Controversial Superman Opinions

[Steel Inquisitor]

This is entirely wrong.This first one was entirely a different character.But,superman as he was pitched to national comics went through changes in tone, certain characteristics due to outside forces and to appeal to a mass audiences.But,the dude was a hero.He didn't get a character-overhaul.He was,is and always will be a circus strongman protecting the weak.Dude!there is nothing more comedic than a action hero who doesn't do action.A guy making out superman to be more than what he deserves to be.Yes,He is reaction to the great depression.Yes,He is working class dude.But, don't oversell the dudes importance.There was comedy in kung fu panda.But,it being comedic?no,i don't think so.Yes,it was a snipe at condescending attitude,not at superman persay.Superman is allegorical character for kids.He is essentially po.Just because he is superman the working class hero of the great depression.He threw wifebeaters into wall or make hitler/stalin wet his pant(so to speak).Doesn't mean his story would ever be more than an imaginary tale.Also,clark kent persona is comedic.Satire wasn't beneath superman,neither action nor stories made for children.If these things are treated as beneath superman.You get a big round zero.That's not something anyone would want to read.
As said, those who turn out bad is very less compared to those that turn out alright.Even if it wasn't,that makes the rare ones that do that much worth being appreaciated.btw,the whole black(yin) and white(yang) contrast between batman and superman is bullshit.As if,these guys know a thing about lao tzu ,taoism and it's philosophy.Their nuanceless portayals mean nothing.

There's more to Superman than what Siegel & Shuster did, and even their depiction has been cut to pieces by your arguments - like getting rid of the Kents and Lois Lane. Yeah, he was a hero and he remains one after they left. Of course he did, Golden Age Superman evolved into Silver Age Superman. Silver Age Superman had a much larger impact on the character than the Golden Age did, despite being the same individual. That's true, except his origins didn't put him in stasis, he evolved from them into what he is today and he'll evolve again. That's a falsehood, if he did that you'd have more then a narrative you'd have decades of evidence to prove your point but you don't. Its also ridiculous since that complaint ignores how drama and romance has been with Superman since the Golden Age. Just beacsued he came from that background didn't stop him from changing it later on, as if Superman moving up in the world at the Daily Planet is a bad thing. That he shouldn't try to go for Pulitzer's or raise his profile as a reporter to a higher tax bracket. Kung Fu Panda is more in the vein of comedies like Drunken Boxer, that's why it's so silly to use it as a source for actual Asian philosophy. It's like quoting Asterix in a discussion about that time period. But it was a shot at Superman. How is Superman Po? Superman is like Doctor Who, he's for all ages. Golden Age Superman only did those things, the comics moved away from serious storylines like domestic abuse which would be much darker in tone for his books and what he did to Stalin and Hitler was retconned by the Silver Age otherwise when WWII was going on it would be over in the DC Comics and it'd be incredibly tone deaf for DC to keep that status quo during that period. That was why Hitler getting the Spear of Longinus was invented, to keep the super-heroes out of the war. What does his comics being imaginary have anything to do with anything? His Kent person can be comedic but it normally is played straight in all media. They may poke fun at it occasionally, but most of the time they keep it straight in tone to maintain his secret identity. I didn't say it was, the complaint was that the Clark Kent persona was only comic relief when that's not the whole truth. Straw man, never said satire or comedy was beneath Superman, that was aimed at using Kung FU Panda for philosophy. Except DC Comics has made millions over decades with that status quo.

As said, those who turn out bad is very less compared to those that turn out alright.Even if it wasn't,that makes the rare ones that do that much worth being appreaciated.btw,the whole black(yin) and white(yang) contrast between batman and superman is bullshit.As if,these guys know a thing about lao tzu ,taoism and it's philosophy.Their nuanceless portayals mean nothing.

The first sentence is unreadable, can you explain the intent in more detail? Except even if I did agree with you (I don't) it has nothing to do with Batman and Superman, since they're not from abusive childhoods. You may not like their relationship but that's what DC has done with them for a long time and fans love it across media. Contrasting protagonists like that limited to those philosophy movements, it's a very old storytelling trick, and this insults the numerous writers as if none of them have heard of those people or their philosophies in the west. Many, many comic creators go to university and read philosophy books, they're not uneducated rabble. They may mean nothing to you, but they do have stories with nuance. How about reading more of those stories?

[The Frog Bros]

Fair point about the context of the Reign scene. And I’m honestly starting to agree with you, much as I love Birthright. I think making the S the house El crest is fine, but saying it’s a Kryptonian symbol of hope was taking things too far.

