Controversial Superman Opinions

[Prime]

A reboot would only make things more convoluted and confusing. Reboots never solve problems, they only add to them. And there's nothing a reboot can do that six months of quality story telling can't accomplish either, and be more entertaining and character-driven at the same time.

Maybe. You did say 6 months of good writing can fix anything

[Robanker]

Maybe. You did say 6 months of good writing can fix anything

Yeah, but the problem with reboots is that there's 80 years of content you're pretending to throw away, but it absolutely will get woven back into the narrative and then it just starts compounding questions of "wait so was he married then? Did Lois know? Did he die during this and were the Kents alive?" Look at New 52 and Rebirth. The only way to have a satisfying reboot is to completely throw away everything and start anew, but if you're in a continuing publishing model, this will not be sustained. Earth One was absolutely the way to go. Ultimate Spider-Man is the model to follow. Both can exist and cater to different people and some even double dip.

The New 52 Superman and Batman both paint the problems inherent in rebooting. Batman tried to fit all the hits while condensing everything and so many characters suffered for it. The entire supporting cast is still dealing with the mess New 52 made for them. Over at Superman, it was a new Superman... with a lot of the old stuff still incorporated kind-of. He was a new character for a new audience, but Death of Superman still happened. Except for the Lois relationship. And the Justice League of the time was a bit different than what's in that book. Oh, and the Kents weren't alive. But forget that, let's move forward. Even Doomed required the prior universe to make any sense because without those stories that now never-but-maybe-happened-if-you-liked-them-in-this-semi-reboot because Doomsday REQUIRES the entire Death of Superman and its leadup to actually matter. So why reboot if you're just going to bring it all back piecemeal "but totally different this time!"

I know you enjoyed New 52 Superman, but the reboot did not help position him for success in the long run because it had to reckon with the character's history which the reboot as designed was trying hard to throw away while salvaging when creativity ran low.

Reboots are short-sighted. There's no way you can reboot Batman and start over completely, for example. All his rogues will come back, Dick will probably be Robin again and even then, it's only a matter of time before the other Robins start showing up. Eventually it just becomes a remix. Moving forward or just doing imprints is the way to go at this point.

[Marik Swift]

3. Clark & Lois getting married ruined their dynamic. The moment they got married all the fun and bantering in their relationship went out the window. The two should honestly always remain the biggest "will they, won't they" pairing in media history and only ever be together in future stories.

Expanding upon this, I would like to add that I don't think Superman should be in love with Lois at all or have a kid for that matter.

Superman should be the embodiment of selflessness, and no person can deny that they aren't bias towards their loved ones. Nobody should ever question if Superman would choose between his wife and kids or a random child and woman.

Superman love for Lois is the very reason we have nonsensical AU where he turns evil because of her dying or whatever. The only person that should have that kind of effect on Clark's psyche should be Ma & Pa Kent. Yes, it's just as selfish for him to love them that much, but they made him into the man he is, it's understandable why they are his everything (it's why I don't mind One More Day like most people).

I'm not saying Superman shouldn't be happy and I'm not saying he shouldn't have faults, but we know that Superman hears almost everything on Earth and in the DC Earth there is virtually always someone that needs saving (there are times when he in facts let's some die to save others). So all those times we have seen "Superman always being there to save Lois" there must have been multiple instances in which he let someone else die to save her. Could have been a child even.

And that shouldn't be. He should always choose who needs saving most. Giving her recklessness (and that's mainly cause she knows Superman will save her), I would say Lois deserves saving less than most.

Not to mention, I hate hearing people say stuff like "Lois helps make him who he is" or anything to that effect. No she really doesn't. Lois has absolutely no baring on his personality and if anything she's toxic. And I know that probably sounds like me just disliking Lois, but it isn't. She's a favorite character if minds, but I just feel like there are dilemmas that her very existence poses for Superman's character that I would actually like addressed.

Overall, I would like to see a comic that actually addresses something like this. Clark had to choose between saving Lois and another person, he chooses the other person. Lois can either manage to survive or die, but overall I would just like to see him in such a dilemma rather than just ignoring it like most writers do.

[rpmaluki]

Games/stories like Injustice have made it nigh impossible to explore those kind of plots these days because they almost always end up with a dead Lois whilst forgetting that before Superman debuted in Metropolis, Lois not only got herself into a jam, she also got herself out (inferred). The gal's got a long reputation, reducing her to nothing more than a damsel always needing saving hurt both Lois and Superman. The most I have seen of Superman facing such a dilemma was that he somehow managed to find a way to save both Lois and whoever was in danger at the same time. I'd much rather watch Lois save herself before Clark rides in on his white horse but for whatever reason, this isn't enticing enough for writers. It either has to be the one (Lois too incapable to save herself) or the other (Superman's too weak-willed with Lois dead).

