Controversial Superman Opinions

[Agniwolf]

yep, let's pretend there isn't sexism on comics and the male gaze isn't the norm.

while there are problems, like in everything about anything, some things are just being exagerated, man there are people out there that wants ww to use pants a just dont accept the idea of sexual freedom. also what is wrong with sexualizations? not sexism, sexualism. should we label sex as simply wrong and evil and that is it? are the females in comics the only targets of it?

but it does not deny that there is sexism and a prevalence of male preferences, the point is that sexualizing a character does not mean such character must become submissive to the male norm "oh but why dont we put male characters in revealing outfits with sensual bodies"? to be honest this already happens, tell me about a sucessful here who is ugly (hulk, maybe)? or at least not atletic?, and yes a atletic body is sensual, like it or not, how many times have we not seen male characters bare chested out there? why cant we get bare chested heroines? because sexism. male nudity is glory female nudity is porn and few people are willing to see beyond labels and conservadorism

I ownder if Lois was the one with superman and also dating WW this opinions would stick? of course not

but that is the point, it is a three way thing so in the example of the menage yes, lois would be dating ww and superman, ww would be dating lois and superman, superman would be dating lois and wonder woman, and not in a deceitful way, the three would be aware of everything

[Jim Kelly]

I think that, in the 1950s, bringing in more survivors of Krypton was a good idea on the part of editors Mort Weisinger and Jack Schiff (working for Whitney Ellsworth, who was off in Hollywood supervising the production of THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN).

All those stories gave more attention to the planet Krypton--a great science fiction concept. I'm dumbfounded why science fiction fans like Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster did so little with the back story of Krypton in most of their run (only using it for a few origin stories).

By doing those survival stories, DC wound up with a lot of neat ideas that they've been able to recycle ad infinitum. And it makes sense that, in the 1950s when stories were 12 pages and had to be self-contained, it was just a lot easier to have some random survivor of Krypton show up. The writers didn't want to waste time with long explanations.

But it's like they needed that conceit to generate the ideas and now the conceit is no longer needed, because there are many other ideas that have come along since that could do the job of showing Superman how great Krypton used to be. In particular we see that the rocket ship could have carried a complete history of Krypton, a holographic similation of everything, loads and loads of data.

If modern computers can store so much information, imagine how much data could be stored on board Kal-El's advance rocket. The ship literally becomes the vehicle for everything that survived from Krypton--Kal-El, the organic survivor and the ship, the technological legacy.

I would even get rid of all the other things that have come to Earth since then from Krypton, as everything can be generated from the rocket ship itself. Even Kryptonite could just be radioactive particles that clung to the ship. Once the ship warped into out solar systerm, those particles set off a chain reaction in the asteroid belt which caused the production of more Kryptonite.

Given that Jor-El tried to ensure the survival of Krypton through his son and through the rocket that carried him--everything else follows from that. The phantoms and other survivors are simply the on board technology and Kal-El's own need for companionship generating multiple echoes of Krypton.

[Osiris-Rex]

Here some other thoughts:

-That being said, i never quite understood the appeal of Kara-Zor-EL, i don't think that she does any damage to the mythos and overall she is a pretty inofensive charather, but i always feel that she is just kind of there. The only one that i can think of is having someone that actually lived on Krypton being his ally.
.

Cute girl with the same powers as Superman, so someone that appeals to both boys and girls. Give a chance to tell stories from a female perspective. Making her a teen when Krypton was destroyed gives
someone who remembers life on Krypton as opposed to someone who left as an infant and has no memories. Lets Superman feel less lonely by having a living relative. Is a character that would still be interesting
and could stand alone, carry her own book, even if Superman had never existed. And like you said, another ally. Basically some of the same appeal as Batgirl.

[Jim Kelly]

Cute girl with the same powers as Superman, so someone that appeals to both boys and girls. Give a chance to tell stories from a female perspective. Making her a teen when Krypton was destroyed gives
someone who remembers life on Krypton as opposed to someone who left as an infant and has no memories. Lets Superman feel less lonely by having a living relative. Is a character that would still be interesting
and could stand alone, carry her own book, even if Superman had never existed. And like you said, another ally. Basically some of the same appeal as Batgirl.

