Newsarama: Superman Gets Through H'el With Some Justice League Help

[Darkspellmaster]

H'El isn't trying to recreate Krypton on Earth, he's trying to time-travel to before Krypton blew up to save it. The danger to Earth is that the amount of energy required to travel through the chronal-nexus (as Lex says in Superman #15) will collapse the entire solar system.

So pretty much sacrofice one for the other. He does realize if his plan fails there will be no earth and no Krypton so he's doomed both places?

Here's the thing, the "problems" make this book sound like another famous red and blue wearing superhero, spiderman. The more and more I read the characters here the more I"ve been getting a spiderman vibe, and the comment around the interview sounds like it in a way. I mean...Lets see here: social mistfit (check for this version of Clark and for Peter), has feelings for two hot women (check again), has issues with his publisher/job (another check), has the whole power/responsiblity issue going (Yup), dealing with the loss of loved ones (yes and yes), remaing family has various issues in some cases (right now moreso with Clark but Petes had it back before), crazy guy has gripe with hero for past affront (Yes sir), did I mention the whole can't seem to mix personal and professional life together (Looks like Clark's heading for one of those). This is just things I've picked up on, and while the Marvel way works great for it's characters, I can't see it working that well for the characters in the DC.

Time travel is awesome, but...why would the earth need to go boom exactly? (Also it's lex can we really trust what he says?)

[Auguste Dupin]

So pretty much sacrofice one for the other. He does realize if his plan fails there will be no earth and no Krypton so he's doomed both places?

Here's the thing, the "problems" make this book sound like another famous red and blue wearing superhero, spiderman. The more and more I read the characters here the more I"ve been getting a spiderman vibe, and the comment around the interview sounds like it in a way. I mean...Lets see here: social mistfit (check for this version of Clark and for Peter), has feelings for two hot women (check again), has issues with his publisher/job (another check), has the whole power/responsiblity issue going (Yup), dealing with the loss of loved ones (yes and yes), remaing family has various issues in some cases (right now moreso with Clark but Petes had it back before), crazy guy has gripe with hero for past affront (Yes sir), did I mention the whole can't seem to mix personal and professional life together (Looks like Clark's heading for one of those). This is just things I've picked up on, and while the Marvel way works great for it's characters, I can't see it working that well for the characters in the DC.

Time travel is awesome, but...why would the earth need to go boom exactly? (Also it's lex can we really trust what he says?)

Of course, you do realize most of these tropes were used by Superman before Lobdell (and sometimes before Spider-Man), right?
Social misfit? Clark has been created as someone despised by his collegues (mostly Lois) because he was mild mannered and a coward. The whole Christopher Reeve interpretation fo the character is based on the fact he's a misfit.
Has feelings for two hot women? I'd advice you to check the 70's, where Superman couldn't choose if he prefered Lois or Lana. Plus, there must be like, the Romita period where he hesitates between Gwen and MJ and.....that's it?
I would grant you the issues with his publisher, if not for the fact these issues are usually nothing alike what Clark is going through now. They may have been inspired by Brand New Day and the Bennet stuff, though.
Remaining family with issues? First, I have no idea how it's like Spider-Man. Second, it's a trope that is much older than both guys.
Crazy guy has a gripe with the hero for past affront? Silver Age Luthor "you made me bald" and all that. Was there before Spider-Man ever existed.
Can't seem to mix professional life and personnal life? Well, We're not there yet (at least, not any much than any version of Superman where Clark passes for a coward for "running away" so Superman could appear)

[JoeP]

Hot damn, I can't wait to see what this is about.

I'd imagine it's a flashback to H'el during his initial mission as an astronaut he talked about a few issues back (I can't quite recall what that mission was, though). And reading this interview at ComicVine the origins as he told it may not even be true. Very interesting.

[Mr. Holmes]

So pretty much sacrofice one for the other. He does realize if his plan fails there will be no earth and no Krypton so he's doomed both places?

Why would he care about Earth? For him it's worth attempting to bring back Krypton regardless of what happens to Earth.

[misslane38]

Did anyone else find it slightly unsettling that Lobdell suggested Superman would be conflicted about what to do about saving Krypton versus saving Earth in his MTV interview?

I think that emotionally Superman is very conflicted because any other day of the week if someone came to him and he believed it was possible to save Krypton, he would be very supportive of the idea. But as it becomes clear that H'el can't accomplish that even if it were possible without first destroying Earth and its entire solar system, it puts him in an awkward position because if it were possible he would like to help, but since it would mean the death of millions of people, he would have to weigh that against his family history and lineage and stuff, so I think he's very conflicted at this point.

I do understand that Superman would ideally want to save both worlds, but to me there should be no conflict--no emotional or moral conflict--over sacrificing one planet to resurrect another. I also feel as if in his own way Morrison already touched on these themes in Action Comics when Superman was asked to choose between the Collector's bottled Kandor and bottled Metropolis.

[brettc1]

Did anyone else find it slightly unsettling that Lobdell suggested Superman would be conflicted about what to do about saving Krypton versus saving Earth in his MTV interview?

