So what exactly is it that springs to mind for people when they think of Superman as a boyscout? We've already seen on several occasions that Superman doesn't prioritize following the law above all else in the New 52, and that if it gets in the way of his helping people he won't let it stop him. Is that not enough to negate the boyscout term? Maybe I'm alone in this, but I love this characterization of Superman. He's here to protect and to help, but that doesn't mean he's going to snap necks to do it. He is still an extremely nice person who wants to help people as best he can. Besides, this is hardly the first time he's been portrayed as something other than a boyscout. I'd wouldn't call Golden Age or even Silver Age Supes a boyscout, so what makes this such a "betrayal" of the character?
MeloDet's forum posts
@lvenger: Yeah, I wouldn't have put too much stock in it if not for the fact that in issue 20 his hand is fine, yet there is also somehow a duplicate hand? It seems like it was originally intended for Dr. Veritas to have cut off his arm to stop the infection.
@inkink: When you say that though, which Superman are you thinking about? I agree that Lobdell's Superman is too immature, but what I'm lamenting is the loss of the potential Superman that would have been an extension of Morrison's Action Comics Superman. To be more specific, what I want from a New 52 Superman is: Confidence both as Clark and Superman, him to be a social crusader who stands up for those who cannot defend themselves(once again both as Clark and Superman), more aggressive than he was prior to the N52 but less than in AC(he should have calmed with age), I don't care whether he's at the Daily Planet or not as long as he is writing "important" stories(taking down corrupt corporations, writing about social issues etc), and so on. What Morrison seemed to be going for was a mixture of Golden Age Superman with Bronze Age Superman, and I was looking forward to seeing what that might be. Most of all, even though he may be more aggressive with villains, he shouldn't be an asshole. His primary motivation should be a deep compassion for humanity and a desire to help make the world a better place. We definitely need more scenes like the one in the picture.
I like it, my only issue is that it isn't really New 52 Superman. N52 Supes is supposed to be confident as both Clark and Superman(bordering on arrogance when he's younger), and far more active in his mission to save the world. We see this when he takes down corrupt corporations, when he and Wonder Woman intervene in Kahndaq, and when he mentions his desire to more in AC10. Yet despite this he lets General Lane walk all over him in issue 3. He's also supposed to be the second most intelligent person on the planet, yet he goes to Bruce to ask whether or not it's theoretically possible for someone to hide from his vision, which coming from the guy who found the Universal Field Equation is pretty ridiculous. It's still enjoyable since pre-flashpoint Superman is still enjoyable, but while Snyder may have incorporated New 52 Supes life status, he hasn't incorporated N52's personality. Unchained seems a lot like a better written version of the Superman from Superman 1-12, when he had yet to be fully defined by Morrison.
Realistically, we should have seen it coming. Snyder told us in every single interview that this was the one Superman story he would tell if he got the chance. Well seeing as N52 Supes has only been around for two years, and that Snyder has been dreaming up this story for a while longer, it seems likely that this story was originally written/based around pre-flashpoint Superman and simply adapted to the New 52. Which might work, if it wasn't for the fact that New 52 Superman's personality makes this story less relevant. Having this be Superman's big moral crisis, that he should do more, when he actually does want to and has done more, doesn't really work. These signs are all over; the ones I've mentioned, and also the heavy involvement of Lois to the point where she's integral to the plot, possibly indicating that the story was originally conceived with them as a couple. (Not that she can't be integral to the plot otherwise, it just seems uncharacteristic of Lois' rather minimal relationship with New 52 Superman).
So yeah, I'm enjoying it. I'm just a little worried that if this version becomes too influential we'll lose the potential N52 Supes that Morrison was going for. Though I am hopeful that Pak's or Soule's Superman might get adult Clark right(i.e. the adult version of AC Clark). And sorry for the long post lol
@rulerofthisuniverse: It's Forever Evil based, not a tie in to any current Superman story.
Anyway, this was a fantastic issue. I especially love the fact that Soule's Lex thinks Superman is obsessed with him. It makes a lot of sense that someone with Lex's ego would have have such an inflated sense of self importance that he'd rationalize every interaction with Superman as being about himself.
Maybe it's just me, but is it actually possible for these characters to have an ideal love interest to last continually throughout their comics? Superman at least, has had his personality changed multiple times after reboots, so how is it possible for him and Lois to be "made to be" love interests? The only way for that to work with the changes in personality, is for DC to actually plan to write them as love interests and adjust their personalities accordingly. Grant Morrison's Action Comics Superman was far more brash and bold than the pre-flashpoint version, so how does Lois' previous status as a love interest make her suited to date a very different Superman? Also,with respect to the whole Superman is a legend and so is their relationship thing, the difference (for me at least) between Superman and something like the Greek Myths, is that those stories have been "completed." While we may create movies about those same characters, the core stories stay the same. Writing about Greek Gods doesn't add to their mythology, but writing a story about Superman does. His story isn't complete yet so the legend can still change.
