Why not Superman Retro movies?

[manwhohaseverything]

The thing about allegories is that, you need to be entertaining first.If you are going for some boring vibes. It would all be just for nothing. If you can't make people laugh or smile or be excited in some way then what's the point of any philosophical or political statements. Imagination should run wild.I always wanted a more adventurous clark kent.Superman should always be about entertainment first then everything else. Yes, that includes moral authority or champion of the oppressed . If the character ain't entertaining , then the character is a dud.

[Cyberstrike]

Yeah! Yeah! I get that, but superman is still basically saying the same thing only in a more literal sense in story than in allegorical sense which was goldenage . I mean, a modern day gladiator for truth and justice thing.

Anyways, i wonder maybe they should create one piece like world for superman. I said, this before superman punching a celestial dragon type person would be pretty damn awesome. Allegories help. why have a chirade of normal metropolis?

I found more political social justice messages and themes in stuff that was supposedly "dumb" fun and got their messages out better and are fondly remembered than some of the "serious" movies/TV shows/comics/novels/etc and aren't fondly remembered, if they're remembered at all.

[Robanker]

And you know I'm with you on that. But beyond the "message" there's issues of business that have to be considered. It's one thing to make a statement that'll offend some asshole or other, but quite another to make a statement that'll offend an asshole that also costs you several million dollars to create.

It's just risk assessment. You gotta have an idea of who's gonna support your project and what kind of backlash you might get, and from where. Not so you can avoid it, but so you can make it work for you. A period piece film would be way cheaper to make than the usual Super-film but would still be a big investment, and the franchise doesn't have a lot of goodwill behind it right now thanks to the failure of the DCEU. So you gotta at least factor in who might get pissed off by the film and how they'll respond so you have your counter-argument and marketing strategy in place.



Thanks. But yeah, I'm not advocating a story where Clark goes out and rips up posters of donald trump or gets into a deep exploration of the failure of modern journalism. But the struggles of the average person and the abuse of power are central of the original structure and those are elements the character has lost, and I believe it'd be good for everyone if he found that socially aware passion again. In normal days, what I'm suggesting wouldn't even be considered a political issue, much less a partisan one....but these are not normal days and you can't wear a f*cking mask without it being turned into a political statement by one idiot or another.

While I understand that businesses want to cast the widest net to maximize profit, over at Marvel they've made movies where left-leaning politics are on display and break a billion. The problem with fence sitting is nobody is pleased. Superman is constantly sliding backwards in the public eye because he's just sitting in the middle of a furious debate asking if we can all get along. It's not going to suddenly make everyone shell out money to see him punch a robot even if I like seeing that stuff.

At some point, they gotta realize that bad business is thinking you can get every eye of the movie going public to see your movie that says and does nothing. Does Superman need be a political movie? Absolutely not. Does it need to actually have a story it's trying to tell and be grown from the character's own ideals? Yes. Does it need to tiptoe around them because some may get offended? No.

You've got way more business savvy than I do and I always appreciate your posts on the matter, but I can't help but feel that a movie targeting half the American political landscape directly will make more than a movie broadly hoping both sides jump in. Black Panther was a general audience movie made for a specific demographic and it made as much as an Avengers movie. Captain Marvel was ice-skating uphill with misogynists (of which there are maaaannnny in the United States) and broke a billion despite every bit of press for the movie getting brigaded by limp jackasses trying to make the movie look like a colossal turd. A Superman movie where he's a champion of the oppressed again can do a lot better than Man of Steel did. Of that I'm certain.

[Ascended]

While I understand that businesses want to cast the widest net to maximize profit, over at Marvel they've made movies where left-leaning politics are on display and break a billion. The problem with fence sitting is nobody is pleased. Superman is constantly sliding backwards in the public eye because he's just sitting in the middle of a furious debate asking if we can all get along. It's not going to suddenly make everyone shell out money to see him punch a robot even if I like seeing that stuff.

At some point, they gotta realize that bad business is thinking you can get every eye of the movie going public to see your movie that says and does nothing. Does Superman need be a political movie? Absolutely not. Does it need to actually have a story it's trying to tell and be grown from the character's own ideals? Yes. Does it need to tiptoe around them because some may get offended? No.

