Controversial Superman Opinions

[marhawkman]

Paraphrasing a bit, but Gwenda Bond said "Superman is only boring if you think being good is easy." The idea that he's "boring" because he's a good person or whatever concept of "perfect" you're trying to impose only works if you think that it's super easy to be a good person, when in reality it's not. It's actually far harder and presents far more conflict for a character to try to be "good" and than just presenting him as a typical morally gray character so many other are. There is TONS of conflict to mine in a character who actually tries to always be good and do the right thing than the typical "by any means necessary" characters.

this reminds me of something that you often see hand waved. To be a proper "boy scout" style super-hero you need to go far beyond "choosing not to kill the villain". That's beginner good guy stuff. You need to be KIND to villains. You need to care about them as people. This is actually WHY all versions of Livewire so far have eventually become heroes. Superman is kind and gentle in the way he treats her and would never willingly allow her to come to harm... despite being a massive annoyance even when she's not being a villain. This sort of behavior annoys the ---- out of Darkseid and Kalibak. Lashina?.... I think she likes it. Even as the foster son of Darkseid in DCAU Superman was polite and mild mannered.

[PCN24454]

this reminds me of something that you often see hand waved. To be a proper "boy scout" style super-hero you need to go far beyond "choosing not to kill the villain". That's beginner good guy stuff. You need to be KIND to villains. You need to care about them as people. This is actually WHY all versions of Livewire so far have eventually become heroes. Superman is kind and gentle in the way he treats her and would never willingly allow her to come to harm... despite being a massive annoyance even when she's not being a villain. This sort of behavior annoys the ---- out of Darkseid and Kalibak. Lashina?.... I think she likes it. Even as the foster son of Darkseid in DCAU Superman was polite and mild mannered.

That's what really annoys me when people talk about a "no-kill rule". It always feels like they miss the point of it. It just becomes moral posturing after a point.

[I'm a Fish]

Paraphrasing a bit, but Gwenda Bond said "Superman is only boring if you think being good is easy." The idea that he's "boring" because he's a good person or whatever concept of "perfect" you're trying to impose only works if you think that it's super easy to be a good person, when in reality it's not. It's actually far harder and presents far more conflict for a character to try to be "good" and than just presenting him as a typical morally gray character so many other are. There is TONS of conflict to mine in a character who actually tries to always be good and do the right thing than the typical "by any means necessary" characters.

I don't want Superman to be morally grey.

That's why I like Superman being a dad so much. You can be the best superhero in the world but that doesn't make you the best father in the world (I don't want him to be a bad father either to clarify, but even the best fathers don't always know how to react to a situation).


An imperfect Superman to me isn't a bad person, or a morally grey person. He's just a good person who might not always know how to approach a situation, or might not have the imminent answer to every solution.

But yes, being good isn't easy. That's why so many villains have relatable, sometimes even "good" motives, but their methods are unacceptable.

[Kuwagaton]

It's kind of hard for me to square the Siegel's Superman was perfect. It seemed one of the questions that has raged the hardest in the Pre-Crisis vs Post-Crisis discussion has been Superman losing the boyscout reputation he had built up since Chris Reeve played the character if he ever went back to what he was like under S&S's pen. People feared the Golden Age Superman up ending the moral balance of the modern DCU and frequently called the guy a would be tyrant.

It was a long while after being created that having his perspective challenged by the story or presenting the solution to the plot as something beyond him were things. It's as simple as the difference between Action Comics #484 and the newspapers, where being married to Lois without disclosing the identity was apparently just accepted for years.

[manwhohaseverything]

Eh, perfect isn't bad but outdated. Siegel's Superman was perfect.

it's not that siegel's superman was perfect.It's just easier to write a simple action character with supernatural strength,speed,..etc.

You don't have to deal with "Gosh! superman doesn't do this or that.He is an example.He can't do that.Not my superman".

For instance,You could do a heist movie,a horror,a spy movie,scifi,a western...etc.anything really.Superman as this messianic example figure is just limiting.Batman works cause the character is really flexible.

[Buried Alien]

Not my opinion, but have at it.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[I'm a Fish]

Not my opinion, but have at it.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I mean, when you have that many movies you're gonna have highs and lows.

[DochaDocha]

Not my opinion, but have at it.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I quickly did a Ctrl-F to see what the "study" had to say about the three Fantastic Four movies. There was no commentary. Therefore, I auto-reject the study's findings.

[I'm a Fish]

I quickly did a Ctrl-F to see what the "study" had to say about the three Fantastic Four movies. There was no commentary. Therefore, I auto-reject the study's findings.

You can't count garbage as movies.

[marhawkman]

That's what really annoys me when people talk about a "no-kill rule". It always feels like they miss the point of it. It just becomes moral posturing after a point.

it's where the "LOOPHOLE!" shtick came from. Anything short of killing is seen as fine in Batman comics apparently... including multiple broken bones and leaving the guy on the street. "Technically he's still alive... technically."

It sidesteps the spirit of the no-kill concept. It's why Batman is called a "violent vigilante" even if he doesn't actually kill anyone. Superman avoids doing that. He only hurts villains if he has to.

[manwhohaseverything]

it's where the "LOOPHOLE!" shtick came from. Anything short of killing is seen as fine in Batman comics apparently... including multiple broken bones and leaving the guy on the street. "Technically he's still alive... technically."

It sidesteps the spirit of the no-kill concept. It's why Batman is called a "violent vigilante" even if he doesn't actually kill anyone. Superman avoids doing that. He only hurts villains if he has to.

