BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Problem with Superman?

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Tom Coates
20:15 / 16.05.04
There's an article about Superman over at Time.com called The Problem with Superman which talks about how Superman is a metaphor for a kind of America that no longer exists and all the problems about making the character work in the 21st Century (which to be honest sound to me like pretty regular themes for the character that I've heard every five years since I was about ten). Here's an excerpt:

For America's multimillion-dollar Superman industry, it's a serious problem. This is a guy who's from outer space — he was born on the planet Krypton, let's not forget — but he's also from another time. He debuted in the 1930s, when Americans liked their heroes like they liked their steaks: tough, thick and all-American. Nowadays we prefer our heroes dark and flawed and tragic. Look at the Punisher (wife and kids dead), or Hellboy (born a demon), or Spider-Man (secretly a nerd). Look at Batman: his parents were killed in front of him, and he dresses like a Cure fan. Now look at the big blue Boy Scout, with his cleft chin and his spit curl. He's just not cool.

Jim Lee, who's taking over the art on Superman, is fresh from a run on best-selling Batman, so he's in touch with his dark side. But he admits it's a challenge. "Batman is a more modern-era type character," Lee says. "He's fueled by vengeance; he's the boogeyman. Superman is the altruistic alien hero that protects us all. It's difficult to make that believable in this day and age."


The standfirst of the article reads as follows: "The Man of Steel is looking a little rusty. He's not tragic. He's not cool. Can America's original superhero find a way to reconnect with us?"

So here are my questions. Is it bunk? Should Superman be identified with or should he be awe-inspiring and godlike as in Grant's Justice League run. Is his human side really very interesting anyway? Should he be less powerful or more powerful? Is Superman really a representation of an America that doesn't exist any more? Do we care?
 
 
Nicklas and context be damned
21:34 / 16.05.04
I haven't read Grant's Justice League (silly me), but to me that's the only way to make Superman work. His only weakness is tiny green rocks, and he's boring when they try to make him connect as a normal human. He isn't, so why not let him be that way? Let the pesky human side of the story be handled by the secondary characters. Another way, whould be to make Superman into the catalyst instead of the centre of the stories.
 
 
Mario
22:14 / 16.05.04
Of course we should care. Superman is the ultimate role model. Great power balanced by great compassion. A man who shows us the potential within ourselves to be better people, simply by example.

Elliot S! Maggin once wrote: "There is a right and a wrong in the Universe, and that distinction is not hard to make". A simple creed, but not a naive one.

Should Superman be limited? Certainly...so he can rise above them, just as we can rise above our own weaknesses (physical, intellectual, or emotional). He may be bloodied in the attempt, but he'll keep fighting "the never-ending battle". Until he wins.

Raising his power to unbelievable levels makes his battles irrelevant. There _must_ be doubt in our minds...if only so we can feel that rush when he stands before the darkness, and says "Not today".

But making him more "identifiable" is equally wrong. How can we aspire to his greatness...if he's just like us?

The WB cartoon struck a decent balance, I thought. Superman clearly had great power, but he still had to work for his victories. It was never easy. Sometimes he even lost. But he _never_ gave up.

I wish I could be more like him....
 
 
Hieronymus
23:07 / 16.05.04
I've always liked Superman for his Christ-like origins/nature and quintessential immigrant-outsider roots.

To me he works better when the writer is balancing his humanity against what is a very alien character. The old days of him fighting thugs, Nazis and bargain basement crimelords is just beyond tired. I mean, Lex Luthor as his greatest nemesis. Feh. Superman needs Superman sized conflicts. And there's a lot of sci-fi in his past that I think many writers find bizarrely abhorrent about him so they try to cement him in stupid rebirth stories, cheesy costume changes and everything else they can throw on the fire in an attempt to ignore where he thrives the most as a character.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
23:08 / 16.05.04
Is his human side really very interesting anyway?

I think that Bill in Kill Bill Vol. 2 had it right - Superman is notable because he IS Superman, and his assumed identity is Clark Kent. Kent is how Superman sees humanity - repressed, weak, timid.

