Superman and being an icon of morality.

Is being an icon of morality actually bad for Superman? A recent post from @sc got me thinking about this. Does being a moral figure head limit Superman and stories that can be told about him? If so, do you think New 52 Superman was made more brash and less of his former self in order to break the idea that he's a moral icon so that more freedom can be had when writing about him? I'll try to give you a few questions to answer with regards to this:

1. Is being a moral icon actually bad for Superman?

2. Do you think DC thinks it is bad for him so retooled him in the new 52 to be more brash so that more freedom can be had when writing about him?

3. Do you think more good comics can be consistently written about the Superman we saw in Allstar or the Superman we saw in New 52 Action Comics 1-18?

Personally, I dont think I've ever had much trouble in thinking of something interestng or cool about Superman as he was in Birthright (which is my main reference for Superman, even moreso than Allstar) but I'm curious about what you guys think.

Here's SC's post and, well, it's everything you'd expect from SC:

(After having been asked if being a moral icon is bad for Superman...)

I think it has helped but hindered. My personal favorite thing about Superman is that even despite being fictional, he was instrumental in the weakening and decline of the Ku Klux Klan in the 40's. The way technology and society was set up in the past, peoples ethics and morality was more uniform. No internet, no television, travel wasn't nearly as fast as it is today, communication wasn't either, ethical and moral dilemmas still existed but it was more localized and untested. The conditions could allow for a strong icon like Superman to work as a shining beacon of morality, ethics and justice.

In modern times though, because of the internet, live television, video technology, faster travel and communication, video phones, cheaper, and smaller technology, people are confronted with more complicated and larger problems, and so more ethical and moral dilemmas. Bob Geldof was a UK rockstar who at some point in the past, because of the technological advances in video recording/capture and broadcasting, was able to through BBC news media, witness and experience the struggle of Ethiopian citizens experiencing famine and starvation. Its not that such things didn't happen before, but for the first time in history, people in first world comfort could see how other people had to experience reality from the comfort of their living rooms and that was a catalyst for wanting to help. Bob Geldof had a significant role with charity events like Band Aid and Live Aid. Many optimistic people from that era and even today, the idea of people around the world starving to death is horrible, and they want to help, but the problems and thereby solutions to such things… well they are quite complicated, involves politics, distribution of resources, distribution of wealth, ideas about economics, and human rights, and rights of corporations and are hundred by things like corruption, and greed and policing/enforcement, public opinion which can be fickle… I am getting a headache just thinking about it.

In modern times peoples opinions and ideas about what is ethical and what is moral has far more variety and diversity than ever before. So the conditions have changed greatly since when Superman was conceived and also for a greater bulk of Superman's existence as well in many ways. Since the conditions have changed its going to be hard for writers to actually be able to present Superman as ethical and moral to as many readers simply because readers opinions and ideas are so different from each other. Consider JMS Grounded storyline and how polarizing it was for so many people. If we made a thread about Superman's attitude on abortion, homosexual marriage, religion, euthanasia, foreign aid, and about the plight of the homeless, famine, starvation, the depiction of Allah in cartoons? Lots of people are going to have different and strong ideas about what Superman should think. Modern Superman writers usually understand this so they usually try and avoid putting Superman into a situation that could alienate large sections of his fan base, because on one hand Superman is suppose to be this shining beacon of ethics and morality but on the other hand, Superman is also suppose to be a shining example of humanity accessible to every single human, to do your best, be your own Superman.

Those two ideas do not necessarily have to conflict, and in the past in simpler times they did not, but in modern times its much harder and is also a reason why Man of Steel was so polarizing. For many people their ideas of Superman is that he should never kill. To kill is unethical, and an idea about Superman they hold is that he always, always finds another way. To force him into a situation where he can't find another way is not being true to Superman's ideals. For others, its unethical for Superman to not kill if the situations requires it, and that Superman showed strong ethics and honor, by killed Zod, not because he wanted to, but he had to for the greater good and that he had to do what many police officers, solders in real life often have to do because there isn't always an alternative and now he is going to be burdened like they are burdened by that action.

So modern day writers can either try and write a Superman that isn't controversial and risk the character not resonating as having strong ethics and morals except for in a very generic ad watered down way, like how many cartoon characters are just good because they are good, or they can risk having Superman make hard decisions about serious and controversial issues, deal with ethics and morality something that will demonstrate the characters relevance in modern times, but at the risk of alienating people if Superman's actions don't seem ethical or moral at all. I forget to mention that Superman as a fictional character can adapt, adapt to the times, but the modern era is a setting where its really difficult to present any character as being universally appreciated for ethics and morals because of their decisions. Also doesn't help that there are many more characters people can relate to, or identify over Superman as well. Some of them arguably are more willing to tackle controversial subjects that Superman might not be able to.

