Superman

[TREK_GOD_1]

By knocking them unconscious.

He cannot knock out every threatening being.

For how long? No one is that "angelic".
Perhaps children should learn that no one is that one-dimensionally good and that we always have vigilant about our own personal nature.

True, but you have some who have placed Superman in the Daddy/Santa role, so he cannot be a complex character to any degree--he's a cartoony monument for behavior that cannot work in superhero comics, the very reason DC's editors discarded the Daddy/Santa version (from the mid-Golden to late Silver Age) to normalize him and his relationships to other characters in the DC universe, instead of him seeming like the golden image others were merely sharing panels with, but he (Superman) was barely, believably interacting with the increasingly complex superheroes of the late 1960s-forward.

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.

Initially, he was not in the comics; his creators presented him as a Depression-era vigilante who judged and killed a number of villains when necessary, and did not cry about his actions, as the behavior was reflective of a good number among Americans at the time where crime was concerned (and we must remember that Superman was wildly popular with adults as well as children of this early period, so the idea that Superman was intended to be exclusively kiddie-fare is not at all true). Weisinger stripped that from the character, turning him into the aforementioned Daddy/Santa, which ran its course once comic readership matured in the 60s, with fans expecting their heroes to mirror (as in the late 30s / early 40s) the emotions and interactions of their time--which was not that silly, kiddie version.

 

[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?

Johnathan, Martha, anf Clark, depending on when Clark's ship crashed were raised on the wholesomeness of Ronald Reagan Movies.

It was Clark's faith in the purty of Hollywood that had him trust Ronald Reagan implicity.

The President for Life who ordered Superman to delimb Oliver Queen.

Did the Kents vote for Carter and Mondale?

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

And I am so goddamn tired of adults trying to take children's stories away from children to please their own sensibilities.

This right here is the root of almost all problems with modern superhero movies and stories. You nailed it.

Adults seem to be too selfish to leave things where they belong and want everything they love to grow with them instead of moving on appropriately.

 

[YLu]

He cannot knock out every threatening being.

He can also destroy their power source, zap 'em to the Phantom Zone, etc.

If your point is it's unlikely he won't eventually encounter an enemy he can't do any of that to, that's about as meaningful as something it's unlikely he won't eventually encounter an enemy who outright kills him. Because, yes, probability-wise, if the guy gets into that many life-threatening situations all the time, odds are -one- of them will someday get to him. But stories are about beating the odds.

 

[Anwar]

Here's something...have Superman talk the gunmen down without resorting to violence and use empathy and compassion.

Like with Mr Myzysptlk, he always uses his brains to beat him because he knows he could never win in a battle of power.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Here's something...have Superman talk the gunmen down without resorting to violence and use empathy and compassion.

Like with Mr Myzysptlk, he always uses his brains to beat him because he knows he could never win in a battle of power.

You're asking for nuance from people who only see things in black and white.

As soon as you use the word "compassion", the automatic response is "That's great if you like an unrealistic Santa boyscout who was originally created as an outcast alien who can't fit in, made to murder people by punching them in their hearts, lick the blood from his hands and laugh maniacally at the corpse in front of him. The character was eventually ruined and we need to get back to his original creation so that he can fit in the modern world."

There's no room for middleground or creative thinking in this debate, oddly.

 

[fireproof78]

Still very black and white thinking in this interesting debate about a child superhero from adults. Fascinating.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

It was satire. Maybe not done well, but the tongue was planted firmly in cheek.

 

[fireproof78]

It was satire. Maybe not done well, but the tongue was planted firmly in cheek.

Does that make it less fascinating?

 

[Dee1891]

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



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.

It doesn't matter. These comic book movies and television shows are just as much for adults as they are for kids. Why pretend otherwise? Even as a kid, I had no problems with watching television shows for mainly adults or enjoying those "children's stories" that featured ambiguous protagonists. Keeping Superman as this one-dimensional protagonist who always say or do the right thing is not only boring to me, but a sign of poor writing.

 

[The Realist]

I come down on Sci's side more often than not in this discussion, but I do think Superman can be more than just an "archetype." There's no reason at all he can't be portrayed as a distinct individual with his own personality, history, desires, conflicts, etc., and at the same time be good and strong and noble and heroic. I also don't think making him a character adults can recognize and relate to means he has to be unsuitable for kids. Superman & Lois is doing a pretty darn good job of presenting a Clark who is believable and identifiable as a person while preserving the character's fundamental morality and idealism.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Did the Kents vote for Carter and Mondale?

