@darkman61288: Lois and Clark, the live-action series. You know what? I just remembered that two-episode arc in Justice League that focused on Superman, which I absolutely loved. The one where they thought he was dead but in truth, he got blasted thousands of years into the future. The sun was red so he had no powers and had to rely on his wits to survive. Ironically, he became interesting to me when he wasn't Superman. I don't have a problem with him being a goody-goody boy scout. One poster here mentioned how they're not as interested in the "Super" half of him as the "Man" half, and I think that's how I feel about him too. Oh yeah, have to point out that it totally depends on the writer, because Smallville focused heavily on Clark as a person, and it didn't capture my attention the way that Justice League episode did.

Care to tell me the top 10 Nightwing stories off the top of your head?

Top 10 Cyclops stories?

Top 10 Colossus stories?

Top 10 Nightcrawler stories?

If they are so interesting......how come they can't carry a solo series?

And Nightwing's series towards the end written by Devin Grayson and Bruce Jones was so bad they were forced to cancel it. It didn't matter a bit how "interesting" he was at that point.

Do you see Flash or Wonder Woman do that in their comics often? I've read tons of Wonder Woman comics, I don't remember her saving people from disasters as often as Superman, it's not even close. Even Flash doesn't come close.

How do they make him stupid?? Care to give an example where they make Superman "stupid" in the comics?? It's Bruce Timm's cartoons that made him stupid, the comics shows him as a very intelligent person.

And that finger-wagging....yeah I love it. It's awesome. It's Superman, deal with it.

I said interesting to me. My whole comment was one big explanation on why Idon't like the character. I never said one was superior to the other, but the fact that Superman has more solo titles than all the characters I mentioned combined won't make my like him any more than I already do. It's not about that.

Oh, and sense the tone before you answer, because I was nothing but respectful to both Superman and k4tzm4n's article. There was no need to reply in such an asshole manner.

This is a great article and it does the character a lot of justice

Well my point is that those characters you mentioned, it's even harder to write stories about them than the boring Superman. Even though those characters are mortal, have tons of problems in their lives....but....when it comes to writing an actual solo series about them....then you see how hard it is.

@endanger: I don't think I ever called Superman boring, I just think he's unrelatable. The fact that he's nearly invulnerable and has tons of superpowers makes it harder for me to be worried about his safety. This is just my opinion, it is certainly not an objective truth.

The problem to me never was the thought that he was boring, but rather that how he acts and sometimes thinks its not only outdated but also dangerous.

He's Superman and he strives for the best, in people, in his allies and even his enemies. That's why he has that whole "Not killing" code. But how many times can one person such has him close his eyes to the simple ugly truth. That some people don't change. If you'd let them, they would set the world on fire just for the fun of it.

When I look at Lex Luthor, I say to myself "Superman is 1/3 responsable for every life Luthor has claimed". Yes, Luthor is the killer, he pulls the triggers rarely and gives the orders most of the times, but he still adds quite a number of skeletons. The people, they share the blame also, because despite the evidence, despite everything that is proven that Luthor did, because he is a major employer in Metropolis and gives to charity, people think "There's no way such a man could do those things. He had to have been set up" and has such they also share another 1/3 of the blame. And finaly, Superman! Superman has an obligation to see the big picture. He can claim to be a hero, when it comes to alien invaders, stoping natural catastrophes, and doomsday scenarious. But a true hero has to look at all the details in the picture, big and small, and know when enough is enough.

One thing is to give a villain a second change, a chance to change, to redeem himself. But another thing is to allow the villain to continuously put other people and sometimes the world in danger and then allow them to continue to live. There are some crimes that no time can erase, only death. And Superman in that sense is outdated, and not real in a sense that we can believe that someone that claims to stand for what he stands, and allows innocent lives to be put in harms way just so he can keep to a moral code that puts lives in danger.

Supes 4 lyf

We need more people like you. Superman will always be the number 1 in my book.

He is bored... but in last time he is funny char... Thanks to Hulk :) Hulk is compared with the Superman... Hulk start to be bored, Superman funny again :)

@k4tzm4n: Really good job man, I always respected Supes as a great character and hero, but I never liked him. I'm now closer to liking him lol.

