Controversial Superman Opinions

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

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.

Jon fans probably care what happens to him.

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.

that's the common sense view.

[Ascended]

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 connect with audiences more.With supes,if you have to be morrison,moore or donner to write.Then the character is screwed.

Eh, the character itself is as simple as it gets. There's complexity and nuance in there sure, and he's more subtle than most of his peers, but we're not talking Hamlet here.

The issue isn't the character, it's the reputation of the character. People, including DC, put a certain amount of expectation on Superman that is completely removed from the actual content and character of Clark Kent. Half of DC's problem is that they try to write the "legend" of Superman, not the character. And half the problem with audiences is that they expect the legend, and when the actual character fails to live up to that (which he never tried to and never has) they're disappointed. Because it's Superman, he's supposed to be space jesus right? That's why you don't get that kinda stuff in the Golden Age; the character's reputation hadn't grown so bloated back then, he was just an adventurer and hero without the quasi-religious trappings that've built up around him since.

DC being unable to see the character's appeal is a slightly different issue. They're really good at capitalizing on the "high school kewl" ideals that make Batman work but Superman is a different kind of cool, and the people at DC simply don't get it. In this, it's no different than any of our personal biases, except the guys at DC are in a position to screw things up. Like, I don't care for Peter Parker. Never have. I find him an obnoxious little man child and have never seen anything of myself reflected in him, he's not "my" Everyman character. That doesn't mean Parker is a bad or worthless character, only that I personally don't like him. But I don't work at Marvel or control Spidey, so it's not a problem. The people at DC *do* control Superman, so their inability to see the character's appeal *is* a problem. Just a matter of hiring the right people, but when you don't understand what the appeal or the hook is, how do you know who the right people are?

[TheRay]

I think seeing some arrogance from Clark wouldn't be that unlikely.

[manwhohaseverything]

Eh, the character itself is as simple as it gets. There's complexity and nuance in there sure, and he's more subtle than most of his peers, but we're not talking Hamlet here.

The issue isn't the character, it's the reputation of the character. People, including DC, put a certain amount of expectation on Superman that is completely removed from the actual content and character of Clark Kent. Half of DC's problem is that they try to write the "legend" of Superman, not the character. And half the problem with audiences is that they expect the legend, and when the actual character fails to live up to that (which he never tried to and never has) they're disappointed. Because it's Superman, he's supposed to be space jesus right? That's why you don't get that kinda stuff in the Golden Age; the character's reputation hadn't grown so bloated back then, he was just an adventurer and hero without the quasi-religious trappings that've built up around him since.

DC being unable to see the character's appeal is a slightly different issue. They're really good at capitalizing on the "high school kewl" ideals that make Batman work but Superman is a different kind of cool, and the people at DC simply don't get it. In this, it's no different than any of our personal biases, except the guys at DC are in a position to screw things up. Like, I don't care for Peter Parker. Never have. I find him an obnoxious little man child and have never seen anything of myself reflected in him, he's not "my" Everyman character. That doesn't mean Parker is a bad or worthless character, only that I personally don't like him. But I don't work at Marvel or control Spidey, so it's not a problem. The people at DC *do* control Superman, so their inability to see the character's appeal *is* a problem. Just a matter of hiring the right people, but when you don't understand what the appeal or the hook is, how do you know who the right people are?

Many are turned off by the space jesus itself and sheer bluntness of it.So,we get polarised field.One who expects jesus and other who simply don't want one that would simply skip,read batman who screams "gods are dead.I killed them with green rocks". That's not a problem persay, you can say those aren't the target audiences..But,still you are losing audience. Especially since,batman does both savior shtick less bluntly and adventurer shtick.

Bluntness itself isn't problem for entertaining people.It is just a mark of unsophisticated writing.But,Superman just makes it boring or worse condescending unless the above guys i mentioned write him.That's a problem.DC and WB simply stuck with expectation and can't make money because of it.if a new character comes along that expectation isn't there.If hernan is superman then you won't be asking for holy dad of metropolis.Sure,there would be guys saying "this ain't my superman or superman at all".But,their superman is still available.That's dc thinking i speculate.

[Powerboy]

Eh, the character itself is as simple as it gets. There's complexity and nuance in there sure, and he's more subtle than most of his peers, but we're not talking Hamlet here.

The issue isn't the character, it's the reputation of the character. People, including DC, put a certain amount of expectation on Superman that is completely removed from the actual content and character of Clark Kent. Half of DC's problem is that they try to write the "legend" of Superman, not the character. And half the problem with audiences is that they expect the legend, and when the actual character fails to live up to that (which he never tried to and never has) they're disappointed. Because it's Superman, he's supposed to be space jesus right? That's why you don't get that kinda stuff in the Golden Age; the character's reputation hadn't grown so bloated back then, he was just an adventurer and hero without the quasi-religious trappings that've built up around him since.

DC being unable to see the character's appeal is a slightly different issue. They're really good at capitalizing on the "high school kewl" ideals that make Batman work but Superman is a different kind of cool, and the people at DC simply don't get it. In this, it's no different than any of our personal biases, except the guys at DC are in a position to screw things up. Like, I don't care for Peter Parker. Never have. I find him an obnoxious little man child and have never seen anything of myself reflected in him, he's not "my" Everyman character. That doesn't mean Parker is a bad or worthless character, only that I personally don't like him. But I don't work at Marvel or control Spidey, so it's not a problem. The people at DC *do* control Superman, so their inability to see the character's appeal *is* a problem. Just a matter of hiring the right people, but when you don't understand what the appeal or the hook is, how do you know who the right people are?

