So essentially this person hates Superman.
So essentially this person hates Superman.
Really, nobody here recognizes irony or satire? It's perfectly clear to me that the point of the article is that none of those things ruined Superman: that he's survived fundamental changes to his powers/concept (flying, Electric Blue), terrible movies (III, IV, Returns), terrible comic stories (Grounded, Sleez), and terrible, regrettable costume changes (Electric Blue, mullet) over and over again. None of the current controversies or missteps (kissing Wonder Woman, quitting the Planet, ditching the trunks, Scott Lobdell, Man of Steel) will ruin him either.
You're giving them way too much credit. That irony if anything is why the article is hilarious.
The only thing that has ruined Superman were those assholes who frequently try to "fix" Superman and tell everyone how stupid he is. He's pretty much the only character were you hear that stuff all the time.
I'd rather have people go forward with him and embrace the fact that he works in different ways. As a sci-fi hero, a mythological hero even as a method to explore philosophical concepts..
I hate to break to you fellow Superman fans but...
This article is actually right. Or at the very least, if you kept an open mind, you would see it actually makes very strong points:
1. I do happen to like the fact that Superman can fly just as much as the next person, so I disagree that him being able to fly is a bad thing. However, the author does have a point in saying that it also opened the door for various Superman writers to add additional powers which made him into a virtual demigod and made challenges too easy. This, unfortunately, has been one of the things which not labels Superman "boring" but is also become too much a challenge for his writers, hence why they're always looking for ways to reduce his power levels or give him weaknesses.
2. Not that the author is NOT saying Lois Lane being Superman's love interest is bad; rather, he's talking about the way their relationship had been depicted for so many years, with Lois trying to trick him into marriage and Superman acting like a complete jerk to stymie her efforts. In short, he's talking about "Superdickery."
3. Pretty much the same exact point as #1, which, I do agree is superfluous.
4. Again, the author is pointing out the obvious: Superman is the public figure, not the "mild-mannered" Clark Kent, and being a TV news anchor offers less freedom to slip away as opposed to being a reporter does.
5. He's also stating the obvious here: Superman III and IV are considered the low points of the Chirstopher Reeve Superman films to the point that Superman Returns didn't even consider them canon.
6. Again, he's stating the obvious here: the "Sleez" story is considered one of the worst Superman stories ever penned and low point for John Byrne. However, this story was also ignored and, thanks to the New 52, is no longer in continuity, so thank goodness for that.
7. Yes, the Death and Rebirth of Superman is considered one of the more monumental moments in Superman history, but as the article points out, and especially the Max Landis' film short which the article links to, it had the negative effect of cheapening death in comics, especially since it paved the way for both DC and Marvel to temporarily kill off their bigger headline superheroes, only to then bring them back in a couple of months or less. And how many of the folks on these very message boards complained about this exact same thing?
8. I agree, this was just silly, but the "super-mullet" and the "Electric-Blue Superman" were pretty bad looks for him.
9. The main point he seems to be making about Smallville here is that it over-exhausted it's premise of "the adventures of young Clark Kent before becomes Superman" to the point where it lost all meaning. Yes, it was a popular hit show, but it also meant the show creators had to keep coming up with all sorts of ways to keep it going to where it started becoming stale as time went on.
10. Again, he's just pointing out the obvious, specifically the major flaw of Superman Returns--that it not only meant Superman abandoned Earth which he promised to never do, but it also made him into a creepy stalker and a dead-beat dad to boot. Why else would Warner Brothers want to reboot the Superman movie franchise yet again shortly afterwards?
11. Here his larger point is all the gimmicks that writers have made to try and make Superman more "cool" and "relevant" to contemporary times, which end up doing the exact opposite and highlight stuff like "Superman walking across America" or "Clark quits to become a blogger" as the gimmicks they really are.
12. I know some Superman/Wonder Woman shippers hate to hear this, but the writer is absolutely correct when he says "When you've got a character who can juggle black holes while memorizing every book ever written, you know, it's not a bad idea for him to have strong relationships with ordinary humans." One thing he doesn't add is that it also is detrimental to Wonder Woman, since it reduces a character who is supposed to be a independent superhero in her own right with her own separate mythos by merely defining her as "Superman's sexy sidekick" or "Superman's current lover."
And regurgitating what the article says doesn't make it more valid.
I agree with these points, especially the first one. I see that as an affect of the code. I also see the Superdickery stuff in Lois Lane's title as a result of it. Basically I think Superman's problem as a character is having a rough time escaping the Silver Age, which is pretty connected to your last point.
And the reason why I "regurgitated" the points the article made was because some seemed to have too quickly dismissed what the article was talking about, saying "Oh, what he wrote was stupid" and didn't seem to examine closely what was actually being said. Just because you disagree with someone's argument doesn't make it necessarily invalid.
I may be a Superman fan but I'm not so stubborn that I can't go into any critical piece about the character without an open mind. I just find this one to be poorly constructed, with poor points and poor explanations. If it were a satirical read it'd be funny, but I didn't come away feeling it was a purposely satirical article.
The character's appeal has taken a hit in modern days. And there are indeed reasons for that. But the article in my opinion hits on on none of those, instead, like I said before, it seems to just be picking and choosing landmark moments of the character's existence and putting a negative spin on it. Which in of itself is fine but still doesn't fit the theme of hurting the character's appeal. Hell, some entries, like Smallville, actually reinvigorated the appeal of the mythos to a new audience.
Last edited by Sacred Knight; 02-02-2013 at 02:56 PM.
And it's a completely different point from the article's headline.You yourself just pointed out how the Death of Superman was detrimental to the industry which was exactly the point the article was making.
Nope, it's possible to have read the article before knowing how dumb it is.And the reason why I "regurgitated" the points the article made was because some seemed to have too quickly dismissed what the article was talking about, saying "Oh, what he wrote was stupid" and didn't seem to examine closely what was actually being said. Just because you disagree with someone's argument doesn't make it necessarily invalid.