DC's New 52: Reviews and Discussion (Spoilers welcolme and likely)

[Admiral_Young]

It should be noted that Clark hasn't discovered his Kryptonian heritage yet, according to interviews Morrison has given since SDCC. He did say that Jor-El and Lara will be in issue three but didn't reveal in what capacity, I think as well he stated that the Legion will be touched on as well. If he hasn't discovered his heritage yet then the jeans, t-shirt and cape only make sense if he gets his Kryptonian "armor" later on.

[JoeZhang]

It's Morrison - so I'm happy to see where he takes us and buy the trade when it arrives.

[O'Dib]

Derishton wrote:

---

It's probably not worth thinking about how Flashpoint actually works, except for cheap laughs: how exactly does Barry Allen trying to save his mom genetically modify parademons created a thousand years ago on a distant plant?

The line about Flash shattering history by using the full effects of speed force to resist time's tendency to correct itself is a bit of a clue. Mom surviving isn't what changes everything, as much as the way it was done does. But that's what explains the shitty world of Flashpoint, not the aftermath. I'm guessing these three alternate universes that never mingled merging back into one would result in a bigger array of genes from which to splice the parademons? Alternatively, who gives a fuck.

Dennis wrote:

---

I love what Morrison's doing here: how Clark started as an unruly young vigilante who had no particular regard for police and government authority where he saw them as corrupt or inept, and (so it's being said) how he becomes Superman as he's known today.

I imagine getting a job at the Daily Planet whereby he can now use print to expose these assholes is how he manages to pull back and appear less anti-establishment in his Superman persona. He'd have to basically covertly buy-out the newspaper to turn it into his propaganda mouthpiece, install an honest editor-in-chief, even handpick the staff that he thinks would be willing to risk all in order to wage a war of printed words against corruption.

I'm sure we'll at least get to see Supes manhandle some guy for beating his girlfriend or spouse.

I'd love to see something like that on film as well. To see him fight his hardest to do nothing that would seriously damage the guy.

[Derishton]

O'Dib wrote:

---

Alternatively, who gives a fuck.

More or less my point, expressed better!

[O'Dib]

You asked for cheap laughs, I delivered.

[Vendikarr]

Myasishchev wrote:

---

Strikes me as an implausible development, unless there's a seriously convincing middle part between "violent firebrand with godlike powers" and "mature, gentle, Jesus-like adult with godlike powers" that they've come up with. And the reason I find that implausible is because the godlike powers part makes any sort of personal growth hard when you don't have any respect for human institutions in the first place.

It's likely his first run in with kryptonite will teach him a little humility.

[Admiral_Young]

I'm kind of surprise that Morrison is only writing two books in the relaunch. Action Comics (a huge one granted) and Batman, Inc. There is still the unannounced project he stated when he revealed Batman, Inc would return next year (that isn't Multiversity).

[Myasishchev]

Vendikarr wrote:

---

It's likely his first run in with kryptonite will teach him a little humility.

That's the thing. Superman with no intrinsic moral prohibitions about, say, willfully and egregiously violating basic laws like "don't batter people without a justification" seems likelier to react to "you tried to kill me with kryptonite" with an aggressive, not a conciliatory, response.

But Dennis has a point, and maybe I do just have a dismal view of human nature.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Okay, I finally got to Justice League. I thought it was pretty awesome. Liked the characters, liked the art.

I don't know much of anything about Cyborg, except vaguely that problems or estrangement from his father are part of his established back-story. So I really am pretty much seeing that character develop for the first time.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Myasishchev wrote:

---

That's the thing. Superman with no intrinsic moral prohibitions about, say, willfully and egregiously violating basic laws like "don't batter people without a justification" seems likelier to react to "you tried to kill me with kryptonite" with an aggressive, not a conciliatory, response.

"Don't intimidate, scare or rough up people who you know are engaged in crimes hurtful to the helpless" isn't anything like an "intrinsic moral prohibition," which I think is part of the point here. It's actually a reasonably sophisticated part of the so-called "social contract" and it requires qualities that many people - maybe especially young people - have to learn. First among other things, Clark needs to learn that his personal judgment and experience are as limited as any other human being's.

Judging just from these few pages, at this point he's acting entirely out of an immature but intrinsic sense of right and wrong - "It's not fair. Why won't the grown-ups just stop them?"

And one would think that he's going to find out pretty quickly the many reasons things can't work the way he wants them to. For one thing, snapping at the police that they should "do their job" and leaving this guy to them when he's just coerced a completely inadmissible confession out of him is not going to work. So what does he do now, become the judge and jailer as well?

The only way that everything can be fixed to his satisfaction is if he's going to rule the world. At this point, he surely doesn't even suspect that one day reasonably soon he'll have the physical power to even do that; right now he can only be the scariest thug ever.