Making Superman more 'human' defeats the entire point of the character. He's supposed to be better than us, something to aspire to. Making him more like a normal guy or weaker is ridiculous - you just can't make Superman better by making him Spider-Man.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
23:11 / 16.05.04
I agree that Superman thrives in over the top sci-fi, but his rivarly with Lex Luthor is one of the best things about the franchise. He's this immensely powerful altruistic guy whose greatest enemy is a character who is the personification of all of humanity's weaknesses.
 
 
Mario
23:38 / 16.05.04
I think that Bill in Kill Bill Vol. 2 had it right - Superman is notable because he IS Superman, and his assumed identity is Clark Kent. Kent is how Superman sees humanity - repressed, weak, timid.

No, "timid Clark" is an act to prevent people from thinking he could be Superman. But there's another Clark, the son of Jonathan & Martha Kent. An honest man, a compassionate man, a GOOD man. Who happens to be the most powerful being on the planet.

Making Superman more 'human' defeats the entire point of the character. He's supposed to be better than us, something to aspire to. Making him more like a normal guy or weaker is ridiculous - you just can't make Superman better by making him Spider-Man.

I agree with this, but I also think that "human" does not equal "flawed". Remember...for all his power, Supes was raised by two decent, ordinary human beings. And his parents are HIS role models. He's not an alien. He's a super Man.
 
 
Triplets
23:52 / 16.05.04
If you want to make Superman connect with us again just make him like he is around his parents in Superman: Birthright, good, compassionate and he has real, human doubts. Good stuff dat.
 
 
Tamayyurt
02:57 / 17.05.04
Should Superman be identified with or should he be awe-inspiring and godlike as in Grant's Justice League run? Yes, I think Superman works best when he's alien and godlike, but the key is that he tries very hard to identify with us.

Is his human side really very interesting anyway? The charm is in this perfect being trying to be like these little, flawed humans.

Should he be less powerful or more powerful? I think he should be incredibly powerful.

Is Superman really a representation of an America that doesn't exist any more? No, that America never really existed. He's a representation of what America could be... should be.
 
 
the Fool
03:36 / 17.05.04
I just like to counter the whole 'alien nature' angle. He might have been born on an alien world, but for all intents and purposes he's a country kid from Kansas. He didn't grow up within the culture of Krypton, he did become aware of it until after his powers manifested.

Finding out you are actually an alien would probably have a pretty huge effect on you, but would it change your core self? Ma and Pa Kent are still the anchors in Clarks life, not Jor El.

He is a simple guy (smart maybe but still uncomplicated)with very noble ideals and incredible power levels, which means a lot of the time he can actually achieve his ideals.

The only thing about the concept that is tired is that he is a metaphor for an america that never really happened.

The Batman concept is of a similar vintage, and yet its refered to as 'modern'...
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
05:57 / 17.05.04
Superman is missing a vital element, and the one that made him popular to begin with, and I'm kind fo amazed that no one is picking up on it.

Clark Kent is a dork who gets put up quite often in the early issues of the series (kind of like Peter Parker), and says quite often "If they only knew who I really was..."

That, to me, is what made Superman work. He is the ultimate wish fulfillment character, which creates reader identification. Sure, we can't fly or whatever, but every kid thinks "If they really knew me, they'd think I am a great person." Superman is the embodiment of that. If Lois knew Clark was really Superman, she'd fall for him. If the bully knew he was playing a practical joke on Superman, he'd think twice.

Now, DC has turned Superman in the Stan Lee style soap opera, with Clark going through different Mort Weisinger plots that takes months instead of pages. Superman dies and comes back. Superman gets different powers. Superman has to get rid of his Clark Kent identity. Superman loses his memory and lives in Kandor. It's all the same, but it's missing the reader identification.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:58 / 17.05.04
Making Superman the catalyst rather than the protagonist would definitely be a good way of doing it.

I also like the Godlike Superman- also his portrayal in The Dark Night Returns, like a naive deity/weapon.

One way is with stuff like the Elseworlds comics- treat the characters (in this case, Superman) as archetypes, and let them loose in other stories. For example, Red Son- a superhuman arms race and Cold War. Very neat idea.
 