You've got way more business savvy than I do and I always appreciate your posts on the matter, but I can't help but feel that a movie targeting half the American political landscape directly will make more than a movie broadly hoping both sides jump in. Black Panther was a general audience movie made for a specific demographic and it made as much as an Avengers movie. Captain Marvel was ice-skating uphill with misogynists (of which there are maaaannnny in the United States) and broke a billion despite every bit of press for the movie getting brigaded by limp jackasses trying to make the movie look like a colossal turd. A Superman movie where he's a champion of the oppressed again can do a lot better than Man of Steel did. Of that I'm certain.

Well, the Marvel examples are shaky; both essentially hit their socio-political messages largely just by the virtue of who the lead character is. Captain Marvel had plenty of "girl power" moments, and those were great don't get me wrong, but the overall approach and tone of the film was essentially the same as most other Marvel films, and the feminism stuff was generally limited to secondary elements. BP gets a bit more political but outside of the villain being an American radical and his colonization plan, it also avoids direct commentary on a lot of issues. And I love these films; my wife and I made a mini holiday out of seeing both of them, getting a hotel room and building our kid-free weekend around them. So I'm not talking sh*t about the movies, just pointing out that they weren't *really* all that political in their content. Winter Soldier was a more political film than either of these, I'd argue.

And yes, a Superman film where he sticks it to The Man would likely do extremely well. I completely, utterly support a return of the OG social crusader in all formats. Such a movie would still have to be well done and entertaining of course, like manwhohaseverything said, that's the most important factor. But because it's Superman and his legend is so huge, a political statement of any kind from the character is going to cause a reaction way bigger than the statement warrants. And DC/WB would have to prepare for the inevitable blowback from Fox News.

Just go back and consider the blowback Nolan's Dark Knight Rises got; there were several talking heads whining that the movie was an attack on the right because the villain was Bane, and Mitt Romney was connected to Bain Capital. Nevermind that the film's messaging leaned more right than left, or the fact that the "Bane/Bain" connection is as flimsy as it can possibly get in the first place. Some d-bags just look for any reason to convince other d-bags that their values are under attack by the radical left (or right, or whichever group you wanna vilify). A Superman film where he directly goes after some corrupt big business asshole? Fox News would lose their gods damn minds over that if the businessman is anyone but Lex.

[Robanker]

Well, the Marvel examples are shaky; both essentially hit their socio-political messages largely just by the virtue of who the lead character is. Captain Marvel had plenty of "girl power" moments, and those were great don't get me wrong, but the overall approach and tone of the film was essentially the same as most other Marvel films, and the feminism stuff was generally limited to secondary elements. BP gets a bit more political but outside of the villain being an American radical and his colonization plan, it also avoids direct commentary on a lot of issues. And I love these films; my wife and I made a mini holiday out of seeing both of them, getting a hotel room and building our kid-free weekend around them. So I'm not talking sh*t about the movies, just pointing out that they weren't *really* all that political in their content. Winter Soldier was a more political film than either of these, I'd argue.

And yes, a Superman film where he sticks it to The Man would likely do extremely well. I completely, utterly support a return of the OG social crusader in all formats. Such a movie would still have to be well done and entertaining of course, like manwhohaseverything said, that's the most important factor. But because it's Superman and his legend is so huge, a political statement of any kind from the character is going to cause a reaction way bigger than the statement warrants. And DC/WB would have to prepare for the inevitable blowback from Fox News.

Just go back and consider the blowback Nolan's Dark Knight Rises got; there were several talking heads whining that the movie was an attack on the right because the villain was Bane, and Mitt Romney was connected to Bain Capital. Nevermind that the film's messaging leaned more right than left, or the fact that the "Bane/Bain" connection is as flimsy as it can possibly get in the first place. Some d-bags just look for any reason to convince other d-bags that their values are under attack by the radical left (or right, or whichever group you wanna vilify). A Superman film where he directly goes after some corrupt big business asshole? Fox News would lose their gods damn minds over that if the businessman is anyone but Lex.

They'd still complain that Lex is just a stand-in for Trump because the silver screen has yet to see tycoon Lex in the same effect that we know him as. He was just someone who cared about land as far as they know.

