Scott Snyder talks about Superman, Lois Lane at 3 Chicks Review Comics Podcast

[Coyote2010]

Well, Krypton wasn't an utopia in the sense evil didn't exist. it was an utopia in the sense people there all reached their potential while we, still evolving humans that we are, have still in the process of evolution.
So, in a sense, Superman is an inspirationnal figure because he shows us what we could become, when our evolutionnary journey is complete.
I must admit that, in many ways, I find the Golden Age lore to be much better thought and much cooler than the one we have in modern days, at least when it comes to Superman.

I absolutely agree because the touchstone for that version, Golden Age/Silver Age Krypton is Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers.

I blame the Donner films though they are classics, and maybe because of budget, went with that sterile emotionless version that seems post Kubrick 2001 and far from the version from back when.

Also notice in that film how Jor El cradles Kal El with a running history of Earth and the Universe as he travels to Earth? No Wheels on The Bus for that child.

[misslane38]

I have zero idea who Dean Hacker is and Kelly Thompson is in this bias podcast so please unless you have a superman writer with a modern, relevant up to date view who is actually writing him now in the new 52, this is opinion not gospel. I have yet to read what Synder will write so it's all talk right now.

Dean Hacker is basically a comics analyst along the same lines as Colin Smith (Too Busy Thinking About Comics) and Julian Darius (Sequart); he's someone who applies intelligence, critical thinking, and the depth and breadth of his understanding of the medium to his commentary on comics. That said, I'm not asking you to take his opinion as gospel. It's just something someone said that gets at the themes I brought up. Given that it's a perspective many others have echoed--fans and professionals alike--I tend to think there is enough truth to it that it doesn't deserve to be wholly dismissed.

I have yet to read what Synder will write so it's all talk right now.

If you've not read anything from Snyder, including the interview we're discussing now and other previous interviews, to accept any conclusions since "it's all talk right now" then I gather you won't be commenting on Snyder's book until he does say something worthwhile to you.

Well I do not believe she can be a better reporter than he is. I believe writers have Superman often uses the reporter id in the past to allow him to be Superman and writers have failed to give his efforts to his job any real credence. Lois goes after big stories. She goes after corruption and big villains sure and Superman stories etc. I would like to see Clark do the opposite and not try to make his name via sensation and always big headline news.

Lois can be, and is more often than not, the better reporter. Consider what was written in the Action Comics #6 backup flashback to Clark talking to Pete Ross about his career aspirations. He tells Pete that the reason he's drawn to reporting is that it's a challenge.



To him, all of his powers have made it easy for him to excel at many human pursuits, but finding the right words and approach to a story to get people's attention and change minds is not something his powers can do. We admire him for seeking out a challenge when he could simply rely on his natural born gifts to take the easy way out. Therefore, it's easy to conclude Clark would find any reporter good at their craft inherently impressive. Since Lois Lane is a peer who he first encounters competing with him for stories--going after the same bad guys (Grundig) and showing up in the same places he does without getting tips from "Icarus"--his initial esteem for her as seen in Action #0 (her work is "like a martial arts display") is affirmed and intensified.

Now, all of that doesn't mean Lois is infallible. The message the New 52 conveys is that Lois Lane has tremendous potential for journalistic greatness that can, and has, exceeded Clark's. But what makes her better, by her own admission, is someone like Clark with whom she can compete. They're like two athletic competitors who are at the top of their sport, but instead of adversaries they're teammates who push each other to be better. In short, they complement each other.

That is what Lobdell hopefully will show. It's a great thing to see Clark break away from the Daily Planet and not just be there to play some hamfisted rival to Lois, when he probably never even tried his best. Clark being able to type fast should have zero do to with his ability to put his thoughts into words. The heart it might have to move people via words has nothing to do with being super.