How about the rest of you? Should the S be the House El crest, a Kryptonian symbol of hope, or just a design Clark makes for himself or Martha makes for him? I like the idea of Clark honoring his Kryptonian heritage in some way through his costume, same way he honors his Earth parents by fighting for their ideals.

Yeah the "hope" crest thing has gotta go. It should be either home-made or represent the El family crest. Each of these two options has its own merit. The home-made costume is classic and simplicity at its best. The family crest is a cool way to update the story a little while adding some extra Kryptonian backstory without going overboard on symbolism. In fairness to Waid (most people would agree that Birthright is awesome), the hope thing does kinda work in the context of his story. It gets bastardized in the film adaptations big time though (insert Snyder bash here). But as much as I like Birthright, the hope thing is one of the weaker aspects of the story for sure.

[Vordan]

This springs out of a thread I saw on Twitter today that was highly critical of Tomasi's 2 issue arc where the Kents bring Jon to Washington D.C., but my controversial opinion is that Superman would unquestionably be a pro-U.S. Military guy. Probably a Never-Trump Republican given his upbringing. I mean, I don't totally love that about him, but I just don't see how you could think otherwise.

People don't like that being Ronald Reagan's gopher in The Dark Knight Returns has hung this thing around Superman's neck that he would always bow to the government, especially a Republican led government, but honestly...them the breaks? Like, if the most influential and highly acclaimed story you ever appear in has you acting as Reagan's gopher...well then that's how you'll be seen by a lot of people. Superman fans may not like it, but to paraphrase Dark Knight Returns 'It's too big' a story to not influence how people perceive the character.

If DC wanted to change that perception, they should have more stories where he opposes the US Government's policy's. I can't help but notice that the most political story Superman appeared in during the last four years had him specifically defending Trump from a bunch of refuge super powered beings, and tapping it all off my punching a brown kid in a fight in defending the White House (Doomsday Clock).

He absolutely would be if he was “just” a farmboy from Kansas. But he’s not. He’s also a reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper that goes after billionaires like Lex Luthor (who has a picture of him shaking Trump’s hand on his desk during Percy’s Rebirth run). He’s the Last Son of a planet that died because it refused to listen to its head scientist’s warnings about the environment catastrophe that was coming, and Superman himself has frequently been showing to express pro-environment sentiments. He quite pointedly does not believe he has the right to go into foreign countries and topple their governments which is very much not something the Republican Party holds to be true (although the Dems are not at all better in this regard tbh).

Clark is usually portrayed as having spent a while roaming the globe similar to Bruce, and during that time he developed and changed and grew beyond his childhood roots. Joe Kelly had him helping refugees cross the border into America:


And this is the Byrne guy more or less.

Dispenser also wrote a post a while back exploring Superman’s political beliefs: http://davidmann95.tumblr.com/post/1...mans-political and for the most part concluded that Superman was center-left. I’d say mainline Superman is an Obama Democrat moreso than a Never Trump Republican.

If you want to see him fighting the government or even the military, Johns of all people did that:


I may need to reevaluate Johns SO in light of all this lol.

But to address the elephant in the room of the DKR: It’s the biggest Batman story he’s been in, and even there he’s not shown to be happy about the situation. And in the end he chooses to let Batman go, so he’s not a complete slave to the government.
Sure that’s helped define him to an extent, but it’s not the end all be anymore, especially not now. I mean Injustice is also a big story and that has him as an idiot who gets punked and then becomes a totalitarian who forms the Fourth Reich. Should we just write Superman as a fascist in disguise now? I doubt many people here would agree.

People thought Aquaman was lame, but when the movie came out people still went to see it, and now people don’t tell jokes anymore about Aquaman. It’s pretty easy to change public perception of Superman, you just have to do something that actively goes against what people expect and still make it good.

TL;DR Just because the public perception of Superman is wrong doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and make the character fit the perception.

[Agent Z]

Robert Redford is the president in the Watchmen reality. The bulk of the story takes place in the DC Comics Superman reality and it is made clear throughout the book that the President in Doomsday Clock is Trump
Note the way the president says "Huge" in issue 9 and also tweets ""the US cannot support superman any longer! I’ve done more for the world anyway and will continue to!” Which is not even subtle in its Trumpiness outside of being more coherent than he usually manages in his tweets

And again, who is this refugee Superman beat up in defense of not-Trump?

