#he is basically a human version of superman | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

batmanisagatewaydrug · 3 months

Note

Top 5 comics that aren't bat related?

GOD okay I'm admittedly so so behind on my non-Bat comic reading because trying to read Everything Published In A 15 Year Period is fucking TIME CONSUMING, but! but but but!!! I have some fun ones!! also as always these are not in ANY particular order!

Thirsty Mermaids (Kat Leyh, 2021)

first off: yes we are including graphic novels! that's just a honkin big comic! nobody @ me! anyway, I read Thirsty Mermaids in one sitting on an airplane earlier this year and it was delightful. it follows three mermaid besties who turn themselves into humans and go ashore in search of booze, only to get stuck when the party mage can't remember how to turn them back. what follows is a mix of shenanigans and genuinely heartwarming character development as the trio cope with being landlocked and try to survive capitalism. there's a high potential for a story like this to get cloyingly oversentimental, but Thirsty Mermaids struck the right balance for me the whole way through and never went overboard.

also, the character designs are soooooo fun. look at them!

2. My Lesbian Experience With Loneliness (Nagata Kabi, trans. Jocelyne Allen 2016)

MLEWL is one of those books that actually completely lives up to the hype and then some, and it totally knocked me on my ass the first time I read it. I didn't really know what to expect going in, but I was totally blown away by how boldly Nagata's willing to share the ugliest parts of her life through this reflection. it's so much more than romance and yearning (and that isn't even really resolved by the book's end! Nagata continues to struggle with interpersonal relationships in later books, which you should also read!), and it felt really refreshing to see such an honest depiction of how much being depressed and anxious and insecure can just fucking suck. but at the same time, Nagata's ability to turn all of that into art and process what she's experienced in a really levelheaded way as she finds the will to grow and change is really affirming.

I have to give a special note of appreciation to the actual sex scene and how intimacy is negotiated between Nagata and the sex worker she hires, especially the ultimate realization that sex is just an act and losing her virginity didn't really change anything about why she was unhappy in her life. as a sex educator, I really appreciated the honesty and sheer practicality of how it was all framed.

3. Nimona (ND Stevenson, 2015)

hi okay yes basic bitch alert I'M AWARE, but I reread Nimona last year to remind myself of why I didn't want to watch the Netflix adaptation and I was so right for that, because OG Nimona fucks so much harder. it's heartfelt but also chaotic and violent and funny and deeply jaded; I think when I mentioned it in my monthly reading synopsis here I described it as weird art for pissed off queer people by a weird pissed off queer person. and I stand by that! if you haven't read it already or if you haven't in a while, it's right there waiting for you with an open invitation to burn the entire corrupt government to the ground.

I know the word feral is overused and therefore cringe but christ, comic Nimona is feral. come on, man. just let her kill your ex. he's a cop.

4. Superman Smashes the Klan (Gene Luen Yang and Gurihiru, 2020)

I had to get one DC comic in here, sue me! it's not Batman-related at all! it's a really rad Superman story that takes place in the 1940s and loosely reimagines an old radio serial, "Clan of the Fiery Cross," the was pretty much a 16-part hit piece on the KKK that was hugely successful in tarnishing their reputation and getting membership to drop. how cool is that? in this version we follow Lee family, Chinese-Americans who have just moved to Metropolis and are met with harassment from the local Klansmen, contrasted with Clark, early in his hero career, still figuring out the full extent of his alien abilities. you get some really nice parallel storytelling between the Lee kids, Tommy and Roberta, exploring what it means to be part of two different cultures at the same time Clark is going through something similar figuring out how to be a representative of two totally different planets, and it all works out in a way that's really sweet. now that I have a friend who's a baby I can't wait until he's old enough to get a copy.

it's an extremely comic book-y comic but in, like, the best way possible.

5. Hawkeye (Matt Fraction and David Aja, 2012-2015)

I can't believe I almost forgot to list tumblr darling Matt Fraction's Hawkeye! what do I even say about this series that hasn't been said already? I love the way Clint Barton is a sadsack piece of shit who's repeatedly ruined his own life, and I love rooting for him anyway because he's just trying so goddamn hard. and also because there's a teenage girl who stole his name and gimmick bullying him the whole time. (Kate Bishop you are everything to me and you will always be famous.) there are costumes and crime fighting but it's first and foremost a slice of life about a life that fucking sucks but keeps on trucking anyway, and that's so up my alley it's not even funny. a lot of the humor probably feels dated now but fuck it, the series is iconic for a reason.

MCU, eat your heart out.

bonus because I wrote out the whole thing and then decided I wanted to include a different one: Paper Girls (Brian K. Vaughan and Cliff Chiang, 2015-2019)

I'd be lying if I said that the thing about this series that I love first and foremost wasn't the art, because Chiang's art is breathtaking and I'll read anything ever if he does the art on it. but it's also just a super cool twisty, time-bending story about four girls getting roped into some high sci-fi bullshit when they're just trying to finish up their paper routes the morning after Halloween and having everything go to hell around them. I really respect a series that is committed to being weird and doesn't really care if you don't understand what's going on for a decent chunk of the plot, especially because it all comes together in a way that's pretty satisfying. waiting to read the whole series in one big run once it was all published so that I could track all the little hints and clues and things coming together across time travel bullshit was mwah, delicious.

also more than anything it's a story about how you Do Not fuck with 12 year old girls, especially in packs, because they're metal as hell, and I'm really about that.

#bookblr

51 notes · View notes

nitewrighter · 10 months

Note

That's a good point, especially if Vale dealt with the Falcone family, which would put her at risk. It can't be all about fame if she's willing to put herself in the Crosshairs of organize crime.

I think that's a shame, especially since I think the central crux of this version of Vicki is that she is everything Lois thought she wanted to be before she found out Clark is Superman--they both get their hands dirty, they're both fearless, but Vicki is also definitely coming at it from a more cynical angle (which makes sense! She's from Gotham!). I don't think they'll discredit Vicki--I think it's going to be more about Superman being able to prove himself in the general worldview, but you'll still have characters like Vicki who are like "Okay so yes, he rescues cats from trees, but the second he steps out of line I'm calling his ass out"-- for flavoring, you know?

I think with this kind of storytelling, there's also the additional element of like, sensationalism as a means of keeping journalism alive and like, the issue of the balance of truth and narrative in journalism, which is a subject that actually comes up a lot in Superman and the Daily Planet! In the comics, Perry White and by extension the Daily Planet take a significant hit sales-wise when Perry basically makes this decision of, "We're not going to fearmonger, we're just going to talk about what's happening." You know... like... actual journalism.

(Like I'll always be pissed at Brian Michael Bendis for aging up Jon but this was a W for me).

Like I do think the whole cynicism vs optimism angle, and the knowledge that there are evil alternate universe supermans out there is a vital part of the whole underlying conflict of MAWS because MAWS recognizes that the true triumph of optimism is the fact that it prevails against the attrition of a cynical world. It's one thing to be optimistic when everything is sunshine and rescuing cats from trees, it's another thing to keep trying to do the right thing and believing in the good of humanity when everyone is pissed off and scared, and especially when you know what you're capable of is in fact, terrifying.

#I am once again telling everyone into MAWS to read Gene Luen Yang's Superman Smashes the Klan #superman #my adventures with superman #dc

75 notes · View notes

pseudo-hero · 7 months

Note

Conner Kent basically is a child from (medical) rape. Not calling him Clark's child is basically the mentally healthiest way to cope with this for everyone involved.