First, I would hope Clark didn't hold back in his journalistic efforts, especially when he was using his reporting to bring attention and aid to the poor and downtrodden. I'm sure he did the best he could; I would expect nothing less of him. Second, it is unlikely that Clark's departure from The Daily Planet will eliminate the friendly rivalry between him and Lois. If anything, I can see it manifesting on a much larger scale with his reporting competing with hers at PGN and Perry White's at the DP. One would hope the long-term plan isn't to let the DP remain corrupted and unredeemed. So my guess and hope is that Clark providing some competition will act, as it has before, as a nudge to return Lois and both PGN and the DP to their former glory.

As for the ability to type fast, it isn't the be all end all, but it is useful when it comes to shooting off emails to sources and writing up articles quickly to race past a deadline or grab a headline before someone else. Imagine Lois and Clark both attend a Luthor or Presidential press conference. Clark's superspeed would not only give him access to a word processor more quickly but also help him type his story faster, effectively beating Lois out of that story. It is advantageous to him. You are right, though, that a story written quickly doesn't guarantee that it's a good story. It's what's in his heart and how those inform his instincts to tell certain stories or how he translates what he's learned into prose capable of enlightening and moving people that ultimately defines a reporter's success. So, if we agree that a reporter's skill has nothing to do with superpowers it's reasonable to believe Lois Lane could generally be a better journalist than Clark.

This is a perfect example of people who never wrote a Superman story...and wait did the podcasters not say they don't usually buy Superman...coming to give opinions on a subject is ironic.

The podcasters weren't giving their opinion on Superman. They were asking a writer of Superman very basic and broad questions about Superman, and the meat of the conversation was coming from him. This is a guy who, to prepare for the task of writing Superman, has consulted the likes of Mark Waid and has devoured a lot of key Superman lore including Maggin's work. So I honestly don't know what kind of point you're trying to make with this comment. The podcasters weren't giving their opinions and we're not debating their opinions. We're discussing Snyder's opinions, and he obviously has been exposed to Superman comics.

Superman that we are going to read now is not this guy from preflashpoint and I hope to god we never go back to that. I hope Man Of Steel, the movie, puts that crap to bed as well and shows a Clark who took up the call because of his desire to.

Pre-Flashpoint Superman "took up the call because of his desire to" and Man of Steel is obviously still going to show how Lois Lane's faith in him, when so many others react with suspicion and fear, gives him hope.

Part 1 of 2

[misslane38]

Part 2 of 2

Just because Lois shows she trusts him by taking his hand is no way a vindication that she is the reason why he becomes a hero. She gives him the exposure. She breaks the story. She sells him to the public. If there is romantic entanglement involved...it does equal to bias on her part.

Lois taking Superman's hand is clearly not being used to show that she is the sole reason he becomes a hero. He's already in his Superman suit acting like a hero. He was acting heroically when he saves his classmates on the bus. Her faith and acceptance of him, however, should be allowed to be a nice bookend to the fear of Jonathan that people would reject him out of fear and the hope of Jor-El who dreamed that one day the inhabitants of Earth would join his child "in the sun." Lois does support his mission, though. You can use cynical terms like she "sells him to the public," but what she's doing is telling his side of the story. When it comes from one of them--a human--it has an impact. Reporters are always biased. You think journalists don't have political leanings? They do, yet they have to report on politicians from both sides fairly. Lois may admire Superman, but she has been shown to be able to maintain objectivity. Even when married to him in the Post-Crisis, she wrote an article criticizing him because he deserved it.

It usually has been that way from the moment he meets her and last I checked he did not look an ogre. Any woman would react the way Lois would to him so that is not anything special.

Yes, Superman is attractive. Lois is attractive. Superman and Lois aren't shallow, however. She doesn't defend Superman from Lex and her father in Action Comics #2 because he has good looks, but because he has a good heart; she demonstrates this by using evidence of his heroic deeds to advocate for his release. So that is what makes what they have something special: it's not a relationship defined by the superficial. She looks at his actions and sees only them and not his potentially dangerous superpowers or alien origin. He looks at her actions and sees someone who is brave, intelligent, and heroic. Surely, one hopes you would see how tricky this line of reasoning can be if extended to Superman's current relationship with Wonder Woman whose exceptional beauty and strength--so superficial stuff--makes his attraction her equally lacking in anything special.

