Export thread

I just did a bit of research on these so called Black Lantern Corps losers, and i realized that my beloved Superman was not the caped crusader I grew up with (( well, at least until boys started followed me around comic shops.))

So, what the hell happened to him? The last thing I vaguely remember was some shmuck killed him and then he was made into a lame robot and 3 other clones... i haven't really read anything since. What's the essential Superman stories since then?

(( Also, if anyone tries to tell how me how cool a Superman zombie is, please be aware I will ask you to go put your dangly bits into a blender full of firecrackers and ball bearings.))

What's with that curl in Superman's hair? I've always wondered that.

Heeey, don't worry, the zombie thing was just a phase but he got over it pretty fast!

I can't really recommend the best stories to get up to date.

I'll just leave these here:

WTF is that top image? Red and blue supermen?

LittleSin said:

WTF is that top image? Red and blue supermen?

Click to expand...

In the late 90's Superman's powers changed and he transformed into an energy being. Then he got split into two, one red and one blue, who had different personalities and fought over Lois Lane. The two electromagnetic Supermen later merged and turned back into the old Superman with his original powers.

holy jesus, no.

Ha! and you thought that zombies were the worst DC could throw at you! Superman Blue and Superman Red aren't even Elseworlds! They're main continuity! You don't even want to think about the horrors done in Superman: At Earth's End.

...I actrually really liked the Blackest Night.

LittleSin said:

...I actrually really liked the Blackest Night.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling I'm going to like it as well, but some people have a severe case of zombie-oversaturation backlash.

figmentPez said:

I have a feeling I'm going to like it as well, but some people have a severe case of zombie-oversaturation backlash.

Click to expand...

It's not bad at all. They aren't even really zombies in the traditional sense.

Superhero comics have always had those really odd plot twists in them.. some of them are just weirder than others. I kind of want to know the story behind how some of these things came to be.

who cares. They made too much money off this dude

Obviously the people who create a thread in a forum about Superman care about Superman.

Yeh. Superman can be awesome when handled by the correct writers (ie. those who give a shit about what Superman represents).

And what, exactly, is wrong with making money? If I had a popular character you'd better believe I'd wring every last red cent out of it.

What didn't those emos do to Supes?

Biannoshufu said:

What's the essential Superman stories since then?

Click to expand...

Kingdom Come.

All Star Superman.

That's it, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Thank you VBond. You please Us.

My problem with Supes has always been how can you root for a guy who can't be beaten. And whom everyone loves. At least the Hulk has an angst to him. He's indestructible but he doesn't care - he just wants people to leave him alone.

Supes, though? He can do anything. Super math. Super holding of his breath. Whatever. But we're supposed to root for him? What's the point? Hell, his damned weakness is lameness incarnate. And nobody sees through his alter ego? Puh-lease. I prefer batman or Spider-man.

Pretty much just watch Superman: The Movie again and read All-Star Superman.

Then call it a day.

I was never a big Superman fan... unless you called the series that had a young and sexy Teri Hatcher part of the series.

But yeah, what Dave said. I cannot root for a guy like that. I can root for a guy like Batman or Wolverine.. heck, even Kickass was sorta magical because he was so damn vulnerable.

LittleSin said:

WTF is that top image? Red and blue supermen?

Click to expand...

It's a sort of reboot of a much older story (which my father has somewhere in his boxes of old comics).

--Patrick

Dave said:

My problem with Supes has always been how can you root for a guy who can't be beaten. And whom everyone loves. At least the Hulk has an angst to him. He's indestructible but he doesn't care - he just wants people to leave him alone.

Supes, though? He can do anything. Super math. Super holding of his breath. Whatever. But we're supposed to root for him? What's the point? Hell, his damned weakness is lameness incarnate. And nobody sees through his alter ego? Puh-lease. I prefer batman or Spider-man.

Click to expand...

It's not a question of if superman will die (even though he did once) it's a question of if Lois Lane/ Metropolis will die. Now sure, some people lose sight of that by pitting him against some muscle'd out dude who's plan is to punch superman in the face until he dies (which actually worked once).

It's about trying to fit in, really. About someone who wants to use his unusual abilities to help others, but at the same time wants to be accepted as ordinary, live an ordinary life, etc.

--Patrick

Vagabond said:

Kingdom Come.

All Star Superman.

That's it, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Click to expand...

