Dude you're not really a fan of Clark anyway, outside of the early Golden Age stuff (which y'all know I adore too so I'm with you on that!) so it's not surprising you wouldn't look at the evil versions the same way. But for most people, especially in the general population? Superman is everything that is noble and good, so his evil opposite is, by its nature, something to fear.
Using archetypes is a long-standing cheat for writers anyway, so this is far from a unique circumstance. Hell, even Kirkman used this method with the original Guardians of the Globe, building them directly off the Justice League to help readers connect to them quickly before they all got brutally murdered.
Agreed. Superman is more like the authoritarian's worst nightmare; someone who uses the authoritarian's power and influence *against* them for the benefit of the common man. That's what made the character so appealing originally; the same heavy handed "don't give a sh*t about Joe Average" tactics that were employed by corrupt politicians and businessmen were turned around and used against them. Eye for an eye justice. That's always something that has a lot of appeal, especially for the downtrodden.
The idea that Clark is some kind of authoritarian is, I find, something that does have a small kernel of truth to it but it gets blown out of proportion by people who focus on the bad stories and writers, like Millar's DKR. If Clark was truly an authoritarian he'd have taken over the world long ago. There *is* a bit of the fascist in Clark, and always has been, but it runs no deeper than it does in anyone who thinks their opinions are the correct ones. Which is basically all of us.
"We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."
~ Black Panther.
There's something laughable about casting the term "authoritarian" to the strongman that can rule the world who knocks bullies over then goes back to his 9-to-5 job working at a mid-level position under several degrees of authority (editor/publisher and owner at least) where he works for his money like anyone else. He literally knocks them over then returns to being one of the people. There are terms for that, but "authoritarian" is laughably incorrect.
The Batman Who Sucks took over all of creation (albeit by eventually gaining that power, but he didn't rise with it) so there are precedents for it, dogshit though they may be.
The Superman fandom always argue about which side is more important, the "Super" or the "Man"?
I say both sides are equally important because he is SUPERMAN.
No matter how many reboots, new origins, reinterpretations or suit redesigns. In the end, he will always be SUPERMAN
Credit for avatar goes to zclark
This is the correct approach.
People who try too hard to weigh in on SUPERman or SuperMAN tend to remind me of people who expect someone to be 100% their heritage or 100% naturalized American with no ties to the old country. They're both and that's awesome. Clark's a Kryptonian who lives on Earth. He's an American. He's proud of who he is and where he comes from, both Krypton and Kansas.
It is.Never said it wasn't.I have said this before.It's how you use it.Superman is a combination of many archetypes.But,all i see one overpowering everything else.That's my problem.When i see clark.All i see is jesus.I don't see moses.I don't see tarzan.I don't hugo danner or Spartacus.I don't see zorro.I don't see any of the archetypes that made up superman.When you read goku.You get moses.You get the monkey king.Considering,Jesus was not even the original archetype used to build superman.It's completely alien to the concept of superman.I wouldn't have problem with flying saviors,if the leaping champions where out there.But,those are far less.
or those were just places he lived in.He has learned stuff from there.But, that's that.There is'nt something to be proud of.It's all in the past and the man of action lives in the present.I swear ,if i ever got to write superman.He would be coming out from shadows of the past and smash a car or something like that.He could just explode out barrel or something crazy that says "it doesn't matter who i am or where i am .i am here to do the right thing".
Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-09-2021 at 10:23 PM.
"People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"
I knew they pooped on WW when my nieces and their friends asked "why did they take WWs powers away?"
my controversial Superman opinion for today is Superman should not be eclipsed by anyone in speed.
Dunno how controversial this is but...
I like how Krypto has relationships with all the Super family. That said, DC needs to stop pairing him on quasi-permanent levels with anyone but Kal-El. He's his dog. Occasionally pair him up with Conner or Kara, sure, I love those dynamics and I don't mean to make it out like I don't. But why isn't he mostly with Clark? It seems like a mindset that since Clark is older he doesn't need his dog so the younger characters get him more often. He then shows up with Superman on more occasional situations. To me it should be the opposite.
Kinda ties into another opinion I have in that I believe DC wants Superman to be a middle-aged guy but at the same time do everything possible to perpetuate that middle-aged guys are boring.
Last edited by Sacred Knight; 05-13-2021 at 12:22 PM.
"They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El
Actually I disagree. I think Krypto should be with Kon-el. Conner doesn't have that much of a connection with Clark, and out of the whole Super family, he's the one that most needs to feel loved. Him having Krypto is a way for him to feel like he's part of the family even though he doesn't live with any of them.