AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Batman is a worse character than Superman, to be honest.

They're both characters with interesting aspects that get written awfully from time to time.

I just came back from watching The Man of Steel and I liked it. It had some points that I don't like so much and overal I feel he's not the Superman I know, as several times he endangers the lives of ordinary people. This might be explained by the fact that this is his first venture into being a superhero and he's not completely aware of what will happen when he does certain things the way he did them in the movie, such as punching someone so hard he's thrown through several walls into a store.

Mostly I think they did a very interesting job of showing that Superman, for all his alien heritage, is still very much raised as a human being with faults and insecurities of his own. I really enjoyed that.

Also, both Zod, his lieutenant Faora-Ul and Jor-El were bad-booty in their own ways.

The best version of Superman is All Star Superman

I just dislike the fact that he was essentially written as the epitome of the "Gary Sue."

"He can do all of this shit, except this one rock, which happens to be the rarest rock ever, is the only thing that weakens him!"

Plus, most of the mental issues I see him dealing with, which are supposed to be what give the character depth, are about him overcoming the urge to be a colossal dick and rule the world. Like it's an effort for him NOT to be a douchebag.

Also, magic, the OTHER varieties of that rock, and there are beings who are as strong or stronger than he is, and can prove a physical match for him. And yes, that IS a legit character issue, since having godlike powers would be an insane temptation for ANYONE, regardless of how moral their upbringing was. The fact that he wasnt torn Lex Luthors head off his shoulders and punted it like a soccer ball into the sun shows incredible restraint all things considered.

Flaws are what make good characters, not weaknesses. You can say Superman is weak to magic, green rocks, and that there's tons of other characters who can pulverize him but this means absolutely nothing to how good he is as a character.

You say he struggles with the urge to abuse his power, but the struggle means nothing if he never loses it. A flawed character would give in every now and then for self-justifying reasons and there would be massive consequences for doing so.

He HAS lost it. Several times. Problem is if its a recurring theme in the main timeline, then he is for all intents and purposes a gigantic threat to Earth, so its usually a Bad Future or an alternate dimension version that turns evil. Though they subverted that in the Superman animated series where Darkseid brainwashed him into being his general and conquer Earth, which had ramifications in the follow up Justice League series. People dont forget that their godlike protector turned on them, regardless of what his reason was.

Anyway, new laika trailer.

This right here is why I don't read comics. The focus of the comic is so much on the character's brand that it cannot be permanently sullied in any way. No consequences, no retribution, no change. There's no continuity, it changes by writer. Superman can't be allowed to give in to his urges and subsequently be hunted down in this reality, in this timeline, with no retcon, because comics rely on him being around to sell more comics.

Therein lies the weakness of superhero comics and why they will never be good stories. A novel is willing to kill off the main character, so is a TV show or movie, but comics can't do that without a massive paradigm shift away from brand-name arcs to an organic world. One where Superman, Batman, Flash, et al can die or grow old for a new generation to rise up with their own problems. Which will never happen.

NOT good stories? That right there, that made me stop taking you seriously. That you would disregard an entire genre of storytelling because it doesnt fall in line with what you think it should be shows that you have no idea what youre talking about. Thats why they have different timelines, different universes, so writers CAN explore the characters in different ways without permanently destroying them. You think things like the Fritz Lang inspired Superman Metropolis or Batman Nosferatu could exist if just one version was allowed? Or Arkham: A Serious House On a Serious Earth? Or acclaimed writer runs like Morrisons work on Justice League and Doom Patrol? Those wouldnt exist if different writers didnt allow for different canons.

Those don't mean anything though. They're pocket timelines that won't affect the "main" one. I'm not even sure there is a main one. I don't like reading a story that ultimately doesn't matter in its own context. Superman can die but he'll be back, the universe will implode but it's just a reboot, alternate realities are a copout to actual issues, etc, etc.

Brand superhero comics are stagnant in my opinion. I think every single Silver Age/Golden Age hero needs to be packed up and a new generation of heroes brought forth. Comics are the only medium that cling so hard to specific names that they haven't changed significantly in decades.

The hell do you mean they dont matter? Its a fictional story, as long as it can stand on its own and be judged by its own quality, it daisies well matters like any other work of art.

I think it's weird how american comic books are this big monogenre of people running around in underwear.


Have you read Watchmen? You'd probably like it.

It's basically confirmed that yeah exactly this. He's Superman in morals, but he doesn't have the grip and control over his powers yet. He doesn't really know what he's doing. His accidental destruction of most of Metropolis and being forced to kill Zod are what are going to make him more careful and institute his no kill rule.

I felt like the end really kind of confirmed that yeah, he wasn't Superman before. But now he is. He starts sounding so scarily like Christopher Reeves it's fantastic.