have killed without proper justification. If Superman were real & killing his enemies, most people would be terrified of him.

[Agent Z]

Because killing isn't the only answer to solving problems.

No one who criticizes the no killing rule has ever claimed killing is the only way to solve problems so this argument is just a straw man. Wonder Woman and Captain America are every bit as moral as Superman and they've used lethal force as well.

and that they don't view everything in the lens of life and death and what if Superman's wrong?

Why is it that this question only ever comes up when it comes to superheroes killing? As if locking someone up for a crime they didn't commit can not be ruinous.

Firstly, this scene is from Justice League Unlimited not Superman TAS. Secondly, if this is his reaction to being able to "cut loose" then I think the way he represses himself is a bigger problem than if he simply killed Darkseid (which is what it looked like he was trying to do anyway).

Furthermore, the morality of this rule has strangely mutated over the years to the point that it seems Clark views any punishment as acceptable so long as it is non-lethal. Like how he hid the League's mindwipes but condemned Diana for killing Max Lord.

To say nothing of how this rule only applies to human or human-looking characters but not non-human ones like Doomsday, Imperiex or Brainiac.

[Agent Z]

A question for the people who hate Superman's code against killing, are you aware of the massive protests that have been going on around the US? The protesters say it's because of police brutality & cases where police have killed without proper justification. If Superman were real & killing his enemies, most people would be terrified of him.

Are you aware that it is not the simple act of killing that has caused these protests but that the killings themselves were unjustified?

Seriously, invoking the BLM movement as a counter to this argument is just insulting to what the movement is trying to accomplish and why it exists.