|
WickedIcon posted:Wait what It is a mixture of two of the worst super-man ideas posted on somethingawful. The first is the super-man fighting a child sex ring and the other is the super-man killing bizarro while crying. Here you go http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3373573&userid=0&perpage=20&pagenumber=290#post401681524 bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Dec 23, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:40 |
|
bobkatt013 posted:It is a mixture of two of the worst super-man ideas posted on this thread. The first is the super-man fighting a child sex ring and the other is the super-man killing bizarro while crying. Oh, I thought it was something that had actually been in a comic that you were making fun of. Phew.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
I hope there's a sequence in this or the next of Supes going all-out on something, fist of an angry god style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:In defense of a fictional character, the only reason his villains escape is to give the writers something to write about and the readers some familiar characters to entertain themselves with. The debate is a false one brought about by the serial nature of comic stories and their endless sliding timescale. The Joker has a massive bodycount because he's been murdering guys for over 60 years at this point. Even Gacy or Dahmer would probably have started to taper off if they were in their in their 80's but the clown is still going strong because he is eternally in his 30's and is popular enough with readers that he breaks out of jail whenever a writer needs him for a set-piece.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Yes, I get this, but I take issue with the diegetic reason to explain why the heroes don't kill off their recurring villains. Killing is a huge taboo for superheroes, which makes them feel out of place among the wider range of action heroes that happily kill. Most action heroes, from maverick cops to Jedi Knights, kill their enemies and nobody complains. Well, there's really no use for all the fun things about superheroes if they kill. Why would Batman need all his elaborate costumes and gadgets if he could just deal with his foes with a sniper rifle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 11:50
|
|
|
ChikoDemono posted:He fought child support. There was an episode, though, where Supergirl stopped him from killing Darkseid because that would make him just as vile. The girl seemed totally unaware at what was at stake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 12:01
|
|
|
If only that cartoon character had been as canny as you, she'd have known about all the children Darkseid abused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 12:16
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Yes, I get this, but I take issue with the diegetic reason to explain why the heroes don't kill off their recurring villains. Killing is a huge taboo for superheroes, which makes them feel out of place among the wider range of action heroes that happily kill. Most action heroes, from maverick cops to Jedi Knights, kill their enemies and nobody complains. But this is largely the point, as both Superman and Batman are more than people, they're ideals personified. If you discount textual reasons and need a diegetic one, Batman's psyche is pretty much held together by the thread that he is above those he hunts because he doesn't kill. It's the one moral high ground he can adopt. Batman's kind of messed up
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 12:34
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:If only that cartoon character had been as canny as you, she'd have known about all the children Darkseid abused. It is a good thing Superman stayed morally pure by not killing Darkseid, self-appointed God of Evil who strives to enslave the universe and destroy free will. Though in effect Superman repeatedly fails to defeat Darkseid and perpetuates the slavery and deaths of untold billions, it is OK, because Superman is the better man. The moral crisis of this galactic genocide is nothing compared to Superman's personal morals. Sure, comics paint a universe governed by bizarre contradictions that serve the needs of an on-going serial story with popular characters. It's just that when Superman inevitably tries to grapple with these contrivances, as does virtually every popular superhero, Superman usually manages to be among the least convincing in his conclusions. In comparison to Superman, Batman is now typically written as a deeply flawed character who might even be insane in his own right. And even when he's dealing with his most vile enemies, at least he's not also, for all intents and purposes, posing as a deity. He can't prevent every evil and he has many practical limitations. He is constricted for the most part to earthly conflicts that fall within the realm of human society. Superman explicitly does not have limits. His enemies have deific powers and by definition are beyond the ken of human civilization to govern or contain. Superman can typically go everywhere and do everything, limited only by his mortal mind, which is paradoxically as god-like in its moral purity--supposedly--as are his other abilities in their potential. As I think most admit, Superman as both an infallible and omnipotent being is at this point profoundly dumb. These stories just aren't that interesting anymore. In order for the story to have any weight at all, he possesses one quality or the other at best. If he has both, the entire direction easily becomes perverted and he fails at one or both metrics anyway. When Superman demonstrates moral superiority by lobotomizing his opponent with a glance and pretending to murder his friends with god-like precision, it only demonstrates how perverted Superman's morals are even then. Name Change fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
