|
BrianWilly, you make a lot of good points. I wasn't suggesting that these things would be easy, just that I would hope they would be a priority if Superman were real. The truth is that it would make an interesting story, but it would make the comics a lot less of an entertaining escape or result in the DC universe turning out to look vastly different than ours. Another thing I would be curious to see is how Superman would exist religions. He could be called Not Jesus, but I'm sure many people would insist that was just a test.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:BrianWilly, you make a lot of good points. I wasn't suggesting that these things would be easy, just that I would hope they would be a priority if Superman were real. The truth is that it would make an interesting story, but it would make the comics a lot less of an entertaining escape or result in the DC universe turning out to look vastly different than ours. I don't know if this is what you're after but Superman: Redemption is a collection of short stories about Superman dealing with Religion. A lot of the stories are a bit tacky but there are some good stories in there such as an old lady who's convinced Superman is an angel after he saves her numerous times (IIRC a lot of those are deliberate as she's testing him) and how he comes to terms with this kind of worship and standards people place on him. It's quite sweet if you're ok with the cheesiness of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:(Same with Batman and killing; it is absolutely not Batman's responsibility or obligation to kill criminals, that is a matter for a court of law to decide. If this character has any vested interest in establishing order instead of chaos, justice instead of injustice, that means not going out of his way to abuse the law of the land as decided by the very members of the very society he's trying to save. And the laws of civilization, as decided and voted into by the voice of the people, says that someone like Jim Gordon may be sanctioned to kill criminals in the line of duty, while someone like Batman isn't. If Bruce Wayne feels like he needs to kill criminals to establish justice, then he can go and apply for the same badge that Gordon has, or else petition the courts to change their laws. What he cannot do is whatever he wants to and still say that he's helping to establish order) Yeah the problem with Batman is not really "he never kills" but "his enemies are literally 80 years old". I mean, absent of all historical context, imagine you had Batman fighting a guy who dressed up like a clown and robbed banks or at worst, did a little domestic terrorism because he's a madman. Would it really be that moral for a vigilante to kill this guy, when he has the option of depositing him to the lawful authorities? Not really. The problem comes in is that because the character is popular, he can't be dead for good. So you have the Joker with his army of lawyers and his constant escape attempts from his mental facility bringing people to the logical conclusion of "well if he's escaped 53 times, he's probably going to escape the 54th, so just kill him already." But Batman (in the comics) doesn't want to do that. Batman wants to be static but also have some past canon to occasionally reference or ignore (Bat-Girl being crippled, for example).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
The other problem, of course, is that the popularity of the Joker is such that writers are loath to use him sparingly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:"Barely cares" doesn't translate to surrendering to the Kryptonians to be carried up to their spaceship, risking death multiple times, etc. This is really stupid - does this really boil down to the lack of a closeup of a tear rolling down Cavill's cheek? If we had a closeup, would you have demanded a minimum number of seconds or times it's repeated? No! But it'd be great to have him REACT to ACTIONS during 45 minutes of mindless CGI fighting. Black Bones posted:Well, it's a very different take film-wise for Superman, that's what I mean by calling it "new". The Donner and Singer Supermen certainly share some things in common, but their stories are very different. For example, all these movies have looked at the loneliness of being a Superman, but Man of Steel really cranks up the alien horror of it and emphasizes the terrifying aspect of the Superman's decisions and power. I'm sure that's all been done in the comics, but not so much in the films. If he wanted to crank up the horror, he should've made a movie with his own character. Just make an analogue character instead of bending the original one out of shape, but whatever. Black Bones posted:Snyder cares a whole lot about Superman, but his movie is very much about the collateral damage that ensues when gods (and the US air force) do their thing. We should feel uncomfortable with it, if we are engaged with the story he is telling. The Man of Steel is awesome, in the older sense of that word, not as slang for "super-cool". Zack Snyder cares about the Superman he (re)created, the god who destroys cities in his wake. I'm glad he got to make his destructive superhero movie at the expense of the character. It's too bad he could not make an Ultraman movie or an Irredeemable movie instead where he could actually tackle all that stuff. Superman is not about "hey that guy is really powerful and that's uncomfortable", he's "that guy is really powerful and it's the best guy in the world!" if you go away from that, you're making a Superman movie executive produced by Lex Luthor. Black Bones posted:It's a bad criticism if it ignores that this is a big part of what the film is about. The Superman cannot or simply won't bother with saving an individual himself, because that would detract from the greater salvation. Ideally the individual will be inspired to save (by a willingness to sacrifice) themselves and those around them - Superman can only fight symbolic battles after all, we have to do the rest IRL. To paraphrase the arguments from earlier in the thread; the