DC trying not to have her go gaga over him initially is actually an attempt to give her some credibility but I think it's clear we know she is taken by him.

Lois does go gaga over him, but not romantically. She admires his heroism, and has not demonstrated anything serious beyond that. Morrison had Lois say she wished she was marrying Superman instead of dying in the street, but I'm sure most people would rather do anything rather than die a painful death. In Justice League, Johns had her say Superman's waiting for her, but that comes across as humorous bravado and not deep, abiding affection because, if that were true, she wouldn't be satisfied with just waiting around for Superman. Johns also had Jimmy suggest Lois was jealous of Wonder Woman's relationship with Superman in Justice League #15. However, as I've explained before elsewhere that line made little sense given that Lois was given to reason to think they were a couple. Since Lobdell said in a recent interview that Lois doesn't know about Superman/Wonder Woman and wouldn't be jealous because she's happy with Jonathan, it follows that Jimmy was just being an idiot and there's no truth to his accusation.

And this constant rejection of Clark is old and cliched and if it were done nowadays to female heroes we'd hate it. Clark by himself deserves credit and merit and much as Superman. The Superman myth is outdated in many ways.

Lois hasn't rejected Clark. She obviously cares about him and respects him very much as a human (in contrast to Superman) just as he cares and respects her despite the fact that she's not a superhero with powers like Wonder Woman. In a lot of ways, her esteem for Clark in the New 52 and the strength of their friendship is deeper and stronger than it's ever been in any incarnation at this stage in their relationship. She's just not in love with him yet so she doesn't make any moves to start anything with him. Clark, for his part, hasn't made any moves either despite his obvious attraction and affection for her, so she's not even been given an opportunity to reject Clark romantically.

[Stanlos]

I wouldn't be surprised if Superman dumps Wonder Woman in time for the new movie.

I wonder what the reason will be. Here is hoping that if that is the course that DC handles it better than they did the Maxwell Lord thing. Editorial thrusting and last minute thematic changes pretty much did exactly what John Byrne predicted--sully the character and leave us with the Fight-Fight-Fight-HA!!-version of the character we have in the DCU today.

[brettc1]

Yeah I know this forum is now worse than the Wonder Woman one.

I will never let you forget saying this for as long we live :)

[brettc1]

Superman is without a doubt morally superior in part due to his genetic makeup. That's where the whole Man of Tomorrow thing comes in. He's not human, he is a very, very genetically advanced and evolved human. Kryptonians are what humans may one day grow up to be. We are like children next to them.

Then how do you explain Zodd?

[Mr. Holmes]

When done right, Zod isn't supposed to be outright evil; he's a more nuanced figure.

[misslane38]

When done right, Zod isn't supposed to be outright evil; he's a more nuanced figure.

He's no more nuanced than other nuanced villains who don't have the benefit of a supposedly superior genetic makeup. Personally, I don't buy into the idea that just because a particular society is more morally evolved that means their genetic codes are inherently morally superior. There are some states in America that have banned the death penalty or countries that have extremely low crime rates. Those states and nations are not morally superior because of their inhabitants possess better genes.

[Auguste Dupin]

He's no more nuanced than other nuanced villains who don't have the benefit of a supposedly superior genetic makeup. Personally, I don't buy into the idea that just because a particular society is more morally evolved that means their genetic codes are inherently morally superior. There are some states in America that have banned the death penalty or countries that have extremely low crime rates. Those states and nations are not morally superior because of their inhabitants possess better genes.

