^5

Here. Your stars.

He doesn't just stop it, he pretty much puts his leg out and trips it.

My favourite scene is where it's revealed matter-of-factly that Batman has been branding suspected-criminals on the neck with his symbol. It's just laid out there, because of course that's something Batman would do.

Second favourite is Batman beaning Superman over the head with a sink.

Well said sir.

Though I think this guy has a point too -- if Superman and Batman never had long enough of a conversation to talk their differences out, perhaps it's in part because Snyder doesn't see the point in a scene that's just there to establish character or advance the plot. There's no payoff in Snyder's mind if it doesn't build to (what he hopes will be) a memorable image.

These last two Superman movies come so close to the over-the-top comic books, closer than any filmed version I'd ever seen, that it's a shame they're so goddamn pretentious. I think this is a pretty good discussion about how these ponderous superhero movies come to be. You'd think it we wouldn't still need to have this discussion, but clearly, we do.

If by "altruism" you mean beating people up who aren't conforming to your own self-righteous vision of the ideal society, then yes, Superman is an altruist.

John - we could just stop watching the movies. If we show them we've stopped caring about their bullshit, they will stop making superhero movies. Or else change tack and give us something better - like a film about Lobo, or pre-vampire Jubilee.

JHMf- the "Supergirl" show manages to hit the tone and attitude almost unerringly. It shouldn't be this hard for Snyder et al to get it right.

... like so. Here's Supergirl trying to stop a guy who's going to blow up a train. She tries to talk him down, like a good hero should (and like Superman of all people should). What she doesn't know is, the guy's daughter is sick and she will be denied medical treatment unless he detonates his bomb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lutJ2iCOyD8

@EvilHomer
It doesn't really matter if we stop watching them, they'll make their money in China.

Also, classic superman stops bank robbers and Hitler and stuff. He's altruistic.

Although Superman was created as a symbol of American hegemony ( what's his catch phrase again? ) he evolved into being just kind of a jerk. Google "superman is a dick" for examples too numerous to numerate. I suppose that doesn't preclude him from being an altruist. It's just an insufferable combination of traits.

Superman's catchphrase is "Up, up, and away!" or maybe "Great Krypton!"

Hey now, Superman stands for Truth, Justice, AND the American Way.

He never once saw those things as synonymous.

I though the "American Way" referred to Superman as an immigrant, assimilating into American society. He doesn't have any reason to help us other than he's a nice guy and it's the right thing to do.

I think that's the most interesting way to write his character. Making him troubled and moody has only two possible arcs: Either he goes back to doing the right thing or he leaves Earth for good. Zach Snyder already did that story with The Watchmen and there's roughly a 0% chance he'll be able to tell that story as well a second time.

I guess he could become a villain as well, but then he's not really Superman anymore.

But that's the thing, Mr Burns. He stops *bank robbers*. Working-class people driven to desperate measures by hard economic times. Sure, bank robbers are criminals, and sure, their behavior is unethical; robbers certainly need to be addressed in some manner - perhaps with a non-super-powered police force, whose ability to coerce the citizenry is heavily restrained through constitutional guarantees of due process and fair trials?

Superman never stops to question the underlying social or philosophical issues. He never punches out the bankers who are making billions of dollars off of war, debt, and human misery. He'll use his x-ray vision to warrantlessly spy on small local businesses if he suspects that robbers might be holed-up in some warehouse, yet he never thinks to use his x-ray vision in order to audit the Fed. Oh, it's perfectly fine to use a heat ray to disable a car and, in so doing, endanger the lives of suspects who haven't even been formally charged with any crimes yet, but heaven forbid Superman use his super-strength to build a nice organic Guerilla Garden in an at-risk community, so that young people can have something to empower themselves with, BESIDES having to turn to bank-robbery! No no heaven forbid Superman deal in empowerment; HIS job is to be an all-seeing, all-powerful enforcer for the bankster's oligarchy.

Because "altruism".

Oh, and don't even get me started on Hitler. Maybe if Superman had shown a little kindness to HITLER, built some organic guerilla gardens for the German veterans in Munich, Hitler would have had a nice place to hang out, paint, and be happy - but oh, then we wouldn't have had FDR and Churchill's glorious little war, couldn't have devastated Europe so that the American juggernaut might become the world's sole empire. Fuck Superman, he's a jerk.

A communist superhero is a contradiction in terms. The entire idea of a superhero is a fascist power fantasy. A socialist superhero would have to draw from the power of the community, not some inborn genetic super strength. It's just a conceit of the superhero genre that the hero will fight low-to-mid level crime and not fuck with society as a whole.

Superman getting rid of everyone's nukes, though. That's a pretty good example of pure altruism.

EH - these days I can't tell whether you're trolling, being contrarian, or are just expressing a perception that anyone in power is corrupt. Whichever way, I'm finding it exhausting, but a few points:

1) A dude who saves earth from alien invasions on a weekly basis can probably be forgiven for not teaching kids how to grow turnips.

2) The resolution that comics generally come to is, if Superman tried to directly reform society he'd be at best a benevolent dictator, so he is selective about what he gets involved in (police, fire, and rescue services mostly) and asks only that others be their best selves. It's Clark Kent who tries to reform society through his writing.