[llozymandias]

There's more to Superman than what Siegel & Shuster did, and even their depiction has been cut to pieces by your arguments - like getting rid of the Kents and Lois Lane. Yeah, he was a hero and he remains one after they left. Of course he did, Golden Age Superman evolved into Silver Age Superman. Silver Age Superman had a much larger impact on the character than the Golden Age did, despite being the same individual. That's true, except his origins didn't put him in stasis, he evolved from them into what he is today and he'll evolve again. That's a falsehood, if he did that you'd have more then a narrative you'd have decades of evidence to prove your point but you don't. Its also ridiculous since that complaint ignores how drama and romance has been with Superman since the Golden Age. Just beacsued he came from that background didn't stop him from changing it later on, as if Superman moving up in the world at the Daily Planet is a bad thing. That he shouldn't try to go for Pulitzer's or raise his profile as a reporter to a higher tax bracket. Kung Fu Panda is more in the vein of comedies like Drunken Boxer, that's why it's so silly to use it as a source for actual Asian philosophy. It's like quoting Asterix in a discussion about that time period. But it was a shot at Superman. How is Superman Po? Superman is like Doctor Who, he's for all ages. Golden Age Superman only did those things, the comics moved away from serious storylines like domestic abuse which would be much darker in tone for his books and what he did to Stalin and Hitler was retconned by the Silver Age otherwise when WWII was going on it would be over in the DC Comics and it'd be incredibly tone deaf for DC to keep that status quo during that period. That was why Hitler getting the Spear of Longinus was invented, to keep the super-heroes out of the war. What does his comics being imaginary have anything to do with anything? His Kent person can be comedic but it normally is played straight in all media. They may poke fun at it occasionally, but most of the time they keep it straight in tone to maintain his secret identity. I didn't say it was, the complaint was that the Clark Kent persona was only comic relief when that's not the whole truth. Straw man, never said satire or comedy was beneath Superman, that was aimed at using Kung FU Panda for philosophy. Except DC Comics has made millions over decades with that status quo.



The first sentence is unreadable, can you explain the intent in more detail? Except even if I did agree with you (I don't) it has nothing to do with Batman and Superman, since they're not from abusive childhoods. You may not like their relationship but that's what DC has done with them for a long time and fans love it across media. Contrasting protagonists like that limited to those philosophy movements, it's a very old storytelling trick, and this insults the numerous writers as if none of them have heard of those people or their philosophies in the west. Many, many comic creators go to university and read philosophy books, they're not uneducated rabble. They may mean nothing to you, but they do have stories with nuance. How about reading more of those stories?

Jerry Siegel had more influence on Superman & his mythos than you give him credit for. He was one of the main writers of the silver age version. The story where Superman captured hitler & stalin was never part of any comics continuity. Thus it was never retconned out. It was never in.

[Prime]

Can DC stop trying to seek us the word "Hope"? When they do such a piss poor job showing that Superman is a symbol of him. Please stop using that word

[Robanker]

Ending Battle hit as close to an answer of "what would Superman do if someone murdered Lois" as I've ever seen in any medium. He wouldn't sully her memory by going heel. He certainly wouldn't give Manchester Black the satisfaction of getting what he wants.

And they didn't actually have to kill Lois to do it. My god, it's almost as if she's a pillar of strength for him instead of a liability.

Can DC stop trying to seek us the word "Hope"? When they do such a piss poor job showing that Superman is a symbol of him. Please stop using that word

They need a "hope jar" at DC that a dollar gets put in every time, either on page or during internal discussions, "hope" gets used. We'd be able to finance a third book inside a week.

How the **** does Spider-Man Reign have a better definition of what “hope” means than anything I’ve seen in a Superman comic?




Saw this on Twitter and now I’m pissed because this is exactly how I saw Hope™ as embodied by Superman, yet it’s articulated better in an infamous Spidey comic than I’ve ever seen it in Superman proper.


And you just know that weak ass retort caused Dini and Timm physical pain to put in, even though it’s the most mild and weak “own” ever. And that episode still ends with Batman calling Supes an idiot and having to save his ass from dying with Darkseid.

I mean when your radioactive seed kills your wife, hope's about all you've got left.

[manwhohaseverything]

There's more to Superman than what Siegel & Shuster did, and even their depiction has been cut to pieces by your arguments - like getting rid of the Kents and Lois Lane.