Sorry long post, but yeah I wouldn't say that being DC's moral poster child or a well know pop cultural iconic and poster child for morals and ethics has hurt Superman, there are positives and negatives. Positive's include helping the character shut down the KKK, popularizing the character, making the character a source of inspiration for millions and millions of people, helping people through hard times by being s ounce of strength, some negatives would be - limiting the characters story telling potential, making the character hard to relate to in modern times for many, making the character hard to adapt into situa

...my post dissappreared. All that time it took me 0_0

*Sigh* summed up version of my original post:

I share some of SC's concerns and I see where is she coming from but Superman has tackled issues like that before and some of the greatest Superman stories were created. Also I have to note that Superman didn't attack the KKK as a character but as a radio show, so that is a very dubious example :P

I think as far as you remember what Superman stands for, meaning for Truth, Justice and The American Way, you can see how Superman would react to most problems:

Taken from wikipedia:

The American Way of life is individualistic, dynamic, and pragmatic. It affirms the supreme value and dignity of the individual; it stresses incessant activity on his part, for he is never to rest but is always to be striving to "get ahead"; it defines an ethic of self-reliance, merit, and character, and judges by achievement: "deeds, not creeds" are what count. The "American Way of Life" is humanitarian, "forward-looking", optimistic. Americans are easily the most generous and philanthropic people in the world, in terms of their ready and unstinting response to suffering anywhere on the globe. The American believes in progress, in self-improvement, and quite fanatically in education. But above all, the American is idealistic. Americans cannot go on making money or achieving worldly success simply on its own merits; such "materialistic" things must, in the American mind, be justified in "higher" terms, in terms of "service" or "stewardship" or "general welfare"... And because they are so idealistic, Americans tend to be moralistic; they are inclined to see all issues as plain and simple, black and white, issues of morality.

Thats why I think the American way should never leave Superman's motto because it is a nice summary of his ethics and morals. I am not American btw, thats not just a patriotic statement, but a true belief.

And let be honest here, Superman's morals were never the problem. Captain America currently thrives with the same black and white view as Superman. Sterile writting is the problem. Superman used to travel between dimensions, time and space. He used to have a fling with Cleopatra and his best friends were from 1000 years in the future, he was this larger than life hero, that couldn't be contained. Colorfull stories that weren't afraid to become silly or funny. And I think the main reason of Superman's decline is DC, writers and fans thinking those stories were bad, be even embarrased about them, when they brought more ideas and influence in the franchise than any other era. This was Superman's true golden age. It is no coincidence that Superman's best writers and stories were mainly influenced by that era.
Take those concepts and add modern writing don't be embarrased about them, don't limit yourself to fit some weird criteria the DC editorial think it works especially when stories like All Star,Birthright, Red Son and Morrison's AC showed that don't. Superman should be larger than life, limitless in scope and heroic, not brash and definitely not realistic, we tried that and it didn't work...multiple times.

I do think in some ways it has limited his stories, but there are always times where he isn't entirely good, even if its in something noncanon like injustice. He's not perfect and sometimes makes the wrong decision, so he's not limited that much.

I'm not sure why they changed new 52 superman, he is too much of a jerk for me. Still great, but slightly different personality. Though it does make him getting angry or losing control more believable.

I'm a fan of the man, not the icon. The farmboy who's trying to do right and is a friend to the world. We learn from him through his actions not because he's a teacher.

...Resisting comment about Pak's Screwupman...Can't handle the pressure.

I'm not reading that entire post but I will say this. There's. Nothing wrong being Jean-Luc Picard with superpowers

Superman just doesn't have a human's pure versatility as a protagonist , he's beyond worldly perception and self desires and sees through a clearer lense than most heroic main characters because he's bestowed virtue and might along with a moral code from early on, that makes him a bit flawless as a concept. Superman is one of those characters that is projected when you first see him as a embodiment of divinity and goodness with strength beyond his enemies and friends, this is the problem. Superman will always be elevated too a point where he's no human ideal anymore, but a fundamental imagination based on what defines good and justice, like God. And humans have done this through human history a concept that defines the entirety of the beings that are perfect beyond human nature. We as humans have developed different tastes on what moves us with morals which then create characters based on those individual traits. Superman sometimes comes off as a general concept of being the word of god and thusly too bland as a force of good.

