Controversial Superman Opinions

[Agent Z]

A soldier as president would have that as background..he would still be a solider.He would carry that value system.Also,arthur was meant to pass "worthy" test and became pinnacle knight material..They are all kings if you are going by that. arthur curry?king..hal jordan?worthy of the ring..king.Clark becoming a master from a loyal servant ain't better for me.

Clark doesn't..but,he does get tripped up by green rocks and red light.

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

This statement is ironic, given that Golden Age Superman is more relevant today than at almost any time, and that's an 84 year-old concept. As I get older, I find the idea of an outdated concept to be laughable, because life goes in cycles. However, some concepts don't fit a character, or don't fit beyond a certain degree.

It's considered outdated because it's idea of activism, social justice and the like is incredibly simplistic and in many was damaging. It conflates attacking the symptoms of these issues with dealing with the causes. Superman dealing with social issues isn't an issue, but the oversimplistic and naive manner that many fans support is.

And contrary to what is parroted and echoed here, Superman didn't stop dealing with social issues after post crisis. People often complain about that scene in Infinite Crisis where Bruce says that Superman hasn't inspired anyone since he died. Ironically, they're more like Batman when it comes to their attitude towards Superman than they realize.

[Stanlos]

Eeeewwww. I recall that moment. It was very uncomfortable and very forced. I think that the one year build ip to break up the Trinity was 2/3 successful. WWs had the most thought and organic development as Rucka took it all the way back to Perez & Berger. Batman's was the ugliest with roots in that awful IDENTITY CRISIS. But they kind of dropped the ball with Supes IMHO. In the conclusion they and by they I mean Johns just dropped the ball majorly with WW undermining the premise about the Trinity and its impact on the DCU writ large

[Agent Z]

Eeeewwww. I recall that moment. It was very uncomfortable and very forced. I think that the one year build ip to break up the Trinity was 2/3 successful. WWs had the most thought and organic development as Rucka took it all the way back to Perez & Berger. Batman's was the ugliest with roots in that awful IDENTITY CRISIS. But they kind of dropped the ball with Supes IMHO. In the conclusion they and by they I mean Johns just dropped the ball majorly with WW undermining the premise about the Trinity and its impact on the DCU writ large

Well, Superman's arc might have worked better if Johns hadn't ignored the reveal that he knew about the mindwipes and kept them secret to protect the League's reputation. But Diana was the only one whose "sin" DC actually felt like addressing as they kept bringing it up long after Infinite Crisis had ended. Bruce creating Brother Eye was pretty much forgotten about after that story.

[JAK]

It's considered outdated because it's idea of activism, social justice and the like is incredibly simplistic and in many was damaging. It conflates attacking the symptoms of these issues with dealing with the causes. Superman dealing with social issues isn't an issue, but the oversimplistic and naive manner that many fans support is.

I brought up Golden Age specifically because TheManWhoHasEverything likes the era (as do I, but that's beside the point) but doesn't like many after it, and the irony was notable. I will say, though (as you also mention), the idea of someone tackling corruption and the like in a very direct way is very much popular today. That Superman, with very slight modernizations to fit what we now know of the world, would be incredibly relevant now.

And contrary to what is parroted and echoed here, Superman didn't stop dealing with social issues after post crisis.

Very true. It's one of the things about the Triangle Era Superman (which was current at the time) that I was specifically drawn to. Especially when it was Clark doing most of it and not just Superman. Very powerful, imo.

People often complain about that scene in Infinite Crisis where Bruce says that Superman hasn't inspired anyone since he died. Ironically, they're more like Batman when it comes to their attitude towards Superman than they realize.

That's a good point. I complain about the scene because it's utter bunk - but I'm sure Didio thought it was genius because he saw everything in sales figures, lol

[Kirk Brent]

Thank you! I agree with SO much of what you say here, as well. There's one small thing you're very close to right on, imo - let me posit one slight adjustment and see what you think:

It's not so much that the filmmaker's vision is most important to WB. They say that, but it's not. It's that they get an idea in their head of what will sell based on a mix of mis-reads and focus groups, then hire directors/etc who they think will fit that and let them run (to a certain degree) - or if they have no idea of their own, they see "person x did well with this movie and we want that, let's hire them for this". It's why so many Batman directors get put on Superman projects; they don't often have ideas, but when they do it's almost always bad. lol But when something gets pushback (Batman Returns, Batman V Superman, etc), they will step in to ham-handedly try to fix it (Batman Forever, Justice League).

