Controversial Superman Opinions

[The World]

If Superman were real and solving all of our problems for us, that would have a bad ending. He would be in charge. Whether or not he wanted to be. No he would not be corrupted, just disappointed. Too many people are willing to be taken care of. From cradle to grave. And they are willing to surrender their freedom in exchange for that "care".

That's a conflict though. We shouldn't be running away from it, we should be moving towards it.

[TheSuperMule]

Luffy also has the luxury of existing in a narrative that revolves entirely around him whereas Clark needs to share a universe with a ton of IP, so everything can go his way. Moreover, Luffy's world is a lot more straight-forward and allows him to solve everything with a direct approach. Clark's can quickly go to **** around him and he has still has a personal life. Luffy's life revolves around punching whoever approaches him wrong and eating. There is zero complexity. He's the most basic shounen protagonist there is. Hot-blooded, loves to fight and eat, strong bond with friends. That's ultimately fine, it doesn't have to be complicated, but much of that is a child's approach to a problem. If I don't like it, hit it until I do and damn the consequences. Great. Luffy gets to live in a universe where that doesn't bite him in the ass. Clark does. It's not the same.

It's apples and oranges, dude. Their situations are very different. Or at least that's what my reading of One Piece revealed (I left after the time skip/Ace's death).

Not quite. Sure One Piece is a single narrative and is not affected by the tropes of a shared universe but that doesn't mean that there isn't complexity and consequence to the protagonists actions in it. One Piece has well established that there is a corrupt, authoritarian world government. That is owned by a very small percentage of the population that are super, filthy (sounds familiar). On the other hand you have Pirate groups that are so powerful that they can be considered nations themselves. They have territories and own islands and fight directly the government. There's racism, slaves, class inequality, weapon/drug dealers. All these elements are part of the story and Luffy confronts them directly if it stands in his way. Every island the Straw Hats land on gets wasted. In Sabaody he punched royalty because they hurt one of his friends. Because of that, the whole island, and everybody in it got bombed by the government. Sure this is a gag fighting manga and the focus is not on the consequence of the destruction the conflict causes, but I think the comparison holds up. I would rather read Superman who fights for what's right no matter what, than reading about a guy trying to stay neutral in conflicts because there will be repercussions for his actions.

And I get it. This is ongoing storytelling and the shared universe etc, but honestly that's a poor excuse for not coming up with better things for your characters to do and say. That's not to say that Superman should act like a generic Shounen protagonist, and Luffy by all accounts is like that. But some of complaints about Superman, that his boring, boy scout, too powerful etc come from a lack of stories that put the character in direct conflict with all these other different ideas. People think of Superman and they think getting cats down from trees when it used to be smashing cars and throwing tanks. More Smashes the Klan and less "Truths" basically.

[Steel Inquisitor]

He is not solving problems for us. He solving problems with us and as part of the society he lives in. Really? Would you ask Leonardo da vichi to not paint? Would you ask Shakespeare to not write? Would you ask Einstein to not be interested in gravity and physics? Would you ask goku to not train? Why does Superman differ? These guys are leaders as well in their feilds and the times. There are many kinds of leaders. You want superman as soon as some messiah who watches over people beating each other up? That was never the character. The character always acted, even when he messed up. Superman's philosophy is more action based.Why would he be disappointed?He isn't earth's or metropolis's father? He does what's right. If people want to do something else they can.If that leads to harm superman will be there to stop you or change your mind in anyway possible. Some people require getting knocked some sense,others require debate, some won' t change and have some justified stance that superman may disagree with. There in lies the conflict.Frankly, i am baffled i am having this debate. No wonder i think superman lost his fangs.

Your proposal would make him a god-king like the Authority, not a traditional super-hero. He does act, but it's to be an ideal, he's a guide to humanity but not a leader in that respect. Here's there to catch us when we fall, not govern our lives. The thing is he does less of this "guiding" of humanity in Snyder's films then how he's traditionally written. he runs away from the spotlight and gets away with no accountability. A simple court appearance gets derailed permanently when a villain blows it up, and we never go back to it again. He does what you're talking about by speaking with the communities of the world and being a positive example of kindness and bravery.