And I as well am resisting commenting on you being impatient and not enjoying the journey.

Yeah, the last issue of Bm/Sm made clear that excuse is b*llsh!t :) Superman is almost seven years in the job, you don't get that excuse.
Pak has repeatetly questioned Superman's identity, has repeatedly made him fail and portrays a constantly unsure, self-loathing, incompetent Superman. No you definitely don't get that excuse.

Superman has screwed up more times in Pak's run than the rest ten years combined(and no that isn't a good thing).

I disagree. You can see how versalite the character can be by looking at his library of stories.

I have read enough Superman to know that he has more than enough self-desires. His whole Clark Kent persona is one of those. He doesn't have to be Clark, he does it for his own self. To have a normal life he desperately wants sometimes. Not to mentions, that he has repeatedly breaken the law, for his own personal want.

Not really. He can be perfectly human. He definitely isn't flawless, many stories showcase that. He has desires, he gets angry, he gets jealous and he definitely doesn't always forgive. But his role, his responsibilities are to reach above them, to not succumb. Spider-man has exactly the same moral code as Clark. EXACTLY the same. Same with Captain America. I don't see what makes Parker any different. I think you are stuck in the generic public image Superman has and never delved deeper in the character.
I think I have to say you speak as someone who hasn't read much Superman, because if you did, it actually makes wonder how you got that idea?

WRONG! The last issue of BM/SM is proof of what I'm talking about. You've hated that Batman and Superman aren't friends after the first arc. But since the first arc of being at each others throats there has been a progression of their friend ship. First they hated each other, then they were constantly trying to one up each other, and now they have a total bromance. I do get to use that excuse. I'm in no hurry to have a Superman who's ready for the job, I'll still enjoy the journey thank you very much.

No that isn't progression that is Pak finally finding the voice of the characters, because the second arc was in the same timeline as this meaning five years later and their interactions were horrible.

Anyway, yes their partnership was ok, nothing magnificent. But Pak's Screwupman was present not Superman. First two pages, he almost doomed Kandor and he almost destroyed the fortress, even Supergirl, SUPERGIRL, who was the most angsty teenager of DCU acted more rationally. And of course in the end of the issue Screwupman failed(again, see the pattern) and Batman saved the day.

You can see how incopetent Pak's Screwupman is because even if you take him out of the issue the result would be the same.

I will make a thread about how many times Screwupman has screwed up in Pak's run, I bet that it is at least twice per arc.

*headache intensifies* It's progression within his own stories. And yes, it is progression, he could have found the voice of the characters long ago, heck he did when he wrote Earth 2 Superman/Batman (which many would say were the experience versions of Pre 52). You need to let go of the whole 5 years thing and enjoy the story at hand. That kind of rules is what ruins story telling. Wonder Woman takes place in her own little pocket and we see how that turned out.

Anyway, yes their partnership was ok, nothing magnificent. But Pak's Screwupman was present not Superman. First two pages, he almost doomed Kandor and he almost destroyed the fortress, even Supergirl, SUPERGIRL, who was the most angsty teenager of DCU acted more rationally. And of course in the end of the issue Screwupman failed(again, see the pattern) and Batman saved the day.

This issue was perfection IMO, nearly teared up AGAIN! YOu can hear the anger, desperation and sadness in him when he's talking about Chuck (the guy who died in the hospital). He was desperate enough to put the Fortress of Solitude in danger to try and catch the killer. But when Supergirl told him he'd be putting the city in danger he stopped. It seemed more like he didn't think of the possibility of Kandor which in his situation was completely justified. But you seem to think that 5-7 years on the job means he should be able to solve every problem ever and not have a human lapse of judgement even when completely justified.

You can see how incopetent Pak's Screwupman is because even if you take him out of the issue the result would be the same.

Yeaaaaah, me and you definitely like different version of Superman. You like the iconic SUPERman more, I like when they focus on the man and make his struggle all the more relatable.

The Superman forum is the most passive aggressive place I've ever been lol

But his book can be classified as it's own thing. It's not like Tomasi who came in mid title and made the characters not pros in fights. He hasn't made them gay or kill people who just started them of as their cocky versions that were established in the New 52. And has sent them on a journey to their current bromance. Also you are way to clingy to the whole 5 years thing, let it go. That thing was a mess to begin with but you seem to be one of he few who really care about it.

Not really, far from it and everything good this issue had, it didn't come from its portrayal of Superman.