That said, I never again want to see stories of a dead Lois used to motivate Superman, either for good or ill. There's already one too many as it is. Let a single Clark devolve into a fascist dictator because he wants to not because Lois' fridging made him do it.

[Yoda]

Expanding upon this, I would like to add that I don't think Superman should be in love with Lois at all or have a kid for that matter.

Superman should be the embodiment of selflessness, and no person can deny that they aren't bias towards their loved ones. Nobody should ever question if Superman would choose between his wife and kids or a random child and woman.

Superman love for Lois is the very reason we have nonsensical AU where he turns evil because of her dying or whatever. The only person that should have that kind of effect on Clark's psyche should be Ma & Pa Kent. Yes, it's just as selfish for him to love them that much, but they made him into the man he is, it's understandable why they are his everything (it's why I don't mind One More Day like most people).

I'm not saying Superman shouldn't be happy and I'm not saying he shouldn't have faults, but we know that Superman hears almost everything on Earth and in the DC Earth there is virtually always someone that needs saving (there are times when he in facts let's some die to save others). So all those times we have seen "Superman always being there to save Lois" there must have been multiple instances in which he let someone else die to save her. Could have been a child even.

And that shouldn't be. He should always choose who needs saving most. Giving her recklessness (and that's mainly cause she knows Superman will save her), I would say Lois deserves saving less than most.

Not to mention, I hate hearing people say stuff like "Lois helps make him who he is" or anything to that effect. No she really doesn't. Lois has absolutely no baring on his personality and if anything she's toxic. And I know that probably sounds like me just disliking Lois, but it isn't. She's a favorite character if minds, but I just feel like there are dilemmas that her very existence poses for Superman's character that I would actually like addressed.

Overall, I would like to see a comic that actually addresses something like this. Clark had to choose between saving Lois and another person, he chooses the other person. Lois can either manage to survive or die, but overall I would just like to see him in such a dilemma rather than just ignoring it like most writers do.

So he shouldn’t be Clark Kent then? Because the number of people he lets die daily while he’s not Superman likely eclipses the one or two he’s let die to save Lois. Why is one “toxic” but the other ok? And I legitimately can not recall any comic where he’s actively chosen to let someone die to save Lois.

And the idea that it’s “better” to be willing to sacrifice your spouse to save a parent is pretty stunted. This Superman, like One More Days Peter, is emotionally a child. One More Day ruined Spider-Man. It’s a mess of a story and Aunt May would probably kill Peter herself if she ever found out.

[rpmaluki]

So he shouldn’t be Clark Kent then? Because the number of people he lets die daily while he’s not Superman likely eclipses the one or two he’s let die to save Lois. Why is one “toxic” but the other ok? And I legitimately can not recall any comic where he’s actively chosen to let someone die to save Lois.

And the idea that it’s “better” to be willing to sacrifice your spouse to save a parent is pretty stunted. This Superman, like One More Days Peter, is emotionally a child. One More Day ruined Spider-Man. It’s a mess of a story and Aunt May would probably kill Peter herself if she ever found out.

This is accurate, Clark Kent is what's stopping Superman form saving everyone every minute of every day. Not Lois.

[Ascended]

Maybe. You did say 6 months of good writing can fix anything

Yes, but a reboot isn't really "writing." It's just remixing.

Robanker laid it all out. These characters aren't defined by what DC says is canon, they're defined by our allover experiences with the character. DC pretending otherwise just gets in the way and ruins things. You look at Batman in the New52, and they tried to cram everything into a short timeframe and it was not satisfying at all. It was a "cliff notes" version of Bat history and lacked all the nuance and depth that the *actual* history provided. In Clark's case, they tried to spin a new Golden Age social crusader and even though there was precedent and that *was* Superman, fans today didn't recognize it. It was, to them, essentially a new legacy character claiming the Superman mantle.

I'm not saying you can't have good stories in a reboot. I adore Morrison and Pak's (non-crossover) New52 runs. But the entire era was plagued with problems; how did Bruce squeeze four Robins into five years, did Clark die or not and if so, how did that story play out since his life was completely different? Why did some characters act the way we expect them to without any of the history that originally defined their behavior? Why should readers follow another character who isn't acting the way we expect because their history was gutted? And in a shared universe these problems are just compounded. And we saw the same kinds of problems after COIE; why is Wonder Woman such a big deal when she's been a hero less time than Cyborg? Why was there a Donna Troy Wonder Girl before there was a Wonder Woman?

