I...I literally don't know what to say to this. If some one disagrees with you, they haven't read Superman comics? I have thousands of them...
Spoilers "Superman & Lois" Season 1 spoiler discussion!
- Thread starter The Realist
- Start date
I...I literally don't know what to say to this. If some one disagrees with you, they haven't read Superman comics? I have thousands of them...
If what you're claiming held even a particle of truth, then you would not continue to argue that Superman killing was some isolated incident from the remote past, when others have posted references to Superman killing in more recent eras. Why that is so difficult for some to understand is anyone's guess.
And yet, as pointed out above, you're talking like you haven't.
Pretty decent analysis of how Superman & Lois succeeds in this vid:
No, I'm just talking like some one who took very different lessons from them. Again, not every one who doesn't agree with you (or the other poster) is misunderstanding the material. But if you want to be condescending and gatekeeping, that's your choice.
Exactly.
The problem with making that assumption is that there have probably been hundreds of different versions of Superman at this, with him being everything from a dictator, to a communist, to the Big Blue Boyscout, so depending on which comics you have read, you can come away with very very different impressions of the character.
I think that's conflating two separate things. There's a big difference between something presented as the "real" version of the character (while differing in detail from earlier and later takes) and something explicitly meant to be an alternate-reality version offered in contrast to the main version, like in Red Son or "Brave New Metropolis" or that Injustice computer game thing. In those cases, the darker take on Superman is meant to show how he's lost his way and gone bad -- or, in the case of Red Son, to show that Superman's innate goodness manages to shine through anyway despite what his world tried to change him into. So those aren't really alternate takes on what Superman should be. They're reinforcing the conventional view of what he should be by showing that the alternative is worse.
The point is that Superman killed in his regular stories that were not "alternate" / Elseworlds or TPB one-offs. He's killed since the beginning and has committed the act in modern times, so it self-deceiving for some (not meaning you) to erect that Weisinger/Super Friends statue as tribute to a concept that was not set in stone, or had anything to do with his development. The character was created not as the Holy Man / Daddy some desperately want him to be, but a product of Great Depression-era vigilantism which a large part of the American population supported as a response to unchecked criminality/injustice of the period.
YES! I was nodding vigorously all the way through this!
I *hated* Man of Steel. I couldn't understand why they wanted to deconstruct Supes before actually *constructing* him. Nothing against Henry (or Brandon, for that matter), but in my mind, Superman should be inspiring, not scary. I have Batman for scary.
I wasn't sure one could make a (IMO) good Superman movie in the modern age, until I saw Captain America: The First Avenger. I was never a Cap fan - my (ignorant) image of him was "boring super-patriot boy scout" - like many people saw Superman. But by giving us in Steve Rogers a flawed human being who is also compassionate, uplifting, and inspiring, who unfailingly tries to Do The Right Thing, I saw that it was actually possible to do in a movie without making something boring.
(FYI, I always knew one could do it in comics.
)So yes, we can argue about will/does/did specifics til the sun implodes, but I am *loving* the Kal I see in Superman & Lois.
Please also remember that he was created by two Jewish kids who were watching horrors unfolding in Europe and nobody seemed to care. I would've created a superhero too.
Glad you liked.YES! I was nodding vigorously all the way through this!
I *hated* Man of Steel. I couldn't understand why they wanted to deconstruct Supes before actually *constructing* him. Nothing against Henry (or Brandon, for that matter), but in my mind, Superman should be inspiring, not scary. I have Batman for scary.
I wasn't sure one could make a (IMO) good Superman movie in the modern age, until I saw Captain America: The First Avenger. I was never a Cap fan - my (ignorant) image of him was "boring super-patriot boy scout" - like many people saw Superman. But by giving us in Steve Rogers a flawed human being who is also compassionate, uplifting, and inspiring, who unfailingly tries to Do The Right Thing, I saw that it was actually possible to do in a movie without making something boring.
(FYI, I always knew one could do it in comics.
So yes, we can argue about will/does/did specifics til the sun implodes, but I am *loving* the Kal I see in Superman & Lois.
I posted an even better one a few pages back. You can check it out here:
"Superman & Lois" Season 1 spoiler discussion!
I don't know who wants Clark to be "bloody" and gleeful about violence. The charact in MoS wasn't.
What I'm tired of is people clutching their pearls and insisting that various storylines and movies featuring the character be wished away or ignored because they're outside someone's comfort zone. Sorry, MoS is just as much part of the "canon" as the Donner movie, it's perfectly in line with other stories that have been told about the character over the years by other important writers - Byrne's run on the books was a watershed, and changed everything - and so stop trying to label it an aberration of some kind.
I know the character was created for children. Every story featuring him after seven decades or so doesn't have to be written for them.
What I'm tired of is people clutching their pearls and insisting that various storylines and movies featuring the character be wished away or ignored because they're outside someone's comfort zone. Sorry, MoS is just as much part of the "canon" as the Donner movie, it's perfectly in line with other stories that have been told about the character over the years by other important writers - Byrne's run on the books was a watershed, and changed everything - and so stop trying to label it an aberration of some kind.
I know the character was created for children. Every story featuring him after seven decades or so doesn't have to be written for them.
Oh, dude... *sniffle*... thank you.Glad you liked.
I posted an even better one a few pages back. You can check it out here:
"Superman & Lois" Season 1 spoiler discussion!
This seems…precisely correct…or indubitably appropriate. No, no. Wait. It’s…Absolutely Right.
"We thought that by making your world more violent, we would make it more "realistic"...more "adult". God help us if that's what it means."
"We thought that by making your world more challenging and less simplistic we would make it more interesting. But you can't change the macaroni and cheese recipe."
Maybe that's no less vapid and unpersuasive than what you quoted, but it's no worse.
Clark has killed Zod in a number of stories and might well again. Stop pretending he hasn't or that those stoies count less than stories you like better.
You know that the insistence on nostalgic purity where the DC characters are concerned is a big reason that Marvel's been eating DC's lunch since the 60s. Batman's the only one who's substantially evolved which is why he's the most successful.
Maybe that's no less vapid and unpersuasive than what you quoted, but it's no worse.
Clark has killed Zod in a number of stories and might well again. Stop pretending he hasn't or that those stoies count less than stories you like better.
You know that the insistence on nostalgic purity where the DC characters are concerned is a big reason that Marvel's been eating DC's lunch since the 60s. Batman's the only one who's substantially evolved which is why he's the most successful.
Last edited:
Just to add to the list of things this show does well, is the handling of Jordan's powers. I keep thinking of 'Smallville' where Clark developed a new ability and mastered it within 45 minutes. With 'S&L' they're taking a more subtle approach with Jordan learning to control his powers. Hell, they're not even showing them in every episode.
Similar threads