That's an excellent point and I think you're absolutely right. It's a shame, because the MCU (despite its flaws) has proven that going in with a plan can work overall. Thor was allowed to be Thor and Cap was allowed to be Cap; they weren't "Iron Man-inified" like Goyer and Snyder's take on Superman. The films also worked toward various goals, the first of which was a team-up film. I don't believe that's necessary for DC's characters but I do believe some sort of blueprint is critical. Disney's handling of Star Wars is another example of what happens when there's not one driving vision or focus.

Every comic writer has "made Batman and Superman in their own image". Fans only care about the image of these characters that either exists in their head or the one from the comic that they like. The Superman and Batman from the comics that we know now are very different from how they originally started out, largely against the will of their creators.

Incorrect. Comic book creators (up to 2011, at least) told new stories and added to the ongoing mythologies of DC characters without compromising the integrity of these characters. Superman didn't up and become a neck-snapping hobo when Jeph Loeb or Geoff Johns started writing. Batman didn't brand people with his symbol or commit vicious vehicular homicide even when Miller wrote "Year One." Elseworlds are entirely different, as they should be. However, Elseworlds (and the Multiverse before it) existed only to contrast with the established and iconic portrayals. Sadly, this has been reversed since 2011 and 2013, respectively.

I brought up Golden Age specifically because TheManWhoHasEverything likes the era (as do I, but that's beside the point) but doesn't like many after it, and the irony was notable. I will say, though (as you also mention), the idea of someone tackling corruption and the like in a very direct way is very much popular today. That Superman, with very slight modernizations to fit what we now know of the world, would be incredibly relevant now.

Very true. It's one of the things about the Triangle Era Superman (which was current at the time) that I was specifically drawn to. Especially when it was Clark doing most of it and not just Superman. Very powerful, imo.

That's a good point. I complain about the scene because it's utter bunk - but I'm sure Didio thought it was genius because he saw everything in sales figures, lol

I think it's very easy to use Superman and/or Clark to tackle corruption. Though many despise it, JMS did this well in "Grounded." The Triangle Era did it extremely well and I think a movie could do it without being preachy or divisive. When done right, Superman bridges all barriers.

[Agent Z]

Disney's handling of Star Wars is another example of what happens when there's not one driving vision or focus.

Disney Star Wars is more what happens when you let the loud cries of a vocal minority dictate future entries.

Incorrect. Comic book creators (up to 2011, at least) told new stories and added to the ongoing mythologies of DC characters without compromising the integrity of these characters.

This is hilariously untrue.

John Byrne had Superman murder three Kryptonians after already depowering them and leaving them stranded on a deserted planet with no means of escape. That wasn't even the last time Superman killed someone either, making his whining over Diana killing Max look hypocritical on top of everything else. I won't even get into him covering up the League's mindwipes(of which Batman was also a victim) and the JMS run which had him covering up pollution that was making a town sick among other stupid crap.

Meanwhile, Batman has been written as an abusive, paranoid control freak, since the 80s, if not further back. His vileness reaching its zenith when he created a spy satellite to violate the privacy rights of every metahuman on the planet and then lost control of it, resulting in numerous deaths that he never answered for.

And that's just looking at Superman and Batman. This golden era where the writers never compromised the integrity of DC heroes never existed. Hell, the entire reason Infinite Crisis was made was to address this problem (too bad it also did it in such a crappy way and made the same mistakes it was criticizing DC for and then immediately went back to making the kinds of stories that people didn't like). Snyder having Superman kill a murderous invader is not remotely as bad and at least he had Batman learning his lesson stick. Loeb and Johns have their share of idiotic stories and I have no idea how anyone could look at Grounded and think it was social commentary done well.

