Superman

[Dee1891]

You can keep Superman as a “Lawful good” archetype while allowing him to start recognizing the moral complexities of the world he lives in.

That's great. But I would also like a Superman who is capable of being morally complex himself, and who might be forced to recognize that complexity within him. I like my characters to be sentient beings capable of morally complex behavior, not simply archetypes.

 

[Anwar]

You can keep Superman as a “Lawful good” archetype while allowing him to start recognizing the moral complexities of the world he lives in.

There’s a neat story to be told when Superman realizes if he just reacts to prevent violence what he’s really doing is enforcing the power of those with the means not to need violence to get what they want. And starts looking for a way to stand up for everyone without continuing to act as enforcer or compromising his ideals.

A Superman who starts to notice the difference between law and morality could be a fun one to watch.

He could also start to wonder if being purely reactive is really the best way to do things.

Usually, how these stories work is that the villain is the proactive one trying to change things/do something and the hero is always working in reaction to them, to maintain the status quo.

Why not the hero realize that maybe they should be the ones doing proactive stuff trying to change things, in non-harmful ways, and the villain is reacting to THEM instead?

IE, Superman starts doing stuff to try and inspire social change/reform and the villain doesn't want this?

Ironically, Superman 4 was the only movie to consider this possible story course with the real villains being the Power Brokers backing Luthor because they didn't want Superman ending the threat of Nuclear War.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

That's great. But I would also like a Superman who is capable of being morally complex himself, and who might be forced to recognize that complexity within him. I like my characters to be sentient beings capable of morally complex behavior, not simply archetypes.

The Daddy/Santa advocates do not want moral complexity. They want Superman to be such a 1950s caricature that he--in live action productions--cannot interact with the innumerable challenges of the world, thus his story is handcuffed by the character only being Daddy/Santa who does not know how to react to the threat that will not compromise or stand down.

I've mentioned it before, but the irony of the Daddy/Santa advocates claiming the MCU Captain America is more of a "Superman" is that they always conveniently forget that Cap was not trying to grab the Red Skull by his collar and smile while driving him to jail; he boarded the Valkyrie to kill the villain, just as he was freely killing SHIELD/Hydra agents in The Winter Soldier. Once adapted to live action, no audience member is going to accept a hero having a warehouse-load of bullets fired at him (or innocent people) and attempt to finger-wag and/or handcuff them, or in the case of one who will never negotiate / surrender--like the Red Skull, who was set to kill millions with his weapons, Cap's only believable response in that specific circumstance is the one committed to film. Anything else is Saturday morning cartoon terrirory.

 

[YLu]

How, oh how, can the man with godly powers possibly stop a warehouse load of bullets without killing the gunmen?

 

[Dee1891]

Him deciding it was the superheroic ideal itself that was to blame for the likes of Tony and Bruce being in the position to create Ultron makes sense though, rather than blaming them specifically. He could've just blamed those two, but the reason they were in the position to make Ultron was due to the Avengers as a whole. Not keeping Stark on a tighter leash.

That doesn't work for me. It wasn't the job of the other Avengers to keep Tony on a leash. He was an adult, which meant he should have known better. I can say the same about Bruce Banner. And Helmut Zemo has no excuse for his actions.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Meanwhile, Batman won't kill the Joker or use guns. "He has a code that he follows!"

.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

How, oh how, can the man with godly powers possibly stop a warehouse load of bullets without killing the gunmen?

Mmm-hm, and as noted earlier, how does he stop one who will never negotiate / surrender and--being superhero content--has the power/ability to back up his defiant stand?

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Mmm-hm, and as noted earlier, how does he stop one who will never negotiate / surrender and--being superhero content--has the power/ability to back up his defiant stand?

Easily when a writer has that thing called "talent".

 

[Sci]

Superman's character should be a direct relationship to when in time Johnathan Kent built his value system.

The Dust bowl vs the last days of disco vs. Trump's trade war with China during the covid pandemic.

In 20 to thirty years Johnathan and Martha are going to have been Trumpites, who took 4 year old Clark to the Jan 6 rally.

