Why Superman is Still Relevant

     Sorry, late post again.  This one isn't even a review either, just some thoughts on the hero that we named our blog after, because we can never have enough of those.

     Superman is one of the few heroes that seems to have become less desirable in the Modern Era of Comic Books.  While the medium was becoming darker and edgier with the works of Frank Miller and Alan Moore, the Man of Steel was quite overlooked.  In fact, in his short commentary The Mark of Batman Alan Moore talks about how old-school heroes have not adapted to the modern world and how the social implications of their stories are missing or incorrect altogether.  He ties this in to Frank Millers’ The Dark Knight Returns and what it did for Batman in terms of making the character more believable.  Upon reading this, and revisiting The Dark Knight Returns shortly after, it wasn't sitting very well with me.  I mean, Supes is still cool right?  I’m a Batman fan to the core, but The Big Blue Boy Scout will always have a place on my shelf.  So why isn't Superman still relevant?

     One of the main arguments against Superman is that he’s a poorly conceived character.  I mean, he has dozens of god-like powers and only two weaknesses: magic and a special rock.  Of course, he is the first superhero, but that shouldn't be an excuse for bad character design.  The Model T was the first car, but you don’t see those on the streets today because we moved on to better versions.  So should we get rid of Superman altogether? 

     The problem with this argument is that when Superman was first created he kind of defined what a superhero was.  He was a modern being with powers and a secret identity and a cape on his costume.  We had never seen one of those.  The closest thing to that would have to be some god or demigod from ancient mythology like Hercules or Perseus.  Superman was a modern myth.  We don’t go around discrediting the stories of mythical gods and heroes just because they are socially unaware and ill conceived.  After a while they become so rooted in our culture that they are impossible to forget.  Sure, we have moved on to other heroes, but we constantly revisit the old ones.  Granted, if a hero like Superman were to be created today, people would be more than a little disappointed, but that doesn't mean we should throw him out.  He’s old school, and that’s refreshing and, more often than not, entertaining.  He stands for truth, justice and the American way, instead of answering to some internal system of right and wrong or existential justification that black and white come in infinite shades of gray.  He grew up with old-fashioned ideals, but that doesn’t mean he’s a social incompetent.

     I can’t possibly finish writing this without touching on the subject of the upcoming movie Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.  Though poorly titled, its announcement has sparked many a debate between my geekier friends and I: Who’s going to win?  A lot of the die-hard Batman fans (myself included) cite The Dark Knight Returns trying to escape the fact the Superman is obviously too much of a powerhouse to be beaten by a mortal.  For those of you who haven’t read it, TDKR features a battle between the World’s Finest near the end of Batman’s career.  In the wake of nuclear war, Bruce Wayne builds himself robotic armor and challenges Clark Kent to a final battle.  What follows is one of the most iconic showdowns in comic history.

But, upon further examination, can we really call it a win for team Bats?  Not only was Superman at his weakest because of the radiation that darkened the Gotham skies, but Green Arrow and Robin both had to step in to slow down The Man of Steel.  Beyond that, after beating Superman to the ground, Batman then goes into cardiac arrest and dies for the millionth time (he of course comes back later).  The Dark Knight Returns is not canon, as is true with a lot of DC titles, so even if you count losing a fight to the death as proof that The Caped Crusader could beat The Man of Steel, you still can’t pin it on a timeline.  I’d actually like to look at a more recent example: Justice League #2.  As part of DC’s most recent re-launch they had to reassemble the Justice League in the first few issues of their title series.  In this issue Batman and Green Lantern Hal Jordan are found outside of a Lexcorp factory trying not to die as they are attacked by an angry Superman.  During the bleakest moments of this battle, Hal Jordan calls up his friend Barry Allen in hopes that The Flash can help them survive a little longer.  Halfway through the issue, the battle finally stops with Batman, Green Lantern and The Flash having to all team up to even calm Superman down enough to reason with him.  And if we’re looking at the most recent film franchise Superman is the obvious win, because he doesn't seem to care so much about whom he hurts in order to save the day (as we saw with General Zod).

     Which leads me to my final point.  In many ways, Batman and Superman are polar opposites.  Bruce Wayne is just a young boy when his parents are gunned down in crime alley, but he instantly gains a burning desire for the power he needs to enact his revenge.  He feels that he has been wronged by the criminal underworld and that he needs to be able to stop such atrocities is the future.  He then becomes The Dark Knight, a purely self-made hero that is dedicated to hunting down wrongdoers and enacting his own personal justice.  Kal-El, on the other hand, is an alien that was granted phenomenal power at birth but had some trouble finding his place in the universe after his species was eradicated.  He had the ability in the beginning, but he had no plans of what to do with it.  He could have easily enslaved the human race instead of striving to protect it.  In fact, that probably would have been easier than constantly having to stand for truth, justice and the American way.  The fact that he chose to be a hero, and chooses to be a hero every day shows much more strength than a locomotive.  Batman had the will very early on, but he lacked the power, and in that regard he is truly the epitome of self-reliance (at least in the comic book world).  Superman, on the other hand, had power thrust upon him, but could have done a myriad of things with it, and in that regard he is the epitome of self-restraint.

So as we've seen Batman transform from the campy Adam West adaptation to the darker and more realistic Christopher Nolan movies, we've wondered why Superman hasn't tagged along for the ride.  While I think an edgier Batman is a good thing, I also think that Superman is fine right where he is.  We all saw what happened when Zach Snyder tried to turn him into an anti-hero in The Man of Steel.  Superman is old school, and he should stay that way.  Batman and Superman are two ends of a spectrum: the ends justifying the means and the means justifying the ends.  But one cannot exist without the other.  In a world where anti-heroes seem to be running the show and Aquaman gets overlooked more often than not, we need to acknowledge characters like Superman more often.  And yeah, sorry Ben Affleck, Batman is totally going down.