Controversial Superman Opinions

[Francisco]

So...Superman is not meant for a happy ending? I always thought that would apply to Batman. But yeah I always saw more of a happy family ending apply to Spider-Man only.

Superman is not meant for endings... His adventures will never end. IMO. Superman is forever. There will always be another adventure, another mission, another battle, another rescue, another mystery.

[manofsteel1979]

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.

Yeah. I don't get the " either/or" philosophy. Why can't there be both? I understand them not having two Supermen in the same universe...but they have a freaking Multiverse!

[Maxi]

Yeah. I don't get the " either/or" philosophy. Why can't there be both? I understand them not having two Supermen in the same universe...but they have a freaking Multiverse!

The infinite Multiverse should come back. The original one was confusing just because it had important characters scattered over various universes. But after they were combined in a single Earth there was no reason DC couldn't have a Multiverse after COIE. Just look at the way Marvel uses it. It's not confusing at all. There is one main universe, the rest are there just for alternate stories.

[Kuwagaton]

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.

It did pay off, headlining an entire universe with Morrison's protege and that indie guy Bendis, but it was a pretty massive risk. DC, with its imaginary stories and elseworlds and young continuity, probably had its best chance to try in 1986, when CoIE did well anyway. They sort of tried with the New 52, when Superman's line had become as funky as Spider-Man's had been in the late '90s, but well, here we are.

[The World]

A couple more that have brewing at the back of my mind.

-I saw a thread about this aways back but Jimmy Olsen needs to get rebooted back to a version of the character that's worthy of being Superman's pal. Somebody I could see diving into an adventure right beside Supes or having his own adventures every other day that are worth reading about.

-As I get older I actually kind of prefer the shorter cape to the longer one. For the longest time it's been drawn down to his heels but I think it should stop around his knee's or his calves at the lowest.

-My favorite version of Lois in the comics was the really cut throat version I remember reading from the really early issue back in the 30's,40's.

-Jor-El shouldn't know where he's sending baby Kal-El when he's sending him into space and he certainly shouldn't know everything down to the very smallest detail. I like the idea that Jor-El and Lara were honestly desperate and that they kind of got lucky with him finding Earth and the Kents.

[Ascended]

Yeah. I don't get the " either/or" philosophy. Why can't there be both? I understand them not having two Supermen in the same universe...but they have a freaking Multiverse!

Well, I think the simple truth is alternate reality books are a bigger risk and typically have a lower reward.

Spider-Gwen is considered a success right? But her title is sort of a middling seller, as I understand it (am I wrong?). What does Batman 66 sell, digital and print combined? Probably respectable but not a whole ton, Im guessing, compared to the big Rebirth titles. Bombshells? Likely even worse. Not a lot of sales incentive here. And those examples support strong merchandising rights.

Lot of alt reality books start out strong like Exiles and Earth 2, but end up drowning pretty quickly (well, Exiles did hit #50). So unless you're prepared to jump off the boat quick its not worthwhile.

And excuses aside, the last year of Nuperman sold like sh*t. Even when it was good he struggled with the talent DC was willing and able to give him. And t-shirt silliness aside Nuperman was more like Superdad than he was different. It's basically the same guy with a old t-shirt in his closet and a different brunette by his side.

So why do Nuperman when he's almost the same character and you run the risk of pissing off his already pissed off fans? Especially when Superdad is kicking so much ass? Why run the risk of splitting the sales base when you're likely reward will just be a mid-range seller that falls apart in the second year?

Yeah, the Ultimate line worked, right up until it didn't. And when it stopped working it *really* lost some revenue (again, as I understand it). A gain ten years ago isnt worth the same as a loss today.

All that said, my response is pure BS and DC should totally do it! I'd buy both, as long as they were both quality.

[MeloDet]

Personally i think that i have to do with the way that western stories has been told for most decades, the hero and the love interest, don't got together until the climax, because that's how you keep tension and dramam, that's the end the charathers live happily forever after had 5,5 kids and that's it, if a sequel of the story is made, then boths are going to be separated again for x or y reason, then you are going to do the trip all over again. You would notice that is very weir find fictional stories when the romance is during the development of the story and many writers don't seem to be interested into find an equilibrate ground in how to handle relationships (like a suggested some coments above). I don't mind young Clark "playing the field" personally, but that can get equally boring too.