Despite Carter's background, his campaign (and some of his supporters) would leave something to be desired from the Kents you've constructed.

He can also destroy their power source, zap 'em to the Phantom Zone, etc.

If your point is it's unlikely he won't eventually encounter an enemy he can't do any of that to, that's about as meaningful as something it's unlikely he won't eventually encounter an enemy who outright kills him. Because, yes, probability-wise, if the guy gets into that many life-threatening situations all the time, odds are -one- of them will someday get to him. But stories are about beating the odds.

Stories are also about being challenged and realizing some threats only have one answer--one not ending with options to remove power / flying to jail (on earth of imprisoned in the Phantom Zone, etc.). For some, they love to argue in favor of some sort of nuance to the character, yet habitually ignore who the character was early on, or the reason the Weisinger influence was jettisoned. It is only the Weisinger version and its "offspring" in media, particularly that produced in the 1970s.

 

[Sci]

He cannot knock out every threatening being.

True! The elemental Superman story I'm most interested in is the one where Superman realizes that chronic structural political forces that he can't punch are what create the acute problems he can, and how he reacts to that while maintaining his core decency.

True, but you have some who have placed Superman in the Daddy/Santa role, so he cannot be a complex character to any degree

To any degree? I dunno about that. I think Superman can be a complex character to about the degree an eight-year-old can comprehend, while also maintaining his core morality. He can be complex without being morally ambiguous. I haven't been following it super-close, but I would say, for instance, that the pilot episode of Superman & Louis presents a pretty good example: Superman is always a fundamentally good person, but maybe there's something in the way of his attempts to bond with his sons, for instance.

Initially, he was not in the comics; his creators presented him as a Depression-era vigilante who judged and killed a number of villains when necessary,

Which is, as I said before, not incompatible with the idea of him being a fundamentally wholesome, morally good person. He can be wholesome and in opposition to the government. I don't think Superman should kill because I think that's the better version of this particular character, but there can, as Captain America proves, be versions of the "Wholesome Leader" archetype who kill.

(and we must remember that Superman was wildly popular with adults as well as children of this early period, so the idea that Superman was intended to be exclusively kiddie-fare is not at all true).

No one said he's "exclusively" for children. This is a false dichotomy. Many, many stories can appeal to adults and children while still being primarily for children. Paddington 2 was one of the best-reviewed films of 2017, and it has a lot of adult fans (most famously to me, YouTube film critic Patrick H. Willems). It is, nonetheless, a children's story -- not because it excludes adults, but because it centers children as its intended audience.

There are clearly versions of Superman that don't center children as their intended audience. And the thing is... they tend to suck.

Johnathan, Martha, and Clark, depending on when Clark's ship crashed were raised on the wholesomeness of Ronald Reagan Movies.

It was Clark's faith in the purity of Hollywood that had him trust Ronald Reagan implicitly.

The President for Life who ordered Superman to delimb Oliver Queen.

Did the Kents vote for Carter and Mondale?

Personally, I like to think Jonathan and Martha Kent are prairie socialists who would find mainstream Democrats too conservative for their tastes. But whatever politics you might ascribe to them, they're good people and thus by definition would not support fascists.

Here's something...have Superman talk the gunmen down without resorting to violence and use empathy and compassion.

Like with Mr Myzysptlk, he always uses his brains to beat him because he knows he could never win in a battle of power.

I like it. Or, maybe he talks one down, but sadly isn't able to talk the other down and must resort to an action piece to defeat him and save all of his victims without brutalizing him.

It doesn't matter. These comic book movies and television shows are just as much for adults as they are for kids.

I mean, sometimes they are, but that's the fundamental problem. Superman (1978) will forever be superior to films like Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman because it actually understands that its material fundamentally doesn't work when you try to make it a story for adults first and kids second.

Why pretend otherwise? Even as a kid, I had no problems with watching television shows for mainly adults or enjoying those "children's stories" that featured ambiguous protagonists. Keeping Superman as this one-dimensional protagonist who always say or do the right thing is not only boring to me, but a sign of poor writing.

Complexity does not require moral ambiguity.