As if batman likes being violent.Maybe the part that went wrong in his Psyche does find it cathartic to beat up "people that killed his parents".But,most heroic version don't,even at a subconscious level.Also,"Clark avoids doing that" Is a bunch of nonsense.He doesn't deal with the same in metropolis.Gotham is a hellhole.So, justification already provided.

Unlike superman who "loves human life",Bruce doesn't kill because he thinks he will go crazy if he does.There is no "spirit of no kill" rule there.The spirit of no kill rule is basically comics code and commercialisation to begin with.It's easier to present a "thou shall not kill" hero to a society that believes in rigid rules written in a stone or a book as absolutes(I don't care if people don't kill.i do believe life is precious.But,I am not gonna sit here and say that should be an absolute).It's his personal code(Except for when Bruce tries to push his moral code on others like Jason).I honestly think it's the reverse and Clark is the one who lacks moral courage and discipline,Not Bruce.It's the same reason he gets turned bad.Superman is naive good.Batman constantly meets his demons. superman by definition, can't have them.(atleast in appearance) due to him.being "an ideal to strive towards".

You also need to realise that you are dealing with vigilantes in first place.They aren't meant to be emulated in the first place.They are a bunch of outlaws.You only root for because they are in the right or motivations are relatable.You root for them because they are power fantasy.You can only argue that these guys shouldn't exist in reality.I would agree.But,then this ain't reality and it has different world.Setting up a vigilante outlaw who is not meant to be rolemodel figure as that itself, is laughable.What's next people get to believe a theif is queen of England.Then again, it's fiction.You can have that.Make people believe that.Problem with superman is that,does it work?The character is deemed boring.why?cause there is no tangible conflict within the character or outside.That much I can agree.It's that simple.People don't connect with superman's struggles(those who say he is boring)

[Jim Kelly]

In recent decades, people have taken their comic books far too seriously.

I always liked to see those stories where Batman gets beaten up so badly that it seems like he's never going to make it. It's the same thing in Will Eisner's the Spirit, where Denny is beaten to a pulp. Just the image of the hero battered and bruised, his costume torn to shreds is thrilling to see on paper. It's not real, so there's a vicarious enjoyment that one can experience without danger to the psyche, because you know it isn't real. Batman and the Spirit and Superman are made of the same stuff as Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck.

These matches are merely for entertainment purposes and therefore the creators are not responsible for any psychic trauma you may incur. People who get all bound up in their heads over this stuff need to take a good soak.

[Agent Z]

In recent decades, people have taken their comic books far too seriously.

Blame that on the writers.

People who get all bound up in their heads over this stuff need to take a good soak.

You know, I often find the same people who say stuff like this are often the first to get outraged when a comic does something they don't like.

[Kuwagaton]

it's not that siegel's superman was perfect.It's just easier to write a simple action character with supernatural strength,speed,..etc.

You don't have to deal with "Gosh! superman doesn't do this or that.He is an example.He can't do that.Not my superman".

For instance,You could do a heist movie,a horror,a spy movie,scifi,a western...etc.anything really.Superman as this messianic example figure is just limiting.Batman works cause the character is really flexible.

Historically Superman has been the more flexible character.

The "perfect" thing I mentioned in the other post. But this all sounds like a really cynical look at the character. I'm always interested in talking about Superman, but I realize that most people with strong criticisms simply don't want to see him another way. Like if there's this ongoing complaint about being a messiah that's just wanting him to have a problem to justify the complaint. The material and issues I have do exist with the character, it's just that my own take is to get away from the stuff I don't like because there are thousands amd thousands of Superman stories and products that I do like. Superman can't "not work" because you can do anything with him.

Not my opinion, but have at it.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Never got the fuss over movies. I'm sure I said something like this, but I don't think I really mentioned that the first seven years of my life, Superman was almost exclusively live action. As in I can't swear I saw anything outside of the Fleischer cartoons and probably little of that. Little bit of Reeves, little bit of Christopher, the beginning of Cain, and a lot of Reeve. And the Supergirl movie introduced me to Kara.

That said, I like Superman III, MoS, and BvS. I can rewatch those. None of the other stuff has kept me in my seat for a long time. I say that because the 78 movie is treated like the most important thing in the history of the character, but if each and every Superman movie was 20% on RT with a poor box office it wouldn't make any difference to me as a fan.

[Jim Kelly]

I approach all movies as Elseworlds. I might not have had that idea when I was a kid, but when I saw the 1978 SUPERMAN, I had to quickly abandon my expectation that it would be like the comic book. Since then I've never had a problem with any movies that adapt comic books.

Granted, a movie that sticks to the comic book would be gratifying. But I'm not sure it transfers that well. When I saw the first X-MEN movie, I realized that what works in a comic book doesn't land the same way when it's on screen.

Mind you, when I read--especially with 19th century novels--I can't help but visualize how it would look as a movie or T.V. series. So I do have my Platonic ideals of what an adaptation would look like--but I don't hold it against a movie or series if it doesn't match my internal vision.

If I'm critical of certain comic book movies, it's based mainly on them as movies. Has the director realized his vision? Does the movie work or does it have internal inconsistencies that hobble the enterprise? Is the cinematography, editing and performance adequate for the subject? I don't hold bad visual effects or bad sound design against movies--I grew up in the 1960s and the 1970s when bad visual effects and bad sound design were the norm.

I'm always aware that I'm lucky to live in a time when these movies are now possible. All movies, even the really bad ones, are a miracle. When you understand all the effort involved in just getting a movie made--anyone who accomplishes that feat deserves a pat on a back and congratulations for having done so.