Controversial Superman Opinions

[Steel Inquisitor]

Christ no it isn't. He's an old pulpy sci-fi action character who fights things that he finds reprehensible. Yes that can inspire hope but that isn't the point behind his actions. A man of action can inspire hope, but a symbol of hope isn't necessarily a man of action and being a man of action is far more important to Superman's character than inspiring hope. This symbol of hope junk needs to come to an end.

That's a straw man, that's not the only thing which defines him but it is a big factor in his presentation - when Superman shows up to fight villains his other super-heroes and civilians get more optimistic since his presence is soothing, which isn't something unique to him. Now he's not a man of action, despite doing things like fighting alien invasions, dangerous robots and never ending supervillains who want him dead. Except it's not junk, super-heroes who don't inspire hope from people are terrible super-heroes, even anti-heroes are capable of doing this. Would you prefer people to bored or run away in fear of super-heroes when they show up instead?

As for CW "Superman" guy is playing second banana to a character who only exist because he was a success. That's an off the back failure regardless if it came packaged with a tv shows for taking a bunch of L's to get it. Lowering yourself to get a promotion really doesn't sound like Superman frankly.

It's not his show, they're not going to remake the series into being about Superman it'd be incredibly tone deaf on CW's part. It's not like Superman hasn't been a guest star in other media before and she is his cousin who he cares about. The fact Supergirl is a spin-off of Superman from the comics doesn't define her as being without worth, all that does is acknowledge her creation which proves nothing. Superman came first, so what? Except Supergirl isn't a failure, it's on its sixth series which is ending on its own terms, its not being cancelled because of bad ratings. So Superman shouldn't appear in any tv shows in the CW unless he's the star of it? That makes no sense. He's a big boy, he's perfectly fine taking the back seat to other characters in their own series, he's been doing longer than we've been alive. He doesn't need to hog all the spotlight all the time, that's the complete opposite of how Superman acts.

I don't really believe in Superman trying to outshine any character but if that character is going out of it's way to try and challenge Superman then the Superman writers should crack down. But honestly prior to COIE this stuff wasn't much of a thing since saving lives and improving the world was the primary function of a character that was getting called a superhero. Post-COIE the point of being a hero has become proving that you're powerful and getting others to recognize that with saving lives a secondary point.

But that would "outshine" the other character in question, especially if in the story they should be doing something better than he does, frankly making him the best at everything is incredibly boring and pushes everyone else into being redundant when they shouldn't be. Characters can have rivalries, and they can have specialities the others lack without being a rival. This has ben going on since the Silver Age, COIE didn't start every trope.



Superman also had a personality more than simply narrowly focusing on saving the world. He's curious, friendly and tries to understand how the world works. He is a reporter, after all.

It why the writers have become so obsessed with proving whatever character they fanboy can take out some other character they care much less about, for example look at the interwarring among the Green Lanter fans or The Flash fans.

Those fandoms are defined by legacies replacing older heroes, not who can beat who in a fight. That's the controversy.

Frankly one of the reasons I think Superman needs to be allowed to get more involved and actually make some significant changes to the DCU is because the Post-COIE writers lowered the bar of what it means to be a hero far too much and now we've got individuals like Harley Quinn lecturing Batman. Superman holding himself to a higher standard should mean more than just not killing or being polite, it should also mean having a profound positive impact on the world he's operating in.

That's never going to happen because comics have a specific status quo to uphold, and he wasn't doing that prior to COIE. In the Silver Age they made excuses so the Justice Society couldn't impact the war so they bought in the Spear of Destiny to avoid fighting the Nazis. Which means inspiring hope, not alienating people when he shows up. Positive people like that inspire hope.

