• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Superman

theenglish said:
There have been plenty of stories where Clark or Kal have had to wrestle with their internal emotions--that's where great stories come from. He's been angry, lonely, depressed, without direction, and felt hopeless at various points. He's invulnerable but his friends and family are not--the point of a lot of Superman stories is that he's suffered emotionally or been tempted to cross some kind of similar line.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! And also, children's stories can get very dark. But I also think there are limits to how far children's stories can go and still be children's stories, and Superman (I'm italicizing it to emphasize the difference between Superman the narrative and Superman the character) should broadly respect those limits, I think. Essentially I think the emotional baseline of Superman ought to be something like the emotional baseline of Paddington II, and the limits of its darkness should go about as far as, say, a Harry Potter book (Harry Potter being a really good example of stories that explore dark ideas but always bring it back to an emotionally safe place for the children in the audience). I don't think it would be appropriate for a Superman story to, say, go to the kinds of places that The Walking Dead or a Cormac McCarthy novel would go. There need to be limits on how far and how dark Superman the narrative, and Superman the character, can go, or else you're not really writing Superman or Superman anymore.
 
theenglish said:
There have been plenty of stories where Clark or Kal have had to wrestle with their internal emotions--that's where great stories come from.
Click to expand...

For Superman, none of his great stories come from the horrid, childish Weisinger period, the very height of that Santa/Daddy characterization.
 
dg0xam-9a9886e9-2334-4045-8cf3-95fbeffb118b.jpg
 
Sci said:
Absolutely! And also, children's stories can get very dark. But I also think there are limits to how far children's stories can go and still be children's stories, and Superman (I'm italicizing it to emphasize the difference between Superman the narrative and Superman the character) should broadly respect those limits, I think. Essentially I think the emotional baseline of Superman ought to be something like the emotional baseline of Paddington II, and the limits of its darkness should go about as far as, say, a Harry Potter book (Harry Potter being a really good example of stories that explore dark ideas but always bring it back to an emotionally safe place for the children in the audience). I don't think it would be appropriate for a Superman story to, say, go to the kinds of places that The Walking Dead or a Cormac McCarthy novel would go. There need to be limits on how far and how dark Superman the narrative, and Superman the character, can go, or else you're not really writing Superman or Superman anymore.
Click to expand...

Superman stories don't tend to be dark and certainly not as dark as a McCarthy story or the Walking Dead. But his stories have not been at the emotional baseline of "Paddington" in decades. Harry Potter is a good example if you are thinking about the Harry Potter of the later novels, after he witnessed Cedric's death.
 
It's really two separate intertwined questions: 1. Should the character be willing to kill if necessary? 2. Should there be stories where he's forced to kill?

They're not actually the same thing. A writer can manipulate a story's circumstances to make pretty much any action "necessary." If a nuclear bomb was about to go off unless Superman decapitated a five-year-old because the activation device is inside his skull, then yes, congratulations, you've created a scenario where Superman decapitating a five-year-old is necessary. Good job on re-iterating the millionth version of the trolley problem -- a.k.a. baby's first philosophy course -- I guess.

If the bomb could only be de-activated if its microphone hears Superman's voice saying a bunch of ethnic slurs -- because the villain is just that evil -- then you've created a story where, for the greater good, he's forced to say ethnic slurs.

"Is there value in telling that story?" is a different question. Do I believe Superman would start spouting racist crap if it genuinely was the only way to save lives? Absolutely! Do I believe there's value in a story where he's forced to make that choice? Not really.
 
YLu said:
"Is there value in telling that story?" is a different question. Do I believe Superman would start spouting racist crap if it genuinely was the only way to save lives? Absolutely! Do I believe there's value in a story where he's forced to make that choice? Not really.
Click to expand...

I think you're exactly right on this. There have been numerous times where Superman was in a "no win" situation but managed to save the day without resorting to American action hero solutions--even the recent Warworld story I mentioned above shows the contrast between Midnighter's way and Superman's way. If you are writing a version of Superman where he's willing to kill then you aren't writing Superman, you're writing Stormwatch or The Authority. Morrison actual made a point of having a scenario where it looked like Superman would be forced to kill, but he still managed to resolve the situation peacefully--and that ability was presented almost as if it were one of Superman's powers. One trait that has defined him as a character is his ability to see the "good" in others even when there seems to be none and find a resolution that permits him to live up to his ideals.

