Why do you find Superman stories interesting

[Devonix]

OK since another thread got derailed with Superman discussion. The way lots of of vs threads tend to do I thought it would be best to bring some talk over here.

Some people find him boring, I am not one of those. When I was a kid I simply looked at all of the talk about him being unstoppable and goody goody, and such and viewed him as uninteresting. As I grew older and less jaded... yeah I know right less. Well as that happened I started to see why he was so beloved, and started to love the character myself as well.

Superman to me is the ultimate love story.

It's about parents, sending their future, the thing they loved most in the world away in hopes that he would have a chance at life and happiness.

It's about a couple that could not have a family of their own, taking in a complete stranger, dealing with that child's immense amount of problems and teaching them everything they knew about being a good and loving person.

It's about a man with all the power in the world reacting to that love and wanting to show the world every day a representation of it, by dedicating his life to being a beacon of hope.

Never stopping, never giving in, never even when you want to relenting from seeing the best in people and giving the best in yourself.

That's why I find Superman stories interesting.


... That and punching space gods in the face :smalltongue:

[Devonix]

Also this is a positive thread. If you dislike the character fine, but just saying that a character is bad, or uninteresting serves no purpose. Obviously some people do happen to find him interesting or he wouldn't have lasted all of these decades.

And no turning this into a vs thread.

[Brother Oni]

I'd like to note before I start that I haven't read many Superman comics and all my knowledge of him is through the various movies and the DCAU.

I like Superman because he's an ideal, the far end of the idealism/cynicism spectrum.
While most stories I like involve very grey situations and characters, where such idealistic characters like Superman are tested to their morality breaking point to see whether they'll take that final step, sometimes it's good to be reminded of an incorruptable paragon of justice.

It's why the Cadmus arc of JLA TV series are my favourite episodes and the fight between Captain Atom and Superman sticks in my mind so much.

As for why Superman's been so popular over the years, he's an immigrant to the US, something that probably resounded quite firmly with readers at the time of his creation.
The fact that through his own abilities, talent and hard work, he has become a well known and celebrated public figure and hero, may also have played a part.

[Killer Angel]

I'm not a huge fan, but i'll throw my two cents.

Superman can be so insanely powerful that his stories have the potential to be immensely boring.
To avoid this and to be interesting, Supes' stories must be well written, with solid motivations, smart ideas, psycological involvement and so on.
When you obtain such things, usually you have a result that's better than other "good stories", 'cause you think "wow, they did a very good job, considering how difficult is to work with the character of Superman".

[Kindablue]

As you know, I’m quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding superheroes fascinating. Take my favorite superhero, Superman. Not a great comic book. Not particularly well-drawn. But the mythology… The mythology is not only great, it’s unique. Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there’s the superhero and there’s the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn’t become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he’s Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red “S” – that’s the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears – the glasses, the business suit – that’s the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak. He’s unsure of himself. He’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.
--Bill

[Killer Angel]

I like Superman because he's an ideal, the far end of the idealism/cynicism spectrum.
While most stories I like involve very grey situations and characters, where such idealistic characters like Superman are tested to their morality breaking point to see whether they'll take that final step, sometimes it's good to be reminded of an incorruptable paragon of justice.


Almost true. Even Superman can have its own grey moral areas...

[Devonix]

I'd like to note before I start that I haven't read many Superman comics and all my knowledge of him is through the various movies and the DCAU.

I like Superman because he's an ideal, the far end of the idealism/cynicism spectrum.
While most stories I like involve very grey situations and characters, where such idealistic characters like Superman are tested to their morality breaking point to see whether they'll take that final step, sometimes it's good to be reminded of an incorruptable paragon of justice.

It's why the Cadmus arc of JLA TV series are my favourite episodes and the fight between Captain Atom and Superman sticks in my mind so much.

As for why Superman's been so popular over the years, he's an immigrant to the US, something that probably resounded quite firmly with readers at the time of his creation.
The fact that through his own abilities, talent and hard work, he has become a well known and celebrated public figure and hero, may also have played a part.

I loved the DCAU Superman. and the Cadmus and Justice Lords stories were very good at showing how Superman could go over the edge and not realize it, with the Cadmus story showing just how terrifying he could be to governments even when not doing anything.

[thubby]

when he's done right, what makes him interesting is that he's strong enough that his struggles aren't with the practical, but the moralistic approach to things.
he's the guy that you can put in those hypothetical moral dilemmas you see in ethics books.

[Devonix]

Almost true. Even Superman can have its own grey moral areas...

True. such as the whole resting the urge to swoop in and take over the puny mortals lives. For their own good.

[Killer Angel]

showing how Superman could go over the edge and not realize it,

True. such as the whole resting the urge to swoop in and take over the puny mortals lives. For their own good.

One of the best examples of S "going over the edge and not realizing it", IMO is Kingdom Come.
Superman can indeed be a fascinating character.

[Drascin]

Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak. He’s unsure of himself. He’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.
--Bill

I don't think that's fair. Clark Kent is not a coward. Clark Kent is a succesful journalist who is not afraid to speak up on contentious issues, which has earned him several Pulitzers. I seem to remember a panel that called my attention in one particular comic. I don't remembr the exact words, but it was something like "Superman can save the world. But Clark Kent can perhaps change it", said by the man himself.

If Clark Kent is Superman's view of humanity, it means that Superman's view of humanity is that we can do great things despite our lack of power, if we are willing to speak up and face the issues.

Clark Kent is the costume Superman puts on to do a different kind of heroics.

[Prime32]

I like Superman because he's an ideal, the far end of the idealism/cynicism spectrum.
While most stories I like involve very grey situations and characters, where such idealistic characters like Superman are tested to their morality breaking point to see whether they'll take that final step, sometimes it's good to be reminded of an incorruptable paragon of justice.Honestly I think Captain America does idealism better. Superman is better suited to "with great power comes great responsibility" and "how do you deal with people treating you as a god" stories.

[Hopeless]

Makes me wonder if they went back and had him have to spend all day living and working like everyone else whilst his racial ability to absorb solar energy or light means that every night he's effectively an insomniac who can't sleep because of all that stored energy and he has to fly around expending that excess energy until he can tire enough to head home and get a couple of hours sleep before dawn wakes him again as his energy level rises again but gets to spend a normal day reenergizing so he can try and live as normal a life as he can.
His powered up state means noone recognises him since he is literally larger than life when he starts using his powers whilst in his normal guise he simply looks no different than anyone else.

The above is simply because barring a few series he doesn't learn about his true origin until after he becomes a superhero and in those cases when he does they at least give him an avenue to cope such as finding he could fly from Superman the animated series for example.

I think Superman Birthright was the closest to this and i was wondering what the rest of you think about this?

Would Superman be a better character if rather than be all powerful there's a reasonable explanation for what he can do and how he can keep up a private life and not go the route of the Authority and the superpowered celebrity obsession this story could go down.

[Killer Angel]

Honestly I think Captain America does idealism better.

Me too. Obligatory link (http://vulcanstev.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/demot-principles.jpg).


While most stories I like involve very grey situations and characters, where such idealistic characters like Superman are tested to their morality breaking point to see whether they'll take that final step,

Yeah, like Rorschach's final stand! Oh, wait...

[Brother Oni]

One of the best examples of S "going over the edge and not realizing it", IMO is Kingdom Come.
Superman can indeed be a fascinating character.

I've been meaning to get hold of that TPB as it sounds facinating.

From an incidental note, I've heard that Superman can be somewhat overzealous in his smiting of robotic/mechanical opponents, which suggests he has some grey areas in his character.


Honestly I think Captain America does idealism better. Superman is better suited to "with great power comes great responsibility" and "how do you deal with people treating you as a god" stories.

Unfortunately, I know even less about Cpt America than Superman, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge -I've only seen the 1990 movie.


Would Superman be a better character if rather than be all powerful there's a reasonable explanation for what he can do and how he can keep up a private life and not go the route of the Authority and the superpowered celebrity obsession this story could go down.

It could be worse - he could could end up like the Superman analogue Homelander from The Boys.


Yeah, like Rorschach's final stand! Oh, wait...

I'm not sure what you mean here. Rorschach refused to compromise on his ideals and I respect the character for that. It's more often that compromising on your ideals leads you down the road to damnation, rather than his specific example, but the principle is still there.

[Fragenstein]

... Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.
--Bill

Well that didn't take long. I figured Bill's commentary would find its way into the thread, but not so quickly.

I loved both Kill Bill movies. I did not appreciate the rather misguided interpretation of Clark Kent, however. It seemed to show that Bill was not actually as into comics as he claimed.

Clark is not how Superman views humanity. Rather, he engineered the Clark Kent disguise to emobdy aspects of humanity which were the polar opposite of his superheroic self. Some people are mild mannered. Some people are indecisive. Some people are clumsy and awkward. Few people are really all of the weakest elements of society rolled into one.

He saw most people as being superior to Clark. He wanted it that way. Clark was intended to be so far from Superman, while still being human, that it wouldn't even cross anyone's mind to associate the two.

There has always been an appreciation for the strengths that humanity does hold. He knows that the most of the people in the DC Universe can't punch villains into the sun. Neither can he when underneath a red sun, or when exposed to radiation from his shattered homeworld. Superman knows this. He's been saved by enough humans under such conditions that he's not likely to forget it.

For god's sake, he learned how to box from Muhammad Ali. The Superman described by Bill would never say to a human: "Please teach me how to fight".

I don't buy it. Clark is not Superman's critique of humanity. Rather, its a deliberate attempt to make himself less than he already knows humanity can be.

[Killer Angel]

Well that didn't take long. I figured Bill's commentary would find its way into the thread, but not so quickly.

I loved both Kill Bill movies. I did not appreciate the rather misguided interpretation of Clark Kent, however. It seemed to show that Bill was not actually as into comics as he claimed.

(snip)

I don't buy it. Clark is not Superman's critique of humanity. Rather, its a deliberate attempt to make himself less than he already knows humanity can be.

That's a thing that always makes me think.
That interpretation, is really the way Bill "read" the whole matter of Clark's figure, or it was only a convenient reading, to support his tentative of diplomacy with Beatrix?

[Kindablue]

Well that didn't take long. I figured Bill's commentary would find its way into the thread, but not so quickly.
I am a tangled briar patch of predictablity.



I loved both Kill Bill movies. I did not appreciate the rather misguided interpretation of Clark Kent, however. It seemed to show that Bill was not actually as into comics as he claimed.
I get the feeling like Tarantino was pulling more from the Christopher Reeve films than the comics. I agree completely with the rest of those things that you have said, though.

[Devonix]

Also why are we supposed to agree with Bill's opinion on Superman. Of course he hates him.
Bill is a Supervillan, he leads a gang of assasins. Bill's a badguy, Bill's Lex Luthor. Did we expect him to say nice things about Superman?

[Othesemo]

To be honest (and this is written by a person with fairly limited knowledge of specific comics), I don't. Not simply because he's too powerful- there are plenty of great writers who can and have made that work- but because of the image he represents. The notion of an unshakable, infinitely virtuous paragon of justice is enough to make me throw the book away. He is, in my eyes, an anti-ideal presented as something actually worth aspiring to, and thus is entirely contrary to my tastes.

[Kindablue]

Also why are we supposed to agree with Bill's opinion on Superman. Of course he hates him.
Bill is a Supervillan, he leads a gang of assasins. Bill's a badguy, Bill's Lex Luthor. Did we expect him to say nice things about Superman?

I posted it as a tongue in cheek counterpoint to what you were saying, not something that I actually expected anyone to go along with. And anyway, the point of that monologue (the end of which I left off) is that some people just can't be normal; they can fit in if they try, but all they'll be doing is wearing a disguise, pretending to be something they aren't.

[JoeMac307]

Growing up, I was never a big Superman fan. In college, one of my buddies really dug Superman and I couldn't understand why... I thought he was boring. He said he liked Superman so much because of the supporting cast.

I can see that. He does have one of the better supporting casts in comic books, characters that even non-comic book readers know, like Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, Ma and Pa Kent, Lana Lang and Pete Ross.

His supporting cast has been popular enough to even get their own titles at various points, like Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen, and Superman's Girlfriend, Lois Lane.

There is also the entire Superman Family - Supergirl, Superboy, Krypto, and even Power Girl, plus his affliation with the Legion of Superheroes, and the Justice League.

On top of that, there is also his relationships with Batman and with Wonder Woman.

Exploring all the different characters surrounding and interacting with Superman is great fodder for storytelling, so much so that super villians tend to be incidental to his longevity, with the exception of Lex Luthor.

Most people with even a passing familiarity with Batman can name quite a few of his rogue's gallery - Joker, Riddler, Catwoman, and the Penguin are probably known by the majority of people familiar with American pop culture. Quite a few people are also familiar with Two-Face, Bane, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, and Mr. Freeze.

However, besides Lex Luthor, there are very few people who know much about Superman's enemies. Some people may have heard of Brainiac, Doomsday and General Zod. The rare individual may know of Mr. Mxyzptlk or Metallo. A few people think of Darkseid as a Superman villian (but that isn't exactly true). But overall, not much of a rogue's gallery.

And I contend that is because exploring Superman's relationships have always been the interesting aspect of the character, moreso that challenging him with villians.

I edited this to fix a typo

[DiscipleofBob]

"That man won't quit as long as he can still draw a breath. None of my teammates will. Me? I've got a different problem. I feel like I live in a world made of cardboard, always taking constant care not to break something, to break someone. Never allowing myself to lose control even for a moment, or someone could die. But you can take it, can't you, big man? What we have here is a rare opportunity for me to cut loose and show you just how powerful I really am."
— Superman, Justice League Unlimited.

And that, folks, is how you do Superman.

[Ravens_cry]

His powers allow a truly cosmic scope, for one.
If you're a superhero with fisticuffs and, say, the ability to turn your skin to stone, you're likely to be mainly going to be fighting muggers and costumed goons.
Even Batman generally sticks to Gotham, and his greatest foe is a scrawny guy with a penchant for insanity.

But some of the best Superman comic have focused on Superman the man, who he is, his ideals, his relationships, what he feels is his duty to the world around him.

[Raimun]

Superman is interesting when his stories are not about fighting the villain of the week with his unlimited power but successfully explore more lofty themes.

Though, I have to say I usually prefer Marvel over DC. Marvel has its fair share of heroes with similar level of power and I find their basic concept and characteristics (personality, relationships, power, etc.) to be more fascinating. Thor, Silver Surfer, The Sentry, some Alpha level mutants and even lurkers like Doctor Strange come first to my mind. While they are interesting itself, their stories benefit greatly from the rest of the Marvel mythology.

So to sum it up, with similar level of writing involved for both Superman and for example, Silver Surfer, Surfer "wins". Ie. I find the book more interesting.

Perhaps the best stories with Superman are told from the perspective of other people. For example. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FywMOuMqNuI)

[JoeMac307]

Though, I have to say I usually prefer Marvel over DC. Marvel has its fair share of heroes with similar level of power and I find their basic concept and characteristics (personality, relationships, power, etc.) to be more fascinating. Thor, Silver Surfer, The Sentry, some Alpha level mutants and even lurkers like Doctor Strange come first to my mind. While they are interesting itself, their stories benefit greatly from the rest of the Marvel mythology.

I was with you until you brought up the Sentry. Sheesh, I hate the Sentry. He was great as a one-off character in the limited series by Paul Jenkins and Jae Lee (the art in that series is outstanding, but so is Jenkins' original concept and characterization), but once Bendis pulled him into regular continuity via the New Avengers, he became so annoying so quickly.

Otherwise, though, yeah, give me Silver Surfer over Supes every single day of the week.

[Raimun]

I was with you until you brought up the Sentry. Sheesh, I hate the Sentry. He was great as a one-off character in the limited series by Paul Jenkins and Jae Lee (the art in that series is outstanding, but so is Jenkins' original concept and characterization), but once Bendis pulled him into regular continuity via the New Avengers, he became so annoying so quickly.

Otherwise, though, yeah, give me Silver Surfer over Supes every single day of the week.

Ok, I haven't really read that many story arcs with the Sentry involved. Just Dark Reign and Siege. He's not the greatest character ever but I think he was used well in those stories. It's a valid point to ask what would happen if complete power was given to a complete madman... who doesn't come across as that bright either. Couldn't believe he would took orders from ex-Green Goblin of all people. :smalltongue:

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned him among heroes like Thor or Surfer? Or at all. :smallamused:

[JoeMac307]

It's a valid point to ask what would happen if complete power was given to a complete madman...

Check out Waid's Empire and Irredeemable... Similar theme, much better writer...

Empire is essentially what if Doctor Doom won? Irredeemable is basically what if Superman cracked and turned evil?

[Bitter]

Ok, I haven't really read that many story arcs with the Sentry involved. Just Dark Reign and Siege. He's not the greatest character ever but I think he was used well in those stories.

Hey dudes, come and look at this bad opinion right here. It is something to behold.

