Controversial Superman Opinions

[Frostbite883]

I'll hope for the best with the upcoming Superman movie by Coates and Abrams rather than dwell on thinking the worse about it. Especially since it's film that haven't came out yet.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Actually NEW52 Superman was the PERFECT Version for an older Conner.

There was a fan-theory that NEW52 Superman could be Conner tricked into believing being Clark.

NEW52 Superman had changes, which were bad for Clark, but perfectly fit Conner:

1 Being together with Wonder Woman than Lois
Clark needs the connection to humanity trough Lois and the relationship is iconic, BUT Conners relationship with Cassie instead worked better

2 The T-Shirt and Jeans Look is also something which fits more Conner than Clark, TOGETHER with also his attitude

I like that Jonathan gets Superman, gets part of the JL, gets involved into politics etc.
WHILE Conner takes over the NEW52 Supermans role.

I like this outfit
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/artic...e/1100-152042/
(on the picture with the bike), he just needs a Leatherjacket to complete the outfit.

So Conner with Jeans and Shirt Look with NEW52 Superman Powers and Power-Levels, together with Lex Intellect as kind of peoples champ-the rougher, cooler, down to Earth Superman who also has no problems to fight against members of the JL if it needs to be.
[I mean logically the NORMAL NEW52 Superman Power-Levels, before he was depowered]

I see Cassie here as kind of Pre-Flashpoint Artemis of Bana-Mighdall (Look and Power-Levels here).

The two as couple being a modern, younger, cooler Version of Diana and Clark as champion of the people. As kind of All-American Couple (handsome, powerful....)...

I would've preferred Dick's Gen being the focus of the New 52 instead of deaging Clark and the League. But Jeans and Tshirt Clark was a political character. So Conner would probably be the same.

[phonogram12]

The Clone Saga was the answer to a problem that didn't exist. I'm betting that everyone will be so happy to have the real Jon back that they will accept it.

Honestly, I'm fine either way. I just don't think having too many parallels to a much derided story is going to improve anything.

[Stanlos]

Who cares what happens to Jon. Clark's book has no Jon, no Lois, no Kents and it's great. For the first time in a long time it's honestly great. The issue with Superman always has been and always will be on Clark Kent. I suspect in time Jon will actually go down a similar path the Kent's appear to be going down now with people realizing that more than anything they're just accoutrements they're slapping onto a character that they think is boring rather than interesting characters in their own right.


Also part of the reason that Diana is in so much better health as a character than Clark is because Perez's retool in the 80's was built directly on the idea's Marston laid down all those years ago and in general there is a certain degree of reverence for the Marston founding material. Same with Batman. Byrne's on the other hand was the original "I'm the only person smart enough to fix Superman" guy.

On Byrne you should note that he was given certain marching orders from above. The broad strokes were not necessarily his but the details were.

[Stanlos]

Spider-Man didn't suddenly stop being popular because of the MCU. Neither did the X-Men even with the crappy reception to their recent movies aside from Logan and the Deadpool films.

Even if WB cares about representation, they are not going to get rid of Superman.

Have there ever been visits to worlds in the multiverse where there was never a Superman or other Trinity?

[Stanlos]

My controversial Superman opinion today is leave this current and go back to pre-Flashpoint New Krypton and carry out the team's expansive plan rebuilding DCs space landscape

[Vordan]

Have there ever been visits to worlds in the multiverse where there was never a Superman or other Trinity?

Sure, they’ve been to the Marvel expy Earths lol

[Agent Z]

Who cares what happens to Jon.

People other than you it would seem.

[Vordan]

Who cares what happens to Jon. Clark's book has no Jon, no Lois, no Kents and it's great. For the first time in a long time it's honestly great. The issue with Superman always has been and always will be on Clark Kent. I suspect in time Jon will actually go down a similar path the Kent's appear to be going down now with people realizing that more than anything they're just accoutrements they're slapping onto a character that they think is boring rather than interesting characters in their own right.


Also part of the reason that Diana is in so much better health as a character than Clark is because Perez's retool in the 80's was built directly on the idea's Marston laid down all those years ago and in general there is a certain degree of reverence for the Marston founding material. Same with Batman. Byrne's on the other hand was the original "I'm the only person smart enough to fix Superman" guy.

I’m pretty happy Clark has managed to shake free of Jon for a while, even if he is inevitably going to reunite with Jon again later on given what PKJ has said. My controversial opinion is that the people who just want Clark to be Jon’s wholesome Superdaddy are advocating for a direction as bad for the character as their opposites who want Injustice to be what he’s like everywhere. Give me cosmic space champion Superman fighting on Warworld over Farmer Clark doing mundane crap any day.

Esp. if they were going that route..they would've gave the Superman rights to the Siegel family years ago! Once again, manwhohaseverything and Vordan are worrying over nothing as usual.

I think you’re misunderstanding my post. There will always be a Superman, but that doesn’t mean it will be Clark Kent or at least Clark as we traditionally have had him depending on how things shake out. I’m perfectly fine with Jon, Conner, Kenan, and John Henry Irons as his successors even if Clark is always going to be my #1 guy. But WB clearly views Superman as a problem that needs to be fixed rather than a rich character who has been botched by incompetence.