Man of Steel is saying we can't save ourselves (Metropolis) from destruction (Krypton) unless we save others first (India from the Machine). If we are to follow your idea that Superman can only defeat the symbolic, the movie stumbles even harder to not have Clark Kent in it helping out with the rest IRL. I understand that idea, but I feel it runs counter to the movie wanting Superman to "exist in the real world" and such. The movie doesnt feel exaggerated enough to go along with what you suggest (to me) but I still think it runs counter to what the character as always been. Black Bones posted:He makes that decision over the course of the movie; in that he goes from saving buses and oil rigs of people to just warning them to duck when he punches Exploitation and Consumption and Eugenics (and so on). He has to trust the humans to shift for themselves, because he is literally on another level, and trying to operate on ours simply won't save anything worth saving in the long run. So he does care, but it's more the depersonalized love of the Father, as opposed to the Son. If that were true, I don't think the movie would end with him becoming Clark Kent, Daily Planet reporter, BUT that ending is massively flawed anyways and if Snyder had been left to do whatever he wanted (even more) he probably would not become Clark Kent. Black Bones posted:Well, I took his howl at the end to be for everything that had happened, not just the killing. But yeah, he doesn't care about New York City any more than he cares about Mumbai, and he shouldn't. That's what makes him Superman! (if kinda scary for those of us who live here, and not over there) - his flying and strength and laser-eyes and ultimate victory are just symbolic of the power of this ethical decision. It doesn't matter that its New York or Mumbai, it matters that it was a city filled with people that was getting destroyed partly because of him. And he barely reacts to it until he kills Zod (which is, BTW, the only actual dramatic moment in that whole fight, until it's forgotten 20 seconds later). Black Bones posted:For what it's worth, I do love Superman Returns (and the Donner films too) and that nostalgic Superman who stops robbers and saves people from debris/cars and throws the Island of Selfishness into space. But this is a slightly different Superman, one of a more global scope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Comic book Superman should absolutely be, spinning huge turbines to provide electric power to entire countries, melting the weapons of invading soldiers to slag, etc. "But the UN!!!" is a cheap and unconvincing excuse that makes the mistake of assuming that Superman should be thinking like a sovereign country (particularly, like the United States). Of course, when Superman aligns himself with the US he's going to sit idly by while children are incinerated by drone-launched missiles, etc, and maybe wring his hands about how Difficult and Complex everything is, just as the people actually piloting those drones do. The Man of Steel Superman has a better excuse for not spending 100% of his time building toilets - unlike comic Superman, his super-senses overwhelm him rather than give him perfect awareness of everything in a massive radius around him, and his super-speed lets move faster than a speeding bullet but not think or react faster than a speeding bullet. He couldn't actually assemble a toilet any faster than a regular craftsman could. Even so, titanic power like his demands meaningful use, and I'll be really disappointed going forward if Superman doesn't deliberately disrupt the geopolitical status quo in later movies. Yannick_B posted:No! But it'd be great to have him REACT to ACTIONS during 45 minutes of mindless CGI fighting. He did, so I don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:He did, so I don't know what you're talking about. Well that settles it! I was wrong all along!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Honestly, as I've said before I don't think the problem is so much the character's actions as the fact that not much time is allowed to deal with the consequences of them- there's no time for Superman to worry about whether he should go after Metropolis first or the Indian Ocean thingy (which does suffer from not being as interesting action-wise as the destruction of Metropolis), there's no real time for the toll of Metropolis' destruction to hit him, no time in the fight to really establish that Zod is out to kill as many people as possible until the end, etc. My basic problems with the movie boil down to the pacing of it- it feels like nothing can register because there's never any negative space. Probably a consequence of an overstuffed script that could maybe have eliminated one or two MacGuffins in the process of rewriting- I have heard that early versions were just way too drat long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Honestly, as I've said before I don't think the problem is so much the character's actions as the fact that not much time is allowed to deal with the consequences of them- there's no time for Superman to worry about whether he should go after Metropolis first or the Indian Ocean thingy (which does suffer from not being as interesting action-wise as the destruction of Metropolis), there's no real time for the toll of Metropolis' destruction to hit him, no time in the fight to really establish that Zod is out to kill as many people as possible until the end, etc. It's pretty overstuffed and Clark Kent as a character just doesn't have enough agency or drive (something that can pull you through an overstuffed script).