If you were reading Sentry stories before those events, those are actually some pretty bad stories. Bendis mischaracterised and wasted him as far as I'm concerned. Not as badly as Marvel Boy, but still.

[Wolf_Haley]

As you know, I’m quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding superheroes fascinating. Take my favorite superhero, Superman. Not a great comic book. Not particularly well-drawn. But the mythology… The mythology is not only great, it’s unique. Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there’s the superhero and there’s the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn’t become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he’s Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red “S” – that’s the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears – the glasses, the business suit – that’s the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak. He’s unsure of himself. He’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.
--Bill

As much as I love that movie that speech hasn't applied to Supes in decades.

[maglag]

Me too. Obligatory link (http://vulcanstev.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/demot-principles.jpg).


I find it funny so many people around the net point that as CA being "idealist", when he's actually lying with all his teeths. Since, you know, he's dancing the music the press tells him to dance around a dozen pages later on the same issue.

What was the last time you saw supes just bend down and dance to Lex Luthor?

[Dienekes]

To be honest (and this is written by a person with fairly limited knowledge of specific comics), I don't. Not simply because he's too powerful- there are plenty of great writers who can and have made that work- but because of the image he represents. The notion of an unshakable, infinitely virtuous paragon of justice is enough to make me throw the book away. He is, in my eyes, an anti-ideal presented as something actually worth aspiring to, and thus is entirely contrary to my tastes.

So... a guy who has the power to be whatever he wants, but still chooses to be a good, honorable, and merciful man, despite the enormous temptations (and dear God have their been temptations), is somehow against your ideals?

I like Superman for the same reason I like Captain America, when done right they are good and idealistic to the point of interesting. They have a great cast of characters, interesting villains, and portray stories that are both grander yet still grounded in humanity, it's flaws, and it's strengths. Now when a bad writer gets him he becomes Super Mega Awesome Jesus Guy: the untouchable hero of infinite power. But when a bad writer takes any hero the end result is bad, so I don't really hold that against Clark.

On the Sentry, I don't like him. I find him a bit annoying, but partially because of what he did to Ares. Jeez man, he was just starting to become an interesting character. One or two good writers and stories to expand upon his more humanizing features and he could have been something great.

[Raimun]

Hey dudes, come and look at this bad opinion right here. It is something to behold.

If you were reading Sentry stories before those events, those are actually some pretty bad stories. Bendis mischaracterised and wasted him as far as I'm concerned. Not as badly as Marvel Boy, but still.


You must be a seasoned debater.

[Othesemo]

So... a guy who has the power to be whatever he wants, but still chooses to be a good, honorable, and merciful man, despite the enormous temptations (and dear God have their been temptations), is somehow against your ideals?


That is the gist of what I said, yes.

[GenericGuy]

Superman is my favorite superhero of all time, and like others have said that in capable hands his stories can be some of the most thought provoking and philosophical. It’s not that especially hard to wright a decent/typical superhero story with all the other heroes because there are “limits” to their powers, but a lot of the danger and drama is “artificial” in that of course the hero in the end saves the day (this is why I find the complaint of Superman being too powerful to create drama hollow, as most heroes are always “invincible” in that they win). But in well written superman stories you can ask what is the human condition once all physicall and sociological constraints are taken away, when man is truly limitless in what he can do what is he?

[Killer Angel]

What was the last time you saw supes just bend down and dance to Lex Luthor?

in The Dark Knight Strikes Again.

(well, shame on me for having cited that comic... :smallsigh:)

That said, I put Cap in the "idealist" camp, for his choice in Civil War.




I'm not sure what you mean here.

Nah, I was kidding (sort of)... I find amusing that we can somehow apply the same noble behavior ("I will stand for my principles, no matter the price to pay") to such different characters.

[Devonix]

You must be a seasoned debater.

Truly a master of the art.:smallwink:

[Devonix]

in The Dark Knight Strikes Again.

(well, shame on me for having cited that comic... :smallsigh:)

That said, I put Cap in the "idealist" camp, for his choice in Civil War.




Nah, I was kidding (sort of)... I find amusing that we can somehow apply the same noble behavior ("I will stand for my principles, no matter the price to pay") to such different characters.



Now I love me some Captain America, but I also thought Civil War was utter crap. And I thought Cap would have served the story better as an inspirational character, not by fighting but by giving a press conference about why the registration act as it stood was bad and then turning himself in.

I could see this rallying public support as most citizens would not wish to see Cap in jail especially going willingly.



Also... I was Pro Regulation, just not in the ass backwards way that they were promoting it. Proper training for people who wanted to be superheroes, support for them, the ability to call in for assistance instead of just hoping someone was nearby for a team up> Sign me up.

[Brother Oni]

Nah, I was kidding (sort of)... I find amusing that we can somehow apply the same noble behavior ("I will stand for my principles, no matter the price to pay") to such different characters.

Well 'standing by your principles, no matter what' can be regarded as noble and honourable or inflexible and dogmatic depending on the circumstances, but the overall essence is the same, the person has the strength of character and will to withstand the trial of his conscience, and that is what I find admirable.

Whether you agree with their principles is an entirely different question.

[Killer Angel]

And I thought Cap would have served the story better as an inspirational character, not by fighting but by giving a press conference about why the registration act as it stood was bad and then turning himself in.

I could see this rallying public support as most citizens would not wish to see Cap in jail especially going willingly.


That would have been interesting, indeed...


Well 'standing by your principles, no matter what' can be regarded as noble and honourable or inflexible and dogmatic depending on the circumstances, but the overall essence is the same, the person has the strength of character and will to withstand the trial of his conscience, and that is what I find admirable.


Fair enough, i believe... and overall i don't disagree. :smallwink:

[Tyndmyr]

Now I love me some Captain America, but I also thought Civil War was utter crap. And I thought Cap would have served the story better as an inspirational character, not by fighting but by giving a press conference about why the registration act as it stood was bad and then turning himself in.

I could see this rallying public support as most citizens would not wish to see Cap in jail especially going willingly.

There's one major problem with this. In canon, cap is defined by WW2. Reporting for registration strikes some uncomfortable chords there, and Cap is not big on just surrendering. It doesn't fit.

The speech was perfect.

[Yora]

To be honest (and this is written by a person with fairly limited knowledge of specific comics), I don't. Not simply because he's too powerful- there are plenty of great writers who can and have made that work- but because of the image he represents. The notion of an unshakable, infinitely virtuous paragon of justice is enough to make me throw the book away. He is, in my eyes, an anti-ideal presented as something actually worth aspiring to, and thus is entirely contrary to my tastes.
Put into implausible, if nor outright impossible situations makes all descisions and solutions meaningless, as they can't be applied to or compared with the readers experiences.
If you want to make a statement, it need to aplicable to reality.

[Devonix]

There's one major problem with this. In canon, cap is defined by WW2. Reporting for registration strikes some uncomfortable chords there, and Cap is not big on just surrendering. It doesn't fit.

The speech was perfect.

I am not talking about cap surrendering, or reporting for registration. I am talking about Cap saying to them that what they are doing is wrong and showing the world that by allowing himself to be arrested. Because by leading the anti reg heroes in that war he was actually proving them right.

[ThiagoMartell]

Though, I have to say I usually prefer Marvel over DC. Marvel has its fair share of heroes with similar level of power and I find their basic concept and characteristics (personality, relationships, power, etc.) to be more fascinating. Thor, Silver Surfer, The Sentry, some Alpha level mutants and even lurkers like Doctor Strange come first to my mind. While they are interesting itself, their stories benefit greatly from the rest of the Marvel mythology.

You probably meant Omega level. An Alpha level is someone that has a useful, controllable mutation and did not become a monster through mutation.

[Othesemo]

Put into implausible, if nor outright impossible situations makes all descisions and solutions meaningless, as they can't be applied to or compared with the readers experiences.
If you want to make a statement, it need to aplicable to reality.

Perhaps I'm just tired, but I can't follow any of what you just wrote. Would you mind elaborating?

[Man on Fire]

About Kill Bill quote - there was actually a similiar interpretation in proposal for Superman reboot made by Grant Morisson, Mark Waid, Mark Millar and Roger Stren (not sure about that last one, I could confuse him with somebody else). In that interpretation Superman stoped being human the moment his powers activated and now percepts world in much mroe advanced way than normal people. Clark Kent is made of those traits he lost that moment - Superman doesn't need to be clumsy, shy, akward and just generally flawed as a person because of his better perception and understanding of the world. But he wants to. These traits make us humans and Superman, because he loves us so much, longs for them. So he can fake having them as Clark Kent, his love letter to humanity's imperfection. Ehos of this potrayal of Superman can be found in creators' later works like Red Son, All-Star Superman or Irredeemable.

About Captain America and Civil War, I personally consider that story stupid in regards to Cap, who acted like an idiot. He wanted to be Robin Hood when the world needed him to be Ghandi.

Now, about Superman - I observed interesting thing regarding him and Batman. Most Superman stories I like are about him reacting to einvorment - he ecounters a problem and deals with it, we see what he thinks about it. Most Batman stories I enjoyed are about einvorment reacting to him - they're about Joker or other criminals and their relationships with him, about people around him, about how the world sees him. Superman is best for me as a character, while Batman seems to work for me not as a person but symbol, that ties together many interesting people.

That being said, there is one problem with Superman stories - they can become too preachy and morarly upright to easily. I really hate that, especially "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice And The American Way?", which was just Superman beating bunch of strawmen while repeating points made thousands of times before, without adressing real concerns. it didn't worked as critique of The Authority because of writer ignoring Authority's positive traits (like taking political refuuges or reforming criminals) and making their stand-ins bunch of irredeemable psychopaths. Still liked Superman in that story through, it's just that everything else falls apart.

[Tyndmyr]

I am not talking about cap surrendering, or reporting for registration. I am talking about Cap saying to them that what they are doing is wrong and showing the world that by allowing himself to be arrested. Because by leading the anti reg heroes in that war he was actually proving them right.

The correct response to "what they are doing is wrong" is to fight it. Not to let them arrest you. Or at least, the correct response within comics, wherein conflicts are usually solved with fisticuffs.

[Devonix]

The correct response to "what they are doing is wrong" is to fight it. Not to let them arrest you. Or at least, the correct response within comics, wherein conflicts are usually solved with fisticuffs.

That to me is why it would have resonated so strongly if they had done it.

[Ravens_cry]

The correct response to "what they are doing is wrong" is to fight it. Not to let them arrest you. Or at least, the correct response within comics, wherein conflicts are usually solved with fisticuffs.
Fighting takes many forms.
Not all of them are violent.
Whole nations have freed themselves by sitting down, and calmly, non-violently saying 'No' to injustice.

[ThiagoMartell]

Fighting takes many forms.
Not all of them are violent.
Whole nations have freed themselves by sitting down, and calmly, non-violently saying 'No' to injustice.

That's what Captain American realizes at the end of Civil War.
The ending is him turning himself in.

[Man on Fire]

The problem is that he shouldn't start fighting in the first place. He should choose other ways of opposing the system, as I said, he wanted to be Robin Hood when his cause needed Ghandi.

[Fragenstein]

Whole nations have freed themselves by sitting down, and calmly, non-violently saying 'No' to injustice.

Yeah, maybe, but that doesn't always work. Pol Pot didn't encounter much resistance before his body count really started to get up there. Neither did Mao Tse-tung. Even many of the victims of the holocaust were relocated peacefully. There was a mindset among some of "Just go along. This will all blow over soon. What's the worst they can do to us? Resistance now will only result in violence."

I can see the gung-ho Captain America making an academic study of Ghandi and friends, but I don't really see him actually adopting a mindset for passive resistance. He's going to actively stand against fascism first, which seems to be exactly what he did. The act of surrender did not come easy to him.

[Man on Fire]

But what was his plan? What he wanted to do? Overthrow the government? Beat everybody into submission? His way of dealing with that problem was in inapprotate to the problem, he had no plan and no idea what to do.

[Tyndmyr]

Fighting takes many forms.
Not all of them are violent.
Whole nations have freed themselves by sitting down, and calmly, non-violently saying 'No' to injustice.

A. That wouldn't work particularly well against Osborne. Non-violence only works when the oppressors really object to turning protestors into a pile of bodies.

B. You're forgetting the genre again. The ongoing theme of comics is not "non violence is better at solving problems than violence is". It's very much about using violence to solve problems.

And yeah, he does eventually try that because fighting isn't working. That said, surrendering himself didn't work out particularly good for him either.

[Raimun]

You probably meant Omega level. An Alpha level is someone that has a useful, controllable mutation and did not become a monster through mutation.

Heh, you are right. I meant Omega level.

[Fragenstein]

But what was his plan? What he wanted to do? Overthrow the government? Beat everybody into submission? His way of dealing with that problem was in inapprotate to the problem, he had no plan and no idea what to do.

I'll give you that. His instinct should have been to fight, but his experience and training both should have given him a plan. Just watching France's performance early in the war should have shown him what indecisiveness and a lack of preparation would have given.

He was paired off against Batman in the Marvel vs. DC run for a reason. Cap was supposed to be a leader, a flawless combatant and seasoned tactician. He should have gone underground with a strategy in place.

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not saying whether or not it worked here, I haven't read this . . . storyline in any large extent, but calling into question a genre's assumption is bread and butter for a deconstruction.
Sure, fighting evil with one's fist is the typical response for a superhero, but that can just add to the power of the moment when a hero decides not to.
Also, some people seem to be conflating non-violence with a lack of resistance.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not saying whether or not it worked here, I haven't read this . . . storyline in any large extent, but calling into question a genre's assumption is bread and butter for a deconstruction.
Sure, fighting evil with one's fist is the typical response for a superhero, but that can just add to the power of the moment when a hero decides not to.
Also, some people seem to be conflating non-violence with a lack of resistance.

Then before discussing/spoiling the storyline, I'm going to suggest you go read it first. It's handled.

[maglag]

in The Dark Knight Strikes Again.

(well, shame on me for having cited that comic... :smallsigh:)


Well, at least in that case supes had his whole species at stake. Caps mostly had his pride at stake.


A. That wouldn't work particularly well against Osborne. Non-violence only works when the oppressors really object to turning protestors into a pile of bodies.

B. You're forgetting the genre again. The ongoing theme of comics is not "non violence is better at solving problems than violence is". It's very much about using violence to solve problems.

And that's what makes supes special. He's willing to not fight when needed. Even in the Dark Knight Strikes Again, supes chooses to take a beatdown from Brainiac in steroids whitout striking back than risking further colateral damage . Caps instead proceeds to start a freaking civil war just for the "right" of making colateral damage whitout paying the consequences .

Similarly, supes at any moment could fly into lexcorp tower and rip Lex Luthor's head anytime, and Lex would probably deserve it, but he doesn't. He wants to bring Lex Luthor in cleanly. That's one of the main reasons he works as Clark Kent, so he can try to solve things in non-violent ways by using the press and stuff.



And yeah, he does eventually try that because fighting isn't working. That said, surrendering himself didn't work out particularly good for him either.

There's plenty of space between "HUR DRUGS-POWERED PUNCH KICK SHALL SOLVE THIS PROBLEM DUR" and "Ok Tony you win and I'm gonna move at your will despite my fancy speech a dozen pages earlier". Caps has plenty of popularity. He could've tried to negotiate or spread the message whitout going around inflicting trillions of dollars in damage to the society he claims to stand for. All that anti-hero high-tech he broke was being paid by taxpayer money after all if I remember correctly. At least when supes breaks Lex Luthor's toys, it's coming from Luthor's pockets, and supes also has a habit of helping repair whatever gets demolished in his fights. What's the last time you saw caps stop his violence sprees to help rebuild a skyscrapper?:smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not sure how he could, except in a symbolic way. Superman has super strength and super speed, with skill he could be a one man construction crew.
But Captain America is peak human.

[Man on Fire]

A. That wouldn't work particularly well against Osborne. Non-violence only works when the oppressors really object to turning protestors into a pile of bodies.

Norman wasn't even in te picture during Civil War, he came to any political power after it (first as director of Thunderbolts, then director of S.H.I.E.L.D.)


B. You're forgetting the genre again. The ongoing theme of comics is not "non violence is better at solving problems than violence is". It's very much about using violence to solve problems.

Wrong, superheroes are about saving people, they don't have to be violent to do this. It's just that violence brings people in and the problem with storylines like those - some issues cannot be solved by punching people and registration was one of them, which is why everybody come out looking like idiots. Why do you think they had to turn Iron Man into Doctor Doom last minute? Becaue they realized that side people were supposed to cheer for come out so dumb people were cheering their opponents.

And by the way, this was also handled badly, it was one of those cases where problem without simple solution has been solved by demonizing one side to give other upper hand.

[Man on Fire]

Double post because forum doesn't show me new page.


I'm not sure how he could, except in a symbolic way. Superman has super strength and super speed, with skill he could be a one man construction crew.
But Captain America is peak human.

