Superman Through the Ages! Forum

I was just thinking about that.

Of couse I'm against the Byrne - reboot, and againt a Superman who is always sel-doubting himself. I want him to be confident and effective.

But can Maggin, Donner and Morrison have gone too far in the oposite direction, even if it was the original concept of Siegel and Shuster?

Maggin said in Miracle Monday that Superman, realizing or not, could do no mistake. In the Richard Donner movie, Superman turn back time and bring back Lois back to life. Morrison Superman and JLA is unstopeble, a leader of humanity who also will never fail. Don't get me wrong, I love all of this, but...

Is it the most inspiring, in a personal level, than the hero who eventually fail and lern with it? Like in Superman: The Hidden Years?

Or the great icon of the other comic book company?

I think that when Superman manages to beat the odds to win impossible odds, it sends a stronger message then simply accepting defeat: it encourages people to think "nothing's impossible, so long as you perservere."

That's what Jimmy and Lois are for --a human dimension to the tales of moral certitude and triumph over adversity.

However there were things that even Superman could not do. He wound up in Krypton past numberous times and failed each time to change anything.  
The efforts to explain his inaction during WWII didn't come together until the
Spear of Destiny and Holy Grail ideas came along. He and luthor teamed up to end world hunger - another disaster.  His efforts at finding an antidote to Kryptonite were a total bust even thought Luthor supposedly made the original antidote from a lab Superman himself had built.

Yes there were time when Superman could beat the odds but there were oter time whent he odd should have been in his favor and he totally botched the job.

It would make for interesting reading if he made mistakes every once in a while.
Otherwise the outcome of each story is more or less predictable. I'd like to see Superman be more unpredictable. Imagine if we could see a bit more of his dark side when he fights his enemies. A more merciless Superman. Clark Kent with a bit of Wolverine's nature? I'd just love to see that!!

No, no, no! Remember the code! And I don't mean the comics code: I mean his personal code.

I meant displaying a uncompromising nature when fighting villians, i.e. putting them down mercilessly - no mr. nice-guy.
Of course he shouln't go and off innocent bystanders. There's a distinction.

well, the Golden Age Superman was like that, he also didn't have a no kill code, but this only lasted until 1942.

I think you are referring to the passage where Superman had just defeated C. W. Saturn (Chapter 23 (http://superman.nu/thebook/mm/?chapter=23)).



Maggin didn't say that Superman never made mistakes, only that in this particular situation he could not. As a matter of fact, in Chapter 6 (http://superman.nu/thebook/mm/?chapter=6) Superman did make a mistake. He (as Clark Kent) cued the wrong videotape. Maggin even says that it was "just a touch horrifying" that Superman had made the mistake.

Regarding the topic question, I think there are several examples of Superman's failures in the pre-Crisis comics. But Superman never failed to try. He persevered. He never quit. He was Superman.

I can enjoy reading about a hero who fails, picks himself up, and tries again. I can't enjoy reading about a hero who fails, mopes about, and gives up.

I don't have a problem with Superman failing--as long as it's not common and he always makes up for his mistakes.

Oh, well, I quite agree with that. I always like it when Superman shows everybody who's the man. You have to love the dialogue he would be given back in the thirties: "You're not fighting a woman now!" and "You little vixen!" (I actually once said that to an old girlfriend of mine, and I'll be goshdarned if it didn't stop her in her tracks. I was still wrong, of course.)

There seems to be this perception among scriptwriters that in order to be a thoroughly good and decent human being, you have to be pretty sappy. Well, needless to say, I disagree with that. The man should have a bit of gumption. I like Grant Morrison's take on Superman: he is so powerful that he doesn't need to posture or stand around arms akimbo; he is completely cool and relaxed all the time, and he doesn't take any, er, crap.

Well said, Permanus!

Thanks for the correction about Miracle Monday. I kind of agree with what you all said. About the edgier Superman, we've seen some of that int the Superman II movie, Alan Moore's For the man who have everything, and post-Crisis Superman stories by Jurgens, Joe Kelly (Action 775), Mark Waid (Birthright) and Geoff Johns (the story with Major Force).

