Superman General

The angsty cage fighter wasn't because he lost his powers - it was because he was being influenced by an entity that fed on anger and rage. Superman was trying to go undercover at the time, but ended up feeding her. I would recommend, instead, reading the immediate post-Infinite Crisis Superman stories, because that has a well-adjusted Clark Kent without any powers being an awesome reporter.

Um, every superhero who has a secret identity uses a "different identity just to interact with people." I mean, Batman uses the Bruce Wayne identity to interact with people, Spider-Man uses the Peter Parker identity — well, okay, he is Peter Parker, but, again, Superman is Clark Kent. It's an identity the same way that someone's real name is an identity.

Look, in the Silver Age, Superman made Clark Kent more bumbling and foolish. But starting in the Bronze Age and especially in the Modern Age, Clark Kent became the real persona and Superman became the mask that he wears when he's out saving people and stopping villains.

Honestly, I would really recommend reading Superman: American Alien. It's a current comic that is much less about Superman than it is about Clark Kent and how he grows up.

Morrison writes stuff as if all superheroes are gods. Batman is basically the God of Knowledge under Morrison. Saying Superman is referred to as a god with Morrison is just being out of context, because, again, to him, all superheroes are modern myths and modern gods. Heck, he even wrote a book called Supergods.

edited 8th Apr '16 12:43:41 AM by alliterator

Brainiac and Metallo have both appeared in tv shows and animated movies.

As for film adaptations being bad presentations of Luthor, so what? Doom isn't any less of a good villain because all of his crappy film portrayals. And saying film Luthors are less faithful to the comics than film Doom is pretty hyperbolic. I saw more of Luthor in Spacey, Hackman, and yes even Eisenberg than I ever did in Norman Osborn lite or Blogger Doom.

JLA: Act of God had the heroes referring to themselves as former gods in self flagellatory kind of way and even then it considers them arrogant for it (of course, that's a case of informed flaws as we never see these guys act arrogant in the slightest before or after their depowerment. That the story was just a love letter to Batman (the only hero who does act like an arrogant jackass) further invalidates this argument. As for Kingdom Come, I think people ignore the fact that the story doesn't treat what Superman and his crew does as okay and they actually step down later on even admitting that they never faced anything like what the new heroes did. Them placing them selves above humanity is seen as wrong.

Also, the films did the superheroes as gods thing long before Morrison so it's likely he was inspired by them.

edited 8th Apr '16 1:43:19 AM by windleopard

And did you happen to see a Luthor actually capable of challenging Superman on any level? In every Luthor film appearance so far, Superman's ultimate enemy was a rock. Luthor was simply the guy handling it at the time. Even the DCEU has resorted to the same old plot device of magic depowerment in order to have Superman seem threatened by human opponents. At least this time he's not a deadbeat dad/stalker.

Conversely, as Superman underselling compared to other heroes isn't exactly a big secret, nor is him being unrelatable and overpowered a rarely voiced criticism, what would you consider to be the reason for it?

I saw it in Spacey and Eisenberg's Luthors. Kryptonite is a weapon like anything else. It's not like it grows legs and attacked him in all the movies. Their motivations left a lot to be desired but at no point did I doubt they were intelligent and effective.

And they're still more faithful to the character than the film adaptations of Dr. Doom, one of whom was basically just Luthor with super powers.

If you're talking about comic sales, I'd point out that the superhero market is smaller than what it once was to the point even Batman has taken some hits. I'd also say that comic book readers are not exactly an open minded bunch and if they believe Superman is unrelatable then they;re not going to bother reading a book to change their minds but have zero problem expressing contempt for a character they don't read.

Then again, I don't judge a character's worth solely on how much money they make for a company.

edited 8th Apr '16 2:03:15 AM by windleopard

So your thesis on why people don't particularly like the character... is to complain about people not liking the character. Brilliant.

Note, by the way, that ensemble titles like Justice League still sell relatively well, so you can't really claim readers have no contact with Superman so as to form an educated opinion. It's more like there really are conceptual problems, but from what I've seen, it's far more common to condemn anyone opining on such issues than try and address them.

And like I said, the matter is audience impression, not some nebulous definition of "worth". If people say he's boring, unrelatable and overpowered, there's a reason for that, and it's clearly not that they simply haven't had enough experience with the character.

In this week's Batman Beyond, it's revealed Superman Beyond is now Jon, pre-flashpoint's kid, Tim asks what became of his father and got the obligatory "long story" response

You asked a question, I gave an answer based on my observations. You don't like it, that's your problem.