[The World]

That's a straw man, that's not the only thing which defines him but it is a big factor in his presentation - when Superman shows up to fight villains his other super-heroes and civilians get more optimistic since his presence is soothing, which isn't something unique to him. Now he's not a man of action, despite doing things like fighting alien invasions, dangerous robots and never ending supervillains who want him dead. Except it's not junk, super-heroes who don't inspire hope from people are terrible super-heroes, even anti-heroes are capable of doing this. Would you prefer people to bored or run away in fear of super-heroes when they show up instead?

You're taking side effects of his actions and trying to make them the defining reason and they aren't. He doesn't act with the idea that his behavior might necessarily fill someones definition of hope but because he thinks they're going to be better off for it. He's not looking for some audience to perform for, he's trying to fix the broken world he was adopted by so it will be better for all the people in it.

Besides concerning yourself with being a soothing presence over doing tangible good is foolishness in and of itself leading to outcomes like Overman and the JLaxis. Sometimes you don't need to be soothing presence, but a shocking one.

And yeah I would say Superman of today is pretty lackadaisical compared to Superman of the olden days.

It's not his show, they're not going to remake the series into being about Superman it'd be incredibly tone deaf on CW's part. It's not like Superman hasn't been a guest star in other media before and she is his cousin who he cares about. The fact Supergirl is a spin-off of Superman from the comics doesn't define her as being without worth, all that does is acknowledge her creation which proves nothing. Superman came first, so what? Except Supergirl isn't a failure, it's on its sixth series which is ending on its own terms, its not being cancelled because of bad ratings. So Superman shouldn't appear in any tv shows in the CW unless he's the star of it? That makes no sense. He's a big boy, he's perfectly fine taking the back seat to other characters in their own series, he's been doing longer than we've been alive. He doesn't need to hog all the spotlight all the time, that's the complete opposite of how Superman acts.

No, no stop being lazy and using other characters to get over your character. You want to be the better hero then put in the work and stop having characters get you over.

And I wasn't calling Supergirl a failure I was calling Hoechlin's Superman a failure. Which so far he pretty much is. Watching him say he couldn't make the kind sacrifice Kara could was just on the nose trying to put one character over on the back of another. Then getting upstaged by Routh. Utterly hilarious. He's working from a deficit, a joke.

But that would "outshine" the other character in question, especially if in the story they should be doing something better than he does, frankly making him the best at everything is incredibly boring and pushes everyone else into being redundant when they shouldn't be. Characters can have rivalries, and they can have specialities the others lack without being a rival. This has ben going on since the Silver Age, COIE didn't start every trope.

I don't have a problem with rivalries, I have a problem with propping up one character on the back of another. Which the modern writers lean on for fanboying purposes.

Haven't read the story so can't really comment but you can't seriously compare that to the nonsense of today. There's clearly some kind of greater mystery at work here both characters seem completely confused about the events they're in and more concerned about figuring out what's happening than trying to fight.

Superman also had a personality more than simply narrowly focusing on saving the world. He's curious, friendly and tries to understand how the world works. He is a reporter, after all.

Sure he has a personality outside of superheroics but Superman was a reporter to supplement his Superman thing. Heroism was a central aspect of his adult life.

Those fandoms are defined by legacies replacing older heroes, not who can beat who in a fight. That's the controversy.

Then why is everyone concerned with who the fastest Flash is. Why have there been several attempts to prove that Supergirl is more powerful than her cousin. The rise of Batgod being able to beat anyone.

That's never going to happen because comics have a specific status quo to uphold, and he wasn't doing that prior to COIE. In the Silver Age they made excuses so the Justice Society couldn't impact the war so they bought in the Spear of Destiny to avoid fighting the Nazis. Which means inspiring hope, not alienating people when he shows up. Positive people like that inspire hope.

Yes and now they're living in a world where the villains take over every Sunday and humanity still does all the evil things they've been doing for years. Hell Nazism is seeing a resurgence in reality perfect subject matter for Supes. Modern Superman's approach doesn't work, instead of bashing your head against a rock reconsider your approach like an intelligent person which Superman is suppose to be.