I was thinking of something similar recently. Superman: the Movie gave us AI Jor-El, the S is really his family insignia, not an S for Superman, and he's Space Jesus. This was all well and good except that almost every single take on Superman since then includes pretty much all of this or at least the first two. So, it's more about what he represents than just telling the story with him as a character. It's like every version since is a remake of Superman the Movie. In some ways, he's locked into StM the way Batman is locked into DKR.

Also, as you said, people complain about "Legend rather than character" but any attempt to write just the character, even if it gets back to his roots, turns into "Superman wouldn't do that".

Still, there are gems. "Superman Smashes the Klan" and his portrayal in "Justice Society: World War II" come to mind but these are not main continuity.

[marhawkman]

I was thinking of something similar recently. Superman: the Movie gave us AI Jor-El, the S is really his family insignia, not an S for Superman, and he's Space Jesus. This was all well and good except that almost every single take on Superman since then includes pretty much all of this or at least the first two. So, it's more about what he represents than just telling the story with him as a character. It's like every version since is a remake of Superman the Movie. In some ways, he's locked into StM the way Batman is locked into DKR.

Also, as you said, people complain about "Legend rather than character" but any attempt to write just the character, even if it gets back to his roots, turns into "Superman wouldn't do that".

Still, there are gems. "Superman Smashes the Klan" and his portrayal in "Justice Society: World War II" come to mind but these are not main continuity.

AI Jor-El? More like video tape I think.....

[DochaDocha]

AI Jor-El? More like video tape I think.....

I think "AI Jor-El" is fair if you take into account the Donner Cut of Superman II.

[Stanlos]

I think a Black Label Superman run from PAD or from Warren Ellis would rock socks.

[Ascended]

Also, as you said, people complain about "Legend rather than character" but any attempt to write just the character, even if it gets back to his roots, turns into "Superman wouldn't do that".

Yeah it's a real rock/hard place situation. If you write the legend, he's boring because he's perfect and predictable, and nobody wants to read it. If you write the actual character, with his flaws and his mistakes and problems, people complain that he's not perfect and righteous and get upset.

I think the New52 was an attempt to break the character out of this by presenting a modern version of the Golden Age. It'd make sense right? What better way to change audience expectations than by using the version that leaped tall buildings and outran speeding bullets? That version of the character is still buried in the pop consciousness; we're all still aware of those early Superman tales even if we haven't ever seen them, and who could possibly argue the original version (or an updated one by Grant friggin Morrison!) isn't the "real" Superman? How could it go wrong, in the social upheaval of 2011, to bring back the social crusader and free Superman from the only chains he can't break; his own reputation?

Oh, weren't we all such innocent summer children back then? Clearly it didn't exactly work out right.

So now it's Jon. That's how DC thinks they'll get around the inflexible legend of Superman and be able to write the character again, by using someone who isn't actually Superman.

Still, there are gems. "Superman Smashes the Klan" and his portrayal in "Justice Society: World War II" come to mind but these are not main continuity.

I've found quality Superman in every age and era, sometimes its just harder to find than others. Seems to me that one of the biggest things with Superman that so many people forget; he's supposed to be fun. Not necessarily "happy" or "bright" since you can slot him into nearly any tone, any genre, but nearly always fun. Make him fun, and people will make allowances for his flaws and his mistakes. Make him fun, and you don't have to work so hard to justify the silly aspects of the mythos. Make him fun, and people will forget he's "supposed" to be space jesus, they'll just be entertained.

[TheRay]

I would kind of like to see Superman's Kryptonian side come out more prominently now and again.
I get the point is that he's just like regular people, but still.

[TheKryptonMan]

I would kind of like to see Superman's Kryptonian side come out more prominently now and again.
I get the point is that he's just like regular people, but still.

I'm with you on this one. Superman/Clark should also be much more intelligent than portrayed, after all his father Jor-El was a genius scientist.

[seismic-2]

Superman really doesn't have a Kryptonian side. Sure, he built statues of Jor-El and Lara in his fortress, and he's kept a bottled city there, but everything that Superman knows about Krypton (including the fact that Krypton even existed!) is purely second-hand information, based on the recordings / laptop / crystals that were stuffed into the rocket with him. Basically, his connection to Kryptonian culture is that he looked it up on a high-tech version of ancestry.com. I'm sure Kara mocks his Kansas accent whenever he speaks Kryptonian.

[phonogram12]

I would kind of like to see Superman's Kryptonian side come out more prominently now and again.
I get the point is that he's just like regular people, but still.

For me, it really depends on how it's depicted.

[The World]

Superman really doesn't have a Kryptonian side. Sure, he built statues of Jor-El and Lara in his fortress, and he's kept a bottled city there, but everything that Superman knows about Krypton (including the fact that Krypton even existed!) is purely second-hand information, based on the recordings / laptop / crystals that were stuffed into the rocket with him. Basically, his connection to Kryptonian culture is that he looked it up on a high-tech version of ancestry.com. I'm sure Kara mocks his Kansas accent whenever he speaks Kryptonian.

If there's two things I've noticed really scares people, it's him wanting to do more than the absolute bare minimum to keep the Earth on it's axis and the idea that he's close to his Kryptonian heritage.

[Agent Z]

If there's two things I've noticed really scares people, it's him wanting to do more than the absolute bare minimum to keep the Earth on it's axis and the idea that he's close to his Kryptonian heritage.

Seems to me that what people are afraid of is the idea that Superman has a human side at all.