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:Well that settles it! I was wrong all along! Yes, exactly. We actually do see Superman struggling with the emotional weight of decisions he's made a number of times, like when he resolves to stand back and let his father die, when the full ramifications of killing Zod hit him, etc. You're just making this stuff up; this is LeJackal-tier posting. I mean, yeah, they could've lingered on his face even more. His scream after killing Zod could've gone on twice as long, the camera could've cut to a closeup of Superman each and every time a building collapsed so that we could see Superman wincing really painedly... I'm pretty sure that would actually make the movie worse, though, since it'd end up constantly cutting into and chopping up really cool, fast-moving action sequences. At the end of the day, it's what a character actually does that clues is into their drive and emotional state, not their ability to mug for the camera. How much care is paid to that stuff is actually an ideological decision - if, for instance, we'd constantly been shown how pained and conflicted Zod was over his responsibility to kill all humans Man of Steel would've been a much weaker movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Comic book Superman should absolutely be, spinning huge turbines to provide electric power to entire countries, melting the weapons of invading soldiers to slag, etc. "But the UN!!!" is a cheap and unconvincing excuse that makes the mistake of assuming that Superman should be thinking like a sovereign country (particularly, like the United States). Of course, when Superman aligns himself with the US he's going to sit idly by while children are incinerated by drone-launched missiles, etc, and maybe wring his hands about how Difficult and Complex everything is, just as the people actually piloting those drones do. Which isn't to say that he's going to tolerate genocide, it's to say that he will follow the rules of civilization. You act like Superman simply doesn't ever set foot in the third world, but as I brought up, he has; canonically, the UN has asked him and others to to partake in peacekeeping efforts. Really, I don't know why you would expect him to just casually flaunt international law like it's no big deal. And that's not even touching the fact that there are other very powerful metahumans around, like other Justice League members, that would be expected to stop him if he ever oversteps. Flat-out doing whatever he wants might not just start a world war between countries, but also a war between all the myriad superhumans of the world with differing ideologies. In fact, that's the exact plot of many Elseworlds storylines, such as the Injustice tie-in that's currently ongoing. Let's say Superman goes and somehow creates free power for an entire city. What happens to people who were working in the power plants? I guess they just don't have jobs anymore. Let's say he wants to deliver food to a starving nation; okay, where does he even get this food? Does he buy it? Farm it himself? Slaughters a bunch of livestock? Borrow it from other relief efforts? Does he just continue to magically produce food for them forever, or does he work in other ways to stabilize this nation's trade and economy, and how would he do such a thing? Even Superman can't make money appear out of nowhere. Point being, we can't ask "Why doesn't Superman just do this?" and then brush off the reasons why he wouldn't just do things. Incidentally, I highly recommend Dan Jurgens' "King Thor" storylines for anyone who wants to examine what exactly happens when a superhero with godly powers and resources go out of their way to do the exact things we're talking about here. computer parts posted:The problem comes in is that because the character is popular, he can't be dead for good. So you have the Joker with his army of lawyers and his constant escape attempts from his mental facility bringing people to the logical conclusion of "well if he's escaped 53 times, he's probably going to escape the 54th, so just kill him already." But Batman (in the comics) doesn't want to do that. Batman wants to be static but also have some past canon to occasionally reference or ignore (Bat-Girl being crippled, for example). And yeah, unfortunately, the problem is that we get a bunch of writers who just don't understand this and like to play off the drama of the whole "Why don't superheroes kill?" thing without actually understanding it, and so we get stories after stories basically portraying Batman as negligent and responsible for all the people his villains kill, when the fact of the matter is that, just logically-speaking, that sort of decision shouldn't ever even be associated with Batman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yes, exactly. We actually do see Superman struggling with the emotional weight of decisions he's made a number of times, like when he resolves to stand back and let his father die, when the full ramifications of killing Zod hit him, etc. You're just making this stuff up; this is LeJackal-tier posting. That's what I'm talking about, you see him react to stuff like that TWICE! I guess Superman has a limited number of times to react to things? What does he go through during the Zod fight? What's happening with him? Nothing! There's no turn. Until he has to kill him, which FINALLY treats Superman as a character who goes through something. Ferrinus posted:I mean, yeah, they could've lingered on his face even more. His scream after killing Zod could've gone on twice as long, the camera could've cut to a closeup of Superman each and every time a building collapsed so that we could see Superman wincing really painedly... I'm pretty sure that would actually make the movie worse, though, since it'd end up constantly cutting into and chopping up really cool, fast-moving action sequences. I don't want close-ups of Henry Cavill's sad face! I want it to look like the fight matters to him. And not just at the end. And after he kills Zod, it'd be nice if he was talking about it with his mom. ANYTHING to show that the thing that just happened and is meant to be a huge deal is not immediately forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:Zack Snyder cares about the Superman he (re)created, the god who destroys cities in his wake. I'm glad he got to make his destructive superhero movie at the expense of the character. It's too bad he could not make an Ultraman movie or an Irredeemable movie instead where he could actually tackle all that