But those mistakes and rushed decisions are horrible when they are overused. Pak has overused the "inexperienced" Superman excuse. I get that he is angry, but Pak could find better ways to express it, than having him do something stupid...again! It is not a problem of action but of consistency. Pak's Superman screws up horribly in every single arc, multiple times! In the end, it becomes annoying, repetitive and disrespectful. Its Pak, trying too hard to show how "human" Clark is, he is overcompensating. Why would I even care for a guy that creates more problems than he solves? Because up to now, that is what Pak's Superman does! And Pak goes out of his way to prove it. The last BM/SM arc is proof of that.

Exaggeration is exaggeration. He hasn't screw up in every single arc. in fact most of the arcs on BM/SM he doesn't screw up. So the rest of your point is invalid. I love how you say that Pak's Superman can be angry but that he should find an other way, yet you give no other result. If you can't enjoy the moment and see the tragedy in the moment enough to give him a pass.... well you've got no heart. As for your comment on why should you care, this is again where we differ. I can't read Pre 52 mature Superman cus he doesn't feel like anyone I know and therefore I don't care about him.

NO! You know who writes a human Superman. Waid, Busiek, Johns, without making him seem stupid or incompetent. Pak writes a Superman that becomes annoying if you have a memory strong enough to remember more than two issues of his run. I think, maybe if I list all the times he has screwed up, maybe you will see what I am talking about.

I've read quite a few, and although they are good stories, their takes on Superman don't swoon me. And most of the stories I've read their Superman's are stiff. Their reactions and how they speak all feel stiff to me. None of them feel like someone I would know in real life and therefore I don't care. (Repeat of the thing I said earlier, but that was an addition)

And no, Superman isn't perfect but he still is Superman god@mmit, he has to inspire a bit. Its okay to see him fail from time to time, or lose control but Pak is doing it constantly, constantly. Its annoying.

Except you do. YOu're just in denial about what perfect is. You want him to have on arc where he screws up and then after that he's mastered the job. That is the enemy of story telling. We've had 70 years of that.

I honestly don't know why we're arguing, it's clear that we both like different things and see different things in what the others like. You see an iconic mature Superman, I see a stiff. I see a man who's doing his best and in the end saves the day, you see a screw up. Different perspectives I guess. But it is your fault, you started it.

@saint_wildcard said:

Oh happy fricken day!!! squalleon i could hug you (big ol bear hug) what i'm getting at- Someone else sees it as well!!! How irritating pak's 'superman makes mistakes' campaign is, holy crap!! Honestly thought i was alone on this, comforted that i'm not.

haha screwupman i like that. Forget batman superman, it's not as bad as action comics because there's literally 2-3 pages in every single issue designated for a flashback and what a monster he is and how inexperienced he is and he makes a stupid mistake and then beats himself up about it.

Pak's superman is fun but damn is that aspect irritating AF!!!

Can't speak for everyone but i liked Superman #32 so much because it made superman human in two pages without having him fail or have some self criticizing thoughts

I don't need Superman to be a moral icon. I need him to strive to be moral as much as possible, but sometime unable to be so.

I think you turn Superman into a cliche if he's always moral.

@squalleon:

His book came after Johns' second JL arc which actually touched on Superman's and Batman's relationship and after Morrison's second arc which showed the mutual respect these had for each other.

With no build up, it just happens. BM/SM shows the journey to it and it pays off IMO. People b**ch about how the SM/WW relationship just happens, but accept that BM/SM can become bros after one arc. DOuble standard much.

In the first arc of AC, he releashed the monsters that make energy in sub-terrenia dooming the world by taking its source of energy without thinking and sending the monsters in an environment they can't live, almost killing them. In Doomed he was so careless that he brought Doomsday to Smallville. In the second arc of Pak's run, he releashed the Ultra-humanite, he is the reason people die in the last arc of BM/SM and in the last issue of Bm/Sm, he almost doomed the Kandorians and he couldn't even catch the bullet which is something both Lois and Bats bet on. He was literally useless in the whole issue. Those came out on the top of my mind. I am pretty sure if I go and re-read Pak's run I will find more instances like these. And it is not that they exist but the sheer number of them, in such a short time is what makes me angry. Pak has repeatedly expressed how Superman does more harm than good in his run, with The Tower Command, or with the Smallville people even with his co-star Lana Lang. And he tries really hard to prove it.