It depends on the type of story really. You can absolutely have stories that focus on building existing relationships and shows a couple figuring things out. But that isn't "romance." Those stories can have romantic moments sure, but the story as a whole wouldn't be romantic. For a story to be a romance or specifically romantic in nature one of the central conflicts has to be based on the relationship between the two characters. Granted this is just the way I view things, but I think it's pretty clear that a lot of people want at least the potential for that sort of story to happen. And for what it's worth by my own reckoning I would agree that most of the Superman/Wonder Woman comics weren't romances; it's just a lot easier to turn into one. Obviously you could still do a romantic story with Lois and Clark being married, but in order for there to be conflict something would have to happen that I doubt Clois fans would like (Divorce/separation leading to reconciliation, memory loss and the rebuilding of their relationship etc.)

So while the marriage doesn't necessarily signal the end for Lois and Clark, it does limit the sorts of stories that can be told. And given the ongoing nature of comics anyone that wants to see one of those stories told (with modern art/story telling techniques) is going to be **** out of luck. Not to mention that marriage and kids are drastically different stage of life and I think it's understandable that some people want watch him grow from a life stage they find relateable and onward.

[TheCape]

It depends on the type of story really. You can absolutely have stories that focus on building existing relationships and shows a couple figuring things out. But that isn't "romance." Those stories can have romantic moments sure, but the story as a whole wouldn't be romantic. For a story to be a romance or specifically romantic in nature one of the central conflicts has to be based on the relationship between the two characters.

I admit that is wild guest based in the last 5 years of expiriences that i have with fiction in general. But most of the stuff that i had seen is "will/won't they" stories regarding to the romantic subplot, the other type of stories that you are refering is the "slowburn ship" not the main focus, but just 2 people figuring things out and eventually leading to the hook up, with time and patience, those kind of stories are very weird in mainstream comics nowadays.

Granted this is just the way I view things, but I think it's pretty clear that a lot of people want at least the potential for that sort of story to happen.

In my expirience people just want good stories, they don't really care about the type, althought that kind of plot isn't bad.

Obviously you could still do a romantic story with Lois and Clark being married, but in order for there to be conflict something would have to happen that I doubt Clois fans would like (Divorce/separation leading to reconciliation, memory loss and the rebuilding of their relationship etc.)

Based in what i read, Lois and Clark dynamic pre and post marriage weren't that different, separation, memory loss and rebuilding relationships are things that would happen regardless if their super-serious boyfriend and girlfriend or married, the only other possibility that you can get out of marriage/relationship are dating other people or the two pinning for each other and lamenting their not coupling. It can get equally boring and stale, i guest that you just exchange a cyclic narrative for another.

So while the marriage doesn't necessarily signal the end for Lois and Clark, it does limit the sorts of stories that can be told

In the romantic aspect, maybe, but in the rest, not really, there still a lot of stuff not romantic related than Superman can do.

And given the ongoing nature of comics anyone that wants to see one of those stories told (with modern art/story telling techniques) is going to be **** out of luck.

Flashback storyarc, after all we don't see the whole daily life of the charather.

Not to mention that marriage and kids are drastically different stage of life and I think it's understandable that some people want watch him grow from a life stage they find relateable and onward.

I'm talking only from expirience here, but most of my friends and accountance around my age range (18 to 24) don't really care about his marital status, specially because they assume than they are a couple and never stopped to be one. Personally speaking as an 19 year old man, i'm pretty interested in Mr El adventures, it feels familiar and different at the same time. Of course this the sort of thing that is just imposible to quantified or known for sure, so i'm not speaking for everyone, i understand if people don't want to se the current storyline.

[MeloDet]

I admit that is wild guest based in the last 5 years of expiriences that i have with fiction in general. But most of the stuff that i had seen is "will/won't they" stories regarding to the romantic subplot, the other type of stories that you are refering is the "slowburn ship" not the main focus, but just 2 people figuring things out and eventually leading to the hook up, with time and patience, those kind of stories are very weird in mainstream comics nowadays.

I'm talking more about stories in general rather than just comics, though I do agree that most comics do tend to fall into one of the categories of romances. Otherwise it depends on what sort of media you're consuming. TV shows, much like comics, tend to do the will they won't they or "slowburn" things since they can go on for so long and they need some way to sustain things. I'd argue that books and movies are different though.

In my expirience people just want good stories, they don't really care about the type, althought that kind of plot isn't bad.

My point is that it's limiting, not that you can't tell good stories. You're probably right that most comic fans don't really care about that (especially since most comic writers tend to be pretty crap at writing romance), but as someone who prefers romance at least play a part a lot of stories, it's kind of disappointing. You can still continue to tell stories without that aspect since a lot of fans won't mind, but all I'm trying to say is that it's understandable for people who want that to be disappointed.