While this is a Batman article, it is still a fun take on how many people our live action Batmen have killed--surprisingly only Clooney and Pattinson have a "no kills" rating. Sorry Mr. West.

https://www.cbr.com/live-action-bat...riAqP236wd_drWPlDgOWKwRu9w#Echobox=1663867441

As for the movie, Man of Steel, in the end I accepted the killing of Zod--as at least the movie showed the effect it had on Clark. But it was Snyder's decision to write the story that way as other solutions could have been created to avoid the scenario. In that movie it was the sheer destruction of Metropolis that really bothered me.
 
Last edited:
Batman exists in the Lois & Clark universe, though. He's referrenced a couple of times, Jonathan Frakes even said he stole the Batmobile when he appeared as a villain of the week. I thought at the time the implication of the Batman-referrences in L&C and the Superman-referrences in the then-current Batman movies (mention of Metropolis in Batman Forever, mention of Superman himself in B&R) meant they were kind of set in the same universe, but that was only my interpretation, I don't think it was really explained on- or even off-camera.
 
As for the movie, Man of Steel, in the end I accepted the killing of Zod--as at least the movie showed the effect it had on Clark. But it was Snyder's decision to write the story that way as other solutions could have been created to avoid the scenario. In that movie it was the sheer destruction of Metropolis that really bothered me.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I find it weird that fans cannot accept Superman or Batman killing a villain, but have yet to express a complaint about Wonder Woman, Captain America, Aquaman or any other comic book hero/heroine doing the same. Why Superman and Batman? Why are those two not allow to kill a bad guy, regardless of the situation? I never understood that. In a way, I'm glad that Snyder had written that particular scenario for "Man of Steel". I've always felt that a person takes up the mantle of a vigilante, he or she might end up in a situation in which killing the bad guy is necessary. There is always a chance that situation might pop up.
 
Dee1891 said:
I'm sorry, but I find it weird that fans cannot accept Superman or Batman killing a villain, but have yet to express a complaint about Wonder Woman, Captain America, Aquaman or any other comic book hero/heroine doing the same.
Click to expand...

That is more centered on Superman--a character they have conned themselves into believing was always like the awful Weisinger era from the comics / Reeves TV series, etc. That was an aberration, as the character did not begin that way, but was a reflection of Great Depression ideas on criminality, and he was not the surrogate Santa/Daddy some were looking for. He occasionally took the life of criminals with no stated "code" against killing, which would be nonsensical in the event an adversary is beyond control, capture or negotiation...unless there's convenient "writing" that allows Superman to never face that (or any challenges for the character's life a a vigilante), like an episode of the Super Friends.

Captain America--whether in his Golden, Silver or Bronze Age comic versions, or the MCU take--is considered one of the mist virtuous superheroes (arguably as much as that myopic view of Superman), yet that assessment also considered and accepted his long history of killing villains when necessary. The "Boy Scout" idea about CA or Superman has always been patently false. Whether the enemy was the Red Skull and Nazis in the Golden Age, or Hydra, A.I.M. and other Cold War adversaries in the Silver/Bronze Age, virtuous Captain America did not hesitate to kill when he needed to, and again, this is one of the most virtuous characters ever created, and no one has a problem with his choices.

In a way, I'm glad that Snyder had written that particular scenario for "Man of Steel". I've always felt that a person takes up the mantle of a vigilante, he or she might end up in a situation in which killing the bad guy is necessary. There is always a chance that situation might pop up.
Click to expand...

The film placed the superhero in a realistic moment of decision, which is what the best live-action adaptations tend to do, as they are presented to real audiences who do not seek or expect to see the equivalent of packaged-for-2-year-olds cartoons, or "solutions" to problems (circus strong man grab bad man...toss him in jail) seen innumerable times over during the Weisnger period or in many inferior adaptations.
 
Dee1891 said:
I'm sorry, but I find it weird that fans cannot accept Superman or Batman killing a villain, but have yet to express a complaint about Wonder Woman, Captain America, Aquaman or any other comic book hero/heroine doing the same. Why Superman and Batman?
Click to expand...

It was written into their character and has been a trait carried on by writers throughout the years as defining their moral code. Yes, they may not have started that way-- way back for a brief time in the thirties and forties, but its been that way since and updated for each era. As for Wonder Woman, it was a huge deal when she killed Max Lord to save Superman--which she did to prevent him from killing--but WW is not a character who kills others general either. Aquaman is similar--when was the last time he had to kill in the comics? A brief period in the nineties maybe?