Please, that's nonsensical portrayal of a character. As hitman says, "Superheroes are a joke". Superman was wayy more interesting as the strongman vigilante from space . Superman isn't earths nanny(a bad one. I mean, nanny's do generally interfere ).i have said this before there are many types of leaders. Superman doesn't need to be a politician to lead people. He can just be a people's champion who works as an independent agent. As for, destabilising governments. If superman sees people being oppressed with consent of the people or through his moral conviction he woulr act . The guy who took stalin and hitler by the belt should act (btw, this was printed when these guys were alive and very much powerful political entities. Not in the age where they are seen as just another villains that is allowed to be hit). None, of that has any bearing on what i am saying. The champion of the oppressed,acts to fight for freedom and against the corrupt. Superman isn't the authority nor black adam. He isn't interested in being a king or creating some totalitarian oligarchy. Didn't you read what i wrote? A guy could have power, use it and not control people/enslave them. That's superman . He just fights any corrupt establishment that doesn't have the welfare of its people in mind. And its upto the people of the nation to rebuild, if its destabilised. Superman would be there to help anr he is competent enough to control the chaos. Him being people's champion doesn't mean he would be a cult of personality either. He is a man of convictions and an idealist. If people have problems with real people being used.Sure, enough they can create fictional places and characters to get the point across.

Tommy's has no moral authority over anything, he kills people for money and uses his powers to perv on Wonder Woman, in JLA. He's the Deadpool of the DCU. His series loathes super-heroes so much it has jokes about superheroes being raped and we're supposed to laugh at it.



We've seen Superman being a "strongman" - and it's bad for everyone when he gives into power, it's become a cliche with characters like Injustice Superman, Justice Lord Superman and Ultraman. Except your stance is that Superman should be Earth's ultimate authority, which he doesn't even do in Snyder's films. Nothing I've said contradicts him being "independent." Which involves destabilising governments? He stopped doing that after WWII, and after that it was retconned by DC that super-heroes were kept out of that conflict because the Nazi's had the Spear of Destiny. That's Captain America, not Superman. You're being nostalgic for a Superman who's been long dead and isn't in Snyder's films. No, they aren't - but your argument stipulates they should be and Black Adam would fit right in with the Authority.

The page before this was Adam ordering Atom Smasher to stomp the previous dictator to death with his boot.



But Snyder's Superman doesn't do any of what you want, he fights alongside the military in Man of Steel and never acts against the government in B vs S.

Except they wouldn't have to rebuild unless Superman destroys the government first, which is what the Authority do, not Snyder's or post-WW2 Superman. But they don't do any of what you're saying with Snyder's Superman or post-WW2 Superman.

Are you serious? The elite are a joke. Superman doesn't address the point in the story. What's so funny is bad example. Superman there was just against exectution or something( I am not really sure) . I have issues with the story as well. The only thing good about what's so funny is dreams speech. In it, superman specifically says he would never stop fighting and how dreams save us. Yet, superman isn't portrayed as the man of action most of the time.

The Elite are a parody of the Authority, they're not supposed to be taken seriously in the DCU. Can you please explain what you mean by "man of action"? That's incredibly vague and could describe current Superman.

Honestly, this is why i think luffy is more superman than Superman in modern days. Clark is royalty. He doesn't do anything. He is lazy, complacent and too comfortable with himself . He is messiah on top of that. What an idiotic combination.

I thought you liked Superman?

Man of rubber >>>>> Man of steel.
Luffy would punch any dictator in his jaws for his ideals, regardless of any consequences. As if superman is any more complicated. Its all just window dressing to say postcrisis superman and his stories are worth more. When in reality it ain't. It's wayyyy less.

Robanker summarised this perfectly. Thank you, Robanker.

[The World]

I think the strangest thing about the argument for Superman standing on the sidelines angle is how it always boil back down to the same old cliches about him becoming a tyrant/god/owner of humanity. If Superman intervening in on corrupt governments/war/other devastating human problems is all it take for him to go full blown overlord then you need to admit he wasn't a very good person in the first place. Siegel and Shuster did the interventionist angle for years without him becoming a tyrant and stopped it because of mandates the same way hollywood began to get strict codes about what could and could not be shown on film. Honestly for all the talk about modern Superman being such a pure being or whatever you all seem to not have much faith in the nature of his character.

Also I think the strangest thing about modern Superman's "humanity" is how quickly he drops it once people start asking him to help out with humanity's problems.

