S/B these days is closer to what I have in mind but it's still such a superguy humpfest all about Superman getting rid of a thing that kills Superman because that's bad for Superman but then the government's scared of Superman so Superman fights Supermonsters built to kill Superman by Superman's ex-girlfriend who's scared of Superman Superman Superman Superman Superman. Batman.

Pretty much my approach here is, first, throw all that shit right out, in fact throw out Superman altogether, and start with something basically more or less our world that we live in today, and say okay, what need in all of this is filled by a super-strong guy calling himself a hero? Now lots of people have done this; the problem is that their answer 100 times out of 100 has been "He fights muggers and space gods" which means they're doing it wrong. People don't need a super-strong invulnerable dude to stop bank robberies, we have cops for that. On the off-chance a planet-eating space god turns up and tries to eat our planet, we have the US Military and all those nuclear weapons they've been building for 60 years. Lady reporter hanging off the edge of a building? Call the fire department, and once they get her down have them give her a stern talking-to about hanging out too close to the edges of buildings.

Problems that individuals cause for individuals are something people have had answered practically since there have been people; we build institutions and societies to control and stamp out and ameliorate those problems. What people don't have an answer for is what happens when it's our institutions and our societies conspiring against individuals, because people with power and priviledge within those institutions have decided to fuck over average shnooks for their own gain. That's where you bring in Superman, as the guy who can stand up to the great engine of our society. To my looking at it in any given Superman comic possibly the least central character should be Superman. You start with the guy getting fucked over by The Man, and all the ways The Man is fucking him over, and then when it looks like things couldn't get any shittier for our helpless protagonist, Superman comes in, beats the tar out of whichever greedy SOB and makes him say he's sorry, and makes things right for the honest jerks of the world.

Really this is less about reinventing Superman in particular than the entire notion of the superhero, in the direction of making it less the escapist fantasia that pretty much every incarnation thereof has become, and more about something that addresses the actual problems people deal with here in our world of ordinary humanity. And then punches those problems in the face.

...Which I'd be remiss if I didn't somewhere point out is basically what the concept originally was. First two Superman stories ever told: 1. Superman breaks into the Governor's house, beats up his bodyguard, kicks in his door and says hey jerkwad, that man being executed is innocent, and you're gonna effin' let him go. 2. Crooked-ass mine owner treats his employees like crap, Superman sneaks in, beats the tar out of the mine owner and his scumbag lackey, and then as Clark Kent writes the story for the Daily Planet Star exposing the guy for the scummy jerk that he is. Siegel and Schuster got it right straight out of the gate; it's been the hard work of ninety years screwing it up.

...Oh! Also I have a really great idea for a Martian Manhunter reboot. Or at least a J'onn J'onnz reboot. I'd rename him "The Alien" and play him as an immigrant story, where he enters America in human guise as a political refugee from a war-torn country - when in reality, he's a political refugee from a war-torn planet. He puts in for asylum and takes up life in an immigrant slum, where he seeks to avert scrutiny and avoid revealing himself but is compelled by his sense of justice to use his Martian powers to right wrongs among the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

You misspelled "Brian Bendis."

He meant Doctor Strange, because he sucks.

Also I'd like to see a superhero who refuses to stop bank robberies and such because actual people aren't losing money. Banks are losing money, and fuck them. An anti-establishment hero, I guess. Because I've seen racist heroes and gay heroes and poor heroes and rich heroes, but I've never seen a hero expressly dedicated to stopping old fat rich white men from fucking us all over.

I'm really not up-do-date on my comics (read: 20 years behind), so they may have done this, but I want Wolverine to return to the conflicted, fallen samurai thing Claremont was doing before Larry Hama fucked it up (no disrespect to Hama, he's a good writer and did great things with Wolvie post-Fatal Attractions, but it wasn't the same, ya know?)