Define morally superior. That, and realize that comparing Krypton (a planet populated by a different race) to others coutries (that, granted, are much more civilized than America) is kind of stupid.
Most versions of Kryptonians are at the very least intellectually superior (well, they're all are come to think of it). You could argue they're also physically superior, with the whole "becoming a living God under a Yellow Sun".
Now, to , pretend that they are morally superior (or not for that matter) is fishy at best, because one would have to define what moral superiority is, and frankly we can't even do that from one Earthly country to another, or even between individuals, so using moral standards for another race? Impossible.
But can it be argued that their genetic make them less disposed towards violence than us? Well, wether or not you could for them specifically depends on what version you're judging, but generally speaking, it's possible. A rabbit is very different when it comes to aggressivity than a tiger, even at their level. But that's not about morality, that's about evolving one way. If a Kryptonian is naturally less violent than a human, it's just because they didn't need to be , just like we became less and less strong as time went by because we don't actually need to hunt and be that physically active anymore. And, come to think of it, considering that most version of Krypton evolved into a society without wars and great similar conflicts, assuming it has been the case for a long enough period of time, it's not impossible to assume that they just became less inclined to solve their problem by beating the crap out of it.

[Mr. Holmes]

Yeah Krypton is more of an enlightened, holistic society. It doesn't mean they're perfect and are 100% rid of evils. In fact, the definition of utopia is "no place" or imaginary place.

[Kurosawa]

But if they were morally superior they wouldn't need a Phantom Zone for criminals who would do something so horrible as to deserve the death penalty. How does being morally superior explain why they didn't heed Jor-El's warning? It sounds like a prideful reaction to me, and as many understand, pride is one of the seven deadly sins. To me, the message is Krypton's tragic flaw was their belief in their own perfection and superiority.

Having a Phantom Zone and before that a suspended animation system shows their superiority because on Earth, we punish the most horrible of crimes with the same crime. It's vengeance, not justice, and it is the action of a less cultured and advanced civilization. Also, other failures of our society were no longer part of Krypton-war, starvation, bigotry, caste, all of those flaws of Earthly society were long in the past for Krypton. Kryptonian children did not starve to death-anywhere. There were not idiotic wars over god or territory or race. They had a united society that recognized the good of all was the prime purpose of their world. Kryptonians see things in black in white, not a savage Punisher type black and white where evil should be punished with equal evil, but an enlightened black and white where killing is wrong-always, and giving aid to others is right-always. It is the Kryptonian Way-"There is a right and wrong in the universe, and that value judgement is not difficult to make." For Kryptonians, deciding what is right and what is wrong is as clear as any other scientific process they work through. To a Kryptonian, and Superman certainly follows this-one only needs to make it clear to others that doing the right thing is in their best interests, and they should logically choose to do it. It is humanity's failure that they cannot see the sense in this, and Superman understands this, but he knows he can only be patient. He cannot force what he knows to be true on others, they have to make those decisions for themselves.

Thunderbolt? And why? What's so horrible about it?

The Post-Crisis Sam Lane who is a General, hates Clark and Superman and actively works to bring Superman down through military means is a complete rip-off of Marvel's General Thunderbolt Ross, the father of Betty Ross, Bruce Banner's wife. Ross hated Banner for being so frail and weak, and hated the Hulk because of his power (before it became known Banner and the Hulk were the same), and felt he was not worthy of his daughter. DC ripped the character off completely, and he wasn't a particularly great character at Marvel to begin with. The Pre-Crisis Sam and Etta Lane were Horse Breeders from Iowa. They were very fond of Clark and would have liked for him and Lois to be together. They reminded Clark quite a bit of his Ma and Pa. Pre-Crisis Clark and Lois had a lot in common, it was Lana who was the stuck-up bitch.

[Kurosawa]

Then how do you explain Zodd?

Zod, Jax-Ur, Faora and other Kryptonian criminals are genetically defective. The crime and terrorism rate of Krypton was still microscopic compared to Earth. There were less than 25 people in the Zone, 50 max. This is out of a world with billions of people.

[Auguste Dupin]

Yeah Krypton is more of an enlightened, holistic society. It doesn't mean they're perfect and are 100% rid of evils. In fact, the definition of utopia is "no place" or imaginary place.

