Controversial Superman Opinions

[fan_of_the_messiah]

So I don’t like how many writers portray Clark as wanting to go back to that lifestyle, when him recognizing that isn’t actually what he wants is such a crucial part of his character growth. It’s fine for stuff like Kingdom Come, where him regressing like that is explicitly treated as a bad thing, (at the start at least, YMMV at the ending), but ultimately I’d like to see a greater focus put on the happiness and fulfillment Clark gets from being a journalist and being Superman.

Put it another way: If the goal of DC’s handling of the modern Superman is to make him more relatable, having him wax nostalgic about the glories of rising at 5 in the morning to go plow the fields probably isn’t something most readers can connect to. I bet most would rather hearing about the joys of flying or being a star reporter in a major city.

Edit: Just to be clear I’m not **** talking anyone who is happy with that lifestyle, but Clark explicitly doesn’t choose that life for himself. So I don’t get why they keep having him pine over it, even though I do think that salt of the earth poor blue collar upbringing is crucial to his character.

I'm so sorry, but I disagree. Jesus Christ was a carpenter and Sree Krishna was a cattle herder, both were taught their trades by their adopted fathers, both adored and practiced their trades, and learnt an important lesson from their adopted fathers: wholesome hard work that serves people is essential in keeping a person humble and honest. True, they both had a higher divine calling but they both practiced their trades when possible as a means to serve society. In keeping with this "divine messenger" allegory for Superman, I'd like to think that Clark's feelings towards being farmer are the same and that he doesn't "look down" upon it. He was raised by Jonathan Kent to understand the importance of honest manual labour work such as farming and how it benefits mankind.

I like to think he chose to become a mild mannered journalist for several practical reasons: (1) it gave him a means to write and communicate with people across the globe about issues plaguing them and provide an opportunity for people to talk to one another as a means to resolve differences and work together, (2) it meant that he could travel to places where conflict and catastrophe were rife as a journalist but then save lives (literally and as a mediator) as Superman. But even as Superman he does put his skills as a farmer, and the lessons taught to him by Jonathan, to use by helping communities e.g.: with irrigating their lands, providing fresh water and building homes for people.

I'd also like to think that for Clark; being a farmer and serving the world, and also raising a family (like how his adopted parents raised him), was his ultimate life ambition. But just like the other divine figures from religious texts, his calling and his greater duty towards humanity kept him from realising this dream. I like to think it leaves him with a little sadness: knowing that he will never have the life that ordinary humans have but to me that's what makes him heroic: he rises above this knowing the salvation he brings to the world as Superman is far more important

[Vordan]

I'm so sorry, but I disagree. Jesus Christ was a carpenter and Sree Krishna was a cattle herder, both were taught their trades by their adopted fathers, both adored and practiced their trades, and learnt an important lesson from their adopted fathers: wholesome hard work that serves people is essential in keeping a person humble and honest. True, they both had a higher divine calling but they both practiced their trades when possible as a means to serve society. In keeping with this "divine messenger" allegory for Superman, I'd like to think that Clark's feelings towards being farmer are the same and that he doesn't "look down" upon it. He was raised by Jonathan Kent to understand the importance of honest manual labour work such as farming and how it benefits mankind.

I like to think he chose to become a mild mannered journalist for several practical reasons: (1) it gave him a means to write and communicate with people across the globe about issues plaguing them and provide an opportunity for people to talk to one another as a means to resolve differences and work together, (2) it meant that he could travel to places where conflict and catastrophe were rife as a journalist but then save lives (literally and as a mediator) as Superman. But even as Superman he does put his skills as a farmer, and the lessons taught to him by Jonathan, to use by helping communities e.g.: with irrigating their lands, providing fresh water and building homes for people.

I'd also like to think that for Clark; being a farmer and serving the world, and also raising a family (like how his adopted parents raised him), was his ultimate life ambition. But just like the other divine figures from religious texts, his calling and his greater duty towards humanity kept him from realising this dream. I like to think it leaves him with a little sadness: knowing that he will never have the life that ordinary humans have but to me that's what makes him heroic: he rises above this knowing the salvation he brings to the world as Superman is far more important

Yeah see we’re at completely opposite endpoints regarding Superman. I think the “SuperJesus” take is not only bad but actively harmful to Superman as a character. Superman is not Jesus. He was not sent to Earth to save us from our sins. He was sent here to survive, that’s it. Jor-El simply thought Earth offered the best chance for Clark’s survival.