I don't like the new fangled origin story for Kara Zor-El. Could just be I'm stuck in the past and like the old version of Supergirl better. But I don't like Kara having seniority over Kal-El. And I don't like that she's a survivor of Krypton and essentially with the same status as or greater status than Superman.

I get that DC wants to create female super-heroes on the same level as the male heroes. But you should be able to do that without demoting the males heroes in the process. Really a woman at the same level as Superman should be an independent creation (e.g. Wonder Woman).

Supergirl is supposed to be a junior member of the Superman family. And I don't want her to remember Krypton for Superman. Pre-Crisis, Superman didn't need her for that, because he had his memories and he had mind tapes and other technologies--and he could fly into the past to visit Krypton--and he could go to the bottle city of Kandor. So why did Supergirl exist? Not to be a memory stick.

What I liked about Superman and Supergirl was their friendly, familial enthusiasm. They both had the same mindset when it came to the House of El, Krypton lore and collecting cool things to put in their Fortress of Solitude. Kal-El was like her big brother. Kara may have had a creepy crush on her cousin, sometimes, but she respected him and learned from him, too.

I don't see anything sexist about that. We all learn from the people older than us. My big sisters taught me things that have stood me well in life.

I suppose it's kind of clever--almost like Ringo, the oldest and the youngest Beatle--to have Kara as both the older and the younger. But the cleverness wears off when stretched out over the whole mythology of the characters.

Granted, Argo Ciy was a loopy origin story. But you don't improve things by replacing one mind-bending origin story with another one just as difficult.

At least with Argo, you could argue that Supergirl wasn't a survivor of Krypton. She was never born on the planet, so she wasn't overshadowing Superman's origin story as the Last Son of Krypton.

[GizmotheStark89]

This thread is massive and I only got about 10 pages in before wanted to make a reply of my own.

I don't have any controversial opinions because my history reading comics is fairly short compared to most people here...and I don't read them in any organized way. I don't think there is any definitive version of Superman (or any comic character) within a reasonable context.

I started reading comics in the mid 2000s because Batman Begins inspired me too. I never bought single issues, only trades. Rebirth marks the first time I'm following books week to week, issue to issue.

But when I first started picking up comics, I started from the beginning. Golden Age and Silver age stuff was hard for me to enjoy because of how "simple" the writing was. There were a few exceptions. I thought Golden Age Batman was pretty cool for fast paced, moody crime thrillers. I loved Stan Lee Spider-Man even though his purple prose could get irksome, but for the most part these two era's of comics felt too one-note and samey to me. I couldn't get into to Superman for the longest time because of the oft mentioned over-the-top and boring characterization of him for the first leg of his publication history. So I guess disliking Golden and Silver Age Supes and comics in general is a controversial opinion (and no it doesn't mean I need everything to be dark and edgy. I just like modern writing more).

I read some people have a problem with Byrne Supes and I never knew his work was so divisive among fans. His stuff was the first stuff to make me say "I get it now!" I had loved Richard Donner's Superman and it took Byrne's work to make me see that Superman could be fun and interesting in his comic book form.

With that said, because my reading habits for comics is basically "read what sounds good" I have no set conditions I want a creative team to adhere to. I just want fun and entertaining superhero stories. So when I hear of some new idea to shake up the status quo I don't have knee-jerk reactions like more entrenched fans do. As long as the characters fall in line with the core of what they've always been; shake-ups to continuity or the status quo don't bother me. Give Superman a son, put him in a t-shirt and jeans, take away his trunks, bring back Kryptonians, making him a little more alien or a little more human...I don't care. Just make it a good story. These characters have been around for going on a CENTURY now. Its a miracle people can even come up with newish scenario's to put them in. That's why I couldn't care less about things like maybe making Clark a little more rash or impulsive or making his suit more armor-like or giving him long hair. As long as he's from Krypton and wants to do the right thing at all costs and try to be the best man he can be...little cosmetic changes or mild shake-ups to lore don't bother me and fans getting pissed off about them just comes off as petty to me. No offense.