 
Mario
11:55 / 17.05.04
There's a key issue here, one that Solitaire Rose's post points up for me.

What might work as a characterization of Superman for me (in my 34-year old geek glory) will NOT work for a 10-year old picking up the comic for the first time.

For him, wimpy Clark makes sense, because when you're a kid, that's exactly who you feel like. So the idea that he's really this godlike paragon appeals.

But I'm not 10. I'd rather see the character act believably, as both the humble reporter and as the confident hero.

And no offense to Stoatie, but I'm _tired_ of "Superman is a naive boy scout". The problem with most post-modern deconstructions is that they forget to rebuild the character up again afterwards.

The real "never-ending battle" isn't against a bald former classmate, or a computer with delusions of grandeur. It's against the baser parts of ourselves. Superman, in his nobility and compassion, shows us what humanity could be, if we're willing to work for it.
 
 
fluid_state
12:19 / 17.05.04
"naive deity" is one of the facets that makes Superman very interesting to me, insofar as that combination of country boy and, well, god, makes for a very interesting vantage to explore ideal human behaviour. I mean, if you've ever wondered what it would be like for the adult you to have these fantastic powers, it would be damn near impossible to get any sleep, for one. I like the idea of a younger Clark Kent having to learn to turn his powers "off" for the sake of his sanity. This guy must have tried to break up every street brawl he heard until he realized that sometimes, some people could use a good kicking. Being able to hear every domestic argument for 100 klicks would be torturous. The simple moral and ethical dilemmas inherent in godhood (particularily when said god was raised in Smallville, of all places) would make for fantastic reading; decontructivist wish-fulfillment and an exploration of the series of unintended consequences we call life. How many times have you overheard,say, a neighbor's slice of abusive domestic hell and wondered if you should go upstairs and make sure no-one gets their face broken? Multiply it by 1000, and picture having the "power" to "fix" it. Heat vision isn't quite as handy anymore.

(wish my scanner was working. I dug up a giant-sized reprint of the first 10 Superman stories. Ultimate wish-fulfilment, 30s-style. The "original" Supes had a much harder edge to him, using Batman style tactics, ie brute force)
 
 
FinderWolf
12:58 / 17.05.04
I think one of the keys to Supes is emphasizing his humanity and fallibility despite his incredible power -- it's a lot of responsibility to the be the most powerful dude on the planet. John Byrne's Supes, when it was in its prime, found a nice mix of great power and great "humanity" despite the fact that he's not actually human. But it's not that he's always fallible -- just that he shouldn't be too perfect or too amazing.

I agree wholeheartedly that there's nothing 'uncool' about Supes as role model - the best in us all. Was Jimmy Stewart (his characters and as an actor) uncool? Nope, he was beloved by millions for his honest, idealistic characters, and still is today. Tom Welling on Smallville, when the series is good, gives that same feeling.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:58 / 17.05.04
I think that weak, timid Clark Kent is necessary for reader-identification, but it's really really really important to remember that it's an act that Superman is playing - he's not actually timid or insecure, he's just acting that way to fit in with humanity. The problem with contemporary Superman comics is that the writers write Superman as though he actually is Clark Kent.
 
 
FinderWolf
13:00 / 17.05.04
I think 3/4 of the time he's very confident and assured, but he's not perfect, and 1/4 of the time (mostly based on circustances & stories that put him between a rock & a hard place) he needs to be seen to have some insecurities or falliblity for us to relate to him more.
 
 
FinderWolf
13:03 / 17.05.04
>> Is Superman really a representation of an America that doesn't exist any more? Do we care?

Also, just because the ideals of America are hard to make into reality doesn't mean we should ever stop trying. Peace, justice, fairness, democracy -- these may sound cheesy but they are very important ideas and for us to say 'ahh, the world isn't like that, why try' and therefore nullify any efforts to make the world better is pretty sad. Would we casually dismiss Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi so easily as idealists whose ideals aren't relevant anymore because of cynicism and the world being a complicated place full of corrpution and gray areas?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:04 / 17.05.04
Really, I don't think there's any problem with Superman on a conceptual level. A lot of the problem is years of bad writing which has fucked up a lot of key parts of the story - Lois shouldn't know who Superman is, much less be married to him. Lex Luthor should be powerful, but he shouldn't be the fucking President of the United States. This screws up the dynamic badly.