I agree with this to a certain extent. Other people are to blame when villains are allowed to go free and commit more crimes. Corrupt judges, cops, etc, people whose actual job it is to prevent bad guys from endangering innocent lives. But I disagree that it's the hero's fault as well because he refuses to kill these villains. That's not his job. We've seen what happens when Superman decides to take the law into his own hands in stories like Injustice, for example. Did the world turn out any better when he killed the bad guys? No. Innocent lives will always be at risk no matter what, and killing villains isn't going to change that. You might say Injustice is an extreme scenario, but it didn't start out that way. He killed one villain in the beginning, but it quickly escalated because should he just stop at one? He already killed one bad guy, might as well kill another and another and another...Where does he draw the line? You think his moral code is outdated and dangerous, but I think it's far more dangerous when a so-called hero becomes a one-man judge, jury and executioner. I don't think there's anything heroic about that at all. If anything, it's downright scary. No one should have that kind of power.

At least he isn't a complete dolt like Goku.

@divine_disorder:

I can see your point, but in Injustice, we get the very worst scenario. In Injustice he hates himself more than anyone else, mainly because he killed Lois. Yes, the Joker used a mixture of kriptonite and the scarecow fear gas, but it was Superman that in the end killed her. And Superman blames himself for having allowed himself to get that weak and vulnerable. And to a certain point this just comes to confirm what I've been saying for years now. Superman is outdated.

It simply fails to believe that a character that has acess to such advanced technology like that of Krypton, add to that a mind that works at even super-kriptonian levels and he still allows himself to be that vulnerable. Luthor and Wayne both can create a variaty of ways to stop Superman, kriptonite and all its different isotopes, red solar energy based weapons. But if you think of all this, Superman could and should use this same methods to actually improve himself. Is enemies use red solar based weapons, then he should create, more potent types of solar energy emitters, to increase his powers or at least to see if he became less vulnerable. Ours is a G-class type star and Krypton star is depicted has a M-class type star or red dwarf, this means Supes has yet to explore four types of star energy (F,B,A,O) but we never see him do it. Why? Because of silver-age superman. At to me that's plain stupid. And another thing. Kriptonite. Why do all different isotopes have bad effects, it would make sense that some had negative and other had positive effects. And even if simple one spectrum has only negative effects then why not use that high tech and super-brain of his to for example create a mixture of isotopes to create something new, better and ultimately of use to him. Even we in our real world we're doing it right now. Turning viruses into treatments/cures, using some of the world most powerful venoms into treatments/cures, using multispectrum filters to manipulate high radioactive particules into targeting specific types of cells or materials.

Has for the "no one should have that kind of power", look at the world today, can you really say that there isn't already too much power in the hands of a selected few? And in comics we also see that. Batman creates Brother Eye, he loses control of Brother Eye, thousands or even millions died in the past, and with what we saw in Futures End, all mankind dies because of him. And if it isn't him its Lex or some other to-smart-for-their-own-good character that brings about an apocalyptic scenario. And although I don't entirely agree with the methods used by Supes in Injustice, the truth is, that he's not entirely wrong. And to me things only got that worse because people feared him more than they feared what he was doing. They wanted so badly to protect a rotten world that they ended up pushing and pushing Superman into taking the road he travels now. I can't honestly say that he's wrong. The way he has gone about it was wrong, but that's about it.

To me his only mistake was caring too much, the moment he saw friends and allies ploting and working against him, he should have just left the planet. Me in his place I would have broathcast a message to the world saying that I had tried to make the world safe, to inspire the best in people, but humanity refused to change, to let go of a system that simply doesn't work, and that I'd already sacrificed too much, and has such I'd be leaving Earth and never return.

This is one story that I'm still waiting to see. A version were Superman throws the towel and simply leaves Earth to fend for itself.

@heavenlydarkdragon:

TBH, I know very little about Kryptonian brains and tech so I don't know how outdated Superman is in that area. What I'm saying is, I don't believe his moral code is outdated at all. Idealistic maybe, but doable and certainly not outdated. Many other heroes live by that same moral code. Why else does Gordon trust Batman? If he ever crossed that line, then he's no different than the criminals he hunts down and Gordon will have to arrest him as well. Like I said before, it's not the heroes' job to kill these villains. Even bad guys have the right to defend themselves in a court of law. That's what justice is all about. Yeah, I know they come back again and again, but that's more to do with the character's popularity than anything. Writers are simply forced to use the same "broken system" excuse over and over to justify why popular villains keep coming back.