Superman could offer all sorts of excuses why he won't kill. "I'm too squeamish" "I'd be branded a murderer by the law, and I want to remain on good terms with the authorities" "It's not my obligation to kill villains." "If I slip up and kill too many or kill the wrong people, I would kick of a shitstorm I couldn't control." All of these are acceptable excuses and I wouldn't resent him for using them. Superman for the most part doesn't go out of his way to thwart heroes who do kill. He will even associate with them. This may be why Joe Kelly made the Elite especially violent and vulgar, because it wouldn't have made sense for Supes to oppose them when he tolerates Wonder Woman and Orion and other heroes who occasionally kill. Dan Didio posted:If only that cartoon character had been as canny as you, she'd have known about all the children Darkseid abused. Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Yes, I get this, but I take issue with the diegetic reason to explain why the heroes don't kill off their recurring villains. Killing is a huge taboo for superheroes, which makes them feel out of place among the wider range of action heroes that happily kill. Most action heroes, from maverick cops to Jedi Knights, kill their enemies and nobody complains. Maverick cops are usually a conservative power fantasy about criminals exploiting legal loopholes and only a strong man with a gun being truly able to "do what needs to be done". Jedi Knights kill dudes but the only one's we've seen in film were soldiers in a war against fairly overwhelming odds, and they seem to have this sort of Judge Dredd type social position as independent agents allied with the State which I never really understood. Superheroes are a big mixed bag of character types and can't be easily generalized since whether they kill or not depends on the character, the author, the time the story was written, etc. You've got ones like Wonder Woman who do kill enemies since she was raised in a warrior culture & then you've got Batman who'd probably take a bullet for the Joker just to prevent anyone dying at all while he was around because he has severe mental problems. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I like to think that a man can become so crazy that mere brick walls and metal cages don't extend to your perception of existence. Doesn't the Joker have some team of attorneys or something that consistently keep him from being executed whenever he's arrested?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Yes, I get this, but I take issue with the diegetic reason to explain why the heroes don't kill off their recurring villains. Killing is a huge taboo for superheroes, which makes them feel out of place among the wider range of action heroes that happily kill. Most action heroes, from maverick cops to Jedi Knights, kill their enemies and nobody complains. The conflict between recurring villains and the morality of superheroes as said villains continue to wrack up kill counts is best simply ignored. I don't really care what the "in universe" reason Batman doesn't kill the Joker after his 500th post escape murder is, because with very few exceptions the guy coming up with that reason is going to be a hack. Mainstream American Comics refuse to allow any real progress, instead insisting on insane sliding time scale calculations and universe wide reboots to keep all the characters in the original packaging. So when Darkseid commits to the 15th full scale invasion of Earth, the logic hoop jumping reasoning behind Superman not finishing him off is as pertinent as the hand waving that allows everything that's happened in the Marvel universe to have only happened in something like a decade. It's nice that they make fumbling attempts to pretend there is no man behind the curtain, but you really should just ignore that imposing projection. If you start picking at the times the heroes refusal to kill was the morally wrong thing to do, you're treading down the path which leads to even more story breaking inconsistencies. With so many super geniuses running around how is technology at current levels? With so many alien invasions why is their space program in the same state as ours? With so many pretend super tech or magical countries around how the hell has history been all but exactly parallel to us with the US retaining it's lone Super Power status? Why do criminals still shoot at Superman? And the questions continue on and on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Batman doesn't kill the Joker because he's legitimately insane. He has a psychotic "everyone can be saved" philosophy, so, the Joker, being utterly insane, can return to sanity one day in his mind. That's also why he's never executed. In universe, the Joker has been shot in the head and has had his face taken off and survived, completely back to normal, so there's nothing you can really say about him being executed as it doesn't matter. Batman is basically stuck in hell, being at the whims of American comics and life-via-popularity. Batman has no problem killing pure evil, however, which is why he shot Darkseid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
It should be noted, whenever Darkseid does show up in a big way, everyone almost always tries to kill the bastard, moral code or no. You can't fault the heroes on the fact that Darkseid is the literal God of Evil who keeps coming back from the dead. They do everything they can to stop him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The conflict between recurring villains and the morality of superheroes as said villains continue to wrack up kill counts is best simply ignored. I don't really care what the "in universe" reason Batman doesn't kill the Joker after his 500th post escape murder is, because with very few exceptions the guy coming up with that reason is going to be a hack. Mainstream American Comics refuse to allow any real progress, instead insisting on insane sliding time scale calculations and universe wide reboots to keep all the characters in the original packaging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