You can course correct without rebooting, spinning what is already in the history to your advantage or just ignoring it, rather than waste pages telling readers what did or didn't happen. DC can tell us that the death and return of Superman never happened, but we remember that story. We own that story, and it influenced how we view the character. DC saying it didn't happen doesn't change our perception, DC acting like it never happened just causes a dissonance between us and the story.

[manwhohaseverything]

This is accurate, Clark Kent is what's stopping Superman form saving everyone every minute of every day. Not Lois.

Wait what??? Clark stops superman? I always had a sneaking suspicion that the guy was upto no good. Wearing those damn glasses and trying to act all goofy.To think that wierd guy is superman's most powerful villain who stops him from saving people all the time. What a diabolical personality!!!Get him out of there!!! Fire clark kent!!!

[Marik Swift]

So he shouldn’t be Clark Kent then? Because the number of people he lets die daily while he’s not Superman likely eclipses the one or two he’s let die to save Lois. Why is one “toxic” but the other ok?

I knew someone was going to bring up Clark Kent holding him back from saving people. My point isn't about all the things Clark could do to save more people. My post is about how Lois Lane specifically poses a moral dilemma to his character. Your pretty much just moving the goalpost.

And I legitimately can not recall any comic where he’s actively chosen to let someone die to save Lois.

That is the entire point of my post though. That realistically, there must have been at least one instance in which it did happen and writers choose to overlook it. And how it would be great to see a miniseries that actually explores such a storyline. Could easily be one of Superman's best stories since his best stories tends to be about his personal dilemmas.

And the idea that it’s “better” to be willing to sacrifice your spouse to save a parent is pretty stunted. This Superman, like One More Days Peter, is emotionally a child. One More Day ruined Spider-Man. It’s a mess of a story and Aunt May would probably kill Peter herself if she ever found out.

That's the thing. Aunt May and the Kents aren't just "parents" to either of them, cause on fact they aren't their actual parents. So it's not about emotionally being a child. It's about them holding onto the people that LITERALLY made them who they are.

And since you like to move the goalpost so much, I'll ask this, how is Clark & Peter choosing their "parents" over a spouse them being emotionally childish, yet choosing a spouse over their parents or other people not being equally unhealthily codependent?

[Ascended]

Wait what??? Clark stops superman? I always had a sneaking suspicion that the guy was upto no good. Wearing those damn glasses and trying to act all goofy.To think that wierd guy is superman's most powerful villain who stops him from saving people all the time. What a diabolical personality!!!Get him out of there!!! Fire clark kent!!!

lol

That is the entire point of my post though. That realistically, there must have been at least one instance in which it did happen and writers choose to overlook it. And how it would be great to see a miniseries that actually explores such a storyline. Could easily be one of Superman's best stories since his best stories tends to be about his personal dilemmas.

There's seven billion people on earth and a good many of them are in need of help at any given moment. When Clark is putting out a fire in Alabama, there's someone being mugged in Germany that Clark *could* save if he wasn't busy in Alabama. So yeah, when Clark saves Lois, there's other people he could be saving instead. But that's true no matter what; there are *always* people Clark could be saving instead. Not a *ton* of stories focus on this, but the process of how Clark decides where he needs to be and who to help has definitely gotten attention over the years.

[Ra-El]

I knew someone was going to bring up Clark Kent holding him back from saving people. My point isn't about all the things Clark could do to save more people. My post is about how Lois Lane specifically poses a moral dilemma to his character. Your pretty much just moving the goalpost.



That is the entire point of my post though. That realistically, there must have been at least one instance in which it did happen and writers choose to overlook it. And how it would be great to see a miniseries that actually explores such a storyline. Could easily be one of Superman's best stories since his best stories tends to be about his personal dilemmas.



That's the thing. Aunt May and the Kents aren't just "parents" to either of them, cause on fact they aren't their actual parents. So it's not about emotionally being a child. It's about them holding onto the people that LITERALLY made them who they are.

And since you like to move the goalpost so much, I'll ask this, how is Clark & Peter choosing their "parents" over a spouse them being emotionally childish, yet choosing a spouse over their parents or other people not being equally unhealthily codependent?

In Peter Parker case, he chose to make a deal with the "Devil" because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions, so he had the lives of everyone around him forever transformed because his 110 years old aunt died. Not been able to face his choices and taking short cuts to avoid the consequences is pretty much the definition of childish, imo.