What is centrally implausible about Superman is the premise that he's an incorruptibly good man. Alan Moore has followed the psychology of unlimited power down a couple of the obvious roads. But Clark is an impossible person, a guy who can't even be misled too far by his own ego.

We can actually guess at a few kinds of events or confrontations that would move the guy in these pages to become the Superman he apparently still becomes. Hopefully Morrison's version will be cleverer than what we can make up or anticipate, as that's half the reason we pay for books and comics and movies instead of making it all up in our heads, right? Making the apparently implausible into the satisfyingly evident, at best seemingly inevitable - getting us from a problematic place here to someplace we don't know how to get to - is Morrison's job.

[Admiral_Young]

For those still wondering about Barry and Iris...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/09/...ther-marriage/

[Myasishchev]

All I'm saying is that roughing a man up for operating a business which violates labor laws goes a bit beyond immature: it's a direct action against society. Sure, the hyperreality of the genre, Morrison's characteristically expressionistic writing, all that. But that's what it is, a criminal act designed to terrorize people into behaving the way Superman prefers.

Now, I don't want to come off as if I'm against Superman, Class Warrior. I actually think it's a good idea, and, right now, perhaps a necessary idea. My problem with it is that it doesn't have much legs on it. Because the outcomes are either Superman changes the world, which is an outcome that cannot be abided in a shared universe that is editorially required to maintain some basic connection to the real world, or the world defeats Superman.

It reminds me of that one comic where Superman was helping the little kid whose family were migrant workers, and the Guardians of the Universe threatened to end him if he agitated for a living wage or decent working conditions. And in this argument, I'm the little blue archcapitalist git.

ETA: Oh, and to be honest, I'm not sure the confession is completely unusable, that is unusable for any purpose, as much as I want to lay into Morrison's complete ignorance of American, or indeed common, law. The statement is incredible and could not support a warrant or a criminal investigation, but the Department of Labor has never needed a warrant to investigate suspected labor abuses. All they've gotta do is show up, and I suppose a guy getting thrown off a balcony by God would turn it into a very high-profile case.

Of course, the upshot is a few hundred illegal immigrants losing their jobs and subsequently subject to deportation, or whatever it is they give illegal immigrants (according to my sources, apparently my tax dollars; joke's on you, immigrants, I don't pay taxes!). Anyway, good work, Superman!

[Spaceman Spiff]

While I'm not as opposed to a reboot as some fans, I was pretty underwhelmed by this first issue. It's kind of hard to believe it was four bucks, especially for a digital download. When I got to the end, I actually thought I hadn't completed the download. But that's a problem with Johns's pacing, not the format.

I'll wait for trade for the rest. On the upside, it got me to check out other stuff on Comixology.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Myasishchev wrote:

---

All I'm saying is that roughing a man up for operating a business which violates labor laws goes a bit beyond immature: it's a direct action against society.

"Society?"

There's a concept for you. Robin Hood's stealing from the wealthy was a direct assault on society, too.

Of course, I grew up as part of a generation many of whom decided as adolescents and young adults that our society was so irredeemably immoral and corrupt that its rules should be defied, discarded and even violently opposed. All the institutions and structures needed to be pulled down. Start over and base it all on love and the Golden Rule, man.

All in the service of basic fairness, right and wrong and in the context of great general ignorance about human nature and how anything can work, of course. Good thing Clark's not a hippy.

What Clark does in these scenes doesn't strike me as inarguably lacking in basic moral impulse at all. Quite the opposite. It does seem emotional, ill-thought and foolish. It's not going to get him the results he wants.

[Myasishchev]

Dennis wrote:

---

"Society?"

There's a concept for you. Robin Hood's stealing from the wealthy was a direct assault on society, too.

Of course, I grew up as part of a cohort many of whom decided as adolescents and young adults that our society was so irredeemably immoral and corrupt that its rules should be defied, discarded and even violently opposed.

Smoking pot is not revolutionary, Dennis.

All in the service of basic fairness, right and wrong and in the context of great general ignorance about human nature and how anything can work, of course.

What Clark does in these scenes doesn't strike me as inarguably lacking in basic moral impulse at all. Quite the opposite. It does seem emotional, ill-thought and foolish. It's not going to get him the results he wants.

Okay, to clarify, I don't mean it's "beyond immature" in the sense of "it's worse than immature," but rather it is an act that demonstrates a more calculated revolutionary attitude than, say, punching a cop in the face at a demonstration (and getting beaten and/or five years in the pen for your momentary lapse of reason).

I'd say it suggests a deliberate moral reasoning to burglarize a man's house, terrorize him, perhaps purposefully attract the attention of police (so you can lecture and humiliate them), and ultimately throw the man you've brutalized out a window, all in order to make a political statement.

I mean, who did you hang out with, man? The Symbionese Liberation Army?

On a less serious note, who is that Sivana-looking dude with the creepy smile of panel 2 of the first page of the preview? Should I know that guy?