He is enchanced by super-soldier serum. As Mini-Marvels said, the star on his chest could as well be Asterix.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, at least in that case supes had his whole species at stake. Caps mostly had his pride at stake.

It was Dark Knight Strikes Again. His subservience was not the answer. And hell, it wasn't even a very good comic. Some interesting thoughts and what not, but very poorly fleshed out.


And that's what makes supes special. He's willing to not fight when needed. Even in the Dark Knight Strikes Again, supes chooses to take a beatdown from Brainiac in steroids whitout striking back than risking further colateral damage . Caps instead proceeds to start a freaking civil war just for the "right" of making colateral damage whitout paying the consequences .

Have...have you read both of these?

Supes yields because braniac has hostages. There are no collateral damage concerns. In the end, he learns that he should have been punching things all along. That's as deep as his lessons go.

And that's not why Cap resisted registration at all. And frankly, it starts out with the anti-registration side continuing super-hero work while the pro-registration side hunts them down. The pro-registration side is MUCH more willing to embrace terrible things to achieve their end.

Also, Cap usually doesn't punch over skyscrapers. Or build them. That's...not really a reasonable point of comparison between him and Supes.

[JoeMac307]

What's the last time you saw caps stop his violence sprees to help rebuild a skyscrapper?:smalltongue:

Cap, and many other Marvel heroes, have been depicted clearing away rubble, aiding with search and rescue, and helping with repairing buildings, plenty of times, especially since 9/11.

Check out Captain America Vol 4, Issue #1.

Or even more recently, Avengers (2010) #1 (http://media.comics.ign.com/media/059/059381/img_7712081.html).

[Ravens_cry]

He is enchanced by super-soldier serum. As Mini-Marvels said, the star on his chest could as well be Asterix.
Yes, enhanced to peak human.

[JoeMac307]

He is enchanced by super-soldier serum. As Mini-Marvels said, the star on his chest could as well be Asterix.


Don't forget the Vita-Rays, the other part of the Super-Soldier serum that gave Cap his powers.

For that reason, if no other, saying Captain America is basically on steroids is just as false as saying Spider-Man or Daredevil are on performance enhancing drugs...

All three of them got hit once with a combination of biological and/or chemical agents reinforced by radiation that forever changed them.

Not exactly Barry Bonds' origin story. :smalltongue:

[DiscipleofBob]

And that's what makes supes special. He's willing to not fight when needed. Even in the Dark Knight Strikes Again, supes chooses to take a beatdown from Brainiac in steroids whitout striking back than risking further colateral damage . Caps instead proceeds to start a freaking civil war just for the "right" of making colateral damage whitout paying the consequences .

There's plenty of space between "HUR DRUGS-POWERED PUNCH KICK SHALL SOLVE THIS PROBLEM DUR" and "Ok Tony you win and I'm gonna move at your will despite my fancy speech a dozen pages earlier". Caps has plenty of popularity. He could've tried to negotiate or spread the message whitout going around inflicting trillions of dollars in damage to the society he claims to stand for. All that anti-hero high-tech he broke was being paid by taxpayer money after all if I remember correctly. At least when supes breaks Lex Luthor's toys, it's coming from Luthor's pockets, and supes also has a habit of helping repair whatever gets demolished in his fights. What's the last time you saw caps stop his violence sprees to help rebuild a skyscrapper?:smalltongue:

Captain America does not "start" anything in Civil War. He refuses to support Registration and as a result Maria Hill orders SHIELD to attack and arrest Captain America. He already tried spreading the message against registration. Lots of heroes did. The act passed Congress anyway, Cap refused to support it, and was shot at. This was not Cap deliberately starting a war because he likes to fight other superheroes. This was him doing what was necessary because good heroes were getting arrested and thrown in prison for not agreeing to release their secret identities and work for the government.

The end of Civil War was complete logic-fail. Some parts of the story did a good job playing up the ambiguity of either side's position, especially when the Pro-Registration did some very unsavory things. But no, the end of Civil War was Captain America going "I was wrong all along" and getting shot. The video game does a much better job with the story, even if it's the most cliche "but then aliens attack and everyone has to work together and they finally decide to talk things out in the end."

[JoeMac307]

Err... how did this discussion become all about Marvel and Captain America and the critically panned Civil War crossover event?

I thought we were discussing Superman?:smallsmile:

[Yora]

Because Captain America is interesting. :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

Err... how did this discussion become all about Marvel and Captain America and the critically panned Civil War crossover event?

I thought we were discussing Superman?:smallsmile:

It happened because a critically panned marvel event is still more popular than superman?


Also, not hyperbole. Civil War was in fact chart-topping.

[Tergon]

There are two things that make me truly love Superman as a character. One is canonical, the other is fan-made but still a fantastic breakdown of him.

The canonical one is the famous "World of Cardboard" speech that he gives to Darkseid in the animated series. He's watched the world be invaded, he's watched his friends be defeated, and he's on the verge of giving up - and then he sees his closest friend and partner, Batman, leap almost suicidally onto Darkseid's back and tackle him before being thrown off. But before Darkseid can actually kill Batman, Supes gets up and throws one of the most bonecrushing beatdowns of the entire series down on Darkseid, all the while calmly observing that he can almost never really unleash on an enemy because he's so terrified of his own power. While the other heroes fight with every ounce of their strength, Superman controls everything he does because he knows that the slightest mistake on his part could end thousands of lives - but now Darkseid has made the mistake of pissing him off, and at the same time proved that he's tough enough to take what Supes can dish out. Which is exactly what Superman does.
I love that concept. Superman is perfectly aware of exactly how powerful he is, and that if he ever truly stopped caring about consequences, no power on Earth could possibly stop him. He could do anything, everything, with no possible punishment or price to pay. And yet he doesn't. Every second of every day he's showing iron willpower, mercy, restraint, self-control on a level nobody will ever truly comprehend - and the one outlet he does give himself is to protect people, to care for this indescribably fragile world he lives in and to keep it safe. Name literally any other superhero from Marvel, DC, or any other universe, give them Superman's powers, and I sincerely doubt that any of them would be as noble and selfless as he is.

The other thing that made me love Superman was the video series, Marvel / DC After Hours on YouTube. Specifically, the final episode of the first series. Lex Luthor has imprisoned Superman in a pocket universe while travelling through space and time in the multiverse, erasing all other superheroes from all other universes from existence totally, even outside the DC lineup. After letting Superman know that he's totally alone, and that there's no coming back from this, Luthor then attempts to kill him to make his victory complete. Supes takes a moment to decide what to do, and to overcome the depression he's been in after feeling like a neglected hero, before finally deciding that he doesn't care. He destroys the machine Luthor's been using to move about the multiverse, thinking that this will trap them both in the pocket universe and thus ensure that Luthor will never hurt anyone ever again, at the cost of trapping himself there forever with his most hated enemy.
This has the effect of undoing everything Luthor has done, restoring his friends, and ultimately defeating him. But, as Luthor is dragged off, he snaps at Superman that it still changes nothing, and that he's an overpowered, unlikeable relic from a time long forgotten, that his fans have moved on, and that nobody believes in him any more. For just a moment, Supes hangs his head - and then every single superhero present, from the multiple universes and publishers, immediately correct Luthor and state that they believe in Superman. The whole point of their struggle, of their "relatable" character arcs, of their flaws and human weaknesses, is that they're trying to be better. They want to always know right from wrong, they want to make the correct choices, they want to be the strong one that can be relied on to do what needs to be done and save the world at any cost - and that Superman is the perfect ideal that every single one of them dreams of being, looks up to, and ultimately follows as the greatest one out of them all.
When Superman first came out, he was simply the hero who was good at everything and always won the day, because simple storylines like that were all the audience seemed to want at first. But he's long since evolved from that. He's old-fashioned and stalwart, sure, but that's the point of him. He's the ultimate hero. And that doesn't make him boring at all, it makes him the ultimate goal of every single other hero, to be as honest and as strong and as simply good as he is. He's the perfection that they strive for in order to create the perfect world they all want to achieve. The flaws in other superheroes are there because they're not Superman, as much as they'd like to be. Which isn't to say that they'd be better if they were him - it's that being a superhero means you want to change the world for the better, which means that you yourself have to be better. And he's the very best of them all, which is why they're superheroes and he's Superman.

Together these two things sum up what Superman is to me. Powerful beyond all comprehension, to the point where the most simple acts are for him a tremendous challenge to not tear the world in half while he does it. Alone in ways nobody will ever really understand because of it, cut off from even those he's close to by virtue of that fact. And yet it's that care, that loneliness, and that desire to have the world be better and not worse because of him, that makes him one of the bravest, kindest, and most morally incorruptible characters ever. It's why he's the icon that every single character development arc in every single comic ever written is an attempt for the character to become better and stronger, while his are about him dealing with the challenge of being as strong and as good as he is in a world that is often neither of those things.

Superman isn't my favourite hero. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he's the best one, because he literally sets the standard by which all other superheroes are to be judged. And, leading in from that, it's why the truly great stories about him are the ones that should be told again and again and again, because those are the stories that made him the legend he is. Whether you like him or not, the fact that he exists as a character has had an impact on every other hero out there. How could the stories of that character not be interesting?

[Fragenstein]

Err... how did this discussion become all about Marvel and Captain America and the critically panned Civil War crossover event?

I thought we were discussing Superman?:smallsmile:

Too true.

You know what? I really like Superman for having 'given up a thousand years of tonsil-hockey with Wonder Woman'. Even if it's interesting to read about heroes with their flaws and periodic mistakes, sometimes it's nice to return to the basics. The big blue boy scout has remained an unshakeable pillar of character that stands in awesome defiance of modern moral ambiguity.


Good on ya', Clark!

[Yora]

But is he really taking a stand against ambigous morality?

Or is he just existing in a black and white world where nobody is ever faced with ambiguity?

[Fragenstein]

But is he really taking a stand against ambigous morality?

Or is he just existing in a black and white world where nobody is ever faced with ambiguity?

Oh, he faced it during the storyline I'm thinking of. In short... Wonder Woman is drafted into a fight between the norse gods and the giants. Superman is with her and is drawn into the conflict as well.

The battle takes place outside of space and time, so neither of them age. For a thousand years. The narrative is quite specific about how much temptation Superman has to hold out against. He manages to do so because he doesn't want to cheat on Lois.

Mr. Mxyzptlk is fairly critical of that decision during the Emperor Joker storyline.

[Yora]

You have a name for the comic? As explained, this does not sound very convincing to me.

[Ravens_cry]

You know, if the 'Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue Paper' argument holds up, him hooking up with a fellow super, and a strong one, is probably for the best.

[Fragenstein]

You have a name for the comic? As explained, this does not sound very convincing to me.

Action Comics number 761. January of 2000. Huh. I can't remember the title.

[JoeMac307]

You know, if the 'Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue Paper' argument holds up, him hooking up with a fellow super, and a strong one, is probably for the best.

I think Frank Miller agrees with you.

[Ravens_cry]

I think Frank Miller agrees with you.
Yeah, and you wouldn't believe how much it pains me to do so.
If written well, they, Wonder Woman and Superman, would make an awesome duo in my opinion, a perfect example of a love of equals.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, and you wouldn't believe how much it pains me to do so.
If written well, they, Wonder Woman and Superman, would make an awesome duo in my opinion, a perfect example of a love of equals.

Ehh, except Superman kinda does Wonder Woman's schtick better than she does. He's stronger, faster, has more abilities, and so forth.

I think the point of Supes/Lois was that they already were equals. She was a brilliant reporter and writer and downright clever. Hell she's one of a handful of people who tricks Batman. Supes even refers to her as a better person than himself, constantly putting her own life on the line to uncover corruption and fix society. Of course, this unfortunately gets her placed in the damsel in distress position. But in all honesty, I really haven't seen any of that with her in some time. She moved from the damsel into a very confident, competent, intelligent character.

Of course this is probably all coming from my distaste at this particular ship. The twos only real connection is that they're both super powered; therefore they must be together!
Give me a break.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, that depends on the writer. In some stories, they are equals.
Lois and Clarke are a good couple, but there's always going to be that nagging in the back of Superman's head 'Is she safe?'

[Prime32]

Name literally any other superhero from Marvel, DC, or any other universe, give them Superman's powers, and I sincerely doubt that any of them would be as noble and selfless as he is.Spider-Man maybe. Though if you asked him he'd say he wouldn't.

[ThiagoMartell]

The problem is that he shouldn't start fighting in the first place. He should choose other ways of opposing the system, as I said, he wanted to be Robin Hood when his cause needed Ghandi.

Dude, that's not a problem, that's the point of the story. Cap didn't notice that, yeah. That's why we have the story. Cap is not perfect, he failed in deciding how he should approach this one problem.

[Tyndmyr]

Dude, that's not a problem, that's the point of the story. Cap didn't notice that, yeah. That's why we have the story. Cap is not perfect, he failed in deciding how he should approach this one problem.

Comics really wouldn't exist if everyone in them chose to always do the right thing.

Cap is certainly not exceptionally mistaken/unethical over the run of the comics. He's not perfect, but he's most definitely taking a fairly reasonable course of action.

[Dienekes]

Well, that depends on the writer. In some stories, they are equals.
Lois and Clarke are a good couple, but there's always going to be that nagging in the back of Superman's head 'Is she safe?'

The same can be said for Superman/WW though. Or anything in comics really. If a bad writer gets their grubby little hands on something horribleness is given back.

Take All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder. Ok, yes this is a terrible comic on multiple levels, I'm just using this as a bit of proof anything can be turned to crap.

In this Wonder Woman is Supes love interest (I believe with the implication he's cheating on Lois as well, it's been awhile), and she straight out says the reason why she is with Supes is because he bested her, threw her down and took her. Clearly not a relationship of equals. Also, a great screw you to anyone who knows these characters. But that's more or less par for the course in this book.

As to Supes worrying about Lois. That's just Supes, he worries about everyone and everything.

[Aotrs Commander]

Like more than a few people here, I wrote off Superman as fairly banal in my youth. Batman, too, come to that, since before I was a teenager, Adam West Batman was the only one I knew about. Spider-Man I could take or leave (and though him, I knew about Iceman and Firestar, which I watched, though aside from Iceman's ice-sleds, I found it pretty forgettable.) Even a little later Batman TAS didn't do much for me (mostly because I'm not a Batman fan.)

(Most of this is because then as now, I was a vehicle freak and superheroes don't have cool vehicles. (No, really, they don't, when compared to Thunderbirds/Star Fleet/Terrahawks or Transformers/Centurion (the latter pair which sorta kinda are vehicles from a jaded point of view).)

It wsn't until I sae X-Men the 1990s series that I started to get into the genera, ironically because it was that they wren't the percieved steriotypical golden/silver age heroes I had been exposed to. (And yet now, I find the discrimination against them merely annoying!) But my tastes have been somewhat refined now, and I enjoy the characteristation more. So I've warmed to Superman. Comics-wise, I'm still and X-Man kind of Lich, for good of for ill (though there's a slow slide to "ill" that if it keeps up means I'll be giving up on comic altogether; there was a nice rcent spike in quality, but iut's begun to backslide again; and I have no intetrest in what DC I did read since the reboot.)

I think, that, like Batman, Supes works better with a good team, as a foil. (To be fair, the only solo superhero I'm prepared to follow in comics, as opposed to animation, is Wolverine - though I'd follow Jubilee like a shot, even if she is *sigh* a vampire at the moment.) He was great in JL/JLU and in Young Justice (and even the other cameos in stuff like Static Shock).

But as I get older and I find myself actually wanting to see more old-fashioned heroes anyway, because I am so WELL PAST TIRED of the melodrama of most current media, which I find has gone past the point of being acceptable levels of drama and into tedium... And it's nice to know there's at least one dude out there being The Paladin.


The other thing that made me love Superman was the video series, Marvel / DC After Hours on YouTube. Specifically, the final episode of the first series. Lex Luthor has imprisoned Superman in a pocket universe while travelling through space and time in the multiverse, erasing all other superheroes from all other universes from existence totally, even outside the DC lineup. After letting Superman know that he's totally alone, and that there's no coming back from this, Luthor then attempts to kill him to make his victory complete. Supes takes a moment to decide what to do, and to overcome the depression he's been in after feeling like a neglected hero, before finally deciding that he doesn't care. He destroys the machine Luthor's been using to move about the multiverse, thinking that this will trap them both in the pocket universe and thus ensure that Luthor will never hurt anyone ever again, at the cost of trapping himself there forever with his most hated enemy.
This has the effect of undoing everything Luthor has done, restoring his friends, and ultimately defeating him. But, as Luthor is dragged off, he snaps at Superman that it still changes nothing, and that he's an overpowered, unlikeable relic from a time long forgotten, that his fans have moved on, and that nobody believes in him any more. For just a moment, Supes hangs his head - and then every single superhero present, from the multiple universes and publishers, immediately correct Luthor and state that they believe in Superman. The whole point of their struggle, of their "relatable" character arcs, of their flaws and human weaknesses, is that they're trying to be better. They want to always know right from wrong, they want to make the correct choices, they want to be the strong one that can be relied on to do what needs to be done and save the world at any cost - and that Superman is the perfect ideal that every single one of them dreams of being, looks up to, and ultimately follows as the greatest one out of them all.