[DochaDocha]

I'd say Star Wars was at its absolute best when there was a primary visionary who was held in check by a lot of people who understand how movies work. The prequels were worse because the checks and balances were gone, and the Disney trilogy felt purely driven to capitalize and mass produce around a proven IP (long way of saying "soulless").

Star Wars has often made me reexamine my own experience as a Superman fan. I've been saying for years that there's no need for me to feel passionate for modern Star Wars when you just hand the keys to someone else who may have their own agendas for the franchise, weren't part of the original creative process, and possibly don't have any real emotional attachment to the characters. There have been Star Wars projects that came out since 2015 that I've liked, and to varying degrees, but I'm not comfortable that the people who were responsible for telling the last part of Luke, Leia, and Han's story had zero part of making the classic stories I liked, and they (IMO) were too franchise-focused that they figured 1) we'd consume anything with the words "Star Wars" on it and 2) they lacked the foresight to know that fans of the past 40+ years wanted to see the band get brought back together one last time. I could never shake the feeling that they were willing to sacrifice the legacy characters to continue growing the brand, kind of like how a lot of DC heroes are just used to make Batman look good in various stories.

Which brings me back to Superman. Obviously, I didn't get my start with Siegel and Shuster. By the time I considered myself a fan, Superman was purely commercial art, occasionally created by people passionate for the characters. So it kind of explains why I find a lot of Superman stories disappointing or uninspiring, but also makes me feel somewhat relieved if I don't necessarily like new projects.

[manwhohaseverything]

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.


It's considered outdated because it's idea of activism, social justice and the like is incredibly simplistic and in many was damaging. It conflates attacking the symptoms of these issues with dealing with the causes. Superman dealing with social issues isn't an issue, but the oversimplistic and naive manner that many fans support is.

And contrary to what is parroted and echoed here, Superman didn't stop dealing with social issues after post crisis. People often complain about that scene in Infinite Crisis where Bruce says that Superman hasn't inspired anyone since he died. Ironically, they're more like Batman when it comes to their attitude towards Superman than they realize.

A president is pinnacle/embodiment of values or value system what the majority in democracy or republic want..he can Excel at it..But he wouldn't be different or new.
"What if a child aspired to be something different?"
Snyder done goofed up by his arthur comparison.

Also,pretention of complexity is not complexity. What superman writers do is this.

Give platitudes,be paternalistic.. and avoid actually tackling the subject.Worse,be unentertaining about it(biggest sin).This is'nt going for the cause of problems.It doesn't even give readers a guy you can root for at the very least as power fantasy,in my view.And power fantasy are relatable as it tends to be you or part of you with some power ,doing what you want to do but many a times can't because of many factors(for instance,punching an abusive husband).this on the other hand just, gives a guy you ogle at as adorable little messianic figure who is "sooo goood and sooo pure".(Pretention of good..)

This is what dkr criticises @JAK..This is a white knight.

Batman: You say you answer to some sort of authority. They only want me dead because I'm an embarrassment. Because I do what they can't. What kind of authority is that?

Superman: It doesn't matter. It's their world, and they won't stand for you anymore. If it isn't me, it'll just be someone else.

Batman: Really? Who do they send after you?

And a slight misunderstanding @JAK..I have said nothing of superman as character written by siegel and shuster.I have said nothing of superman as even archetype or even as ip.I don't think it is.All i did was criticise superman writers who write superman as savior overtly or ..even Morrison or waid views savior concept as "harmless".i do not .Untold human suffering in real world sense is ample justification.and I don't hate it persay..I just think it's dumb.

As for where i get the superman=knight stuff from..From writing.batman is billed as ronin/dark knight.Superman is billed as his opposite with similarities (batman is protagonist of dc narrative.. like it or not).Superman is the rival figure.The opposite of ronin/dark knight is a white knight/samurai.