stuff. Superman is not about "hey that guy is really powerful and that's uncomfortable", he's "that guy is really powerful and it's the best guy in the world!" if you go away from that, you're making a Superman movie executive produced by Lex Luthor. It's a real tragedy that the first villain Clark fights as Superman is his own race, because now he's lumped together with these invaders who look and dress like him. Had it been the Dominators or Apokolips or the Gordanians, we wouldn't be having this argument. Yannick_B posted:That's what I'm talking about, you see him react to stuff like that TWICE! I guess Superman has a limited number of times to react to things? What does he go through during the Zod fight? What's happening with him? Nothing! There's no turn. Until he has to kill him, which FINALLY treats Superman as a character who goes through something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Man of Steel felt like it was only the first half of the story. I'm skeptical about how well a Batman crossover will serve as the second half, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:My basic problems with the movie boil down to the pacing of it- it feels like nothing can register because there's never any negative space. Probably a consequence of an overstuffed script that could maybe have eliminated one or two MacGuffins in the process of rewriting- I have heard that early versions were just way too drat long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Cap isn't exactly a good example to cite. The stakes were very, very different there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Dude, even the MoS Superman explicitly states: "I am an American citizen, I'm willing to abide by the laws of this country." The character in all his incarnations absolutely cares about the legitimacy of government, the repercussions his actions would have on world stability, and how his interventions could cause greater problems down the line. If you want a character who hasn't given a thought as to what kinds of problems he creates so long as he fixes things in the short term, you should look elsewhere. And if you want Superman to be more realistic then you can't also complain about the situations he faces not being totally black and white. Can't have it both ways. Thinking about it, there isn't any reasonable way for DC to write Superman stories and reflect the reality of the world. It's hard to imagine 9/11 or the occupation of Iraq happening in a world where Superman exists. Either Superman gets there before the second plane hits, or the world is so used to tall buildings collapsing that it wouldn't have the same ramifications. Then, Colin Powel gives his presentation about WMDs, and Superman could say, "Nah, I checked it out and didn't see anything." Those events have impacted our too significantly. Comic book heroes are part of our modern mythology, but we insist on them always coming out on top or doing the right thing. It would be interesting to see things be written like the ancient Greek myths where the stories were built around the conclusions matching the world people lived in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Incidentally, I highly recommend Dan Jurgens' "King Thor" storylines for anyone who wants to examine what exactly happens when a superhero with godly powers and resources go out of their way to do the exact things we're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Comic book heroes are part of our modern mythology, but we insist on them always coming out on top or doing the right thing. It would be interesting to see things be written like the ancient Greek myths where the stories were built around the conclusions matching the world people lived in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Thinking about it, there isn't any reasonable way for DC to write Superman stories and reflect the reality of the world. It's hard to imagine 9/11 or the occupation of Iraq happening in a world where Superman exists. Either Superman gets there before the second plane hits, or the world is so used to tall buildings collapsing that it wouldn't have the same ramifications. Then, Colin Powel gives his presentation about WMDs, and Superman could say, "Nah, I checked it out and didn't see anything." Those events have impacted our too significantly. There's a reason why this film equates acts of terror with acts of nature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:This really does sound like LeJackal posting. Superman is not morally responsible for Zod's actions and humanity would be doomed had he not risked his life to fight Zod. Kal-El could have chosen to cooperate with Zod, give him the Codex, the birthing chamber and all. He would have enjoyed a privileged place in the order of New Krypton once Zod had terraformed Earth. But Superman chose the humans. I'm not LeJackal! You have no idea how much I love Superman and wished I loved MOS. NO IDEA! I got emotional when I watched the 3rd trailer for the first time! It looked like they had made a Superman movie that had everything I wanted a Superman movie to be! But Superman deciding to choose humanity is not exactly clear or compelling. It's just taken for granted that Superman would choose humanity, so he does it. Baron Bifford posted:It's a real tragedy that the first villain Clark fights as Superman is his own race, because now he's lumped together with these invaders who look and dress like him. Had it been the Dominators or Apokolips or the Gordanians, we wouldn't be having this argument. I agree. I think it's an even bigger mis-step to have that whole thing going down without a Lex Luthor-figure to go "SEE?? I WAS RIGHT!!" or having an Earth population that goes from having embraced Superman to distrusting him. Baron Bifford posted:I think the sequel will explore the repercussions of Superman's battle with Zod. Man of Steel is already over two hours long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Dude, even the MoS Superman explicitly states: "I am an American citizen, I'm willing to abide by the laws of this