When I said no one should have that kind of power, I was referring to one person taking it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner all at once. One person deciding for himself who should live and who should die. I know the justice system doesn't always work, but it's better than leaving that kind of monumental decision to just one person. And what if they made a mistake? What if they decide that a certain John Smith deserves to die, and it turns out he's innocent after all? It's too important and too dangerous a decision to leave to just one person. Now imagine if a whole bunch of these one-man judge/jury/executioners were to suddenly pop up all over the place, taking the law into their own hands and killing people as they see fit. It would be anarchy. I wouldn't want to live in a society where my next-door-neighbor might suddenly decide I was guilty of some crime and that I'd have to be executed without the benefit of a trial. Because that's essentially the kind of message it would send if heroes started killing criminals. People will take it as a kind of license to kill. If these heroes and good guys are doing it, we can do it too. We can be heroes too. They don't have badges either. What makes them more qualified to do it than us? No, heroes need to set an example. They need to be better than that. Sure, it would be so much easier to simply end a villain's life. But that's the whole point of being a hero. It's not supposed to be easy.

@divine_disorder:

I see your point, really I do. And when I mean take the villains out, I never said take them out in the first battle. No. The system has to have a chance to do its work and the law most be applied. Has such I agree with giving second chances, the chance to a fair trial and all that. My point is, that there's a limit, a line, that has to be drawn in where any society real or fiction says "Enough is enough!"

Has for examples go, Jim Gordon might not have been your best, has you may or may not know, Jim Gordon has killed in the past. Heck he even tried to killed his own daughter. Batgirl decided that enough was enough when it came to her brother James. He had killed and ruined the life of many people, and was about to kill their mother just because he felt like it. She did the tough choice and apparently killed him. Jim-almighty-Gordon knowing that he's son was a murderer decided then that if he ever caught batgirl he would kill her. Not give her a fair trial or try to understand her reasons, but be judge/jury/executioner. And it was only when batgirl revealed herself to be his daughter that he flintched and decided to let it slide. And this is just the cream in the coffee, if you remember back to stories, lets say from 2000 to 2013, you'll see that in the line of duty and off it he crossed the line many times. But then again he's a cop. Take any experienced cop that patrols heavy crime streets and ask them about codes, regulations and morals. They'll tell you that when the first bullet crosses their heads, politics and rules go right out the window. The only thing that remains are the morals, the individual consciousness. Which is good, or else there would be senseless killing all around. It would be total chaos.

No society can and should tolerate injustice, crime and corruption. It's because of the society we live in, that things are has they are. Injustice=Checked / Crime=Checked / Corruption=Triple Checked

In this way above all else, we seperate the real world from the make believe. Its not the powers or the tech, with those two I'm with Arthur C. Clark... It's the way that the bad guys keep on coming and the good guys keep on sending them back that makes all so unreal.

Lets do a personal test, shall we...

Lets say that some criminal member of society decided to one day kill someone you really cared about, someone really important. For no reason at all lets say wrong place wrong time kind of situation. And he was caught afterwards. You'd want justice, right? I know I would. So you'd let the system follow its due process and hope that law and justice prevailed. But lets say that because of technicalities or lack of evidence he was given a light penalty, just 3 or 5 years of prison and then he could go free.

My questions are these... Would you stand for it? Would you say that is justice? He ruined your whole life and gets away with it like he stole a freaking car. Would you take it? Accept the rules of the system and simply accept your loss or would you do something about it? I know the answer to all these questions would be if it was me.

Sometimes I see great movies like "A Time to Kill" or "Shawshank Redemption" just to remember myself that the world isn't just black and white, there's a lot more gray than anything else. Just has the good guy can be thrown to hell with little or no chance of survival, there's also those times when the good guy doesn't live up to the role of what we consider "good" and only through the "gray" can any kind of acceptable justice prevail.

@heavenlydarkdragon:

Jim Gordon is a cop. He's a duly deputized law enforcer. It's part of his job description. I know all about the murky gray areas cops live in and the lines that get crossed all the time. But superheroes are held to a higher standard. I can understand accidental killings or collateral damage and it's tragic, but for a superhero to deliberately kill a villain? That's murder and not for them to decide. They aren't mandated by the law to enforce it and mete out punishment on their own. It's not their job. That's kind of like expecting a fireman or a doctor to do a cop's or a judge's job. Firemen and doctors save lives too, but it's not part of their job description to kill the ones who threatened those lives in the first place. There was this story in Batman Chronicles about a woman on death row. Superman wanted to save her at first when he thought she might be innocent (she wasn't), but Batman told him to forget about it. That was justice at work. They have no business meddling in it.