Based in what i read, Lois and Clark dynamic pre and post marriage weren't that different, separation, memory loss and rebuilding relationships are things that would happen regardless if their super-serious boyfriend and girlfriend or married, the only other possibility that you can get out of marriage/relationship are dating other people or the two pinning for each other and lamenting their not coupling. It can get equally boring and stale, i guest that you just exchange a cyclic narrative for another.

When I mentioned that I was referring to a specific story or arc focused on their relationship. The idea wouldn't be they forget they were married and return to the old status quo, it would be one person forgets and the other person tries to win them over again.

Flashback storyarc, after all we don't see the whole daily life of the charather.

Might work for some people, and it'd certainly be better than nothing, but it takes something out the story for me at least (suspense? drama?).

I'm talking only from expirience here, but most of my friends and accountance around my age range (18 to 24) don't really care about his marital status, specially because they assume than they are a couple and never stopped to be one. Personally speaking as an 19 year old man, i'm pretty interested in Mr El adventures, it feels familiar and different at the same time. Of course this the sort of thing that is just imposible to quantified or known for sure, so i'm not speaking for everyone, i understand if people don't want to se the current storyline.

It's going to differ from person to person. I'm 23 myself and I don't connect nearly as well to characters that much older than me, particularly when it comes to romance. However our disagreement might be because I care more about the romantic aspect than you do. If a character's romantic life isn't a draw then of course there marital status won't matter that much. Even I have much less trouble connecting to married characters when the story is such that I don't care about romance.

All of that probably makes it sound like I want a Nicholas Spark's novel starring Superman or something :P Ideally though (assuming around a 25 year cycle for each reboot) I'd have the first few years dedicated to building tension between the MC and their LI ending with them not getting together for some reason, followed by a few years with the MC moving on to date someone else (legitimately moving on mind you, not moping), following the break up of that relationship I'd start getting the MC and the LI together eventually leading into marriage, kids etc. which would last the rest of the continuity. Also worth noting is that this wouldn't be present in most or even many of the arcs; there would just be a few arcs that strongly focus on each stage with some arcs where it's in the background scattered throughout. I would've skipped stage 2 entirely if it weren't for the fact that comic universes go on for so long.

Now you might be thinking that it's not too different from what happened in Post-Crisis and I would agree. I've never really had any issues with what happened in Post-Crisis (characterization aside); my only issue is that they didn't stick with the reboot. I have nothing against characters getting married eventually, I just don't want it to last for 50 years (or more).

[Ascended]

I never really understood why the marriage was such a sticking point.

Despite Clark dating several women through his long history, its always been Lois. And *most* of his other relationships have never come close to putting that in question. Even the relationship with Diana was seen by most people as a short term (by comics standards) situation and we expected them to eventually split, remain friends, and go back to their traditional love interests.

I always felt that trying to play the romantic tension with Clark and Lois was a poor choice. The audience believes they know the endgame and that takes a lot of the stimulation and suspense out of things. It becomes (at least from my perspective) a situation you just have to slog through to reach your pre-determined destination. Watching Clark and Lois bounce back and forth with their attraction is sort of like being stuck in traffic. You know where you're going and you know you'll get there eventually but the trip is painful.

Ive supported the marriage since they said their vows for that reason. Once they were married we could move on from the "oh noes Lois went on a date with someone else!" drivel and focus on telling good adventures. Of course, DC couldnt quite let go of old habits and we had far too many tales where Clark or Lois nearly destroyed their marriage with stupid crap, but that entire 00's era was pretty much terrible so you cant single out one particular aspect.

And I think you can play the "will they/wont they" card in other ways. Clark has a son now who is just about the right age to start noticing girls. That's a pile of story potential right there, and since the kid is only ten you dont have to get deep with it. A "romantic" subplot with Jon is going to be more comedy than anything and end when the girl catches Jon picking his nose and decides he's gross. No risk, lots of fun, similar plot echoes to the old Clark-Lois dynamics.

And Clark has friends who can pull him into their love lives. What happens when Jimmy talks Clark and Lois into going on a double date with him and his new girl? Hell, make that girl Lois' sister Lucy and you've got yourself a romantic situation you can play for years on end without drastically up-ending Clark's status quo.

The other aspects of the Clark-Lois dynamic that were lost with the marriage, such as Lois always trying to prove who Clark really was, can easily be assumed by new people. Perhaps a new reporter at the Planet named Chloe picks up where Lois left off and now Clark and Lois both have to keep her from discovering the truth. Seeing the two of them work together to fool someone sounds a lot more fun to me than Clark making up excuse after excuse on his own for decades on end. Hell, there was an episode of Smallville where Clark went to the future and had that exact adventure with future-Lois, and it was glorious and proved in fifteen minutes why the marriage works when its done well.