Kents weren't that much of an important.Even when they were added into story a later on.If i do add them, they would be clark's past and just that.Heck!i love the motoist origin more than kents origin.I never said anything about removing Lois.She would just go back to being the badass action heroine and cynical city girl exposing the corrupt she was.Not this,this female clark.Sorry,i don't have time for lengthy respone.Actually watch kung fu panda.A panda gets adopted by a goose.He lives thinking of himself different,not fitting in.His goose father wants him to take care of the restaurant,be just about that.But,po wants to be a kung fu fighter(superman),while he loves being a chef.His instincts and his being gives him great calling that ascends him to the positon of the dragon warrior by accepting himself as he is (an alien living amongst people).He learns that others of his kind are around and that he is panda.It is exactly a superman story to a t.As if comedy is not supposed to have serious themes or philosophies.what are you on about?

Unreadable?The guy/gals who don't turn out well that are from an abusive or toxic environment are less compared to those that do.Therefore ,It is perfectly feasible for superman to come out the other end alright.Lex is just an ancedote.That doesn't mean a damn thing.are seriously advocating for people to look at abuse victims with prejudice and not include them in stories?What are you talking about?Bruce wayne is entirely in a toxic environment right from the death of his parent.I don't care if these guys went to collage.Their usage of yin and yang symbolism with superman and batman is poultry.Yin and yang come from each other.Onebirths the other.Just like hanuman isn't scrawny monkey with a sword nor is rama a guy who would ever fall in love with wonder woman.Rama is one woman man and he is entirely human.These guys portay everything from asia badly.their collage degree doesn't make them well informed.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Kents weren't that much of an important.Even when they were added into story a later on.If i do add them, they would be clark's past and just that.Heck!i love the motocyclist origin more than kents origin.I never said anything about removing Lois.She would just go back to being the badass action heroine and cynical city girl exposing the corrupt she was.Not this,this female clark.Sorry,i don't have time for lengthy respone.Actually watch kung fu panda.A panda gets adopted by a goose.He lives thinking of himself different,not fitting in.His goose father wants him to take care of the restaurant,be just about that.But,po wants to be a kung fu fighter(superman),while he loves being a chef.His instincts and his being gives him great calling that ascends him to the positon of the dragon warrior by accepting himself as he is (an alien living amongst people).He learns that others of his kind are around and that he is panda.It is exactly a superman story to a t.As if comedy is not supposed to have serious themes or philosophies.what are you on about?

Unreadable?The guy/gals who don't turn out well that are from an abusive or toxic environment are less compared to those that do.Therefore ,It is perfectly feasible for superman to come out the other end alright.Lex is just an ancedote.That doesn't mean a damn thing.are seriously advocating for people to look at abuse victims with prejudice and not include them in stories?What are you talking about?Bruce wayne is entirely in a toxic environment right from the death of his parent.I don't care if these guys went to collage.Their usage of yin and yang symbolism with superman and batman is poultry.Yin and yang come from each other.Onebirths the other.Just like hanuman isn't scrawny monkey with a sword nor is rama a guy who would ever fall in love with wonder woman.Rama is one woman man and he is entirely human.These guys portay everything from asia badly.their collage degree doesn't make them well informed.

The Kents raised him as a boy on Earth, they are the influence of him before he becomes an adult and learns about Krypton. So what if they are added later on? Superman isn't defined solely by what state he was in when he first appeared in comics, his mythology and the character grew. Shuster's influence went on into the Silver Age. I remember a discussion with us about how you wouldn't be upset if she wasn't there, like with the Kents. She never stopped doing that, she just didn't carry a gun everywhere. Female Clark, what? They've been colleagues and partners for years, they're equals as reporters, and he started out below her in the field. I watched Kung Fu Panda. So? The story being a parody of Superman didn't stop it being a silly reference, especially when it was bought up about Po's philosophical teachings - which are based on real philosophies, not made up for a comedy about talking animals. He also wins against the villain by weaponising his fat body like a comedy. What was seen as his physical weakness became his strength.

And, once again, Superman isn't from a topic environment. The Kents aren't the Dursley's. Lex is someone from a toxic environment and that broke him, he wasn't a success story as nice person - he became worse than his abusive parents. No, I'm not - I'm saying not only are your examples wrong you completely ignoring that not everyone comes out a nice person. It's fine to have people from abusive background over coming them your suggestion is that absolutely no-one from that background comes out bad. Why do you think Bruce comes from a toxic environment? Do you know his origin? Alfred, the family butler, raises him and becomes his surrogate father - he teaches him how to be a good man before he goes off to learn how to Batman. He's an orphan when his parents die, but he doesn't go into an orphanage where he's abused he stays with Alfred. What do you think a toxic environment is? Comparisons with other characters aren't distinctions linked to the ying and yang philosophy concept, and it's not about them being two parts of one whole in the west. It's a very popular concept that antagonists and even allies have opposite have conflicting philosophies, and characters like Batman and Superman weren't meant to be like that from the beginning that's just how they were originally created and writers went on to explore their conflicts because they don't have the same philosophies as crime fighters. It's a reoccurring tool in fiction for antagonists to be dark reflections of the hero, Superman does this with Zod and Lex. That's creative licence, it's not like manga creators don't do the same with their worlds. College degrees are helpful in gaining knowledge, it shouldn't be shunned. People are far more complicated than you think. Superman himself went to college. Superman and Batman are intellectuals.