I'm pretty sure the monster followed him after he thought he beat him, and Ultra Humanite was breaking through anyway, the people of Smallville's plan was to keep it locked in the smoke. So the world should just accept that Smallville is gone? ALso, it looks like Superman will actually defeat UH once and for all. Most of your arguments are on the level of J. Jonah Jameson, not to mention your being selective and ignore the the double standard. How many villains come to earth cus of Superman in Pre 52? Oh that's right, a lot. How many times do people die cus not even Superman can save everyone? Again, a lot. DOn't even bring up Lana Lang, you have this unreal standard as to how someone should be after her parents died and then her best friend killed them again as zombies. I'm pretty sure there arent' any psychology books on how to deal with it so you don't get to decide what is a normal reaction.

If perfect means competent, sure about himself and actually worth his title of "Superman" then yes. Morrison's Superman was a newbie, yet I still loved him, because he was inspiring even in his mistakes, or identity crisises. Pak's run has been full of an unsure Superman, constantly doubting his ability and identity, contantly doing mistakes. And how would you know? You said it yourself you have barely read anything that isn't New 52. I have read enough stories from all those 75 years to know thats not true. Superman has been so different all those years, in all those versions of his, he always did mistakes but that never was his main characteristic as it is in Pak's run.

Morrisons version didn't make mistakes, he just had limitations, heck he even had super intelligence . ALso, think your clumping in all the moments that are unsure and stretching it as if he always does it. I've read stories by most of what people consider the best Superman writers of Pre 52 (Grant MOrrison being the one I read the most), the stories are good but their Superman just doesn't interest me. I have no state whether he wins or loose cus I just don't care. It's not about the mistakes it's about the personality.

Indeed I did. And I don't regret it. I started it because I can't possibly take seriously Pak's Screwupman anymore.

Okay, thing is I don't care. I'll continue to enjoy and praise Pak's Superman. Let me enjoy my Superman.

This is like saying, has Batman grittiness limited his storie"? I don't agree at all.

It's what makes Superman well him.

1. Superman being a moral Icon doesn't limit his story.

2.No. I feel like the new 52 didn't have to make him brash to deal with situations. Although I can see why they did it.

That's kind of who he is.

Superman began has always been stated to be the ideal person everybody strives to be. There is a reason why people say "Don't worry, you're not Superman".

Also about Pak's Superman. It's fine to have Superman doubt himself, but it should be in silent and secluded moments. It being used so much loses the gravitas of insecurity. It has much less impact. Exploring Superman's insecurity should never be the main priority.

Superman's main traits have always been 1.) Having unwavering moral values 2.) Being polite to a fault 3.) Being charming to a fault 4.) Having an identifiable presence and 5.) He's CONFIDENT. So when he DOES doubt himself, it should be impactful. It should dawn on the reader of the situation at hand, that "SUPERMAN is doubting himself".

It's not like we're asking him to be unrelatable, just that Pak should stop questioning Superman's confidence and start demonstrating why his confidence matters in the first place. He should be Superman, not Peter Parker.

@redwingx: There is a huge difference between grit and morality. Stories are built on challenges and grit is how a hero overcomes a struggle, morality only limits him.

@saint_wildcard said:

@squalleon:

With no build up, it just happens. BM/SM shows the journey to it and it pays off IMO. People b**ch about how the SM/WW relationship just happens, but accept that BM/SM can become bros after one arc. DOuble standard much.

Difference being that the Sm/WW is a new concept,never explored before to sell it you have to make the reader believe it. While with BM/SM we have gone through the motions countless times, we have seen how they meet, how the get to know each other and from better writers than Pak(not an attack to Pak, but the truth).

I'm pretty sure the monster followed him after he thought he beat him, and Ultra Humanite was breaking through anyway, the people of Smallville's plan was to keep it locked in the smoke. So the world should just accept that Smallville is gone? ALso, it looks like Superman will actually defeat UH once and for all. Most of your arguments are on the level of J. Jonah Jameson, not to mention your being selective and ignore the the double standard. How many villains come to earth cus of Superman in Pre 52? Oh that's right, a lot. How many times do people die cus not even Superman can save everyone? Again, a lot. DOn't even bring up Lana Lang, you have this unreal standard as to how someone should be after her parents died and then her best friend killed them again as zombies. I'm pretty sure there arent' any psychology books on how to deal with it so you don't get to decide what is a normal reaction.

I love how you cling to the one argument you can rebut but ignore all the others.The diffrence between Pak's and the rest(not only Pre-52) are the gravitas and frequency. Pak's main elements in his run are how Superman does more harm than good, how much of an uncontrolled monster he is and how unsure of his identity he is. That are his main concepts and they don't get any development, they just exist, appear and repeat. A book that loaths its own protagonist. Of course Lana's 180 turn was just atrocious. She is being so passive aggressive towards Supes in the beginning of the second arc, which doesn't agree with how much she loved Clark, how much she understands him etc. I give it to you that I haven't read Doomed so the turn was too sudden for me but still, there have been cringeworthy scenes in the second arc because of her.

