StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If Superman wanted the world to be a better place, why doesn't he use his power to make it happen?
Thus, the logical conclusion is that Superman is apparently so boring and unimaginative, he can't imagine any way he can improve the status quo.

I think there are a few reasons for that, aside the fact that it would brake the adolescent fantasy aspect and brake into messy real-world politics.

1. The world problems aren't punch-able. You can't punch epidemics, poverty, corruption, etc. They require adjustment in people, their attitudes, their priorities, even in their wealth, etc. Some of these problems he can better battle as a journalist exposing the truth than a guy with tights and a cape.

2. If Superman started punching people to get them to do stuff as he wants them, as opposed to stop them doing something terrible, he'd be seen as a bully. I am sure that some comics, even the animated series covered this to some extent: while physically a demi-god, he's mentally an average person (in some incarnations). Eventually he'd be taken up by some leader who can feed him the right ideology to turn him into a tool of oppression or worse, corrupt him and his morals. By staying out of stuff like that and going up against only obviously-bad stuff that helps prevent that. .

3. Doesn't he try in some incarnations though? Invent things, punch some people to stop fighting a war? And it horribly backfires?

I don't have much to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said (and I agree with the general trend that there is very little correlation between good vs evil and interesting vs boring for most people who are not angry adolescents).

I'd just like to state for the record, for anyone who tends to use the term "Boy Scout" as shorthand for a very dull person with solid morals who consistently does the right thing, that I am a member for life of that organization, and that it can't be taken away from me for violating the Scout Law, which I do on a daily basis. Particularly points #7 (A Scout is Obedient), #12 (A Scout is Reverent) and especially the unwritten #13 (A Scout is not a Fool), but I've broken all of them at some point. I get the figurative usage, but if you knew me or anybody else badass enough to make it to Eagle, you probably wouldn't employ it.

Cykeisme wrote:If Superman wanted the world to be a better place, why doesn't he use his power to make it happen?
Thus, the logical conclusion is that Superman is apparently so boring and unimaginative, he can't imagine any way he can improve the status quo.

1. A story about how great the world is after Superman fixed everything is an obviously thin sham with no commonality with the world the reader lives in, and so it is rejected by the audience.

2. There's a reason that there's a lot of dystopian fiction and almost no utopian fiction, because the former has potential for dramatic movement and the only dramatic movement that can happen to the latter is collapse. Superman cannot "fix everything" because the only possible story after he does is how what he builds falls apart, at which point things are back to being unfixed. (Maybe the only serious set of utopian fiction is the Culture novels and they are almost never actually set in the Culture and usually feature outsiders and malcontents from it).

2. Superman cannot fix things except by punching them, and so the only way he can "fix everything" is to be the best at punching things until they do what he wants, ie taking over the world. Comic books are very good at showing dramatic problems with simple solutions, they are not good at dealing with complex problems with deep rooted and intransigent causes. Real world problems tend to be complex problems and so comics are not good at addressing them.

Raw Shark wrote:I don't have much to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said (and I agree with the general trend that there is very little correlation between good vs evil and interesting vs boring for most people who are not angry adolescents).

I'd just like to state for the record, for anyone who tends to use the term "Boy Scout" as shorthand for a very dull person with solid morals who consistently does the right thing, that I am a member for life of that organization, and that it can't be taken away from me for violating the Scout Law, which I do on a daily basis. Particularly points #7 (A Scout is Obedient), #12 (A Scout is Reverent) and especially the unwritten #13 (A Scout is not a Fool), but I've broken all of them at some point. I get the figurative usage, but if you knew me or anybody else badass enough to make it to Eagle, you probably wouldn't employ it.

People also don't usually think of the Boy Scouts as the bigoted, homophobic, overtly religious organization that it actually is, so I think it's safe to say that the colloquial use of the term is not the same as the reality of said organization. While not used as often nowadays, the same can be said for Mother Theresa.

A good portion of the reason for the Boy Scouts' sterling reputation stems from a really good showing/PR campaign, not for their actual behavior...

biostem beat me to it . . . I'm not sure that I'd be proud to be a member of the Boy Scouts these days. However, I shouldn't talk too much because I've got a lifetime NRA membership that I haven't gotten around to canceling.

I don't know if it's been portrayed yet or not, but I'd love to see a comic series that dealt with the financial burden that Superman fighting within Metropolis city limits has placed upon its residents. I mean, after all, there's really no reason Supes couldn't just toss the baddie out of the city then fight them in an unpopulated area...

Vendetta wrote:2. There's a reason that there's a lot of dystopian fiction and almost no utopian fiction, because the former has potential for dramatic movement and the only dramatic movement that can happen to the latter is collapse. Superman cannot "fix everything" because the only possible story after he does is how what he builds falls apart, at which point things are back to being unfixed. (Maybe the only serious set of utopian fiction is the Culture novels and they are almost never actually set in the Culture and usually feature outsiders and malcontents from it).

Part of the problem is that despite the fact that fiction is almost always escapist in some fashion, often what we are actually escaping to is the idea that things could be simpler in a different context. That is part of the appeal of dystopain fiction, that of the return to a simpler time and place caused by a loss of technology. Even if none of the audience would ever actually want that.

Superheroes are a part of this ideal as well. The idea that we can punch our way through problems is subconsciously comforting, even if most of the people comforted by this would similarly never want to be in an actual fight.

biostem wrote:I don't know if it's been portrayed yet or not, but I'd love to see a comic series that dealt with the financial burden that Superman fighting within Metropolis city limits has placed upon its residents. I mean, after all, there's really no reason Supes couldn't just toss the baddie out of the city then fight them in an unpopulated area...

While it isn't about Superman but rather superheroes in general, you're basically describing the backstory to The Incredibles.

biostem wrote:People also don't usually think of the Boy Scouts as the bigoted, homophobic, overtly religious organization that it actually is, so I think it's safe to say that the colloquial use of the term is not the same as the reality of said organization. While not used as often nowadays, the same can be said for Mother Theresa.

A good portion of the reason for the Boy Scouts' sterling reputation stems from a really good showing/PR campaign, not for their actual behavior...

The flaws of the national organization's upper echelons vary by troop in their representation on the ground. There were two troops in my home town, and to be fair one of them was largely into doing Mormon shit, but mine was all about doing epic outdoor shit, winning skill competitions in things like first aid and gourmet campfire cooking, and playing very mean pranks on the other troop.

I honestly had no idea the Mormon affiliation went all the way up to national, or anything about the bigotry, homophobia, etc until I read about it in the news in college, so little was it apparent during my own experience. The only brown-skinned kid and the only openly-gay kid in my grade were both high-achieving members, and nobody in leadership ever gave me any flack over being an outspoken atheist.

Raw Shark wrote: The flaws of the national organization's upper echelons vary by troop in their representation on the ground. There were two troops in my home town, and to be fair one of them was largely into doing Mormon shit, but mine was all about doing epic outdoor shit, winning skill competitions in things like first aid and gourmet campfire cooking, and playing very mean pranks on the other troop.

I honestly had no idea the Mormon affiliation went all the way up to national, or anything about the bigotry, homophobia, etc until I read about it in the news in college, so little was it apparent during my own experience. The only brown-skinned kid and the only openly-gay kid in my grade were both high-achieving members, and nobody in leadership ever gave me any flack over being an outspoken atheist.

While my experience in the Boy Scouts was similar to yours in that the local troops never reflected the onerous behavior associated with the upper ranks (and, like you, I never heard about that stuff until years after my participation ended), and there were no religious overtones or anything that I experienced, it ALSO wasn't a rigorous experience. Anyone who was an 'Eagle Scout' was just someone who had been there longest; there was very little merit involved, and indeed several of the Eagle Scouts were simply the scouts who were closest to the troop leader and helped him organize the events and such rather than demonstrating any sort of outdoorsy skill.

It just varies so wildly from troop to troop, because for all practical purposes, even though it's a national organization, it's a hyper-local thing to be a part of. Which is really why I don't hold any particular respect for Eagle Scouts. While there are Eagle Scouts out there that came out of good programs where they actually had to work hard and learn a lot of practical skills, there are just as many (I'd argue more, but I can't prove it) for whom it is just an empty title. There's an Eagle Scout in the office next door to mine at work; he has his certificate framed on his office wall and everything. I went camping with him once and I had to show him how to build a campfire; he didn't know how to properly construct the wood-pile, he was just throwing wood in a haphazard pile. And that has been my experience with most of the Eagle Scouts I've met. Very rarely have I met an Eagle Scout who actually lived up to the imagined standards of the title.

Maybe this is a tangent, and I don't want to insult you since you are clearly proud of being an Eagle Scout, but just from my personal experience it's not something I find particularly impressive. I mean, I probably could have been an Eagle Scout if I really cared to be; I believe it I made it as far as Star before I quit the Boy Scouts, because I didn't enjoy most of the activities the local troop was doing (they rarely went on camping trips, which was the only aspect I was interested in).

One of the problems with anything like that is that there is an extreme amount of variation in terms of what it means. It's really a lot like a college degree. Saying you have a degree in history from a CSU as opposed Stanford is rather telling. On top of that, especially in things like social sciences and humanities, the difference between an B+/A- and a B- really is the difference between a good student and a lousy one. Both may have a degree, but one is properly qualified to do something in the field and the other isn't.

and there were no religious overtones or anything that I experienced,

Doesn't the Boy Scout Oath include a promise to do one's duty to "God"--implicitly the Christian interpretation of Yaweh?

Zeropoint wrote:

and there were no religious overtones or anything that I experienced,

Doesn't the Boy Scout Oath include a promise to do one's duty to "God"--implicitly the Christian interpretation of Yaweh?

Meh, it's in there the same way it's in the Pledge of Allegiance: a relic of how patriotism used to always look. Saying it in a ritual when everybody present knew full well I didn't mean it cost me nothing, and entitled me to go on awesome camping trips. I also gladly accept cash that says In God We Trust on it.

On the subject of earning Eagle Scout: It's a mixed bag. Troops where they basically give it away for lasting seven years, where the scoutmaster's own kid gets it at age 14, etc are vigorously mocked by troops that make you work for it and sometimes go a year without producing any, occasionally to their faces. We went camping once every month that school was in session (and counsellors for some of the required merit badges are only available at scout camps in the summer), missing a trip required a note from your parents that you were actually sick or something, and missing more than three trips in a year got you kicked out. One of my official jobs in the troop was Fire Marshall, which I continued to perform for the campus Pagans* when I was in college; I build pretty good fires.

* I never converted, I just had some friends who were members that asked me to do it to keep them from burning the forest down. Plus I was a teenage boy and it meant I got to see a lot of pretty girls naked.

Superman isn't a boring character, he's a man who because of how he was raised, uses his gifts positively and carefully. Kill Bill's speech about Clark Kent being Superman's critique on the human race and Superman being who he really is hasn't been true for decades. Clark Kent, though biologically an alien from the planet Krypton, is a Kansas farm boy with a heavy sense of doing what's right thanks to his parents, a lover of writing and journalism, and pines for the witty and unflappable Lois Lane(until the New 52 shot that in the head, but that's another story).

Imagine if you had the powers of a God, and all you wanted to do was enjoy your life, pursue your journalism career, write stories in the newspaper and enjoy the simple pleasures of life. That's Superman. He doesn't want to be a conqueror, that would hurt people, in more ways than one, but since he can detect when people are in trouble, and he knows he has the power to stop it, he does so. Some of the best Superman stories show him falling short, because he doesn't know if he's doing the right thing, and as said above, if he steps out of line, that he'll break the world.

Alex Ross is a writer and comic book artist, and perfectly captures the feeling of the world on Superman:
Big image

This is from a book wherein Superman tries to solve world hunger. He tries really hard, but its a problem that he himself can't seem to solve, not alone, not without becoming something he isn't. He's the iconic fireman, putting out the fires, and at the end of the day, tired, weary, but still not sure if he's done enough.

People dislike him, its because people can sometimes hate the idea of something better than them in whatever media platform, as it would offer reflection into their own lives, and where they fall short. There's this web creator on youtube called It's just some random guy, who makes these little DC and Marvel dramas with action figures. Despite the obviously low production quality, he does discuss themes and issues of superheroes and comic books quite well.

He has Lex Luthor give quite a rant on people's boredom with someone 'too perfect' like Superman here, but I'll give everyone a text version:

Superman: What could possibly make you think I would help you destroy an entire universe?
Lex: Because it's the right thing to do.
Superman: You're insane!
Lex: Because the Marvel Universe has corrupted everything you stand for, all in the name of high drama. Think about it, Kal-El! Your job is to be an inspiration for people. Someone they can look up to, someone they can aspire to be like. In steadfastness, in character, in ideals, and what did Marvel offer? They said "Don't worry, you don't have to aspire to anyone in our books. You just have to relate to them." And now we have an entire culture that thinks that who they are is just fine, and how dare anyone suggest that they could improve themselves! Why aspire to be Superman when it's so much easier to relate to Spider-Man? No one wants to look up to you anymore, Superman. They don't want to strain their necks. Instead, they look straight ahead at the compromised heroes in front of them and say, "That'll do just fine." Don't you see? We have the power to put it all back the way it was! The way it should be! You can still be the inspiration you once were! You can still make a difference. Isn't that why you became a hero in the first place?
Superman: I also became a hero to stand for certain principles. And this thing you're suggesting, for better or worse it would be a lie. And of all the things I stand for, truth always comes first.

And aside from Captain America, that is the majority of Marvel superheroes, very flawed people who stay flawed so that readers can connect to them, and tie themselves to that one special character.

For a lot of people the idea of someone that good is too far fetched, too impossible, so they don't wish to see it. But I personally think we need the idealism. There's a reason we need heroes like Superman, Captain America, President Bartlet, Jean Luc Picard, etc. It's nice to have role models, someone we could be aspire to be, if we tried hard enough.

However, this kind of character is also really easy to screw up if you lack the understanding of the character. Make Superman too much of a idiot, too 2-dimensional, too cardboard, and you'll get an audience who don't read his books because of the perception that its the world's most boring human with the powers of a god. But when done well, it's a well meaning man who is using the gentle touch, and is just trying to do the right thing.

You may say all this stuff about Superman, but the way he is depicted, (at least in many films), he is careless in how he chooses to confront his enemies, (namely, right there in the middle of the city, and using objects like cars and buildings to clobber them, even though he should clearly know that they won't do anything). I'd like to see a Superman portrayed who, first and foremost, throws the enemy out of the city, then fights them in some un- or lesser populated area. I'd also like to see a Superman that, while not resorting to killing enemies, would resort to breaking limbs or knocking enemies out, instead of prolonged punch-fests.

*Yes, I realize that such tactics would make for less exciting fight scenes, but that's all we have to work from...

biostem wrote:You may say all this stuff about Superman, but the way he is depicted, (at least in many films), he is careless in how he chooses to confront his enemies, (namely, right there in the middle of the city, and using objects like cars and buildings to clobber them, even though he should clearly know that they won't do anything). I'd like to see a Superman portrayed who, first and foremost, throws the enemy out of the city, then fights them in some un- or lesser populated area. I'd also like to see a Superman that, while not resorting to killing enemies, would resort to breaking limbs or knocking enemies out, instead of prolonged punch-fests.

*Yes, I realize that such tactics would make for less exciting fight scenes, but that's all we have to work from...

The problem is if an enemy's powerful enough to pose a serious threat to Superman, they're powerful enough to resist being thrown out into a safe zone . . .

General Zod wrote:

biostem wrote:You may say all this stuff about Superman, but the way he is depicted, (at least in many films), he is careless in how he chooses to confront his enemies, (namely, right there in the middle of the city, and using objects like cars and buildings to clobber them, even though he should clearly know that they won't do anything). I'd like to see a Superman portrayed who, first and foremost, throws the enemy out of the city, then fights them in some un- or lesser populated area. I'd also like to see a Superman that, while not resorting to killing enemies, would resort to breaking limbs or knocking enemies out, instead of prolonged punch-fests.

*Yes, I realize that such tactics would make for less exciting fight scenes, but that's all we have to work from...

The problem is if an enemy's powerful enough to pose a serious threat to Superman, they're powerful enough to resist being thrown out into a safe zone . . .

Every depiction I can remember has had Supes *at least* deliver a blow powerful enough to knock them through a building or two... so all he'd have to do would be to aim said blows a little more carefully, then make sure to immediately pursue said enemy out of the city.

biostem wrote:

General Zod wrote:

biostem wrote:You may say all this stuff about Superman, but the way he is depicted, (at least in many films), he is careless in how he chooses to confront his enemies, (namely, right there in the middle of the city, and using objects like cars and buildings to clobber them, even though he should clearly know that they won't do anything). I'd like to see a Superman portrayed who, first and foremost, throws the enemy out of the city, then fights them in some un- or lesser populated area. I'd also like to see a Superman that, while not resorting to killing enemies, would resort to breaking limbs or knocking enemies out, instead of prolonged punch-fests.

*Yes, I realize that such tactics would make for less exciting fight scenes, but that's all we have to work from...

The problem is if an enemy's powerful enough to pose a serious threat to Superman, they're powerful enough to resist being thrown out into a safe zone . . .

Every depiction I can remember has had Supes *at least* deliver a blow powerful enough to knock them through a building or two... so all he'd have to do would be to aim said blows a little more carefully, then make sure to immediately pursue said enemy out of the city.

A couple of buildings isn't really enough to launch them out of the danger zone for collateral damage. Especially if their aim is something inside the city.

General Zod wrote:

biostem wrote:

General Zod wrote:
The problem is if an enemy's powerful enough to pose a serious threat to Superman, they're powerful enough to resist being thrown out into a safe zone . . .

Every depiction I can remember has had Supes *at least* deliver a blow powerful enough to knock them through a building or two... so all he'd have to do would be to aim said blows a little more carefully, then make sure to immediately pursue said enemy out of the city.

A couple of buildings isn't really enough to launch them out of the danger zone for collateral damage. Especially if their aim is something inside the city.

Obviously it would vary from depiction to depiction, but depending upon the fight and their position within the city, the combatants are being launched multiple blocks, possibly even across the majority of the city. I'll concede that it may not be possible in all circumstances, but the point is that he doesn't even try...

biostem wrote:

General Zod wrote:

biostem wrote:

Every depiction I can remember has had Supes *at least* deliver a blow powerful enough to knock them through a building or two... so all he'd have to do would be to aim said blows a little more carefully, then make sure to immediately pursue said enemy out of the city.

A couple of buildings isn't really enough to launch them out of the danger zone for collateral damage. Especially if their aim is something inside the city.

Obviously it would vary from depiction to depiction, but depending upon the fight and their position within the city, the combatants are being launched multiple blocks, possibly even across the majority of the city. I'll concede that it may not be possible in all circumstances, but the point is that he doesn't even try...

The other problem is launching them off means you don't know what they're going to be landing into.

biostem wrote:You may say all this stuff about Superman, but the way he is depicted, (at least in many films), he is careless in how he chooses to confront his enemies, (namely, right there in the middle of the city, and using objects like cars and buildings to clobber them, even though he should clearly know that they won't do anything). I'd like to see a Superman portrayed who, first and foremost, throws the enemy out of the city, then fights them in some un- or lesser populated area. I'd also like to see a Superman that, while not resorting to killing enemies, would resort to breaking limbs or knocking enemies out, instead of prolonged punch-fests.

*Yes, I realize that such tactics would make for less exciting fight scenes, but that's all we have to work from...

That was one of the central conceits with the film Man of Steel. But at the same time, General Zod and the rest of the Kryptonians were guarding their machine. Either way, Man of Steel had problems even conveying the spirit of Superman. Seriously, what kind of idiot decides to dampen the colors on a freaking Superman movie?

I think a better example is probably Captain Carrot from the Discworld books, because in a lot of ways he's just a less powerful version of the more interesting iterations of Superman.

A lot of the problems 'good' characters have is when they become so stupid as to be difficult to respect. A character who is strong enough to lift a train but daft enough to believe an obvious lie by the villain because they simply could never believe anyone would lie is very difficult to like or respect. On the other hand a character like Carrot, who is always and explicitly honest but very aware of when people are lying to him and clever enough to use it to his advantage is very easy to respect. He's good, but he doesn't let it make him weak.

Alkaloid wrote:I think a better example is probably Captain Carrot from the Discworld books, because in a lot of ways he's just a less powerful version of the more interesting iterations of Superman.

A lot of the problems 'good' characters have is when they become so stupid as to be difficult to respect. A character who is strong enough to lift a train but daft enough to believe an obvious lie by the villain because they simply could never believe anyone would lie is very difficult to like or respect. On the other hand a character like Carrot, who is always and explicitly honest but very aware of when people are lying to him and clever enough to use it to his advantage is very easy to respect. He's good, but he doesn't let it make him weak.

but then that's a problem in the writing not the character type itself. A well writen "good guy/gal" will recognize when (s)he is being obviously lied to (though half-truths or less obvious lies might still slip past) even if (s)he is honest when ever possible.

On the flip side of things a poorly written villain will always do the most evil action possible regardless how it effects his (stated) current goals and is incapable of doing anything that's less evil even if literally his life depended on it.

A character who is strong enough to lift a train but daft enough to believe an obvious lie by the villain because they simply could never believe anyone would lie is very difficult to like or respect.

The problem is establishing vulnerability. If your guy can lift trains, then he will almost always automatically win any physical confrontation unless its with a guy that can also do that or something equivalent like have laser eyes. The other option is to face them against criminals who he cannot just muscle trough.

So the hero has to be limited in some other way. Drama requires it, requires struggle. Simply being naive may be necessary and could make sense. Being limited by one's own noble nature can create the very obstacles that the hero needs to overcome and has his character be expressed.
That isn't to say that the concept doesn't get old or that the hero should get the hint after once or twice of this happening.

There's also the matter of how obvious a lie should be allowed to slip thru, a lie that blindingly obvious to any adult with a functioning brain should get thru only once before the hero becomes vary of them or at extreme cases twice but even that's pushing it (after all "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me") and from there it's scale depending how obvious the lie is the character the reader might aware it's a lie but only if the writing is bad it automatically means the characters are, though if a person is known cheat (or "bad guy") the heroes might be vary that everything he is telling it's not always accurate.

Though you want to avoid the pitfall of making the villain always lie, a good writer uses truths, half-truths and outright lies to his/her advantage.