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?
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.
.jpg)
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).
.jpg)
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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
To start off, you can find the complete rules text 