On Family Guy last night Stewie said "Yes, I was at the Riot, but I didn't go inside the capitol."

No. Jonathan and Martha Kent are good people, not fascists.

Its Kansas.

Kansas is a red state full of red state people.

43.85% of Kansans -- 602,584 people -- voted against the fascist candidate in 2020. Combine that with the 1,566,875 Kansans who did not vote in 2020, and you discover that a majority of Kansans -- 2,169,459 or 73.77% -- did not support the fascist in 2020.

You can keep Superman as a “Lawful good” archetype while allowing him to start recognizing the moral complexities of the world he lives in.

There’s a neat story to be told when Superman realizes if he just reacts to prevent violence what he’s really doing is enforcing the power of those with the means not to need violence to get what they want. And starts looking for a way to stand up for everyone without continuing to act as enforcer or compromising his ideals.

A Superman who starts to notice the difference between law and morality could be a fun one to watch.

100% agreed.

That's great. But I would also like a Superman who is capable of being morally complex himself, and who might be forced to recognize that complexity within him. I like my characters to be sentient beings capable of morally complex behavior, not simply archetypes.

Which is fair, but I don't think Superman should be that. At its heart, the Superman story is a moral power fantasy for children, and I think that fundamental core -- that Superman is a Good Person archetype -- should stay even as the events and characters around him evolve. Otherwise we're just robbing children of a story that should belong to them; one might as well try to do a grim-and-gritty Winnie the Pooh.

He could also start to wonder if being purely reactive is really the best way to do things.

Usually, how these stories work is that the villain is the proactive one trying to change things/do something and the hero is always working in reaction to them, to maintain the status quo.

Why not the hero realize that maybe they should be the ones doing proactive stuff trying to change things, in non-harmful ways, and the villain is reacting to THEM instead?

One of the things I love about Captain America: The Winter Soldier is that Cap does not act as an agent of the status quo. He realizes that Hydra's infiltration proves you can't go home again; SHIELD has to be torn down and all of its secrets revealed to the public. You might as well entitle the movie Captain America: The Wikileaks Soldier.

The Daddy/Santa advocates do not want moral complexity. They want Superman to be such a 1950s caricature that he--in live action productions--cannot interact with the innumerable challenges of the world, thus his story is handcuffed by the character only being Daddy/Santa who does not know how to react to the threat that will not compromise or stand down.

Nope. We want Superman to be a Lawful Good archetype whose overwhelming decency breaks down the mechanisms of corruption -- an agent of change who does not himself change, but inspires or forces the world around him to.

I've mentioned it before, but the irony of the Daddy/Santa advocates claiming the MCU Captain America is more of a "Superman" is that they always conveniently forget that Cap was not trying to grab the Red Skull by his collar and smile while driving him to jail; he boarded the Valkyrie to kill the villain, just as he was freely killing SHIELD/Hydra agents in The Winter Soldier.

It's not ironic. It's just that I don't think the "no kill" rule is per se the issue -- I think it's generally a bad idea for Superman to kill because I think that version of morality is central to that particular character. But killing or not killing is actually not the foundational question over how to depict a superhero who embodies a "Lawful Good"/wholesome archetype.

Similarly, you don't need the "no-kill" rule to do a dark-and-gritty superhero like Batman -- but, if you're doing Batman, you probably should keep the "no-kill" rule because that rule speaks to his fundamental motivation (Bruce never wants anyone else to die, ever, after seeing his parents murdered).

Once adapted to live action, no audience member is going to accept a hero having a warehouse-load of bullets fired at him (or innocent people) and attempt to finger-wag and/or handcuff them,

On the other hand, finding a way for Superman to save lives against overwhelming odds in such a scenario might make for a really compelling action set-piece.

Meanwhile, Batman won't kill the Joker or use guns. "He has a code that he follows!"