And to be blunt, none of those “farming skills” you list actually get used in comic stories outside of stories that usually end with “Superman can’t deal with world hunger because it’s not his place to do so”.

[fan_of_the_messiah]

Your views are totally a-ok with me! I'm just glad to strike up a conversation with a fellow Superman fan.

The analogy between Christ and Superman have been drawn for decades now and as an atheist coming from a Hindu background I can safely say that it's not just the Abrahamic religions. The striking analogy is there in the story of Krishna (an incarnation of Shiva, born as a human, adopted and raised by a farming couple, grows up to be cattle herder all the while hiding his extraodinary abilites whilst saving lives and coming into conflict with a meglomanical king who ruled the lands). You can look it up in the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu text)

May I ask you something? You said that Jor-El sent his son to Earth purely to escape imminent destruction. I agree that a father's instinct would be to save their child from an impending doom and I do believe that is one of the reasons, but do you believe it to be the sole reason? Have you ever wondered why Krypton failed as a world? For a world of nations that was several hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us in evolution and scientific understanding, you would think they would be able to save themselves as a society from an ecological disaster even if the planet itself was doomed? Have you ever thought about the political or social structure on Krypton and considered that they suffered from the same societal flaws that we have today in our world?

Perhaps I've thought a little too hard into Superman stories . I think religious (but certainly not evangelical) and political themes in Superman make for thought provoking stories. For example, I was always fascinated by Lex Luthor as a young boy and as I grew older I came realise that his characterisation, abilities and beliefs are not that far off from real people in our world, both past and present.

[Vordan]

Your views are totally a-ok with me! I'm just glad to strike up a conversation with a fellow Superman fan.

The analogy between Christ and Superman have been drawn for decades now and as an atheist coming from a Hindu background I can safely say that it's not just the Abrahamic religions. The striking analogy is there in the story of Krishna (an incarnation of Shiva, born as a human, adopted and raised by a farming couple, grows up to be cattle herder all the while hiding his extraodinary abilites whilst saving lives and coming into conflict with a meglomanical king who ruled the lands). You can look it up in the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu text)

May I ask you something? You said that Jor-El sent his son to Earth purely to escape imminent destruction. I agree that a father's instinct would be to save their child from an impending doom and I do believe that is one of the reasons, but do you believe it to be the sole reason? Have you ever wondered why Krypton failed as a world? For a world of nations that was several hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us in evolution and scientific understanding, you would think they would be able to save themselves as a society from an ecological disaster even if the planet itself was doomed? Have you ever thought about the political or social structure on Krypton and considered that they suffered from the same societal flaws that we have today in our world?

Perhaps I've thought a little too hard into Superman stories . I think religious (but certainly not evangelical) and political themes in Superman make for thought provoking stories. For example, I was always fascinated by Lex Luthor as a young boy and as I grew older I came realise that his characterisation, abilities and beliefs are not that far off from real people in our world, both past and present.

It varies from interpretation from interpretation. For example the first to really go hard on the SuperJesus angle was the Donner films. Those films are just laden with Christ imagery. Before the Donner films Superman wasn’t viewed as a “Messiah” either in his stories or by the public. He was just a really nice guy who helped out. A hero to be sure but nothing like now.

Krypton’s death is obviously pretty unavoidably relevant to our current predicament regarding stuff like climate change. I’m all for drawing parallels, it’s why I personally consider Supes to be someone who is very environmentally conscious, I can’t see how he would not be given how his home planet ended up, and I certainly think a lot about Supes politics (personally see him as a leftist for a variety of reasons).

The whole “special person grows up in relatively humble origins” is a tale as old as time. It’s Jesus and Krishna’s story, but it’s also for example, Luke Skywalker, Anakin, Rey, King Arthur’s, Eragon from the Inheritance Cycle’s, and a huge variety of heroes from all cultures. We humans love our heroes to either be blue bloods like Batman and Wonder Woman, or blue collars like Supes. I don’t really see it as analogous to the religious icons because I don’t see Supes as drawing from that same well. Does Supes set a moral example? Certainly but so do all heroes honestly. And while in the Hindu tradition there may be a different view on deity morality, of which I have only a surface understanding I admit, the Judeo-Christian tradition that most people see Supes as part of has some bad drawbacks to casting him as analogous to Christ.

