Is Superman typecast?

[Kuwagaton]

What do you mean "stop"? They aren't portraying him that way. They haven't been doing anything terribly interesting with him PERIOD lately.

There's the problem itself. The difference between New 52 and rebirth is objectively significant. Whether or not it's interesting is subjective. "Yeah they're doing something else, but I don't like it " kind of contradicts the criticism that they should aim to do something different to appease someone who asks for something different.

But we just had a poll here, and I remember Rebirth Superman beating previous versions except post crisis. That doesn't speak for all of fandom, but even at this point where it's likely we haven't seen the best this new direction has to offer (it's been about 18 months so far ) that's not a bad assertion that the current direction has legs.

[jimmy]

You have a sizable population of comic readers who to this day will tell you he's too perfect, too wholesome, too flawed, too weak,ect...

Agreed. I'm not bothered by it, just find it really goofy and distracting. One can make that comparison... but I have no idea how that's taken as one should. In like 16 years on online forums, I haven't seen someone go, "yeah, more of that please."



Adams likes a very capable Superman, but just thinks pushing planets around in particular is a silly feat that requires too much suspension of disbelief. The understanding that Superman is way stronger than the characters you mention, in addition to having many other powers, is something that quote takes for granted.

Personally, I like Superman perfect....and powerful!

For G's sakes - I don't want a flawed or, weak Superman NOT at all to be more grounded Earth bound so, that he more relatable to us, please no, as that was the whole premise behind the 1986 reboot, which I did not like as they made him so weak, where he need a space suit and air his biggest weakness should be that he cares so much for life, any life, and he'll do anything to protect and preserve it - no matter where - and that's where the biggest threat to him comes.

Superman should be universal with Earth as his home base of operations.

A Plausible explanation would be that Superman's powers are both physical and mental - in words - he is able, in as far as lifting objects are / is concerned, mentally project an aura of cohesion to keep things intact, so that they will not break. That aura could be expanded on a planetary scale to explain any movements of heavenly bodies

[Lightning Rider]

With casual audiences you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Make him optimistic, warm, charismatic, he’s too perfect. Especially if he solves a problem by punching it, which in the comics is rarely the case. But make him flawed and they throw a fit. People aren’t exposed to stories in which we have access to Superman’s internal thoughts if they don’t read the comics. They can’t empathize with him because they can’t see past the scale of his ability. Good story arcs provide that in spades, films and mass media have more to juggle and market. He should be a Boy Scout who overcomes problems, both external and internal. Just as we do but on a bigger more complex scale.

[Lightning Rider]

Personally, I like Superman perfect....and powerful!

For G's sakes - I don't want a flawed or, weak Superman NOT at all to be more grounded Earth bound so, that he more relatable to us, please no, as that was the whole premise behind the 1986 reboot, which I did not like as they made him so weak, where he need a space suit and air his biggest weakness should be that he cares so much for life, any life, and he'll do anything to protect and preserve it - no matter where - and that's where the biggest threat to him comes.

Superman should be universal with Earth as his home base of operations.

A Plausible explanation would be that Superman's powers are both physical and mental - in words - he is able, in as far as lifting objects are / is concerned, mentally project an aura of cohesion to keep things intact, so that they will not break. That aura could be expanded on a planetary scale to explain any movements of heavenly bodies

Making him perfect means he isn’t a character.

[The World]

Lets have a list of epithets that over the years have been attributed to Superman.

Man of Steel
Man of Tomorrow
Action Ace
Man of Might
Champion of the Oppressed
Boy Scout
Naive Farmboy

Man of Steel and Man of Might clearly are there to impress upon his great physical characteristics, his vast physical strength for the latter and his unyielding will and physique for the former. Action Ace tells us the disposition of the character, he's an action oriented guy. Man of Tomorrow describes him as this sort of evolved man that's physically and mentally ahead of current humans as the character was originally meant to be before he ended up being from space. Champion of the oppressed tells us who and what he's fighting for, the underprivileged and the down trodden. In and of itself while not deep brain picking descriptions of the character they do let us understand aspects of the man crammed into a few words but since he's an old and vast character you get many names the can accurately be held to a certain part of what he is. Compare this to something like The Flash where all of his epithets are essentially just saying he's very fast (e.g. Sultan of Speed, Monarch of Motion,).