[Agniwolf]

This thread is massive and I only got about 10 pages in before wanted to make a reply of my own.

I don't have any controversial opinions because my history reading comics is fairly short compared to most people here...and I don't read them in any organized way. I don't think there is any definitive version of Superman (or any comic character) within a reasonable context.

I started reading comics in the mid 2000s because Batman Begins inspired me too. I never bought single issues, only trades. Rebirth marks the first time I'm following books week to week, issue to issue.

But when I first started picking up comics, I started from the beginning. Golden Age and Silver age stuff was hard for me to enjoy because of how "simple" the writing was. There were a few exceptions. I thought Golden Age Batman was pretty cool for fast paced, moody crime thrillers. I loved Stan Lee Spider-Man even though his purple prose could get irksome, but for the most part these two era's of comics felt too one-note and samey to me. I couldn't get into to Superman for the longest time because of the oft mentioned over-the-top and boring characterization of him for the first leg of his publication history. So I guess disliking Golden and Silver Age Supes and comics in general is a controversial opinion (and no it doesn't mean I need everything to be dark and edgy. I just like modern writing more).

I read some people have a problem with Byrne Supes and I never knew his work was so divisive among fans. His stuff was the first stuff to make me say "I get it now!" I had loved Richard Donner's Superman and it took Byrne's work to make me see that Superman could be fun and interesting in his comic book form.

With that said, because my reading habits for comics is basically "read what sounds good" I have no set conditions I want a creative team to adhere to. I just want fun and entertaining superhero stories. So when I hear of some new idea to shake up the status quo I don't have knee-jerk reactions like more entrenched fans do. As long as the characters fall in line with the core of what they've always been; shake-ups to continuity or the status quo don't bother me. Give Superman a son, put him in a t-shirt and jeans, take away his trunks, bring back Kryptonians, making him a little more alien or a little more human...I don't care. Just make it a good story. These characters have been around for going on a CENTURY now. Its a miracle people can even come up with newish scenario's to put them in. That's why I couldn't care less about things like maybe making Clark a little more rash or impulsive or making his suit more armor-like or giving him long hair. As long as he's from Krypton and wants to do the right thing at all costs and try to be the best man he can be...little cosmetic changes or mild shake-ups to lore don't bother me and fans getting pissed off about them just comes off as petty to me. No offense.

i really liked this, we need more of this non-hardcore mindsets in the fandom (myself included)

[Jim Kelly]

I'm kind of the opposite, in that the current comics bore me and I find myself skimming through an issue, because I'm just not into the story.

I find older comics more interesting. But that might be because I'm reading for a purpose. I'm not just reading for a story. Stories are predictable in any age. The current comics are all written according to a scheme and once you know the scheme, they become very predictable. The same with old comics.

But old comics have many other things I want to know. I want to find how many times a certain plot twist was used--or what variations on this plot twist were used. I want to see how the writing style of Otto Binder evolved. I want to see how different inkers affected Curt Swan's pencils. What exactly is the difference between Stan Kaye inks and John Forte inks? I want to see the lengths to which Jimmy Olsen would go in making an idiot of himself over a woman or over a career-making story. etc.

I'm always going into vintage comics with questions that need to be answered, so even if the story is predictable, there's a lot more that I'm trying to find out.

With modern comics, you're pretty much told everything about how the story was created--before, during and after its publication. Everything is filled in for the reader. Even if you don't understand the story (Grant Morrison in particular)--don't worry because there's sure to be an interview or an article where every detail is explained. Today's comics hold no mystery.

[GizmotheStark89]

i really liked this, we need more of this non-hardcore mindsets in the fandom (myself included)

Haha, thanks.

To further clarify for others; I'm not trying to demean anybody's opinions or how they view these characters. I don't begrudge anybody their opinions on these matters, especially those people who have read and collected comics for their entire life. It's just sometimes I think fans can get so set in their ways they reject news idea's and concepts on the basis of them being new and not what they prefer. Something being new automatically equals it not being true to the character and I can't help but feel turned-off from discussion when fans get like that. I also think fans (of anything, not just comics) sometime fail to properly put their love of something into the right context and take it much too seriously.