Superman, imo, should not have his entire life dependent of anyone one, not Lois and not this adoptive parents. Clark should be Superman because he can, he have the power to help and everyday chooses to do it. Yes, much of what he is, is because of the way he was raised, probably he would be a different kind if hero, but he should always be a hero.
And Lois posing a moral dilemma is not inherent bad, in the end depend on how the writers portray their relationship, it can be like in Injustice where Superman goes crazy and evil if Lois dies, it can be like Kingdom Come where Superman not go evil and only retires because he felt he wasn't the hero people wanted anymore.

[Marik Swift]

lol



There's seven billion people on earth and a good many of them are in need of help at any given moment. When Clark is putting out a fire in Alabama, there's someone being mugged in Germany that Clark *could* save if he wasn't busy in Alabama. So yeah, when Clark saves Lois, there's other people he could be saving instead. But that's true no matter what; there are *always* people Clark could be saving instead. Not a *ton* of stories focus on this, but the process of how Clark decides where he needs to be and who to help has definitely gotten attention over the years.

That's my entire point though. I would like to see a story that actually addresses this, especially the Lois part. Cause at the end of the day, there is no doubt a part of Lois character that is intentionally reckless cause she knows Shoes will save her ass, and that's incredibly toxic that she keeps getting herself into these situations and he has to save her, meanwhile he could be saving other people.

Now I'm sure if she knew this she would tell him save other people, but overall I would just love to see all of this addressed in a possible miniseries.

In Peter Parker case, he chose to make a deal with the "Devil" because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions, so he had the lives of everyone around him forever transformed because his 110 years old aunt died. Not been able to face his choices and taking short cuts to avoid the consequences is pretty much the definition of childish, imo.

Superman, imo, should not have his entire life dependent of anyone one, not Lois and not this adoptive parents. Clark should be Superman because he can, he have the power to help and everyday chooses to do it. Yes, much of what he is, is because of the way he was raised, probably he would be a different kind if hero, but he should always be a hero.

Overall, I do agree. Superman shouldn't be codependent on anyone.

And Lois posing a moral dilemma is not inherent bad, in the end depend on how the writers portray their relationship, it can be like in Injustice where Superman goes crazy and evil if Lois dies, it can be like Kingdom Come where Superman not go evil and only retires because he felt he wasn't the hero people wanted anymore.

I never said her posing a moral dilemma is necessarily a bad thing. It's kind of a good thing, cause it could be an interesting story.

Cause overall, I feel like it's a part of his character we have never explored.

[Ascended]

That's my entire point though. I would like to see a story that actually addresses this, especially the Lois part. Cause at the end of the day, there is no doubt a part of Lois character that is intentionally reckless cause she knows Shoes will save her ass, and that's incredibly toxic that she keeps getting herself into these situations and he has to save her, meanwhile he could be saving other people.

If, in my flipping through back issues, I come across one that deals with this I'll try to remember to post it for you. The topic *has* been brought up, just not often. Right now the only example I can readily think of is from Superman Returns....and Clark decides to leave Lois to her fate so he can save Metropolis instead.

And back in the day Lois would absolutely put herself in danger so Clark had to rescue her, often as part of some crazy scheme to either prove Superman was Clark or force Superman into marrying her. It's remarkable how many steps backwards Lois took during the early-mid Silver Age; just as feminism was starting to catch up with her, too.

In modern context, Lois doesn't do this nearly so often. She was getting into trouble long before Superman showed up, and wasn't about to stop for his sake. Perhaps on some subconscious level she's a tad more reckless than necessary because she knows she's got Clark to back her up, but generally I don't think she's portrayed as some reckless person taking dumb risks because she knows her boyfriend will pull her ass out of the fire for her. Hell, at this point Lois doesn't *need* Clark to save her; she'll steal a Bat mech from Bruce Wayne and kick ass on her own, or pull a New Gods megarod out of her purse and go straight space gangsta on a mf.

I wouldn't call it toxic by any means (modern versions). Especially at this point in the canon. If a person can't rely on her spouse to have her back when she needs it then it's no partnership at all. And when Lois is in deep enough trouble that she needs Clark's help, that's something serious enough Superman should be dealing with anyway. All about the priorities, yknow? Clark can save the guy having a heart attack in Chicago, or he can save his wife and in the process take down Intergang before they sell a ton of alien super weapons to the Penguin.

[PCN24454]

Because being a hero means giving up any emotion you have and only being a function in a society.

Lois Lane, Ma and Pa Kent, and even Clark Kent are all superfluous to that ideal.

/s

[Laufeyson]

Because being a hero means giving up any emotion you have and only being a function in a society.

Lois Lane, Ma and Pa Kent, and even Clark Kent are all superfluous to that ideal.

An emotion is essential to become a hero though, it's what gives them emphaty and feeling.