And yeah, Marvel hit on those issues broadly but they still went for it. I agree about Winter Soldier being more political, but ultimately the landscape at the time wasn't as charged as it is right this very moment. Hell, in a comic book, Superman stopped an angry conservative from gunning down immigrants and Fox threw a fit in an Op-Ed piece. At this point, they're going to throw a fit unless he exclusively saves white people. Fox News can't be part of the equation anymore if Superman's going to be relevant for the entire world. You absolutely will lose a lot of Republican dollars, but they'll probably all still go see Batman anyway and in larger numbers, so perhaps cast a different net with Superman and see if you can grab more money than he traditionally would by returning to the social crusader he was built as. Am I saying he should just bullheadedly smash into situations like in Action #1? No, probably not. The world's not so cut and dry. But he shouldn't ride the fence like a mechanical bull gold medalist.

[Ascended]

They'd still complain that Lex is just a stand-in for Trump because the silver screen has yet to see tycoon Lex in the same effect that we know him as. He was just someone who cared about land as far as they know.

Oh yeah, that's true. Though the last movie Lex was the businessman version, so audiences might be a little more aware of the concept.

And honestly I don't think we'd lose that many conservatives anyway. Getting screwed over by corrupt jackasses isn't something that only happens to Democrats and liberals; we're *all* feeling like we're getting stomped on by the Man. Most of the conservatives I know, hell, *all* of them, wouldn't take issue at all with Superman going after a corrupt official or business leader or land lord, or speaking for civil rights or any of it; those are human decency issues, not political ones, and most Republicans would see it that way unless the film itself went out of its way to insult them. It's only the talking heads (and their weak willed listeners who just think what they're told to) who will take issue with these things. I believe the vast majority of people would completely support a social crusader Superman, so long as the film itself was entertaining, well-written, and targeted *corruption* and not a specific political party.

From there, yeah if you have a problem with Superman shaking down a business leader because that guy *should* be able to "run his business however he wants and those whiny employees who want a living wage and benefits and safe conditions can just quit!" then you can f*ck right off.

[bat39]

While I understand that businesses want to cast the widest net to maximize profit, over at Marvel they've made movies where left-leaning politics are on display and break a billion. The problem with fence sitting is nobody is pleased. Superman is constantly sliding backwards in the public eye because he's just sitting in the middle of a furious debate asking if we can all get along. It's not going to suddenly make everyone shell out money to see him punch a robot even if I like seeing that stuff.

At some point, they gotta realize that bad business is thinking you can get every eye of the movie going public to see your movie that says and does nothing. Does Superman need be a political movie? Absolutely not. Does it need to actually have a story it's trying to tell and be grown from the character's own ideals? Yes. Does it need to tiptoe around them because some may get offended? No.

You've got way more business savvy than I do and I always appreciate your posts on the matter, but I can't help but feel that a movie targeting half the American political landscape directly will make more than a movie broadly hoping both sides jump in. Black Panther was a general audience movie made for a specific demographic and it made as much as an Avengers movie. Captain Marvel was ice-skating uphill with misogynists (of which there are maaaannnny in the United States) and broke a billion despite every bit of press for the movie getting brigaded by limp jackasses trying to make the movie look like a colossal turd. A Superman movie where he's a champion of the oppressed again can do a lot better than Man of Steel did. Of that I'm certain.

Actually, I'd be absolutely down for a movie where Superman punches a giant robot, simply because that's something we've barely seen in an actual live-action movie! That's the sad part about the Superman franchise. While we all sit and argue about what the character should 'stand' for and politics and all the rest of it, we've yet to see Brainiac on the big screen. The Bottled City of Kandor. Toyman. Parasite. Metallo. Superman traveling to alien worlds. Superman traveling to other time periods. And about a million other aspects of the rich Superman mythology that have been sidelined in favor of endlessly regurgiating Lois/Clark, Lex Luthor, Zod, the Kent farm, Daily Planet etc.