Note #1: I first want to apologize for taking this long to respond, though it's not the only time that's happened and probably won't be the last. I'm still surprised that this particular blog even got an "ask", to be honest! That being said:

WARNING: This post is about—among other things—sexual assault, properly defining/utilizing the terms and has a few violent descriptions within it. Some possibly unpopular and controversial opinions are below. Absolutely no harm or insult to any person or group was intended while I typed this out (including to the "asker"). I hope any possible readers will make it to the end before judging. I've typed this up for anybody, with no one in particular in mind, so 'you' therefore, refers to anyone as well as what's said in the "ask". This gets into and brings up a lot different subjects and ideas in regards to the Kal-Kon family relationship (both in-universe ones and meta ones), so apologies to the above anonymous user if it ever seems like I'm going off on a tangent; although I like to think all of this was relevant to the "ask" in some way.

As always, I'll try to be open-minded to differing opinions/information and I hope any possible errors made can be forgiven. This is also going to be really, REALLY L--O--N--G because I have a hard time giving short, straight-to-the-point responses for anything, I guess. Especially topics that have wide-reaching implications. I switch between character names a lot (and other quirks), may get a little repetitive (but I will try to make new points each time) and I also may at times be harsh on Clark here (but it's arguably DC Comics and their partners that are truly at fault, not him).

Note #2: I've always wanted to make a post about why Clark's treatment of Conner throughout the years has been questionable writing at best and detrimental to Clark's character at worst [as part of a not-yet-completed series on what's destroying Superman's character and legacy these days, in fact] but maybe this will end up being that post [or they'll just share many points/arguments in common].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but I'm not playing that game. Only rape is rape. You comparing (and perhaps twisting) Conner Kent's/Kon-El's creation to being that of a "child from (medical) rape"—which, mind you, I can't help but be reminded of "rape baby" (one of the names unfortunately often used on such victims-by-proxy for the wrong reasons) when I read it—is not only, to me, an insult to any version of the character's backstory and the hardship they've gone through, but to those who have actually experienced the trauma of rape or other forms of sexual assault (or being conceived from any such act).

While I understand why some interpret Kon's creation that way/where the belief comes from, I feel that's only one possible interpretation and one that unfortunately—on top of promoting offensive and less-than-rational conclusions—might actually be missing the point about the real reason(s) Kon got and still gets treated the way he does.

First off, let's get down to how every version of Kon was created before getting into the details of the origin of one or another, and proving how none of them sprouted from rape: Kon is, put simply, a genetically engineered progeny; a form of "test tube baby" (not meant to be disparaging). He was made in an undoubtedly sterile (purposefully loaded word) lab from the ideas, research-based input and experimentation of dozens of scientists and geniuses, his human parent typically included. (Note how I didn't name a human parent? I'll get to that.) After many failed attempts, there was a success, first dubbed Experiment 13.

There was no warmth or genuine intimacy involved in E13's creation, just as is the case with 95% to 100% of sexual assaults (I'm trying not to assume how it went for all victims). However, there was also no physical contact, beyond perhaps the extraction/finding and adding together of DNA-type substances. (You know, what with every version of Kon being treated solely as science experiments in their early days and all.) Without physical contact, specifically/particularly/especially of the sexual variety, already the case for Superman being "raped" begins to fall apart and we can get closer to what fandom/societal problem is really behind this idea being pushed and what truth is continually missed/hidden due to said problem acting as a cover.

Continuing from before: So, as we all know, almost every version of Kon-El/Conner Kent get's his DNA from a male kryptonian progenitor (always Kal-El/Clark Kent unless stated otherwise) together with the also-male human progenitor's, and rarely anywhere else. These days most versions of Conner seem to be the half-human genetic child of Lex Luthor and Superman, and it's been like that for a while. In the beginning however, he was solely a clone of Superman before it was later decided that he was actually an altered clone of some now-forgotten man named Paul Westfield and that he only mimicked Superman's powers. They later changed it up again ("retconned" it) to the Lex Luthor/Superman combination origin(s) for the 2000's version of him, but in doing so, made it clear in BIG, bright letters that Kon is not a "clone" anymore.

Unless—we're calling him a binary clone (what we all are).

That's right, a binary clone is one of many words for child. It's just a specific type of child/progeny. Here's another definition example, with the same description. I would hope no one needs to see the definition for child, too, but you never know. So, notice how so many of the definitions for child match up with what Kon is? What are the people that argue that Superboy is not Superman's—or that he's neither Clark's nor Lex's child—really trying to say or inadvertently saying, I wonder? That Kon is no one's child? That he isn't even a child (unless someone wants him)?? Good luck using that logic with real life "test tube children" (in-vitro children, if we want to be clinical), foster children and adoptees. Bet they'll really appreciate the insensitivity.

As for his age? Why does that matter? At his oldest, he's an upper teen, so still an impressionable minor. And who ever said you needed to pop up in someone's life as a perfect, little chubby cherub to be their child? Who said your parents needed to accept you/get the chance to raise you, for you to be directly descended from them? If a parent dies before a child is born (and stays dead), is the child not their child anymore? Even if someone meets their kid—that may appear to others, to have been created when the parent was a teenager—when the youngling is already a teenager him/herself now, that's still their child, isn't it? Look at all the questions that we are forced to ask when certain fans try and come up with arbitrary definitions, explanations and excuses (or ignore preexisting ones) for what makes a child a child.

As far as I can see, Superman is not delusional nor prone to denialism and isn't known for letting his emotions (or what some believe his emotions are or should be) get the best of him. At least, he's not supposed to be. Some writers in the past have had different ideas on that. In my opinion, they often ruin things for a large amount of us though, seeing as engaging in poor, contradictory behavior will never automatically = a character being more complex. It's more likely that the character will just come across as very petty, selfish, obnoxious or callous, things Superman generally should not be; maybe even should never be.

All that is to say that the need to pretend Kon is anything but Clark's (and Lex's) child in-universe and based on real-life standards, has nothing to do with authentic science or logic and at times doesn't even involve an agreed on continuity. You (the "asker") may already realize this (since you mentioned mental health and coping in your "ask") but many others don't seem to yet. In fact, the exact science isn't what matters, considering how the situation is fictional and therefore mostly pseudoscience anyway.

And even if it wasn't fictional, consider that animal reproduction is technically considered sexual whether two organisms had sex/copulated or not because of the act of the male and female gametes (sex cells) coming together. Based on that, can or can't Kon be considered just another typical mammal (mammal-alien hybrid?) made through a form of sexual reproduction, even if he wasn't made from the combining of male cells and female cells (typically not used in his case) nor (most likely) any sexual cells at all? Does it even make a difference in regards to his parentage? In reality, it actually doesn't and that question is only a pedantic-semantics one. All such questions are.

What actually matters here is the basics. Cells/DNA from these two beings were melded together to make another being. No intercourse was needed or involved. A large amount of people would still consider that as a child being made, with or without the added story context. (Many mythologies have had similar events happen in them, fwiw.) So why shouldn't our honest, selfless and compassionate Superman view it that way? Where is the extensive evidence that this is solely about Clark and his family's feelings anyway, especially in the present day? I'm sure that may be the excuse some writers hide behind, but let's be real here.

Clark, in multiple continuities, has had no problem giving Kon a name (twice, if you count Conner Kent too), encouraging him to have a secret identity like Clark, so he also gets to live his life outside of being a hero, has occasionally been seen spending time with Kon by choice, mentoring him, fighting alongside him, sending Kon to the boy's grandparents for raising in the calm, warm town of Smallville (where Clark himself was raised), enrolling him in school in that same town, literally considering him family...but he won't dare go as far as to call him son??

Now, don't get me wrong. Do I believe Superman knew what was going on just before and during Superboy's artificial development? No. He never knows until after Superboy is already out in the world flying around. Does that make it non-consensual and somewhat or very violative to him? Of course. But besides these adjectives/descriptors and (if you want to count it) the springing of a child from the experiments, the situation actually—again, I say—has little in common with rape.