"Superman is the day.Superman is the light..Superman is hope/compassion"
"Batman is the night.batman is the dark..batman is vengeance/fear"

i don't believe a knight who himself follows and is at pinnacle of some value system(king/master) to be admirable enough,that humanity has to follow .(there is no question of if or but..zack snyder atleast doubted it..credit where it's due).Sure a knight or king can be redeemable concepts.Knights can be cool to read even if it ain't for me.Captain marvel or captain america(movies) is an example.But,a savior is dumb concept as far as i am concerned(captain marvel is only exception).If you are writing superman as savior figure you need to tackle biiig biiig elephants in the room properly.i am not against using religious metaphors or discussing those theme.But it needs sophistication .

Finally,Superman?is he supposed to be a knight?I don't think so.As said,superman is supposed to be opposite conformity..He is an alien wearing circus costume for Pete's sake

I know superman holds back. But,a win is a win.Superman lost against batman.If i play anything with my nephew and he beats me.He beat me.That's it.me holding back is irrelevant.On top of that,i wouldn't let it know or slip.Which superman writers do.Always..That is moral posturing.which is also part of billing superman as this "nicest guy" ever.(he doesn't feel it for me in actuality).Rocky got his ass kicked by ivan drago..But,rocky is still the winner.why was clark there if he didn't want to fight in the first place?If bruce's destruction, vigilantism and collateral damage was superman's real concern batman would be behind bars.He just wanted to show he was there.He wanted to have it both ways. because he conformed to the world,the president,his parents(both sets of them) and whoever came along the way.This conformity makes him unable to bring anything new or different to the table.So,i like to think that clark was saved by bruce.


This is all metaphorical.metaphors used by dc writers to bill batman and superman.I am using the same metaphors and asking why a character is being billed like Knight or behaves like one(the aw!shucks boyscout business )when he was literally inspired by gladiator and wearing colourful yet dirty gladiator strongman gear ?

[Agent Z]

A president is pinnacle/embodiment of values or value system what the majority in democracy or republic want..he can Excel at it..But he wouldn't be different or new.
"What if a child aspired to be something different?"
Snyder done goofed up by his arthur comparison.

Also,pretention of complexity is not complexity. What superman writers do is this.

Give platitudes,be paternalistic.. and avoid actually tackling the subject.Worse,be unentertaining about it(biggest sin).This is'nt going for the cause of problems.It doesn't even give readers a guy you can root for at the very least as power fantasy,in my view.And power fantasy are relatable as it tends to be you or part of you with some power ,doing what you want to do but many a times can't because of many factors(for instance,punching an abusive husband).this on the other hand just, gives a guy you ogle at as adorable little messianic figure who is "sooo goood and sooo pure".(Pretention of good..)

This is what dkr criticises @JAK..This is a white knight.


And a slight misunderstanding @JAK..I have said nothing of superman as character written by siegel and shuster.I have said nothing of superman as even archetype or even as ip.I don't think it is.All i did was criticise superman writers who write superman as savior overtly or ..even Morrison or waid views savior concept as "harmless".i do not .Untold human suffering in real world sense is ample justification.and I don't hate it persay..I just think it's dumb.

As for where i get the superman=knight stuff from..From writing.batman is billed as ronin/dark knight.Superman is billed as his opposite with similarities (batman is protagonist of dc narrative.. like it or not).Superman is the rival figure.The opposite of ronin/dark knight is a white knight/samurai.

"Superman is the day.Superman is the light..Superman is hope/compassion"
"Batman is the night.batman is the dark..batman is vengeance/fear"

i don't believe a knight who himself follows and is at pinnacle of some value system(king/master) to be admirable enough,that humanity has to follow .(there is no question of if or but..zack snyder atleast doubted it..credit where it's due).Sure a knight or king can be redeemable concepts.Knights can be cool to read even if it ain't for me.Captain marvel or captain america(movies) is an example.But,a savior is dumb concept as far as i am concerned(captain marvel is only exception).If you are writing superman as savior figure you need to tackle biiig biiig elephants in the room properly.i am not against using religious metaphors or discussing those theme.But it needs sophistication .

