Controversial Superman Opinions

[Yoda]

Yeah, but... why does every hero have to have ALL of their family get killed off?

I'm not advocating for that at all. Generally think the idea that a heroes life has to suck to be interesting is stupid and lazy. Applies to family (particularly it seems parents or significant others) being killed for motivation or the idea that a happily married character can't work. So, you're preaching to the choir.

Why would he ever believe that he can save everyone? Which other character in his weight class has ever been that naive? Have Billy Batson look at the reader and go, "grrr I can save everyone!" and fall short because y'know, he's a kid

Again, don't disagree. But it typically serves a narrative purpose when he's in the Smallville context as a late teen or so. Something like in All Star. Overconfidence bread by youth and his fantastic abilities.

But it was. In like 95% of every telling, he at least learns of Krypton early into his career. For a really long time in the main line, he straight up had adventures as a Kryptonian toddler. I don't see how learning that your whole homeland has been erased aside from its poisonous byproduct isn't tragic. Not many other subjects have ever made Superman cry, especially with the sadistic plans of a Mongul or Brainiac to twist the knife.

For the Man Who Has Everything and Birthright both use it to a significant and powerful degree. Birthright he has no knowledge of Krypton beyond what he saw on the tablet and FTMWHE doesn't need him to have experienced Krypton to show the tragedy of it. Just his desire to experience it.

[SiegePerilous02]

Everyone's parents die. How is that "much needed adversity"?

Not everyone loses both parents while still at a vulnerable young age, either middle of college or just graduated. That's pretty heavy, especially for young people these days. It also is an emotional challenge that has nothing to do with Clark's vast powers and he has to get through it a different way. It exposes a vulnerability and an ability to persevere in a character who is often accused of being too perfect and boring because he doesn't go through any direct hardships.

The Kent's dying is generally best used for the lesson he can't save everyone. The Kent's typically die of a heart attack/stroke (which for Pa, I'm ok with that generally) or of old age. That's not adversity, that's life. I guess what you seem to be arguing for is of the Batman/Flash/Spider-Man variety of "adversity" not what has historically been applicable to the Kent's.

Why can't it be both? It teaches him a lesson he can't save everyone, but it's not like it wouldn't also take a heavy emotional toll on him at first. Clark has to go through the stages of grief like everyone else, and the invincibility doesn't protect him from it. But he comes out the other side of it and endures, because like you say, "that's life." It's a life experience not everyone goes through that early on, but some people do.

And no, I'm not arguing in favor of the Batman variety. That reminds me of Byrne saying he left the Kents alive because he couldn't imagine Superman not ending up like Batman if they were dead. Which has always shown an overly simplistic view of death and grief.

I'd much rather get rid of lectures about hope if that is the issue. Those are rarely written well and are almost always cheesy.

Why not get rid of both? Also, did he give them as much when the Kents were canonically dead?

I get confused about the idea of killing the Kents to "teach him a lesson." That really sounds necessary? I mean especially after his whole planet exploded.

The planet he barely remembers? That's not going to hit close to home the way losing the parents he spent the majority of his life up until that point with would.

Splitting the difference and having Pa die while Ma sticks around could work, but the "can't save everyone" story beat needs to happen as part of his development in his hero's journey, and it works best with one or both of his Earth parents.

Yeah, but... why does every hero have to have ALL of their family get killed off?

Who's arguing in favor of every hero?

[TheKryptonMan]

Krypton was never his planet as he never lived there and has no memories of the place. He isn't Kara where he has any living memory of the place or anyone who died.

I don't think that it's ever been established how long Kal actually lived on Krypton . That's where he was bor, I really don't know n and maybe in animation he's sent into space right away .
But in the comics I really don't know how many days , weeks Kal actually spent on Krypton before being placed in the rocket.

[manwhohaseverything]

Krypton was never his planet as he never lived there and has no memories of the place. He isn't Kara where he has any living memory of the place or anyone who died.

He went there by swimming up the river of time.He fell in love .He lived an entire life there.He got married .He had kids.He has photographic memory.He remade his world in his thoughts.Krypton and lyla is what the man silently craves for.

[Kuwagaton]

The planet he barely remembers? That's not going to hit close to home the way losing the parents he spent the majority of his life up until that point with would.

Splitting the difference and having Pa die while Ma sticks around could work, but the "can't save everyone" story beat needs to happen as part of his development in his hero's journey, and it works best with one or both of his Earth parents.

I don't think he needs to be "hit" lol. Krypton has inherent tragedy though I agree that ultimately Krypton is not a trauma for him. It's the cost of operations and before this "blanket of hope" kinda stuff, we saw him as every bit a Superman without that knowledge as he is with it.