Thanks, llozy. I didn't know that.

[phantom1592]

Why do you think Bruce comes from a toxic environment? Do you know his origin? Alfred, the family butler, raises him and becomes his surrogate father - he teaches him how to be a good man before he goes off to learn how to Batman. He's an orphan when his parents die, but he doesn't go into an orphanage where he's abused he stays with Alfred. What do you think a toxic environment is?.

One thing I hate about the 'alfred raised him' retcon... is that Alfred did a TERRIBLE job. He may have been 'some' kind of a parental figure... but he didn't teach nuthin. It always comes back to his doctor/philantrophist father as the real influence... Alfred never lets 'master' bruce forget that he's the one in authority... Until he decides to wander the earth and join up with ninjas and assassins... He a 30-40 year old man who still has someone prepare his meals and clean his house for him... And at the end of the day more often than not he's a distrustful arrogant jerk. Always attributed to his parents dying and being left alone...

It's really hard to argue that wasn't a toxic enviroment. Granted Alfred never signed up to be a parent it's not his fault he sucked at it... but at least he got better by the time of the Robins.

[Myskin]

It's not that I really want to take part to the discussion - I was just lurking - but may I say that this entire argument about the "toxic environment" doesn't really make sense?

I mean, we know that Alfred is a good father figure because the writers say he is so and because they purposefully neglect every single possible aspect of his education which could be detrimental to his characterization. It's forced, but that's more or less how stuff works in superhero comic books. In real life, Bruce would have died before his 16th birthday I guess.
It's always a bit risky when people start to compare educational models in comic books, because the writers always stack the decks to accommodate what they want to achieve with the story. I mean, the only reason we know the Kents are good parents is that because they repeated it ad nauseam. It's not that we have a really good idea of how their education worked, and we don't know whether it would have worked in real life. All of the Kents' teachings are relatively simplistic.

[DochaDocha]

He absolutely would be if he was “just” a farmboy from Kansas. But he’s not. He’s also a reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper that goes after billionaires like Lex Luthor (who has a picture of him shaking Trump’s hand on his desk during Percy’s Rebirth run). He’s the Last Son of a planet that died because it refused to listen to its head scientist’s warnings about the environment catastrophe that was coming, and Superman himself has frequently been showing to express pro-environment sentiments. He quite pointedly does not believe he has the right to go into foreign countries and topple their governments which is very much not something the Republican Party holds to be true (although the Dems are not at all better in this regard tbh).

Clark is usually portrayed as having spent a while roaming the globe similar to Bruce, and during that time he developed and changed and grew beyond his childhood roots. Joe Kelly had him helping refugees cross the border into America:


And this is the Byrne guy more or less.

Dispenser also wrote a post a while back exploring Superman’s political beliefs: http://davidmann95.tumblr.com/post/1...mans-political and for the most part concluded that Superman was center-left. I’d say mainline Superman is an Obama Democrat moreso than a Never Trump Republican.

I'd probably agree with Obama Democrat.

Superman leans left, but throughout my lifetime, I feel like DC puts caveats on exactly how far he leans left. I mean, looking at that Joe Kelly scan, it touches on the topic that getting people across the US/Mexico border illegally is still just, but there's a hedge in that statement. They aren't Mexican or Central American economic migrants, they're Cuban nationals fleeing from Castro. It feels like Kelly is taking a leftish stance, but one that more conservative readers could sympathize with. It's almost like it's saying it's okay to get these people into this country because Castro is the worst. Likewise, even if Morrison's take on Superman is a socialist, the most die-hard capitalist reading the comic probably isn't going to be offended because he could always rationalize that Superman is fighting against bad actors in the system and not necessarily the system itself. Superman comics largely avoid statements of how the government should do this or that, and focus on what Superman will do, and I think that's a palpable distinction.