I think that emotionally Superman is very conflicted because any other day of the week if someone came to him and he believed it was possible to save Krypton, he would be very supportive of the idea. But as it becomes clear that H'el can't accomplish that even if it were possible without first destroying Earth and its entire solar system, it puts him in an awkward position because if it were possible he would like to help, but since it would mean the death of millions of people, he would have to weigh that against his family history and lineage and stuff, so I think he's very conflicted at this point.

I do understand that Superman would ideally want to save both worlds, but to me there should be no conflict--no emotional or moral conflict--over sacrificing one planet to resurrect another. I also feel as if in his own way Morrison already touched on these themes in Action Comics when Superman was asked to choose between the Collector's bottled Kandor and bottled Metropolis.

Agreed. Unless he meant Supes was trying to find a way to carry out the plan without the associated destruction. I can imagine a story where he finds a way to do it but there is less chance of success, or it takes longer to find a suitable place to do it etc. Of course the villain refuses to wait or give up the certainty of success now.

[brettc1]

So pretty much sacrofice one for the other. He does realize if his plan fails there will be no earth and no Krypton so he's doomed both places?

Here's the thing, the "problems" make this book sound like another famous red and blue wearing superhero, spiderman. The more and more I read the characters here the more I"ve been getting a spiderman vibe, and the comment around the interview sounds like it in a way. I mean...Lets see here: social mistfit (check for this version of Clark and for Peter), has feelings for two hot women (check again), has issues with his publisher/job (another check), has the whole power/responsiblity issue going (Yup), dealing with the loss of loved ones (yes and yes), remaing family has various issues in some cases (right now moreso with Clark but Petes had it back before), crazy guy has gripe with hero for past affront (Yes sir), did I mention the whole can't seem to mix personal and professional life together (Looks like Clark's heading for one of those). This is just things I've picked up on, and while the Marvel way works great for it's characters, I can't see it working that well for the characters in the DC.

Time travel is awesome, but...why would the earth need to go boom exactly? (Also it's lex can we really trust what he says?)

Sounds a bit like they are borrowing from one of the Doctor Who specials, pulling a planet in one time zone in to Earth space and so destroying it. Or it could be the result of a release of energy caused by the temporal shift of such a large mass. Or simply the affect of tidal gravitational forces suddenly interacting simultaneously. Pick your techno-babble

[Superlad93]

He's passing up the chance to see his family, live the life he always wondered about and save billions of lives too. I'd say he's right to be conflicted. He's a person just like any of us with wants, needs and emotions so I think we can all get where he's coming from.

[Auguste Dupin]

Did anyone else find it slightly unsettling that Lobdell suggested Superman would be conflicted about what to do about saving Krypton versus saving Earth in his MTV interview?

I think that emotionally Superman is very conflicted because any other day of the week if someone came to him and he believed it was possible to save Krypton, he would be very supportive of the idea. But as it becomes clear that H'el can't accomplish that even if it were possible without first destroying Earth and its entire solar system, it puts him in an awkward position because if it were possible he would like to help, but since it would mean the death of millions of people, he would have to weigh that against his family history and lineage and stuff, so I think he's very conflicted at this point.

I do understand that Superman would ideally want to save both worlds, but to me there should be no conflict--no emotional or moral conflict--over sacrificing one planet to resurrect another. I also feel as if in his own way Morrison already touched on these themes in Action Comics when Superman was asked to choose between the Collector's bottled Kandor and bottled Metropolis.

Not me, at least. It's quite simple actually. Superman has a very idealized vision of Krypton (due to the fact he's never been there), and would wish nothing more (well, perhaps not "nothing more", but it's quite high on his wishlist) than to go there, to discover his own heritage. But he's not irresponsible enough to cause billions of death just for a chance to see what his place of birth looked like. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about letting go his perhaps only chance to save his home planet. Emotional conflict. It's the Collector's "nature or nurture" choice, but without the third option "why, both my good sir" available.
That's very classic really.

[misslane38]

Not me, at least. It's quite simple actually. Superman has a very idealized vision of Krypton (due to the fact he's never been there), and would wish nothing more (well, perhaps not "nothing more", but it's quite high on his wishlist) than to go there, to discover his own heritage. But he's not irresponsible enough to cause billions of death just for a chance to see what his place of birth looked like. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about letting go his perhaps only chance to save his home planet. Emotional conflict. It's the Collector's "nature or nurture" choice, but without the third option "why, both my good sir" available.
That's very classic really.

I get being sad about the impossibility of doing both, but to actually feel conflicted over such an obvious choice doesn't really work for me.

He's passing up the chance to see his family, live the life he always wondered about and save billions of lives too. I'd say he's right to be conflicted. He's a person just like any of us with wants, needs and emotions so I think we can all get where he's coming from.

I understand that he may feel grief and guilt but not conflict.

[Auguste Dupin]

I get being sad about the impossibility of doing both, but to actually feel conflicted over such an obvious choice doesn't really work for me.

Well, you're not Kryptonian. It's easy to be all "obvious choice" when you're not directly concerned by the struggle (or, more precisely, when you are only directly concerned by one of the outcomes, making you biaised about it).
Plus, it depends what it means to be "emotionnaly conflicted". So far, he hasn't showed the slightest bit of hesitation about what to do. He just goes in battle with "a heavy heart", because he knows that, no matter what happens, one of his homeworlds dies.