That series manages to write the characters better than a lot of the current comics, and tell some really good stories (with the appropriate amount of drama to humour), despite essentially being a parody/humour show on a shoestring budget. Just shows what a couple of dedicated folks with time and creativity can do!

[Tyndmyr]

The same can be said for Superman/WW though. Or anything in comics really. If a bad writer gets their grubby little hands on something horribleness is given back.

Take All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder. Ok, yes this is a terrible comic on multiple levels, I'm just using this as a bit of proof anything can be turned to crap.

In this Wonder Woman is Supes love interest (I believe with the implication he's cheating on Lois as well, it's been awhile), and she straight out says the reason why she is with Supes is because he bested her, threw her down and took her. Clearly not a relationship of equals. Also, a great screw you to anyone who knows these characters. But that's more or less par for the course in this book.

Would agree. Miller can't write a relationship of equals to save his life.

That said, while this is an exceptionally poor comic, it is notable that Superman does not frequently have other people in his life that are really equals. That's not the problem with supes though. The problem is, he's predictable. Very painfully predictable. It's very hard to write him as anything else without betraying the char.

And predictable comics suck.

[Anarion]

But as I get older and I find myself actually wanting to see more old-fashioned heroes anyway, because I am so WELL PAST TIRED of the melodrama of most current media, which I find has gone past the point of being acceptable levels of drama and into tedium... And it's nice to know there's at least one dude out there being The Paladin.


The Lich speaks truth. I personally never got into Superman when I was little, and when I got older I thought he was sort of boring because he was just a goody-two-shoes. Now, however, I've really grown to like him. The fact of the matter is that there are actually very few people who would simply choose to do as much good as possible, being willing to sacrifice their careers, their relationships, and even their lives. Superman is (or has been at various times) willing to do that, and I find it interesting.

Also, historically, Superman has gone through a lot of changes mirroring American and possibly world history in several respects. People were more naive when he was created and they wanted heroes. He grew to absurd proportions at a time when people believed the potential of the world was more unlimited than they do now. He's grown darker and lighter in response to various decades and gained and lost powers in response to what different generations believed their heroes should look like. So, as a reflection of, well, of us, I also find the character fascinating.

[Fragenstein]

Also, historically, Superman has gone through a lot of changes mirroring American and possibly world history in several respects.

You're talking about when he grew a mullet for a while, aren't you?

[JoeMac307]

Spider-Man maybe. Though if you asked him he'd say he wouldn't.

Is this pre-deal with the devil, or post-deal with the devil? :smallannoyed:

Man, what a stupid, stupid, character destroying storyline. OMD, I hate you! :smallfurious:

Yet, I mostly dig BND and what has followed... :smallconfused:

[JoeMac307]

You're talking about when he grew a mullet for a while, aren't you?

Heh, heh, heh, best line of the entire thread.

[Ravens_cry]

Superman is one of the few people, in my opinion, who can actually pull off the mullet.
It gave him a Richard Gere kind of look, which is by no means a bad thing.

[Anarion]

You're talking about when he grew a mullet for a while, aren't you?

I'm not sure that mullets were ever a trend in world history, but sure, that's exactly what I was talking about.

[GeekGirl]

Back to the topic of superman, I found this a few minutes ago figure i should share ^_^

http://i.imgur.com/02xuM.png

[Man on Fire]

And that's not why Cap resisted registration at all. And frankly, it starts out with the anti-registration side continuing super-hero work while the pro-registration side hunts them down. The pro-registration side is MUCH more willing to embrace terrible things to achieve their end.

But Cap stil lstarted it so superheroes can avoid responsibility for causing corraterall damage. His entire reason to do it was "I wanna punch things and don't have to do the paperwork after". That they demonized pro-reg doesn't have anything to do with it.


Yes, enhanced to peak human.

Rather beyond, I don't think normal people could do half of the things he does even at their best. Exept maybe strongment, but they sure as hell doesn't look like Cap. He is not just human.


Name literally any other superhero from Marvel, DC, or any other universe, give them Superman's powers, and I sincerely doubt that any of them would be as noble and selfless as he is.

Thor?


You know, if the 'Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue Paper' argument holds up, him hooking up with a fellow super, and a strong one, is probably for the best.

He is in complete control of his powers, he controls them good enough to not hurt Lois. And him hooking up with WW is jsut idea of fanboys projecting themselves into Superman who wants to a) have his powers and b) have sex with Wonder Woman. Which is why it's rivaled by WWxBatman supported by people who waant to a) be Batman and b) have sex with Wonder Woman.


Dude, that's not a problem, that's the point of the story. Cap didn't notice that, yeah. That's why we have the story. Cap is not perfect, he failed in deciding how he should approach this one problem.

First, I meant that it was problem with him, his failure.
Second, you are giving Mark Millar too much credit.


As to Supes worrying about Lois. That's just Supes, he worries about everyone and everything.

"This guy would turn his back to Mongul to save drowning man." - From proposal I mentioned.


Comics-wise, I'm still and X-Man kind of Lich, for good of for ill (though there's a slow slide to "ill" that if it keeps up means I'll be giving up on comic altogether; there was a nice rcent spike in quality, but iut's begun to backslide again;

Sooner than you think, Bendis is taking over two ongoings.

Also, regarding Superman movie - do you know what thoe needs? Epic villains and epic fights. Superman needs to fight Sun Eater, Tyrant Sun, Doomsday, Mongul, Brainiac or Darkseid, not just Luthor and Luthor.

[CapnRedBeard]

kinda skipped ahead...so who got voted as most likely to sleep with Wonder Woman?

Personally I think the odds of her being into Catwoman are high...

[Green-Shirt Q]

I'm so glad this is a postive thread. I get so mad when my friends claim they "hate" Superman because he's so overpowered, and that there can't POSSIBLY be good stories told with him. Ignoring the fact that they don't read comic books and have no clue what they're talking about.

It's just a hipster thing, really. There's been around 8 decades worth of stories told about Superman and him forcing his way into the status of cultural iconography for inspiring hope and pride in the vast majority. Now hating on him is the cool thing, it seems, to deliberately go against all that for the sake of doing so. Probably because of those overused jokes about Superman like "He's the same but with glasses! Nobody would fall for that!" (despite the disguise not working that way).

Whatever. I like Superman because he IS an interesting superhero, character, and protaginist. Superman isn't a god with no weaknesses, and has, like, a bajillion different weaknesses (Kyptonite, magic, sonic, red sunlight, using the people he loves, political complications, etc.), and Superman more often faces foes as powerful or more so then he is. Superman has a vast array of powers, but they aren't unlimited (well, they aren't anymore. The amount of strength Superman has does have an upper limit, and while in the Silver Age "Super______" could make him do anything, that doesn't really apply anymore) and he only has a small and pretty overspecialized collection of bizarre powers.

Also, a big plus? Superman, despite not being human, is one of the most human characters in comics. More comic protaginists are big jerks or growlly, unfun heroes with no personality to speak of. Superman, however, can be the focus of a story, unlike Batman where it's usually focued on the villains. Superman can be too proud, Superman can have flaws, but that the end of the day he's a nice person trying to do right by his parents. And that has a lot of great story potential. Like, more then 8 decades worth. :smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

Rather beyond, I don't think normal people could do half of the things he does even at their best. Exept maybe strongment, but they sure as hell doesn't look like Cap. He is not just human.
That's exactly what he is, assuming you mean 'strongest'.
OK, so his appearance doesn't jive with that, the worlds strongest people look more like Louis Cyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Cyr) than Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that's his ability.
Also, being against registration is more to do with personal freedoms and privacy more than straw-manning it into "I wanna punch things and don't have to do the paperwork after". Or at least, I damn well hope that's a strawman, because I agree that would be a really silly reason not be in favour.
It's a complicated issue, I can see a lot of reasons for both sides, made worse by having superficially similar, but at the same time fundamentally different issues in real life.


He is in complete control of his powers, he controls them good enough to not hurt Lois. And him hooking up with WW is jsut idea of fanboys projecting themselves into Superman who wants to a) have his powers and b) have sex with Wonder Woman. Which is why it's rivaled by WWxBatman supported by people who waant to a) be Batman and b) have sex with Wonder Woman.
Have you read the essay I am referring to?
One could hand wave that he is Kryptonian and so it doesn't apply, but at the moment of, ahem, release, men lose control. This is a neurological fact.
Another reason to ship WW/SM is, well, I think having them fight crime side by side with a little romance thrown in would be cool.
No more, no less.

[Devonix]

That's exactly what he is, assuming you mean 'strongest'.
OK, so his appearance doesn't jive with that, the worlds strongest people look more like Louis Cyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Cyr) than Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that's his ability.
Also, being against registration is more to do with personal freedoms and privacy more than straw-manning it into "I wanna punch things and don't have to do the paperwork after". Or at least, I damn well hope that's a strawman, because I agree that would be a really silly reason not be in favour.
It's a complicated issue, I can see a lot of reasons for both sides, made worse by having superficially similar, but at the same time fundamentally different issues in real life.


Have you read the essay I am referring to?
One could hand wave that he is Kryptonian and so it doesn't apply, but at the moment of, ahem, release, men lose control. This is a neurological fact.
Another reason to ship WW/SM is, well, I think having them fight crime side by side with a little romance thrown in would be cool.
No more, no less.


Ehh the whole release thing is silly. it isn't like his bodily fluids are under some massive pressure, otherwise whenever he bleeds his blood would shoot out of his veins like a fire hose.

Also he'd never be able to pee.

Also Superman and Wonderwoman make good friends, but romantically they have absolutely nothing in common other than their powers.

Just buds.

Also

[Tergon]

Spider-Man maybe. Though if you asked him he'd say he wouldn't.

I'll give you Spider-Man, though I think he'd have his share of screwups as well. Even being who he is, he's occasionally goofed up and made stupid mistakes, or failed to recognize his own strength; do that with Superman's powers, and New York would be a crater. But yeah, Spidey may be the only other Superhero who could be trusted to take Superman's power and use it properly, at least from a moral perspective.

Honestly I can't think of others, though. Some would come close; Nightcrawler from Marvel or Raven from DC would be examples of people who might have the goodness or the willpower to weild Kryptonian strength, but Superman and Spiderman are the only ones with enough of both traits to be trustworthy with them.

[Dark Tira]

I'll give you Spider-Man, though I think he'd have his share of screwups as well. Even being who he is, he's occasionally goofed up and made stupid mistakes, or failed to recognize his own strength; do that with Superman's powers, and New York would be a crater. But yeah, Spidey may be the only other Superhero who could be trusted to take Superman's power and use it properly, at least from a moral perspective.

Honestly I can't think of others, though. Some would come close; Nightcrawler from Marvel or Raven from DC would be examples of people who might have the goodness or the willpower to weild Kryptonian strength, but Superman and Spiderman are the only ones with enough of both traits to be trustworthy with them.

What about Squirrel Girl? She's already more powerful than Superman and she doesn't let it go to her head (mostly). I'm pretty sure she can be trusted with a little more power.

[Killer Angel]

But is he really taking a stand against ambigous morality?

Or is he just existing in a black and white world where nobody is ever faced with ambiguity?

Many Supes' stories, face the dilemmas of a world where there's grey to deal with. Or when he must choose how much "ambigous morality" he can stand, before intervening.
He's not Judge Dredd, he knows that humans have grey areas.

[Aotrs Commander]

You know, if the 'Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue Paper' argument holds up, him hooking up with a fellow super, and a strong one, is probably for the best.

I find it amusing how that argument is only ever brought up with Superman (usually with regards to hooking him up to Wonder Woman) and never with any other superhero with potentially hazardous superpowers when uncontrolled in close proximity, E.g. Aquaman, Thor, Wonder Woman herself, for that matter, Spider-Man, Ms Marvel, Beast, Gambit, Cyclops, any telepath ever, Flash, Starfire, Storm... I'm sure if I tried, I could easily go on. Heck, pretty much any energy manipulator could fall into that category...

However, the fact that most of these people have had relationships with baseline humans in the past would seem to indicate that that is not a problem.

[Devonix]

I find it amusing how that argument is only ever brought up with Superman (usually with regards to hooking him up to Wonder Woman) and never with any other superhero with potentially hazardous superpowers when uncontrolled in close proximity, E.g. Aquaman, Thor, Wonder Woman herself, for that matter, Spider-Man, Ms Marvel, Beast, Gambit, Cyclops, any telepath ever, Flash, Starfire, Storm... I'm sure if I tried, I could easily go on. Heck, pretty much any energy manipulator could fall into that category...

However, the fact that most of these people have had relationships with baseline humans in the past would seem to indicate that that is not a problem.

It was a one off joke that got out of hand because it sounded catchy, nothing more.

[Tergon]

Actually a surprising number of Superhero spouses have taken a harsh toll from the zany antics of their super-powered partners. Cyclops goes through wives like Blob goes through cakes, Aquaman's had all manner of marital troubles, as have a couple of Flashes. Though to my knowledge, the one who's really carried the "Woman of Tissue Paper" concept out to its logical conclusion is Spider-Man, who in a future comic was informed that he'd basically killed his wife. See, you know that line in the old jingle, "He's got Radioactive blood?" Yeah, turns out all bodily fluids of his suffer that little problem, and the old ball and chain had been, er, exposed to it a few times.
And just in case that's too subtle, I'll be as clear about it as possible: Spider-Man, in a futureverse story, canonically killed his own wife with exposure to his radioactive semen.

Superman, ironically enough, is the only one who hasn't ended up destroying a significant other, because he pretty much doesn't get laid. Sucks to be him.

[Aotrs Commander]

It was a one off joke that got out of hand because it sounded catchy, nothing more.

Oh, I know. It just amuses me when it's brought up, because it's usually a transparent anti-Lois, Pro-Diana measure.


Actually a surprising number of Superhero spouses have taken a harsh toll from the zany antics of their super-powered partners. Cyclops goes through wives like Blob goes through cakes,

What, two?

Unless you count every time Jean comes back from the dead as one; in which case, fair point...!

Also, it must be said, that none of theose were killed by Cyclops in flagrante delicto, as it were, but by the general hazards of being a mutant (slash villain) in their line of work (if, in one case later retroactively...)


Though to my knowledge, the one who's really carried the "Woman of Tissue Paper" concept out to its logical conclusion is Spider-Man, who in a future comic was informed that he'd basically killed his wife. See, you know that line in the old jingle, "He's got Radioactive blood?" Yeah, turns out all bodily fluids of his suffer that little problem, and the old ball and chain had been, er, exposed to it a few times.
And just in case that's too subtle, I'll be as clear about it as possible: Spider-Man, in a futureverse story, canonically killed his own wife with exposure to his radioactive semen.

That'd almost be funny if it wasn't so skull-palmingly stupid. (I mean, really, no-one would have noticed Spidey being that glaringly radioactive in all the years and crap he's been through...? Y'kniow, despite him being around people like Iron Man and Reed Richards and all that sensor gear and whatnot...?)

[ThiagoMartell]

I'll give you Spider-Man, though I think he'd have his share of screwups as well. Even being who he is, he's occasionally goofed up and made stupid mistakes, or failed to recognize his own strength; do that with Superman's powers, and New York would be a crater. But yeah, Spidey may be the only other Superhero who could be trusted to take Superman's power and use it properly, at least from a moral perspective.

Well, Spiderman did get the Unipower. That's more power than Superman usually has. He did pretty well.

[Killer Angel]

That'd almost be funny if it wasn't so skull-palmingly stupid.

The only vaguely similar thing I can think of, is when it was brought up against Doc Manhattan, but:
a) it's far more probable that Doc can have such an issue, rather than Spidey
b) it wasn't true.

[Tergon]

What, two?

Unless you count every time Jean comes back from the dead as one; in which case, fair point...!Yeah, I was. :) Seriously, she has died WAY too many times. And I know Jean was never exactly killed by Cyclops, but still, the point was that if you marry a superhero, it's never exactly gonna end well.

Also, Here's that particular abomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_Reign) I was mentioning. Just to prove I didn't fever-dream it. I don't deny for a second that it's mind-bogglingly idiotic, but the fact remains that it happened. After all the jokes about what Superman would do to a sex partner, the first superhero to actually do it was Spider-Man.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yeah, I was. :) Seriously, she has died WAY too many times. And I know Jean was never exactly killed by Cyclops, but still, the point was that if you marry a superhero, it's never exactly gonna end well.

I believe the appropriate comparison is "died more times then Optimus Prime..."

True, but then you could argue that about Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy...

My point was that although superhero lover interests have a high mortality rate, most of them aren't inflicted by the super-hero in question, and even less often in the act, so to speak.