Anyway, I basically agree with SanoHibiki. Whether his relationship with Lois is an important part of the Superman mythos or not, it doesn't change the fact that I simply don't enjoy reading stories about them together. Maybe it's some sort of personal bias, as in maybe I wouldn't date her so I'd prefer Superman not to either. Part of it might be the overstated importance of the relationship itself, seeing as her being apparently necessary for him to maintain his humanity does irritate me, and I definitely don't appreciate all the stories where he ditches the earth or goes crazy when she dies. Whatever the reason though, the "Legend Status" of their relationship doesn't really come into the equation for me and as such I'd rather him date someone else. I am open minded though, and if a writer can come along and make me care about/like their relationship then I'm all for it. After all, chances are they'll eventually end up together, and when that happens I'd prefer to enjoy the stories rather than not.
@ultimatesmfan: I like the idea about Superman being tight with Green Arrow, especially when you consider the warrior of the people golden age vibe that Morrison was going with in Action Comics. I'd love to see that side of Superman come back, and for that version of Superman to team up with Green Arrow and take down corrupt big wigs would be fantastic.
As for the main question, I like where it's going. I agree with other that I'd like to see him take on more of a role as a symbol of hope, and that he should be portrayed as very intelligent and powerful. Looking forward to Pak taking over Action Comics.
As far as his relationship with Wonder Woman goes, I've got to say that I'm a fan. By which I don't mean that they should end up married or anything, since I don't really have an opinion on who he should end up with. What I like about it is that it moves him away from Lois, at least for the time being. If he and Lois had started dating right of the bat then they'd lose any chance for other relationships. I think there is a fundamental difference between comic books and ordinary books/movies in this sense. In books and movies developing a single love interest for the character works perfectly fine since they follow a single ongoing narrative. Comic books, on the other hand, follow the main characters life on a monthly basis and can last up to 20 years, depending on when the next reboot happens. Where comics are the adventures of a character throughout their lifetime, books and movies are (usually) a single adventure that the character experiences or at the very least, contain some sort of ongoing narrative throughout. So where a character might meet their love interest whilst on their primary adventure in a book or a movie, a comic book character will meet their love interest and then at some point return to their normal life. Books and movies don't give you the same sense that characters have ordinary lives outside of the main story that comics do. Because of that, it seems odd(to me at least) to have a character fall in fairy tale esque love with a character right off the bat. I can deal with "soul mates" and the like in books and movies(even though I'm still not fond of them) because we rarely see their day to day lives. When you bring that day to day feel into the relationship, it makes that "made to be" pill much harder to swallow. I find that it makes more sense to have characters date people as one normally would, and if they are meant to be with someone have it happen after 5 or 6 years at least. Clark apparently seems to barely had a relationship with Lana in this universe (It seems to have culminated in an almost kiss at the prom), so why not let him date a few other girls before he dates Lois. I mean Clark and Lois can't actually be made to be outside of a metatextual iconic sense, since every time there is a reboot the characters change personality slightly. What, outside of editorial control, is to keep them from changing in such a way that they are no longer made to be? Anyways, that was basically a long winded way of saying that I like him dating Wonder Woman at the moment, and wouldn't mind him dating other girls if/when they break up because it lends to a feel/atmosphere that I prefer in comics.
@supegirl: Sigh, you still haven't given any evidence of Clark being cold to Diana, all you've done is re-state the opinion and name it fact. I have read and re-read the comics in which Clark interacts with Diana and those where he talks to Lois, and it did not give the impression that he was being cold to Diana. That's why I'm naming this as an opinion, because people will disagree on whether or not Clark's interactions with Diana can be considered "cold". Their scenes in Justice League seem very warm to me.
They've been dating what, two-three months in comic time? So no, I don't think it's love, but at the same time I don't think Clark loves Lois either, it's just an infatuation that could possibly grow into love eventually, and with Diana it's feelings that are in the process of growing into something more.
If by ignores Diana, you mean that Lobdell's Clark mentions Lois all the time yet doesn't mention Diana, I'd chalk that up to inconsistencies in character between Superman and Justice League. By all appearances Justice League Clark has no reservations in dating Diana or lingering feelings for Lois, yet on the other hand, he does still seems to have lingering feelings for Lois in Superman. I'm not denying this. I'm not saying they are in love or made to be. In my experience, lingering feelings for an unrequited love are not uncommon, and generally fade over time once the feelings for an idealized person (they've never dated and things could not work out) are replaced with an actual person.
What it seems like to me is that you are of the opinion that Clark/Lois are made to be and destined to be together. This is where I disagree, this is why I like the SM/WW relationship, so that we can move away from the ridiculous idea of soul mates. This is all I really have to say unless you bring in evidence to support your claims and actually read what I'm saying.