Controversial Superman Opinions

[The World]

The JLA losing to Doomsday to sell him as a threat is the very definition of jobbing.

Superman's loss to Batman in TDKR is more of a standard loss and it only really happened because he didn't want the fight.

I'd say both are forms of jobbing. Doomsday at the time was simply too unimpressive an opponent to really sell as a credible threat. He had extremely limited powerset, no charisma, no real intelligence or skill. The JLA was trotted out to at least make the situation seem dire or important but that shows another weakness of modern writing where in the writers never really built up the skills to sell villains and threats as credible to the reader. The JLA's job was to make an unimpressive opponent seem impressive.

Superman's losses to Batman are frankly idiotic. One guy spends his average day fighting things considered beyond Mega-Events for the other guy. It's a Grizzly Bear fighting an infant and the outcome is obvious but Batman is more popular thus he has to win because that's how things work in the DCU. At least Marvel tries to keep some kind of semblance of a power structure so when something bizarre like Black Panther catching Silver Surfer in an arm hold happens everyone rips the writer for it.

The stupidest thing to me is that we just went through Doomsday clock which tried to explain why "THE DCU IS SO DARK AND STUFF" when the answer is staring them right in the face with this Batman/Superman rivalry that has been brewing since the late 80's. If you tell people that are looking for a power fantasy that all the power lies in being some angry dark hero then that's what they'll all seek to emulate. DC spent most of post crisis doing just that and Doomsday Clock should have been an examination of that. Why are the Batwriters drawn to picking a fight with a guy that has nothing to do with the character, why did the Superman writers spend years going along with it instead of putting a stop to it immediately, and is it really such a good idea to try and define your first hero by the behavior of a guy that came after him? Instead we got "something, something. Alan Moore".

[SiegePerilous02]

On the other hand, as mentioned prior, there is a pecking order. I hate any insinuation that the JLA is something of a "Round Table," in which all of the members are equals of some sort. They are not. If Wonder Woman can't take a bad guy's hit, then it's going to kill Batman. Period. On the other hand, if a bad guy wallops Batman, that doesn't mean Wonder Woman or Aquaman would have the same fate. There are going to be losses that seem more reasonable than others, whether or not they're jobbing. Going back to WW, Aquaman, and Batman, say a villain KO's all of them in one punch. You could say all three of them are jobbing. But it's a lot worse for WW and Aquaman than Batman, because a punch that can KO, but doesn't kill, Batman should not KO Aquaman or WW. Likewise, a punch that KO's WW should made Batman's head explode.

And a monster that requires Superman to give his all and die as a result of the efforts it took to put it down (as he did) is going to trample over most other superheroes. Regardless of how lame of a villain/plot device he is, nobody regards the gathered heroes as being on the same tier as Superman both in and out of universe in the first place.

I think the premise of the story would work with a more apocalyptic, multi-tiered threat with maybe a group of villains that requires the entire JL (preferably with the bigger names) to stop it. Superman can still be the last one standing and die heroically to save the day, but give out other moments of victories to the other JL members.

I classify TDKR fight as jobbing. Superman's appearance in that story was build-up for the climactic scene that everyone likes to quote. People can interpret that book in many different ways, but the thing nobody can deny (or forget) is Batman's speech about having his hand around Superman's neck. I consider Green Lantern's appearance in early New 52 JL to be jobbing to Superman, because the point of that story was to point out how powerful Superman is while simultaneously showing how arrogant and in need of humbling Hal was. But Batman in that scene was not jobbing, IMO. That's literally a no-win situation and I think Batman was there to be the voice of reason that Green Lantern lacked.

Yeah, it doesn't matter how much nuance Frank Miller may or may not have intended to put into the fight scene for why Superman loses. At the end of the day, the big take away in that book is that non-powered Batman kicks Superman's ass. And this was when Superman was considered the undisputed most powerful superhero, he is put into that story for the specific reason of making Batman look good. They are banking on his reputation to sell the shift to Batman as the ultimate badass. Whereas with Doomsday, as lame as the story may be, none of the JL members there have the reputation to sell Doomsday as a threat or be as damaged by losing.

The stupidest thing to me is that we just went through Doomsday clock which tried to explain why "THE DCU IS SO DARK AND STUFF" when the answer is staring them right in the face with this Batman/Superman rivalry that has been brewing since the late 80's. If you tell people that are looking for a power fantasy that all the power lies in being some angry dark hero then that's what they'll all seek to emulate. DC spent most of post crisis doing just that and Doomsday Clock should have been an examination of that. Why are the Batwriters drawn to picking a fight with a guy that has nothing to do with the character, why did the Superman writers spend years going along with it instead of putting a stop to it immediately, and is it really such a good idea to try and define your first hero by the behavior of a guy that came after him?