Another thing is the pretty funny reaction Clark has in the Superman vs The Elite story is his pretty tepid reaction to hearing about terrorist in Libya vs his reaction to hearing about the Elite popping up somewhere else in the world. Say what you want about Golden Age Superman but his reaction to innocent people dying was pretty uniform. Also him blowing off the question about the incarceration/release loop of the more dangerous Super villains in that story was telling imo. You can like the story and like modern Superman's stances on things but saying things are fine or even decent under him is silly.

[llozymandias]

That's a conflict though. We shouldn't be running away from it, we should be moving towards it.

What i should have said was: too many people want to have no responsibility. They want someone else making all of their decisions for them. As well as taking total care of them. Cradle to grave. This way it's not their fault when things go wrong.

[llozymandias]

I think the strangest thing about the argument for Superman standing on the sidelines angle is how it always boil back down to the same old cliches about him becoming a tyrant/god/owner of humanity. If Superman intervening in on corrupt governments/war/other devastating human problems is all it take for him to go full blown overlord then you need to admit he wasn't a very good person in the first place. Siegel and Shuster did the interventionist angle for years without him becoming a tyrant and stopped it because of mandates the same way hollywood began to get strict codes about what could and could not be shown on film. Honestly for all the talk about modern Superman being such a pure being or whatever you all seem to not have much faith in the nature of his character.

Also I think the strangest thing about modern Superman's "humanity" is how quickly he drops it once people start asking him to help out with humanity's problems.

Another thing is the pretty funny reaction Clark has in the Superman vs The Elite story is his pretty tepid reaction to hearing about terrorist in Libya vs his reaction to hearing about the Elite popping up somewhere else in the world. Say what you want about Golden Age Superman but his reaction to innocent people dying was pretty uniform. Also him blowing off the question about the incarceration/release loop of the more dangerous Super villains in that story was telling imo. You can like the story and like modern Superman's stances on things but saying things are fine or even decent under him is silly.

In the character's early years his power was a lot more limited. Yes, he intervened in a lot of things. But he also was treated as an outlaw.

[manwhohaseverything]

Not quite. Sure One Piece is a single narrative and is not affected by the tropes of a shared universe but that doesn't mean that there isn't complexity and consequence to the protagonists actions in it. One Piece has well established that there is a corrupt, authoritarian world government. That is owned by a very small percentage of the population that are super, filthy (sounds familiar). On the other hand you have Pirate groups that are so powerful that they can be considered nations themselves. They have territories and own islands and fight directly the government. There's racism, slaves, class inequality, weapon/drug dealers. All these elements are part of the story and Luffy confronts them directly if it stands in his way. Every island the Straw Hats land on gets wasted. In Sabaody he punched royalty because they hurt one of his friends. Because of that, the whole island, and everybody in it got bombed by the government. Sure this is a gag fighting manga and the focus is not on the consequence of the destruction the conflict causes, but I think the comparison holds up. I would rather read Superman who fights for what's right no matter what, than reading about a guy trying to stay neutral in conflicts because there will be repercussions for his actions.

And I get it. This is ongoing storytelling and the shared universe etc, but honestly that's a poor excuse for not coming up with better things for your characters to do and say. That's not to say that Superman should act like a generic Shounen protagonist, and Luffy by all accounts is like that. But some of complaints about Superman, that his boring, boy scout, too powerful etc come from a lack of stories that put the character in direct conflict with all these other different ideas. People think of Superman and they think getting cats down from trees when it used to be smashing cars and throwing tanks. More Smashes the Klan and less "Truths" basically.

This is what i am talking about. The character needs a pr refesher and a new (or old in this case) narrative to latch itself on to.

In the character's early years his power was a lot more limited. Yes, he intervened in a lot of things. But he also was treated as an outlaw.

Dude! He was the most powerful thing on his world later on. So much so that he would have minimal effect on him directly if he decided to pick up hitler, stalin... Etc by the belt and kidnap them. Superman makes power irrelevant. He takes the power out those that are corrupt and try to oppress the weak.

I thought you liked Superman?

