Controversial Superman Opinions

[Prime]

If Superbro returns I want him to be the main Superman. Superbad can BTFO.

[Mr. Mastermind]

If Superbro returns I want him to be the main Superman. Superbad can BTFO.

But I like Jonah Hill and Michael Cera.

I don't care for the New Gods to be involved in Superman, but that analogy doesn't fit. Brainiac didn't begin in a Cyborg comic.

Darkseid debuted in Jimmy Olsen not the main Superman title (I guess Jimmy should be Darkseid's ultimate foe...) whilst the New Gods were developed mostly outside of the Superman titles.

[Prime]

Joe Quesada apparently disagrees. That's how we got ONE MORE DAY and how I ended up shortly thereafter dropping Marvel.

Ugh I remember. You know I always picture Superman ending alone.

[Prime]

But I like Jonah Hill and Michael Cera.

Superdad. Lol

[manofsteel1979]

The idea that someone getting married and having a family is evolution, the natural advancement, the obvious course forward--that's what I really find unnerving. It's the way forward for some people--but not everybody is made that way. So if you have a story where someone doesn't do that--that doesnt mean they're stuck, that they're not going forward. It just means they have a different agenda for their life. And in a world of comic book fantasies, there should be room for different options in life. Not this idea that everyone has to get married or else die unfullfilled before they get the chance. In a word, I think that's crap.

I agree,speaking as an unmarried male in his Mid 30,s approaching 40. I just happen to think if anyone would settle down and have a family,it would be Superman. It's not personal wish fulfilment for me. It just feels true to the guy I've read since I was 10 years old. I like seeing a narrative advance,grow and change over decades instead of retreading stuff we've seen before. Superman as a father is the logical next step in that narrative. Not hitting the reset button for the sake of change with no long term vision beyond that.I mean, But... maybe that's just me. I guess if my first Superman comics were the 60s and 70s and that age of DC where ongoing narrative was less important than maintenance of the property and keeping a set status quo,perhaps my position would be closer to yours. It's all about perspective,i guess.

[TheCape]

The idea that someone getting married and having a family is evolution, the natural advancement, the obvious course forward--that's what I really find unnerving. It's the way forward for some people--but not everybody is made that way. So if you have a story where someone doesn't do that--that doesnt mean they're stuck, that they're not going forward. It just means they have a different agenda for their life. And in a world of comic book fantasies, there should be room for different options in life. Not this idea that everyone has to get married or else die unfullfilled before they get the chance. In a word, I think that's crap.

I never said that it was (assuming that you are talking to me), people in real life decide not get married for x or y reasons (they don't feel the need of a partner, they aren't the settling down type of person, they had other aspirations in life, etc), i don't think that anybody needs a partner to be "complete" or "fullfilled", people are different and that isn't a problem. Just that in this particular case, i fail to see how destroy or taint the mythos when they are very easy ways to around that "problem"

[Knightsilver]

I agree,speaking as an unmarried male in his Mid 30,s approaching 40. I just happen to think if anyone would settle down and have a family,it would be Superman. It's not personal wish fulfilment for me. It just feels true to the guy I've read since I was 10 years old. I like seeing a narrative advance,grow and change over decades instead of retreading stuff we've seen before. Superman as a father is the logical next step in that narrative. Not hitting the reset button for the sake of change with no long term vision beyond that. But... maybe that's just me.

It's not just you...I feel the same way. One of the best things about the current books,is that this feels like a natural place for the character to be.

[Tra-EL]

Wait with Barbara Minerva?

Yep. Seeing him romance Cheetah was really fun for me. That issue where Clark crash lands on Bruce Wayne's boat and everything thinks he's Bruce was a nice touch. It touched on Bruce's personality with him not even being present and allowed a young Clark have some freedom. DC should give Landis an American Alien 2. I know he wanted to do the Servant of Batman thing, but I know most Supes fans probably wouldn't appreciate that, but if done right, that idea had potential.

[Mr. Mastermind]

Giving Superman a child has some interesting short-term prospects, but in the long term I think it will sour just as the marriage eventually did before the reboot. Before long there will be calls to be rid of the child, and the marriage for the second time.

This isn't inevitable at all. DC's most successful (and best) new character in the 15 years is Damian (can anyone think of any other contenders? serious question) and almost no one wants him dead, outside of some diehard Tim Drake fans who mostly blame their character's fall from grace on him. He got killed off by Morrison and Tomasi immediately came up with a story to bring him back in a year's time. Sons of major characters can work, Franklin Richard is another great example.

Will Jon work? Chances are good he won't but that's because the editorial of the Superman line has been consistently terrible over the past couple decades. But there's nothing inherently or conceptually wrong with Jon, just like there was nothing inherently wrong with the idea of the marriage or New 52 Superman. What didn't work for the last two was that DC couldn't get any good writers to write good stories for them, outside of a few bright spots like Morrison.

