Updating Superman

[Buzz Dixon]

That's an intriguing idea -- abandon the law-n-order dullard petite bourgeouis he has become and let him go around b-slapping politicians the way he did in the good ol' days. Wouldn't have to hurt 'em or nothin' -- just shame and ridicule them.

[West Mantooth]

I think the Clark Kent and Superman identity need to go ahead and become better fused(which is what has been happening over the past 70 years anyway). Clark Kent needs to be the one fighting corrupt politicans and Superman being the Enforcer of said corruption fights.

But that would mean a significant power reduction or at least balancing the SuperAdventures better.

[Steven Grant]

That's an intriguing idea -- abandon the law-n-order dullard petite bourgeouis he has become and let him go around b-slapping politicians the way he did in the good ol' days. Wouldn't have to hurt 'em or nothin' -- just shame and ridicule them.

I'd like to do a Superman revamp where he abandons the crime fighting per se and becomes a community activist. The traditional take on Superman, of course, is that he's "above politics" and takes no sides on social issues (aside from the "Don't Be A Racist" sort of public service announcements). He doesn't have to use his powers to flout the law or anything like that, but it'd be interesting to see him actively calling on citizens to "rise up" and assert their rights and get directly involved in the workings of society. That sort of thing. With, yes, Clark Kent as hellbent muckraking reporter exposing corruption, secret dealings, etc. They've toyed with that once or twice in the past, but never went whole hog with it.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

I think the Clark Kent and Superman identity need to go ahead and become better fused(which is what has been happening over the past 70 years anyway). Clark Kent needs to be the one fighting corrupt politicans and Superman being the Enforcer of said corruption fights.

But that would mean a significant power reduction or at least balancing the SuperAdventures better.

Eh, screw the superadventures. We all know he's superpowerful.

Here's an ethical question: Superman has superhearing, so he can theoretically stand in a room and pinpoint someone whispering in another building miles away. We also know from old stories that he can imitate someone else's speech perfectly. So if he, at the Daily Planet, hears a crooked politician brag to cronies in some private gentlemen's club on the other side of town that he looted the city treasury for five or six million dollars and will get away with it because he framed some poor nebbish for the pilfery, would it be unethical for Superman to perfectly replicate what he has heard onto a tape or digital recorder, and write a story based on that evidence. Because it's not false, and he's not making anything up, and since his powers effectively render him a (sort of) human tape recorder anyway, would that be forging evidence or simply being a tape recorder once removed?

As a standard of evidence, that sort of thing is commonly inadmissible in court anyway, but it is commonly not considered inadmissible as a news story "source." Clark Kent would theoretically be covered by the First Amendment, though he might risk censure for "bugging" a private room where he had no permission to be. On the other hand, the courts probably wouldn't consider the gentlemen's club, as something anyone can buy into, to be anywhere the politician could "reasonably" expect privacy...

- Grant

[Charles RB]

I was interested by the point that the "Superman makes things better for us regardless of what we say" take is somewhat anti-democracy, because I've seen multiple stories where the ungrateful little people say mean things about the hero or, gasp, don't trust him.

And that's a bit iffy. Why should they trust him? He's a powerful guy in a mask with no controls, and unlike us they can't see him off-duty being a regular guy. Do we really want a message that everyone should trust the big strong blokes to do whatever because it'll be in our interests?

[bartl]

Eh, screw the superadventures. We all know he's superpowerful.

Peter David took a step in what might be a useful direction with the Pantheon.

Here's the thing: Superman is more powerful than most armies. From that standpoint, he is a world power. As one who is also law abiding, yet, to a certain extent, a law unto himself, he should probably be essentially considered to be a country from the point of view of the U.N., with full ambassadorial powers. Being Superman, it would be thrust upon him rather than taken voluntarily, and, being Superman, he would accept the responsibility, and, being Superman, he would be completely bereft of diplomatic skills. Sort of a super-powered John Bolton.

Dark enough for you?

(Green Lantern, in this scenario, is more like a ranger).

