Controversial Superman Opinions

[manwhohaseverything]

Scifi was being done by other heroes at the time..aliens and all that jazz.I understand why not focus on it.But,jor l did exist before superman in publishing history.So,there is that.

Though that might be true.Bringing scifi(more like fantasy) to superman might have been mort weisinger's goal.Moore,thinks "dopey" things like krypton came from his experiences.I do kinda agree that superman would be this irritating jerk or an asshole many a times."Very unlikable" individual whom would be bordering on authoritarianism..But,evil? i don't think so.

For me,these stories hit home runs is cause there is genuine emotions being portrayed.And It can't exist in a vaccum.If you don't feel these things somewhere deep inside you can't write these things

[seismic-2]

I suspect Kara jokes about Kal's Kansas accent when he speaks Kryptonian. I wonder whether she has an accent when she speaks English?

[Tzigone]

He had a clear human side back when he was close to his Kryptonian heritage. It was balanced out between the two halves.

The calls to make him more "human" also don't make much sense, because what does that even mean exactly?

For me him being "more human" means that he thinks of himself as a human being, a person of Earth. That is his heritage, that is his home, that is the place that matters the most to him filled with the people that mean the most to him. I like the Golden Age set up where he didn't even learn about Krypton until adulthood. I like a Superman that is "one of us" in all but biology, as was the case originally and in most of the stories I like best (not a silver age fan, for all that I know he was extremely popular then). I hate him thinking of himself as Kal-El instead of Clark, too. I freely admit, I'm not looking for "balance" between two worlds - that's not what Superman is to me. It applies to certain other heroes for me, sure, but not him.

I don't like the morally gray thing that some want when they want "more human" heroes. I'm sick to death of gray heroes and gray villains, where you can sometimes (usually when shocking events happen and the hero does something terrible) barely tell them apart. I don't need perfection, but I don't want to look at a superhero and think "I'm morally better than that." I my heroes to be good people, too.

[manwhohaseverything]

For me him being "more human" means that he thinks of himself as a human being, a person of Earth. That is his heritage, that is his home, that is the place that matters the most to him filled with the people that mean the most to him. I like the Golden Age set up where he didn't even learn about Krypton until adulthood. I like a Superman that is "one of us" in all but biology, as was the case originally and in most of the stories I like best (not a silver age fan, for all that I know he was extremely popular then). I hate him thinking of himself as Kal-El instead of Clark, too. I freely admit, I'm not looking for "balance" between two worlds - that's not what Superman is to me. It applies to certain other heroes for me, sure, but not him.

Goldenage setup had him hide who he is.He might be living amongst us but he was essentially not at home.

[Jim Kelly]

The notion that Classic Superman embraced his Kryptonian identity and therefore was alien and therefore was not human seems to be a case where modern thinkers are retroactively putting that idea on the old Superman based on the more recent comics.

That Superman is not human, because he's alien, was used when they wanted to suggest it might not be possible for him to have children with Lois Lane. In the Classic comics, it was never a question that he could have kids with her or other Earth women. He was only alien in the sense of coming from another planet, but he wasn't alien in the sense of abhorrent. Kryptonians seemed just like us--only us in a distant future. I never got the sense that being Kryptonian and being human were two different things and he could only be one and not the other.

What made him different was his super-powers, not his culture. It would be the same for any super-human, whether they came from some place on Earth or another planet. Barry Allen is just as "alien" as Clark Kent, because to do the impossible things he does makes him different from regular folks.

I'm fine with "Clark being who I am, Superman is what I do" sentiment but that's just the Marvel fan in me.

What you do IS who you are. Your actions define your character far more than titles or names. "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do" is a completely empty saying. A meaningless platitude which is one of the core problems with the modern Superman.

Yeah, it's pretty dumb. An Existentialist would say they are the same thing. At least based on my understanding of Existentialism, which comes from the Autumn 1976 issue of AERIAL ("a fantasy magazine").

In that issue were pieces on Frank Frazetta, Richard Corben, 1930s science fiction pulp magazines, "The Fiend Within" by John Pocsik, Burne Hogarth's Tarzan, the different phases of Batman through his publishing history--and "Conan the Existential" by Charles Hoffman.

Before I ever took a philosophy course, Hoffman gave me a basic understanding of Existentialism through Conan the Barbarian. Conan has many different occupations through his life and what he does is who he is in that moment.

[PCN24454]

I really hate it when people complain that TAS Superman is underpowered.

You try tanking missiles and see how you feel afterwards.

[Prime]

Superman is a sci Fi hero

[Stanlos]

Superman is a sci Fi hero

Yesssssssssss. And he needs a sci-fi minded talent to helm his adventures. Please let Warren Ellis have a two year run with Jim Lee or Simeone Bianchi art support. Please.

[PCN24454]

Superman is a sci Fi hero

This is just a fact.

Yesssssssssss. And he needs a sci-fi minded talent to helm his adventures. Please let Warren Ellis have a two year run with Jim Lee or Simeone Bianchi art support. Please.

And Warren Ellis is the last writer I want even looking at Superman.

Seriously, are we acting as though he’s not written as a sci-fi character?

[manwhohaseverything]

Superman is a sci Fi hero

I don't think so..more fantasy than scifi.

Even soft scifi at best.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Superman is more like science fantasy. He's more Star Wars than the Foundation/I Robot.

Al Ewing would be great.

[manwhohaseverything]

Superman is more like science fantasy. He's more Star Wars than the Foundation/I Robot.

Al Ewing would be great.

Stars wars is scifi? It's fantasy in space and time.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Stars wars is scifi? It's fantasy in space and time.

It's considered science fiction but also apart of the science fantasy subgenre.

[manwhohaseverything]

It's considered science fiction but also apart of the science fantasy subgenre.

I tend to think it just "science" fantasy.

[Jim Kelly]

It's funny that with "science fiction" and "science fantasy," we keep the science term and it's the fantasy vs. fiction that makes the difference. Fiction and fantasy are pretty much the same thing. It's really the amount of science in the story that is the difference. There's more science in Star Trek than Star Wars; they are both fictional fantasy.

Also in things like Star Trek, Alien, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, it's fiction about human beings from Earth in the future. Star Wars is about people that look like human beings, but there's no reference to Earth. I would say that Star Trek is speculative space fiction, while Star Wars is allegorical space fiction.

I see Superman as being more like Star Trek than Star Wars, because the Superman story is supposed to be happening on Earth--it's not an allegory using aliens in a non-existent reality. The science in Superman is not as grounded as the science in Star Trek (both stretch science beyond reason, but Star Trek not as much as Superman). However, originally, the science for Superman made some sense, it just got out of hand as it went along and as we learned more about the universe. The same can be said for Star Trek, where the science made some sense in 1966, but as we've advanced, a lot of that science has become junk (while other bits have worked out to be true).

Most popular entertainment science fiction is bad science, if it can be called science at all. There are serious prose works of science fiction, where the writers know science and use it well in their stories, but in movies, T.V. shows and comic books, they aren't interested in doing that. Just in terms of space travel they make up stuff that is not according to known science. Space ships travel distances and speeds that have no basis in science. Space ships create their own gravity either by stretching what is actually possible or by making up their own rules. Communication across space and between life forms is made way too easy.