The characters are all right there, I don't think they really need to improved upon if kept true to their core concepts. The trick with Superman is in coming up with a compelling plot with a convincing conflict. I think that focusing on Superman's feelings and humanity really throws people off from telling a good Superman story, because he's most interesting on a conceptual level. Stories which engage with the character as a concept are generally more successful - this is why stories which place him in conflict with either Batman or Lex Luthor are always the best.
 
 
diz
15:37 / 17.05.04
He's this immensely powerful altruistic guy whose greatest enemy is a character who is the personification of all of humanity's weaknesses.

but he also embodies all of humanity's strengths. he's a powerful intellect who sits at the top of the world of human achievement in terms of political power, technology, finance, etc. i don't see him as a bad guy, he's just got a different opinion than Big Blue. he's basically a living argument for the position that a sort of rough-and-tumble world with flexible morality and a loose rein on free will and baser impulses can produce excellence.

however, these days Superman is fundamentally appealing to me because he's a decent guy. if you were changing a tire in the rain on the side of the highway, Superman is the guy who would stop and help. if you were having a dinner party, Superman is the guy who would stay late helping you wash the dishes. i don't see too many of the flashy angsty heroes of the 80s and 90s doing that, and, frankly, the older i get the more i value people like that.

that said, he can be a bit dull and he's can be easily manipulated in a world run by Luthors, which, frankly, our world is. idealists, generally speaking, are tools of pragmatists, and Superman and Luthor exemplify that dichotomy.

i think that's the key to keeping Superman relevant: keep him powerful and idealistic, but don't let the world cooperate. put him in situations where he doesn't have easy solutions or clear villains. put him in situations where the best of intentions on his part royally screws things up. make people trust him less. make him a pure-hearted guy in a morally ambiguous world. he's well-meaning and all-powerful, but kind of naive and surrounded by people who would love to lead him around by the nose.

Lex Luthor should be powerful, but he shouldn't be the fucking President of the United States.

no, no, a thousand times no. no one but Lex Luthor should ever be President in Superman's world. that's the best thing that they've done with Superman in what seems like forever. Lex rules the human world, for good or for ill, whereas Superman stands for something fundamentally outside. it's almost like the Gnostic dualism. Superman is the pure being fallen from heaven into an impure world, the type of world where Luthor prospers. hell, the type of world that produces people who vote for Luthor.
 
 
The Falcon
15:56 / 17.05.04
I think Luthor being prez-oh-dent is good, too.

The whole Bill talks about superheroes bit was probably the weakest bit of the film(s). Clark Kent is not a 'satire'.
 
 
Aertho
16:48 / 17.05.04
I can see the inherent symbolism there in the Gnostic stuff, but maybe the appeal that would cool everyone's jets is by making everything a lot more ambiguous.

Superman's a hero for 10 year olds. Okay. We don't need mid-life crises. We don't need marital troubles. We don't need socio-political commentary from the background of the West Wing. We don't need overemphasis on science fiction, or direct analogies to gods and godlike power. We don't need gut-spilling tragedies, we don't need anything that would put Superman in a "corner" of the DC Universe.

We DO need stories that are relevant. Kids today deal with postmodernism, overgrowth of the technopoly, global markets, global culture, transitionary authority, and wars that don't end or have winners. They're taught to respond to a few hundred years of hisotry as if it's their own memory, and to use the Internet as an extension of their introspection.

Let's have a Superman who acts like Tom Strong, has the lifespan of memories of Jenny Sparks, and be practical, not ridiculusly intelligent.

Let's have a Superman who doens't know much about Krypton. Let's get rid of Kryptonite. He doesn't need weaknesses. He does whatever he can, and in this world, it's sometimes not enough. But instead of holing up and weeping when he can't save a train full of people, this Superman helps others to grieve and holds the young ones while THEY cry.

Let's get rid of all the other Supershit. Superboy(Connor/clone) is ok. -Hypertime him.