How anti-heroic were the Authority anyway, aside from their willingness to kill?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:How anti-heroic were the Authority anyway, aside from their willingness to kill? Their whole shtick was that unlike the whole "why doesn't Reed Richards cure hunger" issue most superheros have they weren't afraid to meddle in pursuit of "a better world". They weren't wantonly cruel so much as they often caused as many problems as they solved. As an aside that line from Superman "it doesent feel nice being deconstructed does it?" strikes me as very-silly. Like Superman is personally offended at the idea of superhero deconstruction. massive spider fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
There was an arc where their non super powered antics were garnering attention. The Doctor's drug use, Swift's sexual habits. Their general behavior was not deemed to be very heroic. Joe Kelly took those elements and exaggerated them in the Elite because heroes like Superman were being called old fashioned and outdated. Action #775 was Kelly showing that Superman's ideals were still relevant in a modern age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Superheroes are a big mixed bag of character types and can't be easily generalized since whether they kill or not depends on the character, the author, the time the story was written, etc. You've got ones like Wonder Woman who do kill enemies since she was raised in a warrior culture & then you've got Batman who'd probably take a bullet for the Joker just to prevent anyone dying at all while he was around because he has severe mental problems. That is definitely an issue with comic book characters. The majority have been written by so many different people, over many different years, with many different editors that its hard to pin down exactly a solid characterization. For example, in the early Batman stories he ran around with a gun and had no problem killing/letting bad guys die. While I have a Captain America comic from the late 70s where he specifically states that he has not and will not ever kill anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:How anti-heroic were the Authority anyway, aside from their willingness to kill? They were regular superheroes in the Ellis/Millar mold where everyone's an rear end in a top hat for no real reason. It has to be noted that The Authority came out before The Ultimates changed everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:There was an arc where their non super powered antics were garnering attention. The Doctor's drug use, Swift's sexual habits. Their general behavior was not deemed to be very heroic. Joe Kelly took those elements and exaggerated them in the Elite because heroes like Superman were being called old fashioned and outdated. Action #775 was Kelly showing that Superman's ideals were still relevant in a modern age. It's a poor argument. Superman's actions and spiel can be read as "your methods work, but I can fake them because I'm God and you should, too."
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
Superman is too complicated for the average movie viewer, they should make a movie about Superboy-Prime, instead. It would be a guaranteed hit. Two hours of him decapitating Teen Titans and punching reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Thulsa Doom posted:It's a poor argument. Superman's actions and spiel can be read as "your methods work, but I can fake them because I'm God and you should, too." It really needs the entire issue to be placed in the proper context. The Elite are basically a pastiche of the "I do what it takes to get the job done"*enormous trail of casualties not shown 80s power fantasy cops/vigilantes with the attitudes of the juvenile counterculture "oooh look, I don't have a moral code and I'm barely better than the villains I fight, edgy as gently caress not your father's superhero  " antiheroes of the 90s/early 00s, and they spent the whole issue slapping Superman around for being a relic and not having what it takes to deal with "modern issues". And the day before that final sequence happened, Clark is in bed with Lois and she begs him not to go because it's quite possible that they'll kill him on live television, but he goes anyway because it's that important to take the high road and not give in to the base urge to just torture and kill your way through every villain you face. So yeah, after all of that he earned a bit of comeuppance.And yeah, with their powers they don't have to act the way they do, that's the whole point. Of course brutal methods work, but that doesn't mean you use them with nary a care of the horrifying consequences, or wash your hands of the responsibility just because you're gifted with rare and incredible power beyond the human standard. McSpanky fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:It really needs the entire issue to be placed in the proper context. The Elite are basically a pastiche of the "I do what it takes to get the job done"*enormous trail of casualties not shown 80s power fantasy cops/vigilantes with the attitudes of the juvenile counterculture "oooh look, I don't have a moral code and I'm barely better than the villains I fight, edgy as gently caress not your father's superhero Thank you for putting it better than I could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 21:34
|
|
" antiheroes of the 90s/early 00s, and they spent the whole issue slapping Superman around for being a relic and not having what it takes to deal with modern issues. And the day before that happened, Clark is in bed with Lois and she begs him not to go because it's quite possible that they'll kill him on live television, but he goes anyway because it's that important to take the high road. So yeah, after all of that he earned a bit of comeuppance.