(POSSIBLY VERY TRIGGERING LANGUAGE FOUND BELOW. If you can, pay special attention to what words I put emphasis on.)

Rape can be and is many awful things. The severity of the act can range from little to no bodily injury but major emotional/psychological harm from awareness of the unwanted/forced sexual contact you were put through, to very extreme bodily and mental harm. It can cause tearing, often-heavy bleeding and infection in any targeted orifice (vagina, anus, mouth and/or throat) that can take months to heal from or that the person never fully recovers from. It can make it painful to move and do certain positions with the body. For specifically the female reproductive system, it can lead to damage that's so horrible that a woman can no longer reproduce and so is left infertile. Or she can be left with a pregnancy that's taken root in her own body that she of course was not planning—since it was forced into her—and one she often won't feel like she can handle birthing. There's also always a chance that she could die during the months before the labor begins, if not during the birth itself.

In the case of one form of medical rape (which again, I don't believe Clark was put through, unless you're talking about a different definition for it), it's rape because the victim gets impregnated by semen that they did not agree to have used on them. So it's rape by deception, if not also due to the disturbingly forceful nature that 'fertility treatment' often comes with.

Can someone tell me what about any of that, purposefully emphasized words and all, is the same as how Kon was created? Am I really supposed to believe that Superboy's surprise creation through indirect means, is equivalent to the above in any way for any person involved? In the early years of the character's creation, it was implied or outright stated that Superboy got his Superman DNA from scientists—I believe CADMUS—stealing Clark's presumed-dead body and taking a bit from it (Kon was originally supposed to replace Clark, but not destroy him). What did they get? Maybe a hair? A skin cell from one of his arms? I'm not sure.

However, this was in the early years and the most violative it ever got. (Actually, I don't recall that version of Superman being all that shaken up over the matter compared to how some seem to think every version has been regarding Kon's creation, even though that one probably had some of the biggest reasons to be; he even reached out to Superboy first, in fact. Only to be rejected by him.) It also wasn't, and is still, not rape. It's overall more comparable to someone stealing his/her ex's or one night stand's condom off their body or from the trash to cause a pregnancy. A horrendous deed—but not rape.

I'm stating all this because your claim is built on a false premise. One that likely comes from an over-reliance on and desire for extreme comparisons/equivalencies. One that appears to be a very common opinion in the fandom, but which is still misguided. It's imperative that we try not use the word rape (or related words) to seriously describe any other different action just because we disapprove of it. It's superbly harmful and frankly, disingenuous.

Are you calling the situation rape because you truly feel that this is what happened or because it's the worst word you could think of to try to make people feel even more horrified than they may already feel about the situation, and to shut down conversation on Clark's strange behavior toward and relationship with, Conner? Is it that you do realize that sexual assault is a severe issue and definitely no laughing matter, so you use mention of it so flippantly to emphasize your point, not realizing that this is only contributing to the problem?

I often wonder if a huge reason for this is because many nowadays are, thankfully, far more knowledgable of the importance of consent, but to the unfortunate extent that they separate it from the actual acts that make sexual assault, well, sexual assault. Again, lack of consent by itself is not what makes something rape. There has to at the least be forced penetration involved, too and arguably blatant sexual intention.

Likewise: Stealing someone's wallet or squeezing all the money out of their bank account without their knowing, is not "financial rape". Beating someone to a pulp and leaving them there injured is not "punching rape". Wiping someone's mind of memories is not, technically, "mind rape" (despite how popular that term is now). Leaving a baby or puppy on someone's doorstep and hoping/expecting that the owner of the home will sacrifice their time to raise them, is not "nurture rape" (or "nurture coercion" for that matter). You know why all the previous is true? Because, again, only rape is rape!

Languages are always changing, adapting, sometimes shrinking but also expanding. We often add definitions to words that may not have been implied before and use metaphors and other figurative speak to make points. However, words have those original definitions for a reason and especially in the case of crime and morality, it is not wise to dilute the meanings of words for your personal opinions/arguments/headcanons. That is not only hurtful but possibly dangerous.

If you feel that this or that version of Clark is right to be weirded out by Conner for being created 'unnaturally' (based on average, modern human POV), just say so. If you feel some version(s) of Clark is right to be disgusted by Conner for being made without his knowledge or ability to stop it (presumed dead or alive), just say so. If you feel modern versions of Clark are in the right to reject Kon solely because of who the human parent typically is, i.e. Lex Luthor (since we all know that connection and Lex's intentions when creating Kon must somewhat play an enormous factor in some people's view of Kon's existence), just say so.

If you, for similar reasons, despise every version of Lex Luthor and believe he's an irredeemable monster (which I find understandable, even though I personally do like the character) and therefore that everything connected to him is tainted too, just say so. If you are so preoccupied with comparing Damian Wayne's (usual/modern/recent/current?) conception origin to Kon's own, to the point of only noticing possible similarities and wanting to claim the situations are exactly the same, despite the obvious differences (and despite how that makes Superman/Clark negatively appear but in comparison to Batman/Bruce this time who accepts his child, regardless of the actual sexual assault that took place to create him), just say so.

If you just have a certain set of characteristics in mind for Superman or think it should be anything goes if it entertains you, as the rule of thumb for Superman writing, then please, just say so. That way people with a different opinion than you will know what worldview they're really arguing with when you debate. You do not need to use a word (rape) with an already established definition that's important enough to be referenced in laws the world over, to emphasize your point. Your argument should be able to stand on its own without doing so.

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the biggest contributors to modern people's current view of Clark and Conner's relationship is due to largely popular, dramatic media like the animated series Young Justice. The show had a take on them that was based on certain older-but-still-modern comic interactions with the more modern look/personality for Kon and it was considered by many to be realistic/relatable in regards to Superman's viscerally perturbed reactions toward and avoidance of Kon. However, some others saw it for what it also was: An excuse to seep out as much angst as possible to make us feel for Kon, but at the expense of Superman's characterization.

Compare their relationship here to the one they had in the DC Animated Movie Universe film, Reign of the Supermen (a sequel to The Death of Superman movie from the same universe; both are based on the 90's Bronze Age comic(s) that I've mentioned already). It was Lex in that movie that was being unquestionably vile toward Kon. As you might expect! And it was Clark who, only after knowing Kon for a short period—probably 20 minutes at most in-movie and a few days in their world—showed the poor mentally-abused child compassion and immediately took him under his bright red cape of hope and, as often happens these days, got help from Kon's grandparents in raising Kon. As you'd definitely expect! Although it wasn't exactly explicitly said in the movie whether he considers Conner his son or not, their relationship there was still handled infinitely better from the jump than was the case with alternate versions of their relationship. The reactions from these two men from different media that are supposed to be the same character, are like night and day! It's almost like they're not the same character (hint, hint)!

There was no unnecessary drama or hypocrisy on Clark's part in ROTSM (remember they'd both be seen as dangerous in the eyes of regular earthlings). Beyond a moment of eyebrow raising, and some possible annoyance or hesitance, Clark seems to grow accustomed to Kon's existence very quickly (after Lois already had, without his realizing!) and starts acting sensibly about it afterward (while still coming across as a warm but stern and outraged father; again, as you'd expect!) which I think was a good thing and arguably just as realistic as the reverse, with the added benefit of not making Clark look douchey, un-empathetic and unreasonably judgmental. We should be way past acts of actual!superdickery in this day and age, imho. Considering the universe he exists in, Clark should be ready to take on whatever is thrown his way, even a hormonal teenage "clone" of himself, no matter if they have a human parent or not, and even if Clark doesn't get along with that parent. Seriously, more writers need to remember that. The DC world is insane and anything could happen; so the characters ought to be mindful of that at all times.