[misslane38]

Well, you're not Kryptonian. It's easy to be all "obvious choice" when you're not directly concerned by the struggle (or, more precisely, when you are only directly concerned by one of the outcomes, making you biaised about it). Plus, it depends what it means to be "emotionnaly conflicted". So far, he hasn't showed the slightest bit of hesitation about what to do. He just goes in battle with "a heavy heart", because he knows that, no matter what happens, one of his homeworlds dies.

One of his homeworlds already died. If Smallville beat any idea to the ground, it was that you don't mess with fate. Earth should not suffer for the sins of another planet. The End. Superman shouldn't have to "weigh [the deaths of everyone on Earth] against his family history and lineage and stuff," as Lobdell suggests. To weigh implies a mental pro/con list, but if such a list existed, and first to go on it was in the "Con" column saying Earth dies, there would be no need to finish that list with a note in the "Pro" column about his "lineage and stuff." There is no reason that would ever justify the destruction of an entire planet.

On a side note, how does such a mission even make sense? Wouldn't it create a paradox of some kind? For instance, if Krypton is saved Kara would've never come to Earth and thus would have never helped H'El to rescue Krypton.

[Auguste Dupin]

One of his homeworlds already died. If Smallville beat any idea to the ground, it was that you don't mess with fate. Earth should not suffer for the sins of another planet. The End. Superman shouldn't have to "weigh [the deaths of everyone on Earth] against his family history and lineage and stuff," as Lobdell suggests. To weigh implies a mental pro/con list, but if such a list existed, and first to go on it was in the "Con" column saying Earth dies, there would be no need to finish that list with a note in the "Pro" column about his "lineage and stuff." There is no reason that would ever justify the destruction of an entire planet.

On a side note, how does such a mission even make sense? Wouldn't it create a paradox of some kind? For instance, if Krypton is saved Kara would've never come to Earth and thus would have never helped H'El to rescue Krypton.

What does any of this has to do with Smallville? Just because Smallville does something one way doesn't mean anybody has to follow up whatever they did.
It's not about not knowing the right thing to do morally. It's not about making "Cons/Pros" lists as if you just don't care. It's about having the choice between saving your biological mom, one you never met but who was one of the greatest person of the planet, at the cost of your adoptive mom, or letting the former die. While it's one thing to know it's best to not tamper with time and that most people wouldn't want the death of the person who raised them, it's another to have the guts to look at the one who gave you the choice and to say "let her die". That's called an emotional conflict. And if you have a hard time saying the words "let her die" when the time to make the choice come, congrats, that means you have actual emotions.

As for the side note.....there's about as many answers than there are time travel stories. She could have created a parralel timeline where Krypton was saved, there could be two Kara, one from the timeline where Krypton died (wether or not that timeline still exists or not) and another from where Krypton never died. The Kara who time travelled could disapear, the whole multiverse could collapse, she could be devoured by time eating mud balls......that's the thing with stuff we never actually tried. We have no idea what could happen.

[LoneNecromancer]

Sounds a bit like they are borrowing from one of the Doctor Who specials, pulling a planet in one time zone in to Earth space and so destroying it. Or it could be the result of a release of energy caused by the temporal shift of such a large mass. Or simply the affect of tidal gravitational forces suddenly interacting simultaneously. Pick your techno-babble

No, that's... nothing like it. Did you even read the issue?

[misslane38]

What does any of this has to do with Smallville? Just because Smallville does something one way doesn't mean anybody has to follow up whatever they did.

I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm saying, however, is that the show and the Donner film plot it drew upon for this particular theme has merit: it is not Superman's role to interfere in history.

It's not about not knowing the right thing to do morally. It's not about making "Cons/Pros" lists as if you just don't care. It's about having the choice between saving your biological mom, one you never met but who was one of the greatest person of the planet, at the cost of your adoptive mom, or letting the former die. While it's one thing to know it's best to not tamper with time and that most people wouldn't want the death of the person who raised them, it's another to have the guts to look at the one who gave you the choice and to say "let her die". That's called an emotional conflict. And if you have a hard time saying the words "let her die" when the time to make the choice come, congrats, that means you have actual emotions.

For heaven's sake, I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard emotionally. But it shouldn't be an actual conflict that needs to be weighed or considered. The answer should be obvious: save Earth or save both. There should be no conflict whatsoever in Superman's mind that saving Earth takes precedent. Now that decision would certainly be heart-wrenching, but it shouldn't be challenging in any other way.

As for the side note.....there's about as many answers than there are time travel stories. She could have created a parralel timeline where Krypton was saved, there could be two Kara, one from the timeline where Krypton died (wether or not that timeline still exists or not) and another from where Krypton never died. The Kara who time travelled could disapear, the whole multiverse could collapse, she could be devoured by time eating mud balls......that's the thing with stuff we never actually tried. We have no idea what could happen.

Well, here's hoping Lobdell doesn't ignore these little details so questions like this don't arise in the future.