My problem with this is that it would get super political/philosophical super fast. The idea itself is loaded with it.
It would quickly descend into what right this person has to decide everything just because he's super strong and how what seems like individual acts of justice can cause wider spread ramifications. Then to escape that they'd throw in some monsters who Superman can beat up without anyone claiming he's doing the wrong thing.
That's always why I saw Superheros as fighting supervillains. Because supervillains are evil as all fuck. In most cases its hard to say smashing DarkSeid in the face is not a heroic act to do.
But fighting corporations and things will bring a whole lot of social, judicial and philosophic theory as to whether that is correct that it would just weigh down the light-hearted comic.
You could avoid that and always portray Superman as doing the right thing but people who disagreed would be turned off.

Another thing is that people balk less at a super-strong guy bashing another super-strong guy in the face for being 3333V111111LLLLLL!!!!1one!2 than a super-strong guy feeding a normal, fat American his own face for charging a 10% interest rate.


Edit: This was meant as a response to Barrel.

I was going to ask where it says that comic books aren't supposed to express a political viewpoint, except it occured to me that the question I should ask is where you get the idea that Superman doesn't, now, express a political viewpoint?

The only difference I see is that the viewpoint he currently expresses is one which suitably flatters the comfortable classes, whereas the viewpoint I would have him express does not.

?

The premise of this thread is what I personally would do to reshape a character. I'm not seeing what part of that includes handing the character back to the people who currently write him, to do the exact same two things that they currently do with the character, which are the things I expressly want to throw out, and stop doing with the character.

Again, among the many assumptions you're making here is that Superman as currently written does not express a viewpoint which is a turnoff for many people.

There is a key difference between your idea and the way that Superman is at the moment (I haven't read a superman in a while so if I'm wrong on this feel free to correct me).
Superman at the moment is directly opposed to crazy supervillains. Yes there is politics present in superman but they are not portrayed in direct opposition to Superman. His efforts are fighting ridiculous, totally fantastic bad guys not real world things. This means the politics are less direct whereas in your plan they would be completely central. Making Superman's heroic actions be that he defeats evil politics make his conception as a superhero tied directly into his political view whereas currentely he is a superhero because he defeats world destroying villains.

As for the reason why I don't want politics in it. Because I can read politics in a lot of other places where it will be dealt with in a more sophisticated manner. Comics could easily become mired in political debate like so many other things but be less adept at presenting these issues than say literary debate. This would prevent comics from having any unique points of difference. I don't see why people would read comics when there would be a better form of political debate they could read. Currentely comics are escapist fantasies but by miring them in the real worldyou take away that aspect so all you are left with is a simplification of politics.
This idea would contribute to dumbing down of political debates. The media already does this and I wouldn't want another literary form doing this as well. And Superman beating up corrupt factory owners certainly dumbs down and trivialises complex political issues.

I mean yes Superman is political but currentely you can ignore it to a large extent as Superman's direct villains are supervillains and not opposing political ideas.

I'm probably missing something here but I just don't see the point. There is plenty of anti-establishment literature and films and newspapers already out there and they present themselves in a more sophisiticated way than comics ever could.

Interestingly, taking the extremely long view, we'll be skirting this sort of thing with Robo eventually.

You are aware that comics is a medium and not a genre, and that there are many serious, thoughtful, sophisticated comics out there that have nothing to do with dudes in spandex footie jammies kicking the crap out of each other? And I'm not just talking about freakin' Maus, either. It's like saying that film can't address weighty issues in an intellectually rich fashion because all movies are Wayans Brothers shit-and-tits "comedies". If your argument instead is that the medium itself can't sustain that kind of commentary, well, okay, that's kind of super mega ultra wrong, but that's outside the scope of this thread and you're welcome to start a new thread about it.

Anyway, so what would you do with Superman, Barrelpants?

Fifth, I'm sure you hate manga, but you should read Akumetsu. Japan's economy sucks so some powered guy decides to start killing all the corrupt businessmen.


Not specific to a single character, but overall I'd want power reworking. For instance, Superman. He's strong enough where there's only about 10 people, several of which are probably himself, that would actually be a problem for him based on his powers. However, most comics don't end within 1 page, despite that being how long most challenges he faces would take to fix. I mostly want to see power consistency. I'm fine with god-like characters, as long as they only have problems from other god-like characters. This also applies in the opposite sense. Batman shouldn't be fighting Darksied and last longer than half a second before he is fleshy paste.

This doesn't apply to comics being run by Rule of Cool/Fun.