Any comment about the Donner movie scene when Superman turn back time? It was established in comics that Superman could time travel, but not alter history. Therefore, with the ability of reverting death and all, you just loose the tension of his stories. If anything can be undone, what's the point? It was beautiful in the movie, and seen it just one time was OK, but I don't think it's the way to go. A fail he had to live with in post-Crisis comics was the destruction of the moon and it's human civilization in Time and Time Again (Dan Jurgens), a story about Superman being incapable of solving everything. I had no problem with that.

Turning back time in the movie was a kind of sweet idea, it doesn't ruin it, other than the knowledge of reversing the Earth's rotation would not only not turn back time, it would destroy the planet and everything living on it... 8)

Here's an earlier forum thread -- Movie Questions (http://superman.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=191) -- that includes some nitpicking about the movies.

The "turning back time" scene was one of the "nits" that got picked. Some think that the scene depicts Superman reversing the Earth's rotation (and therefore, time). Nightwing suggested that the force required to do this would likely wreck the planet.

My opinion was (and still is) that the moviemakers were showing Superman traveling backward in time. The "time reversal" effect showed the events "unhappening" from Superman's POV.

Don't know what the writer/director really meant to show. Maybe they didn't know either.

In that earlier thread, it was Valdemar (not me) who first suggested that Supes was time-traveling rather than turning back time. I did add my 2-cents, tho.

Well, I suppose, but the scenes showing "unhappening" (reversing) being from Superman's point of view would be the only scenes from the movie from his point of view...

The answer to your question is no. Like Michael Jordan, Superman has failed lots of times. I'll try to list some of Superman's major failures, in chronological order:

1. Losing his parents. Not his fault, but when going to Krypton, he always failed to save them.
2. Lyla Ler-Rol..the woman he loved more than anyone else, blown to smithereens on Krypton.
3. His friendship with Lex Luthor.
4. His relationship with Lana Lang, or lack thereof, during an awkward time in life.
5. Losing his parents...again. He was unable to save the Kents. He found out later that it wasn't his fault...but they were still dead anyway.
6. Proposal to Lori Lemaris...shot down!
7. William F. Cramer, college roommate, died in a burning building thinking that Clark was ignoring him. Clark didn't make it in time.
8. "Ducky," another college roommate, was a raging alcoholic, got in an accident, and was paralyzed.
9. "Superman's New Power" - he was outperformed by a mini version of himself, got jealous, and kind of murdered the little guy if you want to know the truth, or at least tried to.
10. Parenting....loser! Dropped his cousin off at an orphanage.
11. Smallville people: Lana turned out alright, but Pete Ross went on to have personal problems that even a Superman couldn't solve. And Lex Luthor...well, you know how that turned out.
12. Failed to keep Lois from marrying a weird Kryptonian named Dahr-Nel...although Dahr-Nel did mysteriously die from a chunk of green k  from Superman's fortress. Hmm...
13. Many tragedies occurred in the 30th century that I cannot list here.

Those were some examples, and that's not even counting the many stories where Superman was written to fail on purpose, just to prove the worth of Jimmy Olsen or Snapper Carr.

Wow, this old subject again!

Another of the many problems with this scene: remember that Lois dies because Superman has to triage a whole host of disasters and decide on a priority for dealing with them.  Ms Teschmacher makes it harder by insisting he save New Jersey first, which gives the California missile time to detonate, unleashing a string of mishaps for Supes to correct; the dam, the school bus, the fault itself, and so on.  If he really turns back time the most he could do is go back and re-prioritize the various crises.  So, if he saves Lois, who does he allow to die?  The residents of New Jersey?  Somebody in California?  Since the fissure is not even near Lois' car when he returns, can we assume the California missile never went off?  If so, then I guess New Jersey has been blasted off the map.  My condolences to any Jerseyites on this board.  :cry:

As for "never failing," there is a difference between a miscalculation or an inability for superpowers to fix everything, and a basic lack of direction or will.  It's not so much that modern Superman fails, as WHY he fails.  Luthor pulls crimes and gets away again and again, but Dr Doom did that for years and we never hated the FF for it.  The real problem is that Superman wallows in self-pity and moral uncertainty and never seems to have any faith in himself or any clue how to use his powers.  I can accept a Superman who makes an honest effort, goofs it up, and goes in to fix his goof.  I cannot accept a Superman who fails to act because he can't decide on a proper course of action, or whether he even has a right to act at all.