Yes, I see your point as well. I agree that there comes a time when enough is enough. In the real world, guys like the Joker would have been put down or locked up for good a long time ago. In the comics world, writers can't just do the same. So we as readers will simply have to accept that important villains will keep coming back, not necessarily because of a broken system (though it's a convenient excuse) but because they're important, iconic characters. There's no way in hell DC will allow them to disappear forever. Notice that when the justice system worked in the comics, it was an unknown criminal who was sentenced to death and she never showed up again. That's not going to happen to popular villains.

As for that personal test, you're talking about vengeance, not justice. There's a scene in Batman Begins where Bruce and Rachel debate about that very thing, and Rachel was right. Bruce realizes it later on as well. She tells him to look beyond his own pain and see the bigger picture. Justice is about harmony, vengeance is about making yourself feel better. There's nothing inherently wrong about making yourself feel better, but if you do it by breaking more laws, then it's ultimately a selfish, hollow, criminal act. If you become a killer yourself in the process, then that's not real justice. There's also a chance that you might be wrong and the person you think is guilty is actually innocent. And what if you killed that person? And what if that person's family wanted "justice" of their own and retaliated against you and your family and more innocent people ended up dead? As I said, the system may not always work, but it's preferable to a society where people take the law into their own hands.

The father to modern heroes

@divine_disorder:

It was an interesting talk. For a moment it almost seemed like we were Superman and Ulysses in this week issue of Superman, where Superman defended the values and obligations that each superhero has not just to himself but to humanity in general. And Ulysses argued that if Superman had the power to save the world then he should do so, and not let his code stand in his way.

Both characters have good points and we can't actually say that either Supes or Ulysses are entirely wrong. They're both right and wrong.

Superman believes that his place is to inspire humanity to change but if humanity is to really change he can't do it for us. And Ulysses believes the world is beyond saving, but knows that not everyone is bad, so he wants to save those that to him have value and let the rest of the world destroy itself.

I'm actually looking forward to see were DC is gonna take this.

@heavenlydarkdragon:

Ulysses is the dude with the hair, yeah? I haven't been following the Superman title so I'm not sure who he is. But definitely, both arguments have their merits. Plus the fact that not even Superman can save everyone, or that some people just don't want to be saved.

It's been great talking to you, too. Cheers!

how can you make superman interesting when you can't even do that for your article

Still trying to like him, still failing.

Couldn't you replace Superman's name with most comic book heroes and make the same argument?

@titanbreaker:

Yes. But seeing we're in the Superman page, I found it to be more appropriate to just mention him, and not call upon characters that have no place "here".

@heavenlydarkdragon: I get where you're coming from, but I think it's important that Superman - someone with such vast power - is putting his faith in humanity; trusting them to do what they believe is right when he presents them with a defeated villain. I mean, he has the Phantom Zone for threats that Earth can't - well, probably can't - contain for long (which is him determining someone warrants a life sentence), but with the others, he doesn't want to place himself above the law (now I'm picturing Steven Seagal as Superman), and instead makes himself someone who follows it. I don't know about you, but if the world had impressive technology - technology which can contain absurdly powerful characters and understand their weaknesses - I'm not sure I'd trust a super-powered dude who intentionally killed a human.

Superman is my second favourite superhero of all time. Thanks for this

Glad to see this article of all things being bumped, Gregg was on a roll with this excellently written piece. I still don't see why it's such a bad thing for Superman to maintain a no kill code or why Superman doesn't put every villain in the Phantom Zone if he won't kill. Considering how Superman would be compromising institutions and principles he's supposed to uphold and protect in his line of work, that would be a massive detriment to Superman's character. As bad as I find stuff like Injustice for their depiction of Superman, they are at least pointing out why Superman taking over humanity and solving their problems forcibly is worse than Superman not solving humanity's problems.

@lvenger:

But seeing that the same human institutions are never able to hold the villains for long. And that when they get out they kill people. I honestly don't believe that puting them all in the Phantom Zone or in another Zone altogether wouldn't be far better than to just let things happen again and again.

Because comics don't show the normal civilian dying, but no one here is brain dead. If I see a meta blowing up stuff left and right, writers can't possibly expect me to believe that surprisingly enough there was no one there to get seriously hurt or killed.

And I'm also not into Superman killing first and asking questions later. So don't crucify me. But it's kinda boring to see him fighting someone and he already knows him or her, because they had already met in the past.

I get the idea that human problems should be fixed by humans, but it's also a double edge sword. Some if not most of Superman villains are metas created in illegal governmental experiments or accidents, they resent other humans not Superman, they only become Superman problem because Supes gets in their way when they want to kill someone, or a lot of someone's. And if we are to go by the concept that humanity has to solve it's problems then maybe Superman shouldn't interfere when it came to man made problems. And only act when it was alien problems.