And yet we still have people who will parrot the same excuses of "he's too powerful, he doesn't have flaws". These came from even people who'd watched Man of Steel, Justice League and STAS where he was anything but. I actually hold these people in far less regard than those who simply miss the Silver Age power levels. The he's "too powerful, too flawless" crowd have zero ground to stand on.

edited 8th Apr '16 2:32:53 AM by windleopard

Given how Justice League ended with the infamous "World of Cardboard" Speech, meaning Superman only seemed weak due to holding back all the time, I'd say some criticisms still hold up.

I also keep enjoying the irony of going for ad hominem in the face of differing views. That's on top of moving the goalposts from "people don't like the character because they don't know him" to "people don't like the character because... parrots".

Oh you mean when even at his strongest he didn't phase Darkseid at all and it took Lex Luthor to save his ass?

As for goalpost moving, even you can't keep your reasons for hating Superman consistent. First you complain about him being flawless, then you point out scenes of him acting flawed and still harp on about him being too perfect.

edited 8th Apr '16 2:48:07 AM by windleopard

Or it could simply be that Superman the character has plenty of flaws which would be very interesting to explore... but propping up Superman the concept has summarily vetoed any such exploration lest it endanger the status quo. Most recently the question of him being held accountable by public authority was sidestepped by both a representative of said authority, and himself later on, dying before the question could be discussed openly. That's why I said that he wasn't challenged, not that he was actually flawless. Notably, the last time he was challenged, namely by the choice to either kill or allow innocents to die, there were complaints about him even having to make such a choice in the first place - because, while Superman the character could endure making a hard call, Superman the concept would be shattered by it.

I think it is healthy to have Superman make difficult choices every now and then. A running theme I've seen in a few of his stories is that as powerful as he is, even he can't fix everything. He fails to save Jonathan in multiple stories, for one. It's inspiring to have a character who will come out on top a lot of the time and inspire hope, but even a character like that should be allowed to fail every now and again or at least stumble. He is a superman after all.

Exactly. There's just too great a temptation to turn him into some sort of supergod, with the assumption that good intentions and great strength also equal great wisdom in all matters. Consequently, whenever he's placed as a spokesman for any issue too complex to wrap up in a paperback, the opposition is demonized with abandon so as not to have an argument at all. Feel free to check out Peace on Earth, to see why world hunger isn't really a matter of economical complexities, agricultural problems and transportation logistics issues. No, it's just that there's these evil dictators who don't want Superman to feed the people, see?

Fittingly, when comics try and pull that sort of rhetoric, it's no wonder some fans also apply the same logic to general audiences literally and figuratively not buying it.

I think the problems you are citing have less to do with Superman and more to do with comics in general. A lot of them want to skip the whole "world of complexity" and go more for "punching!" Even comics that try to portray things as complex tend to skip a lot of that complexity.

Indiana the stories you are citing against superman are just shitty in general. so its not really fair to use against a superman who isnt in a crappy elseworld like act of god or dccu

Again, I would highly recommend reading Superman: American Alien. It is seriously one of the best books out there today.

Which is baffling.

My various fanfics.

Why?

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

Say what you will about him, but Max Landis has a love for the character that many writers even at DC, forget the films, really just don't have for the character.

edited 8th Apr '16 6:11:47 PM by SilentlyHonest

Given that I think a lot of writers view Superman primarily as their big retirement paycheck, I wouldn't be surprised if there were indeed a lack of love going into the character at times.

I dunno. Given what I've seen from Landis on Superman and his own (admittedly small) work on the character beforehand, I couldn't imagine a human being alive outside of Frank Miller getting him more wrong.

My various fanfics.

Max Landis did something called The Death and Return of Superman sort of explaining that storyline in a funny way. (Funnily enough, Doomsday is played by Elden Henson, who went on to play Foggy Nelson in Daredevil.) But lots of people think Landis is kind of a dick, so nobody was expecting Superman: American Alien to be any good — however, it really is''. Even people who dislike Landis like the book, that's how good it is.

Each issue takes place in a different period of Clark Kent's life. The first issue is about him as a boy, the second issue is him as a teenager, the third is immediately post-high school, and so on. And it's pretty interesting watching Clark slowly become the Clark Kent that we already know from other comics.

I mean, I was super turned off when he summarized it as "Not Clark Kent becoming Superman, but Clark Kent learning not to be an asshole" because if he needs to learn that then you've already failed. But I've heard nothing but good things and it's really weirding me out.

My various fanfics.

It's less "Clark Kent learning how not to be an asshole" and more "Clark Kent learning how to be a good person in the face of all the shit he has to deal with." Here's io9's article about the first issue and second issue.

Learning not to be an asshole is an important part of everyone's life. Clark learning not to be an asshole seems like it's a wonderful concept.

Why does Superman always have to learn not to be an asshole? Can't he just be a naturally decent person?

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."