[Jim Kelly]

Joseph Campbell did these talks with Bill Moyers that have stayed with me all these years. And if I recall it correctly, he said that we are all on the hero's journey until we have kids. Children begin that journey again. So a wise parent understands that their story has changed and recognizes that the child is now on the hero's journey. So if Superman is that kind of responsible person, then once he has a kid, he stops being the hero and it's all about the kid. Otherwise he's being a selfish father who makes it all about himself and doesn't fully recognize his child's needs.

The other thing that informs my feeling about Superman is the Pasko run. In that run he had Superman explain his mission to Lois. Superman essentially said that he is not meant for that kind of love and marriage stuff, because too many people depend on him. If someone truly loves and understands him, then they have to accept that he's never going to give up his mission for self-satisfaction. And Lois indicates she understands and she accepts that's the deal, but she chooses to stand by him and support him. To me, that was a big step forward and an evolution in the Superman story. But then the Byrne reboot happened and all that was gained was lost.

[hellacre]

Every generation deserves a Superman to grow up with. Not all fans should hog him nor demand one version of him. So does that mean reboots now and again to update and move the character forward...not in years but to suit the times? Yes. DC could easily do this by bringing the multiverse and satisfying many fans. How difficult is that? Shouldn't be really. But seems they can't do it.

[Sacred Knight]

This isn't inevitable at all. DC's most successful (and best) new character in the 15 years is Damian (can anyone think of any other contenders? serious question) and almost no one wants him dead, outside of some diehard Tim Drake fans who mostly blame their character's fall from grace on him. He got killed off by Morrison and Tomasi immediately came up with a story to bring him back in a year's time. Sons of major characters can work, Franklin Richard is another great example.

Will Jon work? Chances are good he won't but that's because the editorial of the Superman line has been consistently terrible over the past couple decades. But there's nothing inherently or conceptually wrong with Jon, just like there was nothing inherently wrong with the idea of the marriage or New 52 Superman. What didn't work for the last two was that DC couldn't get any good writers to write good stories for them, outside of a few bright spots like Morrison.

Damian is a product of the Batman mythos, a line that for sometime now has been the most, and sometimes only, top DC seller. He was in a great position to break out because everyone and their mother read him. Jon has a bigger task ahead of him in regards to breaking out in a mythos that has not sniffied that level of success in decades. Furthermore, DC has a 30 year fetish with changing Superman up drastically and upending his mythos frequently. That's another hurdle for a concept like Jon to overcome. Things are a lot more fluid and less throwaway in the Batman mythos. Another thing that allowed Damian the chance to flourish.

Sons can definitely work, I'm just not convinced one for Superman will have that level of success for the above reasons.

[Kuwagaton]

Darkseid debuted in Jimmy Olsen not the main Superman title (I guess Jimmy should be Darkseid's ultimate foe...) whilst the New Gods were developed mostly outside of the Superman titles.

Still, the analogy doesn't fit because there is zero connection between Brainiac and Cyborg, whereas Jimmy Olsen was a spin off that Superman also inhabited at the time. Although clearly Kirby had no intention of him sticking around the Superman setting.

[manofsteel1979]

Every generation deserves a Superman to grow up with. Not all fans should hog him nor demand one version of him. So does that mean reboots now and again to update and move the character forward...not in years but to suit the times? Yes. DC could easily do this by bringing the multiverse and satisfying many fans. How difficult is that? Shouldn't be really. But seems they can't do it.

For DC,It's like Highlander ... there can be only one. With the current schedule of biweekly books for the main line,there could easily be a small line of monthly books similar to the New 52, or an ongoing Adventures of Superman anthology series that's digital only etc. Honestly,you put,say Greg Pak and Andy Kuder on a separate Superman series set in a New 52 ish universe I'd read the hell out of that alongside the current stuff in SUPERMAN and ACTION. You can literally have your cake and eat it too.Someone like me can see his Superman grow and continue and someone like you can have theirs,and odds are We'd all be open to read it all or at least give it a fair shake.

[Sacred Knight]

I've said a few times now and I genuinely mean it: if they gave the option of a stand-alone book on another Earth chronicling the adventures of a younger, New 52-like Superman where themes like him and Diana, a bit more of a brash atittude and the like can be explored in earnest, I'd not only get it, but I'd be far, far more inclined to go ahead and just pick up all Superman titles. So if anything they'd have me for an extra Superman book as opposed to just one as the goodwill of choice would probably have me following both versions.

Marvel's ultimate line was a huge success for years before it finally started to collapse, and that was just for creative reasons, nothing conceptual. Why DC won't try something similar with their multiverse at their disposal boggles the mind.