Clark can easily sit in a classroom, learn about cancer, and realize that it's not something he can bench press. So I don't think power comes with some hubris that he to be destroyed. He doesn't have to be taken down. That... feels like a Lex type thought lol. That because he's the most powerful man, he needs to feel powerless. Or like every other hero... the Waynes, the Batsons, the Rands, mama Banner, Uncle Ben, Bucky, Jack Murdock, the refrigerated women, etc. My personal response to people who think he's "too good" or whatever isn't to point at his pain and suffering but to point out that he totally pays it forward by flying around the galaxy and doing charity every day after his workshift or for days at a time.

I think "splitting the difference" worked well enough for the movies but with the comics, he might as well leave that kinda stuff for a John Stewart.

[Agent Z]

I'd much rather get rid of lectures about hope if that is the issue. Those are rarely written well and are almost always cheesy.

I second this motion. I'll also add stories pitting Superman against violent antiheroes to the list of ideas I'd like to get rid of.

[marhawkman]

Splitting the difference and having Pa die while Ma sticks around could work, but the "can't save everyone" story beat needs to happen as part of his development in his hero's journey, and it works best with one or both of his Earth parents.

They've done that with EVERY version of Superman EVER. Why do it even more?

[marhawkman]

I second this motion. I'll also add stories pitting Superman against violent antiheroes to the list of ideas I'd like to get rid of.

Superman being against "Vigilantes" has a sound logic to it. the issue isn't vigilantism in general, but when people do it without taking step to avoid collateral damage. It's where we got that meme about saving a kitten by cutting down a tree. The problem isn't that the guy was trying to save a kitten, it's that his method of doing so was fundamentally flawed. Which is the logic Superman uses with vigilantes. Are the vigilantes acting in a way that actually brings justice to the world or are they making things worse?

[Kuwagaton]

Randomly came across a bit discussion about the World Forger thing on social media and I gotta say Epic Superman is the same problem baseball had with the home run, going from standout and organic to manufactured and all but required. "Superman crosses one billion billion miles faster than the eyes of lightning can track" type stuff. "When everything seems dark and the story seems too long to end, Superman Lifts The Heaviest Thing and all is right."

[The World]

Are the Post-Crisis guys still trying to play things off as if the Kent's had always been alive like they use to back in the day. The Kent's were dead under Siegels pen and he wrote a much better Superman than any Post-Crisis writer, which makes it good enough for me. If you want to see the Kent's there was a time and place for that called Superboy if you want to see the Kent's stop taking them from the places they belong and put back all the meaningful elements you wiped in COIE.

[Zero Hunter]

Are the Post-Crisis guys still trying to play things off as if the Kent's had always been alive like they use to back in the day. The Kent's were dead under Siegels pen and he wrote a much better Superman than any Post-Crisis writer, which makes it good enough for me. If you want to see the Kent's there was a time and place for that called Superboy if you want to see the Kent's stop taking them from the places they belong and put back all the meaningful elements you wiped in COIE.

Come on man. There have been many many better writers of Superman since Siegel. To say otherwise is just dumb.

[Agent Z]

Are the Post-Crisis guys still trying to play things off as if the Kent's had always been alive like they use to back in the day. The Kent's were dead under Siegels pen and he wrote a much better Superman than any Post-Crisis writer, which makes it good enough for me. If you want to see the Kent's there was a time and place for that called Superboy if you want to see the Kent's stop taking them from the places they belong and put back all the meaningful elements you wiped in COIE.

Let's not pretend everything from pre-crisis was so great.

[The World]

Come on man. There have been many many better writers of Superman since Siegel. To say otherwise is just dumb.

None of them from Post-Crisis that's for certain. Whole reason this franchise in near constant disarray is because the Post-Crisis writers never really came to understand who or what Superman is. It's that exact lack of humility that is the source of this franchises woes. Pre-Crisis Superman followed a setup that made him into one of the greatest fictional heroes in print. Man put fifteen years into Superman, I'd take his word over any Post-Crisis writer.

Imo a top 5 most important people to Superman should be a list of Swan, Siegel, Schuster, Boring, and Schwartz.

Let's not pretend everything from pre-crisis was so great.

Never said they were. It's just better than the bland wasteland of the last couple decades. Like don't you think it's strange that the generally agreed upon greatest modern Superman story is All-Star Superman if Post-Crisis Superman. Or that something like One Piece is the biggest comic book since the Original Superman despite it having a nature and tone very at odds to what Byrne advocated when he was "fixing" Superman. One Piece arguably is a lot closer to Silver Age Superman stuff than Byrne's muted and grounded affair.

[Vordan]

Agent Z dislikes Morrison/All-Star so he doesn’t agree with the consensus

[Cyberstrike]

Jim Lee has yet to draw a classic Superman story. For Tomorrow sucks and Unchained is forgettable at best.