Finally,Superman?is he supposed to be a knight?I don't think so.As said,superman is supposed to be opposite conformity..He is an alien wearing circus costume for Pete's sake

I know superman holds back. But,a win is a win.Superman lost against batman.If i play anything with my nephew and he beats me.He beat me.That's it.me holding back is irrelevant.On top of that,i wouldn't let it know or slip.Which superman writers do.Always..That is moral posturing.which is also part of billing superman as this "nicest guy" ever.(he doesn't feel it for me in actuality).Rocky got his ass kicked by ivan drago..But,rocky is still the winner.why was clark there if he didn't want to fight in the first place?If bruce's destruction, vigilantism and collateral damage was superman's real concern batman would be behind bars.He just wanted to show he was there.He wanted to have it both ways. because he conformed to the world,the president,his parents(both sets of them) and whoever came along the way.This conformity makes him unable to bring anything new or different to the table.So,i like to think that clark was saved by bruce.


This is all metaphorical.metaphors used by dc writers to bill batman and superman.I am using the same metaphors and asking why a character is being billed like Knight or behaves like one(the aw!shucks boyscout business )when he was literally inspired by gladiator and wearing colourful yet dirty gladiator strongman gear ?

Again, no one is comparing Superman to a knight except you. I don't even think Snyder has compared Superman to King Arthur and the only thing I've seen him mentioning Arthur in any context is him wanting to make a movie of the guy.

As for the rest, this just feels like a lot of nitpicking and hyperbole.

[Stanlos]

Today's controversial Superman opinion is that he eclipses nearly all other superpowered beings in physical power (strength and speed)

[king81992]

Today's controversial Superman opinion is that he eclipses nearly all other superpowered beings in physical power (strength and speed)

He SHOULD out class everyone in strength, but not speed.

[king81992]

Again, no one is comparing Superman to a knight except you. I don't even think Snyder has compared Superman to King Arthur and the only thing I've seen him mentioning Arthur in any context is him wanting to make a movie of the guy.

As for the rest, this just feels like a lot of nitpicking and hyperbole.

I've heard people claim that Snyder's Superman, BvS and Justice League are loosely/ somehow based on the Excalibur movie from the 70s or 80s. That's probably why people in the thread are comparing Superman to a knight.

[JAK]

A president is pinnacle/embodiment of values or value system what the majority in democracy or republic want..he can Excel at it..But he wouldn't be different or new.
"What if a child aspired to be something different?"
Snyder done goofed up by his arthur comparison.

Also,pretention of complexity is not complexity. What superman writers do is this.
Give platitudes,be paternalistic.. and avoid actually tackling the subject.Worse,be unentertaining about it(biggest sin).This is'nt going for the cause of problems.It doesn't even give readers a guy you can root for at the very least as power fantasy,in my view.And power fantasy are relatable as it tends to be you or part of you with some power ,doing what you want to do but many a times can't because of many factors(for instance,punching an abusive husband).this on the other hand just, gives a guy you ogle at as adorable little messianic figure who is "sooo goood and sooo pure".(Pretention of good..)

This is what dkr criticises @JAK..This is a white knight.

Paternalism isn't a knight thing and isn't a savior thing. They are separate. They can both be present in something, but are not the same thing. You've often conflated the two, and I see this as incorrect and overly simplistic.

And a slight misunderstanding @JAK..I have said nothing of superman as character written by siegel and shuster. I have said nothing of superman as even archetype or even as ip. I don't think it is. All i did was criticise superman writers who write superman as savior overtly or ..even Morrison or waid views savior concept as "harmless".i do not .Untold human suffering in real world sense is ample justification.and I don't hate it persay..I just think it's dumb.

You have, though. You've compared modern Superman to his Golden Age counterpart and generalized "what Superman is" in a modern context (you mention savior and parental concepts a LOT) with no mention of writers. My critique would be much less broad and much more specific if that weren't the case.

I also hate the savior concept, because it's lazy writing. But Superman being kind and supportive to people isn't that.

As for where i get the superman=knight stuff from..From writing.batman is billed as ronin/dark knight.Superman is billed as his opposite with similarities (batman is protagonist of dc narrative.. like it or not).Superman is the rival figure.The opposite of ronin/dark knight is a white knight/samurai.