As far as Marvel's movies being left-wing go...nah. Marvel's movies are pretty apolitical and the very definition of playing it safe (these days of course, playing it safe in a left-leaning media landscape does mean avoiding appearing right-wing, but it also involves skirting clear of hard-left stuff or anything that's too 'controversial'). Black Panther really isn't a political film in its actually content - to the extent that it does get political, it casts a black militant as the villain (albeit a sympathetic one). Captain Marvel is only a feminist film to the extent that a woman is in the lead role - in fact, if you want to read something political into it, it can be a metaphor for immigration out of conflict zones with the Skrull situation.

The Marvel Netflix shows arguably have a bit more political content, but I'd hesitate to call them partisan in any way either - even Luke Cage.

Oh yeah, that's true. Though the last movie Lex was the businessman version, so audiences might be a little more aware of the concept.

And honestly I don't think we'd lose that many conservatives anyway. Getting screwed over by corrupt jackasses isn't something that only happens to Democrats and liberals; we're *all* feeling like we're getting stomped on by the Man. Most of the conservatives I know, hell, *all* of them, wouldn't take issue at all with Superman going after a corrupt official or business leader or land lord, or speaking for civil rights or any of it; those are human decency issues, not political ones, and most Republicans would see it that way unless the film itself went out of its way to insult them. It's only the talking heads (and their weak willed listeners who just think what they're told to) who will take issue with these things. I believe the vast majority of people would completely support a social crusader Superman, so long as the film itself was entertaining, well-written, and targeted *corruption* and not a specific political party.

From there, yeah if you have a problem with Superman shaking down a business leader because that guy *should* be able to "run his business however he wants and those whiny employees who want a living wage and benefits and safe conditions can just quit!" then you can f*ck right off.

Agreed.

Superman as a vigilante might work on-screen. Superman as a super-powered SJW...doesn't.

[Vordan]

Been following this debate with interest. My own personal take is that you can do a Superman movie with strong political or social themes, but we don’t want a Superman IV where it functions as “a very special lesson” because that can be dull (although I do love how Chris Reeves made sure that even the film Superman who is seen as an American icon was anti-nuke). However there’s already some basic parts of Superman’s mythos that are hardcore political now: His planet dying because Krypton ignored the warnings of their head scientist sure do feel relevant now don’t they? Clark being a journalist, Lex being a billionaire CEO of an unethical mega-Corp and later President of the United States, General Sam Lane and the USA military gunning for him at one point, this is all stuff that’s been more or less become a central part of his character arc and I consider to be important to his early development. I think that a Superman who is at his Golden Age powerset would be perfect for doing something much more straightforward about tackling stuff like the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor in America, because then it’s less “godling imposing his will” and more “folk hero fighting for the people”.

All that said I think the next Superman movie needs to be fun first and foremost. It needs to sell the general audience on the idea that Superman is a cool character who does cool stuff and isn’t lame, similar to how you needed Batman Begins to rehabilitate the character before you could have something as blatantly political as The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Rises. So let Superman fight Brainiac or Mongul, and then afterwards you could tell a more hard hitting political story with Metallo or something. But for the record I’ll take a left-wing Superman any day, every time he’s been portrayed as right wing he usually is portrayed as a naive idiot who needs to get his clock cleaned by the likes of Batman or what not. Superman taking orders from the United States government cuts it even less now then it did back during the 1980s when Frank Miller basically took a huge dump on the pop culture conception of Superman as a super-patriotic symbol.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Dude! Corruption requires the state creation itself to be for the people. Here it ain't. Corruption occurs when something created for something changing with time so much for non-altruistic reason that it value system becomes compromised . For example, superman becoming royalty and el family nonsense. That's a corruption. Superman is a working class guy fighting a never ending battle for truth and justice. That's his original concept. Superman siding with the strong instead of the weak would be another corruption of the concept. Here ,state is doing its purpose which was killing people for transmutation. So, it wasn't corrupt. Homoculus wasn't subverting government. They were the government.They made the state. It was mere puppet for blood shed. The brothers and mustang changed the purpose itself. They decided to create something for the people. In time, by the people and of the people.

A state can be built by bad people from the ground up and still be corrupted. It wasn't an uncorrupted movement because Father created it from scratch, it was made to be subverted from day one - that was the point. It was how Father obtained and maintain political power so the heroes were forced to operate in secret. We're talking about governmental corruption, not a "corruption" of ideas that is a debatable tangent. Things change, that's life. Superman never sided with the strong, DC simply didn't what to tell those sort of stories and the newer version took off and defined him to this very day.

