AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Why is that weird? Superhero comics are the most popular comic genre in the US, doesnt mean others dont exist.

The main problem I have with Superman's constant fight to not be an asshole is that it sounds too much like something us normal people manage to do without a problem. Yes, he's got Godlike powers, so the temptation is a little more "shit got real" than for us, but it sounds like an issue that's a little hard for people to empathize with. I see his struggle and all I can think is "How easy is it to just not be an asshole to people?"

I mean Batman has a personal quarrel with refusing the kill people in worry that he'll lose his own humanity, and it keeps biting him in the booty. That begs the moral of question of whether it's possible for a killing to be justified (it is) and whether or not you'd be able to go through with it when it pops up. Wolverine has a constant issue with having to distance himself from every potential serious relationship because THEY always keep biting him in the booty. This one is a little easier for people to empathize with since it's a more common concern. And deadpool...

......deadpool is deadpool...

EDIT: Actually, I take that back...it makes a little more sense to say that Superman's struggle isn't that he has godlike powers that he can abuse, but more that he has a much too human mind that's subject to the same issues we have. Another thing with the .superman comics is he's constantly being tricked into moral dilemmas, so that I can see, but I still dislike the problems he keeps having with "I can't not be an asshole!"

Most of what I see as justification for when he is an asshole comes in the form of what a bully would say to justify their shitty actions. Like in Injustice. "The Joker killed Lois!" So you enslave the entire human race? Villains kill a loved of every single super hero almost every other week, and they don't even go as far as killing the villain in revenge.

YOU ENSLAVED THE WORLD!

It just feels so limited, setting-wise.

i don't think you actually know anything about comics

Its just a genre, you think every superhero book is like Superman or Spiderman? Read The Boys, Supergod or A Serious House on A Serious Earth and youd see what can be done with it

Because Superman is not a character if that's the case. Neither is Batman. Neither is Green Lantern. Neither is any brand-name superhero. None of them are characters.

They're templates, slabs of blank meat to be impressed upon. If there is no one single continuity that matters then there is no single instance of that hero which matters. If a superhero can be completely different based on who's writing him or her then that hero is not a character.

A character is someone who can be defined, who changes permanently based on interactions in the world and the story, whose personality, form, and very essence is identifiable and static. Take Harry Potter for instance. I can say he's someone who doesn't follow the literal rules, instead relying on his own bullheadedness and friends to help him when there's trouble. He has a code of honor that led to him giving himself up at the end for the greater good, which ultimately leads to victory. That's a facet of his character and it identifies him.

Superman on the other hand does not have any one specific personality, history, goals, anything. He changes depending on what setting he's in and who's writing him. That's not a character, that's a template with a name and appearance. Everything else is optional.

For gods sake, they CAN be defined, when they arent defined right, thats generally the sign of a bad writer, but how the hell does that mean that the stories theyre in cant be good? Batman, Superman, Spiderman, they have had writers who have made the definite version of them, to which all others are judged, but that doesnt mean that the characters should stop existing. By your standards, the characters should have gone out of publication decades ago, which would have meant that a lot of really great stories would never have been written

I counter by saying that if they'd gone out of print years ago we'd have stories which would be just as great with new characters. Even greater stories in fact, since if there is one definitive form of a character then that means their interactions with each other are far more significant and consequential. They can explore deeper material when the reader knows that what happens will have an impact on them that will not just be rewound as soon as a particular hero isn't selling so well anymore.

How do you figure? Without the characters, there'd be no story. There's no reason to think that a new character could have the same impact, under the same circumstance, to bring a writer to create the story. In fact, if the characters were done, finished, then thats it. They cant ever be used again. Anything else would violate the standards youre apparently desiring. The fact that iconic characters have been used to reinvent comics several times seem to go right past you as well.

Because the world the heroes lived in would be a story all to itself with many smaller stories for each character. Without retcons or reboots it would have world-building the likes of which has never been seen before. Decades worth of heroes and villains, with each generation having their own set of characters leaving their impression on that ever-changing world. They'd know of Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, etc in the way that the characters do, from a time long gone, and if they want to they could find issues from that era.

Also you say a new character wouldn't have the same impact, but I say the old characters don't have any impact already so what would the difference be. I think you're clinging so hard to the idea of Superman et all existing permanently that you don't even realize you only feel that way because it's all you've known. You have never seen anything different so you think that's the only way it could possibly be.

Common Superman themes/character struggles:

- upholding his boyscout ideals despite the world being hellbent on turning itself to shit
- it's not just about saving people now, Superman needs to be an inspiration for people, a sign that no matter how bad things get, there's still hope.
- defining his own role in the world. Should he use his godlike powers to try and "fix" the world? Does saving everyone all the time make people over-reliant on him (commonly brought up in stories involving Lex Luthor)? Should he interfere in international conflicts?
- Superman also has the classic "no killing" struggle, he just isn't as absolutely deadset in it as Batman.
- classic superhero theme of the public being turned against him and dealing with that
- classic superhero theme of losing his powers
- balancing his alien heritage with his human upbringing

Superman comics I'd recommend (from the top of my head):
- All Star Superman
- Superman: Birthright
- Batman/Superman annuals
- Last Son of Krypton
- Red Son
- Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow?
- Kingdom Come (not a Superman comic per se, but it's very good and has an interesting interpretation of the character)
- The Death of Superman
- What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way?
- Lex Luthor: Man of Steel


You talk a lot of shit for someone who doesn't actually read comics.

Saying superhero comics can't ever be good is the same as saying horror movies never have quality. They're genres with both excellent and very poor examples. Spiderman is a superhero, so is Hellboy. Superman is a "cape" superhero, so is Watchmen's Owlman. Yet they're incomparable as far as characters go.

The long runners have a shifting continuity which means the Superman you're reading now isn't the one you read about 40 years ago. You'll always be reading a certain iteration of the character, same as when you're watching a specific movie about Dracula or Frankenstein's monster. They're never quite the same character, but they'll always adhere to certain themes.

I watched World War Z.
It was pretty silly. That Pepsi commercial was hilarious though.

Brand-name superheroes, like Superman. I specifically did not mention Watchmen or Hellboy because they have a continuity and things stick there.

Also the fact that a character is not the same decades later is my issue. Comics are the only media where the same cast is clung to and rebooted every time they stop selling well. With no continuity, no "real" incarnation, they're base templates devoid of impact.



I don't need to when analyzing the system of comics. Reading the comics isn't necessary to determine that there is no one single continuity, things don't stick, there's no lasting consequences, and there are only templates with names, not characters.

There is no point to reading a story that ultimately doesn't matter in the context of its own universe. Hellboy can do it. Sandman can do it. Superman et all can't seem to do it.

Claiming these comics are boring and have no storytelling value without even attempting to read them makes you come across as both arrogant and ignorant.