|
I really hate the "why doesn't SUPERHERO X just do TERRIBLE THING Y because SUPERVILLAIN Z has done bad things" argument because it literally only holds in stupid circumstances. "Why doesn't Superman just MURDER DUDES" ignores the fact that there are a billion other options Superman could also take which he doesn't because comics don't allow it. He could help design and build a prison which actually holds villains. He could use his powers to make the world in general a better place and in turn reduce the crime rate that way. He could do a billion things but he isn't allowed to because those alter the status quo. The choice isn't "kill villains" or "not kill villains." It's "Does Superman alter the status quo" and they pretty much never allow that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Not to mention the knee-jerk reaction to an individual with incredible abilities so often is "he should go on an enormous murder spree in the name of public safety", or in Batman's case "the rich urban ninja should execute everyone who gives him a hard time". Replace "Superman" with "the US government" or "Batman" with "a SWAT team" and realize how insane these positions sound.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I really hate the "why doesn't SUPERHERO X just do TERRIBLE THING Y because SUPERVILLAIN Z has done bad things" argument because it literally only holds in stupid circumstances. This is true, which is why as others have said I prefer the issue remain unaddressed. When Superman says "Yeah, you'll escape, and I'll catch you again, because that's how I want it, I am that unstoppable symbol of truth and justice," I just imagine all the people whose loved ones die in a catastrophe after a supervillain escapes, so that Superman can feel Super-awesome. Just don't talk about it, I can ignore the logical leaps necessary to justify a serialized hero, but when the text outright attempts to justify it it just seems painfully juvenile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
It ultimately comes down to the old Spider-Man adage: "With great power, there must also come great responsibility." The reason the Elite are the bad guys are less their methods and more that they decided to immediately take the easiest path and scorn anyone else who didn't. That's not being realistic in dealing with modern issues, that's being cynical, the comforting blanket of 'I don't have to try doing any of the hard things, I don't have to take the risk of making certain kinds of mistakes that could have harder consequences down the road, I don't have to be better than everyone else, just stronger. What does the argument matter as long as I win, and the other side can't argue if they can't talk'. As a result, they not only have no concept of lines, they have no concept of why they should draw them, and why that a team of superhumans cannot save the world, or really anyone in the long run, by embodying the 'If they pull a knife, you pull a gun' Untouchables philosophy. Basically, Superman's argument boils down to 'Don't take the easiest path and then try and yank me along it too to justify your choices, because if you do, I'll show you just where that path leads.' Anything else is just pointless due to the nature of comics. If the writers want to use the villains, then they'll use them, forget what they've done, forget whatever 'final punishment' they've earned. The last several posts brought up Darkseid: in DC's 2009 Final Crisis storyline, which was supposed to be the last, forever, this is really it Darkseid story, his original body was killed, but his essence survived and found new host bodies. His final host body was then shot with a special 'god-killing' bullet whose details I won't go into here, but even THAT couldn't kill his essence. Said essence made one final effort to stop Superman's wider heroic efforts, but Superman pointed out that everything in the universe existed on vibrational frequencies, including Darkseid himself now, and used his voice to produce a note at the exact counter-frequency of Darkseid's own, shattering him into oblivion. Then two years later, another big DC comics events happened and the universe got rebooted. Guess who shows up in the first arc of the new Justice League comic? Darkseid. All right, yes, it was a flashback story, but I'm just waiting for him to re-appear in modern times. It's not a human system of morality that runs these universes, its our desire for entertainment, and hence it renders most of these arguments moot. And yes, Superman defeated Darkseid forever and ever by singing at him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Cornwind Evil posted:
The singing was just the means. The point was that Superman simply cancels out Darkseid's evil. Good wins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
The problem with using superman as a mouthpiece to criticize antiheroes though is that antiheroes are typically already criticized by their own stories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
massive spider posted:The problem with using superman as a mouthpiece to criticize antiheroes though is that antiheroes are typically already criticized by their own stories. Not really in the 90s those anti-heroes were seen as so cool and should be emulated. The same concept was shown in Kingdom Comes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
Kingdom Come wasn't bad, but I still take issue with the idea of Superman tossing around a bunch of strawmen. If you want to show that he's still relevant, write a story about him being relevant. People not getting that antiheroes are not people to be emulated is a problem with comic book fans themselves, to be perfectly honest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
I've only read a few series of the Authority but they did seemed to play up the "these guys cause as many problems as they solve" thing. The whole point of an anti-hero is to acknowledge that while they may be cool something is wrong with them. Superman's not really making a spectacular argument when he points out that yes, they're a bit like villains. No poo poo. Yes I know there are probably some people who read Watchmen and thought Rorschach was an unironic badass but the whole point of those kind of deconstructive stories is to hold up a mirror to conventional superman stories and say "hey, maybe this god-like alien going around fixing the planet is kind of a scary idea" So Superman pretty much loses that particular ideological battle when he decides to just humiliate the ersatz authority with superdickery. massive spider fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