country." The character in all his incarnations absolutely cares about the legitimacy of government, the repercussions his actions would have on world stability, and how his interventions could cause greater problems down the line. If you want a character who hasn't given a thought as to what kinds of problems he creates so long as he fixes things in the short term, you should look elsewhere. And if you want Superman to be more realistic then you can't also complain about the situations he faces not being totally black and white. Can't have it both ways. I'm an American citizen - what do you think would happen to me if I shot down a US surveillance drone? It's a rhetorical pose - Superman is claiming to be more American than America itself is, taking America to task. Like, of course Superman is going to follow the rules of civilization, that's the point. The thing is that on earth, major superpowers such as the United States itself largely don't follow the rules of civilization. The US already casually flaunts international law like it's no big deal. So a passive, rulebook-citing Superman who just stands by wringing his hands while the west rains hellfire down on its enemies is basically a faker. Superman's exactly the guy you should be looking to when one nation mugs another, rather than when one person mugs another. quote:Let's say Superman goes and somehow creates free power for an entire city. What happens to people who were working in the power plants? I guess they just don't have jobs anymore. Let's say he wants to deliver food to a starving nation; okay, where does he even get this food? Does he buy it? Farm it himself? Slaughters a bunch of livestock? Borrow it from other relief efforts? Does he just continue to magically produce food for them forever, or does he work in other ways to stabilize this nation's trade and economy, and how would he do such a thing? Even Superman can't make money appear out of nowhere. Point being, we can't ask "Why doesn't Superman just do this?" and then brush off the reasons why he wouldn't just do things. See, this is a logic that still takes the artificial and dehumanizing rules of the neoliberal status quo as divine writ. "Let's say Superman goes and somehow creates free power for an entire city. What happens to people who were working in the power plants?" is a crazy thing to say. Like, isn't it? Free power is bad? What? Ask instead what forces are conspiring to starve and impoverish people who lose their jobs in the wake of the invention of free energy - and then aim Superman at those forces. (For instance, Superman doesn't actually have to slaughter cattle by the truckload or something, just grab some of the massive warehouses of food that goes nowhere and rots uselessly in huge quantities every year and airlift it somewhere) Yannick_B posted:That's what I'm talking about, you see him react to stuff like that TWICE! I guess Superman has a limited number of times to react to things? What does he go through during the Zod fight? What's happening with him? Nothing! There's no turn. Until he has to kill him, which FINALLY treats Superman as a character who goes through something. Yeah, uh, you see him react to stuff more than twice. In fact, almost all of Superman's actions in the movie are powerful statements which inform us of Superman's ideology, morals, objectives, etcetera. If anything, I'd complain that the movie doesn't show us enough of Superman not reacting to things - it would've been nice to see him go on a date, or have dinner with his parents, or something. As is, there wasn't time for that, because Superman's moral and physical reactions to a series of increasingly-dire threats to the earth itself take up almost the entirety of the movie's runtime. It's basically absurd to watch a film in which Superman surrenders himself for earth's sake, goes briefly berserk at seeing his mother harmed, puts his own life at risk repeatedly, etc. and then come out with "I want it to look like ___ matters to him". Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:I agree. I think it's an even bigger mis-step to have that whole thing going down without a Lex Luthor-figure to go "SEE?? I WAS RIGHT!!" or having an Earth population that goes from having embraced Superman to distrusting him. This is the point of the Drone scene at the end, the US government is deploying drones on Superman in the wake of Kryptonian paranoia and Superman's response to them is that he's here to help but won't be treated like a liability like this. He then says he's going to have to trust the US to do the right thing. It's a scene that basically says the world still has trouble accepting him, which is something he's strived for the whole movie, and that he'll have to be dealing with that fear and paranoia as he continues his journey. It's basically setting up Luthor without actually showing him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
AFoolAndHisMoney posted:Why not? Why can you do it with Superman analogues but not THE superhero? I really hated Mark Waid for saying something like "Yes there was no other choice but to kill Zod but that choice shouldn't have been set up", it really suggests that all people want from Superman are stories were he's never allowed to have his morality challenged or questioned or ever pushed to do things he's never wanted to do and actually had to deal with the consequences. And then people wonder why everyone thinks Superman is boring. Because Superman is a god and can actually live up to his ideals. He would never see a reason to compromise. Saving human lives, or any kind of practicality, is not the point. teagone posted:Says who? Is there some Superman dogma that must always be adhered to in every iteration of the character that I'm unaware of? Yes. The very nature of the character. Go find some other hero to humanize. There are plenty of them that aren't gods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Because Superman is a god and can actually live up to his ideals. He would never see a reason to compromise. Saving human lives, or any kind of practicality, is not the point. I don't think that interpretation has been valid for decades. It doesn't apply to the early Post Crisis run of Superman (I'd personally argue that it doesn't apply for Post Infinite Crisis either), it doesn't apply to STAS or the rest of the DCAU. It doesn't apply to Morrison's New 52 run. Aside from the Silver Age, Donner's take, or All Star Superman when has this actually been applicable to Superman?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