Morrisons version didn't make mistakes, he just had limitations, heck he even had super intelligence . ALso, think your clumping in all the moments that are unsure and stretching it as if he always does it. I've read stories by most of what people consider the best Superman writers of Pre 52 (Grant MOrrison being the one I read the most), the stories are good but their Superman just doesn't interest me. I have no state whether he wins or loose cus I just don't care. It's not about the mistakes it's about the personality.

Morrison writes stories with archtypes when it comes to Super-heroes of DC, he never said otherwise. But those simple moments of human emotion he puts in his stories are more powerful than most. Morrison has never done a Pre-52 Superman story, only appearances in his JLA and Final Crisis etc. How you think you will get a complete view from them? You want a vanurable Superman, hell you want a Superman, who tackles the "you do more harm than good" concept you seem to love, read Busiek's Camelot falls. Human Superman, difficult dillema but excecuted with care, from one of the best writers of our era.

Let me enjoy my Superman.

Mmm, I will think about it. I will definitely throw sarcastic comments about what a Screwupman he is, if he continues to be one. It would be hilarious if he screws up in the next issue of AC.

Nice to see I am not the only one who sees it. And I completely agree with you, it is not that happens but it is that happens too frequently that makes it annoying, the gravitas is lost when Superman is doubting and fails every second issue. When Superman fails it should be impactful, not predictable.

I think he meant about how those two are actaully connected to their respective characters. Batman became more popular when his stories started becoming gritty while Superman became more popular when he became the paragon of Justice.
And I disagree morality can limit a character. For every story you can't do, a new story that can be done only with that character appears. There is a reason stories like Camelot Falls, Power Within and Must there be a Superman are done only with Superman, these are stories that can be done only with him.

I'll bring something of my own to the table at some point either today or tomorrow but several of the posts here have been really good. Nice to see that there's more support for Superman to be better than to continue being his usual New 52 self.

Icon of morality... To tell you the truth I'm with Luthor on this one.

In Superman Unchained, Lex pointed out that for many years he thought Superman did what he did, because he had a larger view of things and what he chose to do and not do, was a plan Superman was following to help mankind move along. But after years of studying him he came to an unexpected conclusion. Superman doesnt know what he's doing. Yes, he has his code and he tries his best to help, but all in all, Superman doesn't have a clue if what he's doing will actually lead to anything good. That in a way like any normal human being, Superman does things by trial and error, and he definitely doesn't have have a master plan, or at least a long term plan.

And has it pains me to even admit it, Luthor was right. It's been years since I saw Superman actually follow a straight line of thought. He second guesses himself half the time, because he knows so little about his own powers (and does little to almost nothing to change that) in a way he lives in constant battle with himself, and finally Superman of all characters in DC is the one that inspires the most but when it comes to the real issues, the everyday issues, he made a conscious choice of not interfering.

This to me shows how much people look up to him, but little do they know, Superman is has lost has so many of them.

*sigh* I don't blame you, you reached the only logical conclusion there is if you are reading the current stories. Currently Superman is a very self-absorbed concept imo. But I have to say, I think it is the fault of how writers handle new 52 Supes. Pre-52 Superman was more confident in his actions and his mission was clearer. You can see how he inspired in plenty of stories, my current favorite would be the AoS infinite crisis tie-in in Bludhaven.

Also Superman has tackled real world issues in some stories like Superman peace on earth, Superman for the animals etc but you know DC doesn't want Superman to be preachy :P

Note I said sometimes, not all the time. Like Grant Morrison stories for example of the character.

@squalleon:

Neither do I want him to be preachy. But at this point, he's doing even less than you and me would do, if we had his powers.

He's supposed to be this great reporter, well, any good reporter can "see" news coming a mile away. But writers in this timeline have make him to be almost ignorant to problems that he could and should tackle.

Right now when I read Action Comics or Superman, I'm left with a sense of lacking. Like the stories are so simple minded, so basic, compared to what has been going on with other characters from DC and Marvel, that it almost seems deliberate. Like this is being done to remove fans from reading Superman stories. There's still Batman/Superman and has of now it has brought the best stories, Superman/WonderWoman have also brought somethings to the table but not nearly at the level of Batman/Superman. And again this only proves my point. That a character like Superman needs to use other characters has crutches is damn unforgivable.