Everything has an influence. That doesn't mean it's set in our world. It's done for a reason. Berserk has kanishka and kushans. Does that mean it's the real world kushan empire? Nope. Its not a period piece. It's not set in our world or anything close to it. The future of that world would different from ours. They have prosthetics that are far advanced. They have alchemy. They even have a way to meet god or the universe or whatever itself.

I didn't say it was set in our world, I said it was influenced by our world. It's not subtle, King Bradley's rank is Führer President. Yes, it was done for a reason and the reason was for the connotation that the state were implied to be Nazis or WW1 Germans. The government doing a controversial ethnic cleansing is another nod to the government being Nazis. It's a period piece because of the setting it's in, and while it may have technology that we don't the majority of it isn't modern day technology, because the plot would get harder to do when people have things like cell phones. Sure, but that don't make any of that not similar to our past, the DCU does things like that too. That's just a setting, the magic is about the plot.

The thing about allegories is that, you need to be entertaining first.If you are going for some boring vibes. It would all be just for nothing. If you can't make people laugh or smile or be excited in some way then what's the point of any philosophical or political statements. Imagination should run wild.I always wanted a more adventurous clark kent.Superman should always be about entertainment first then everything else. Yes, that includes moral authority or champion of the oppressed . If the character ain't entertaining , then the character is a dud.

Allegories has nothing to do with being entertaining. Of course people want stories with Superman being entertaining. But the fact is Superman fighting government corruption or stopping wife beaters isn't an allegory for anything.

[manwhohaseverything]

A state can be built by bad people from the ground up and still be corrupted. It wasn't an uncorrupted movement because Father created it from scratch, it was made to be subverted from day one - that was the point. It was how Father obtained and maintain political power so the heroes were forced to operate in secret. We're talking about governmental corruption, not a "corruption" of ideas that is a debatable tangent. Things change, that's life. Superman never sided with the strong, DC simply didn't what to tell those sort of stories and the newer version took off and defined him to this very day.

First understand corruption.
"the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased"
This is the meaning of corruption. "Things change". well mate, this change corrupted superman. Because the original concept has working class man and gladiator ,not royalty nor knights. Superman has sided with the strong many times over the weak as well. He tried to threaten aquaman in rebirth on behalf of the government.

Fma - state was created for mass murder(the original state as mentioned in the meaning i provided) . It did its job splendidly. So its not corrupted.it would only be corrupted if it didn't do its job of mass murder. Get it.
What is refrigerator made for? To cool things and store it for long periods. It only becomes corrupted if it doesn't cool. On flipside, if you have heater giving of cold. Then that's corruption.


Finally, siegel and shuster didn't give an eff about anyone's feelings as long as they felt they weren't overstepping. Ofcourse those weren't allegories. Those were straight forward statements. Just like the first s shield was used to piss off the police. But, i wasn't talking about that. Was i? I was talking about either a period piece or using different setting from our world.So, that superman can either have backbone or have essence to his speeches other than "hope harder".

[Robanker]

Actually, I'd be absolutely down for a movie where Superman punches a giant robot, simply because that's something we've barely seen in an actual live-action movie! That's the sad part about the Superman franchise. While we all sit and argue about what the character should 'stand' for and politics and all the rest of it, we've yet to see Brainiac on the big screen. The Bottled City of Kandor. Toyman. Parasite. Metallo. Superman traveling to alien worlds. Superman traveling to other time periods. And about a million other aspects of the rich Superman mythology that have been sidelined in favor of endlessly regurgiating Lois/Clark, Lex Luthor, Zod, the Kent farm, Daily Planet etc.

As far as Marvel's movies being left-wing go...nah. Marvel's movies are pretty apolitical and the very definition of playing it safe (these days of course, playing it safe in a left-leaning media landscape does mean avoiding appearing right-wing, but it also involves skirting clear of hard-left stuff or anything that's too 'controversial'). Black Panther really isn't a political film in its actually content - to the extent that it does get political, it casts a black militant as the villain (albeit a sympathetic one). Captain Marvel is only a feminist film to the extent that a woman is in the lead role - in fact, if you want to read something political into it, it can be a metaphor for immigration out of conflict zones with the Skrull situation.