AFoolAndHisMoney posted:I don't think that interpretation has been valid for decades. It doesn't apply to the early Post Crisis run of Superman (I'd personally argue that it doesn't apply for Post Infinite Crisis either), it doesn't apply to STAS or the rest of the DCAU. It doesn't apply to Morrison's New 52 run.  I think it is fair to compare Superman to a god but it is a bit funny to say this demands perfection from him, when all the actual gods get to just dick around and be themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Before you go too far with this, let's remind ourselves that superhumans are completely fictional thing and that "what happens when a superhero does..." is mostly down to what the author decides. It's often hard to take these stories seriously at all because, while they start off reasonably grounded in reality, the plot quickly gets silly.  ) but I certainly understand why something like that is considered so innovative for its time.Ferrinus posted:Like, of course Superman is going to follow the rules of civilization, that's the point. The thing is that on earth, major superpowers such as the United States itself largely don't follow the rules of civilization. The US already casually flaunts international law like it's no big deal. So a passive, rulebook-citing Superman who just stands by wringing his hands while the west rains hellfire down on its enemies is basically a faker. Superman's exactly the guy you should be looking to when one nation mugs another, rather than when one person mugs another. What Superman doesn't do is to divebomb anywhere he pleases on the globe to throw his weight against problems that aren't going to be solved by brute force, or may even be exacerbated by such, making enemies out of the very people he wants to inspire. Seriously, "aim Superman at those forces"? What does that even mean? Aim him like a missile? A bullet? And you allude to him single-handedly establishing prosperity in the third world, like, is he a super-economist now? He's going to jump-start industries with heat vision? What you're essentially asking is why Superman doesn't just forcibly dismantle western civilization as we know it in order to bring about a type of radical society where...well, where everyone just lets him do what he wants to do because he knows best, and the only good civil system is one that works for him and not the other way around. Like, I'm not even exaggerating here, you're literally suggesting it's irresponsible that Superman doesn't make himself an enemy of the United Nations because apparently they're getting in the way of his righteous crusade by not wanting him to instigate metahuman world wars. I mean, if you're saying that Superman is by nature beholden to some sort of first world capitalist status quo, well, that's not wrong; he's not here to turn society upside down, he believes in the efficacy of the democratic system, he firmly believes that his role is to lead by example instead of through force. That's it, that's his character. But it's silly to make that out as if it's him being thoughtless or blasé about the state of the world; the fact is that it's the complete opposite. I reiterate; taking the character to task for not strongarming the world into the way it should be is misunderstanding both the character and the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I mean, if you're saying that Superman is by nature beholden to some sort of first world capitalist status quo, well, that's not wrong; he's not here to turn society upside down, he believes in the efficacy of the democratic system, he firmly believes that his role is to lead by example instead of through force. The smooth transition here to conflate "Superman is by nature beholden to some sort of first world capitalist status quo" with "he believes in the efficacy of the democratic system" is a pretty nice summation of what's so hosed-up about your argument. I'm not sure how you reconcile him going after LexCorp and "throwing a couple corrupt CEOs around the room" as consistent with him believing "in the efficacy of the democratic system." How can democracy be effective if it can't take care of Lex Luthor and corrupt CEOs without a demigod showing up? Unless Superman makes himself subject to the control of democratic institutions he clearly believes that there are moral standards of behavior which require unilateral and undemocratic action. To clarify, "subject to the control" would require more than just him sometimes acting because the UN requests, but for him to refrain from acting unless the UN (or an institution that was closer to being truly democratic) allows it; i.e., controlled by a democratic institution, not advised. And at that point it gets weird that his value system only allows for him to step away from the will of democratic institutions when it involves upholding the "first world capitalist status quo" but not when it involves breaking that down. I mean, it's not actually weird. Superman is an avatar for America. But it's weird in the context of your argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