[manwhohaseverything]

And yeah I would say Superman of today is pretty lackadaisical compared to Superman of the olden days.

Bingo!that's exactly what my problem with superman's personality is.Even his kids 10 times more of energetic than clark is.Sadly,that part of the character reduced with bendis's writing.Bendis basically clark-ifies jon.Jon should be on his toes always.Jon is a ball of energy.He can be reckless.He can do mistakes.But,he should always be on his toes and fix back anything that he messed up.

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't want to see the word "hope" in a Superman story for at least the next 2-3 years.

[catman]

I hate fascistic Superman idea so much.
Why can't we accept the idea that there are ultimately altruistic and compassionate person despite of his absolute power, even in fiction?
Watchmen and DKR were in fact nothing but cancer against Superhero genre.

[Vordan]

I don't want to see the word "hope" in a Superman story for at least the next 2-3 years.

If Waid is getting the books I’m very curious how the guy who really started the whole “hope” thing ends up tackling that aspect of the character.

Edit: Sorry typed that on my phone

[SiegePerilous02]

If Waid is getting the books I’m very curious how the guy who really started the whole “hope” thing ends up tackling that’s Spectre of the character.

If he doesn't and just continues to use it, hopefully he can deliver enough other stuff to make up for it.

[PCN24454]

I hate fascistic Superman idea so much.
Why can't we accept the idea that there are ultimately altruistic and compassionate person despite of his absolute power, even in fiction?
Watchmen and DKR were in fact nothing but cancer against Superhero genre.

This is neither controversial nor unpopular.

[catman]

This is neither controversial nor unpopular.

Sorry.
But,Isn't hating and denying Watchmen and DKR unpopular opinion?

[Steel Inquisitor]

You're taking side effects of his actions and trying to make them the defining reason and they aren't. He doesn't act with the idea that his behavior might necessarily fill someones definition of hope but because he thinks they're going to be better off for it. He's not looking for some audience to perform for, he's trying to fix the broken world he was adopted by so it will be better for all the people in it.

Please don't twist my words, as though Superman making it a priority to be a calming and safe presence isn't something he should do and that it hasn't been part of why he's stayed relevant for so long. It's a defining feature, not the only defining feature he has, Superman is more than one thing. The last part aren't mutually exclusive, it's harder to fix a brick world when everyone hates and fears you - even Batman inspires hope to people. He's a public super-hero who good at PR, partially due to natural charisma and being a people person. The comics don't get into how he came into those skills but it makes sense he'd work at it from various training programs depending on the time period, as well as going to university and being a reporter. He doesn't hate being around people.

Besides concerning yourself with being a soothing presence over doing tangible good is foolishness in and of itself leading to outcomes like Overman and the JLaxis. Sometimes you don't need to be soothing presence, but a shocking one.

That's a straw man, Superman does both. The fact he's able to do things which help fix society's problems are reasons reinforces how he soothes with his presence, they see him an action and know he's reliable. Overman is a Nazi who relies on fear and terror, only Nazis find his presence soothing. Villains need to be shocking, super-heroes don't otherwise they get confused with the villains and people are less likely to trust them.



This is not how Superman appears at a scene.

And yeah I would say Superman of today is pretty lackadaisical compared to Superman of the olden days.

That's your opinion, not a fact. Many, many people disagree - including DC Comics.

No, no stop being lazy and using other characters to get over your character. You want to be the better hero then put in the work and stop having characters get you over.

I'm using examples to prove my argument, you're free to do that as well and my arguments aren't reliant on boosting one character over the other because I like them, this is projection. The idea that the show lead should just be dominated whenever Superman shows up simply because he's Superman isn't a compelling argument. By that logic Superman should be able to use the Speed Force better than the Flashes when he appears in their books/tv shows.

And I wasn't calling Supergirl a failure I was calling Hoechlin's Superman a failure. Which so far he pretty much is. Watching him say he couldn't make the kind sacrifice Kara could was just on the nose trying to put one character over on the back of another. Then getting upstaged by Routh. Utterly hilarious. He's working from a deficit, a joke.