Let's have a Superman who's not married, who's not dating anyone, but is attracted to his animas. That means Lois gets to be shrewd and calculating and we get plenty of visits from the Themysciran Ambassador. NO OTHER Heroes visit.

Let's have a Superman in Metropolis. Let's have a Metropolis that's more like Springfield is for the Simpsons. Metropolis is noWHERE, its not future-fied, it's not "like" NYC or Gotham City... It's just fucking METROPOLIS and that's the reason Superman's there. Get rid of the rest of the Earth. No Antarctic Fortress. If Superman does stuff globablly, it's HEARD about, not shown. Action is for the reader is contained in Metropolis's skyline because that IS the world.

Let's have Luthor be Luthor. Everyone read Red Son and see what the guy could do. He should be mysterious in his ways, and be misunderstood. He should be constantly operating wheels within wheels within wheels. He should be a diabolically motivated Bruce Wayne, who doesn't like Superman because he's outside-the-system. They shouldn't know each other from the past. But the reader SHOULD see that the two of them, Superman and Lex Luthor, could accomplish a great more if they worked together. Superman should be confused and disapponted by Luthor, not driven to HATRED.

I can't really sum this up excpet to say again that we know too much. Let's not know so much and start to feel new again. Byrne's reimagining was a Good Thing that should be done periodically.

Now, if we want something for us 34 y/o... I say we use Nietche's "Zarasthrusta" stories about the "Superman", and make Clark Kent a superhuman fugitive altruist who constantly fucks up everything BECAUSE he's "perfection" from outside the system and breaks everything he tries to improve. But that's a miniseries ending in suicide.
 
 
quinine92001
17:18 / 17.05.04
Superman's weakness is not Kryptonite. His weakness is the inability to help everyone who needs it. Does he save the starving in the world? Does he stop Wars? Ethnic cleansing? Maybe once and awhile but he simply can't be everywhere at once, therefore he has failed as an omnipotent power.
I agree with the idea that the rest of the world should just "fall away" and the writers focus more on just Metropolis but Metropolis should be a viral city that keeps bleeding outward into the real world taking over small suburbs and townships ever increasing Supes area of protection.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:23 / 17.05.04
What do you mean "Bill talks about superheroes" in the films?

I like that he finally told Lois and that they're married. It's humanizing and shows that the guy who is potentially very lonely with all this burden on his shoulders has someone to share his life with. They've written the marriage pretty well, for the most part, unlike most major superhero marriages.

I kinda liked the Luthor-as-Prez thing but I'm glad it's over. People like Luthor do become President in the real world... *cough*GeorgeBush*cough*, whether they're brilliant or not.

I don't think we need to strip the Super-continuity and reboot yet again. I think he works fine the way he is, he just needs really good writers, something that DC hasn't been too good in providing in the past, oh, 10 years or so. Joe Kelly had great moments and Jeph Loeb had good moments too. Before that, Byrne, Jurgens, Roger Stern and Marv Wolfman did some really nice Superman work, IMO.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:25 / 17.05.04
The first two Supes films show what great Superman stories can be, aside from the kiss that makes you lose your memory and stupid plasic giant S's that entangle you and Kryptonians suddenly having teleportation for no reason. Chris Reeve nails it. Of course, Luthor could be less campy - he's certainly been done well in the less campy vein in the comics.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:57 / 17.05.04
I suppose that Luthor-as-President is good conceptually (at least as Dizfactor lays it out), but the writers they have on Superman now are too lazy/uninspired/hackish to ever make it an interesting story. All they did was make it one more obnoxious continuity issue, and continuity is Superman's REAL archnemesis.

I am strongly opposed to Lois knowing about Superman/being married to Superman. It strips the character of one of his defining conflicts! Dud dud dud! I don't care how "humanizing" it is, it's a bad idea.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
18:02 / 17.05.04
There's no reason why your basic Supes should not be married to Lois Lane, and there's no basic reason why you shouldn't have Luthor as President of the USA. It's bad storywriting in those situations that cause problems, not those situations themselves.