I've always considered Krypton to be an example of science done right. Like, what we could become if we dedicate ourself to science, but in a positive way, as a mean of improving the lives of those among us. Unlike Luthor, who is a man dedicated to science, but only to serve his own benefit and his own obsessions. That's why I sure didn't like it when Byrne made Krypton a place of science turned wrong.

[misslane38]

Define morally superior. That, and realize that comparing Krypton (a planet populated by a different race) to others coutries (that, granted, are much more civilized than America) is kind of stupid.

One of the reasons Kryptonians were said to be morally superior to humans was that their world had outlawed capital punishment. The way I would best define what I mean by "morally superior" is to say that Kryptonians possess a genetic code that enables members of the species to act more morally than other species.

Most versions of Kryptonians are at the very least intellectually superior (well, they're all are come to think of it). You could argue they're also physically superior, with the whole "becoming a living God under a Yellow Sun".

If Kryptonians are not themselves genetically superior to other species on their home planet, then evolution based on adaptation over time to the environment did not gift them with superior bodies.

Now, to , pretend that they are morally superior (or not for that matter) is fishy at best, because one would have to define what moral superiority is, and frankly we can't even do that from one Earthly country to another, or even between individuals, so using moral standards for another race? Impossible.

I'm literally defining moral superiority as the genetic ability of one species to make consistently better moral choices than another species. I'm not specifying what those moral standards would be but rather speaking generally about a genetic predisposition for moral decision-making.

If a Kryptonian is naturally less violent than a human, it's just because they didn't need to be , just like we became less and less strong as time went by because we don't actually need to hunt and be that physically active anymore.

But, since I'm referring to genetics, are we to assume that if Kryptonians were relocated to a less advanced society or environment that they would continue to be less violent? In other words, if you remove the environmental conditions that promote pacificism and replace them with anarchy, would all Kryptonians still choose peace? Humans who have become less strong over time because there is no need to hunt couldn't possibly train themselves to be a master hunter with strength equal to his ancestors if necessity called on him to do so?

And, come to think of it, considering that most version of Krypton evolved into a society without wars and great similar conflicts, assuming it has been the case for a long enough period of time, it's not impossible to assume that they just became less inclined to solve their problem by beating the crap out of it.

Where I'm stuck is figuring out if Krypton's evolution was the result of genetic mutation -- they are genetically more evolved than humans -- or if Krypton's evolution was more cultural in nature. I'm more inclined to believe a longer history provided Kryptonian society with more time to maximize their potential as a species. Think of it this way: take two boys with identical IQs and temperaments and separate them. Raise one in an environment that includes a happy family, a peaceful community, and a top notch school. Raise the other in an environment that includes domestic violence, a war-torn community, and a poor quality school. It wouldn't be shocking that the two boys would likely have vastly different life outcomes. Risk factors decrease a child's chance of maximizing her potential while protective factors increase that potential. I believe Kryptonians were not genetically more moral but rather their society (culture) had evolved to a point that provided most members of the species with a higher number of beneficial protective factors. Would a human raised on Krypton from infancy to adulthood be morally compromised or would that human merely assimilate to his or her new environment?

Zod, Jax-Ur, Faora and other Kryptonian criminals are genetically defective. The crime and terrorism rate of Krypton was still microscopic compared to Earth. There were less than 25 people in the Zone, 50 max. This is out of a world with billions of people.

I absolutely loathe the idea that evil is the product of genetic determinism. To suggest that criminals like Zod were genetically defective is to suggest there is no hope for redemption for them. Superman holds out hope for Lex Luthor despite his obvious dabbling in criminality. Sometimes evil is a choice. I know you hate Smallville, and this is by no means an endorsement, but it played around with this idea of genetic determinism in Season 9. Younger clones of Zod and Faora lived on Earth. Clark was able to encourage Faora to choose the right path while Zod chose darkness.

[Auguste Dupin]

One of the reasons Kryptonians were said to be morally superior to humans was that their world had outlawed capital punishment. The way I would best define what I mean by "morally superior" is to say that Kryptonians possess a genetic code that enables members of the species to act more morally than other species.