[TheKryptonMan]

My controversial Superman opinion today is leave this current and go back to pre-Flashpoint New Krypton and carry out the team's expansive plan rebuilding DCs space landscape

At the time I was actually enjoying the pre-Flashpoint New Krypton . But I now think that what PKJ is doing in Action is actually better. Only wish is that the story was being told in 2 books. I started reading Superman when there were 4 books a month , and now sadly he's only in 1 book.
As far as Jon , he should be younger and be Superboy not Superman , he's supposed to be what 12 ? I think that's what Clark said in one issue of Action . Even if he's 15 , still Superboy with teen-age problems.

[Agent Z]

I think you’re misunderstanding my post. There will always be a Superman, but that doesn’t mean it will be Clark Kent or at least Clark as we traditionally have had him depending on how things shake out.

But haven't you preferred Clark going against tradition before? You're a fan of Morrison's Superman and that certainly wasn't a traditional take on Superman (or at least, it hadn't been in decades).

[Vordan]

But haven't you preferred Clark going against tradition before? You're a fan of Morrison's Superman and that certainly wasn't a traditional take on Superman (or at least, it hadn't been in decades).

Sure. I’m even a fan of our current status quo which is as different from traditional Superman as you can get. I like S&L which features Clark back in Smallville rather than in Metropolis, I’m excited for MAWS which looks to be the “zoomerfication” of Superman, and I love Kenan Kong the most of all the potential successors to Clark - and Kenan is the one who is the least like Clark in every way.

But I did want to see a big successful adaption of traditional Superman, with his secret identity intact, to see him do journalism for the Daily Planet and fight Brainiac. I wanted a Superman movie in the vein of Aquaman before WB started throwing **** at the wall to see what succeeded, and you’ll forgive me if I don’t have much faith in the taste of the suits given how much WB has failed him.

[The Frog Bros]

Sure. I’m even a fan of our current status quo which is as different from traditional Superman as you can get. I like S&L which features Clark back in Smallville rather than in Metropolis, I’m excited for MAWS which looks to be the “zoomerfication” of Superman, and I love Kenan Kong the most of all the potential successors to Clark - and Kenan is the one who is the least like Clark in every way.

But I did want to see a big successful adaption of traditional Superman, with his secret identity intact, to see him do journalism for the Daily Planet and fight Brainiac. I wanted a Superman movie in the vein of Aquaman before WB started throwing **** at the wall to see what succeeded, and you’ll forgive me if I don’t have much faith in the taste of the suits given how much WB has failed him.

I think this hits at one of the cool things about Superman in general. There have been so many iterations over the years and through different eras, but I think its possible to like (or dislike) as many versions as you want without necessarily being bound to one version and one only.

[Ascended]

I think you’re misunderstanding my post. There will always be a Superman, but that doesn’t mean it will be Clark Kent or at least Clark as we traditionally have had him depending on how things shake out. I’m perfectly fine with Jon, Conner, Kenan, and John Henry Irons as his successors even if Clark is always going to be my #1 guy. But WB clearly views Superman as a problem that needs to be fixed rather than a rich character who has been botched by incompetence.

And what DC/WB will find out, is that replacing Clark in an attempt to fix these problems will only result in more problems.

Since the problem was never Clark, and was always DC's handling of the character, replacing Clark means nothing. Sure, DC might think "yay our problems are solved!" for a little bit, but regardless of who wears the Shield, it carries expectations that the company seems woefully unable to meet, if they're not straight up ignorant of them.

So replace Clark with Jon or Kara or John or who the hell ever, the "burden" of the Shield will remain, DC will continue to not grasp how to properly adapt and manage the franchise and it's narrative elements, and the "problems" will continue. A replacement might shift things around some, maybe buy DC a little time....but they are the root problem, not the characters, ergo Superman will always be problematic until the fools in charge are replaced with people who know how to handle the brand.

In this corporate climate, it'll be impossible for DC to replace Clark permanently. Because what they replace him with will still have the same kind of problems. The only way to pull a Jay Garrick on Clark is to replace him with a better model, but DC isn't actually capable of building that; they don't understand how the pieces of Superman (as a concept) fit together. They'll replace him for a time, and when sales get stale they'll bring him back for the sales spike.

[manwhohaseverything]

Since the problem was never Clark, and was always DC's handling of the character, replacing Clark means nothing. Sure, DC might think "yay our problems are solved!" for a little bit, but regardless of who wears the Shield, it carries expectations that the company seems woefully unable to meet, if they're not straight up ignorant of them.

Shield should carry only one burden..Entertain and engage people..Showcase the theme of supes i.e "never ending battle for truth and justice on behalf of the common folks"..That's it.Every other expectation is nothing but baggage.

Any idiot should be able to write a superman story that at the very least entertain people at some level.If it's not,then the character is hard to handle and to make money out of.MCU works cause it's simple.So is batman and joker or whatever.Even nolan movies don't go over people's head.That's by design and ofcourse the excellence of the story teller.

Characters that are Simple in the sense that it's easy to write a story with them that connect with audiences,work more.With supes,if you have to be morrison,moore or donner to write.Then the character is screwed.And i won't fault investors for not putting in actual money on the line.