That said, I was clearly wrong in assuming that it hadn't been broached before! Though, granted, when I mentioned Spider-Man before, as someone who might be potentially be a hazardous lover, I had meant in a strength-related way, rather than... em...that!


Also, Here's that particular abomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_Reign) I was mentioning. Just to prove I didn't fever-dream it. I don't deny for a second that it's mind-bogglingly idiotic, but the fact remains that it happened. After all the jokes about what Superman would do to a sex partner, the first superhero to actually do it was Spider-Man.

Wow. That's a whole lot of concentrated Stupid. I hope one day, it appears on Atop the Forth Wall, because it sounds very much like it could do with a Linkara-blasting...!

[Killer Angel]

Also, Here's that particular abomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_Reign) I was mentioning. Just to prove I didn't fever-dream it.

:smalleek:
I totally forgot about that. And I've read The Reign...

[Man on Fire]

Wow. That's a whole lot of concentrated Stupid. I hope one day, it appears on Atop the Forth Wall, because it sounds very much like it could do with a Linkara-blasting...!

He did mentioned it in his live review of Mangaverse Spider-Man, by the same writer.


Seriously, she has died WAY too many times.

She didn't really died that often as people make it to be.


Many Supes' stories, face the dilemmas of a world where there's grey to deal with. Or when he must choose how much "ambigous morality" he can stand, before intervening.
He's not Judge Dredd, he knows that humans have grey areas.

Case in point, JLA/Hitman.


That's exactly what he is, assuming you mean 'strongest'.
OK, so his appearance doesn't jive with that, the worlds strongest people look more like Louis Cyr than Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that's his ability.

I don't think I get what you are trying to say.


Also, being against registration is more to do with personal freedoms and privacy more than straw-manning it into "I wanna punch things and don't have to do the paperwork after". Or at least, I damn well hope that's a strawman, because I agree that would be a really silly reason not be in favour.

I bet that "personal freedoms and privacy" was what Cap's rebelion was supposed to be about. However, the way it was presented made it look like what I described - Captain America in Civil War is potrayed like crazy maniac who is raging because government tries to change things and is against them just to be against them. He is potrayed as a idealist fighting for good cause in tie-ins (except for Black Panther, where he is sucking T'Challa's weiner because he is black, like everybody on the planet were back then), but in main story he just want to punch things without paying the consequences. Because Mark Millar is a hack writer.


It's a complicated issue, I can see a lot of reasons for both sides, made worse by having superficially similar, but at the same time fundamentally different issues in real life.

And it was handled poorly, being reduced to black and white conflict with pro-reg site made into cartoony nazis to make Cap's side look good.

[Dienekes]

On Jean:
I believe the actual Jean has only died twice. Neither had anything to do with marrying Cyclops.

However, the number of duplicates, clones, doppelgangers, and other weird crap that took her place and died is an alarming number to say the least.

On Civil War: yeah Cap at times seemed less than normal, however even then the Registration side was pulling some stupid near evil stunts. All told, Civil War could have been amazing, absolutely amazing, but too many different writers were trying too many different agendas with varying concepts on which side should be betrayed negatively. Instead of just showing the good and bad of both arguments and letting the characters naturally progress from their personalities.

[Man on Fire]

On Civil War: yeah Cap at times seemed less than normal, however even then the Registration side was pulling some stupid near evil stunts. All told, Civil War could have been amazing, absolutely amazing, but too many different writers were trying too many different agendas with varying concepts on which side should be betrayed negatively. Instead of just showing the good and bad of both arguments and letting the characters naturally progress from their personalities.

Agreed. I'll only add that pro-reg was made to do all those stupid near evil stunts because Marvel realized that people were behind them, not Cap.

But yeah, story would be much better if writers actually sit down and talked to each other, they ended breaking up each other's message. It was pretty clear that Joe Straczynski wanted to do polar opposite of what Mark Millar wanted and he was writing the most important tie-in. Paul Jenkins was raging about government and modern America, culminating in infamous Sally Floyd speech (which I always took other way than everybody else - she isn't telling Cap he is out of touch for not knowing what Nascar or Youtube is, she is telling him that modern day Americans are bunch of idiots who care more about Nascar and Youtube than his ideals and doesn't deserve them) and Reginald Hudlin was doing tiny-veiled racist propaganda (he actually had Doctor Doom call black people genetically superior in every aspect over other races).

[Tyndmyr]

I'm so glad this is a postive thread. I get so mad when my friends claim they "hate" Superman because he's so overpowered, and that there can't POSSIBLY be good stories told with him. Ignoring the fact that they don't read comic books and have no clue what they're talking about.

So, what are the interesting comics with him? I've seen a *lot* of comics with him in it, and liked comparatively few of them.

Actually, Kingdom Come is probably the only one where I'm really happy with Superman's role in it. What are some other good Superman reads?

[Yora]

Many Supes' stories, face the dilemmas of a world where there's grey to deal with. Or when he must choose how much "ambigous morality" he can stand, before intervening.
He's not Judge Dredd, he knows that humans have grey areas.
Can you give examples? I never managed to get into it and only really know about some of the most infamously bad stories.

[Man on Fire]

Both posters above - JLA/Hitman. Superman reasoning why he doesn't hold a grude about what Hitman did (see spoiler) from the end of the story is interesting.


Everybody were depowered by aliens, who wanted to use bunch of mind-controlled astronauts to take over the world. JLA was defeated, Hitman was alone and had only second to stop aliens. He killed the astronauts. Superman didn't hold it agaisnt him, because he understands that Monahan isn't superhero, just common man who was put in situation he couldn't find other way out.


Other good Superman Stories - Death of Superman, For The Man Who Had Everything, Whatever Happened With The Man of Tomorrow, All-Star Superman.

[Devonix]

Yeah, I was. :) Seriously, she has died WAY too many times. And I know Jean was never exactly killed by Cyclops, but still, the point was that if you marry a superhero, it's never exactly gonna end well.

Also, Here's that particular abomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_Reign) I was mentioning. Just to prove I didn't fever-dream it. I don't deny for a second that it's mind-bogglingly idiotic, but the fact remains that it happened. After all the jokes about what Superman would do to a sex partner, the first superhero to actually do it was Spider-Man.

Dude she's died two perhaps 3 times in the history of the character over a span of 50 years, There are plenty of characters who have died more. and don't link to "that page" most of the deaths there weren't real deaths. Hell Batman's died more. lots more g oing by the reasoning that page listed.

[ThiagoMartell]

Actually, Kingdom Come is probably the only one where I'm really happy with Superman's role in it. What are some other good Superman reads?

"What's so Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?"
"Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow"
"Peace on Earth"
"The Nail/Another Nail"
"Red Son"
"Super Seven"
I really like Superman in Grant Morrison's JLA.

[Killer Angel]

Can you give examples? I never managed to get into it and only really know about some of the most infamously bad stories.


"What's so Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_So_Funny_About_Truth,_Justice_%26_the_Ame rican_Way%3F)" (when he faces The Elite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elite), and for long he tries to reason with them)

JLA / hitman has been mentioned and also the reason why

Kingdom Come (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Come_%28comics%29). Enjoy Supes and wonder woman that slowly shift toward the temptation of instituting a fascist regime (for our own good).

[Ravens_cry]

I thought
"Superman: Kryptonite (http://www.dccomics.com/graphic-novels/superman-kryptonite)"
was quite good.
Like many of Superman's best stories, it focused on Superman the person.

[Dienekes]

Agreed. I'll only add that pro-reg was made to do all those stupid near evil stunts because Marvel realized that people were behind them, not Cap.

But yeah, story would be much better if writers actually sit down and talked to each other, they ended breaking up each other's message. It was pretty clear that Joe Straczynski wanted to do polar opposite of what Mark Millar wanted and he was writing the most important tie-in. Paul Jenkins was raging about government and modern America, culminating in infamous Sally Floyd speech (which I always took other way than everybody else - she isn't telling Cap he is out of touch for not knowing what Nascar or Youtube is, she is telling him that modern day Americans are bunch of idiots who care more about Nascar and Youtube than his ideals and doesn't deserve them) and Reginald Hudlin was doing tiny-veiled racist propaganda (he actually had Doctor Doom call black people genetically superior in every aspect over other races).

Oddly enough, I heard the opposite. We were supposed to be agreeing with the pro-regs (says the big wigs of Marvel anyway), however the actual writers were used to writing anti-reg stuff (especially anyone and everyone who has worked on an X-Men title ever). What we ended up getting was a mixed mess of instead of hearing two very reasonable ideas (personally, I'm ok with finding out who has the natural ability to kill with a thought) and the pros and cons of each, we got a mess of different people bad mouthing each other and acting dumb.

Ahh well, CW had some good bits in it as well so best not to focus just on the negative.

[Green-Shirt Q]

So, what are the interesting comics with him? I've seen a *lot* of comics with him in it, and liked comparatively few of them.

Actually, Kingdom Come is probably the only one where I'm really happy with Superman's role in it. What are some other good Superman reads?

Superman: Red Son was an incredibly awesome read with Superman having a really complex role as both a heroic saviour and a sort-of villain as well, in a way that actually makes a lot of sense with his character and raises some very interesting morality questions.

I enjoyed Superman: Escape From Bizarro World, which deals a little bit with how Superman handled growing up with super powers, although it's not really the focus of the story...

All-Star Superman, is of course, an outrageously fantastic and not-at-all-overhyped-in-the-slightest series about how awesome Superman is.

And, as dorky as it sounds on paper, Superman vs. Muhammad Ali is actually a pretty cool story.

And, as you mentioned, Kingdom Come was a great one as well.

[Finn Solomon]

I think I enjoyed Superman: Birthright the most. The cleanest, most action-packed and heartwarming Superman story for me. Bonus points for Clark Kent doing almost as much good as Superman, Lois Lane being hilarious, Jimmy Olsen not being annoying, and Lex being the massive prick he needs to be.

[Metahuman1]

There was one I remember that I enjoyed were in Manchester Black telepathically told all of Supermans semi-routine rogues gallery (Sans guys like Darksied, Zod and Doomsday) that if they wanted to get to superman, they needed to attack anyone connected to Clark Kent, and flat told Lex Luthor (President at the time.), that Clark Kent was Superman, thus forcing Sups to deal with everyone he's ever cared about being under attack at once en mass.


And then proceeded to use telepathy to make him think that he had killed Lois, while using it to make her not notice Sups in the room with them and to torment her with every fear and insecurity she's ever had in her life. All to try and push Sups into killing him. Don't remember what it was called off the top of my head.




Edit: Regarding the Civil War discussion.

Cap didn't go to fisticuffs until after shield started shooting at him for being willing to publicly toe there new party line of "the only acceptable Superhero is the one working for and answering directly to the united states government, end of story for ever."

He even said that the new line was one very, very, small step form the government telling them who the bad guys were. Kinda like exactly what happened with Norman Osborn when he got into it not real long after stark "Won" Civil War? Yeah.


And the idea was that we were always suppose to Sympathize with Tony Stark suddenly rewriting his entire world view form it's very core and foundation up to decided that the government was the perfect solution to all the marvel universes problems. Because that is the way a number of the writers and even more of the executives feel and think about the real world. And that Cap fighting it should be seen as the ultimate proof that he was not an important character anymore and represented nothing more then the way we did things in WWII, which as far as they were concerned was totally, completely and absolutely unimportant in every possible conceivable way.

And contrary to what a number of the writers would like you to believe, they knew the ending they were gonna write as soon as they got the idea, "Hey, let's make the characters fight each other and at the end of it all the one's we didn't remove from continuity with this thing are working happily for the government." Cap was ALWAYS gonna loose.

And to this day, many of them still can't begin to understand why anyone didn't like Stark on the issue, didn't side with him, and got angry with the way it went down. Many of them attribute it too what ever they can rationalize out to make it the fans fault and not there's.


Between Civil War and One More Day, I've barely touched anything Marvel published since about 2000 or so for a reason. (Cause wasn't it awfully convenient they they'd removed or nerfed just about every cosmic power scale character who would have point blank told stark "No." and stopped him cold in the years building up to Civil War? Except for the one or two they could reasonably want to sit it out all together the way Doctor Strange Did?)

[JoeMac307]

Between Civil War and One More Day, I've barely touched anything Marvel published since about 2000 or so for a reason. (Cause wasn't it awfully convenient they they'd removed or nerfed just about every cosmic power scale character who would have point blank told stark "No." and stopped him cold in the years building up to Civil War? Except for the one or two they could reasonably want to sit it out all together the way Doctor Strange Did?)

I can see your desire to avoid all things Marvel for the past decade or so.

But I personally really enjoyed the heck out of Hickman's Fantastic Four / FF run. I would recommend it to anyone.

[ThiagoMartell]

I can see your desire to avoid all things Marvel for the past decade or so.

But I personally really enjoyed the heck out of Hickman's Fantastic Four / FF run. I would recommend it to anyone.

Dan Slott's Spiderman is good and Mark Waid's Daredevil is the best comic in the stands.

[JoeMac307]

Dan Slott's Spiderman is good and Mark Waid's Daredevil is the best comic in the stands.

These are both very defensible statements. (personally, I think Animal Man is the best title going by the Big 2 right now... But I'm not gonna argue against the groovy train ride that has been Waid's DD so far)

[McStabbington]

There was one I remember that I enjoyed were in Manchester Black telepathically told all of Supermans semi-routine rogues gallery (Sans guys like Darksied, Zod and Doomsday) that if they wanted to get to superman, they needed to attack anyone connected to Clark Kent, and flat told Lex Luthor (President at the time.), that Clark Kent was Superman, thus forcing Sups to deal with everyone he's ever cared about being under attack at once en mass.


And then proceeded to use telepathy to make him think that he had killed Lois, while using it to make her not notice Sups in the room with them and to torment her with every fear and insecurity she's ever had in her life. All to try and push Sups into killing him. Don't remember what it was called off the top of my head.



Action Comics #796, better known as the Ending Battle storyline and followup to what I think is one of the best Supermen stories of all time: "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?"

I like Superman precisely because he cuts against the grain of our cynical age. We live in an age where to be wise and smart and clever is to expect little of those with power other than that they will abuse it to their own advantage. As much as we love the notion of heroes, we look at anyone who openly states that they will act for the good of all, and has the power to do it, with at best skepticism. At worst, we just dismiss it as flim-flam. This is, I think, why Batman is so much more popular and seen as so much more "real" than Superman: sure he's a world's expert on psychology, criminology, forensic analysis, material engineering, judo, tae kwon do, jujistsu, ninjistsu, boxing, drunking boxing, wrestling, karate, and dozens more specialties, but he doesn't ask us to swallow how he's pure as the driven snow.

But the thing is: we need someone in this world to teach us that we can be better than what we are. We need people who can lead by example. The people who are out there making a difference every day need to know that their efforts aren't forgotten and that they are not alone. And those who have fallen short in the past need to know that there is always hope and that redemption is always possible. And that's what Superman does, and who he is. He's not the sum of his powers. He's the sum of his ability to inspire hope and courage. And that's what makes Superman so special to me. Because his best stories make me wish so very much that I could be more like him.

[Metahuman1]

Well, I did have to make exceptions for World War and Planet Hulk, but I just can't touch spider-man till one more day is no longer Canon. Dare Devil on the other hand I might be able to get back into, as I always liked old Matt Mardock (Aflack version none-withstanding.). Though I have to ask if they found a way to make it work with his Secret ID being blown after Stark Caught him during Civil War.


Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the only things that where half way worth while that came out of Civil War involved someone else in the Marvel U letting Tony have it over what he did/was doing at the time?


(Dare Devil letting them find a Silver Dollar under his tongue and waiting for the sheild agents to present it to stark so he could tell him that now he had 31 pieces of silver and to sleep well Judas, White Queen showing him what it looks like to live through standing at ground zero of a Nuclear Holocaust, and demanding of him were was he at Genocia and where were his avengers when it was there baby's burning, Thor coming back after the event was closed out and his subsequent reaction to finding out stark cloned him and had the clone back his actions during the event while pretending to be him, Hulk coming back during World War Hulk and having his absolute worst (And most justified) Rampage Ever as a direct result of the utterly brain dead actions taken by stark, Richards and Doc Strange during First Planet Hulk and worse at the start of World War Hulk, ext. )

[Man on Fire]

Dare Devil on the other hand I might be able to get back into, as I always liked old Matt Mardock (Aflack version none-withstanding.). Though I have to ask if they found a way to make it work with his Secret ID being blown after Stark Caught him during Civil War.

Actually, his secret ID was blown a long time before Civil War, during the event Matt already was in prison, because federals finally have found the evidence supporting this revelation. Daredevil caught in Civil War was really Iron Fist, who decided that the best way to prove to the world thatMurdock is not Daredevil is run around in his costume, while Murdock is in jail. As for now everybody and their mother knows Murdock is DD but nobody has a way to prove it, Matt pretends it's a bad joke and people buy it. And you reminded me I still have to read Waird's run.