I like goldenage siegel and shuster superman. No, @Robbanker didn't address anything. Complexity in narrative arises from tackling subjects and addressing them. They don't arise from sweeping them under the rug and pretending they don't exist. People can make excuses all they want about how superman's current treatment differs from the goldenage treatment by blaming it on shared universe and what not. But, it doesn't matter. If superman and his story sucks. The existence of larger dcu wouldn't help the franchise . Tommy is wayy more interesting character than standard schlock of so caller super"heroes". Most of them aren't human (batman included). They don't feel human. Maybes green arrow, black canary.. Etc are an exception . Jason todd is the only character that's seems to actually good currently,superman included.if Your excuses are stupid,idiotic slippery slope arguments like injustice, nazi superman, justice lord.. Etc. Then i am not the one who isn't a superman fan. You are. I will repeat what i said in another thread. "There is no superman without siegel and shuster superman. because power doesn't corrupt it reveals".
To quote one piece,
"Man's dreams will never end"
"Fate. Dreams. These unstoppable ideals are held deep in the heart of man. As long as there are people who seek freedom in this life, These things shall not vanish from the Earth."
This logo's meaning is much more greater than the hope logo or sigil of el family royalty nonsense.

A man of action is a person who is always willing to act regardless of consequences. He has broad enough shoulders to bare the responsibility and burden of any of his action. A man who is always on his toes.He wouldn't be sitting in his giant apartment like an ostrich who has head in the ground when people are being oppressed . He would be out there fighting for what's right and he would be amongst the people always. He would be intimately aware of the situations of the ground and problems the people are facing.


He wouldn't be shoving platitudes like "teach people fishing" or nonsense like that to cover for the fact superman can't solve world hunger.Please, stop testing people's intelligence.

Also,superman's main genre is action. Action comics was his debut platform The thing about that is batman does both action and detective work. So superman is left with nothing.
This is what i mean by a man of action. Kenshin is a true man of action. Even when he took an oath to never kill again later on. Non-violence is no excuse for inaction in the face of oppression . Nor is non-violence inaction.
"evil triumphs when good men do nothing."

[Robanker]

Except Superman DOES fight for his people. He acts as their champion, he saves them from disasters, he just doesn't get shown dealing with the mob except wait, that's literally happening right now. He goes after corruption as Clark and as Superman.

I don't agree with the concept of Superman going slippery slope, but I understand that if you present real issues for Superman to deal with then the problem is they're there again next month. So he either solves the problem of world hunger and now nobody in DC can go hungry, so I guess all those crooks in Gotham are really just assholes and not trying to feed their families in a corrupt city where only crime pays. You essentially use Superman to cheapen every other narrative. They're doing that with Batman now and swapping Superman in won't sweeten it. It's like saying "well, Bruce threw his money at Gotham and now crime is gone." Great, he could and should do that. That's a story. And now what do you do? In a year, Superman retires because he's solved everything on Earth and we can wrap up the book. Then it's like an endgame playthrough of Skyrim where Superman just resolves radiant quests whenever they crop up. Come on, dude. None of these characters can accomplish their ultimate goal because the very nature of the medium requires they still have to chip at it forever. It's part of the agreement at the metaphorical door alongside "nobody sees through the glasses" and "physics are negotiable."

Superman can tackle real issues, but they have to be brought up to his level. The golden age Superman was a different animal altogether and wasn't being held to as high a scrutiny, nor did he have the ability to bench press a planet. Things were more in line with where he was at. And yes, he should also be "teaching people fishing." It's what mentors do, and Clark is there as a strongman protector but also a mentor. He's the man of tomorrow-- today. He is trying to show people there's a better way, and he wants them to learn it so he knows any change he ushers in doesn't disappear when he's taken off the board. Perhaps you've never been responsible for anyone else's development, but that's an omnipresent concern-- when you have the power to completely change someone else's world, you're responsible for the fallout. He is a man of action and continues to be. Currently he has taken it upon himself to make the galaxy come together and when Mongul challenged it, he stood on behalf of the entire conglomeration of planets as their champion. Clark continues to do the exact stuff you whine he doesn't. His narrative is the strong man who saw the world. He tried to force change through action and saw it backslid for his efforts, so now he tries to lead by example. That's no inaction, that's a different approach that is the most lasting model in recorded human history for surviving the death of the person or institution that installed said change.

The Superman you want never evolved beyond being a bully's bully. I like that Superman, sure, but when a bully moves away, any change instituted is immediately reverted. Superman wants people to stand for themselves so he's not needed anymore. He wants to know he made a difference as more than just a stopgap. He wants to know the world will keep spinning and be a better place than he inherited it. He's basically taken on the role of a father or older brother who is concerned for us. That's still in-line with the golden age guy and most likely who he would be after a few years.