[West Mantooth]

Eh, screw the superadventures. We all know he's superpowerful.

Here's an ethical question: Superman has superhearing, so he can theoretically stand in a room and pinpoint someone whispering in another building miles away. We also know from old stories that he can imitate someone else's speech perfectly. So if he, at the Daily Planet, hears a crooked politician brag to cronies in some private gentlemen's club on the other side of town that he looted the city treasury for five or six million dollars and will get away with it because he framed some poor nebbish for the pilfery, would it be unethical for Superman to perfectly replicate what he has heard onto a tape or digital recorder, and write a story based on that evidence. Because it's not false, and he's not making anything up, and since his powers effectively render him a (sort of) human tape recorder anyway, would that be forging evidence or simply being a tape recorder once removed?

As a standard of evidence, that sort of thing is commonly inadmissible in court anyway, but it is commonly not considered inadmissible as a news story "source." Clark Kent would theoretically be covered by the First Amendment, though he might risk censure for "bugging" a private room where he had no permission to be. On the other hand, the courts probably wouldn't consider the gentlemen's club, as something anyone can buy into, to be anywhere the politician could "reasonably" expect privacy...

- Grant

The only way that story could work is if Superman was depowered to Shuster era powers levels, imo. I think most people would wonder why Superman didn't just bust the politician and force him to tell him where the money was.

It's the same reason people bypass the ethical dilemma in TDk about wiretapping because they believe Joker is making Batman look like a wimp. The comic Batman would have found him using more detective skills than wiretapping.

[Charles RB]

As one who is also law abiding, yet, to a certain extent, a law unto himself, he should probably be essentially considered to be a country from the point of view of the U.N., with full ambassadorial powers.

Would he be a permanent member of the Security Council?

[Steven Grant]

I was interested by the point that the "Superman makes things better for us regardless of what we say" take is somewhat anti-democracy, because I've seen multiple stories where the ungrateful little people say mean things about the hero or, gasp, don't trust him.

A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship. Everyone's easy to get along with while they're doing things you agree with. But anyone with the power to act unilaterally to enforce his own viewpoint as a mode of behavior for everyone is by nature anti-democratic. The only real question is whether the anti-democracy is recessive or dominant.

And why should anyone unilaterally trust anyone with that much power? That's exactly what all dictators say: trust me. The fact that Superman hasn't voluntarily used his powers to the detriment of the citizens of Earth doesn't mean he won't next time. He can, he just doesn't. Look at it this way: if he's bound (by honor, if nothing else) to uphold the law, if, say, Congress votes through a law allowing two-thirds of the American population to be rounded up and put in re-education camps, then ratifies a new constitution eliminating Congress and the Supreme Court and puts absolute power in the hands of a president-emperor and drafts Superman as his official bodyguard, and it's officially the law, does Superman break the law because he doesn't like it?

If he can choose to break that law, he can choose to break any law.

But if he refuses to choose to break that law because it's the law, he's kind of an idiot because that's a very bad law. So basically when "we" trust Superman, we're trusting him to be able to distinguish to our benefit each time.

By the way, Bart, no, that's not especially dark. Now Superman abruptly demanding not only nation status but universal favored nation status, that starts pushing toward dark. I have a hard time see how the UN ordering Superman to the standing of nation would have any major effect on anything. If he, say, invades Italy to catch Lex Luthor in contravention of Italian law, he's already breaking the law, but what are they going to do? File an official protest? Declare war on him?

But how about this: Superman does a THE DARK KNIGHT-esque sacrifice, as he finally figures out that he can only really bring about peace on earth and a unification of humanity if they have a common enemy to desperately fight, so he decides to become that universal enemy they can unite against? (Either Philip K. Dick or Harlan Ellison, I forget which, did a story along these lines - no Superman but same concept - a few decades ago...)