If Kryptonians are not themselves genetically superior to other species on their home planet, then evolution based on adaptation over time to the environment did not gift them with superior bodies.



I'm literally defining moral superiority as the genetic ability of one species to make consistently better moral choices than another species. I'm not specifying what those moral standards would be but rather speaking generally about a genetic predisposition for moral decision-making.



But, since I'm referring to genetics, are we to assume that if Kryptonians were relocated to a less advanced society or environment that they would continue to be less violent? In other words, if you remove the environmental conditions that promote pacificism and replace them with anarchy, would all Kryptonians still choose peace? Humans who have become less strong over time because there is no need to hunt couldn't possibly train themselves to be a master hunter with strength equal to his ancestors if necessity called on him to do so?



Where I'm stuck is figuring out if Krypton's evolution was the result of genetic mutation -- they are genetically more evolved than humans -- or if Krypton's evolution was more cultural in nature. I'm more inclined to believe a longer history provided Kryptonian society with more time to maximize their potential as a species. Think of it this way: take two boys with identical IQs and temperaments and separate them. Raise one in an environment that includes a happy family, a peaceful community, and a top notch school. Raise the other in an environment that includes domestic violence, a war-torn community, and a poor quality school. It wouldn't be shocking that the two boys would likely have vastly different life outcomes. Risk factors decrease a child's chance of maximizing her potential while protective factors increase that potential. I believe Kryptonians were not genetically more moral but rather their society (culture) had evolved to a point that provided most members of the species with a higher number of beneficial protective factors. Would a human raised on Krypton from infancy to adulthood be morally compromised or would that human merely assimilate to his or her new environment?

-Except that, again, if nobody can agree on what is exactly the morally superior decision, it's impossible to judge one way or another. Morality is a social construct.

-That makes no sense. If they can beat the crap out of us, they are physically superior to us. Let's put it this way. Under a red sun, they are like us. Under a Yellow Sun, they are living Gods. Considering that, at first glance, putting humans under a red sun does not make them fly or push planets, I'd tend to say that overall they're physically superior. At worst, they're like us. At best, they're a billion time better.

- Your definition is too vague to be of any use. I'm pretty sure that what I consider to be the morally superior decision differs in some places to you. And I'm from the same specie. What does a gorilla consider to be a "morally superior decision"?

- Well, what happens when you suddenly introduce a specie in an environement it didn't evolve in? Two possibilities: either it becomes the new top of the food chain (and cause the exctinction of lots of other species), either it dies. Survival is the goal of evolution, but that doesn't mean that if you take a specie that evolved towards peaceful behaviours for generations into a violent environment, it will become violent out of the blue. Most likely, it will be eradicated before it has the time to adapt its behaviour to a new environment. Which I believe would be the case if you take Kryptonians out of Krypton (with no way of going back) and put them on Apokolips with no preparation.

-Both, of course. What we have to keep in our head is that Kryptonians are creatures that exist since way longer than us, and evolved in an environment that has nothing to do with us (actually, if my memories of Maggin are correct, early days Krypton was an incredibly difficult environment). You can't just assume their genetics are the same, most likely they are very different. Ducks and chicken are not the same, despite the fact they both have wings. Just because a duck is raised among chicken won't suddenly make him a chicken. He will pick some thing from them, but will keep others from his original specie. I have a Cat, found him when he barely was two months old (or something), and he obviously wasn't raised by a female cat (if anything, I'm the closest thing he has to a mom). He has no experience of cat society and his mother didn't teach him squat, and yet.......the cat knows how to hunt. He plays with stuff like a cat would. He behaves like a cat, despite having no one to teach him hpw to be one. That's instinct. That's genetics. Sure, if you put a Human among Kryptonians, he will try to live like them, and succeed to an extend. But, assuming Kryptonians are less aggressive, he will always be somewhat more aggressive than a Kryptonian. Just like cats are more of a loner than wolves.