Superman General

Of course he wouldn't work in the real world; most Superheroes wouldn't. But I honestly don't think you need an entire full-length story to explain what should already be obvious.

edited 29th Jul '14 7:52:45 AM by kkhohoho

Isn't that the whole point of desconstructions, though? Getting into the nitty gritty detail of why something doesn't work? Reconstruction being "okay, fair points, but we can still address them and make them work if we do it this or that way"?

Sure. But in that case, then what's the problem with Metropolitan Man? If deconstructions are valid, then isn't this deconstruction valid as well?

Eh.

edited 29th Jul '14 9:06:01 AM by VeryMelon

Because it had all the tools for a reconstruction within it, and deliberately threw them away. Superman and Lois's discussion was a beginning of that. Superman's plans for luthor were that too. There was room for growth, for Character Development, and, as of the later chapters, it was already beginning to take place. Had there been an alien invasion soon enough, making Superman an indispensable asset of Earth, that would have made Luthor, who here is relatively sane, sensible and pragmatic, at least temporarily desist from trying to kill Superman.

There was enormous potential for an idealistic, uplifting ending, and it was shot down with kryptonite bullets! If there's a new alien invasion in the next year, from, say, Zod's refugees, Earth is fucked.

*Reads spoiler tags.*

...Oh.

Well, whatcha' gonna' do?

edited 29th Jul '14 8:33:20 AM by kkhohoho

Talk about One Punch Man. That's a deconstruction I can get behind.

Just read the article, and it seems pretty interesting. I'll check it out when I get the chance.

What's wrong with deconstruction without reconstruction? Does every bit of it need to be cushioned by saying "No, no, I actually think robots/superheroes are the shit!"?

That is not what I am asking for. I'm only asking for cathartic satisfaction.

Deconstruction without reconstruction tends to come off as a Take That! against the genre you are taking apart, which poses the question why would you be taking apart something without pointing out what makes the genre worthwhile. If you're just going to point the flaws in the genre without showing any love for it, why did you write that anyway? Out of spite? To prove how smarter you are than those who love said genre, warts and all? It generally makes the author look either petty or smarter-than-thou, or both.

edited 29th Jul '14 6:49:47 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

Not every story needs to have a happy ending, however no story should punch you in the teeth for having read it. The ending should not be such that the audience regrets having read it.

An interesting blog about "Who took the Super out of Superman":

http://rikdad.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-took-super-out-of-superman.html

Grant Morrison gives his version of how MOS should've ended.

That was harsh.

Problem, the exact same problem every other "Don't kill Zod" plan has: Then what? Does he just leave Zod to die in the vacuum of space? Does he take him back to Earth, where he'll get his powers back and start the fight all over again? Supposing he DOES get Zod imprisoned, does Zod get put to death anyway, or does he get sentenced to life in jail? Because as long as Superman's breathing, Zod will find a way out. And then he will get his powers back. And then a few more thousand people will die before Superman punches him to Pluto again, until Zod figures out that plan, and Superman has to come up with something else?

Movies are great at averting Joker Immunity.

Yeah, I don't think it's a matter of the screenwriters thinking that most of us would snap our enemies' necks if given a chance so much as that they constructed a scenario that did not appear to have any other resolution. This is Superman's very first battle. He has no means at his disposal for removing Zod's powers or imprisoning him in any meaningful way, having already blown the wadding on the Phantom Zone plan. The writer could have written another scenario, but elected not to.

Zod was going to die anyway. Morrison is just proposing a scenario where Zod was responsible for his own death (losing the powers in space and dying)

I'm kinda new to comics. Did Superman leave Lois Lane for Wonder Woman or is the new 52 an alternate continuity where Superman and Lois Lane never got together?

The latter.

Mephisto works fast, y'all.

Superman and Clark Kent have both dated Lois at some point (so far as can be determined), but she got fed up with the lack of commitment inherent in not telling your girlfriend about your secret identity and thus having to make excuses all the time. This will last until DC editorial feels they've milked it long enough.

what. no clark never dated lois in the new 52. he wanted to but he just sad frogs outside her apartment while she's with her boyfriend. then he started dating diana.

That's really really weak. So weak it doesn't even deserve a "with a capital w".