Basically we see Christ as a perfect role model so for Supes to analogous to Christ demands that he also be perfect. This contradicts with how Supes conducts himself. Supes lies. Supes cheats. Supes does stuff that’s not morally upright all the time, often played for laughs but sometimes more serious. If DC were to actively demand Supes be an analogue to Jesus, basically he couldn’t be flawed anymore, and he would lose a lot of the character quirks that make him interesting. That’s why I’m not on board for making that connection in canon. I don’t really think it adds anything to Superman as a character, and a lot of time I think it’s used to give faux depth to a character who is plenty deep on his own.

For me personally I think there’s deeper stuff to mine in Superman in relation to his status as an immigrant/refugee, as someone who uses power but isn’t corrupted by it, as a journalist, as someone who moved from a small town to the big city (which is particularly relevant to American youth today, our rural communities are dying for a variety of reasons and the cities are growing), as a father, and as a husband. That’s all stuff that doesn’t bring the same stringent requirements as making him a deity (although I’m not opposed to exploring that viewpoint of him by others as long as it’s clear it’s not how he sees himself and it’s not really his desire to be seen as such).

[Ascended]

May I ask you something? You said that Jor-El sent his son to Earth purely to escape imminent destruction. I agree that a father's instinct would be to save their child from an impending doom and I do believe that is one of the reasons, but do you believe it to be the sole reason? Have you ever wondered why Krypton failed as a world? For a world of nations that was several hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us in evolution and scientific understanding, you would think they would be able to save themselves as a society from an ecological disaster even if the planet itself was doomed? Have you ever thought about the political or social structure on Krypton and considered that they suffered from the same societal flaws that we have today in our world?

I don't mean to be rude and butt into you guys' conversation.....but I'm gonna!

The nature of Krypton, it's culture, and it's destruction has been tackled many times in different versions. And I don't really know as any particular element truly exists between all of them beyond the basics of Jor-El, Lara, Zod's attempted coup (and even that isn't always included), and Clark being sent to earth.

In some stories he's sent to earth not just to survive, but to be an example for humanity to follow. In some he's sent to earth with the hope that he'll take the best of Krypton and fuse it with the best of humanity and create something new. In others, Jor-El doesn't even send him to earth specifically, doesn't know earth even exists, and just sends his son into the void hoping against hope that Kal-El lands somewhere safe.

The culture is likewise all over the place. In some versions Krypton is a utopia, in others a deeply flawed place. The flaws, if there are any at all, change with each telling but xenophobia and pride seem to be the most common. So the "why" of Krypton and Clark's desperate escape.....pick your favorite, or your favorite bits and pieces and smash them all together in your own head canon.

Which is all a very long way of saying I don't think any particular thematic approach is more "true" than another. The religious parallels have always been there but they're not required. Clark can be a promised, chosen one.....or he can just be the luckiest son of a bitch in the universe. Either is an equally viable way to look at the character, I think. Though I myself tend to prefer the religious parallels to be downplayed more than anything; these similarities are easy enough to see without them being highlighted.

Perhaps I've thought a little too hard into Superman stories . I think religious (but certainly not evangelical) and political themes in Superman make for thought provoking stories. For example, I was always fascinated by Lex Luthor as a young boy and as I grew older I came realise that his characterisation, abilities and beliefs are not that far off from real people in our world, both past and present.

If you've put too much time into thinking about this character, then you are in good company, for all of us have done (and are likely doing right now) the same thing.

[TheRay]

When making a new Superman film all of the films prior to that should be considered canon.

[Superbat]

You know what, I don't know if I'd say "boring," but I do think Power Girl is kind of superfluous. For a while there before Supergirl's show caught on, I actually think Power Girl was the more popular of the two. During the period prior to that show, I think I'd have said Supergirl was superfluous. Now that Supergirl got her groove back, Power Girl is just kind of... I don't know, forgettable, to me, except in specific stories where she's really important, like the original All-Star Squadron stories.