[GizmotheStark89]

I'm kind of the opposite, in that the current comics bore me and I find myself skimming through an issue, because I'm just not into the story.

I find older comics more interesting. But that might be because I'm reading for a purpose. I'm not just reading for a story. Stories are predictable in any age. The current comics are all written according to a scheme and once you know the scheme, they become very predictable. The same with old comics.

But old comics have many other things I want to know. I want to find how many times a certain plot twist was used--or what variations on this plot twist were used. I want to see how the writing style of Otto Binder evolved. I want to see how different inkers affected Curt Swan's pencils. What exactly is the difference between Stan Kaye inks and John Forte inks? I want to see the lengths to which Jimmy Olsen would go in making an idiot of himself over a woman or over a career-making story. etc.

I'm always going into vintage comics with questions that need to be answered, so even if the story is predictable, there's a lot more that I'm trying to find out.

With modern comics, you're pretty much told everything about how the story was created--before, during and after its publication. Everything is filled in for the reader. Even if you don't understand the story (Grant Morrison in particular)--don't worry because there's sure to be an interview or an article where every detail is explained. Today's comics hold no mystery.

The bolded doesn't seem particularly fair because for one, you have the option of not reading said interviews and explanations. Also, that's just how media in general has evolved. If the people who consume this stuff didn't want that kind of content, it wouldn't be available. It's a cycle. Comics became more and more respected as a storytelling form as the decades went on. Now, as we all know, geek culture is the new cool thing on the block. So of course you're going to see interviews from writers and artists because media has changed and interest has evolved. Back in the 60s, you didn't have podcasts, vlogs, blogs and dozens upon dozens of geek friendly websites to choose from.

[Jim Kelly]

Yeah, but my point was that it's a real challenge to find out stuff about the old comics. Even with the internet and all the books that have been written. So, for me, that's more exciting. I get to be an archaeologist and dig into these stories and find things that were long buried. I find that I need those kind of tasks to get me into the books. And when I don't have such projects in mind, then I get easily bored. It's not just true of comics--everything for me is like that. I need a certain degree of difficulty (but hopefully not too much) to keep me interested.

I'm offering this as a possible method for people to get into vintage comic books. As I see a lot of people saying that they find the classic comics boring--so if they're looking for a way to get into those comics, then maybe they need to set a challenge for themselves.

And for myself, if I want to get into new comics, I have to invent a purpose.

[GizmotheStark89]

Yeah, but my point was that it's a real challenge to find out stuff about the old comics. Even with the internet and all the books that have been written. So, for me, that's more exciting. I get to be an archaeologist and dig into these stories and find things that were long buried. I find that I need those kind of tasks to get me into the books. And when I don't have such projects in mind, then I get easily bored. It's not just true of comics--everything for me is like that. I need a certain degree of difficulty (but hopefully not too much) to keep me interested.

I'm offering this as a possible method for people to get into vintage comic books. As I see a lot of people saying that they find the classic comics boring--so if they're looking for a way to get into those comics, then maybe they need to set a challenge for themselves.

And for myself, if I want to get into new comics, I have to invent a purpose.

I'm honestly having a hard time following your logic. I don't see why you can't do this with modern comics. Or am I being too dense?

I think people saying they can't get into older comics is perfectly valid. I don't want to speak for everyone, but I think most people read comics because the characters appeal to them and they want a good story with some nice art. Golden and Silver Age comics come from a different time, where the creators wrote more simple, straight-forward stories. That's not do demean their creativity, but the way many of the vintage comics are told just don't compute to people. It's basic, over-the-top and melodramatic with soap-opera like dialogue and description boxes. I don't think a person has to force themselves to pick apart the minutia of something that doesn't appeal to them. If something doesn't grab a person on a more engaging level than "Oh, I like the art" then they aren't going to stick with it, nor should they have to.

[Ascended]

The thing is that Hensahw, along with Mongul, became GL villains, abandoning the Superman villains list. That pissed the hell off of me.