I come down on Sci's side more often than not in this discussion, but I do think Superman can be more than just an "archetype." There's no reason at all he can't be portrayed as a distinct individual with his own personality, history, desires, conflicts, etc., and at the same time be good and strong and noble and heroic.

Which is all I'm asking.

I also don't think making him a character adults can recognize and relate to means he has to be unsuitable for kids.

Absolutely! I mean, unless a child has had tragedy hit them, most children are generally not going to understand the grief that Clark experiences when Jonathan dies in Superman '78, for instance -- grief is, if everything goes well, an adult experience that most children can't relate to. And there's also very clearly a level of sexual tension between Superman and Louis in that film that children are just not gonna pick up on. But, by the same token, Superman '78 still centers children's emotions and motivations first. Same thing with that other giant of Superman adaptations, Superman: The Animated Series.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Mister Mxyzptlk is out witted?

a being who can see through time?

Two possibilities.

1. The imp is a twit.

2. Superman is his dog, and he gets bored of playing with his dog after half an hour.

 

[The Realist]

There are clearly versions of Superman that don't center children as their intended audience. And the thing is... they tend to suck.

As I said above, I'm generally on your side in this debate, but some of your positions are a little too categorical for me, or too limiting on the character. For example, I enjoyed much of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (YMMV), and I think that was a Superman show that was clearly targeted toward adults. It was a romantic comedy (an adult genre) more than a comic book action-adventure, and moreover it was a pretty sexually-charged sort of romance, not the chaste pairings of children's stories. But I think its portrayal of Clark was still very true to the character.

I don't think good Superman stories have to be intended primarily for children (though ideally they shouldn't actively exclude them either). They just need not to distort or violate the character's essence in pursuit of being self-consciously "adult."

 

[JD]

I honestly find it horrifying that there are actually people on here who want Superman to kill more often.
Now, I don't have a problem with heroes who kill, hell two of my favorite shows over the years have been 24, where Jack Bauer had a body count that probably enter the triple digits, and The 100, which saw it's heroes commit literal genocide, but I do think a lot of stories are to quick to just have their heroes instantly jump to killing the bad guys. And I will confess that the hero is my story that I've been writing does have a fairly high body count, but he's also more or less fighting a war against people who are trying to kill him and his family.
For me, even in fiction, killing is the kind of thing that should only be done in a life or death situation, or where there is absolutely no other way to end the threat. When we're talking about a character as powerful as Superman there are going to be very, very, very few situations where he is in true mortal danger, and then when you add on the amount of different powers he has, then that takes down the chances of him being in a situation where killing is absolutely necessary, down to pretty much zero.
That was what pissed me off so much about him killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel, there were a ton of other ways he could have resolved the situations that didn't involve killing Zod, but the people making the movie didn't seem to put much thought into and just instantly jumped to killing him.
And with the way the world is going these days, I think should encourage our heroes to kill less often, to show that there are other ways to resolve situations than just killing people.

 

[Dee1891]

To any degree? I dunno about that. I think Superman can be a complex character to about the degree an eight-year-old can comprehend, while also maintaining his core morality.

You might as well say the same for every comic book character in existence. What is this need to specifically place Superman in some kind of character straight jacket?

 

[Guy Gardener]

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.

I'm gonna assume you're talking about the movies.

Black Widow was only on the team to kill her team mates (Stark, Hulk and Thor.) when they spun out of control and tried to rule the world.

Hemlut is concerned about a Eugenics War that will destroy the planet, or worse a genocide where only one side of the war has super soldiers, and the aftermath where an authoritarian takes his castle away. A nonreplicatable prototype boyscout is a tomorrow problem. A factory that can churn out a thousand super soldiers a day is a right now problem. I'm going on a limb and say that Zemo is anti Nazi because he saw what a bag of dicks who thought they were the master race did when then only thought they were chosen by God and perfect.

Although IRL the British and the Germans did both create supersoldiers using meth.

Stay awake for 5 days, fearless, can't feel pain, twice as strong as they should be, and intensely loyal to whosoever is handing out the meth.

 

[YLu]

Stories are also about being challenged

What's a bigger challenge? Killing one's enemies or defeating them without resorting to lethal force?

 

[Set Harth]

Black Widow was only on the team to kill her team mates (Stark, Hulk and Thor.) when they spun out of control and tried to rule the world.

I don't think she's powerful enough to kill any of those, with the possible exception of an unarmored or unaware Stark.