I don't have anything against her. Actually, it's maybe kind of sad, but that's sort of what happens with two Karas from Krypton running around and one is way more marketable.

I read the Conner/Palmiotti Power Girl comics because they get a lot of praise but it was a whole lot of nothing. The only thing that sets her apart from Supergirl is that she has big breasts.

That's her defining character trait, she has big breasts and people talk about it. People sexually harass her and it's treated as a joke.

[Jon Clark]

I read the Conner/Palmiotti Power Girl comics because they get a lot of praise but it was a whole lot of nothing. The only thing that sets her apart from Supergirl is that she has big breasts.

That's her defining character trait, she has big breasts and people talk about it. People sexually harass her and it's treated as a joke.

Actually her defining trait is right there in the name. She is POWER Girl not SUPERgirl. She isn't Superman's little cousin who is following in his footsteps, but someone trying to create an identity for herself that is more than "Superman but with ovaries"

[Robanker]

I read the Conner/Palmiotti Power Girl comics because they get a lot of praise but it was a whole lot of nothing. The only thing that sets her apart from Supergirl is that she has big breasts.

That's her defining character trait, she has big breasts and people talk about it. People sexually harass her and it's treated as a joke.

That's certainly an element to the character, but the reason most of us like that series is it was a breath of fresh air from the usual morose situation that is the DCU. The book was a generally lighthearted action book about a lady who doesn't really suffer fools, but isn't outright hostile either. She just did her own thing. Amanda Conner's pencils were a treat as well.

If you want more development out of PG and probably what made us actually love the character, I'd suggest looking at JSA by Johns and following her through that.

[Flash Gordon]

The current SUPERMAN'S PAL JIMMY OLSEN is the best thing to come out of Superman's world in ages.

[Stanlos]

I read the Conner/Palmiotti Power Girl comics because they get a lot of praise but it was a whole lot of nothing. The only thing that sets her apart from Supergirl is that she has big breasts.

That's her defining character trait, she has big breasts and people talk about it. People sexually harass her and it's treated as a joke.

Hmmmmm. Before Crisis, what separated her from Supergirl seemed to be great pride at being Supes cousin, height, spunk, and aggression. After Crisis she seemed to age up and was a very big girl and yes she had very large breasts and muscles. Then they tried to regress her back to her Pre Crisis self but the large chest remained. She hasn't been as interesting as she was JL and BOP but I still have fondness for her.

[Vordan]

The current SUPERMAN'S PAL JIMMY OLSEN is the best thing to come out of Superman's world in ages.

It’s mad underrated for sure. God I’d love to see Fraction on the main book at some point but I doubt it will happen. Too much editorial politics involved with any Leaguer book.

[magha_regulus]

Here's one; all the arguments people commonly use against Superman (i.e. he's too powerful etc.) are more appropriate for Batman. I think Superman should be a better fighter than Batman and he's definitely more intelligent, all just because he's Kryptonian. I think Superman should be the one teaching Batman more often than not. At this point Batman might as well be a 1938 Superman in the comics which is ridiculous to me. I'd love to see Superman teaching Batman and Robin a thing or 2 about gymnastics and martial arts. Kryptonians should naturally be able to do pretty much anything a human can do physically and at a superhuman level at that. There was an instance in the justice league unlimited TV show where someone made an off comment about Superman dancing or singing badly that sat in my craw. Superman is more coordinated than any human being can be and he has Super ventriloquism so he can literally sound like anyone he wants. Superman's stories should be morality tales and ethical challenges like Star Trek. Superman is supposed to be about how power should be used and who should benefit from such power. He's a bully to the oppressors and the champion of the oppressed!


I have a whole lot of other controversial opinions about Batman, but those are off topic to be sure.

[Agent Z]

Some Superman fans can be incredibly shallow and will excuse genuinely awful portrayals of their character so long as marks some check boxes like having the underwear or giving generic, empty platitudes about hope.

[manwhohaseverything]

Some Superman fans can be incredibly shallow and will excuse genuinely awful portrayals of their character so long as marks some check boxes like having the underwear or giving generic, empty platitudes about hope.

Yeah! Superman's real enemy is mediocre portrayals.