That's it? A single compliment to the main star, and someone who is a noteworthy super-hero in her own right and he's a failure? Routh is Reeves' Superman, someone who should be strong than he is. It's not like Superman hasn't got his own wins in Supergirl, it's ok for him not to be the centre of attention of every frame. A "joke" who was a fan favourite on the tv show and is getting his own tv show spin-off.

I don't have a problem with rivalries, I have a problem with propping up one character on the back of another. Which the modern writers lean on for fanboying purposes.

I disagree, if that was true we would be in agreement. Instead Superman can't even give Supergirl a compliment on her own show or lose to another Superman without being called a failure.

Haven't read the story so can't really comment but you can't seriously compare that to the nonsense of today. There's clearly some kind of greater mystery at work here both characters seem completely confused about the events they're in and more concerned about figuring out what's happening than trying to fight.

Sure you can comment on the page shown. What nonsense? That they can act like that in the Silver Age in an issue which begins their rivalry over who's faster should speak volumes about that Superman's character and being a good sport. Super-hero comics didn't begin with COIE.

Sure he has a personality outside of superheroics but Superman was a reporter to supplement his Superman thing. Heroism was a central aspect of his adult life.

That was Superman being Superman, not Clark Kent. Super-heroes don't stop having personalities when they're not punching villains, they're complex people - it's partially why people like them.

Then why is everyone concerned with who the fastest Flash is. Why have there been several attempts to prove that Supergirl is more powerful than her cousin. The rise of Batgod being able to beat anyone.

Who is everyone? There are millions of Flash fans, casuals and in the fandom. Sure some fans may be into that but fandom rivalries aren't solely defined by that. Not proven, shown. This is bad why? A woman super-hero can't be more powerful than a male super-hero from the same species? It's not like Superman's power levels aren't in constant flux. Batgod is controversial for that reason, so why do you want Superman to have that spot?

Yes and now they're living in a world where the villains take over every Sunday and humanity still does all the evil things they've been doing for years. Hell Nazism is seeing a resurgence in reality perfect subject matter for Supes. Modern Superman's approach doesn't work, instead of bashing your head against a rock reconsider your approach like an intelligent person which Superman is suppose to be.

Fighting Nazis and fascism requires inspiring people and giving them hope that all is not lost. This is why we had propaganda in the world wars so people wouldn't give up. You haven't shown why modern Superman, but what you mean is Superman from the Silver Age and upward, fails doing this. He just is somehow.

[phantom1592]

I hate fascistic Superman idea so much.
Why can't we accept the idea that there are ultimately altruistic and compassionate person despite of his absolute power, even in fiction?
Watchmen and DKR were in fact nothing but cancer against Superhero genre.

I'm torn on the idea.

I've seen people complain about the Kents getting credit for 'raising' him to be a superhero... but i'm usually the other way around. I can't stand people being 'genetically good' who will turn out perfect no matter what kind of upbringing they had.

I LIKE seeing what a Kal-el raised by communists turns out to be... and what a Kal-el raised by the Waynes til they were gunned down turns out... I absolutley hated seeing the Kal-el raised by Darksied turn out to once again fall for Lois and become Superman defender of earth... Ughh... A superman raised by Darksied just sounded terrifying. But that was a disappointing third act.

Fascistic Superman is a tricky balancing act to do well... It's really a 'With great power comes great responsibility' situation... only Superman has ALL the power and the ability to stop all crime ANYWHERE... than does he have the responsibility to do that? Done well that can be fasincating... however it's been a long time since it was actually done well.

[manwhohaseverything]

I'm torn on the idea.

I've seen people complain about the Kents getting credit for 'raising' him to be a superhero... but i'm usually the other way around. I can't stand people being 'genetically good' who will turn out perfect no matter what kind of upbringing they had.