[Uncanny Mutie]

I have one: Everybody criticizes John Byrne for lowering Superman's power levels, but Superman NEEDED to have his ridiculous power levels scaled down some. The problem is that DC waited too late to do it, so that by the time they did do it, other characters across the medium were getting their power levels boosted to ridiculous levels and having absurd new abilities added to their repertoire, or new characters were being created with over the top power levels, so as a result, Superman suddenly looked a lot less super than a lot of his contemporaries when that was never the intention. For example, all of a sudden, Hulk got a healing factor that seemed even faster than Wolverine's, could breath underwater, could survive being thrown into space or a nuclear holocaust, and had unlimited strength. And what about Omega level mutants, like that kid X-Man, who could wipe out the entire Eastern seaboard with just one thought. No wonder Superman didn't seem so super by the time the 80's and 90's rolled around; it wasn't Byrne's fault.

[Vinsanity]

Lois and Clark could work better as newspaper rivals even if they are dating. They could one up on each other when it comes to scoops while keep it respectful.

Cat Grant and Clark would be an amazing fun couple.

[MeloDet]

The point (for me at least) isn't the will they won't they; in fact I don't really enjoy that style of romance. We know it's going to happen. I just want to see the development! I only added the other stages in my comment as a way of slowing things down, but I'd be fine if they moved onto it straight away if they dedicated the necessary time to building the relationship up in the first place. Without that development I just don't feel invested in their relationship. I didn't grow up reading comics or watching STAS, so I have no connection to it. And so long as the comics keep playing them up as some sort of cosmic inevitability I really need to feel more invested. My personal favourite style of romance in a story is the sort that you get from a single stand alone novel. There's no sequels so there's no need to throw up road blocks and prevent them from getting together, and if the genre is something other than straight up romance the development is happening in the background every time the characters interact. But the characters still usually go through **** together to deepen the connection etc. You could probably accomplish it in a single multi-arc story tbh. I'd rather not see them hang around the daily planet for a few years bantering until one of them asks the other out and they go through a normal relationship until they get married. (I only even mentioned the delaying aspects since I figured I would probably get bored without some sort of romantic plot for 20ish years)

The only reason I even mention the marriage being done away with is that I think an arc of some sort to redevelop the relationship should be done every 25 years or so in order for the next generation of reader to develop that investment.

[Uncanny Mutie]

Here's another: Newspapers are darn near dead and the only reason DC won't accept that and have Clark move on from the antiquated concept of being a reporter for the Daily Planet is because so many classic members of his supporting cast are also affiliated with the Daily Planet too (Lois, Perry, Jimmy, etc), and that would pretty much cut him off from most of them completely if there was no Daily Planet.

[Ascended]

Also, random controversial opinion; Superman's powers need an overhaul. The guy is a solar furnace who breaks the laws of physics on a regular basis. I dont want to see his powers changed (no electric powers please), but I would like to see them explored, their origins and source examined, and I want to see more done with Clark's limits and capabilities. He can shoot heat vision. Gets his powers from a comic book-y version of photosynthesis. Can he also absorb heat? What about kinetic energy? Nuclear? His hearing breaks the speed of sound and the effects of a vacuum. Is he really picking up things telepathically and processing that data as auditory stimuli? He can survive a black hole. So can he also tear a wormhole open?

For years now, DC has danced around the idea that Superman warps possibility/reality. Byrne's bio-electric aura, Morrison's All-Star and New52, even John's solar-flare power (the fact that he missed the name super-nova proves he doesnt deserve to touch Superman) keep bringing the idea back around. And while I didnt read past the second issue, I believe Unchained toyed with the idea via Wraith's powers being akin to Clark's, only more developed. Even in the most recent Superman Annual, there's references to things Clark could do, ways his powers could manifest, that only scratch the surface of what a solar powered quantum engine (which is what Superman is, really) could be capable of.

And the Silver Age, when Clark had more powers than J'onn J'onzz could ever dream of, provide decades of precedence for exploring, adapting, and evolving Superman's abilities. Not to mention the mountain of Super-proxies like the Plutonian (did I spell that right? From Waid's Irredeemable) who dig into Superman's powers more than Superman himself does.

I dont want to see the guy become an energy manipulator or anything, and the physicality of his powers is a huge part of the character and his appeal, but I wouldn't be against seeing more of the super-nova (without the dumb drawback), expanded senses, and new ways to manipulate the solar power Clark takes in.