[Devonix]

Well, I did have to make exceptions for World War and Planet Hulk, but I just can't touch spider-man till one more day is no longer Canon. Dare Devil on the other hand I might be able to get back into, as I always liked old Matt Mardock (Aflack version none-withstanding.). Though I have to ask if they found a way to make it work with his Secret ID being blown after Stark Caught him during Civil War.


Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the only things that where half way worth while that came out of Civil War involved someone else in the Marvel U letting Tony have it over what he did/was doing at the time?


(Dare Devil letting them find a Silver Dollar under his tongue and waiting for the sheild agents to present it to stark so he could tell him that now he had 31 pieces of silver and to sleep well Judas, White Queen showing him what it looks like to live through standing at ground zero of a Nuclear Holocaust, and demanding of him were was he at Genocia and where were his avengers when it was there baby's burning, Thor coming back after the event was closed out and his subsequent reaction to finding out stark cloned him and had the clone back his actions during the event while pretending to be him, Hulk coming back during World War Hulk and having his absolute worst (And most justified) Rampage Ever as a direct result of the utterly brain dead actions taken by stark, Richards and Doc Strange during First Planet Hulk and worse at the start of World War Hulk, ext. )


Don't forget Nova letting Tony know how petty and stupid their little Civil War was while he and the rest of the galaxy were fighting and dieing to keep them safe from the Annihilation Wave.

[Man on Fire]

Tony Stark: You say, Annihilus was the driving force? What happened to him?
Richard Rider: I pulled him inside out and saved the universe. What have you done lately, Tony?Tony Stark: You say, Annihilus was the driving force? What happened to him?
Richard Rider: I pulled him inside out and saved the universe. What have you done lately, Tony?

[Devonix]

Tony Stark: You say, Annihilus was the driving force? What happened to him?
Richard Rider: I pulled him inside out and saved the universe. What have you done lately, Tony?Tony Stark: You say, Annihilus was the driving force? What happened to him?
Richard Rider: I pulled him inside out and saved the universe. What have you done lately, Tony?

I don't fault you for repeating yourself. The quote is just that awesome.

[Yora]

But the thing is: we need someone in this world to teach us that we can be better than what we are. We need people who can lead by example. The people who are out there making a difference every day need to know that their efforts aren't forgotten and that they are not alone. And those who have fallen short in the past need to know that there is always hope and that redemption is always possible. And that's what Superman does, and who he is. He's not the sum of his powers. He's the sum of his ability to inspire hope and courage. And that's what makes Superman so special to me. Because his best stories make me wish so very much that I could be more like him.
And that's where superman completely falls flat. Superman can't be an example, because he isn't anything like actual people. He's on a completely different page.
With unlimited power and immortality, any supposed conflict he is involved in exists in a vacuum. He does not need to find a balance between what he wants and what he can, because he can everything. Knowing the optimal solution is easy. Finding a comprimise you can live with is the difficult part, because there are always limits to your options. But not for superman.
To me, Superman always appears as armchair philosophy which may sound all good and well, but has not actual connection to what happens in the world.

[Man on Fire]

But he isn't all powerful, his powers are very limited. He is hard to kill, strong, fast, has x-ray and laser eyes and cold breath, that's not really that much. As I said, best Superman stories for me are about how he ecounters problem and tries to find a way to solve it without making a compromise he finds amoral, his message is that there is always better way to do things, we're just nto looking hard enough and choose easy way. I disagree with it generally, but I kinda see his point.

[McStabbington]

And that's where superman completely falls flat. Superman can't be an example, because he isn't anything like actual people. He's on a completely different page.
With unlimited power and immortality, any supposed conflict he is involved in exists in a vacuum. He does not need to find a balance between what he wants and what he can, because he can everything. Knowing the optimal solution is easy. Finding a comprimise you can live with is the difficult part, because there are always limits to your options. But not for superman.
To me, Superman always appears as armchair philosophy which may sound all good and well, but has not actual connection to what happens in the world.

The reason it doesn't work for you is because that's not the axis that Superman stories really work on. The question that drives the best Superman stories is not "Is he strong enough to beat X?" With the possible exception of Darkseid and Mongul, the answer is invariably "Yes." Rather, the question is "Does he have enough faith in his principles to stand by them, even when they don't appear to be working?" And that's a question that we all can relate to. We've all had those times when we were tempted to do the wrong thing because it appeared to be the advantageous thing to do. And you know what? So does Superman, only his dilemmas put the world in the balance. And what makes Superman so great, and so very special, is that he always comes down on the side of sticking with his principles. Not because he has to do so, but because he chooses to do so.

[Yora]

Hm... Maybe this comes down to a dissonance in cultural values. Having face in your principles even when they don't seem to work is what I would consider a strong negative trait and major character flaw.
Constant revision of believes and adaptation to changing circumstances, to the point of admiting having been mistaken or not being consistent is what I see as the traits of a "moral paragon". When I look at Superman, all I see is clinging to a hypothetical ideal under the dellusion that reality will become that way if we all just want it strong enough.

That one title "What's funny about Truth, Justice, and the American Way?". I could write pages about that, but then I'd get kicked out. :smallamused:

But then, I admit that current German values are probably highly "unusual" to say the least. Any form of idealism and conviction is automatically highly suspect.

[Devonix]

With me its importaint for characters to stick to their ideals, especially when they don't seem to work. Otherwise they aren't really your ideals.

[ThiagoMartell]

That one title "What's funny about Truth, Justice, and the American Way?". I could write pages about that, but then I'd get kicked out. :smallamused:

It would probably work better if you had, ya know, read the comic before talking about it.

[Man on Fire]

Constant revision of believes and adaptation to changing circumstances, to the point of admiting having been mistaken or not being consistent is what I see as the traits of a "moral paragon". When I look at Superman, all I see is clinging to a hypothetical ideal under the dellusion that reality will become that way if we all just want it strong enough.

I actually agree with your worldview. But, as I said, I just can see the other side's point and I understand Superman's appeal - sometimes people jsut wish the world wasn't forcing us to compromise all the time and wan't betraying your idealism all the time. uperman is a story of staying true to what you belive in and as such can make interesting story, as opposed to Batman who is about....brooding and yelling "MY PARENTS ARE DEAAAD!".


It would probably work better if you had, ya know, read the comic before talking about it.

I'm pretty sure she meant writing pages about the question in the title, not the comics itself. I'm the one who can write pages and pages of complaint about the comics itself (long-story short, it's a critique of specific team of anti-heroes, the Authority, that threats them as any other anti-heroes from the nineties without realizing that they are very different in many ways - it jsut attacks something writer clearly doesn't understand).

[ThiagoMartell]

I'm pretty sure she meant writing pages about the question in the title, not the comics itself. I'm the one who can write pages and pages of complaint about the comics itself (long-story short, it's a critique of specific team of anti-heroes, the Authority, that threats them as any other anti-heroes from the nineties without realizing that they are very different in many ways - it jsut attacks something writer clearly doesn't understand).

I understand that, I just think it's irrelevant. No one cares about the title, the story is what's important.
The comic is not attacking the Authority, the comic is attacking the concept of 90s antihero. Fittingly enough, Authority is a pastiche of the same concept, according to Warren Ellis.

[Tyndmyr]

But he isn't all powerful, his powers are very limited. He is hard to kill, strong, fast, has x-ray and laser eyes and cold breath, that's not really that much. As I said, best Superman stories for me are about how he ecounters problem and tries to find a way to solve it without making a compromise he finds amoral, his message is that there is always better way to do things, we're just nto looking hard enough and choose easy way. I disagree with it generally, but I kinda see his point.

Well, as long as it's JUST immortality, super speed, super strength, x-ray vision, laser-eyes and cold breath, I suppose that's pretty close to humanity. Unless, of course, the writers give him super-memory. Or superhearing. Or a super-dog.

And any problems he does have are obviously going to be dealt with reasonably and realistically. Not by just punching things. That's be ludicrous, right? Gee, imagine if they thought you could change things like reality by punching them?

[JoeMac307]

Well, as long as it's JUST immortality, super speed, super strength, x-ray vision, laser-eyes and cold breath, I suppose that's pretty close to humanity. Unless, of course, the writers give him super-memory. Or superhearing. Or a super-dog.

And any problems he does have are obviously going to be dealt with reasonably and realistically. Not by just punching things. That's be ludicrous, right? Gee, imagine if they thought you could change things like reality by punching them?

Now come on, only Superboy can change reality by punching it! Superman outgrows that power by adulthood (or something?). Come on, everyone knows that!

[Man on Fire]

Well, as long as it's JUST immortality, super speed, super strength, x-ray vision, laser-eyes and cold breath, I suppose that's pretty close to humanity. Unless, of course, the writers give him super-memory. Or superhearing. Or a super-dog.

And any problems he does have are obviously going to be dealt with reasonably and realistically. Not by just punching things. That's be ludicrous, right? Gee, imagine if they thought you could change things like reality by punching them?

This isn't 4chan, stop acting like you're there. Drop the sarcasm and arguments that made you look like you neverread a comics book but only heard of them. And check out your sources, punching reality wasn't Superman's thing but Superboy Prime - character who is everything people accuse Superman of being in terms of power, basically a parody of him. Superman may fight in his stories, but as I said, hs stories, the good ones, aren't about solving problems with his powers, they are about his morality. As I said, good Superman stories are about how he reacts to things, what he thinks, belives in, what are his opinions.

And he really isn't that powerful, compared to Silver Surfer, X-Man or Green Lantern who can do literally anything if they put their mind to it, Superman is a small fly.


The comic is not attacking the Authority, the comic is attacking the concept of 90s antihero. Fittingly enough, Authority is a pastiche of the same concept, according to Warren Ellis.

Nope, the Elite are cleary based on the Authority - extremely powerful, proactive, have spaceship from another dimension that is inteligent, some of them are clearly analogies for Authority members and in case you would miss it their leader clearly buys in the same store as Jenny Sparks and the comics was made when Authority was popular.
And for me Authority weren't really pastiche of 90s Antiheroes, but a reconstruction - it removed common criticism of those people. Authority are idealistic and have clear, altruistic goal and set of rules, as opposed to amoral and motivated only by money nineties antiheroes. As Warren Ellis said, they are viliains fighting even worse vilians, but they are vilians with standards.

[Tyndmyr]

This isn't 4chan, stop acting like you're there. Drop the sarcasm and arguments that made you look like you neverread a comics book but only heard of them. And check out your sources, punching reality wasn't Superman's thing but Superboy Prime - character who is everything people accuse Superman of being in terms of power, basically a parody of him. Superman may fight in his stories, but as I said, hs stories, the good ones, aren't about solving problems with his powers, they are about his morality. As I said, good Superman stories are about how he reacts to things, what he thinks, belives in, what are his opinions.

You'll note that I didn't say that punching reality was something superman did. However, it's very obviously the same 'verse. And all those things not only existed, but are...strangely common. The last survivor of krypton thing has basically become a bad joke. I don't know that I could even list all of the kryptonians that have appeared in the comics.

See, the thing is, when your powers can solve anything for you trivially...your morals and ideals aren't really that hard for you. There's not a lot in the way of hard choices. Look at the end of Watchmen, when Rorschach must choose if he'll betray his ideals. THAT is a tale about morality, and one that spiderman can never match.

Unless, of course, we use the kryptonite plot-cookie one more time. Frankly, the use of this is...sufficiently common that you begin to wonder why they bothered giving him super-powers at all.

Edit: Also, no need to act shocked by sarcasm. You're the fellow trying to defend superman as not all that powerful. He's kind of the canonical overpowered superhero.

[Man on Fire]

You'll note that I didn't say that punching reality was something superman did. However, it's very obviously the same 'verse. And all those things not only existed, but are...strangely common. The last survivor of krypton thing has basically become a bad joke. I don't know that I could even list all of the kryptonians that have appeared in the comics.

What it has to do with anything?


See, the thing is, when your powers can solve anything for you trivially...your morals and ideals aren't really that hard for you. There's not a lot in the way of hard choices. Look at the end of Watchmen, when Rorschach must choose if he'll betray his ideals. THAT is a tale about morality, and one that spiderman can never match.

That's why good Superman stories give him dilemmas he cannot solve with his powers. The problem are lame and lazy writers who cannot come up with ideas for good challenges for him. Superman is hard to write, but you cannot blame him for hi writers being lazy and preffering to write Batman, most boring character in existence, because it's easy.


You're the fellow trying to defend superman as not all that powerful. He's kind of the canonical overpowered superhero.

Only for ignorants who don't know anything about comic books. Magneto, Sentry, X-Man, Legion, Green Lantern, Captain Atom and loads of other heroes can do things far above his abilities. He can punch things, they can switch magntic poles and play with atoms at will.

[McStabbington]

See, the thing is, when your powers can solve anything for you trivially...your morals and ideals aren't really that hard for you. There's not a lot in the way of hard choices. Look at the end of Watchmen, when Rorschach must choose if he'll betray his ideals. THAT is a tale about morality, and one that spiderman can never match.


Superman is cosmic powered, but that doesn't necessarily give him a way to solve his moral dilemmas. I can think of several stories off the top of my head, in addition to the two I've mentioned by name, where what counts is Superman's heart, and not his strength.

The Justice League adaptation of the Alan Moore story "For the Man Who Has Everything": Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgwiqLEEOP8) and Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjhsvlaiQgM&feature=relmfu). Just to point out: this is actuallly the one adaptation of an Alan Moore comic that Moore was actually perfectly okay with, because they kept the story mostly intact. Aside from deleting Robin, slightly changing what the Black Mercy does, and slightly soft-pedaling the fact that Superman was absolutely murderous at the end, they kept the story pretty much the same.

The other one is Itsjustsomerandomguy's Marvel/DC After Hours series:
Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3v0ZaZn23I) (where the story starts).
Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv3KWBc3eV4&feature=channel&list=UL)
Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNOUKZ0EdWk&feature=plcp)
Part 6 (1 of 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WTp1G3HpZ4&feature=plcp)
Part 6 (2 of 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXMSDrcABDk&feature=relmfu)
Part 7 (1 of 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekuznjH0JLI&feature=relmfu)
Part 7 (2 of 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSsWVwFpNzs&feature=relmfu)

Despite the fact that it's done entirely with action figures, it deals precisely with the question of whether Superman is still relevant today.

[Zen Monkey]

Listen to "Superman's Song" by the Crash Test Dummies; it gives a good perspective on the problems of being a hero. Basically, he works hard for almost no reward, keeps trying to save a population that seems needlessly bent on destroying itself, and while most of us would be tempted to just quit on humankind, he keeps going. The end result is going home to an empty apartment, nobody knows the good things you did, and you have to do it again tomorrow. Despite all the physical power, there's a tired and weary quality to it.

[ThiagoMartell]

Nope, the Elite are cleary based on the Authority - extremely powerful, proactive, have spaceship from another dimension that is inteligent, some of them are clearly analogies for Authority members and in case you would miss it their leader clearly buys in the same store as Jenny Sparks and the comics was made when Authority was popular.
I'm not saying it is not based on the Authority. I'm saying it is not attacking the Authority. Big difference. Warren Ellis himself is a fan of the story.


And for me Authority weren't really pastiche of 90s Antiheroes, but a reconstruction - it removed common criticism of those people. Authority are idealistic and have clear, altruistic goal and set of rules, as opposed to amoral and motivated only by money nineties antiheroes. As Warren Ellis said, they are viliains fighting even worse vilians, but they are vilians with standards.
Which is a pastiche of 90s antiheroes, in a 'what could have been' sort of way.

[Yora]

Well, as long as it's JUST immortality, super speed, super strength, x-ray vision, laser-eyes and cold breath, I suppose that's pretty close to humanity. Unless, of course, the writers give him super-memory. Or superhearing. Or a super-dog.
That's not even the biggest problem. Even more problematic is, that the world of superhero comics appears to be so much about right and wrong, about making sacrifices and enduring hardship, yet at the same time stories are based on the most redicoulous premises. You have unrealistic scenarios to which the heroes respond in unrealistic ways. And the villains can pull off their silly plans because the writers want that it works, and the heroes are successful with their silly solutions because the writers want that they work.
First a strawman is created for the sole purpose of being beaten, and then everyone is praised for having done so.

But this is a problem with superhero comics in general. But superman stands out because he is based on the most overblown premises and stands for the most black and white ideology.

If you keep the villains within limits and also the hero within limits, and you don't dive too deep into ideology, then it can still work and maybe is unrealistic and quite sillly, but entertaining. X-Men and Batman can be quite enjoyable at times. They are not immune, but many writers seem to be able to make normal stories about them in which all the superpowers are mostly window dressing and it could work even in different settings.
But fighting villains that can only exist because "it's a comic" by using methods that can only work because "it's a comic" and then making it look like that there's a deep message for the readers in it, that just doesn't work for me.