/wana10 has to tell otherwise

read those two, and ALSO...(assuming you're ok with not main continuity)

supes for all seasons
superman: secret identity

It Dave is trolling, bravo. If not, you really should read the replies to your post, they're dead on what Superman is really about.

So I can't believe this hasn't been done yet, but to quote the all time famous thread "Who would win: Superman vs Hulk". Let the madness commense.

*ahem* Why didn't anyone inform me about this thread previously?

Right, so, Superman. Oh boy. I'm going to try not making this a tl;dr post.

First off, recommended stories:
1) Superman for all Seasons - by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale (back when Loeb was a good writer) Gorgeous art by Tim Sale and a really great story about Superman regarding how, for all his power, he can't save everyone. When you peel back that blue, red and yellow layer, you find an honest Kansas farmboy trying to come to grips with the public persona that he's been given.

2) Secret Identity - by Kurt Busiek and Stuart Immonen. Technically not in-continuity Superman, but it hits on every point about Superman. You've got this kid, Clark Kent, living in Kansas. The world is meant to be "our" world (the "real world"). But he discovers he actually HAS Superman's powers. The question becomes what he does with them. Does he go public, where he'll be scrutinized and hunted by the government? How do you hold onto that secret? Do you tell anyone? If you don't tell anyone, how does that isolation affect you? This is, without a shadow of a doubt, not only my favourite Superman story of all time, but it's quite possibly one of my favourite comics of all time.

3) Death/Funeral/Return of Superman - by various writers and artists. This is where I got hooked on comics again. The dialogue hasn't aged well in parts, but the overall trilogy is fantastic. Everything wraps up in the end, making it a great self-contained story using a lot of Superman mythos. I recommend getting the three separate trade paperbacks, rather than the hardcover of all three that was released a few years ago, since it's missing quite a bit.

4) All Star Superman - by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely. Morrison basically boiled Superman down to the basics, used his own continuity which was kind of a merging of almost every aspect of the mythos and cut loose. Each issue is self-contained but all twelve tell an overall story. It uses a lot of the silly Silver Age stuff like different coloured Kryptonite, Krypto the superdog, etc. But the fact that it's all so over the top just adds to it because Superman is a lot like childhood fantasy: unbridled, pure, imagination and most importantly...FUN!!

5) Kingdom Come - by Mark Waid and Alex Ross. This covers the morals of Superman and the classic heroes in general. This was releasesed around the time when everyone wanted grim, gritty heroes that killed. This story proves why that's not always a good thing. Great stuff and gorgeous art by Alex Ross.

6) It's a Bird - by Steven S. Seagal and Teddy Kristiansen. This is a semi-biographical story about Seagal's time writing Superman and how he was very hard pressed to write stories about him. There's some amazing deconstruction of Superman. In trying to figure out how Superman works, Seagal deconstructs everything from Supes' power, the S symbol, right and wrong, secret identity, etc. Amazing stuff and possibly my second favourite Superman story.

As for Superman himself? Dave, the big thing with Superman isn't his power. Yes, he's this guy with a laundry list of superpowers. But it's more about the fact that he has all this power and yet is also this great power for good. He flies in the face of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Plus, he doesn't see himself as Superman. He first thinks of himself as Clark Kent, the farmboy who always felt different and an outsider. For a guy with all his power, he has huge confidence issues. But he always does the right thing, or at least tries. That's the big thing about his character. It's not about who he fights or what his powers are, but what he does with them. His methods are different from Batman because he relies on earning trust, rather than striking fear. He doesn't hide behind a mask because he wants people to see him for who he is.

When he's Superman, he gets to use his powers to help those in need and use his power for good as best he can. When he's Clark Kent, he gets to be himself, most especially in Kansas. I actually think there's three different personalties he carries: Superman, Metropolis Clark and Smallville Clark. Metropolis Clark is a quite, unassuming yet hardworking honest guy. The kinda guy who'll always help you with whatever you need but tends not to socialize a lot. Smallville Clark is where he gets to unwind from everything and truly be himself. Really good example of this is the Justice League episode, Comfort and Joy, where he's a total big kid at Christmas and his folks have wrapped all his presents in lead so he can't peak.

Gah, this turned into a tl;dr after all. Guess that shows how much I love the big guy and what he stands for.
Added at: 10:07

makare said:

What's with that curl in Superman's hair? I've always wondered that.

Click to expand...

Some don't do it as well as others, but it's meant to be curled in the shape of an "S".

dude, i put SUPERMAN in the title! What do you WANT from me?

srsly, thanks

De nada.