But Superman considers himself part of the American civil system, both as Clark Kent -- who uncovers criminals with hard evidence -- and as the superhero who delivers those criminals to sanctioned justice. It's still the same system doing the exact same thing, just with the addition of a superpowered colleague to help it along; that's why it's important for him to not overstep, to constantly convey to the police or to the military, "I'm on your side, your job is my job, we're all on the same team," that's why he keeps regular contacts in Metropolis PD like Maggie Sawyer or Lupe Leocadio and also with STAR labs. When I say he wants to lead by example I don't mean as a passive speechwriting guru or something, more like as that ambitious co-worker gunning for the raise. Which isn't to say that he's going to do whatever they say without thinking; if he thinks they're doing great harm then he won't be shy about it, and we periodically get stories where Superman's at clear odds with the government (New Krypton, off the top of my head). But in general Superman believes having a working relationship with the civil system is paramount to him doing his own job correctly. It's one of the handful of things that MoS actually got right. And when the UN asks him, or Wonder Woman, or anyone else, to do international peacekeeping, it's the same thing; he still sees himself acting in concert with the system, just on a different scale. But when we talk about him hypothetically gunning after dictators on his own and inciting incidents that the people in charge made clear treaties specifically to avoid, well that's the point where he would have removed himself from the system and said "your way doesn't work, I'm doing it my way now."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I mean, if you're saying that Superman is by nature beholden to some sort of first world capitalist status quo, well, that's not wrong; he's not here to turn society upside down, he believes in the efficacy of the democratic system, he firmly believes that his role is to lead by example instead of through force. That's it, that's his character. But it's silly to make that out as if it's him being thoughtless or blasé about the state of the world; the fact is that it's the complete opposite. I reiterate; taking the character to task for not strongarming the world into the way it should be is misunderstanding both the character and the world. I know that (comic book) Superman believes in the efficacy of the existing democratic system; that's what makes him a fraud. By acting to perpetuate the status quo Superman aids and abets violence and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale. The status quo is itself the problem, and the reason that the third world is in a shambles, poverty is widespread, countless innocents are starved or bombed to death, etc. A Superman who acts predominantly like a U.S. police officer isn't actually a force for good. In Man of Steel, Superman pointedly doesn't actually submit himself to the (obviously corrupt) standards of the United States; instead, he aligns himself with moral ideals that the US professes but doesn't actually practice. He's not the kind of character that you'd expect to be sent on errands by the UN - rather, he's a destabilizing force whose very presence might (might!) scare the UN straight. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I rag on something like Watchmen a lot for a variety of reasons (mostly because I hate it
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Finally got around to seeing this, and surprisingly it was worse then I thought it would to be. The issue of Ben Affleck to me being Batman is only one half of the equation but rather Ben Affleck coupled with Goyer dialogue will make it even worse. This films loose stream of vignettes was frustration, and the editing at times bizarre, characters going magically from the side of mountain to climbing it entirely and the flashbacks so on the nose in terms of thematic and character development they should have established a colony. Nothing in this film was earned and barely anything tied to another, it was so loose and fast by the time it settled down and started to establish anything as a connected narrative we were an hour and fifteen in. Everything was so paint by the numbers, shallow, and foppishly told. Snyder couldn't pick a style, going from hyper real BSG zooms in of space and its contents, to static magic hour Mallick and a slew over other things. Felt like they threw everything at the board and kept what stuck, but the glue itself didn't hold up and just kind of fell apart. The ending was just one aspect of why this film was bad I mean who cares if these people die, Superman hasn't been established as character, he was propped and pieced together from former incarnations of the character and we are to figure it out. They really need to at least get rid of Goyer and put anyone in there,
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:But Superman considers himself part of the American civil system, both as Clark Kent -- who uncovers criminals with hard evidence -- and as the superhero who delivers those criminals to sanctioned justice. It's irrelevant what he considers himself to be - G. Gordon Liddy believed himself to be upholding democracy as he planted bugs and manufactured scandals to take down his political opponents - what matters is what he actually is. And he's actually an operator outside of the democratic system since he doesn't make himself subject to its restrictions. Rhetoric of a common purpose simply isn't sufficient to get around the fact that you can't believe in democracy and then claim that democratically-elected leaders don't have dominion over you, and a deluded self-perception does nothing to repair the disconnect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:But Superman considers himself part of the American civil system, both as Clark Kent -- who uncovers criminals with hard evidence -- and as the superhero who delivers those criminals to sanctioned justice. Kal-El believes himself superior to the American civil and Justice system, just as he considers himself superior in a moral and spiritual sense to all of assembled humanity. He commits crimes small and large at his whim, secure in his delusion of perfect self-justifying morality. His alter ego of Clark Kent, built on fraud, perpetuates his ego-driven quest not for justice, but for adoration and self-aggrandizement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's irrelevant what he considers himself to be - G. Gordon Liddy believed himself to be upholding democracy as he planted bugs and manufactured scandals to take down his political opponents - what matters is what he actually is. And he's actually an operator outside of the democratic system since he doesn't make himself subject to its restrictions. Rhetoric of a common purpose simply isn't sufficient to get around the fact that you can't believe in democracy and then claim that democratically-elected leaders don't have dominion over you, and a deluded self-perception does nothing to repair the disconnect. "Since he doesn't make himself subject to [the democratic system's] restrictions"?...isn't our entire conversation about the fact that this guy does subject himself to the restrictions of the world government and does not take it upon himself to overrule their decrees?