The Marvel Netflix shows arguably have a bit more political content, but I'd hesitate to call them partisan in any way either - even Luke Cage.



Agreed.

Superman as a vigilante might work on-screen. Superman as a super-powered SJW...doesn't.

I've been hoping for a Superman film with Brainiac as the antagonist for years, to be honest. And a Parasite one that's treated as a horror/thriller about stalking and hunting Superman would be phenomenal. But more "muh land tho" Lex please...

As for Superman as an "SJW," read Action Comics #1. He started off that way. It's literally who he is. He's a social crusader who punches people who disagree with him and bullies assholes into doing right or going to jail. It's literally the character.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

In terms of box office, the main political faction that Hollywood is concerned with pissing off is China, not American conservatives.

They also won't include LGBTQ characters in prominent roles because they know those parts will have to be cut out.

Superman fighting corrupt rich @$%holes, racists, and wife beaters is not going to hurt his movie's box office.

[Ascended]

Agreed.

Superman as a vigilante might work on-screen. Superman as a super-powered SJW...doesn't.

Pretty much said my peace on all this, but I'll do you one better and say a vigilante Superman, within the general framework we're talking about here (Robin Hood, not Frank Millar), would be a pretty easy win assuming the people behind the camera aren't *complete* twits. Like, this is the most stupid obvious win Superman could hope for right now.

What do we have in the superhero genre? A lot of big empty popcorn flicks or ultra-messed up deconstructions. They can both be entertaining and tell good stories, and I enjoy everything from the MCU to The Boys. but it's a damn rare sight to see a superhero film that fights the *real* bad guys. It's all pillars of light and monsters from space, or the heroes being useless if they're not the real monsters themselves...but when was the last time a superhero saved a innocent bystander from a *real* threat, like the boss who tells you a promotion only opens up if your legs do too?

And right now, in this super f*cked up year and surely for the next few years that follow? Everybody feels like they need saving. Everyone feels like there's sharks in the water. Crap we took for granted is being called into question, if it's not just straight up gone already. We are afraid and unsure with slanted, false propaganda all around. You know who else felt that way, about eighty years ago? The people reading the first Superman comics. The crap that haunted their real lives then is basically the crap haunting our lives now. And this genre, which was built on confronting these same troubles while also providing an escapist fantasy, is by and large saying *nothing* now. You know what kind of Superman movie will salvage the franchise and stop Superman's decline in relevance? You don't get that with Superman punching an alien. Not even Brainiac. That might be a good movie, and I'll watch it happily. But it'll be one of dozens doing and saying the exact same damn thing. You want Superman to actually *matter?* Then you have him fight the bad guys who actually matter.

Superman v. the corrupt is the only Superman story worth telling right now. And that doesn't mean it has to be grounded and dour and boring, it doesn't prevent Kandor or any of the larger than life elements we all love, but saving the universe from some vague threat we can barely wrap our heads around...we've got those movies already. That's not the job we need Superman for, today.

[Steel Inquisitor]

First understand corruption.
"the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased"
This is the meaning of corruption. "Things change". well mate, this change corrupted superman. Because the original concept has working class man and gladiator ,not royalty nor knights. Superman has sided with the strong many times over the weak as well. He tried to threaten aquaman in rebirth on behalf of the government.

Please, stop patronising me. The type of corruption we were discussing was about corruption about "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery." Oxford definition, not the latter. That's one meaning of corruption, not the totality of it. The original concept died in the 50's, and while I'd be interested in a Superman like that calling it corrupted is subjective, not fact. May as well say Superman should have let Lex destroy lives and let the DCU burn when the world and universe were in danger. As if he wasn't doing good works fighting crime, including the mafia, or uncovering bad things as a journalist. Haven't read Rebirth so I have no opinion on that.

Fma - state was created for mass murder(the original state as mentioned in the meaning i provided) . It did its job splendidly. So its not corrupted.it would only be corrupted if it didn't do its job of mass murder. Get it.
What is refrigerator made for? To cool things and store it for long periods. It only becomes corrupted if it doesn't cool. On flipside, if you have heater giving of cold. Then that's corruption.