Now there's a line that's crossed when you get to Boy Scout in that it's not a descriptor of his character but rather it's a vague insult. It's passing his well mannered demeanor off as a weakness that means he can be rolled over by anyone but it's also rather easy to dispute if you have done any reading of the character. Naive Farmboy is the evolved version of boyscout it's attempting to further explain the boyscout angle by attaching it to the fact that he was raised the American midwest which is stereotypically seen as a stretch of land inhabited by the most ignorant and oblivious parts of the US.

Unfortunately somehow over time we ended up with writers who started drinking the bizarro kool-aide and we had actual writers who worked on the character believing in the Naive Farmboy stuff and now the character is fighting against the moronic legacy those people left behind. Written correctly Superman has no time for nonsense and doesn't take crap from anyone but as time wears on the less people are familiar with the important pillars of the character and you get industry renown writers like Greg Rucka or Gale Simone being asked about who Superman is and either being flat out wrong or trying to be vague to mask the fact that they aren't really sure.

In reality Superman is suppose to be an opinionated guy who's more than happy to get rough with anyone from the lowest crook to the specter itself, isn't afraid to speak his mind, and doesn't take any guff from anyone. Time has worn big blue down though.

[jimmy]

Making him perfect means he isn’t a character.

I wouldn't say that, necessarily even God has character - beside he'd be the perfect character


Empathize never really thought of Superman needing empathy, for me it was all about the adventure and helping people, emotionally, Superman should be a very strong character, all around and hopefully, not something out of a Jacqueline Susann novel i.e. -Valley of the Dolls-, However, Id imagine that some readers would like to see that adaptation.

Lets have a list of epithets that over the years have been attributed to Superman.

Man of Steel
Man of Tomorrow
Action Ace
Man of Might
Champion of the Oppressed
Boy Scout
Naive Farmboy

Man of Steel and Man of Might clearly are there to impress upon his great physical characteristics, his vast physical strength for the latter and his unyielding will and physique for the former. Action Ace tells us the disposition of the character, he's an action oriented guy. Man of Tomorrow describes him as this sort of evolved man that's physically and mentally ahead of current humans as the character was originally meant to be before he ended up being from space. Champion of the oppressed tells us who and what he's fighting for, the underprivileged and the down trodden. In and of itself while not deep brain picking descriptions of the character they do let us understand aspects of the man crammed into a few words but since he's an old and vast character you get many names the can accurately be held to a certain part of what he is. Compare this to something like The Flash where all of his epithets are essentially just saying he's very fast (e.g. Sultan of Speed, Monarch of Motion,).

Now there's a line that's crossed when you get to Boy Scout in that it's not a descriptor of his character but rather it's a vague insult. It's passing his well mannered demeanor off as a weakness that means he can be rolled over by anyone but it's also rather easy to dispute if you have done any reading of the character. Naive Farmboy is the evolved version of boyscout it's attempting to further explain the boyscout angle by attaching it to the fact that he was raised the American midwest which is stereotypically seen as a stretch of land inhabited by the most ignorant and oblivious parts of the US.

Unfortunately somehow over time we ended up with writers who started drinking the bizarro kool-aide and we had actual writers who worked on the character believing in the Naive Farmboy stuff and now the character is fighting against the moronic legacy those people left behind. Written correctly Superman has a low boiling point for nonsense and doesn't take crap from anyone but as time wears on less people are familiar with the important pillars of the character and you get industry renown writers like Greg Rucka or Gale Simone being asked about who Superman is and either being flat out wrong or trying to be vague to mask the fact that they aren't really sure.

In reality Superman is suppose to be an opinionated guy who's more than happy to get rough with anyone from the lowest crook to the specter itself, isn't afraid to speak his mind, and doesn't take any guff from anyone. Time has worn big blue down though.

Yep, and savior of the universe......

Boy scout always implied a bit of "goody two-shoe" over-tone not that it is not bad, it just comes off rather soft, if you know what I mean. NOW, if I had my druthers I'd play him just like George Reeves did in the Adventures of Superman slick and sophisticated as well as some one who could hold more than his own, discussing any topic.

[9th.]