I LIKE seeing what a Kal-el raised by communists turns out to be... and what a Kal-el raised by the Waynes til they were gunned down turns out... I absolutley hated seeing the Kal-el raised by Darksied turn out to once again fall for Lois and become Superman defender of earth... Ughh... A superman raised by Darksied just sounded terrifying. But that was a disappointing third act.

Fascistic Superman is a tricky balancing act to do well... It's really a 'With great power comes great responsibility' situation... only Superman has ALL the power and the ability to stop all crime ANYWHERE... than does he have the responsibility to do that? Done well that can be fasincating... however it's been a long time since it was actually done well.

You are basically saying a guy coming from an abusive or toxic upbringing cannot be good or turn out allright.The lotus symbolism,
"The lotus is the most beautiful flower, whose petals open one by one. But it will only grow in the mud. In order to grow and gain wisdom, first you must have the mud --- the obstacles of life and its suffering. ... The mud speaks of the common ground that humans share, no matter what our stations in life. ... Whether we have it all or we have nothing, we are all faced with the same obstacles: sadness, loss, illness, dying and death. If we are to strive as human beings to gain more wisdom, more kindness and more compassion, we must have the intention to grow as a lotus and open each petal one by one"
This is true hope.Not nihilistic crap or the meaningless monologues about abstract concepts like hope, they have been serving as superman elsewords and mainbooks.Some people doesn't have it in them.They find their way(dao).Lotus blooms in mud.And regardless of what,lotus will only become a lotus.People all have a spark of altruism.Otherwise,society would have collapsed long back.Lao tzu is awesome.True hope.

Shifu : I can control where to plant the seed! That is no illusion, Master!

Oogway : Ah, yes. But no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.

Shifu : But a peach cannot defeat Tai Lung!

Oogway : [folding dirt over the peach pit] Maybe it *can*, if you are willing to guide it, to nurture it. To believe in it.

He is superman.Kents just allowed his instincts to be nurtured so that he can defeat Lex.

See i told people,hats are badass.Why the hell is clark not wearing it more often?

[catman]

I'm torn on the idea.

I've seen people complain about the Kents getting credit for 'raising' him to be a superhero... but i'm usually the other way around. I can't stand people being 'genetically good' who will turn out perfect no matter what kind of upbringing they had.

I LIKE seeing what a Kal-el raised by communists turns out to be... and what a Kal-el raised by the Waynes til they were gunned down turns out... I absolutley hated seeing the Kal-el raised by Darksied turn out to once again fall for Lois and become Superman defender of earth... Ughh... A superman raised by Darksied just sounded terrifying. But that was a disappointing third act.

Fascistic Superman is a tricky balancing act to do well... It's really a 'With great power comes great responsibility' situation... only Superman has ALL the power and the ability to stop all crime ANYWHERE... than does he have the responsibility to do that? Done well that can be fasincating... however it's been a long time since it was actually done well.

In fact, I don't see any problem about fascistic or totalitarian Superman like Red son Superman or Overman because writers understand what is nature of Superman/ Kal-el.It is good deconstruction because writers know and understand what is Superman.Good deconstruction come from good analyzing and understanding.
But, I hate stories and people who can't understand differences between deconstruction and insulting/prejudice.
Nowadays,there are full of garbage which pretend to be deconstruction of Superheroes and Superman.

[PCN24454]

Sorry.
But,Isn't hating and denying Watchmen and DKR unpopular opinion?

It is, but hating "evil Superman" is not. So long as it's Superman himself that you're complaining about being evil.

[Stanlos]

I hate fascistic Superman idea so much.
Why can't we accept the idea that there are ultimately altruistic and compassionate person despite of his absolute power, even in fiction?
Watchmen and DKR were in fact nothing but cancer against Superhero genre.

I think it is a scary reflection of what humanity is becoming. Look at the mess in the states. People are very "I Want" focused and will shun ethics and goodness just to have their way.