Time and again, you're so hyper focused on turning Superman into the golden age Superman through a shounen manga lens that I'm not even sure you ever liked the dude. All you do is dump on him except for the 3% of stories that fit your extremely narrow interpretation of the character. I don't know why you invest so much time into something you so clearly do not enjoy.

[DrNewGod]

The best version of Superman, anywhere, is Timm's first season of STAS.

[Steel Inquisitor]

This is what i am talking about. The character needs a pr refesher and a new (or old in this case) narrative to latch itself on to.

Snyder tried that, he failed miserably since he didn't understand the appeal of Superman.

Dude! He was the most powerful thing on his world later on. So much so that he would have minimal effect on him directly if he decided to pick up hitler, stalin... Etc by the belt and kidnap them. Superman makes power irrelevant. He takes the power out those that are corrupt and try to oppress the weak.

His power levels go up and down, and the DCU is a large place there are numerous other super-heroes in his league like J'onn J'onz, Dr. Fate, Flashes, Green Lanterns, the Thunderbolt, the Spectre and more at any given time. Many, many super-heroes would make short work of those people if DC wanted them to. But we disagree on how he does it.

I like goldenage siegel and shuster superman. No, @Robbanker didn't address anything. Complexity in narrative arises from tackling subjects and addressing them. They don't arise from sweeping them under the rug and pretending they don't exist. People can make excuses all they want about how superman's current treatment differs from the goldenage treatment by blaming it on shared universe and what not. But, it doesn't matter. If superman and his story sucks. The existence of larger dcu wouldn't help the franchise . Tommy is wayy more interesting character than standard schlock of so caller super"heroes". Most of them aren't human (batman included). They don't feel human. Maybes green arrow, black canary.. Etc are an exception . Jason todd is the only character that's seems to actually good currently,superman included.

And Snyder's Superman, but Superman in general? No. The majority of his works have been dismissed. Except all Luffy does is hit people, and he is a free agent not a would-be conquerer. This isn't Superman's "current" treatment, this has been what Superman's been written post-WWII. Shared universes change everything, since he's not he sole super-power in his universe. Even Golden Age Superman wasn't alone in the DCU. This isn't about how "interesting" Tommy is it's about his moral authority and he has none. He's a joke character himself, in fact. He's DCU Deadpool. I don't know why you find it so hard to relate to other super-heroes the DCU has, sure they're larger than life but so is every super-hero comic - including Superman. What comics have you read or adaptions you've seen? Jason Todd became a killer anti-hero, but if you like him you'd like AzBats. Do you like Helena Bertinelli? It's just such a niche focus for super-heroes being "relatable" as if characters can't be relatable outside of that narrow scope. How are they relatable?

if Your excuses are stupid,idiotic slippery slope arguments like injustice, nazi superman, justice lord.. Etc. Then i am not the one who isn't a superman fan. You are.

That's the connotation of "strong man" - they're tyrants. That makes no sense. Read Authority, you'd love it.

I will repeat what i said in another thread. "There is no superman without siegel and shuster superman. because power doesn't corrupt it reveals".

That being true doesn't make all Supermen that Superman. Being inspired by something is not identical to that something.

To quote one piece,
"Man's dreams will never end"
"Fate. Dreams. These unstoppable ideals are held deep in the heart of man. As long as there are people who seek freedom in this life, These things shall not vanish from the Earth."

One Piece is a shonen manga which hasn't got the same rules Superman and the DCU have.

A man of action is a person who is always willing to act regardless of consequences. He has broad enough shoulders to bare the responsibility and burden of any of his action. A man who is always on his toes.He wouldn't be sitting in his giant apartment like an ostrich who has head in the ground when people are being oppressed . He would be out there fighting for what's right and he would be amongst the people always. He would be intimately aware of the situations of the ground and problems the people are facing.

This is still incredibly vague, and speaks more for most Supermen doing things like fighting crime than Snyder's Superman. Which is another Superman that you like, despite the fact he fails to live up to the ideals you have for Golden Age Superman. This is still echoing the opinion that he should be uprooting civilisation like the Authority.

He wouldn't be shoving platitudes like "teach people fishing" or nonsense like that to cover for the fact superman can't solve world hunger.Please, stop testing people's intelligence.