With casual audiences you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Make him optimistic, warm, charismatic, he’s too perfect. Especially if he solves a problem by punching it, which in the comics is rarely the case. But make him flawed and they throw a fit. People aren’t exposed to stories in which we have access to Superman’s internal thoughts if they don’t read the comics. They can’t empathize with him because they can’t see past the scale of his ability. Good story arcs provide that in spades, films and mass media have more to juggle and market. He should be a Boy Scout who overcomes problems, both external and internal. Just as we do but on a bigger more complex scale.

this is why need another animated series

[Kuwagaton]

Personally, I like Superman perfect....and powerful!

For G's sakes - I don't want a flawed or, weak Superman NOT at all to be more grounded Earth bound so, that he more relatable to us, please no, as that was the whole premise behind the 1986 reboot, which I did not like as they made him so weak, where he need a space suit and air his biggest weakness should be that he cares so much for life, any life, and he'll do anything to protect and preserve it - no matter where - and that's where the biggest threat to him comes.

Superman should be universal with Earth as his home base of operations.

A Plausible explanation would be that Superman's powers are both physical and mental - in words - he is able, in as far as lifting objects are / is concerned, mentally project an aura of cohesion to keep things intact, so that they will not break. That aura could be expanded on a planetary scale to explain any movements of heavenly bodies

I remember him using a space suit in the cartoon, but the only times he'd use a breathing apparatus in the comics was going out of the solar system as his breath wasn't infinite. According to Byrne his power limits were essentially based on his will (the catch of the benchmark, moving the planet, was that he wouldn't feel the need to do such a thing in the first place), and psychic to an extent. That last bit was based on the fact that he'd lose his powers through amnesia or hypnosis in the silver age. I'm not sure Byrne came up with the aura thing necessarily, but he coined it in the comics and it allowed Superman to throw a large mass into orbit around the sun, as it "only weighed a few thousand tons." Compared to the benchmark weight limit of 100 tons for a top strength lift at Marvel.

But where perfect goes...

With casual audiences you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Make him optimistic, warm, charismatic, he’s too perfect. Especially if he solves a problem by punching it, which in the comics is rarely the case. But make him flawed and they throw a fit. People aren’t exposed to stories in which we have access to Superman’s internal thoughts if they don’t read the comics. They can’t empathize with him because they can’t see past the scale of his ability. Good story arcs provide that in spades, films and mass media have more to juggle and market. He should be a Boy Scout who overcomes problems, both external and internal. Just as we do but on a bigger more complex scale.

Making him perfect means he isn’t a character.

I agree with these posts. "Boy Scout" is something used against him that he can turn around and own. Because yeah, he smiles and saves the day and the flag blows behind him. Gotta be hard to write the original good guy superhero when you're insecure about that sort of stuff. I think when writers fight too hard against it, we get comics up to and including At Earth's End. Which is a great comic but not on purpose and not for the reasons most other Superman comics are good.

[Agent Z]

What do you mean "stop"? They aren't portraying him that way. They haven't been doing anything terribly interesting with him PERIOD lately.

And don't cater to the people who want flaws acknowledged. They already can be, just not in the way they want. And they still won't read the book anyway, so who cares about what they think?

Define interesting.

So how should his flaws be acknowledged? Because any time they're pointed out by anyone there's an uproar.

[Agent Z]

Personally, I like Superman perfect....and powerful!

For G's sakes - I don't want a flawed or, weak Superman NOT at all to be more grounded Earth bound so, that he more relatable to us, please no, as that was the whole premise behind the 1986 reboot, which I did not like as they made him so weak, where he need a space suit and air his biggest weakness should be that he cares so much for life, any life, and he'll do anything to protect and preserve it - no matter where - and that's where the biggest threat to him comes.

Superman should be universal with Earth as his home base of operations.

A Plausible explanation would be that Superman's powers are both physical and mental - in words - he is able, in as far as lifting objects are / is concerned, mentally project an aura of cohesion to keep things intact, so that they will not break. That aura could be expanded on a planetary scale to explain any movements of heavenly bodies

What you have described here is a character that is herioc due to his circumstances not his actual actions. As Ben Sisqo put it, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise". There's a reason God is the character in the Bible whose perspective is focused on the least.

[Osiris-Rex]

What you have described here is a character that is herioc due to his circumstances not his actual actions. As Ben Sisqo put it, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise". There's a reason God is the character in the Bible whose perspective is focused on the least.