I'm not really opposed to this left-centrist take on Superman, though. At the very least, it avoids over-simplified political arguments that beg the question and frame the argument the opposing side is wrong because of course they are.

[Myskin]

I'd probably agree with Obama Democrat.

Superman leans left, but throughout my lifetime, I feel like DC puts caveats on exactly how far he leans left. I mean, looking at that Joe Kelly scan, it touches on the topic that getting people across the US/Mexico border illegally is still just, but there's a hedge in that statement. They aren't Mexican or Central American economic migrants, they're Cuban nationals fleeing from Castro. It feels like Kelly is taking a leftish stance, but one that more conservative readers could sympathize with. It's almost like it's saying it's okay to get these people into this country because Castro is the worst. Likewise, even if Morrison's take on Superman is a socialist, the most die-hard capitalist reading the comic probably isn't going to be offended because he could always rationalize that Superman is fighting against bad actors in the system and not necessarily the system itself. Superman comics largely avoid statements of how the government should do this or that, and focus on what Superman will do, and I think that's a palpable distinction.

This.
You are absolutely, completely right.
By the way, in the same story there is an incredibly stereotypical depiction of a French criminal which has ALWAYS bugged me. When the story came out there were several controversies between US and France concerning Afghanistan, and I always thought of it of a perfect example of DC sitting on the fence with Superman.

[manwhohaseverything]

I don't think things were ever that dire for bruce(unless he was taken out by a ninja or fel on his head doing hand stand).But in general alfred is unable to take the dude away from that environment and trauma,until he is strong enough to move past it.Eh!kents were dead for many years.They weren't much focus.The only real advice for clark was "hide your strength.people are gonna be afraid of you" and"wait, don't do that.wait for right time to use your strength to help humanity ".That's their big contribution.I have got zero evidence that kents or the els for that matter are this important figures in clarks or kal's life so much so that superman becomes a mere tool for acting out their morality than forging his own.When they are alive,they are shitty parents.Oh!yeah! a guy wants to be a vigilante and these guys are like "you go son,make us proud".anyways People forget,this is superman's story.Not jor el's or jonathans. See,i find it wierd that people care less if els give superman lessons.They want clark to recieve morals from kents.I genuinely hate superman being stuck with his parents both sets of them.Eeesh!it's like the guy can't grow up.I mean,what is with people wanting protagonists to be like that. I mean,don't people value indiviuality and independence as qualities in protagonists.
Well as for clark's leanings.I think it's better to use allegories and things like that.Superman being center left is wishful thinking.He is monkey d luffy from american comics.That's all i have to say and that's my perspective.

[DochaDocha]

The Justice League episode Twilight annoyed me because Superman was right the entire time and no one listened to him.

Batman was the biggest hypocrite in this particular instance, but it felt like the entire episode was trying to make it out like Batman was right and the voice of reason at the end.

Still bugs me years later

I appreciate the concerns about this episode that were brought up in this thread, which I'll get to in a bit. I still rate this episode highly because it brought back some fun to Superman where the DCAU at that point had Superman left for dead.

It was made as a direct response to the hyper-valid fan complaints that they made Superman boring and weak. To that point, the formula for Superman in the cartoon was the bad guy punches Superman off screen, and some other JL member would save the day. It was as though the one directive for this episode was that that wasn't going to happen. As a result, it was the first time in years in which I actually had fun watching Superman on TV.

Now there are issues, to be certain. The funniest one to me is that even though Superman said Batman isn't always right, and Bruce Timm implied in a follow-up to the episode that Superman got to one up Batman, in the end Batman WAS right. Darkseid died, making Superman wrong in the DCAU and Batman right yet again. Still, I don't hold it against this episode. The part where Batman's word ended up overriding Timm's word (this is funny on a meta level, just trust me) was determined years later.

And the part where Batman told Superman to "Cry [him] a river"? Yeah, that was just put in there so we could have a moment where Superman and Batman had a face-to-face standoff in the Watchtower. That's great if you like tension between those two guys, but even as an apologist for this episode I can't defend it.

Oh yeah, and Darkseid's Omega Beam flat out misses Superman in their fight, making Darkseid's speech in the finale about how only Batman has dodged them a lie (but Darkseid does lie, so maybe he said it out of insecurity after missing, but I don't think so...).

But overall, despite whatever flaws, I still really like that episode. The DCAU guys were challenged to create stories where Superman can still kick butt and the stories could still have depth, and the delivered. To those who disagree, I acknowledge it's possible I liked it only because Superman in the first season was so bad.