So in the end it's a tough balance to keep. We want Superman to act, but if he overextends then most are already calling him out. If he doesn't act then people also call him out and say that he should have done this or that.

Because I know of your extensive knowledge, you can probably remember exactly after the end of the War Of The Supermen, that came after New Krypton destruction, and before Grounded. Superman had to appear in a senate meating or something like that. And when he was surrounded by reporters a woman came to him and slapped him the face.

She went on about how her husband was dying from a tumor, and that she had by all means tried to contact Superman so he maybe he could use his powers to destroy the tumor, and save her husband, but he was nowhere to be found because he was on New Krypton. And she had the nerve to say to Superman that she blamed him for her husband death, that if he's supposed to be this big time superhero he should be there for when people need him.

So I ask you @lvenger. How should the double edge sword swing? Should he intervene in human affairs or not? Because we can't have it both ways. Expect him to be there and do something when the fire has already started, but when he's proactive and tries to prevent the fire before it starts, then people are all over him, accusing him of either being a tyrant, or a superpowered menace.

@heavenlydarkdragon: I'm on holiday in Spain for 10 days so I probably won't make a lengthy reply this week. But I am interested in making a reply to what you've said so you might see a notification from me in 10 days or so. You might not either but it is something I want to reply to when I can devote more time to it.

Don't mean to butt in. This will be the only thing I say. I just like to point out that the whole argument that oh he should kill because they never stay locked up is silly if you consider villain don't stay dead. The reason villains always break out is the same as villains always come back from the dead. If they get taken care of then they would no longer be able to use them. If heroes start killing more then they'll just be coming back more. Which too me is worse than breaking out. I'd rather stick to character.

Tag me up when you two continue so I can lurk your discussion.

@dernman: There is that to consider too. If a writer wants to use a villain that another writer has killed, it's all too easy to insert one of the usual excuses for how said character escaped death's clutches and is back in the world of the living. That happens a little too often for my tastes, the no kill code is much better at demonstrating the permanency of death if you believe nothing else about in comic book heroes.

Very nice.

I love this topic. Superman is good, just need to find the right stories about him.

I can't believe I didn't comment on this when it first came out. This is exactly why Superman will always be the greatest hero ever in my own opinion. The All Star Superman panel itself remains my favourite of all of Superman's feats. It was always incredible to me especially the first time I read it. It was out of the blue and re-cemented Superman as my favourite hero of all time. Too many people spend their time criticising him when really they should be thankful. He's the archetype. The original.

@soldierofel: If you liked that, you should check @lvenger's and mine collaboration blog on the same matter.

Sorry @k4tzm4n but we nailed it ;)

@squalleon: I did my friend. I even commented on it. Fantastic work from you and @lvenger, arguably the big two Superman encyclopaedias on this site. You wouldn't have a link handy. It feels like time for a re-read.

http://www.comicvine.com/profile/lvenger/blog/superman-matters-a-blog-dedicated-to-the-man-of-st/99551/

@squalleon: Yes but Gregg came mighty close to it too I think ;)

@soldierofel Thanks for the praise, glad you enjoyed reading our take on answering this kind of question too, much appreciated from a fellow Supes fan :)

@staticdwanyemcduffie said:

Ah thank you, I've been looking for a copy of this image to save on my computer.

I love this thread :)

Perfect thread.

he has no character, no sense of humor. no anything.

kind of pathetic for the worlds most popular character of all time.

No how much you put him in a argumentative good light, it doesn't change who he is and how fortunate he can be a symbol of justice and virtuosity when he can afford to be. A Alien God and a impossible being that has impossible power.

LOL. Grow up, kid.

No. i'm having too much fun.

Spoken like a true friendless child. Sad!

in my opinion and i am maybe alone with it but superman has everything better than batman, he has the better powers, the better city, he is the better person and i am not saying that batman is a ground level fighter because the writers have made batman as overpowered as superman is.

to see superman in the truth arc act like an a**hole because he lost his powers is a disgrace to the superman character and brand and an extreme difference what we seen in the last panels of geoff johns arc.

that superman has now a family is very nice but the new 52 fans have been played on the wall. it was a big *uck you and the only way to get out of it without a damage to dc themselves is to resurrect him somehow and let him go to africa like in the future's end storyline.

What's your point?

That you're a boring troll, friendless one.