We're discussing the Superman that is, not the Superman you want to be and Superman does that, has for long than either of us have been alive. Snyder's Superman isn't solving world hunger, he can't even be bothered investigating criminals Batman's fighting in public with military grade weaponry.

Also,superman's main genre is action. Action comics was his debut platform The thing about that is batman does both action and detective work. So superman is left with nothing.

This is what i mean by a man of action. Kenshin is a true man of action. Even when he took an oath to never kill again later on. Non-violence is no excuse for inaction in the face of oppression . Nor is non-violence inaction.
"evil triumphs when good men do nothing."

What? Superman does detective work in his own comics and as Clark Kent. A common theme in his comics is fighting the mob and gangs, both mundane and super-powered. Intergang, for instance. Except Superman fights injustice both as Clark Kent and Superman, he is no pacifist even if he will try that occasionally to avoid unnecessary conflict. What he doesn't do is destroy governments or make himself a king.

[godisawesome]

Howls this for a controversial opinion:

- Superman should have some reluctance and “rules of engagement” that keep him from personally effecting regime change himself not because he has too much respect for international law or thinks he’d become an immediate dictator or something like that... but because when he was young and not yet a public superhero, he tried doing something like that, and came face to face with how much of humanity’s problems are the result of humanity itself.

This isn’t some cynicism catalyst - Clark saved dozens, if not hundreds of people directly while in secret, and he saw the The bets side of humanity as well. It’s a realization of his own limits - being able to lift a mountain doesn’t mean that you can personally oversee and organize the entire infrastructure of a country to get back to feeding its people and tending to their needs, and even what good Clark can do himself can’t match the effectiveness everyday citizens and society can do. Clark knows that even if he did have authoritarian tendencies, and did attempt to dictate and save all of humanity himself, he’d still almost be guaranteed to screw it up a few too many times with fatal results for millions.

So... instead, Superman and Clark Kent operate in tandem to try and effect more long lasting and internally-driven change.

Clark Kent is something of an incisive and very skilled firebrand of truth, publishing searing editorials and think pieces that use Lois Lane’s great investigative reporting to bring out “calls for action”, which Superman sometimes helps bring publicity to. Superman, meanwhile, *will* intervene on anything that he regards as too out-of-bounds, no matter where it is... but since his career coincides with the rise of superheroes and supervillains across the world, this means he’s thrown down with more than one super soldier or WMD attacks... and those fights do sometimes have collateral damage.

So... he usually tries to keep his interventions quick, sane and secure - surgically ending serious threats and giving aid to all. But he knows that some things are better solved by bringing them to everyone’s attention with his presence.

Most governments view him at least somewhat warily, and run the gamut from enthusiastically accepting to paranoicially distracting him - they don’t really have any choice or objection to accepting his help with stuff like crashing airplanes, stranded refugee ships, or WMD attacks on their soil... but sometimes he might be showing up to protect refugees they want to target, or revealing secret weapons bases they don’t want exposed, etc., and they try and find ways to get back at him.

This is why even generally friendly governments usually have some kind of super powered assets designed to at least slow down and delay Superman until other options can be brought to bear... and why Clark is such a dedicated reporter otherwise.

[manwhohaseverything]

Except Superman DOES fight for his people. He acts as their champion, he saves them from disasters, he just doesn't get shown dealing with the mob except wait, that's literally happening right now. He goes after corruption as Clark and as Superman.

I don't agree with the concept of Superman going slippery slope, but I understand that if you present real issues for Superman to deal with then the problem is they're there again next month. So he either solves the problem of world hunger and now nobody in DC can go hungry, so I guess all those crooks in Gotham are really just assholes and not trying to feed their families in a corrupt city where only crime pays. You essentially use Superman to cheapen every other narrative. They're doing that with Batman now and swapping Superman in won't sweeten it. It's like saying "well, Bruce threw his money at Gotham and now crime is gone." Great, he could and should do that. That's a story. And now what do you do? In a year, Superman retires because he's solved everything on Earth and we can wrap up the book. Then it's like an endgame playthrough of Skyrim where Superman just resolves radiant quests whenever they crop up. Come on, dude. None of these characters can accomplish their ultimate goal because the very nature of the medium requires they still have to chip at it forever. It's part of the agreement at the metaphorical door alongside "nobody sees through the glasses" and "physics are negotiable."