@heavenlydarkdragon:

I kind of agree. Johns' has some potential going on involving the Daily Planet and the new direction he will take after issue 38 but the story was just ok up to this point, I think Morrison's run was the most imaginative of the New 52 as of yet, with some of my favorite elements in the mythos born from it. Pak has disappointed me when it comes to Superman lately, for reasons I mentioned before and I find Batman/Superman to be nothing extraordinary. I think that is not only Superman's problem but every major characters, Green Lantern, Batman(I am the minority that don't like Snyder), Flash and now Wonder Woman are just okay. Same with the A-listers of Marvel, Spider-man is same old same old, rebooting the character every two years so he won't ever get any development, Iron Man lives with a gimmick, same with Thor and Cap.
I think the best book from both publishers are the ones with lesser characters that both Marvel and DC aren't afraid as much to take big risks.

@squalleon:

Exactly! There lies the key phrase "take big risks".

When was the last time we actually got a full blown reboot, where they would say "Well, we did this so far. But now things need to change for the better. Lets upgrade things to current times, see where we gone wrong and right, and not make the same mistakes. It doesn't matter the the level of changes necessary, we'll do it even if we have to start from scratch."?! Never! Or to be more precise, almost never. The silver age thing went so bad, that till this day we still feel its effects. And not just DC, Marvel also had and has its share of problems.

And we see eye to eye when we say that, has things are right now, nothing good is gonna come out of it. We'll get the same old stuff repeated till exaustion, only delivered in a different way.

I more than once sent a email to DC Comics and suggested that they created a "Fan Story Section". Where fans could send their ideas for stories, for the character each fan chose to write about, and from that they would get free acess to use the material has they wished.

Kinda like creating and idea pool, that could be used to inspire or help writers see where the fans wanted the character to go. But has I knew it would happen, it feel into oblivion, and nothing of the kind was ever made.

I dont need superman to be the icon of moral I got batman for that trololololol

...

GOD DAMMIT! CV deleted my response.... oh well, here it goes again.

Fixed. Also, the whole point of the New 52 is to introduce new readers (like moi) to concepts they've never read. And since no one wrote how the two of them became bros, Pak did.

I love how you cling to the one argument you can rebut but ignore all the others.The diffrence between Pak's and the rest(not only Pre-52) are the gravitas and frequency. Pak's main elements in his run are how Superman does more harm than good, how much of an uncontrolled monster he is and how unsure of his identity he is. That are his main concepts and they don't get any development, they just exist, appear and repeat. A book that loaths its own protagonist. Of course Lana's 180 turn was just atrocious. She is being so passive aggressive towards Supes in the beginning of the second arc, which doesn't agree with how much she loved Clark, how much she understands him etc. I give it to you that I haven't read Doomed so the turn was too sudden for me but still, there have been cringeworthy scenes in the second arc because of her.

I love how you show no humility and accept that I debunked 3/4 of your so called screw ups.

Today I made sure to re read some of Pak's comics and asked someone who would have no problem telling me I'm wrong (in fact he loves it) if he's seen any of the things your spewing in Pak's work. He said not to his knowledge. You've also stated that Clark thinking he's a monster and doubts himself is in every arc.... wrong again. It's only been in this arc and that was as a kid, which has been a thing for like... ever. Those elements have not appeared in BM/SM (especially in BM/SM, he's pretty confident dude in that) at all, and they didn't appear in the first 2 arcs of Action.

Now let's talk about BM/SM and how Superman didn't stop the Kaldorian on time.... you know what?YOu're right. I'm so stupid for liking Pak's writing. I mean, who does he think he is writing a competent villain? Who does he think he is for writing a comic where the villain can actually pose a threat making the urgency to stop him legitimate? F**K PAK!

As for him putting the Fortress computer at risk, IMO that scene was written brilliantly and if you let it sink in, you could believe that he would have forgotten about Kandor. But that's just me.

NOw let's talk about Lana, tell you what, if you have ever seen your dead parents come back to life as killer scary zombies and then get destroyed by your best friend, and you weren't traumatized... I'll agree that her reaction was out of line. But seriously, she knew she was being harsh but as stated... HER ZOMBIE PARENTS FREAKED HER OUT! GIve her some room to breath, jeez. I'm sure this isn't permanent. Impatient.

Morrison writes stories with archtypes when it comes to Super-heroes of DC, he never said otherwise. But those simple moments of human emotion he puts in his stories are more powerful than most. Morrison has never done a Pre-52 Superman story, only appearances in his JLA and Final Crisis etc. How you think you will get a complete view from them?

