Superman General

Considering the opponent has to die as well to make it a noble sacrifice, and the fact that Superman has already beaten them before, they would need an expendable villainbut also have to surprise the audience.

edited 22nd Mar '18 7:46:55 PM by Ikedatakeshi

Or have Lex Luthor finally do it, no holds barred do it.

Superman Doomsday (the animated movie) made good mileage out of it being random IIRC though.

What's the critical consensus around here for that movie btw?

The biggest thing I take from Superman Doomsday is that Lex Luthor really, really wants to fuck Superman.

I believe Superman: Doomsday had one of the single greatest Lex Luthor moments ever done where he creates the cure for MS on his coffee break and decides not to release it because it's not profitable enough for him.

Yeah, that really sums him up doesn't it. Was it MS? I thought it might have been cancer, but I might be getting that mixed up with the Superman scene where he's trying (and failing) to cure cancer.

(checks)

It was Muscular Dystrophy.

Superman was cancer.

@ 2503

I don't think it's so much that Lex in Superman: Doomsday wanted to screw Superman as he wanted to dominate him completely. Which might amount to the same thing, from Lex's perspective.

"Mr. Luthor, Superman just announced that he's working on a cure for cancer!"

"Fuck that shit. Super cancer for everyone."

The death of Superman: Hulk with Serial Numbers Filled Off comes from out of nowhere, destroys everything in sight for no reason, attacks everyone in sight for no reason, and kills Superman. The end.

Even One More Day has a better plot than that...

Eh, it also led to the Funeral for a Friend and Reign of Superman

Perhaps. But the death of superman, the initial event, is the worst comic book ever.

Countdown to Final Crisis says hi

edited 24th Mar '18 6:45:47 AM by Zarius

It's not the worst purely because it's fairly decently executed, but it may be one of the more cynically conceptualised stories in DC history.

There's a pretty good sort of spoof documentary on it on youtube, let's see if I can find it:

This is basically the decision and its consequences broken down, it's also really really funny, especially when he gets down to the weird backstories of certain characters.

edited 24th Mar '18 6:49:32 AM by Sigilbreaker26

um Landis, I'm pretty sure anyone who's been reading comics for any period of time knew he was coming back.

edited 24th Mar '18 7:33:52 AM by windleopard

But like a child, sometimes he's capable of surprisingly impressive feats.

They were originally going to have it that Doomsday was an escaped intergalactic mental patient (all the restraints he's in when he first appeared were going to be his super-straight jacket), but were talked out of this notion by the American Psychological Association because of it's Unfortunate Implications. I'm glad they didn't go with that, but it led to them going, at least initially, with nothing at all.

Too bad the APA couldn't be bothered to get them to do something about how the Batman franchise handled mental illness.

Mind you, the White Knight comic utterly ruins that by trying to treat the Joker as actually mentally ill versus the Hollywood Insane he is.

It actually is MORE offensive that way.

Most of the time, I don't think they should be considered legally insane and Gotham just sucks at evaluating that.

I always thought that was the case.

Arkham Asylum is a shitty hospital and corrupt that is a literal case of the inmates Running the Asylum. The crooked supervillains of the city use their connections, money, and threats to get themselves assigned there rather than Blackgate Prison.

The reason the Joker constantly escapes being because they more or less leave the door open for him.

edited 24th Mar '18 2:46:56 PM by CharlesPhipps

I've read where actual clinical psychiatrists have said that the Joker would not qualify for a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense, and neither would most of Batman's rouges who routinely get tossed into Arkham.

It's been my personal opinion for awhile now that DC just needs to retire Arkham Asylum, and stop trying to sell these villains as insane. Arkham, from a narrative standpoint, isn't intended to be an actual hospital, just a really scary place (because "mental asylums" have that connotation) full of really scary people. It just perpetuates antique ideas about mental illness, and how mental illness is treated.

Agreed. Other supervillains have come a long way from being random crazy guys doing random crazy crimes, might as well update the motivations of Arkham's finest. In particular, the Joker's in-universe reputation never made much sense, especially when it's built more around everyone else grabbing the idiot ball whenever he's nearby. More to the point, using him to milk the cardboard prison cliche for drama is not only an abuse of a necessary weasel as we've often discussed, but rather, an arbitrary impasse that virtually renders Batman's efforts meaningless. Effectively his enemy's not the Joker, but the most corrupt legal system outside of a banana republic.

Going back to Superman, sadly the same applies to Luthor's corporate executive iteration. Being an evil scientist may be cliched, but it allows the two of them to square off directly and openly. Meanwhile, Luthor hiding behind a nigh-impervious legal team again puts the conflict well outside both his and Superman's competence. They're not challenging each other's strengths, but rather abusing their contractual limitations. When Luthor wins, it's because Superman is holding back against the legal system. When Superman wins, it's because a particular incident was not ignored by the court for a change. Either way, it's not an organic development, but an arbitrary writer involvement.

I reckon the major problem evident in both situations is that, for some reason, the status quo is rigged so that the legal system ultimately helps the villain and not the hero. Now, this is not exactly unrealistic or uncommon, as many a Punisher or Sin City fan would attest, but it's hardly conductive for traditional capes, as opposed to anti-heroes who don't bother with legal niceties altogether. You can't have a hero convincingly vouch for a legal framework that consistently craps all over his efforts. Nor do acts of impotent rage - such as Batman beating up an already downed Joker, or Superman violently redecorating Luthor's office - actually become their otherwise claim to moral high ground. It may simply be time for DC's editors to curb their egos for a moment, and admit that these iterations of the villains - Joker the serial killer and Luthor the corporate suit - simply don't work too well, and could use some renovation.

Sadly, I've seen little action so far to indicate such levels of emotional maturity - the latest escapade to that effect was how in the new Justice League issue, the real world fact of Black Panther's cinematic success was magnanimously celebrated by... beating up a villainous expy, of course. And I thought Magog and the Elite were petty...

the writer who wrote that issue is probably the best writer black panther has ever had. like its priest man, he is one of the biggest and best BP writers and the dude who made nakia and ross. so its just for fun.

edited 25th Mar '18 1:29:07 PM by Deadpoolrocks

I sure hope so, since the on-page result wasn't pretty. It's kinda like how Superman has to fight Captain Marvel every now and then - as a wink to their respective publishers' rivalry - but the actual event is still him beating up a child in an adult's body, who also happens to be among the noblest heroes in the verse.

I feel like your making a big deal out of nothing...... wait, you are making a bid deal out of nothing.

Lion was already a supporting character in another of Priest's series so of course he might use him in Justice League.

edited 25th Mar '18 1:43:15 PM by slimcoder