This is why I would be fine with both the Bat and Super continuities being nuked at this point and started over from scratch for real. No bullshit "some stories are canon, some not." Modern Batman in particular is so tainted from all the stuff through the 80s, 2000s and recent stuff that I'd rather get rid of the bastard and his tedious drama with the Bat Family and gradually introduce new versions of all of them without the baggage and are less insufferable.

And Bats and Supes would just be best friends. No uneasy rivalry BS. That crap was novel for a while when it first came out, now it's just boring and doesn't make either character look good.

[Kuwagaton]

My point still stands. Writers have no problem throwing other heroes under the bus to prop up Superman.

For sure. I think if five characters use Superman to boost credibility, Superman uses five characters to boost credibility.

And I keep mentioning this, but it's just the most unintentionally hilarious thing to me and a fine point on the discussion of jobbing.

I am completely okay with any member of the Justice League being able to take out the rest. At least the big Seven and up to and including most of the Satellite, 90's Justice League. I think I extend that rule to much of the JSA and The Legion? I actually like Frank Miller's Superman. Year One is terrific and I look forward to Year 2. It's probably my favorite of the Black Label books so far but I need to read the Lemire Joker. Superman is a broken figure in The Dark Knight's first two chapters, and Miller's Superman does indeed know how to fight. Batman says something to the effect that he knew all his moves.

I don't think the story was perfect but if we're talking about a functional origin, I actually put YO at the top. I like the ideas it puts in place and the incomplete feeling is neat since it should be the beginning of a story rather than its own story.

And yeah, I'm really never disappointed if they have Flash beat WW or MM beat Superman or whatever. Realistically, the idea is that it's situational.

Priest would piss off a lot of people with his take, but I’d definitely be interested, out of curiosity for what he would want to do if nothing else.

I have to admit that I think it would sound annoying, but if he wants to do it I don't think there's an argument that he wouldn't deserve his shot.

Superman's losses to Batman are frankly idiotic. One guy spends his average day fighting things considered beyond Mega-Events for the other guy. It's a Grizzly Bear fighting an infant and the outcome is obvious but Batman is more popular thus he has to win because that's how things work in the DCU. At least Marvel tries to keep some kind of semblance of a power structure so when something bizarre like Black Panther catching Silver Surfer in an arm hold happens everyone rips the writer for it.

I'm glad this was your particular example, lol

[Superbat]

Greg Pak should have rebooted Superman and not Grant Morrison.

[Sacred Knight]

The only reason I don't really consider that controversial, is I think that the finished product and its sheer awesomeness would have been quite similar.

Pak should definitely be picked up at some point though to write his Superman again on Earth-52.

[king81992]

I feel like Priest would be too cynical to write a good Superman comic. I liked his Deathstroke, but his JL wasn't very good.

[Ascended]

Oh, don't know if I've ever posted this here, but I'm of the opinion that Christopher Priest has it in him to be one of the all time greats for a Superman book.

The fact that he's apparently never been invited to write anything Superman related is one of our great failing as species.

Somebody give this man a Baldy! (remember them? I was never entirely sure what it actually was....)

Priest would be a fantastic choice. He's capable of nuance, and I think that's something Clark truly needs from writers.

Once Smashes the Klan is done, I'd kill to see DC give Priest a mini set in the same format, with the same creative freedom. Not a continuation of Smash, but letting Priest tell whatever Superman story he wanted to. Like, that's an idea so good I'd vote for it for President this November.

If DC could give us a consistent dose of Smash level quality in self-contained, continuity free mini's.....I'd have no problem dropping the main continuity forever (once I stop enjoying the main titles, anyway, I'll stick with them until they're not good).

[Ascended]

I'd say both are forms of jobbing. Doomsday at the time was simply too unimpressive an opponent to really sell as a credible threat. He had extremely limited powerset, no charisma, no real intelligence or skill. The JLA was trotted out to at least make the situation seem dire or important but that shows another weakness of modern writing where in the writers never really built up the skills to sell villains and threats as credible to the reader. The JLA's job was to make an unimpressive opponent seem impressive

Couple things.