Superman can tackle real issues, but they have to be brought up to his level. The golden age Superman was a different animal altogether and wasn't being held to as high a scrutiny, nor did he have the ability to bench press a planet. Things were more in line with where he was at. And yes, he should also be "teaching people fishing." It's what mentors do, and Clark is there as a strongman protector but also a mentor. He's the man of tomorrow-- today. He is trying to show people there's a better way, and he wants them to learn it so he knows any change he ushers in doesn't disappear when he's taken off the board. Perhaps you've never been responsible for anyone else's development, but that's an omnipresent concern-- when you have the power to completely change someone else's world, you're responsible for the fallout. He is a man of action and continues to be. Currently he has taken it upon himself to make the galaxy come together and when Mongul challenged it, he stood on behalf of the entire conglomeration of planets as their champion. Clark continues to do the exact stuff you whine he doesn't. His narrative is the strong man who saw the world. He tried to force change through action and saw it backslid for his efforts, so now he tries to lead by example. That's no inaction, that's a different approach that is the most lasting model in recorded human history for surviving the death of the person or institution that installed said change.

The Superman you want never evolved beyond being a bully's bully. I like that Superman, sure, but when a bully moves away, any change instituted is immediately reverted. Superman wants people to stand for themselves so he's not needed anymore. He wants to know he made a difference as more than just a stopgap. He wants to know the world will keep spinning and be a better place than he inherited it. He's basically taken on the role of a father or older brother who is concerned for us. That's still in-line with the golden age guy and most likely who he would be after a few years.

Time and again, you're so hyper focused on turning Superman into the golden age Superman through a shounen manga lens that I'm not even sure you ever liked the dude. All you do is dump on him except for the 3% of stories that fit your extremely narrow interpretation of the character. I don't know why you invest so much time into something you so clearly do not enjoy.

It's been two runs since new52 guy died.i haven't seen superman do anything significant other than in doomsday clock where he took actual choices. He shoved jon into a space pod and making an interplanetary organisation.Superman didn't even need to actually go around get people to cooperate for the initiative. Lo and behold! They were all gathered together by dumb luck and the kid had the "original" idea. What fantastic achievement by jon kent and dumb luck. Mongul? Really? That guy isn't even a threat anymore. He always gets his ass kicked by anyone. That fight was what? two punches and done. It's not like mongol came in and actually made things hard for clark. They could have had united planets leaders refusing and clark going around to each planet pursuing the goal after mongul at the very least. But, none of it expanded on or even touched on. The feat didn't feel like much of feat but for mere namesake achievement . Where did he deal with people in Bendis's run? He is going after an invisible mafia. Honestly, if clark was really in the know of on the ground situation. An invisible mafia wouldn't exist. The guy is flying around with his sensors on. that's it.

He doesn't need to tackle world hunger or actually solve anything real like ww2 in goldenage. Fine. But, The character can be atleast written to be honest about it. The guy just comes of dofus with all "thous shall do this and thou shall not". Having unattainable goal/dreams fighting a never ending battle is kinda his thing. He is kinda like Sisyphus.all you need to do is at the very least, Just make it feel more like an existential fight. the character doesn't feel like he is trying or struggling, let alone fighting. He is too pristine. There is barely any pathos to with the dude at all. There isn't any quality in superman worth being inspidered by for me as well.Espiecially, when you compare him to guys that are getting their asses kicked by life in general and still standing tall. Heck! People make it a point to show even batman in bandages. Even one punch man feels like he is trying to get something and struggling with it. What scars(metaphorical or real) does clark has to show for in his "never ending fight" ? He's got none.

This smile means something cause the guy is beaten and bruised yet still smiling. Clark's smile rarely holds any weight. His shoulders doesn't feel like it has any burden of responsibility . They could have clark try to solve and fail again, again and again. That's it. But, it wouldn't matter the effort and intent is what matters.I want the character to feel like he means business. That he would actually confront world's evils even if he fails. That he will punch any unbreakable wall with you and for you, again and again Even if he gets his arms broken(something luffy is known for doing) in the process. I like that kind of recklessness than Clark's brand of "naivete" .he is Not like some naive guy who tries to stand above everything including human effort and grit. Then give some idiotic cardboard speech and gives you advices on how to be "good". Sheesh! Superman isn't that good of person. I like proud failures than some guy who is crusine through everything.