Except states aren't supposed to be like that, despite it being created from the start as a mechanism for their crimes. Organisations can be corrupted from their beginnings. They just kept that secret because they knew people would view it as corruption, which is what the Elrics reacted like they did.

Finally, siegel and shuster didn't give an eff about anyone's feelings as long as they felt they weren't overstepping. Ofcourse those weren't allegories. Those were straight forward statements. Just like the first s shield was used to piss off the police. But, i wasn't talking about that. Was i? I was talking about either a period piece or using different setting from our world.So, that superman can either have backbone or have essence to his speeches other than "hope harder".

Siegel and Shuster aren't the only word on Superman, 70 of the 80 years we've had Superman hans't been their version. That's the blueprint, Superman is constantly being refined by DC.
Then why were you disagreeing with me when I said Superman fighting corruption wasn't an allegory? Superman doesn't just "hope harder" hit hits aliens and robots in the face and makes people feel like they're not worthless and that the day isn't lost, because he's good at social relationships and fighting evil people. The Superman who overturned the system wasn't even the Superman Siegel and Shuster created.

[manwhohaseverything]

Please, stop patronising me. The type of corruption we were discussing was about corruption about "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery." Oxford definition, not the latter. That's one meaning of corruption, not the totality of it. The original concept died in the 50's, and while I'd be interested in a Superman like that calling it corrupted is subjective, not fact. May as well say Superman should have let Lex destroy lives and let the DCU burn when the world and universe were in danger. As if he wasn't doing good works fighting crime, including the mafia, or uncovering bad things as a journalist. Haven't read Rebirth so I have no opinion on that.



Except states aren't supposed to be like that, despite it being created from the start as a mechanism for their crimes. Organisations can be corrupted from their beginnings. They just kept that secret because they knew people would view it as corruption, which is what the Elrics reacted like they did.



Siegel and Shuster aren't the only word on Superman, 70 of the 80 years we've had Superman hans't been their version. That's the blueprint, Superman is constantly being refined by DC.
Then why were you disagreeing with me when I said Superman fighting corruption wasn't an allegory? Superman doesn't just "hope harder" hit hits aliens and robots in the face and makes people feel like they're not worthless and that the day isn't lost, because he's good at social relationships and fighting evil people. The Superman who overturned the system wasn't even the Superman Siegel and Shuster created.

Not really, i was talking about the corruption of the former from the get go. Even that definition is very much in favour of my reasoning . Why? Cause fraudulent behaviour and dishonesty is relative.if there exists a city where you are supposed to lie and steal. Being honest and never stealing will infact be stealing and dishonest.Finally,who used there position of power to hide the real truth of creation of amestras state?mustang,elric brothers... Etc. If goku isn't about bushido ethics. Then he is corrupted. It's that simple for me. Not really, original character is always alive. He was in silverage and bronze age. Even byrne superman and donner superman wouldn't exist without goldenage superman. Silverage superman (kal el) had fairly been just a working class guy and immigrant to boot. It was in donner movies onwards that superman became more connected with jesus/knight superman became a thing. Others, took it and ran with that nonsense and ran it to the ground.

Maybe not, but amestrus is made for that.furthermore, You are kidding yourself if you think state doesn't conduct any form of violence to keep its borders safe and have stability . I am not saying its unjustified or not. State has disadvantages.

Good for you mate, cause all i here is platitudes and drama worth nothing. Absolutely without essence . That ain't my jam and nor do i believe anyone who isn't looking for fluff or drama would want that for entertainment from action comics.It's boring. I want an action hero,not some wet towel. Siegel and shuster might not be the only voice. But, any writer that doesn't consider those voices aren't really writing superman. It's that simple. Punching robots and giant lizards was very much focus in the old comics. Superman had a personality. His powers weren't just taking a stiff pose. The guy used to do some cool looking things even when doing something mundane as taking care of a baby. You know, action in action comics.it was damn entertaining. Action in action comics is consistently subpar now. There is no showmanship. The choreography, the use of power, the scale of battles,strategies ... Etc is just underwhelming.