[Dienekes]

That's not even the biggest problem. Even more problematic is, that the world of superhero comics appears to be so much about right and wrong, about making sacrifices and enduring hardship, yet at the same time stories are based on the most redicoulous premises. You have unrealistic scenarios to which the heroes respond in unrealistic ways. And the villains can pull off their silly plans because the writers want that it works, and the heroes are successful with their silly solutions because the writers want that they work.
First a strawman is created for the sole purpose of being beaten, and then everyone is praised for having done so.

But this is a problem with superhero comics in general. But superman stands out because he is based on the most overblown premises and stands for the most black and white ideology.

If you keep the villains within limits and also the hero within limits, and you don't dive too deep into ideology, then it can still work and maybe is unrealistic and quite sillly, but entertaining. X-Men and Batman can be quite enjoyable at times. They are not immune, but many writers seem to be able to make normal stories about them in which all the superpowers are mostly window dressing and it could work even in different settings.
But fighting villains that can only exist because "it's a comic" by using methods that can only work because "it's a comic" and then making it look like that there's a deep message for the readers in it, that just doesn't work for me.

I don't quite get your argument here. All fiction is made up, any outcome is determined by the author. So all themes, messages, and so forth taken from the outcome are always crafted that way by the author. When the villains win it's because the author decided they did. When the villains lose it's the same. I just don't see how what you're saying is limited just to super heroes any escapist fiction at all.

Then you get the point about power levels, well first off there are numerous X-Men who could give Supes a run for his money in power (Jean Grey being foremost in my mind). Then you point out that it's only ok as long as ideology isn't involved. Well, why not? What does the chassis of the story have anything to do with the ideology put into it. The Greek myths are filled with super powered Gods and Demigods, and they often had morals and messages within them. To go with a non-hero example, Morpheus from Sandman is incredibly powerful, and is placed in situations that no human ever would, does that mean that we cannot gain messages from his those beautifully crafted stories? Where do you cut off how powerful someone can be verse whether they can carry a message with them? Because I do not see such a distinction. A good author can make an entertaining story with whatever chassis he chooses. A good author can make a message work with whatever chassis he chooses, whether you agree or disagree with that message is your own prerogative of course, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

To go to Superman, he regularly gives messages of physically standing up for what is right (which sure is easier for him to do in normal situations since he's so strong, but the real test of character is when faced with someone stronger, he still doesn't give up). As long as the hardships he endures are non-trivial I see nothing wrong with using Superman for this message, or anyone really. Stay true to your morals, especially when temptation strikes. With more powerful comes greater temptation, so I don't exactly see what his power has to do with this moral either. Lead by example, Superman is a character that walks the walk as well as talks the talk and holds himself to moral scrutiny, again, I'm not seeing how his power has anything to do with this in fact since it's easier for him to get what he wants in other ways I think the moral works rather well with him.

Now, it may not be your cup of tea. That's fine. I don't particularly like most anime's, but that does not mean someone cannot find themselves wrapped up in the ridiculous worlds, characters, and messages found in whatever anime they're reading. The same is true for Superman.

[Tyndmyr]

That's not even the biggest problem. Even more problematic is, that the world of superhero comics appears to be so much about right and wrong, about making sacrifices and enduring hardship, yet at the same time stories are based on the most redicoulous premises. You have unrealistic scenarios to which the heroes respond in unrealistic ways. And the villains can pull off their silly plans because the writers want that it works, and the heroes are successful with their silly solutions because the writers want that they work.
First a strawman is created for the sole purpose of being beaten, and then everyone is praised for having done so.

But this is a problem with superhero comics in general. But superman stands out because he is based on the most overblown premises and stands for the most black and white ideology.

If you keep the villains within limits and also the hero within limits, and you don't dive too deep into ideology, then it can still work and maybe is unrealistic and quite sillly, but entertaining. X-Men and Batman can be quite enjoyable at times. They are not immune, but many writers seem to be able to make normal stories about them in which all the superpowers are mostly window dressing and it could work even in different settings.
But fighting villains that can only exist because "it's a comic" by using methods that can only work because "it's a comic" and then making it look like that there's a deep message for the readers in it, that just doesn't work for me.

Precisely. If you want to tell a story about a normal guy struggling to stop something....why do you need to start with say, superman depowered by kryptonite? What does that add to the story?

Hell, look at the movies. Even the most recent one(which was no Superman 2), had some serious issues. Like, if you think about it at all, clearly superman basically ditched a kid. Dad of the year award. The villains plan doesn't make a ton of sense, and is kind of crazy. The way he stops it is also crazy. Superman lifting a giant ball of kryptonite doesn't even make sense.

So, in the end, there's a lot of babble about various things, and clearly, they're trying to convey something about will overcoming stuff or something...but everything just gets lost in the absurdity.

And superman has a LOT of absurdity in his history. Basically every comic has a bad story or two that everyone kind of wishes didn't exist, but superman has them at every turn. Consider Bizzaro. What deep motif is there in this concept? How is this concept at all realistic or reasonable, even in a super-powered world? And sadly, he's not just some obscure thing that popped up once. He's been a major part of the superman 'verse for a long, long time, and been used a fair bit.

[Synovia]

It's about parents, sending their future, the thing they loved most in the world away in hopes that he would have a chance at life and happiness.

It's about a couple that could not have a family of their own, taking in a complete stranger, dealing with that child's immense amount of problems and teaching them everything they knew about being a good and loving person.

It's about a man with all the power in the world reacting to that love and wanting to show the world every day a representation of it, by dedicating his life to being a beacon of hope.

I agree with this. I just think what happened to superman's parents would make a much better story.

[Tyndmyr]

I agree with this. I just think what happened to superman's parents would make a much better story.

Check out Irredeemable, then. :smallcool:

[Man on Fire]

That's not even the biggest problem. Even more problematic is, that the world of superhero comics appears to be so much about right and wrong, about making sacrifices and enduring hardship, yet at the same time stories are based on the most redicoulous premises. You have unrealistic scenarios to which the heroes respond in unrealistic ways. And the villains can pull off their silly plans because the writers want that it works, and the heroes are successful with their silly solutions because the writers want that they work.
First a strawman is created for the sole purpose of being beaten, and then everyone is praised for having done so.

But this is a problem with superhero comics in general. But superman stands out because he is based on the most overblown premises and stands for the most black and white ideology.

If you keep the villains within limits and also the hero within limits, and you don't dive too deep into ideology, then it can still work and maybe is unrealistic and quite sillly, but entertaining. X-Men and Batman can be quite enjoyable at times. They are not immune, but many writers seem to be able to make normal stories about them in which all the superpowers are mostly window dressing and it could work even in different settings.
But fighting villains that can only exist because "it's a comic" by using methods that can only work because "it's a comic" and then making it look like that there's a deep message for the readers in it, that just doesn't work for me.

The same can be said about anything. Xykon works only because it's a comics, Sauron works only because it's a fantasy. Not a single story could happen in reality, even those based on true events, because none of them is 100% true to reality - it happened and it was different. Stories aren't about being realistic, they are about people reacting to potential situation. What's important is to get the people right, and then you can make sense of everything. Just because vilian is 3.5 wizard it doesn't mean you cannot make interesting story with him. Stories allow us to explore infinite possibilities and talk through metaphors. Just because robots cannot do what they do in this story (http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/54803.html) it doesn't make aid story's message any weaker. None of stuff in China Mieville's work is even remotely realistic even by fantasy standards, guy is called father of new Wierd for a reson. it still doesn't take any strenght from hsi stories.


Precisely. If you want to tell a story about a normal guy struggling to stop something....why do you need to start with say, superman depowered by kryptonite? What does that add to the story?

Or you need to say it with somebody else and put Superman against threat on his level? You wouldn't put Doctor to stop simple robbery, why do you want to have Superman doing so, when you could put both of them against enemies o ntheir levels?


Hell, look at the movies. Even the most recent one(which was no Superman 2), had some serious issues. Like, if you think about it at all, clearly superman basically ditched a kid. Dad of the year award. The villains plan doesn't make a ton of sense, and is kind of crazy. The way he stops it is also crazy. Superman lifting a giant ball of kryptonite doesn't even make sense.

So, in the end, there's a lot of babble about various things, and clearly, they're trying to convey something about will overcoming stuff or something...but everything just gets lost in the absurdity.

That's not Superman's fault, that's bad writing. Replacing him with Batman wouldn't help. In fact, read Batman: The Odyssey to see that even semingly more realistic hero can have story with tons of pure, concentrate bullmanure.


And superman has a LOT of absurdity in his history. Basically every comic has a bad story or two that everyone kind of wishes didn't exist, but superman has them at every turn. Consider Bizzaro. What deep motif is there in this concept? How is this concept at all realistic or reasonable, even in a super-powered world? And sadly, he's not just some obscure thing that popped up once. He's been a major part of the superman 'verse for a long, long time, and been used a fair bit.

Realism and superhero comics doesn't work well, especially attempts at making making them realistic for sake of realism...well, I have yet to see one that din't sucked more than a professional prostitute in poor district. Not a single superhero is in any way realistic, this word has no meaning when we talk about them. We're talking here about world of metal claws, healing factors, asey beams, super agility and other things that are completely unrealistic. Nobody reads superhero comics for realism.

And before you bring him up - Batman is not realistic either. Batman is in fact the biggest lie in comics book industry. They keep telling us he's realistic and that everybody could be like him. And they lie to us. Nobody could be like him. World's greatest detective. World's greatest martial artist. Second richest man on Earth. Third smartest man on Earth. Vast knowledge in multiple scientific fields on the level impresive even to people with degree in them. Best car ever. Best plane ever. All those wonderful toys. Bulletproof costume. F***er has more powers than Superman by longshot. Anybody can be like him? Yeah, maybye if they lived 500 years. As for realistic - there are entire articles about why it's impossible to create things like Batcave and keep them in secret. And who pumps hsi tires by the way? Batman is one big, fat lie they keep forcing down our throats and keep telling us we should like him for things he doesn't have.

And one more thing - even the msot silly concept can work if you put enough work into it. Juni Itou has made carrer as an outstanding creator of horror mangas by using completely insane and pretty silver-ageish concepts. Ghosts that tickle you to death, people being forced to stand in one place in strange poses for no reason. SPIRALS! This man can make the stupidies idea damn scary because he puts an effort into it. Steven Moffat turned something so silly as statues that moves when you doesn't look at them into one of the scariest things known to man. SCP Foundation is basically made of those. You can make any idea whatever you want, you just need to put a thought into it. Alan Moore made Bizarro pretty tragic and creepy in "Whatever Happened With The Man Of Tomorrorw", during Blackest Night he got quite sad storyline and I myself as kid loved comics with him from the Nineties. hell, Morrison, Waid and Millar once come up with an idea that made Bizarroworld pretty terryfing concept, very akin to Ray Bradbury's "Mars Is Heaven!". He can work, he has a place, you just need to know what you're doing with him.

If you willingly limit your imagination, if you cut out concepts ebcause they are too stupid or too silly for you, then you are on path to creative stagnation, the thing that is really unwelcome in fiction.


Check out Irredeemable, then.

Okay, now I'm just confused, how can somebody hate Superman for not being realistic nad liking Irredeemable, where main character does things that would be considered bullmanure if Superman at his strongest would do them?

[Tyndmyr]

The same can be said about anything. Xykon works only because it's a comics, Sauron works only because it's a fantasy. Not a single story could happen in reality, even those based on true events, because none of them is 100% true to reality - it happened and it was different.

Er, there are levels of realism. Just because something isn't 100% realistic doesn't mean that they're all equal.


Or you need to say it with somebody else and put Superman against threat on his level? You wouldn't put Doctor to stop simple robbery, why do you want to have Superman doing so, when you could put both of them against enemies o ntheir levels?

Oh, and who would that be? What non-ridiculous enemies are on superman's level?


That's not Superman's fault, that's bad writing. Replacing him with Batman wouldn't help. In fact, read Batman: The Odyssey to see that even semingly more realistic hero can have story with tons of pure, concentrate bullmanure.

Already addressed. Everyone gets bad writing from time to time. Some concepts inherently make good writing hard.


And before you bring him up - Batman is not realistic either. Batman is in fact the biggest lie in comics book industry. They keep telling us he's realistic and that everybody could be like him. And they lie to us. Nobody could be like him.

Someone could certainly be a bit like him, sure. Exactly? Probably not. You could be a lot more like batman than you can be like superman, though.


World's greatest detective. World's greatest martial artist. Second richest man on Earth. Third smartest man on Earth. Vast knowledge in multiple scientific fields on the level impresive even to people with degree in them. Best car ever. Best plane ever. All those wonderful toys. Bulletproof costume.

World's greatest detective hasn't been a major portion of his powerset in ages. Sure, he got his start as a "detective", but holmes the guy is not. I will accept that he is smart, educated on his adversaries, and believes in preparation. These are not crazy.

Rich? Yeah, this is doable. There are now rich humans. Hell, being terribly rich makes the rest a lot easier. If I were the second richest person on earth, I'd have a lot of time for hobbies.

Smart and rich often go together. Sure, some people are lucky, but smart people tend to be able to do more with less. This combo is also not especially astonishing. Smart people having knowledge on par with multiple degrees? Well, yeah...that's what being smart is.

Cool car, cool plane? See also, rich. This makes perfect sense. Rich people love such toys.

Bulletproof costume? Please. I own a bulletproof vest, this isn't even a challenge.


F***er has more powers than Superman by longshot.

I think you're wildly stretching things if you believe stuff like owning an awesome car is a superpower, or is more unrealistic than heat-vision.


Anybody can be like him? Yeah, maybye if they lived 500 years. As for realistic - there are entire articles about why it's impossible to create things like Batcave and keep them in secret. And who pumps hsi tires by the way? Batman is one big, fat lie they keep forcing down our throats and keep telling us we should like him for things he doesn't have.

Google the Manhattan Project. Big things can be kept secret. The comics don't cover how batman fills his tires because frankly, that's boring. It's not an impossibility.


And one more thing - even the msot silly concept can work if you put enough work into it. Juni Itou has made carrer as an outstanding creator of horror mangas by using completely insane and pretty silver-ageish concepts. Ghosts that tickle you to death, people being forced to stand in one place in strange poses for no reason.

Look, you may think this is "outstanding", but to me, the idea of a ghost that tickles you to death sounds sketchy. Also, I've never heard of this guy. I suspect he's less well known than you think outside of the manga circuit.


Steven Moffat turned something so silly as statues that moves when you doesn't look at them into one of the scariest things known to man.

Things moving when you're not looking at them is a very basic fear. This is basically how most predators work, and nobody wants to be prey. Not the same thing at all.


Bizarro..., during Blackest Night he got quite sad storyline and I myself as kid loved comics with him from the Nineties.

Now, see, I've read Blackest Night. I saw nothing particularly redeeming or deep about it. Definitely not from Bizarro. "sad" is not sufficient to make a comic meaningful.


Okay, now I'm just confused, how can somebody hate Superman for not being realistic nad liking Irredeemable, where main character does things that would be considered bullmanure if Superman at his strongest would do them?

Because, while starting with an unrealistic premise, it explores the realistic outcomes of that premise.

Basically the same thing that makes good sci-fi, really.

[ThiagoMartell]

Oh, and who would that be? What non-ridiculous enemies are on superman's level?

Mongul, Zod, Brainiac, Doomsday, Darkseid, the list goes on.

[Man on Fire]

Er, there are levels of realism. Just because something isn't 100% realistic doesn't mean that they're all equal.

But the way Yora said it it sounded like for her it was black and white division - realistic or unrealistic.


Oh, and who would that be? What non-ridiculous enemies are on superman's level?

From top of my head: Doomsday, Darkseid, Mongul, Solomon Grundy, Sun-Eater, Brainiac, Cyborg Superman (through he is more Green Lantern's enemy), Massacre (anybody remembers him at all?), those mutant-clones from Fall of Metropolis, Lobo (because he can be potrayed in non-ridiculous way quite easily), Atlas, General Zod (and his followers), Eradicator.


Some concepts inherently make good writing hard.

Which I already mentioned - if you cannot write Superman good, that's because you are too lazy to do your damn job properly and think for a minute about it.


Someone could certainly be a bit like him, sure. Exactly? Probably not. You could be a lot more like batman than you can be like superman, though.

Still not what they are promising us. They are selling him as hero you could be , not the hero you could be like.


World's greatest detective hasn't been a major portion of his powerset in ages. Sure, he got his start as a "detective", but holmes the guy is not. I will accept that he is smart, educated on his adversaries, and believes in preparation. These are not crazy.

Batman is officially the greatest detective of DCU. It's officially said that not a singe person in entire world has greatest detective skills than him.


Rich? Yeah, this is doable. There are now rich humans. Hell, being terribly rich makes the rest a lot easier. If I were the second richest person on earth, I'd have a lot of time for hobbies.

Smart and rich often go together. Sure, some people are lucky, but smart people tend to be able to do more with less. This combo is also not especially astonishing. Smart people having knowledge on par with multiple degrees? Well, yeah...that's what being smart is.

Cool car, cool plane? See also, rich. This makes perfect sense. Rich people love such toys.