I remember when we heard the plot for what Morrison and Millar wanted to do with Superman, which was basically some retcon so that Clark never married Lois and she didn't know he was Superman. Frankly that was a crap idea. Too much of the problems of today are caused by the people that read comics twenty, thirty years ago growing up and becomming writers, and thinking the solution is to return to the source. It hasn't worked so far in the last decade or so, what has worked has been new ideas, like Vertigo, ABC etc. Turning back the clock on Superman isn't going to do it.

But I seem to remember it was this problem that lead to the 'Doomsday' storyline.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
18:09 / 17.05.04
I like a lot of Chad's ideas, but I think it's total madness to separate Superman from Batman. Those characters need each other. They complete one another!

...(Luthor) also embodies all of humanity's strengths. he's a powerful intellect who sits at the top of the world of human achievement in terms of political power, technology, finance, etc. i don't see him as a bad guy, he's just got a different opinion than Big Blue.

Nah, I think it's a big mistake to diminish Luthor's evil, just the same as I hate it when people get on the "oh, but Magneto's not really a bad guy" tack. No, Luthor is a villain, he does horrible things that even Superman can't stop. He has all the great strengths of humanity, yes, but he is corrupt and uses his talents and power to serve his ego, greed, and selfishness.

Luthor is the opposite of Superman. Luthor will always use Superman's compassion, idealism, and basic decency against him. He will try to corrupt Superman. Luthor will make the world like and admire him, and he may be able to trick people into believing in him rather than Superman - he's essentially Satan to Superman's Christ.
 
 
FinderWolf
18:31 / 17.05.04
I actually liked The Death of Superman story -- sure, his actual death was just a big punching festival - but the two months of Supes comics with just the supporting cast & the world reacting to his death? The funeral patterned after JFK's funeral? The introduction of the 4 wanna-be Supermen and the mystery of which one, if any, was the real deal come back? I remember reading those and trying to figure it out, with all the red herrings and clues tossed out by the writers. Those were some damn good comics - fun, with enough characterization and drama to them to keep them interesting. It's very 80s/90s but still good work, I think. And sure it was a marketing thing but it was actually a decently told story - nothing wrong with big Events if they're good stories.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
23:09 / 17.05.04
The very earliest Superman stories were very much New Deal wish fulfillment stories, with Superman beating up abusive husbands, robber barons, corrupt politicians, and they were done in a way that appealed to the 10 yea old who was drawn to the character.

Comics have turned Superman into just another super-hero, but in the Superman Adventures comic, both Scott McCloud and Mark Millar did great work on stories that captured the essance of the character by not adding a lot of soap opera elements. Clark was a man with a secret (who would wink at the reader at the end...something I miss, letting us know that we had a secret everyone else didn't), not really a dork so much as an average Joe.
 
 
Aertho
00:00 / 18.05.04
Exactly.

Superman should remain the INTRODUCTORY superhero. If you're older reading Superman, cool, but let's let the kids have the greatest hero ever while we move on to Wildcats and The Filth, you know? Who versus who and energy spent in validating questions like "is Captain Marvel stronger than Supes" just makes it all lame.

Superman sets the bar. From there, we move on to Wonder Woman's social concerns and Batman's psychological ones. And we move forward unto X-Men, JLA, and random hero A, B, and C.
 
 
The Falcon
12:27 / 18.05.04
Anyone reading Azzarello's new book should know that one of these 'problems' is, at present, expurgated.
 
 
Ganesh
12:34 / 18.05.04
They should give him long hair. That'd be rilly cool.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
13:11 / 18.05.04
They've already done that in the 24 part "Fall Of Metropolis Barbers" that ran through the comics in 1995.
 
 
Axolotl
14:02 / 18.05.04
I think Loeb & Sale's "A Superman for all Seasons" works really well as a superman story, showing the confusion and hurt that being a god among men would entail, dealing with Superman as a person I feel is the way these things should go. That or the complete polar opposite and use him as a force of nature, like Frank Miller does in the "Dark Knight Returns".
Mind you to be honest I've never been a big Superman fan. There is something, well, boring about a guy that is nigh invunerable, I mean where's the dramatic conflict with such a powerful character?
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply