They can't tell a story because a story has a start, a middle, and an ending.
now "stories" just go on and on and on forever.
That's true, and it gets on my nerves too... I just bought those stories from the nineties where Dominus alters reality to turn Superman into a
1940s two-fisted Nazi fighter. It's a great story, but in the third issue it starts going into another part of the story, and I just started getting first. Turns out I wouldn't be able to get the whole story without buying another like ten issues I don't care about. And even then, it came in from another set of stories and goes into another set of stories.
I appreciate what they're trying to do with that sort of thing. It's trying to be realistic. In real life, things don't have a beginning and an end all the time. Mostly they happen in the middle of something and as soon as it ends you don't notice 'cause you're already starting another chapter. I get it. It's cool.
It's just not as easy or fun to read as a simple one-shot to three-part story told over one to three issues.
People say they "softened" Superman but it seems like he became a bit more mature. Plus I liked when Supes would trick criminals into giving up.
I like those stories too- Superman disguising himself as "the old man of the sea" or something is definitely fun to read. And sure you can make the argument that he matured. But I think that the stories themselves were more childish by that point. There's a significant difference between a story for kids where Superman fights a criminal who turns out to be a public servant subverting the system for his own ends and a story for kids where Superman fights an vaguely-defined group of "crooks" who somehow forgot where they hid their loot in the public museum and decided Superman could help them find it if they hold his buddy Kent hostage. Both fun? Naturally. But one of them is going to come across as sillier and more childish, and it's not the one where you say Superman has matured.
I'm not sure that Superman should go around threatening innocent bankers. Or just tossing around private citizens.
His reluctance to do that in later years is something that has been constantly criticized by people who think that corrupt businessman Luthor got away with too much. Had he just barged in there and slapped him around and all of Metropolis cheered, I doubt you'd be expressing the same concerns. I could be wrong. But I believe I am not. Because not only is Luthor a "villain", he's a famous "villain". But the private citizens you're talking about aren't villains, they're mostly just criminals. Is it against the law for Superman to manhandle them like that? Undoubtedly. But unlike what you said, he never threatened anyone innocent.
Its sorta like a modern writer trying to do "golden age" wonder woman. It only worked because Marston was a bit of a weird guy (no offense). If they tried to do it again it would come off as "ironic" or totally miss the point.
A little aside here: Marston wasn't a bit of a weird guy, he was a LOT of a weird guy. The reason people try to do Golden Age Superman and Batman but not Wonder Woman is because Golden Age Wonder Woman was BAD. Good enough to inspire good characters with the same names forty years later, but not good themselves. He used those comics as an excuse to throw around his sexual fetishes. I have no problem with it if he liked his wife to tie him up, or even if he wanted to write comics about it, but I cannot support him putting that sort of material into comics he was writing FOR KIDS. That is all I have to say on William Moulton Marston.
or like when other people write Kirby's 4th world saga. When I read those stories its just like Kirby is writing down a dream he had the night before, I can follow it but its so personal that I don't see how someone could copy it without it falling into parody or it just being a boring superhero adventure.
I understand. But by that logic nobody should have ever told a story about Superman except for Siegel and Shuster. Like the Fourth World, Superman is more powerful than his creators. To think that he wasn't going to be written by other is not sensible. If you're saying that it's okay to tell stories about him besides the original Siegel/Shuster tales because Superman changed afterword, then I am confused. Is he a different character now, one that was not created by Siegel and Shuster? Is he no longer Superman? You used the phrase "boring superhero adventure" to describe other people writing the New Gods. That doesn't seem too far off from what happened to Superman after his socialist crusader phase wore off.
same goes with golden age superman. The politics are a bit off sometimes (he destroys the projects!?!?what kinda person agrees with that, though I agree with the idea that the a bad enviroment can cause some kids to "turn bad")
He destroyed the projects because of reasons like the one you just said. Bad environments leads to bad citizens. Crime is caused by poverty. That's not politics, it's a statistical fact. Destroy that poisonous environment, get a new, better one built (which is what he did in that story), and the crime decreases. Sometimes criminals reform. Potential new criminal get education, become ordinary citizens, etc. Decent theory. I don't know that it's a bad thing they didn't get into all that in-story though. That might have made it too preachy. An excess of preachy makes any story dull. That's what's wrong with Grounded, anyway.
I just feel we are going to get Morrison's politics wrapped up in Superman instead of Seigels original vision. Its not reassuring that Grant talks about how supes is a "socialist crusader". Ya because we all see how awesome socialism is plus Supes never seemed like that in the golden age. a populist? sure. A commie? I don't know.
Socialism
is awesome. Communism is not socialism.
Anyway, maybe we ARE getting Morrison's politics, but that's not the first time it's happened. Actually, that's been a trend since probably the Bronze Age. Superman is so aggressively apolitical because every writer wants him to be political, but they want him to agree with them. So instead, his politics are veiled, concealed in the story. For example. in "Must there be a Superman" he tells people who could really use his help dealing with their oppressors to bugger off and do it themselves, but he sure helps them rebuild after a natural disaster. That's pretty clearly representative of a conservative government. Was it supposed to be political? Probably not, but the author got his beliefs across and it seems pretty clear what they are. Every writer writes morality tales, but every writer has different morals.
Now the difference is that for the first time in a long time, Superman may return to being openly political rather then closet-political.