Well, I think the no-kill thing for Batman serves two functions. One, it's a plot device that rationalizes why the public and the Gotham government broadly accept Batman's methods (and, by extension, why we the audience should accept his methods); and two, again, it speaks to his fundamental motivation. There are versions of Batman who kill, obviously, but the most compelling versions of Batman are the ones who are dead-set against ever killing anyone, ever, including the villains. Both because that so powerfully dramatizes his motivation -- to prevent anyone else from ever dying -- but also because it's a personality trait that can be mined for drama. How does Bruce live with himself knowing that if he killed the Joker, future victims could be saved?

 

[YLu]

Mmm-hm, and as noted earlier, how does he stop one who will never negotiate / surrender and--being superhero content--has the power/ability to back up his defiant stand?

By knocking them unconscious.

 

[fireproof78]

Fessik: I'm sorry, Indigo. I didn't mean to jog him so hard.

 

[Guy Gardener]

43.85% of Kansans -- 602,584 people -- voted against the fascist candidate in 2020. Combine that with the 1,566,875 Kansans who did not vote in 2020, and you discover that a majority of Kansans -- 2,169,459 or 73.77% -- did not support the fascist in 2020.



100% agreed.



Which is fair, but I don't think Superman should be that. At its heart, the Superman story is a moral power fantasy for children, and I think that fundamental core -- that Superman is a Good Person archetype -- should stay even as the events and characters around him evolve. Otherwise we're just robbing children of a story that should belong to them; one might as well try to do a grim-and-gritty Winnie the Pooh.



One of the things I love about Captain America: The Winter Soldier is that Cap does not act as an agent of the status quo. He realizes that Hydra's infiltration proves you can't go home again; SHIELD has to be torn down and all of its secrets revealed to the public. You might as well entitle the movie Captain America: The Wikileaks Soldier.



Nope. We want Superman to be a Lawful Good archetype whose overwhelming decency breaks down the mechanisms of corruption -- an agent of change who does not himself change, but inspires or forces the world around him to.



It's not ironic. It's just that I don't think the "no kill" rule is per se the issue -- I think it's generally a bad idea for Superman to kill because I think that version of morality is central to that particular character. But killing or not killing is actually not the foundational question over how to depict a superhero who embodies a "Lawful Good"/wholesome archetype.

Similarly, you don't need the "no-kill" rule to do a dark-and-gritty superhero like Batman -- but, if you're doing Batman, you probably should keep the "no-kill" rule because that rule speaks to his fundamental motivation (Bruce never wants anyone else to die, ever, after seeing his parents murdered).



On the other hand, finding a way for Superman to save lives against overwhelming odds in such a scenario might make for a really compelling action set-piece.



Well, I think the no-kill thing for Batman serves two functions. One, it's a plot device that rationalizes why the public and the Gotham government broadly accept Batman's methods (and, by extension, why we the audience should accept his methods); and two, again, it speaks to his fundamental motivation. There are versions of Batman who kill, obviously, but the most compelling versions of Batman are the ones who are dead-set against ever killing anyone, ever, including the villains. Both because that so powerfully dramatizes his motivation -- to prevent anyone else from ever dying -- but also because it's a personality trait that can be mined for drama. How does Bruce live with himself knowing that if he killed the Joker, future victims could be saved?

Similar argument, less toxic.

10 year old Bruce saw The Mask of Zorro in 1998, and his parents were shot.

Antonio Banderas inspired Batman.

 

[Anwar]

That doesn't work for me. It wasn't the job of the other Avengers to keep Tony on a leash. He was an adult, which meant he should have known better. I can say the same about Bruce Banner. And Helmut Zemo has no excuse for his actions.

The story never presents him as being RIGHT. Just like Magneto is never presented as being right in anything he does. Just that he has is stance on issues that's more than "I rob banks" or "I want to be a Crimeboss".

And it's understandable he'd blame all of them for not watching each other better, grief and hatred and can do that to a person.

As for Batman not killing, the comics finally just came out and had Gordon tell Batman that if he ever does kill anyone then Gordon will no longer tolerate him and the GCPD will throw everything they have at him. Since Batman knows he needs some kind of support from the city, he knows he can't cross that line.