Also, though I haven't read it, I'm not a fan of that Earth One book. I've seen some scans and read a bit on it and really just don't like it. Got a friend who bought it, so I'll borrow it from them and see for sure. But yeah, I just like the ones I listed above the most. It's sad. Most of the in-continuity stuff isn't very good.

lex luthor: man of steel was pretty good. nice to see a take on the opposite number, as it were.

but allstar superman is goddamn ESSENTIAL.

Dave said:

My problem with Supes has always been how can you root for a guy who can't be beaten. And whom everyone loves. At least the Hulk has an angst to him. He's indestructible but he doesn't care - he just wants people to leave him alone.

Supes, though? He can do anything. Super math. Super holding of his breath. Whatever. But we're supposed to root for him? What's the point? Hell, his damned weakness is lameness incarnate. And nobody sees through his alter ego? Puh-lease. I prefer batman or Spider-man.

Click to expand...

I forget who it was, but someone has posited that the Justice League only exists so that Superman will always have someone around to get rid of the Kryptonite for him.

ThatNickGuy said:

Gah, this turned into a tl;dr after all. Guess that shows how much I love the big guy and what he stands for.

Click to expand...

Have you read Philip Wylie's novel Gladiator yet, TNG? You might end up adding it to that list of yours.

--Patrick

I was not trolling and was totally serious. And Nick, I hate to say it, but he does NOT think of himself as Clark Kent. I've been reading Supes a long time (granted it's really, really gone down in the last couple decades due to his increasing WTF storylines) and he's ALWAYS been Supes first and Clark second. As previously stated on this board, Supes is different because his alter ego is his mask while most other super heroes their masks are more literal.

Bruce Wayne puts on a cape and becomes Batman but he's always Bruce Wayne.

Peter Parker puts on his Spidey suit and becomes Spider-Man, but he's still Peter Parker.

For Superman, he takes OFF the costume to wear a disguise.

try giving "up up and away" a read dave. it looks at the whole supes/clark thing. really the "which is a mask?" comes down to a nature v nurture type debate and good writers are able to play off that in interesting ways.

New writers are always trying to put a different spin on things. Classic Supes is the real deal. The newer stuff with Luthor in a giant robot suit & shit like that? Reaching.

Nope on both Superman and Batman. Batman is his true face, whereas Bruce Wayne is a foppish, playboy persona that he puts on to mislead the public eye. Yes, he's still Bruce Wayne the person, but that's not how he sees himself anymore. Spidey, I can agree on, because that's the whole idea behind him is that Spidey is kind of a release for him.

Superman, on the other hand, you're partly right. He puts on a certain act as Metropolis Clark, but he was raised as Clark for years before he found out who he was or where he came from. The current idea is that his powers didn't develop until his early teens. So he spends his early life thinking he's exceptional, but still human. It's like the episode of the Animated Series (my favourite version of Superman, period), where he accidentally rips off the wing of a plane and says to himself, "Nice one, Clark." He dons the costume because he needs to use his powers to help people. I've seen him say on multiple occasions that he would love to lead an ordinary life, but he continues the never-ending battle because it's the right thing to do.

It's a matter of nature vs. nurture. If he were to lead a life on Krypton, first, then yes, he would see himself as Kal-El or Superman first. But he arrived on Earth as a baby and was raised as a human for the first decade and a half of his life. His upbringing was with humans and it wasn't until later in life that he put on the persona of Superman. In fact, he didn't even name himself Superman. Lois did. Or certainly the media. That's different from Batman and Spider-Man.

wana10 said:

try giving "up up and away" a read dave. it looks at the whole supes/clark thing. really the "which is a mask?" comes down to a nature v nurture type debate and good writers are able to play off that in interesting ways.

Click to expand...

You mean stories like "The Nail?" or stories like Niven's Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex?

--Patrick

Lex in a giant robot suit has only happened again in the last few years. Pre-Crisis, he was the criminal mastermind with a purple and green powersuit. But after that, and my personal favourite, he was an untouchable and wealthy business man.

Personally, I prefer the newer spin. It makes sense that if he landed on Earth as a baby, raised as a human, that he would first think of himself as human and therefore, Clark.

I'll give you the Batman argument but I stand by my assertion that he's Supes first and Kent second.

Even though I specifically mention the nature vs. nurture argument? Sorry Dave, but I think you're just refusing to realize that it ain't the case.

ThatNickGuy said:

Even though I specifically mention the nature vs. nurture argument? Sorry Dave, but I think you're just refusing to realize that it ain't the case.