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Whoa hold up, since when does Superman claim that democratically-elected leaders don't have dominion over him? He claims it implicitly by, among other things, enforcing laws and his own moral code on others without having any state-sanctioned authority. Every vigilante is denying the dominion of our democratically-elected government. For instance, (Lex Luthor: Man of Steel spoiler) destroying Hope is a criminal act. You're not allowed to shoot your neighbor's dog even if you think it's dangerous. That's just a random example since I happened to read that recently, he does plenty of stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Was he charged with a crime? And if the police bring him in for questioning and put him on trial for that crime, do you think he'd resist? I think we have to allow that there is some sort of legal process that allows for civilian vigilantism in the DCU or else we have to say that every officer of the law is shirking their responsibility for not constantly trying to hunt down all superheroes, and I'm not talking about the unstoppable god types, I'm talking about B-listers like Hawkman and Blue Beetle. The law will allow -- implicitly or explicitly -- for these sorts of costumed, superpowered civilians to take down criminals and the occasional giant monsters, and in return these vigilantes agree not to cross the line and to respect the authority of the system. Which is why I'm constantly reiterating why Superman is fixated on not ever overstepping that line because there are consequences for him and for others if he does...as we've seen when Batman occasionally does undermine the authority of the GCPD (such as during War Games) and Commissioner Akins (who has a far different relationship with Batman than Gordon does) orders the police (who were already on the fence about Batman due to his constant disrespect for their position) to treat him and all his colleagues (like Robin and Batgirl) as true criminals instead of allies. It's a balance, and a balancing act; you may be right that it's not quite the democratic system as we know it in Earth-Prime, but it is a certain type of civil system, one that both Superman and the authorities contribute to and respect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Was he charged with a crime? And if the police bring him in for questioning and put him on trial for that crime, do you think he'd resist? I think we have to allow that there is some sort of legal process that allows for civilian vigilantism in the DCU or else we have to say that every officer of the law is shirking their responsibility for not constantly trying to hunt down all superheroes, and I'm not talking about the unstoppable god types, I'm talking about B-listers like Hawkman and Blue Beetle. Police officers and district attorneys are given the right to ignore crimes and given the responsibility to prioritize their efforts to enforce the law. The decision for Superman, Batman, et al. to not be arrested does not retroactively make their actions legal. For instance, the police generally don't care about individual marijuana possession and won't go after it unless they have an additional motive to do so (it's harder to prove another crime, they want to harass someone, etc.). This does not make marijuana possession legal or suggest that officers of the law are shirking their responsibilities for focusing on murders instead of some random dude buying an eighth. BrianWilly posted:The law will allow -- implicitly or explicitly -- for these sorts of costumed, superpowered civilians to take down criminals and the occasional giant monsters, and in return these vigilantes agree not to cross the line and to respect the authority of the system. Sure, it's functional, and it ultimately serves the needs of the state. But it's not democratic. BrianWilly posted:It's a balance, and a balancing act; you may be right that it's not quite the democratic system as we know it in Earth-Prime, but it is a certain type of civil system, one that both Superman and the authorities contribute to and respect. Yes, it's a type of civil system other than one in which officials appointed by a democratically-elected government have the exclusive use of violent force for matters other than self defense. Which is to say, it's a non-democratic civil system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Police officers and district attorneys are given the right to ignore crimes and given the responsibility to prioritize their efforts to enforce the law. The decision for Superman, Batman, et al. to not be arrested does not retroactively make their actions legal. For instance, the police generally don't care about individual marijuana possession and won't go after it unless they have an additional motive to do so (it's harder to prove another crime, they want to harass someone, etc.). This does not make marijuana possession legal or suggest that officers of the law are shirking their responsibilities for focusing on murders instead of some random dude buying an eighth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Sure, it's functional, and it ultimately serves the needs of the state. But it's not democratic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 21:00
|
|