Bit dumb of Gordon, but oh well.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The story never presents him as being RIGHT. Just like Magneto is never presented as being right in anything he does. Just that he has is stance on issues that's more than "I rob banks" or "I want to be a Crimeboss".

And it's understandable he'd blame all of them for not watching each other better, grief and hatred and can do that to a person.

As for Batman not killing, the comics finally just came out and had Gordon tell Batman that if he ever does kill anyone then Gordon will no longer tolerate him and the GCPD will throw everything they have at him. Since Batman knows he needs some kind of support from the city, he knows he can't cross that line.

Bit dumb of Gordon, but oh well.

Bruce Wayne, on behalf of Batman, could bankrupt Gotham.

 

[theenglish]

Which is fair, but I don't think Superman should be that. At its heart, the Superman story is a moral power fantasy for children, and I think that fundamental core -- that Superman is a Good Person archetype -- should stay even as the events and characters around him evolve. Otherwise we're just robbing children of a story that should belong to them; one might as well try to do a grim-and-gritty Winnie the Pooh.

Here you go:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Sci]

Which is fair, but I don't think Superman should be that. At its heart, the Superman story is a moral power fantasy for children, and I think that fundamental core -- that Superman is a Good Person archetype -- should stay even as the events and characters around him evolve. Otherwise we're just robbing children of a story that should belong to them; one might as well try to do a grim-and-gritty Winnie the Pooh.

Here you go:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

LOL! Quality looks about on par with Batman v. Superman too!

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Similar argument, less toxic.

10 year old Bruce saw The Mask of Zorro in 1998, and his parents were shot.

Antonio Banderas inspired Batman.

Well, thank you for making me feel old.

 

[Dee1891]

Meanwhile, Batman won't kill the Joker or use guns. "He has a code that he follows!"

.

For how long? No one is that "angelic".

Which is fair, but I don't think Superman should be that. At its heart, the Superman story is a moral power fantasy for children, and I think that fundamental core -- that Superman is a Good Person archetype -- should stay even as the events and characters around him evolve. Otherwise we're just robbing children of a story that should belong to them; one might as well try to do a grim-and-gritty Winnie the Pooh.

Perhaps children should learn that no one is that one-dimensionally good and that we always have to be vigilant about our own personal nature. And considering that comic books and comic book movies/TV are also popular with adults, I don't see why Superman always has to be portrayed as a character for kids.

And it's understandable he'd blame all of them for not watching each other better, grief and hatred and can do that to a person.

Zemo had allowed his own grief to blind him from the truth and engage in his crimes. His actions and his bigotry might be "understandable", but not excusable. At least not to me. And he is a perfect example of how one's emotions and prejudices can rob a person of intelligence. Nor do I hold with blaming the Avengers for their "failure" to keep Tony on a leash. They are not his babysitter, nor should they be. Not keeping Tony on a leash is like blaming them for his crap. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

 

[Sci]

Which is fair, but I don't think Superman should be that. At its heart, the Superman story is a moral power fantasy for children, and I think that fundamental core -- that Superman is a Good Person archetype -- should stay even as the events and characters around him evolve. Otherwise we're just robbing children of a story that should belong to them; one might as well try to do a grim-and-gritty Winnie the Pooh.

Perhaps children should learn that no one is that one-dimensionally good and that we always have vigilant about our own personal nature.

That's a lesson that's more appropriate for them to learn when they become middle schoolers, I think.

And considering that comic books and comic book movies/TV is also popular with adults, I don't see why Superman always has to be portrayed as a character for kids.

I mean, it's a story about a man with God-like powers who dresses up in a circus strong-man suit to fight crime. On a fundamental level, you can't escape the fact that this is a children's story. And I am so goddamn tired of adults trying to take children's stories away from children to please their own sensibilities. There are a million dark and gritty and morally complex-to-ambiguous superhero stories out there. Let Winnie-the-Pooh be Winnie-the-Pooh; let Paddington be Paddington; let Superman be Superman.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

For how long? No one is that "angelic".

Batman or Superman? Why is it OK that Batman just arrests deadly villains? Is it because he's scary looking and punches them while he does it?