Don't think of Doomsday as a character. He's not. Doomsday is a plot device. More like a natural disaster than anything. You can't expect a story where it has agency, it's how the characters react to Doomsday, that's what the story is. Even looking at Death, what happens? We slowly follow Doomsday's path of destruction as it moves across the country until it hits our home city (or Metropolis, anyway), just like we keep track of a hurricane or a forest fire.

And I think it's a little less "showing a unimpressive opponent to be impressive" as much as it was "showing the power levels of a unimpressive powerset." Doomsday has the same powers as the Hulk. It's a solid powerset, there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not flashy. Punching a boulder doesn't scream "Omega level powerhouse" like burning the boulder out of time with a blinding, barn-sized blast of balefire (or whatever crazy expression of raw power you can get from other abilities). So how else do you show the Hulk-like power levels other than having Doomsday punch things we know are durable, like Leaguers?

And finally, this wasn't THE LEAGUE Doomsday crushed. This was the League with Bloodwynd, Beetle, and Booster. It was not the Alpha level roster we're used to today. There were some contenders there, like J'onn and Guy, but none were at their best. Beating that roster was not some huge, universe cracking feat. Most of Clark's villains today could probably give that roster a run for its money.

Superman's losses to Batman are frankly idiotic.

Damn straight.

Why are the Batwriters drawn to picking a fight with a guy that has nothing to do with the character,

Because everyone knows, deep down, that Clark is the better man and no matter how many more copies Batman sells, Bruce will always be a hollow second place because of it.

[Vordan]

I feel like Priest would be too cynical to write a good Superman comic. I liked his Deathstroke, but his JL wasn't very good.

It depends on what you want out of Superman. A lot of people really love Superman: For All Seasons, but I honestly find it kind of corny and lame. It’s an uplifting story but not really one that I can connect to on a deeper level.

A Priest Superman story would almost certainly be very cynical and depressing in tone, and there have been a lot of failures when writers try to tell Superman stories in that mold. But Priest is a guy who is great at using humor and humanizing moments in his stories, his Deathstroke for example made me laugh a lot, which is not something I expected to do. He’s also good at writing noble men trapped in crap circumstances, that’s his Black Panther run summarized. And I genuinely enjoyed his usage of Superman in Deathstroke, his Clark was forced to go after Slade by the government, but unlike over in Aquaman where Abnett used him as an idiot stooge and punching bag, Priest had Supes beat Deathstroke and then give the middle finger to Adeline by putting Slade in a prison she couldn’t use him from. It was a very satisfying case of Supes being forced into the role of government stooge and yet ending it with him saying “**** this” and rebel. Priest writes an intelligent Superman, and it’s why I’m willing to read more from him.

Greg Pak should have rebooted Superman and not Grant Morrison.

Really liked Pak, but do you think we would’ve gotten a Superman that did stuff like this if he had been the one to reboot Supes?

Because I don’t. I’m making the assumption based on your signature that Superman fighting against social injustice is something you support, and really only Morrison had the pull with Didio to get away with stuff like this. Pak’s Superman would’ve been great, of that I have no doubt, but remember what happened with George Perez? I doubt Pak would’ve faired any better under the absolutely garbage Superman editorial office. In fact I know he would not have, because his run got ruined with editorial mandates. Still wish Pak would write a Superman Black Label book though. Yang needs another Superman book after Smashes the Klan as well.

[Ascended]

I dunno, Pak's issues of Truth where Clark goes up against the cops was pretty legit.

He probably only got to do that because Morrison did it first, but Pak definitely has the chops for it.

[Vordan]

I dunno, Pak's issues of Truth where Clark goes up against the cops was pretty legit.

He probably only got to do that because Morrison did it first, but Pak definitely has the chops for it.

It’s not that I think Pak lacks the ability or talent to pull off similar stories of Superman dealing with “relevant” topics, it’s that I don’t think he would’ve gotten permission. Perez was completely at the mercy of editorial who would rewrite his scripts without telling him, and this was a guy who was a damn DC Legend. Pak wrote one of the best Hulk stories of all time, and is in my top 3 Hulk writers (Hulk’s my favorite Marvel character and second favorite character behind Supes), but I just don’t see him getting better treatment than Perez got. Superman editorial really was an absolute dumpster fire at the time, it’s a miracle we got any decent Superman stories at all.

And I don’t really know if that’s where Pak would’ve taken things. Morrison is such a huge continuity nerd that of course he loves drawing from Golden Age Superman. Would Pak have don that if he had been the one to reboot Supes from the ground up? I kind of want to ask him. I also want to ask Perez what his plans were for Supes.