Which leads me to ask: Why should Clark be extremely upset almost every single time Kon pops up anyway? Why does he have to be extremely upset at all? He didn't get a choice to thumb up or thumb down Kon's creation but beyond that, what was forced on him? As I noted earlier, he didn't get forcefully impregnated or even deceived. No one made him let Kon into his life either and Kon is a good kid anyway who wants to be the best superhero he can be and who's typically no worse than cocky. (Though some versions of Superman surprisingly need to be convinced/reminded of Kon's innocence.) Less honest people will try and dance around the elephant in the room, which is that they wouldn't think what was done with Clark's DNA was a big deal if Kon hadn't come from it. "Well, duh!" you might say. Duh indeed, because without Kon's existence, literally no argument can reasonably be made that Kal was harmed in anyway. (Unlike with physical attacks, which are obvious. The harm done to him would then, at most, be emotional/psychological but only if Clark acknowledges on some level what/who Conner is (his son!) but struggles to accept him/rejects him despite/because of it. Superman (and the fans that do the directly-above), should focus their ire on the true wrong-doers, not a victim. I mean really, Conner has only done wrong to Clark and his family/friends once, while brainwashed by somebody else!! (It was Lex Luthor, of course.)

This means that they know Kon is his own person with endless potential, who is vulnerable and always at risk of manipulation, who deserves sympathy regardless of how he was made and who just needs an outstretched hand from someone who cares and wants him to stay on the right path, despite where he came from. Which means they also know what it says about Superman for him to neglect Conner, but just accept it as "a blind spot" as opposed to calling it out as the horrible writing decision that it always is. Kon in the ROTSM movie is the biggest victim in that scenario and it's made clear there. In that movie, Superman didn't turn his back on or avoid Superboy at any point and dived right into a father-son relationship with him. Thank goodness.

I repeat: The parent in the movie that actively created him without the other parent's knowledge, treated him like fresh garbage, like a toy that doubled as a tool/weapon, like an object. The other parent on the other hand refused to do the same and instead did right by him and took him in. Kon's feelings and needs were acknowledged as they deserved to be. Clark was called dad by the boy and he more or less stood in his role that wasn't gonna change whether he wanted it to or not, nor whether he accepted it or not. A parent is a parent the moment they have a kid, even if they choose not to be there for them. Adoption is one way of becoming a parent that I admire (as long as no cruelty was committed for it to happen) and I'm happy for those happy to be adopted. However, mind you, Clark or The Kents raising Kon who is one of Clark's own bio kids, would be regular parenting/grand-parenting; not adoption or fostering.

He also did have a choice btw, when it came to that movie, as he always does and like everyone else has/would. He could have chosen to ignore/avoid Kon and left him to teach himself how to swim, but this is Superman we're talking about here and he, more than anyone, would ideally never behave that way to someone in need (least of all a child/his own child!). Even if other people in his place would unfortunately be unable to (which I understand and can sympathize with). Superboy did appear to be physically younger (if not emotionally) in ROTSM than he was in YJ, but my point still stands for both stories and related.

In fact, if memory serves right, (as briefly referenced earlier) the 90's version of Superman which the TDOSM and ROTSM movies are loosely based on somehow wasn't near as avoidant around or upset by the 90's Kon-El Superboy (Kon sure was annoyed by him though) as the character was in some later writers' stories, despite supposedly being of the same continuity and despite the fact that Superboy became a better person and hero as years passed. Which actually kinda adds to my point about how ridiculous this behavior/flaw from modern versions of Clark is. Funny. It also sort of reeks of higher-up interference to me... Almost like they needed an excuse to keep the two apart; very separated and in their own books with rarely any overlap, before eventually deciding to recurringly erase one of the characters from "canon" and/or their connection/closeness to the other more prominent character...

Which, finally, is what the reasoning for constantly excluding and distancing Kal-El from Kon-El really all comes down to. Seven things actually, which are all often/always connected: 1. Keeping tradition going which often causes 2. Plain old homophobia to win when it comes to writing decisions, but also usually leads to 3. Clois favoritism, both of which are due in part to 4. Fear of trying anything new and 5. Peeving off the fanbases within the fanbase, whose members all have their own version of Superman in mind (think about the YJ vs ROTSM example), which brings about 6. Laziness and simplicity for simplicity's sake and we can't forget 7. That probably more than anything else (and where the other seven stem from) there's the issue of THE FOCUS ON $$$ [profit, with as little effort and change put forward to gain it as possible, or in some cases too much effort used on the wrong thing(s)].

The need to always hold on, in some way, shape or form, to tradition is a tale as old as time and an obvious reason for Kon's constant alienation from Kal and the larger Superfamily.

I mean really, think about it. Although I focus a lot on how Conner is treated by DC and specifically Clark, he's not the only child from his life that Clark's failed to raise or be there for to the best of his ability. It's just the most glaringly obvious with him.

Every reappears-in-"canon" minor (so not imaginary story character) that pops up at Clark's doorstep gets the short end of the stick, often multiple times at different points. In fact, it's happened so many times now that it's becoming a fandom "joke" and is even—for me at least—starting to become an expected outcome on Clark's part. And guess who it began with?

That's right; Kara Zor-El aka Supergirl: Cousin of Kal-El/Superman.

In the earlier Silver Age comics, Superman got up to some very weird or borderline abusive acts that he often involved Supergirl in. From refusing to take her in and keeping others from adopting this innocent teenage orphan, to forcing her to play pretend as his love-interest (likely as a not-so-veiled excuse to kiss her on the lips), to admitting he actually wanted her in that way, but couldn't, solely because of Krypton's cousin marriage laws?? Supergirl admittedly came across at times like she had an unnatural attachment of her own to her cousin but all the same, she was far younger—even underaged by many standards—traumatized and in need of guidance, yet that version of Superman didn't notice or care and even took advantage of this fact.

The tradition has been, for a while, to have Superman treat/neglect the children in his care so horribly that any chance of them having something of a father figure-child type relationship or mentor-student relationship is nullified. In one of the most recent issues of this current run of Action Comics (2016), Superman has once again come across a child, no, two children in fact, and actually took them both in. This isn't the first time he's done that (Lor-Zod/Chris Kent ring a bell?) but knowing how every other attempt at parenting by main universe Clark has ended, I'm hoping and praying that his sweet, impressionable, ill-raised, adopted twins named Otho-Ra and Osul-Ra (girl and boy) aren't destined for tragedy. Or outside involvement that cuts their childhood short. Or somehow still getting rejected in the end after the fact because it's not convenient enough for Superman/Clark and Status Quo. Considering how cluttered the current Action Comics's Super-Family is starting to seem...it wouldn't surprise me one bit if any of these options happened to them in due time.

Now, the homophobia. Do I really need to explain this one? The closest we've ever gotten to a gay/bi main-universe (not alternate) Superman...WASN'T EVEN SUPERMAN. Not really. It was his son who I bet you the editors at DC wanted people to confuse for the other when it came to the news article titles. Perhaps as a sort of "test" to see how much they could get away with doing with the real deal. I don't say this to shade Jon, only to tell is as it appears. Clearly a large amount of the fanbase failed the test. So although we do get to have a bi-Jon now (And possibly a basically-bi-Kon? Bicon?) whether or not some people hate it, the backlash over that Superman's coming out (and maybe even the anger over his secret identity being revealed) is proof enough for DC that Clark literally cannot come out, even if he wants to. Decades of subtext be damned.