3) You might like this comic:

http://www.avclub.com/article/chilling-batman-44-explores-tang led-roots-urban-cr-225174

Mr Burns - I'm not saying Superman should be a communist superhero, either. Communism is an internally incoherent, demonstrably-flawed ideology that history has shown to inevitably degenerate into coercion, hierarchy, and economic ruin. It is altruistic, not charitable - indeed, communism is EVEN MORE deeply-rooted in coercive altruism than is vanilla Superman's corporatist American exceptionalism. A Commie Superman would be at least as bad as, if not worse than, the fascist Superman we've already got - the only noticeable difference being in the titles given to the oligarchs he serves.

What we need is not an "altruistic" Superman, but a charitable Superman. A voluntarist Superman. A Superman who delivers empowerment *directly* to the people, on an individual level, and does not demand that they worship a monolithic intermediary force.

I didn't say Superman should be a communist, I said the idea of a Superhero is inherently fascist. Superman has an unlimited capacity for altruism or charity. The only thing slightly interesting about Superman is that he chooses to live among humans in secret, thereby limiting his influence. That seems to me to be charitable rather than altruistic. If he chose to make an institution out of himself, there would be no need for Clark Kent.

You seem to be calling for a Superman that more regularly intervenes in the foundations of human civilization, which would be dictatorial. Instead, he limits himself to the level of a civil servant, albeit one who is outside of the law.

But he doesn't interfere with democracy, self-governance, "the American way."

Mr Bort - I only ever troll Gmork and JHM. Besides, what would it matter if I were or not? If I tell you that the sky is blue, it does not matter what my motives are - the sky IS blue, and will remain blue regardless.

1) Replace "alien" with "communist" or "secret ISIS terrorist", and you'll see why I prefer Superman growing turnips.

2) Of course HE can't reform society. Society cannot be reformed by one man, and that is assuming "society" even needs to be "reformed" at all. As I told Mr Burns above, Superman - if he is to be anything other than a fascist thug - needs to radically rethink his strategy and commit himself to voluntaryism. Superman (not Clark Kent; the issue of whether Superman needs Clark Kent, or if Clark Kent's existence is even ethical to begin with, is a subject for another time) needs to think locally, support decentralization, and focus on empowering _individuals_, so that they can act virtuously, act in their own rational interest, and most of all, *act without him*.

3) Thanks! I think you linked me to that issue already; I have not had a chance to read it yet, but it is on my list of things to check out!

"Besides, what would it matter if I were or not? If I tell you that the sky is blue, it does not matter what my motives are - the sky IS blue, and will remain blue regardless."

And if you tell me the sky is plaid -- as you often do -- I'm left to decide whether you're wrong, or trying to wind me up, or maybe sitting in a colorful box.

"Replace "alien" with "communist" or "secret ISIS terrorist", and you'll see why I prefer Superman growing turnips."

Why would I do that thought experiment? The point of alien warships and Superman stopping them is that it is an extraordinary threat that requires extraordinary means to counter. There are commies, terrorists, etc in the comics, but Superman DOESN'T make it his job to hound them.

If you're saying that Superman would be a problem in real life, sure, I agree with you. But this is a fictional genre with a world so constructed that superheroes are both necessary and constructive.

Bort: You know, I stopped watching Supergirl in the middle of one of those horrible speeches about love and family, and I believe in you, etc etc.

But I could go back at any time. One thing I love about supergirl is that she is the only superhero who wears a cheerleader outfit. If they ever made her dress in somethng less ridiculous, my childhood will be ruined.

But i digress. I think you've got a solid point.

It was OUTRAGEOUS to see Batman chasing Superman around with a kryptonite spear! I couldn't believe it, and little did I know that I'd be watching Iron Man and Captain America beat the living shit out of each other in just a few weeks.

"Supergirl" may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's mine. Those love / family / trust speeches may be a little bit treacly, but Melissa Benoist sells them pretty well, and I am SO done with cynical comics these past 25 years or so.

You know what the latest trend at DC is? Daddy issues. All the heroes hero because of daddy issues. It's not enough that Barry Allen was a cop who got superpowers, he became a cop because of tragic daddy backstory. It's not enough that Hal Jordan was a fearless type with a sense of right and wrong, he pushed himself to excel because of tragic daddy backstory. Supergirl's got more right to a tragic backstory motivation than anyone -- her whole world died when she was a teenager -- and still she heroes because she cares about people, not because of personal trauma.

... well there's someone else on the show who is still working through tragic backstory, but dammit, he's got a claim to it. And he doesn't let it keep him down either.

"DC heroes aren't really characters, When you think of Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, you don't think of a person so much as a disguise."

Well that's how you look at it. Clark's got a personality these days, though, and is arguably the "real" person. Bruce sometimes has a personality, depending.

I know you're old enough to have seen the old "Adventures of Superman" show, tell me that Clark doesn't have a personality in there.

"Superman has no real personality"

Not quite true, though as with all comic book characters, there are multiple takes on him. The biggest problem, I think, is that most of the recent ones have been short-tempered jerks. But saying he has no personality is like saying that the cops in "Fargo" have no real personality.

>> know you're old enough to have seen the old "Adventures of Superman" show, tell me that Clark doesn't have a personality in there.

More to the point, I'm old enough to have read the comic when it was 12 cents. So yeah, I may sometimes forget that 50 years has passed.

Never mind.