- Grant

[Brother Zag]

I think the only way to do a "Dark" Supes would be to go the way they did in "Infinite Crisis Somethinorother" with Max Lord possessing Superman. Sure, it could be incredibly cheesy, but it could be done well, and lead into a situation where Supes would voluntarily give himself up after the possession. You could have Supes kill that way, create an incredibly dark first half, ending in Superman surrendering when the possession is somehow ended. Second Act, have Supes on trial and disgraced, leaving the world without a Superman... until Checkmate and Lord are exposed, and it can come down to Supes v. Lord in Act III... does he kill him? Of course not. But someone else would, like Wonder Woman did in the series... I've been wracking my brain, and thios is the best "Dark Superman" Scenario I can come up with...

[Charles RB]

And why should anyone unilaterally trust anyone with that much power? That's exactly what all dictators say: trust me. The fact that Superman hasn't voluntarily used his powers to the detriment of the citizens of Earth doesn't mean he won't next time. He can, he just doesn't.

This has been one of my problems with some Buseik stories where the main character/a bystander gets pissed because people are badmouthing the heroes - there's no logical reason why they shouldn't, the heroes could easily turn villainous at any point.

Hell, in Marvel they turn briefly bad or trash people's stuff all the time. One of Waid's first Fantastic Four stories has the Thing and the Torch having a spat in the middle of the city which is causing a lot of damage... and later we're meant to agree with the characters how bad it is that nobody loves the FF anymore, after the FF almost caused an international conflict and American troops actually died (though it was Doom killing them).

It is possible I'm too cynical to get a central point in those scenes/stories.

[stealthwise]

I was interested by the point that the "Superman makes things better for us regardless of what we say" take is somewhat anti-democracy, because I've seen multiple stories where the ungrateful little people say mean things about the hero or, gasp, don't trust him.

And that's a bit iffy. Why should they trust him? He's a powerful guy in a mask with no controls, and unlike us they can't see him off-duty being a regular guy. Do we really want a message that everyone should trust the big strong blokes to do whatever because it'll be in our interests?

Since when does Superman wear a mask?

The problem with Superman and doing a "dark" or "realistic" take is that he's far too fantastical to do that properly. Batman just barely fits on the right side of suspension of disbelief when Nolan's handling him, and it just won't fit with a guy who can fly and burn holes through things with his eyes.

The best way I can figure to handle Superman is to start the movie off in media res, with the public all trusting Superman, and him having earned that trust, battling robot armies and giant gorillas, fighting Brainiac and other crazy Silver Age style nonsense that would be truly scary if depicted in today's world. Portray Superman as a hero who's as powerful as a god yet as compassionate and hard-working as any human being, and I can't see how the movie can fail to connect with audiences (except for the jack-asses that demand an explanation for everything and can't stand even the slightest hint of sci-fi or fantasy).

[Charles RB]

Since when does Superman wear a mask?

Well, he doesn't, but superheroes in general are obscuring who they are.

[Buzz Dixon]

Steven -- reading your post got me to thinking: What if Superman was the reporter for the Daily Planet, fereting out corrupting and exposing it. He could do so fearlessly because nobody could harm him physically. In that scenario, Clark kent becomes the Superhero, the human being who goes in and actually does stuff to undo the damage done by the corrupt.

[Steven Grant]

I think the only way to do a "Dark" Supes would be to go the way they did in "Infinite Crisis Somethinorother" with Max Lord possessing Superman. Sure, it could be incredibly cheesy, but it could be done well, and lead into a situation where Supes would voluntarily give himself up after the possession. You could have Supes kill that way, create an incredibly dark first half, ending in Superman surrendering when the possession is somehow ended. Second Act, have Supes on trial and disgraced, leaving the world without a Superman... until Checkmate and Lord are exposed, and it can come down to Supes v. Lord in Act III... does he kill him? Of course not. But someone else would, like Wonder Woman did in the series... I've been wracking my brain, and thios is the best "Dark Superman" Scenario I can come up with...

Except in that scenario Superman isn't the hero, he's just the victim, and as I mentioned Superman as victim isn't Superman. In that scenario Superman is ultimately helpless against his adversaries, in several ways. It's possible to do a Superman story that way, but not possible to have him come out of it looking good.

Which was kind of my point.

- Grant