A few months back, while thinking about Superman after the Superman Vs. The Elite movie was released (I think about Superman a lot) I came to an interesting revelation. I was talking with a friend about how I didn't want to continue reading Game of Thrones since I heard tell that an incredibly graphic rape scene was coming up, and reading about that held no appeal. After an extended argument he said "come on, Hose, it's the frickin' Dark Ages. What do you expect?" Leaving aside the fact that an entirely invented fantasy world is only "exactly like the Dark Ages" by author fiat, I suddenly realized: A world where life is cheap, heads are mounted on a spike as a warning, the king can do as he pleases, and the only good crook is a dead crook? That's actually not hip and edgy at all - that's a very old fashioned look at justice. Superman's ideology, by contrast, that we can solve our problems without a single person needing to die, that no authority should dictate when it's permissible to end a human life, that the law applies to everyone, even the most powerful superhuman on Earth, and where the application of minimal force is considered the more just method? That's not old fashioned, that's radically progressive. That's taking opposition to the death penalty to the next level. I think that this is the best way to cast Superman's moral standing - not as the last fading light of the world that was, but the first glimmers of the world yet to be, brought to us by the Man of Tomorrow. The progress inherent in Superman being the Man of Tomorrow is social progress. The idea that as time goes on, the justice we desire will be less bloody and less punitive. In comics, of course, Superman's held long to the ideology of restraint and the use of non-lethal force. But to me, all that means is that he was ahead of the curve. So in terms of comics meta-commentary, yes, Superman Vs. The Elite is about Superman standing up to the new, hip superheroes. But in the outside world, it's about Superman standing up to the resurgence of a notion of justice and force that, to him, belongs in its grave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Kelly's book might have been more powerful if Manchester Black and Superman politely debate the practical considerations involved in sparing or killing one's enemies. Maybe Black could have quoted Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. Perhaps Superman could have pointed out the possibilities of rehabilitating certain villains, the legal liabilities of excess destruction, or the importance of maintaining a good image in the eyes of the government and the public. Perhaps they could have invited to the table an immortal who lived in more savage times, like Shining Knight or Jason Blood. Perhaps he could have talked to superheroes who kill but with more restraint and calculation. Instead, Kelly gives us a mostly emotional reaction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Magic Love Hose posted:Superman's ideology, by contrast, that we can solve our problems without a single person needing to die, that no authority should dictate when it's permissible to end a human life, that the law applies to everyone, even the most powerful superhuman on Earth, and where the application of minimal force is considered the more just method? Except we're always left with Superman as the final arbiter of when killing is right, when laws don't matter, and when superhuman force is permissible, whether or not he owns up to this responsibility. At the end of the day Superman fails to even do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify his interference. With great power comes great responsibility. OK. Stop pretending you're not responsible for what happens, then! He's a deity who is making decisions for the entire Earth and at times the galaxy or universe. He's the only one who has the power to make these decisions. He doesn't get to abdicate responsibility or culpability as soon as his personal code is broken. He can't simultaneously be a human and a god.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
I think they should make Superman racist because he is from Kansas or something. Then, while fighting crime in the ghettos of whatever city he lives in, he learns a valuable lesson about social inequality from a selfless community leader and turns on white people instead. Plot twist, the community leader is actually Lex Luthor and he wanted this all along!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:He can't simultaneously be a human and a god. Why not? massive spider posted:Yes I know there are probably some people who read Watchmen and thought Rorschach was an unironic badass but the whole point of those kind of deconstructive stories is to hold up a mirror to conventional superman stories and say "hey, maybe this god-like alien going around fixing the planet is kind of a scary idea" Only a very few of them were, really. Most fans -- and very, very unfortunately, many writers -- missed the forest for the trees and just went "whoa, dudes who punch the muggers' heads off, that's X-TREME 2 DA MAXXX!!" It wouldn't have to be brought up again and again if people didn't keep missing the point. McSpanky fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Pycckuu posted:I think they should make Superman racist because he is from Kansas or something. Then, while fighting crime in the ghettos of whatever city he lives in, he learns a valuable lesson about social inequality from a selfless community leader and turns on white people instead. Plot twist, the community leader is actually Lex Luthor and he wanted this all along! Kansas actually has a progressive history which gives that little extra bit of goodness to the Kents. Admittedly the further we move away from the beginning of the last century the less intuitive it seems, but there's also the whole mythos of the American Heartland which Superman draws on for his Truth, Justice, and the American way values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:13
|
|