Click to expand...

And you've already admitted that you like the more modern interpretation, which is a watered down and wussified neo-political view of the superhero genre. Sorry, man. I stick with the classics and the new Supes (however many of him there now are) ain't it.

And yes, I realize the futility of arguing Superman with ThatNickGuy.

They don't call me "Brick" for nothin'. I'm stubborn.

ThatBrickGuy?

I'm a bit late to the party, but what the heck, here's my €0.02 on the matter.

To me, Superman is to superheroes what Mickey Mouse is to Disney: an archetypal boy scout hero, brilliant, clever, good-natured, can never do anything wrong. He's the square-jawed defender of justice who arrives with a flash of light and a trumpet fanfare to beat the villain du jour so he can hand them over to the authorities - who will eventually bungle and let the villain escape. Rinse and repeat.

The problem with this archetype for me is that it all seems way too clean-cut. Superman is, all things considered, a muscle-bound boy scout in a leotard, helping the helpless and just about being a walking (flying?) role model. Compared to heroes that are of greyer morality (Batman) or somehow broken inside (Batman, again), this offers a relatively narrow supply of dramatic material. Granted, Supes has some pretty decent material too - the dichotomy between Superman and Clark Kent, the contemplations about using his power - but it's a sandwhich and a coke compared to the smorgaesbord of Batman.

I might be wrong, of course... My exposure to Supes is limited to two or three comic books I read as a kid, the DCAU series, Justice League of America the animated series, and WWII-era animated shorts.

Superman is way more complex then that North Ranger.

He has failed in the past both on personal and superhero levels. The books would not have been very entertaining if the hero didn't have some human failings!

As for him being 'boy scoutish'....what is wrong with that? Shouldn't a hero have a set moral code? What's wrong with doing good no matter what? Even if it means doing good on behalf of your own villains some times. Superman is a symbol of human decency and goodness, something that can be lost in an age where most superhero comics count on blood baths and body counts.

I think people just don't get what Superman is.

LittleSin said:

As for him being 'boy scoutish'....what is wrong with that? Shouldn't a hero have a set moral code? What's wrong with doing good no matter what?

Click to expand...

The problem arises when that aspect is written badly. Take Superman Vs Aliens for example. I know that "Superman doesn't kill" is the general rule, but when his powers are rapidly dwindling, xenomorphs have blinded him with acid, and people are dying, Superman shouldn't be pulling his punches wondering if he's fighting something intelligent. That's not being honorable, that's being dumb as a brick, and that's what can be annoying about "the big blue Boy Scout". Sometimes Superman just waffles his way through a plot, and it's exceptionally annoying when he doesn't do the good he ought to, because he's too busy worrying about abusing his powers. I think the Boy Scout thing only works when he draws a line in the sand, and acts on it.

We agree on that. It's terribly hard to write Superman, or any "Lawful Good" character, well. You can be be extremely moral and still not be waffling wimp.

just remembered 'whats so funny about truth, justice and the american way'. Been a while since i read it, but i remember it being a pretty awesome takedown of the 'supermans a dated character with no relevance today' idea. especially his speech at the end.

LittleSin said:

Superman is way more complex then that North Ranger.

He has failed in the past both on personal and superhero levels. The books would not have been very entertaining if the hero didn't have some human failings!

As for him being 'boy scoutish'....what is wrong with that? Shouldn't a hero have a set moral code? What's wrong with doing good no matter what? Even if it means doing good on behalf of your own villains some times. Superman is a symbol of human decency and goodness, something that can be lost in an age where most superhero comics count on blood baths and body counts.

I think people just don't get what Superman is.

Click to expand...

Like I said, dear Forum Cthulhu, my exposure to Supes has been extremely limited, so I hope you will pardon my ignorance

And a moral code is okay. I've just had this mental image of Supes sometimes delving a little too deep into the Lawful Stupid end of the pool (mainly from JLA, I admittedly), so that is likely colouring my perception of him. I do, however, prefer my (super)heroes who necessarily aren't such shining heroes. To use a Disney example, I don't really go for Mickey Mouse who is always on top of the game, always the smart guy, the all-solving detective, the shining hero or whatever. Like Carl Barks and Don Rosa, I much more prefer Donald Duck, the underdog, the jerk with a heart of gold, the guy who tries to do the good thing and raise three nephews at the same time. Compared to Mickey, Donald is a deeply flawed character, but you feel more sympathy for him and his toils than you do with the omniscient mouse.