They even had to go so far as to turn God into a human (Jesus) to make him interesting in the sequel. Sort of like how Clark Kent is more interesting than Superman.

[Lokimaru]

There's the problem itself. The difference between New 52 and rebirth is objectively significant. Whether or not it's interesting is subjective. "Yeah they're doing something else, but I don't like it " kind of contradicts the criticism that they should aim to do something different to appease someone who asks for something different.

But we just had a poll here, and I remember Rebirth Superman beating previous versions except post crisis. That doesn't speak for all of fandom, but even at this point where it's likely we haven't seen the best this new direction has to offer (it's been about 18 months so far ) that's not a bad assertion that the current direction has legs.

See the problem I have with New 52 becoming Rebirth is that they KILLED the natural progression of the Character Overwriting him with a false history. Post Crises Superman was allowed a natural progression starting from his Parents life on Krypton, that's why people fell in love with the character. A begat B, B begat C. New 52 also had a Natural Progressive Life Starting from his Parents on Krypton progression. You can't tell me you can kill the Kents before he becomes Superman and would still have Clark turned out exactly like a Character whose parent were still Alive well into his career. That is the ULTIMATE height of Bullshit hand-wavy nonsense.

People change based on Experiences, that is UNAVIODABLE. After I lost my Mom I started working out and eating better went from a 220 pound couch potato to a 180 pound active person based on one significant event in my life.

I understood New 52 superman cause they showed me his Why. I knew Why he created the Superman persona, I knew Why he didn't try dating Lois yet did date Diana. Hell I knew Why he was so brass and aggressive, I knew Why he Cared. Everyone talks about how Changed Clark was but not how changed Jor-El and Lara were or how Changed Ma and Pa were. YOu really think New 52 Superman wouldn't have still been a social crusader had Ma and Pa lived? Did you forget what New 52 Ma and Pa were like? The only real thing that would have change would have been him getting with Lois.

That's why I don't like how they "Fixed" Rebirth Superman. To turn him into his more post crises self Married to Lois all they had to do was keep the Kents alive That's it. You didn't need to overwrite krypton or anything else just save the Kents. The Kents being Dead was the only reason New 52 Clark avoided the relationship with Lois. Morrison even pointed that Out with the wish Clark was offered by Mrs. Nixly. Clark gave UP his wish for a perfect life cause that's who he is. He
instead used the wish to keep a promise to a kid on Mars.

[JAK]

Making him perfect means he isn’t a character.

One issue I see with the way people seem to be reading some of these words...

"Not flawed" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect". For some "flawed" means an emotionally stunted character of some kind... mainly because that's the way Hollywood tends to use the term in descriptions. "This flawed character" etc, etc, etc. That definition of flawed has been tried twice and is somewhere between divisive and a non-starter. Two separate Superman franchises have proven this.

For some, "not flawed" means "not having any shortcomings or character ticks at all. That's not Superman, and I honestly don't think anyone here who's asking for a "not flawed" Superman are using that definition. Superman has flaws.... flaws that we want, but flaws nonetheless. His affinity for humanity is a flaw and a merit. His general headstrong nature is the same, even with it being tempered by his intelligence.

I want a fully fleshed-out character who's got all the classic hero tropes in such a way as to show he's the original combination of them.

All potential Superman writers should learn the lesson of the DCEU: if you're going to change things, make VERY sure you fully flesh out the character and don't make them one note. But above all, an optimistic outlook overall and a show of his strength of character.

Ok, that turned into a tangent, but just wanted to show how I think when people use some of these words, they don't necessarily mean them how some others seem to be reading them.

[Lokimaru]

One issue I see with the way people seem to be reading some of these words...

"Not flawed" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect". For some "flawed" means an emotionally stunted character of some kind... mainly because that's the way Hollywood tends to use the term in descriptions. "This flawed character" etc, etc, etc. That definition of flawed has been tried twice and is somewhere between divisive and a non-starter. Two separate Superman franchises have proven this.

For some, "not flawed" means "not having any shortcomings or character ticks at all. That's not Superman, and I honestly don't think anyone here who's asking for a "not flawed" Superman are using that definition. Superman has flaws.... flaws that we want, but flaws nonetheless. His affinity for humanity is a flaw and a merit. His general headstrong nature is the same, even with it being tempered by his intelligence.