Fine then, I read ASS... still didn't do anything for me. YOu also praise Unchained and call it a Pre 52 Superman series. His Superman fell super flat, really boring and emotionless. I also find it funny that you agree with what Lex Luthor said in that book but consider that a slam on New 52 Superman. Can you say cherry picker?

Mmm, I will think about it. I will definitely throw sarcastic comments about what a Screwupman he is, if he continues to be one. It would be hilarious if he screws up in the next issue of AC.

NOt a suggestion. Make all the "witty" remarks that you want just don't tag me. I'm pretty sure it bothers you more that I enjoy Pak's Superman anyway.

This si what happens when you're married to the Silver age. Just ask Johns, he ain't divorcing no time soon.

@saint_wildcard: Nice arguments sir, and I agree with you completely.

Thanks.

It depends on what being a icon of morality means. If it's the Christopher Reeves can do no wrong truth justice and the American way version then it can be a bit stifling for superman to breathe. If we're talking about the golden age defender of the oppressed and heavy handed superman then you'd get "true" Supermna fans saying it's wrong. In truth all versions are interpretations of Superman from what the writer believes him to be. Wether it's Morrison writing him as the man who can do no wrong but strives to be helpful or other writers trying to give him shades of grey to make him seem more human. After all everyone says that his growing up in the American heartland gave him the virtues that have endeared the character but could it have given him a outlook that is maybe naive. I'm not trying to say that it's wrong because it's the superman I grew up with and he was a icon to thankful for. And I think that this is were the new 52 superman has supposedly alienated the older fans but here's the best part: he's nerve stopped being good. They say he was arrogant but was he really? Maybe brash and confident in his abilities but isn't that to be expected by one of the strongest super humans on the planet. I think last year I said that I reread all of my new 52 superman comics and found that he was still the same old Supes's. Still saving everyone in any way he could. Underneath all of This was someone wants to do good and help people. And at the end of the day isn't that what he's all about. Helping those who can't help the marvels. And showig them there's nothing to be afraid of. So in the end I don't think it limits him rather it presents writers with a fun challenge. Rather than writing a bleak outlook on life show someone that really truly belives that they are doing their best at doing good. Because at the end of the day that's what the big blue Boy Scout is all about.

@squalleon:

I almost agree with you. But I have some questions.

Isn't Superman basically a Hero who had cooperated with law? Is He such a person who has broken the law for his self want? Off course I understand that It depends on writer though.

And,Why Morrison never did a Pre-52 Superman story without his JLA and Final Crisis etc, is because of that he hated Superman within the continuity?

1) Cooperating with law doesn't mean he works by its parameters. Superman has in multiple occasions gone against the US goverment or disobeyed the orders of Metropolis police department.

2) Actually no. Dc had a no A list talent on A listers policy in their early 00s(that was taken away after Infinite Crisis), Morrison, Waid, Millar and Peyer had a plan called Superman: 2000, for me it is the best Superman story never told, DC declined because of their policy and Morrison doesn't actually argue with Dc's editorial, as opposed to it he was their golden boy. Time passed Morrison and he was offered the All Star Superman job(thank god) and with his Batman run and Final crisis he was open again for Superman only in the new 52. You see franchise writers almost never choose their work, mostly the opposite :P I am sure Johns didn't want to return to Superman and leave Aquaman.

Thank you.

1)I know Superman has gone against US goverment. For Example There is Superman Batman Public Enemies. But Does Superman go against law for his self want? If there is example, please teach me.

In Last Son he "stole" Lor-Zod from the US goverment without any remorse. He has disobeyed direct commands by various police units of Metropolis like Lupe Leocardio's orders, in the new 52 he never surrendered to the Metropolis police department and he even attacked corrupt businessmen without any proof, he attacked goverment officials like the Ghost Soldier and he was under war with the US agency "The Machine". These are just the ones currently on my mind I am sure I can remember way more if I try :)

I have read them without Lupe Leocardio's orders. But They are not done for his self want, aren't they?

I didn't meant he broke the law for his desires but that he wouldn't stop at the law if he thought he could do more good. He breaks the laws if he thinks he can do more good.

Superman basically cooperate with law, But He will put his conscience and golden rule before any law.

If Some country legally persecutes specific race, He will be opposed to it at any cost.

If so,Because of his morality, Does he become an amoral criminal?, not a icon of moral?

Law or Conscience, I like idea like this. What do you in this thread think about it?

@squalleon:

I see, Thank you.

I always laugh at the fact Wonder Woman fans can never agree on one thing because it seems like nothing can be any worse than that fan base -- then I'm reminded that the Superman forums on CV exist.