TREK_GOD_1 said:
That is more centered on Superman--a character they have conned themselves into believing was always like the awful Weisinger era from the comics / Reeves TV series, etc. That was an aberration, as the character did not begin that way, but was a reflection of Great Depression ideas on criminality, and he was not the surrogate Santa/Daddy some were looking for. He occasionally took the life of criminals with no stated "code" against killing, which would be nonsensical in the event an adversary is beyond control, capture or negotiation...unless there's convenient "writing" that allows Superman to never face that (or any challenges for the character's life a a vigilante), like an episode of the Super Friends.
Click to expand...

You keep bringing up the Golden and Silver Age versions of the character--neither of which have existed in my lifetime. It is important, I think, to read some of the older stories to see where the character came from -- but Superman has been reworked as a character multiple times since, and if we are going to be discussing contemporary versions then I think we need to use a reasonably contemporary version of the character--which I would consider to be at least the post-Byrne period at this point.

Supervisor 194 said:
And yet, the Weisinger Superman as you call him will outlive both you and me in the public consciousness :lol:
Click to expand...

I think that is because there hasn't been a live action version of Superman that has captured the public interest the way the 1978 version has--unlike Batman, which has had multiple screen versions that have allowed the public to cease to associate the character with the Adam West version.
 
Dee1891 said:
I'm sorry, but I find it weird that fans cannot accept Superman or Batman killing a villain, but have yet to express a complaint about Wonder Woman, Captain America, Aquaman or any other comic book hero/heroine doing the same. Why Superman and Batman? Why are those two not allow to kill a bad guy, regardless of the situation? I never understood that. In a way, I'm glad that Snyder had written that particular scenario for "Man of Steel". I've always felt that a person takes up the mantle of a vigilante, he or she might end up in a situation in which killing the bad guy is necessary. There is always a chance that situation might pop up.
Click to expand...
Do Wonder Woman and Aquaman really kill their enemies that often?
As for Captain America, he's a soldier, so it's kind of expected that he might kill from time to time. I know we see the MCU version use a gun a few times, but I didn't think the comic book version really killed that often.
 
theenglish said:
but Superman has been reworked as a character multiple times since, and if we are going to be discussing contemporary versions then I think we need to use a reasonably contemporary version of the character--which I would consider to be at least the post-Byrne period at this point.
Click to expand...

The issue is that some continue to push the false notion that the Weisinger / George Reeves / Salkinds version is the "real" Superman, as if all other versions where he's not a 1950s idea were "wrong" in some way, including that which preceded it, and whining about everything from 1980s comic book versions of the character, all the way up to the DCEU Superman. Of course, that belief ignores the reality of the character being a part of the same universe with other DC heroes and villains, therefore he has to feel like he actually exists in said universe, otherwise, its sticking Popeye in the comic book world of Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and expecting it work.

I think that is because there hasn't been a live action version of Superman that has captured the public interest the way the 1978 version has--unlike Batman, which has had multiple screen versions that have allowed the public to cease to associate the character with the Adam West version.
Click to expand...

The thing is, few wanted to see a return to the Salkind's version of Superman, either, which is one of the many reasons Superman Returns was viewed as a major disappointment, turning off anyone wanting to see the character again. The Salkind's versions were so hard-wired to a semi-campy interpretation, which had long lost whatever appeal it had before the turn of the century.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
The issue is that some continue to push the false notion that the Weisinger / George Reeves / Salkinds version is the "real" Superman, as if all other versions where he's not a 1950s idea were "wrong" in some way, including that which preceded it, and whining about everything from 1980s comic book versions of the character, all the way up to the DCEU Superman.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree. I started reading in the 70s and, even then, the fifties and sixties version of the character had been left behind. Schwartz, Bates, and Swan were the names at the time--but I don't still hold to Curt Swan's Superman is the only valid version because that was the one from MY childhood. The Salkinds version of the character was its own thing--diverging from the comics version.

TREK_GOD_1 said:
The thing is, few wanted to see a return to the Salkind's version of Superman, either, which is one of the many reasons Superman Returns was viewed as a major disappointment, turning off anyone wanting to see the character again. The Salkind's versions were so hard-wired to a semi-campy interpretation, which had long lost whatever appeal it had before the turn of the century.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed Superman Returns for what it was--but back then we still had to take what was offered because content was sparse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top