Clois is and always will be the favored partner for Superman by writers. There's nothing wrong with that imho. It truly is the quintessential superhero comic romance. The issue is that any deviation from this (even if just for a short amount of time) is often met with outrage from a huge (or just loud) portion of the fanbase, causing writers to have to find a way to backtrack, cutting back on creativity. Now it often seems they're scared to try anything genuinely new and fresh with Superman. Who could blame them? They have previous examples that prove what will happen if they do.

It should also be noted again that keeping characters as separated/distant as possible (in this case, Superfamily characters) allows for DC to have each of those characters to have a series of their own so more comics can be made and sold!!

I understand we all have a version of Superman in our heads that's "the correct one" but that's exactly why arguments about what's "right" or what could "work" for the character often go nowhere. It leads to the quality of stories being affected and the companies putting in less effort into creating, knowing that simple and typical is what's wanted anyway. It's like: Why even bother?

So to reiterate one more time: The #1 concern will always be about making as big a buck as possible through as little a means as necessary. If editors and co believe lack of change is the way to achieve that, then that's what they'll do. Them continuing into the present day to stop just short of acknowledging what Kon actually is to the Superfamily likely has very little to do with the usual excuses, and a whole lot to do with the aforementioned, with everything else leading back to it.

34 notes · View notes

itsniceoutside2day · 9 months

Text

long unplanned John Constantine thought vomit because I’m hyper fixated GO-

In my opinion I don’t think John really works in the new 52 world. Johns been thrown in this world of super humans and monsters and John at the end of the day is just a guy with some magic under his belt. The reason why I feel John doesn’t really work fundamentally now is because some of the story’s he’s in are more focused on these big and powerful events that are good vs evil with these other super humans when John should be in story’s that are with other people about cult/demonic entities with global or personal issues mixed in. John was in story’s that talked about the aids epidemic, homophobia, fucking Margret thatcher, Vietnam war, racism, neo-nazis, and then would also tie it in with personal issues like trauma, depression, suicidal ideation, sex, and drugs and then in the same breath would sprinkle in some supernatural to help keep the story moving and interesting.

Because John was made by vertigo he wasn’t really made with the dc superhero universe in mind and it shows because he’s not exactly powerful. Sure he has magic but it’s basic and more used as a tool than for fighting, and that’s where a lot of writers forget that his power isn’t his magic it’s his intelligence, he’s a con man above all else.

Honestly the best thing would be to take him back out of the current dc universe and give him his own, with the occasional crossover characters like swamp thing or Zatana or anyone else as long as they fit the rules of this universe (no Superman no Wonder Woman etc) I think a version of Raven would be an interesting side character to see in this hellblazer universe that wasn’t already in the vertigo roster. But this is just a thought I had and I don’t think dc Will ever do this.

Some of the smaller nic-picks are that John was punk as shit in almost every sense but now John kinda feels like… neutered and basic. Like he’s some times only used to be the comedic relief especially if it’s about his bisexuality. Old John didn’t really openly joke/talk about his bisexuality like he does now it was always pretty much hinted at (and I could go on all day about how queer coded this man is). And honestly while that’s one of the things I wished the old comics explored more that doesn’t mean I like how the new comics are now. let John be the little uncensored whore (respectfully) he’s always been and still be sarcastic, cynical, and self deprecating old man.

Rant over I’m sorry to anyone who decided to read through all of that

#hellblazer #john constantine

38 notes · View notes

kitkatopinions · 8 months

Text

I literally cannot even with the RWBY JL thing. Like, first off, I'm not a DC girly, so this whole movie isn't for me because I do not care about Superman and Batman and any of them. I haven't seen either movie because I've never really been drawn to the DC characters even in their original content, let alone with writers I already think aren't good.

But second off, I think it's just one of the worst ideas that the RWBY writers/creators have had that wasn't bigotry related. Like, it's right up there with them making Penny human and then having Jaune kill her, and dropping their mains into another dimension for a season, in terms of just godawful ideas imo and it might even be an even WORSE idea.

Number one, this should at most have stayed a comic book or graphic novel thing, they shouldn't be using any money, time, or resources to make it full movies.

Number two, it feels like a desperate bid to both get new fans and to keep their own, like "WAIT WAIT NO, STAY, CURRENT FANS! I KNOW THIS LAST VOLUME WAS OUR WORST YET AND WE HAVEN'T GREENLIT VOLUME 10 YET, BUT LOOOOK BEES KISS PART II!!!!" And "HEY YOU, HEY DC FAN, DON'T YOU LIKE BATMAN? LOOK WHO HE'S WITH, IT'S SOME GIRL, DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW HER STORY?" Like the desperation that I get just from the vibes. XD

Number three, the RWBY world despite being filled with people with what's essentially super powers is really different it feels like than your basic superhero world? So it feels like... If the people in Star Wars were suddenly in Star Trek. Yeah, they're both space stories about spaceships and space weapons, but they're wholly different and they feel like they don't belong together.

Number four, I don't even know the DC characters, but I feel like even badly written, them outshining the mains is a real and major concern. These are some of the most popular characters point blank period, and then there's just like, not even just the RWBY characters now but like 'adult' versions of them in some terrible outfits lol, and it's just like... Who thought this was a good idea? XD

Like who thought this

Was a good idea?

Also the outfit designs for Team RWBY in the part II of this are like 96% horrible ugly bad. Like I've been dying for the mains to get new outfits because the V7-9 looks are so bad, but this is just making me feel hopeless. I feel like we might have already said goodbye to the good outfits permanently.

#rwde

22 notes · View notes

demifiendrsa · 1 year

Video

youtube

DC Studios | Chapter 1: Gods and Monsters

Chapter 1: Gods and Monsters:

Creature Commandos: An animated seven episode series, written by Gunn, that is already in production. Originally a team of classic monsters assembled to fight Nazis, this is a modern take on the concept. The voice actors have yet to be cast but the executives are looking to find people who can voice the animated characters and also portray the live-action versions when the anti-heroes to show up in movies and shows.

Waller: A spin-off of Gunn’s own HBO Max hit series, Peacemaker, Viola Davis will return as the ruthless and morally ambiguous head of a government task force. It is being written by Christal Henry (Watchmen) and Jeremy Carver, the creator of the Doom Patrol TV series.

Superman: Legacy: The movie featuring the Man of Steel that Gunn is writing and may direct, although no commitments on that end have been made. While the two previous titles are meant to be “aperatifs,” in Safran’s words, Superman is the true kick off for the duo’s DCU plans. “It’s not an origin story,” Safran said. “It focuses on Superman balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing. He is the embodiment of truth justice and the American way. He is kindness in a world that thinks that kindness as old-fashioned.” A release date of July 11, 2025 has been penciled in.

Lanterns: Greg Berlanti’s long-in-the-works Green Lanterns TV series has been scrapped and the duo have parted ways with the longtime DC series steward. In its place will be a new take on the space cops with power rings. “Our vision for this is very much in the vein of True Detective,” Safran described. “It’s terrestrial-based.” It will feature prominent Lantern heroes Hal Jordan and John Stewart and is one of the most important shows they have in development. “This plays a really big role in leading into the main story we are telling across film and TV.”

The Authority: a movie based on a team of superheroes with rather extreme methods of protecting the planet that first originated in the late 1990s under an influential imprint known as Wildstorm, run by artist and now head of DC publishing, Jim Lee. “One of the things of the DCU is that it’s not just a story of heroes and villains,” said Gunn. “Not every film and TV show is going to be about good guy vs. bad guy, giant things from the sky comes and good guy wins. There are white hats, black hats and grey hats.” Added Safran: “They are kinda like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. They know that you want them on the wall. Or at least they believe that.”