I want a fully fleshed-out character who's got all the classic hero tropes in such a way as to show he's the original combination of them.

All potential Superman writers should learn the lesson of the DCEU: if you're going to change things, make VERY sure you fully flesh out the character and don't make them one note. But above all, an optimistic outlook overall and a show of his strength of character.

Ok, that turned into a tangent, but just wanted to show how I think when people use some of these words, they don't necessarily mean them how some others seem to be reading them.

HOW pray tell is Cavill ONE NOTE? Did you Listen to his talks with Perry AT ALL? The guy gives a ****. That's all a Superman really needs, Lex shook that faith a little but one talk from Pa Kent about actions and consequences set him straight again.

I see Superheroing like dating, If you never ask someone out cause your afraid of being rejected you'll never go out. You gotta try. I don't think people want to see Superman at the try faze of his life, They want to avoid the try part and get straight to the dating as fast as possible. That's why some people are put off by MoS and not Superman the Movie.

In Superman the Movie Clark had Twelve years of simulated Dating experience under his belt before going on his first date and he nailed it. MoS Clark was still writing the Check yes or No note.

[jimmy]

I understood New 52 superman cause they showed me his Why. I knew Why he created the Superman persona, I knew Why he didn't try dating Lois yet did date Diana. Hell I knew Why he was so brass and aggressive, I knew Why he Cared. Everyone talks about how Changed Clark was but not how changed Jor-El and Lara were or how Changed Ma and Pa were. YOu really think New 52 Superman wouldn't have still been a social crusader had Ma and Pa lived? Did you forget what New 52 Ma and Pa were like? The only real thing that would have change would have been him getting with Lois.

That's why I don't like how they "Fixed" Rebirth Superman. To turn him into his more post crises self Married to Lois all they had to do was keep the Kents alive That's it. You didn't need to overwrite krypton or anything else just save the Kents. The Kents being Dead was the only reason New 52 Clark avoided the relationship with Lois. Morrison even pointed that Out with the wish Clark was offered by Mrs. Nixly. Clark gave UP his wish for a perfect life cause that's who he is. He
instead used the wish to keep a promise to a kid on Mars.

Convergence / Re-birth really equates to a giant pencil experiment (with an eraser) from DC as one wonders how long, will the Re-birth time line continue as we draw closer to Action 1000? Also, If there weren't such a out-cry in favor of the Post Crisis Superman would the N52 Superman still be around?

Just a pet peeve rant - You really need a compendium just to keep things straight as it really gets confusing and very convoluted with all of the changes to Superman and DC universe franchise(s) - I guess you can say it started when Sarah and Eben Kent became Martha and Johnathan Kent some 65 plus year ago as Superman, with the vast array of DC's re-boots,(soft and hard) that followed, along with TV and Movies versions that seem to either; make up, change out right or, use some sort of amalgam there of, to build both a foreground and, a background to fit their character narrative, then just call it either; Earth 19 or, Universe X, to explain away the differences - subtle or, significant.

Bottom line: One thing is for sure, that the DC universe has been in a continuous flux for over a half a century!

Superman are using that definition. Superman has flaws.... flaws that we want, but flaws nonetheless. His affinity for humanity is a flaw and a merit. His general headstrong nature is the same, even with it being tempered by his intelligence. I want a fully fleshed-out character who's got all the classic hero tropes in such a way as to show he's the original combination of them.

All potential Superman writers should learn the lesson of the DCEU: if you're going to change things, make VERY sure you fully flesh out the character and don't make them one note. But above all, an optimistic outlook overall and a show of his strength of character.

Pretty much this - I want Superman to be very powerful while being able to traverse the Universe at will but, he has to temper his super-feats - at times, and fight the base level instinct to barrel into a situation because, there could be unfortunate or, even grave consequences (lives lost...property damaged etc) in doing.

Superman should be looking for BALANCE to the equation at all times, in the things that he does so, I want to see his mental process "gears turn" as Superman goes about his business of doing what needs to be done as he thinks through the most effective and efficient way to do it, and it is up to a competent writer to develop, layout and explain to help the reader understand process.