As for doing what's right... well, I remember a DCAU episode where Batman knocks down a small-time mook only to find the mook's son watching by, terrified and not understanding why Batman is punching his daddy's kidneys (the kid of course not knowing his dad's a mook). Batman leaves the scene, leaving the guy alone. At the end of the episode we learn that the mook is no longer a mook, but has gotten a job at Wayne Corp. Not a high-status job, but enough to keep him on the straight and narrow to raise his son. Like Robin said in that episode "Well what do you know, Bruce Wayne has a heart after all". Personally I like that example of human kindness much more than anything Supes has done (to my knowledge); that despite his darker methods and willingness to beat up people for information, Batman/Bruce is still a kind man inside.

But this is all a matter of taste, of course. Just wanted to give you my €0.02 in this quite interesting discussion.

All right, one last argument to throw at Dave. You'd said how you prefered Superman the way he was before. But, to be honest, every superhero, including Superman, have evolved from their original characters.

Superman, for example, was created in some ways in response to the lack of worker's rights and labour laws. He'd fight for the downtrodden, etc. But after the war, he became something bigger. Because of how well he was featured during WWII, he became something of an American icon, so his image was cleaned up a bit. Of course, it didn't help that sometime after that, the Comic Code Authority was put in place and they couldn't tell the same kind of stories anymore. So, being the instigator of superheroes, he became the white-bread, clean-cut dude we all know, now. He represented that American wholesomeness being advertised. Baseball, apple pie and Superman.

But he's not the only one. Batman wore purple gloves and shot people in his first appearance. Shot them dead. With a gun. Yet now, it's been stated that he doesn't like guns at all for what they represent with his parents. And Bats was campy for the longest time, too. It's where the Adam West Batman show got its inspiration. It wasn't until Dennis O'Neil wrote him as a James Bond-like character that he became cool again and then a little later with Frank Miller, who made Bats into the dark, brooding dude we know today.

Spidey has mostly changed, but he's evolved, too. He was only in High School in the comics for the first...I think 70 issues or so, possibly a lot less. If anyone is written differently from the way they used to be, it's Spidey. He used to beat his villains with brains and science. He was a quick witted kid who didn't have the confidence until he put on the mask. These days, the comics are making him the "loveable loser" who still lives with his aunt and can't get anything good in his life. There's been some great attempts to evolve him, too, like putting him back in school...as a High School science teacher. But that was all done away with.

So yeah, I wouldn't say that Superman changing is different from any other superhero. He's just evolved.

I've always subscribed to the theory that what makes Superman "vulernable" is not himself, but those he cares about (Lois, Lana, Metropolis). Which makes him even more subseptible to danger and intrigue than almost any superhero.

As for how he feels about himself? Depends on the writer at this point. Some have him refer to himself as Kal-El, others have him call himself Clark. It's more for the interpretation of the readers/fans at this point. I think he has solid grip on both.

the whole appeal to me of superman isnt that he's an unbeatable god like creature, but rather that he's an unbeatable god like creature that still can't save everyone, and still has to deal with the consequences of his actions, when EVERYONE expects him not only to be good, but also perfect.

Biannoshufu said:

the whole appeal to me of superman isnt that he's an unbeatable god like creature, but rather that he's an unbeatable god like creature that still can't save everyone, and still has to deal with the consequences of his actions, when EVERYONE expects him not only to be good, but also perfect.

Click to expand...

Yes. This please.

It's what made me enjoy Season 2 of JLU and the Doomsday animated movie so damn much.

It's a little off center of subject, but the reason I liked Superman Returns so much was that I interpreted it as being more about WHO Superman was and his struggle with his human life than it was about this superbeing that can do all. Yeah, there were superhero moments. Now, the delivery and the execution of that idea wasn't always on, but I blame that more on Brian Singer than I do on the portrayal of Supes.

TNG's posts were interesting to read and I happen to agree with pretty much all of what he posted.

Biannoshufu said:

the whole appeal to me of superman isnt that he's an unbeatable god like creature, but rather that he's an unbeatable god like creature that still can't save everyone, and still has to deal with the consequences of his actions, when EVERYONE expects him not only to be good, but also perfect.

Click to expand...

Entirely this.

And as for who he "really" is, people need to consider that there are really two Clarks. There's Smallville Clark, Superman, and Metropolis Clark. The last one is an invention, but he's just as much Kal-El as he is the farmboy from Smallville.