Paradise Lost: The duo describe this HBO Max series as a Game of Thrones-style drama set on the all-female island that is Wonder Woman’s birthplace, Themyscira, filled with political intrigue and scheming between power players. It takes place before the events of the Wonder Woman films.

The Brave and the Bold: “This is the introduction of the DCU Batman,” said Gunn. “Of Bruce Wayne and also introduces our favorite Robin, Damian Wayne, who is a little son of a bitch.” The movie will take inspiration from the now-classic Batman run written by Grant Morrison that introduced Batman to a son he never knew existed: a murderous tween raised by assassins. “It’s a very strange father-and-son story.”

And, importantly, it will feature a Batman not played by Robert Pattinson…

Booster Gold: an HBO Max series based on a unique and lower-tiered hero created in 1986. Safran said of the series, “It’s about a loser from the future who uses basic future technology to come back to today and pretend to be a superhero.” Gunn described it as “imposter syndrome as superhero.”

Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow: Taking its cues from the recent Tom King-written mini-series, this movie project promises to have a different take than what most think of when the idea of Superman’s cousin comes to mind. “We will see the difference between Superman, who was sent to Earth and raised by loving parents from the time he was an infant, versus Supergirl, raised on a rock, a chip off of Krypton, and who watched everyone around her die and be killed in terrible ways for the first 14 years of her life and then come to Earth. She is much more hardcore and not the Supergirl we’re used to.”

Swamp Thing: a horror film that promises to close out the first part of the first chapter.

128 notes · View notes

chorus-the-mutate · 1 year

Text

I don't know why but I think it'd be really funny if Mystery Incorporated and the heroes of the DC universe coexisted. Just imagine the Justice League being very concerned and very impressed by these random ass teenagers with no powers or training going out and successfully solving crime.

Velma has probably figured out Batman's identity at this point and hasn't told the cops because he's basically a private investigator. She also knows Superman's identity but the fact that his disguise as Clark Kent is so obvious drives her insane since no one else believes Clark and Superman are one in the same. She's told the gang both of these heroes identities and they still don't believe her on either count. (Bruce knows that Velma knows his identity and is quaking in his boots, Clark is blissfully unaware.)

The Waynes and the Blakes despise each other, Bruce and Daphne's father have been this close to getting into a fistfight and the robins hate every one of Daphne's sisters. Daphne is the only member of her immediate family the Waynes unanimously like. Even Damien warms up to Daphne because she's a sweetheart. All of the robins have tried to save Daphne when they find out she's been kidnapped only to find out that she's already saved herself. When Tim and Dick find out that Daphne is interested in journalism they point her in Clark's direction. Velma screams when she learns this.

Fred reminds Kara and the league of Clark so much it hurts. They're both the hearts of their group with a nigh unwavering sense of optimism. They're both willing to be the cheerleaders of their group yet are both natural leaders. The only difference between Clark and Fred is that a few of the brain cells Fred would use for common sense have been lost like a sock in the washing machine. Like one version of Fred didn't think he was a man anymore because he had feelings. Instead all of his brain cells went to trap making and engineering. His traps are so impressive he's accidentally caught three robins, Green Arrow and a few of the Flash's villains on separate occasions. (Tim was very sleep deprived, it was not his proudest moment.) Bruce was going to fund Fred's way through college but Oliver beat him to it.

Last but not least we have Scooby and Shaggy. And they both terrify the heroes and villains of the DC universe alike. Sure they're both as benevolent as their friends but that doesn't make them any less unnerving. Bart and Wally have never met a human being who's metabolism rivaled theirs until they met Shaggy Rogers. Not only that but they've never really seen Shaggy snap. The gang know that Shaggy is capable of kicking ass when he gains some courage but considering how fast and how long he can already run while carrying a great dane no one wants to that side of him. Not only that but everyone is surprised to see how unfazed Shaggy is by Scooby's ability to talk. You don't hear Krypto, Ace or Bat Cow talking so why can he??? No one knows. No matter who looks into it always comes to a dead end. Even Batman is stumped by the enigma that is Scooby Doo. All the gang know is that he's Scooby Doo and he's the best boy they could ever have. :)

#Scooby Doo #Fred Jones #Daphne Blake #Velma Dinkley #Shaggy Rogers #Batman #Superman #Justice League #DC #ash speaks

89 notes · View notes

linkspooky · 1 year

Text

The Greatest Rivalry in Comic Books

As a part of an ongoing series exploring possible inspirations from western comic books found in My Hero Academia, I'm going to be comparing the rivalry between Lex Luthor and Superman, to the rivalry between All Might and Endeavor.

Before we even begin there's an obvious difference between the two rivalries you can point out. Lex Luthor is Superman's arch enemy, he's a villain. In that sense wouldn't the relationship between All for One and All Might be a better comparison as they're mortal enemies. However, I am going to make an argument that Endeavor's character is partially inspired or at least comparable to lex, because for both of them their entire character motivation revolves around their envy of the superman.

1. Übermensch

If you are a My Hero Academia fan reading this post and have never touched a superman comic in your life, then I reccomend reading 2006's All Star Superman by Grant Morrison and Frank Quietly. For many people this is THE superman comic, if you want to read a comic that represents everything superman is about without having to bother with the tangled mess of Comic Book Continuity, and it is only twelve chapters and a self contained story. I will also be using panels from that series in this post.

The connection between All Might and Superman is obvious, they are both all American heroes dressed up in the colors of the American flag, who represent the strongest single hero in their worlds.

Endeavor and Lex is where it gets a little more complicated, because one is a hero, and the other is one of the most famous comic book villains of all time. They can't be the same, right? However, they essentially have the same motivation.

What is Lex Luthor's motivation? Of course this being comic books there are several versions of the character floating around, in some versions he has a tragic backstory, in others he was a former friend of Clark Kent, but if you were to boil down Lex Luthor's motivation to its simplest form.

Lex Luthor just wants to kill superman. Why? The reasons vary, but Lex builds super-suits, giant killer robots, death traps all with the same goal of killing superman. Enji essentially shares the same desire, everything he does is all about surpassing All Might.

They have completely opposite means of course, but Enji is also an individual who uses everything, his considerable wealth, his powers, even his own family for the goal of surpassing All Might.

Why though? Why is the idea of surpassing Superman or All Might so important for Lex and Endeavor especially. If you look at Lex and Endeavor they already have everything they could possibly want.

Endeavor is an incredibly rich, succesful, and influential figure. He has the most solved cases of any hero in existence, the respect of an entire hero agency working under him, he is famous and basically considered the peak of the society he is in.

Lex is the most brilliant mind of his generation, he doesn't even need superpowers because he essentially can build robot suits that give him the same abilities as superman, he is rich, in almost every version of his character despite being a supervillain he's one with incredibly good publicity who is still incredibly popular in the public eyes. He even runs for president once and wins. Endeavor even has an entire family of four children, which sets him apart from All Might who has no family to speak of and does everything alone.

They have everything they want yet that's not enough, they want, and want, and want, and want, and want. For both of them all of these accomplishments mean basically nothing, because they are not superman.

When they are faced with their rivals, they are both reduced to nothing more than ordinary human beings.

"You see, Superman. I own metropolis. My techonology built it, my will keeps it going, and over two thirds of its people work for me whether they know it or not. Even you have to admit it's a model of efficiency. And yet, I've often thought, why limit myself to just one city. A being with your abilities could be very useful to me, on a shall we say global scale?" Lex Luthor, Superman the Animated Series.