I think what irks me most about post-Crisis Supes is not that Lex beats him all the time, but that, all things considered, I'd be tempted to beat him up too if I ever met him.

Nightwing's point summed up the matter succinctly: Superman ought to fail, but because he miscalculated, didn't know all the facts, or his opponent is just incredibly incompetent, but not because of a lack of inner fortitude or lack of direction.

One of my biggest problems with LORD OF THE RINGS is, the bad guys never do anything right there. Not once. They never win any battle (except a meaningless one in the third movie that did not involve any major characters), they kidnap two Hobbits but they were the WRONG two Hobbits, and so on.

One thing that ought to be avoided with Superman however, which is indulged in recent times, is "Beat up on Worf" syndrome.

The name comes from the fact that to show how tough the new cyborg, shapechanger, squid alien or whatever they just introduced is, they have the thing beat up Worf. The consequence of this was, after a while, nobody thought Worf was all that tough anymore.

The same has been done for Superman. Wanna show how smart Batman is, or how fast the Flash is, or how smart this or that person is? Have them beat up Worf...er, I mean Superman. Thus, Superman's own intelligence and strength have gone unappreciated.

Interesting opinions, thank you all. Let's continue.

Elliot S! maggin said:

"An irregular pentagon containing a stylized "S" blazed over the boy's chest and cape. On that hill, silently, he promised himself and whatever else might hear his toughts that his life would be devoted to the preservation of life; that he would use his powers whenever possible to save and improve the conditions of life and of living things everywhere; that under no circunstance would he ever be responsible for the lost of a single conscious life; that failing in these affirmations, he would renounce his power forever.

There could be no nobler mission for a superman".

This is not like saying Superman would never fail in anything, just about the human life. I suport that. We all know that both the pre and post Crisis have killed. Not talking about the Golden Age and pre-moral code here. Pre-Crisis Superman killed in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow and indeed renounced his powers forever. Hence, that was his last story. Post-Crisis killed in the infamous Pocket Universe Byrne story. He exiled himself in space, found redemption and made a promess of never kill again (but he would kill the Cyborg in Reing of Supermen). About the killing, I know that the circunstances were different, that in the Moore story it was necessary (maybe) and in the Byrne story it was murder (for sure).

But the question is, one version did give up on his mission as protector, leader and inspiration of all humanity. The other killed, but learned from that (I think it's possible for a killer in the real world to find redemption, too) and didn't stop being Superman. I know that the story Moore wanted to tell was written to be the end of the pre-Crisis mythos, but still.

Opinions?

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, while a good story, was essentially Alan Moore throwing a temper tantrum and destroying everything because Byrne was coming. While I like to think of it as actually happening, I don't think it was true of the Silver Age or Bronze Age Superman to renounce his powers because of Mxyzptlk's death, which was essentially an accident.

Superman-as-executioner is one of the things I don't like about the Superman of the late 80s. In 1980, Miracle Monday had Superman spend an entire novel NOT killing an aggravating foe. That was more true to the character since WWII.

Regarding the time travel scene in Superman: The Movie, I think Smallville handled it better. Imagine if Kal went to Jor-El after Lois died and pleaded for help. Jor-El gives Kal a crystal, he goes back in time, and he succeeds in saving Lois. However, due to Jor-El's cryptic message about not interfering in human history, the Fortress and the essense of Jor-El are lost forever.

Or he could've just given Lois super-CPR.  :)