[Agent Z]

No because there is a pecking order in regards to power.

And the JL were very high on that list and had beaten more impressive threats than a big dumb monster.

It's sending the info of an unencountered being's position in it. Because the guys are over with readers regardless of the loss. Even, if a jl character let say booster beat doomsday. It wouldn't have helped him go over with readers . In this case, its further cemented as loss and not jobbing by the fact that doomsday stayed a threat of that level.it's like goku losing to beerus.Goku winning wouldn't have made a difference.

You're basically making up your own criteria for what counts as jobbing just to dismiss it.

Batman beating superman Is jobbing at its finest. because the character that won doesn't come anywhere near in regards to power. it did effect loser,adversely in regards to popularity . Jobbing affects the jobber character adversely in terms of going over with the fans. The jobber isn't supposed to look strong in any manner. See if batman hadn't beaten superman. It wouldn't have mattered to the character's popularity because of the pecking order of power that was created prior. It would have only be seen as natural outcome. Since he did, defying the pecking order and since, superman did suffer hit to his momentum with fans. Its jobbing.

This is not how jobbing works. It has never been about how jobbing works. It has nothing to do with how the audience comes to feel about the loser.

[Agent Z]

For sure. I think if five characters use Superman to boost credibility, Superman uses five characters to boost credibility.

I think it's more like five characters use Superman to boost credibility and then Superman uses ten.

[Agent Z]

Couple things.

Don't think of Doomsday as a character. He's not. Doomsday is a plot device. More like a natural disaster than anything. You can't expect a story where it has agency, it's how the characters react to Doomsday, that's what the story is. Even looking at Death, what happens? We slowly follow Doomsday's path of destruction as it moves across the country until it hits our home city (or Metropolis, anyway), just like we keep track of a hurricane or a forest fire.

And I think it's a little less "showing a unimpressive opponent to be impressive" as much as it was "showing the power levels of a unimpressive powerset." Doomsday has the same powers as the Hulk. It's a solid powerset, there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not flashy. Punching a boulder doesn't scream "Omega level powerhouse" like burning the boulder out of time with a blinding, barn-sized blast of balefire (or whatever crazy expression of raw power you can get from other abilities). So how else do you show the Hulk-like power levels other than having Doomsday punch things we know are durable, like Leaguers?

And finally, this wasn't THE LEAGUE Doomsday crushed. This was the League with Bloodwynd, Beetle, and Booster. It was not the Alpha level roster we're used to today. There were some contenders there, like J'onn and Guy, but none were at their best. Beating that roster was not some huge, universe cracking feat. Most of Clark's villains today could probably give that roster a run for its money.



Damn straight.



Because everyone knows, deep down, that Clark is the better man and no matter how many more copies Batman sells, Bruce will always be a hollow second place because of it.

That roster had victories over Eclipso, the Dominators and Despero. They may not have been the original League but they were far from second string weaklings. If they were, doesn't having them lose to Doomsday lose a lot of impact?

[manwhohaseverything]

And the JL were very high on that list and had beaten more impressive threats than a big dumb monster.



You're basically making up your own criteria for what counts as jobbing just to dismiss it.



This is not how jobbing works. It has never been about how jobbing works. It has nothing to do with how the audience comes to feel about the loser.

Yeah! In booster gold's dream he is top of the pecking order.

Lol! This is the funniest thing i heard this day. Thanks for the laugh. This guy being the top of the food chain would hilarious. Seriously, Booster is higher on popularity and was newer that high in power pecking order. Winning against doomsday wouldn't have mattered.


No, it i am not. I will give you a real world wrestling example, kane's debut. Kane debuted tombstoning the undertaker(they are two characters in wrestling.the undertaker is very popular and is high in the pecking order) . If the reverse occurred, it wouldn't have made the undertaker any more dominant in the eyes of fans.superman fighting getting his ass kicked by darkseid, mongol(back then), spectre, dr. Manhattan.. Etc is losing. Because he is below them in pecking order of power and over them in popularity. These are the factors that determine whether something is jobbing or not.

Yeah! It does. You are kidding yourself if you think writers don't haave any power over how readers feel. They do to an extent. They wouldn't be trying to kill characters like wally, if they didn't. Yes, it does work. Wally is almost erased. How well a character is written helps them go over.You might view fights as trivial nonsense. But, the reality is this is a sub genre of action genre. Fights are important part of that. Test of strengths are important for the same.