Riiiiight, there are places on earth with limited resources and other existential problems like climate change causeing agricultural devestation.Giving "teach people fishing" speech would help plenty solve their problems. There countries where corruption is systematic and is norm.People can't solve it with "learning to fish". If superman with all his powers refuses to help. His power is worthless. And What a load of nonsense. In case, clark doesn't know people generally don't like to be dependent. Everyone likes to be self reliant. Clark is no mentor to anybody. Mentors help those who have intent to get better but lack the training or ability. They don't go around telling people to "knock it of" . He is just written to have a dad complex, that too in a bad way. You do know, clark in goldenage was an actual mentor if you are really comparing them. He didn't just bully people . He trained bums of their seats, trained boxers,recruted a bunch of juvenile delinquents and gave them a purpose..etc. That's more mentorship. This on the other hand is just platitudes worth nothing. The guy couldn't even take care of his kid. Some mentor he is.

I didn't start this conversation. I only said superman being earth's Guardian or "mentor" who doesn't interefere is bull. That's what the conversation is about. I like idiots who stand up for something. Even if they fail. If you feel he is putting in the gritt. Good for you. I don't. Heck! Even the kid used to feel like he had an energy albeit of a different kind in spades than his old man.

[Ra-El]

I too would like for Superman to have a more active role on things, but I think comparing him with shounen isn't the best either, because the rules are totally different.

Now Invincible is a good example of what Superman could be. Mark Grayson is basically Jon Kent, he have Superman powers minus the super senses and heat vision and the most important, the world he inhabits is made to resemble a shared superhero universe, more specifically the DCU.
Because of all the similarities the situations Invincible faces are pretty much the same Superman does. Should he work with the government? He does for a while. Should he kill? How far can he interfere in the normal humans lives? When should he act? How should he? And when should he prioritize his personal life instead of his superhero one.

The best thing about Invincible is that things change, Mark's actions have lasting consequences, his decision to change the world actually are effective, even when the results are bad. Is the same with manga, because Luffy, Naruto or Edward Elric are the center of the whole story and the story end with them. Superman don't have that, the character is part of a shared universe that for the last 3 decades is shaped to be a world where Batman can be the center of everything.
You want to know why Superman can go on punch dictators and corrupted criminal and propagating revolution? He can do that, but you can be sure that the story will end with batman kicking his ass and giving a speach humiliating Clark. Or Wonder Woman will do it, her movie comig out soon and everything.

If I could make one big decision for Superman, it probably would be to separate one of his tittles, probably Action, from the rest of the DCU, a new continuity, where Superman is the top dog, a world made to fit the character. Like it was in his original stories.

I described Invincible to a friend once, as if Superman was the main character of the DC universe and without 80% of all Plot Induced Stupidity. The same PIS that allow Batman to win every fight against Clark. I don't know if you ever read Invincible, but if not, you should, is probably everything you wants from Superman.

[Vordan]

Demanding Superman solve real world problems is dumb. Could he do that? Yes. Why doesn’t he do that? Because DC doesn’t want the DC Earth to be that radically different from our Earth. It’s the same reason Batman/Gotham City doesn’t kill the Joker.

That said I would love an Elseworld that actually took those original Golden Age ideals and run with them. A Superman Elseworld where he tackles corporate corruption, arms dealing, global warming, poverty, etc and solves it all would be a great story. Miracleman kinda did that already though.

[Adekis]

Moore's Marvelman is one of the greats of comic book history, but I can see where a lot of people would say that Superman shouldn't be like that.

However, I'd suggest that a story where Superman, aliens, meta-humans, and other super-natural "comic book stuff" have significant impact on global society is pretty natural. Both Young Justice the animated series and the Marvel Studios film series present a world which increasingly fails to strongly resemble real life, because of the obvious complications to real global politics created by aliens, new technology, super-advanced civilizations, magic, etc. I don't think fans have any sort of particular problem with the idea of a world which doesn't resemble real life anymore because of super-heroes. We don't have diplomatic relationships with Atlantis, or arc reactors, or Helicarriers, or Faster-Than-Light space travel in real life, and I find the question of how we would develop with those things to be very compelling.

And frankly, I don't see why Superman or other super-heroes tackling real world social or political issues should be the one and only place where we stop and say "Hang on! If they do that, it won't look like Real Life™ any more!"