Sharing villains doesn't bother me.

I mean, what was the Super-line doing with Henshaw? Nothing. By the time Sinestro Corps War rolled around Henshaw hadn't shown up in the Super-books for years. So what did Superman lose? Nothing he wasn't using. And Henshaw got some quality character development while he was hanging out in space.

And not too awfully long later (as comics measure time), Henshaw returned to bother Superman during the Reign of Doomsday story that ended the post-Crisis era.

Now, if another franchise wants to steal a villain who is actively being used? That's a different thing. But a villain who is sitting on the shelf collecting dust? No one loses anything from taking that toy down and letting someone else play with it for a little while, as long as they give it back when they're done.

[darkseidpwns]

Sharing villains doesn't bother me.

I mean, what was the Super-line doing with Henshaw? Nothing. By the time Sinestro Corps War rolled around Henshaw hadn't shown up in the Super-books for years. So what did Superman lose? Nothing he wasn't using. And Henshaw got some quality character development while he was hanging out in space.

And not too awfully long later (as comics measure time), Henshaw returned to bother Superman during the Reign of Doomsday story that ended the post-Crisis era.

Now, if another franchise wants to steal a villain who is actively being used? That's a different thing. But a villain who is sitting on the shelf collecting dust? No one loses anything from taking that toy down and letting someone else play with it for a little while, as long as they give it back when they're done.

Yup and then the Superwriters jobbed him and then they ruined Cyborg Superman concept with the New-52. Besides Superman franchise tried to poach a few villains as well like Hector Hammond, Psycho Pirate, Helspont and Queen Bee ofcourse they failed because they're incompetent at their jobs whereas the GL franchise legitimately did interesting things with Henshaw and Mongul.

[Osiris-Rex]

I don't like the new fangled origin story for Kara Zor-El. Could just be I'm stuck in the past and like the old version of Supergirl better. But I don't like Kara having seniority over Kal-El. And I don't like that she's a survivor of Krypton and essentially with the same status as or greater status than Superman.

I get that DC wants to create female super-heroes on the same level as the male heroes. But you should be able to do that without demoting the males heroes in the process. Really a woman at the same level as Superman should be an independent creation (e.g. Wonder Woman).

Supergirl is supposed to be a junior member of the Superman family. And I don't want her to remember Krypton for Superman. Pre-Crisis, Superman didn't need her for that, because he had his memories and he had mind tapes and other technologies--and he could fly into the past to visit Krypton--and he could go to the bottle city of Kandor. So why did Supergirl exist? Not to be a memory stick.

What I liked about Superman and Supergirl was their friendly, familial enthusiasm. They both had the same mindset when it came to the House of El, Krypton lore and collecting cool things to put in their Fortress of Solitude. Kal-El was like her big brother. Kara may have had a creepy crush on her cousin, sometimes, but she respected him and learned from him, too.

I don't see anything sexist about that. We all learn from the people older than us. My big sisters taught me things that have stood me well in life.

I suppose it's kind of clever--almost like Ringo, the oldest and the youngest Beatle--to have Kara as both the older and the younger. But the cleverness wears off when stretched out over the whole mythology of the characters.

Granted, Argo Ciy was a loopy origin story. But you don't improve things by replacing one mind-bending origin story with another one just as difficult.

At least with Argo, you could argue that Supergirl wasn't a survivor of Krypton. She was never born on the planet, so she wasn't overshadowing Superman's origin story as the Last Son of Krypton.

But all those things you list are what you don't like about the character. It does nothing to address why other people like Kara Zor-El. Which was the original question "i never quite understood the appeal of Kara-Zor-EL"
I listed why I think people like Kara Zor-El. Instead of why you don't like her, why do you think other people do like her?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

If you want Kal to be the only kryptonian,then what is your problem with clones/hybrids like kon?

Like I said elsewhere, it all comes down to him being an alien from one (if not the) most advanced civilizations in the universe. His DNA should be extremely complex, to the point that no man can even come close to decoding it. I see Kon as an indirect way of making Kal not as alien (physiologically) as I want him to be.