Why does this matter though? There's a deeper explanation if we want to take a moment to turn to the philosophy of Nietzsche. Now, the popular idea that Superman himself is named after Nietzsche's concept of the "Ubermensch" isn't exactly clear. Siegel and Shuster never said they created Superman with Nietzsche's ideology in mind, and also at the time "Superman" was really common slang to describe men of great ability, athletes and politicians. However, later works with Superman have acknowledged there's a few similarities between the character and Nietzsche's ideas.

"He's strong, he flies, he's a nieztschian fantasy ideal all wrapped up in a red cape. He's Superman." Lois Lane, Superman the Animated Series.

Nieztscehe's ideal of the Overman is a concept he introduces in his 1883 book, Thus Spoke Zarathusra. A lot of people have misinterpreted this idea to mean Nietzsche believed that some human beings were born inherently superior, but it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

NIetzsche's philosophy comes in response to otherworldliness, the idea that morals are dictated to us by some source outside of this world, and they are inherent truths. At the time this was christianity, god creates morals, and they are right and true because they come from god. Nietzsche doesn't argue that morals don't exist or don't matter, just that they don't come from god, and are rather invented by human beings for human beings. That doesn't mean there are no rules or that you don't have to follow the rules, but that we make our own rules.

It's like money, money is technically created by human beings, if you're in the middle of a desert then having a briefcase with fifty thousand dollars won't help you, but at the same time people use money. At the same time because money is a completely human creation, you could argue that society could evolve past the need for money and create some other system of rules for exchanging goods and services, Marxists certainly believe that.

"Zarathustra, however, beheld the people and was amazed. Then he spoke thus:

Despite being credited as the creator of nihilism, Nietzsche's philosophy actually preaches against nihilism. He doesn't argue there are no morals, or that people should just do whatever they want, but in Zasrathura he presents the Ubermesch as the creator of new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism.

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman - a rope over an abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping.

"What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under.

"I love those who do not know how to live, except by going under, for they are those who cross over.

"I love the great despisers because they are the great reverers and arrows of longing for the other shore.

"I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, but who sacrifice themselves for the earth, that the earth may some day become the overman's.

"I love him who lives to know, and who wants to know so that the overman may live some day. And thus he wants to go under.

"I love him who works and invents to build a house for the overman and to prepare earth, animal, and plant for him: for thus he wants to go under.

"I love him who loves his virtue, for virtue is the will to go under and an arrow of longing.

"I love him who does not hold back one drop of spirit for himself, but wants to be entirely the spirit of his virtue: thus he strides over the bridge as spirit.

From Book 1, Zarathusra's Prologue, 4.

The overman isn't the biggest, or the strongest, or the inherently superior being (in fact literally all of Nietzsche's values argue that there's nothing inherent in this world) just a person who strives towards their own ideal.

"However, perhaps what is more important than Nietzsche's image of the overman is what the concept serves to represent. In slightly broader terms, Nietzsche sets up the Overman to function as a sort of idealized version of one's self - an image of a perfect and powerful being which has overcome all their fears and deficientcies, which one can and should set goals to strive towards. Of course, as an ideal, it cannot ever truly be reached but that is the point." Becoming Who You Really Are - The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche [x]

Okay, so that's enough philosophy nerd shit for now. Nietzsche's philosophy of the overman is someone who creates and pursues their own values, so looking at Superman and All Might vs Lex Luthor and Endeavor from this angle we ask: What are their ideals?

One of the biggest misinterpretation of Clark Kent's character is that rather than seeing him as a person, people see him as a set of powers. However, it's not Superman is the real one, and Clark Kent is the fake one, Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is just a boy from Smallville Kansas, raised by two loving parents with good values who wants to help people. If Clark Kent didn't have powers, he would still want to help people because that's what he does (there's a famous storyline where he loses his powers for a year and still goes on doing the same thing to the best of his ability), he's not defined by the powers he was born with, but rather what he does.

All Star Superman is essentially a comic where Clark learns that he is dying. The reason he falls for Luthor's death trap in the first place, is because he flew straight into danger to help people who would have died otherwise. It's the perfect trap because Superman puts saving people above all else, he's not going to selfishly leave them to their deaths to preserve their own life.

One of the most famous panels in the comic is where Clark is in his last days and literally dying from radiation poisoning, and he still stops to notice something as small as hearing a therapist panic because their patient is putting themselves in danger, and he drops everything to go talk them down off a ledge.

Superman's not about the powers, but rather how they are used. In fact when Lex Luthor looks at superman all he sees is the powers. Once again, Lex is basically as strong as superman with his natural genius and intellect. The fact that he's not gifted or special is entirely Lex's own perceptive, he's just being petty because on top of all the other natural gifts he was born with, he can't fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes.

In fact if there's anyone who believes in inherent superiority it's Lex, not Clark. Luthor's logic is essentially: He was just born with all this power, I was the one who worked to get where I am. Yet, Lex also believes all of his natural abilities make him entitled to something more.

He believes he is inherently great, and yet his actions are not that of a great man.

There's also the aspect where Lex Luthor represents everything that american society tells you is the ideal, he's rich and succesful, he's at the top of his field, he's like what both american society and capitalism consider to be a great man, and yet he's beaten by a guy from Kansas.

This relates again to the rivalry between All Might and Endeavor. All Might is a hero who builds himself around an ideal, sacrificing himself for the sake of a more peaceful society. He has a selfless goal that is greater to him, and All Might as a hero similiar to superman works himself to death saving as many people as possible.

On the other hand, Endeavor has no great selfless goal. He doesn't even have an ideology. Much like Lex, all he has is his own sense of entitlement. He worked so hard so therefore he deserves to be number one.

Endeavor isn't different from All Might because he's not as good at punching people however, it's his deeds that make him different. Just like Lex for all he goes on and on about his hard work being what got him there, Endeavor also believes in ideas of inherent superiority and eugenics. He abandoned one child because he has a genetic flaw, and then trained his youngest forcefully because he believed having been born with the perfect quirk is what will make him qualified to surpass All Might.

If you want another comparison between the two, they also both used their biological offspring to try to surpass their respective supermans. Endeavor fathered children to try to create a child with a more powerful quirk than his. Lex Luthor made Kon-El a clone of himself and Superman achieved by mixing his human DNA with Clark's Kryptonian DNA.

If anything All Might is actually the one who was born powerless, because he was quirkless and he accepted a powerful quirk and trained his body for the sake of saving others, whereas everything Endeavor has done is only for himself. He, just like Lex has many things he could have done, he could have been a father, he could have saved people, but everything he does is just to prove the superiority he thinks he's entitled too.

If anything, the reason why Lex and Endeavor are so jealous has nothing to do with being physically weaker, and because their lives are so empty in comparison. They do everything for themselves so in essence they have no one. There's a small scene in All Star Superman, where he travels to the Bizarro world where everything is the opposite and meets Zibarro, an intelligent and educated version of Bizarro Superman who makes his own poetry, and then at the end of the comic he spends time thinking how amazing that is Zibarro could create poetry and even preserves it. That act of creation is the thing that Clark is most impressed with, and really when he's talking about the life he lived, it's really the other people he found amazing not himself.

So there you have it. My argument that All Might and Endeavor's relationship is not superman and batman, or even Vegeta and Goku, but rather they have the most in common with Superman and Lex Luthor as two people blessed with great abilities, one who uses their abilities in service of other people, and the other who uses their powers only in service of themselves.

#dc comics #dc comics meta #mha meta #endeavor #enji todoroki #superman #clark kent #lex luthor #all might #toshinori yagi #dc #superman meta #bnha meta #superman analysis

71 notes · View notes

frumfrumfroo · 1 year

Note

It's clear that audiences will go to great lengths to find something admirable or attractive in characters that are designed to be monstrous. Is this because humans are desperate to see goodness in even the darkest of hearts? Or is it because humans are just inherently drawn to and fascinated by evil? The contempt many people have for idealistic characters like Superman leads me to believe it's the latter.