"Superman is the day.Superman is the light..Superman is hope/compassion"
"Batman is the night.batman is the dark..batman is vengeance/fear"

Superman is compared to Batman, but he's also his own character. He's not "just Batman's rival". Much like the savior concept, this is also an effect of lazy writing. Batman being "The Dark Knight" doesn't mean Superman is required to be anything.

i don't believe a knight who himself follows and is at pinnacle of some value system(king/master) to be admirable enough,that humanity has to follow .(there is no question of if or but..zack snyder atleast doubted it..credit where it's due).Sure a knight or king can be redeemable concepts.Knights can be cool to read even if it ain't for me.Captain marvel or captain america(movies) is an example.But,a savior is dumb concept as far as i am concerned(captain marvel is only exception).If you are writing superman as savior figure you need to tackle biiig biiig elephants in the room properly.

Superman is not a knight, and he's not a king. He has a value system that he follows, sure. Those are his principles - when people have those, they tend to follow them, generally. That's how life works. Superman being an example isn't something "everyone has to follow". Every person - any person - can be an example - doesn't mean they think highly of themselves, at most they're likely just "being the change they want to see." If other people like that and want to jump on board? Great! But that doesn't make the person who inspired them into a self-serving savior figure. That's your leap in logic that doesn't work. I get why you think that: so much Superman live media (even Donner) have made a big thing about "the light to show the way" and all that. But those aren't Clark's words, those are things that are put on him by others. And they're overdone to the point where it's being associated with the character, and they (filmmakers, etc) need to stop that crap.

i am not against using religious metaphors or discussing those theme.But it needs sophistication.

I'm at the point now where I'm definitely against using religious metaphors for Superman - it actually works against the character and (as your example shows) can paint other aspects of the character to people in the most incorrect light possible. It perverts Superman's ideals and strengths into something that feels self-serving, when that's not supposed to be the case.

Finally,Superman?is he supposed to be a knight?I don't think so.As said,superman is supposed to be opposite conformity..He is an alien wearing circus costume for Pete's sake

I agree - Superman is not a knight.

I know superman holds back. But,a win is a win.Superman lost against batman.If i play anything with my nephew and he beats me.He beat me.That's it.me holding back is irrelevant.

So Batman was holding Superman's seemingly lifeless body at the end of that? That's news to me. Again, Superman won a fight he didn't even participate in. He let a man-child beat on him until said man-child was tired and gave out. That's it.

On top of that,i wouldn't let it know or slip.Which superman writers do.Always..That is moral posturing.which is also part of billing superman as this "nicest guy" ever.(he doesn't feel it for me in actuality).Rocky got his ass kicked by ivan drago..But,rocky is still the winner.why was clark there if he didn't want to fight in the first place?If bruce's destruction, vigilantism and collateral damage was superman's real concern batman would be behind bars.He just wanted to show he was there.He wanted to have it both ways. because he conformed to the world,the president,his parents(both sets of them) and whoever came along the way.This conformity makes him unable to bring anything new or different to the table.So,i like to think that clark was saved by bruce.

You're just describing why DKR sucks as a story for Superman as a character. And the Rocky comparison is actually making my point.

This is all metaphorical.metaphors used by dc writers to bill batman and superman.I am using the same metaphors and asking why a character is being billed like Knight or behaves like one(the aw!shucks boyscout business )when he was literally inspired by gladiator and wearing colourful yet dirty gladiator strongman gear ?

Superman isn't billed as a knight.

[Stanlos]

He SHOULD out class everyone in strength, but not speed.

If this is about Flashes, no. Supes, and the two characters that equal and/or rival him, got there first with their concepts as compared to what Flash creators were going for. Can the Flashes of speedforce users use superspeed in more versatile ways because that IS their specialty? That is a reasonable concession.

[king81992]

If this is about Flashes, no. Supes, and the two characters that equal and/or rival him, got there first with their concepts as compared to what Flash creators were going for. Can the Flashes of speedforce users use superspeed in more versatile ways because that IS their specialty? That is a reasonable concession.

To be fair, 'more versatile use of speed' is grossly underselling what Speed Force users are capable of. The Speed Force is probably the most poorly defined concept in fiction, it does all sorts of things with zero logic, explanation or consistency.