Batman isn't just rich. Again, officially only one man has more money than Bruce Wayne - Lex Luthor. It's not about being rich, it's about making it up to the top 10 of Times' "Richest people of the year" list every year.

He isn't just smart. He is officially third smartest man on the planet. Only Mr. Teriffic and Lex Luthor have higher IQ than Batman.

He doesn't have just a cool car, batmobile isn't (turns on the tv and watches first car commercial), it's a car that probably costed millions of dolars and can do things none other does. Same with plane and toys.

You said it yourself, there are different levels of realism. I could buy man being rich, smart, good detective and martial arts master and having amazing toys. I could buy him being the best in the world in one of those things. And even being best in the world in one of these areas while being good in the others. But all of them at the same time? Noope.


I think you're wildly stretching things if you believe stuff like owning an awesome car is a superpower, or is more unrealistic than heat-vision.

Car that can do things none other in existence can? Yup, superpower right here and no more realistic than heat-vision.


Google the Manhattan Project. Big things can be kept secret.

Yeah, batcave has realistic justification why it could be keep secret. And Superman has realistic justification for his Clark Kent disguise. People don't buy either.


The comics don't cover how batman fills his tires because frankly, that's boring. It's not an impossibility.

But question who does that still remains. And because it remains open, it doesn't contribute to him being realistic.


Look, you may think this is "outstanding", but to me, the idea of a ghost that tickles you to death sounds sketchy.

Try to not complain about stories you didn't read.


Also, I've never heard of this guy. I suspect he's less well known than you think outside of the manga circuit.

First, I never said he is well-known.
Second, popularity doesn't equal quality, just because he doesn't have Stan Lee's levels of fame doesn't mean he isn't good.


Things moving when you're not looking at them is a very basic fear. This is basically how most predators work, and nobody wants to be prey. Not the same thing at all.

But it is. It's a silly concept turned out to be terrifing. It's a statue walking. What's not silly about it?


Now, see, I've read Blackest Night. I saw nothing particularly redeeming or deep about it. Definitely not from Bizarro.


Hello... Solomon Grundy... Hello....


A single person can find one thing deep and another not, it doesn't prove anything. I could argue that "Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann" is deep very easily, while for most people it's just fun story. Just because you didn't found anything worth about the story doesn't mean it isn't there.


"sad" is not sufficient to make a comic meaningful.

When it's well done, sure it is. When story makes you sad, it's sure as hell is meaningful.


Because, while starting with an unrealistic premise, it explores the realistic outcomes of that premise.

Basically the same thing that makes good sci-fi, really.

But you can explore realistic outcomes of Superman with Superman too, it's not his fault that people either are too lazy to do it or DC Editorial doesnt allow them. You don't need to write out the character jsut because people in charge aren't competent enough to explore his potential.

And by the way - you read last issue of Irredeemable, right? because it's little hard to bring it up as critique of Superman when


It pretty much states that the whole reason everything went to s**t in this world is because Plutonian wasn't as good as Superman. It ends with Plutonian's essence being scattered across the multiverse, so somebody can get him right. And who does? Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel. Creators of Superman.

[Tyndmyr]

From top of my head: Doomsday, Darkseid, Mongul, Solomon Grundy, Sun-Eater, Brainiac, Cyborg Superman (through he is more Green Lantern's enemy), Massacre (anybody remembers him at all?), those mutant-clones from Fall of Metropolis, Lobo (because he can be potrayed in non-ridiculous way quite easily), Atlas, General Zod (and his followers), Eradicator.

Anyone who finds Superman to be a bit out there in the realism thing is probably not going to be particularly impressed by the realism/non-ridiculousness of Cyborg Superman.

Lobo is...basically the 80s come to life. Motorcycle in space...cmon, that's not even a little ridiculous to you?

Sun-eater? Not familiar with this one, but the name isn't really inspiring confidence, and wiki's summary of it describes a display of ridiculousness that is hard to equal.

Darkseid I've always liked. Until I got to when he was shot, by batman, with a bullet fired backward through time. Then I threw the book across the room.

Solomon Grundy is basically zombie superman. Without adding the usual zombie weaknesses. See where we're going with this? It's literally like they just threw darts at a dartboard, and slapped things together with many of their villains. And these are the ones that you consider the best of the lot.

Braniac has been anything from a green man to a floating giant brain with facial features. Like everyone in this 'verse, he's got ridiculously powers. I mean, it gets to a point where strength becomes an exercise in hyperbole. I can't really get into more detail without pinning down what brainiac we're talking about, but there's lots of ridiculousness to go around.

Atlas? Never read a comic with him in it. That said, a cursory search basically indicates that they ripped off the obvious legend. He's with a secret government organization that fights Superman and the Science Police to test something something magic something. For someone that was apparently not used a lot, there's a pretty high ridiculousness factor here.

Mutant-clones? Not really seeing a lot of depth here. Swarm o' clones of good guy isn't usually handled well by writers. Adding "mutant" and other descriptors to the mix is not really a sign of a well-developed adversary.


Which I already mentioned - if you cannot write Superman good, that's because you are too lazy to do your damn job properly and think for a minute about it.

Then why does he have so many terrible, terrible tales in proportion to many another iconic hero?


On to the Batman stuff.


Still not what they are promising us. They are selling him as hero you could be , not the hero you could be like.

So? What is impossible about being Batman? Hard, sure. Practical...not really. But if I had been born with overwhelming wealth, and had a damned strong motivation for revenge, I'm sure I could accomplish similar things. Buy nifty toys, get awesome training, all that jazz.

People have done stranger things. Jack Churchill rode around, in WW2, on a motorcycle, killing Nazi's with a bow and arrows. He was reportedly upset when the war ended, because he loved it so damned much. Regular humans occasionally do become badass killing machines. Combining that with giant piles of money solves many things.


But you can explore realistic outcomes of Superman with Superman too, it's not his fault that people either are too lazy to do it or DC Editorial doesnt allow them. You don't need to write out the character jsut because people in charge aren't competent enough to explore his potential.

He's a fictional char. His merits ARE determined by what the writers and editorial staff do with him.


And by the way - you read last issue of Irredeemable, right? because it's little hard to bring it up as critique of Superman...

It's a deconstruction of superman. It exists as a critique of him. That's why it's a thing.

[McStabbington]

So? What is impossible about being Batman? Hard, sure. Practical...not really. But if I had been born with overwhelming wealth, and had a damned strong motivation for revenge, I'm sure I could accomplish similar things. Buy nifty toys, get awesome training, all that jazz.

People have done stranger things. Jack Churchill rode around, in WW2, on a motorcycle, killing Nazi's with a bow and arrows. He was reportedly upset when the war ended, because he loved it so damned much. Regular humans occasionally do become badass killing machines. Combining that with giant piles of money solves many things.


I refer you to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyNXnuHNF8k) 2-minute youtube video, the central joke of which is that Batman is not possible, even if we accept the exceedingly improbable possibility that the man with the 3rd-highest IQ in the world, 2nd-highest wealth, and 1st-highest physique could all be the same person. There simply is not enough time in a 25-year old man's life to learn all the things that Batman does to the degree of proficiency that he does, even if you started directly implanting that information in his skull instead of getting him started on a vengeance quest when he was 10.

[Tyndmyr]

I refer you to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyNXnuHNF8k) 2-minute youtube video, the central joke of which is that Batman is not possible, even if we accept the exceedingly improbable possibility that the man with the 3rd-highest IQ in the world, 2nd-highest wealth, and 1st-highest physique could all be the same person. There simply is not enough time in a 25-year old man's life to learn all the things that Batman does to the degree of proficiency that he does, even if you started directly implanting that information in his skull instead of getting him started on a vengeance quest when he was 10.

You're telling me that Batman has the #1 physique in the DC universe?

I have *got* to hear some justification for that.

[McStabbington]

You're telling me that Batman has the #1 physique in the DC universe?

I have *got* to hear some justification for that.

He's got the #1 physique among normal humans. It's fairly common knowledge that if Batman were in the Olympics, he'd get the gold in every event.

That being said though, I have to question what the relationship between "realism" and moral value is anyway. I don't find it particularly "realistic" that a lawyer living in one of the poorest parts of Depression-era Georgia could be the personification of justice and decency in the face of persistent cultural and structural racism, as well as a world-class marksman. That doesn't detract from my love of Atticus Finch. I don't believe that someone could outrun a trap consisting of a boulder dropping from freefall onto a threaded track designed to accelerate said rock towards the mouth of the cave. Yet I still love Indiana Jones. I don't think it's particularly realistic that you could be thrown into a pit of acid with spikes at the bottom and an acid-breathing shark in the tank and still get back out. But I'm still a huge fan of O-Chul. And I've gotten moral lessons out of all of them.

Honestly, I think this notion of "realism" has less to do with Superman or Batman, and is more a proxy for the real issue people have with comics: they find heroes that explicitly try to be good guys to be tedious and dull. That's certainly the "lesson" that drove many of the most ridiculous elements of the '90's antihero and comic book bronze age. And maybe you still feel the same way. Personally, I see that as a ridiculous stereotyping of the Silver Age of comics and missing the point that many of the best works of the Bronze Age: the point wasn't that morality plays are irrelevant; it's that you have to take superheroes seriously if you want us to take their moral dilemmas seriously. And much of the mentality behind the Silver Age did not. But many of the modern Superman comics do.

[Man on Fire]

Anyone who finds Superman to be a bit out there in the realism thing is probably not going to be particularly impressed by the realism/non-ridiculousness of Cyborg Superman.

As I mentioned above, realism is not a thing you aim for with Superman. Nobody ask them to be 100% realistic, as I said, people who looks for realism in superhero comics just simply doesn't understand them. Cyborg is an interestign character - man who cannot die and who blame Superman for death of his loved ones, who takes his mantle to disgrace it and cover with blood, to destroy his good name by commiting mass murders, really just looking for gift of death.


Lobo is...basically the 80s come to life. Motorcycle in space...cmon, that's not even a little ridiculous to you?

Lobo is lighter character, for more light-hearted sotires, while still having dignity (because he looks suprisingly normal) and being actual threat. If you want Lobo seriously, you have Massacre, space bounty hunter on pair with Superman, doesn't look like from the 80's and doesn't have bike.


Sun-eater? Not familiar with this one, but the name isn't really inspiring confidence, and wiki's summary of it describes a display of ridiculousness that is hard to equal.

Its a star-eating giant space monster. He is threat to entire life on Earth, threat you cannot fight with because it's too powerful, you cannot reason with, because it's mindless animal that just wants to eat and you cannot understand, because it's boyond your understanding. It's a mix between Cthulhu and Galactus, more force of nature than supervilian. This guy is epic.


Darkseid I've always liked. Until I got to when he was shot, by batman, with a bullet fired backward through time. Then I threw the book across the room.

Batman makes everything automatically worse. In good Superman stories Batman is nowhere to be found. Darkseid very often is.


Solomon Grundy is basically zombie superman. Without adding the usual zombie weaknesses. See where we're going with this? It's literally like they just threw darts at a dartboard, and slapped things together with many of their villains. And these are the ones that you consider the best of the lot.

Super-strong undead monster is perfect enemy for Superman. He is no more ridiculous than Poison Ivy (she can talk with plants) or Mr. Freeze (I mean seriously, I dare you to tell me Grundy is more ridicuous than Freeze, I dare you).


Braniac has been anything from a green man to a floating giant brain with facial features. Like everyone in this 'verse, he's got ridiculously powers. I mean, it gets to a point where strength becomes an exercise in hyperbole. I can't really get into more detail without pinning down what brainiac we're talking about, but there's lots of ridiculousness to go around.

Most of those versions were really drones send by true Brainiac to do his dirty work. Brainiac is a superinteligent computer with merciless peronality, who traves through the Universe and destroys planets, colleting one city from each, all in pursuit for one thing - more and more information. Guy is perfect enemy for Superman, he cannot beat him in straight fight, he needs to think and even on this field is outclassed.


Atlas? Never read a comic with him in it. That said, a cursory search basically indicates that they ripped off the obvious legend. He's with a secret government organization that fights Superman and the Science Police to test something something magic something. For someone that was apparently not used a lot, there's a pretty high ridiculousness factor here.

Ridiculous.... You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Somebody having powers isn't ridiculous, as you said yourself, there are different levels of realism and on level of Superman none of things you mentioned is ridiculous by any way. Hell, Atlas doesn't sound that ridiculous compared to people who are supposed to be more realistic, like Joker (every day he wakes up he has different personality? You're kidding me?) or Ras-Al-Ghul.


Mutant-clones? Not really seeing a lot of depth here. Swarm o' clones of good guy isn't usually handled well by writers. Adding "mutant" and other descriptors to the mix is not really a sign of a well-developed adversary.

They were failed attempts at creating superhumans by Cadmus, discarded, forced to live in dumps, treated like a dirt by normal people and then started dying on mysterious plague they blamed Cadmus for. So they rebelled. They were monstrous in apperances and have various powers, some of them were evil, some were just pissed off. Overall pretty tragic villains.


Then why does he have so many terrible, terrible tales in proportion to many another iconic hero?

Batman has a lot of terrible stories too - All-Star Crazy Steve and **** Grayson Age Twelve, Crazy Steve Strikes Again, Batman: The Odyssey (which I'm pretty sure is in Crazy Steve Continuity too), batman: Foruate Son ("Punk is nothing but a death and crime and the rage of the beast!") and a lot more.
Spider-Man? Clone Saga and One More Day, more than he will ever need.
Captain America and Iron Man? Civil War.
Wolverine? Everything involving Daken or Romulus.
No other superhero can be called iconic. No, not even Wonder Woman.

On Batman see what McStabbington had said.


He's a fictional char. His merits ARE determined by what the writers and editorial staff do with him.

Then every character is worth the same - what people working with him are. Which is real truth about worth of any character ever created.


It's a deconstruction of superman. It exists as a critique of him. That's why it's a thing.

Funny, considering how series is written by one of Superman's biggest fans and it's pretty much telling you that everything is like it is because Plutonian is not Superman. Plutonian wants to be like Superman, all bad things happenes because he is not Superman.

[Devonix]

How on Earth is Grundy Zombie Superman... What I don't even :smallfurious:

Grundy is an ex mobster cursed to return to life every week with different powers and never have peace.

Strength and intelligence varies each time he is reborn, sometimes knowing who he is and othertimes not untill his next rebirth.

How is that in anyway Zombie Superman? No flight, no speed, no other abilities.

[Devonix]

Darkseid I've always liked. Until I got to when he was shot, by batman, with a bullet fired backward through time. Then I threw the book across the room.



And from this one quote I see that we will never agree on anything ever.

This was thematically the best part in an all around amazing series. Only thing better was the stuff in Superman Beyond.

[ThiagoMartell]

It's a deconstruction of superman. It exists as a critique of him. That's why it's a thing.

A deconstruction is not the same as a critique. People thinking it was so is what made Alan Moore abandon mainstream comics.
Irredeemable is an affectionate deconstruction, much like Watchmen. The Boys is a borderline offensive deconstruction.

[Devonix]

A deconstruction is not the same as a critique. People thinking it was so is what made Alan Moore abandon mainstream comics.
Irredeemable is an affectionate deconstruction, much like Watchmen. The Boys is a borderline offensive deconstruction.

Yes. For some reason people started thinking after Watchmen that Alan Moore hated superheroes and was bashing them with Watchmen. When Superman is one of his favorite characters of all time and he practically begged to write, What ever happened to the man of Tomorrow. One of the best Superman stories of all time. Silver age goodness at it's best.

[Yora]

Batman has a lot of terrible stories too - All-Star Crazy Steve and **** Grayson Age Twelve.

Say... What time is it? :smallbiggrin:

[Devonix]

Say... What time is it? :smallbiggrin:

*checks watch* about 8:30 am
... too early for miller time

[ThiagoMartell]

Yes. For some reason people started thinking after Watchmen that Alan Moore hated superheroes and was bashing them with Watchmen. When Superman is one of his favorite characters of all time and he practically begged to write, What ever happened to the man of Tomorrow. One of the best Superman stories of all time. Silver age goodness at it's best.

Irredeemable is even written by Mark Waid, the guy behind Kingdom Come, a cellebrative reconstruction of super-hero comics. The man loves superheroes, specially Superman.
(btw, his run on Daredevil is all shades of awesome and his webcomic is pretty well as well)



But fighting villains that can only exist because "it's a comic" by using methods that can only work because "it's a comic" and then making it look like that there's a deep message for the readers in it, that just doesn't work for me.
So internal consistency is bad? :smallconfused:
Superhero comics has genre definitions. They are built on spandex and superpowers.
Complaining about that is like complaining about any new medieval fantasy setting because there is magic on it... and magic is 'silly' and 'unrealistic'.
Only really bad comics are not internally consistent. That's the one thing keeping verossimilitude in superhero comics, so writers tend to take it very seriously.
Please, tell me which was the last superhero comic you read. Because it looks like it was published in the 60s or something like that.