People also go to impossible, wilfully blind, Plastic Man-like lengths to avoid seeing complexity and vulnerability in characters who were designed to be sympathetic despite being antagonists or having done bad things.

And it's for the exact same reason that they dismiss or feel the need to make the 'dark, gritty' version of characters like Superman: cynicism. Often childish cynicism which refuses to comprehend that the entire point of Superman is that he's a paragon and what makes him interesting is using him to hold a mirror up to the society whose supposed ideals he was created to represent. That an actual challenging narrative isn't cutting Superman down into yet another pragmatic, 'realistic' hero, but pitting a genuinely aspirational figure against morally difficult circumstances which we recognise.

The same childish cynicism which thinks any human person is simply born evil and unable to change or heal, that's there's some point of no return after which growth is impossible, or that there's anything anyone can do to render themselves no longer human and thus undeserving of ethical treatment by others.

The same childish cynicism which sees compassion or even simply a desire to understand and dismisses it as 'fascination with evil', or, as is usually the actual attack even if not explicitly stated, of 'having the hots for the bad boy'. Looking for a character's motivation and expecting that they have one beyond 'muahahaha evilly evilly evil!' is just the most basic level of engaging with the text.

#idk if you're like... trolling #or if you're just new here #but this ask feels extremely disingenuous given the context of this blog #fandom #audience expectations

39 notes · View notes

hpoelzig · 11 months

Text

A Time for Godzilla Aficionados to Rejoice!

GOJIRA was premiered on November 3 in 1954, and that film’s release created one of the longest franchises in film history, which is now thriving vigorously. Directly inspired by Ray Harryhausen’s THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS (1953) and perhaps even the Fleischer Superman cartoon THE ARCTIC GIANT from 1942 (which also seems a bit of a plot source for the Harryhausen film), there have been periods wherein Toho Studios have gone on hiatus, and many years would pass before new Godzilla content would arise. Now a feast of daikaiju goodness makes it a particularly fine time for we Goji fans. The American LEGENDARY company has a successful MonsterVerse (including films, live action and animated series) with a sequel to their energetic GODZILLA v. KONG film due out in March of 2024, and a live action series about to be released on Apple’s streaming platform featuring the mysterious MONARCH agency—said to be enhanced for their upcoming augmented reality headsets. Toho last released a live action Godzilla film in 2016, SHIN GOJIRA, which artfully reimagined their great god-beast and lampooned Japan’s frustrating bureaucracy. Since then, two Toho animated series have been released which also reboot and rethink Godzilla: GODZILLA: PLANET OF THE MONSTERS and GODZILLA SINGULAR POINT. And Netflix has two seasons of PACIFIC RIM: THE BLACK as well as GAMERA: REBIRTH, coming in September—a glut of giant monsters is upon us!

At last, Toho has begun serious publicity for their new live action film GODZILLA: MINUS ONE, set to be released in Japan on November 3rd, and then, in US theaters on December 1st—a first time in the history of this franchise that a US release has so quickly followed the Japanese premiere. They dropped a poster and a teaser trailer less than a week ago, and over this past weekend an exhibition of materials concerning this film’s director, Takashi Yamazaki, opened. He writes, directs, and oversees and designs the special effects. It included a statue of his new Godzilla as well as a very sketchy storyboard amongst other bits of memorabilia from his other films.

Yamazaki has depicted Godzilla twice before in what amount to cameos. In his Always: Sunset on Third Street 2, Godzilla appears in a fantasy sequence, while in 2021 he directed Godzilla the Ride: Giant Monsters Ultimate Battle which features Godzilla, King Ghidorah, and Rodan. He has continuously evolved his depiction of Godzilla as a CGI creation, and the version in the about to be released film is quite closely based on his previous version—though with enlarged dorsal plates and added details. Yamazaki blends aspects of other Godzilla designs into his own, particularly from the Toho Heisei series, but also there are some aspects of Legendary’s version as well.

Yamazaki had been rumored to be working on a Godzilla film, and Toho confirmed in late 2022 that it was happening, with a mysterious logo shaped like a G—that looked like it contained the shape of a new Godzilla—as well as the opening date, but they did not offer a title, poster, and teaser until about 5 days ago. Not long after the original confirmation and mysterious logo, a plot rumor emerged that suggested the film was set in the 1940s, after Japan had been nuked by the USA. Casting calls that astute fans discovered before this announcement confirmed that they were looking for actors who could be period correct. The rumor went on to suggest that the basic premise was that two Godzillas were to be used, one who was horribly burned by the nuclear strikes, and vengeful towards humans, while the other was unburned and thus more peaceful. The angry Godzilla was said to look much like the design from The Ride, while the other would have smoother skin, smaller dorsals and was described as somewhat “whale-like.” Also mentioned was that there would be a re-imagined version of Dr. Serizawa and his Oxygen Destroyer, both playing a major role in what was clearly emerging as a reboot entry into the series.

Back to the storyboard—Yamazaki must have selected it for inclusion in this public exhibition, and, if one enlarges it, one can see what looks like a sequence depicting both the angry Godzilla (Toho now calls him NegaGoji) as well as the peaceful one (I call it KujiraGoji) and the scene displays an ocean encounter with these two daikaiju as well as a small boat with three people (one wearing glasses). The plot rumor had mentioned a climactic scene wherein Dr. Serizawa, his sister, and a friend, use a small boat to take his Oxygen Destroyer to use on these two creatures who had been spotted together. So, the storyboard seems to be solid evidence confirming that detail of the plot rumor. Now, the rumor was early on and could have been derived from an early treatment or rough script produced by Yamazaki, so the actual film may have changed significantly since the rumor and the drawing of the storyboard. Yamazaki’s selecting this for exhibition seems like he might be having fun, hiding some significant aspect of the film in plain sight. His drawing is very loose and layered.

Below you can see the enlarged story board image—which is frankly almost Rorschach-esque. In my image I have outlined in magenta how Yamazaki has depicted NegaGoji (his exaggerated dorsal plates are clear), and I've outline in green KujiraGoji. It looks to me that Yamazaki has drawn an image wherein N-Goji might be following K-Goji underwater. He's overlayed this with eyes, which I suspect are notes to himself as to what eye expressions he's considering for the Gojis. I've outlined in orange the shot of the small boat by what I think is the submerged K-Goji, who one can see is drawn very differently from N-Goji, particularly with the lesser dorsals and the rather short arms and legs. The Goji by the boat is like the one above outlined in green. Of course you can easily see the images toward the bottom left that show three people in the boat, which is how the plot leak described the scene.

Whether or not the rumors, or what appears to be a pertinent story board, are actually indicators of the film to come, I’m certainly looking forward to Toho’s latest attempt to interpret Godzilla. Yamazaki has stated “In order to depict this, the staff and I have worked together to create a setting where Godzilla looks as if ‘fear’ itself is walking toward us, and despair is piled on top of despair.” That piques my interest! I quite enjoy the design and look forward to adding some new idols to my collection once the figures are released—and a number of them have been announced along with release dates. There is also supposedly an online Godzilla store in the works, to make it easier to sell Japanese merchandise to fans in the US. And plans are afoot for several viewings of the film in my local cinema accompanied by my fellow Gojira devotees.

There have been some test-screening revelations about GODZILLA X KONG: THE NEW EMPIRE, and I’ll be back to discuss those in another blog entry.

It is indeed a good day to Hail Godzilla!

—Peter H. Gilmore

#Godzilla #Godzilla Minus One #Takashi Yamazaki #toho studios #legendary monsterverse #shin gojira #daikaiju

24 notes · View notes