[url=http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=fqf-QtLW_Yk]This will be informal, so don't expect anything too fancy :P] [DID IT WORK FEANORY???][/url] Now, in the world of comics, there have been a massive number of endearing characters. Said characters often transcend comics and become popular culture icons. Take, say, the Avengers. If you ask a pedestrian about what their favorite of the aforementioned heroes are, chances are that they'll have an answer ready for you. But what about fifteen years ago? When Marvel didn't have the movies that ingrained their status in possible culture? Would you believe a random pedestrian to understand what you were talking about? Probably not. However, there's one character that has maintained relevancy to society. Even without an installment of the character to renew his pop culture status. And that character is Superman. But why? Why is Superman such a character? Isn't Superman supposed to be an "outdated, old fashioned, big blue boyscout" as many claim? How can someone so seemingly simple retain this much popularity? If you ask your average Superman fan, the answer will almost unquestionably be that Superman is a universal. That is, he is someone everyone can aspire to be. But there is a problem with this logic. Universals are almost always [i]irrelevant[/i] in pop culture. Everyone remembers them for what they did, and not for [i]who[/i] they were. I've been bringing up Northrop Frye frequently on these forums. While his near existentialist view of society is debatable, and while I dislike archetypal criticism as a whole in literature, his lecture provides a fitting explanation for the distinction between Superman and a universal character. In his third Massey Lecture, "Giants in Time," he talks about how mythological characters maintain relevance without actually recognizing their characters through the example of Achilles. "... but how does this explain Achilles? Achilles was invulnerable except for his heel, and he was the son of a sea nymph. Neither of these things can be true of anybody, so how does that make Achilles a typical or universal figure? Here there's another kind of principle involved. We said earlier that the more realistic a writer is, and the more his characters and incidents seem to be like people ourselves, the more apt he is to become ironic, which involves putting you, as the reader, in a position of superiority to them, so that you can detach your imagination from the world they live in by seeing it clearly and in the round. Homer's Achilles represents the opposite technique, where the character is a hero, much larger than life. Achilles is more than what any man could be, because he's also what a man wishes he could be, and he does what most men would do if they were strong enough. He's not a portrait of an individual hero, but a great smouldering fore of human desires and frustration and discontent, something we all have in us too, part of mankind as a whole. And because he's that he can be partly a god, involved with nature to the point of having a mother in the sea and an enemy in the river, besides having other gods in the sky directly interested in him and what he's doing. And because with all his superhuman strength he's still up against something he can't understand, there's an ironic perspective too. Nobody cares now about the historical Achilles, if there ever was one, but the mythical Achilles reflects a part of our own lives." If you think about it, this is an almost exact representation of Superman (minus the conflicting morals and god parents- though he does indeed go up against "gods" himself from time to time). Superman is someone who we can all want to be. Superman is someone who is much, much larger than life. He's a universal force. If that's the case, then why hasn't Superman's story fallen away like all the others? Why has Superman's story consistently been retold in popular culture (indeed, the latest Superman film [i]was[/i] yet another retelling of the titular character's origin story). And, perhaps more importantly, why does everyone know and care about Superman's character, and why has popular culture not brushed him away in the years he was inactive in terms of media installments? Why is Superman not just a [i]classic?[/i] While some may simply say that the character hasn't been given enough time, I disagree. It's more than that. Because unlike Achilles, or Hercules, or any form of mythological character that has come before him, there is something to Superman that sets him apart from the classification of a "mere 'god.'" Superman is completely, totally, 100% on our level. He is one of the most subtle, yet brilliant critiques of human society ever created. When he's Superman, he's on the level of gods and demons. He shoots lasers from his eyes. He destroys buildings with punches. He saves the day, and upholds his morality all throughout his acts. But in the blink of an eye, when he puts on his glasses, he becomes as restricted and helpless as a regular human. Sure, he may have his powers with him, but the entire point of Clark is to conceal the power of Kal El. In his Kent form, he is effectively depowered. But you might be asking “how is Superman a critique of society? He may be the most ‘Murica character ever created!” Think about Superman’s core values. He’s the last survivor of his race. He’s [i]absolutely devoted[/i] to fighting for good. The man is the true representation of the best in someone. And even then, in our twisted society, Clark Kent lives a sad, lonely shell of a life. If you went to a news service and were told that one of the people there actually saved the entire planet in spite of the death of his own, would you believe them? “Well thanks for saving the world with your bare hands and everything. Here’s that promotion!” Of course, it’d be utterly ridiculous to think any sane man would say such a thing, but that’s exactly what society says to him. Because society [i]isn’t[/i] sane. Nothing is, in Superman’s life. While there are several examples of people being d1cks to Supes, let’s look at that one of the most recent ones. In Man of Steel, Kal intervenes when a trucker attempts to assault his girlfriend, Chrissy (thanks for the correction Zod XD). He’s met with a bunch of beer all over his face, some attempts to push him, and a can to the back of his head. All the while, Kal is standing there staring at the trucker with a look of disbelief on his face. Not because he wants to knock the guy’s skull in- his look isn’t that of anger. Rather, it’s sadness, and, more specifically, disappointment. [i]So you’re telling me that this over developed primate is going to attempt to throw all this crap on my face now? Why? What have I ever done to you? What have I ever done to [b]anyone?[/b][/i] How can someone so truly good lead such a sad life in our society? Superman, then, is the complete antithesis of the American dream, and no one realizes it. Even after moving mountains, Clark cannot ascend the social ladder. I’m not deviating from my original point (or I at least am trying not to). Superman retains relevance to popular culture due to his critique of society and troubled character, while also being a universal figure of mythology due to his powers. That’s why Superman is such an interesting character to me. He at once represents both the best and worst humanity truly is- he’s a universal character by both being easily related to and by representing what humanity should strive to be. [i]You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards.[/i] And he inspires even as he seemingly doesn’t. Think of the controversy after Man of Steel’s ending. Superman killed. [i]Holy crap.[/i] The DC fanbase [i]exploded[/i]. I bring this up, because even as Kal El performs a seemingly uninspiring act (I say seemingly as I am indeed in support of Man of Steel’s ending scene), Superman manages to show the best of humanity. The very fact that people are outraged over a character killing in 2013 gives me hope. Hope because people feel so strongly about something seemingly passive. Name one movie where someone isn’t killed. Now name a movie where someone kills and the community surrounding it revolts. Indeed, this thread was in response to Fat Man 3000 claiming that Batman was an objectively better character than Superman. I can’t convince anyone that Batman isn’t a better constructed character than Superman, because the complexity the character brings to the table is clear. But what people don’t realize is that Superman is an equally complex character himself- only the more optimistic and less heavy handed writing that Superman encompasses usually masks him from such a qualification, and I hope I’ve gotten that point across through this post. Well, I guess that’s it. Here’s my list of opinions on Superman and Batman media: Movies: Superman 1 and 2 > The Dark Knight > Man of Steel >/= The Dark Knight Rises > Batman Begins > Batman > Superman Returns > Batman Returns > Batman Forever = Superman III > Superman IV > Batman and Robin Games: Batman > Superman Comics: Best of Superman > Best of Batman > Worst of Superman > Worst of Batman Animated Series: Batman The Animated Series >/= Superman The Animated Series > Batman Beyond > Anything else Soundtracks: Superman 1 > Superman Returns > Superman 2 > Man of Steel > The Dark Knight > Batman Begins > The Dark Knight Rises > Anything else (Haven’t really heard the rest) And yeah, that’s about it. TL;DR: To Fat Man 3000: No u