Superman renounces US citizenship

I'd say most of the comics I read are indie books. I do/did read Superman, I even kept it up under the terrible Straczynski arc where Superman walks across the United States - and agonizingly bad New Krypton storyline.

I don't get why one ish he's walking across America, the next he's renoucing his American citizenship. **** poor writing while trying to appeal to a bigger audience? I think this may've backfired... I'm done reading Superman for a while (besides the book was pretty aimless, the art was usually terrible and the story arcs weren't all that thought out... they really need someone the take over the Supes books and make them cohesive again - and not Geoff Johns/Gary Franks/Alex Ross/etc).

I'll keep reading Supergirl... for the most part, it's a damn good read. Lots of fun and way better than the Superman books have been for a long time.
 
I hate to Eaglewood a thread, but I'm always late to the party.

Yes, I am aware that we are discussing a comic boook.

There is a good bit out there somewhere that stated that Superman is not a costume/disquise donned by Clark Kent in order to perform deeds of super-heroic vigilante nature but rather Clark Kent is a disquise that the super being Kal El dons when he wishes to walk among mortals.

I don't really like that train of thought. I prefer the Kansas farm boy with exceptional powers direction better. Makes me identify with the character a little more, I guess.

I know this is a marketing ploy but I still don't like it. I would prefer that DC keep Superman out of real world events anyways. Should we hit Clark with a Hispano Ray in order to reflect changing demographics? Or maybe he should ditch Lois and enter a "domestic partnership" with Bizzaro? Maybe he could be visited by an angelic being named Gabriel and set out to establish a Kryptonian Kaliphate?

Sorry. I believe America is an exceptional country. Not a perfect one but we are trying. I know it is currently in vogue for certain types to fly their elitist flag by decrying America's stumbles. At the same time, it has become "declasse" to remember how much good America has done?

I want Superman to represent not the present agenda of any American government. I want Superman to represent the American Idea. I want Superman to be the Ideal American. To protect the weak, defend the defenseless. To do the right thing.

Kal El, I believe America is still a shining city on the hill. If you believe America has lost its way, stay and help us find its way back. Wikepedia says you are an "American Cultural Icon". I hope that is true.

But if you prefer to think of yourself as the "Last Son of Krypton", if you want to renounce your citizenship in the culture that has raised and adored you... get the hell out. Don't look back. And should you decide to become our enemy, remember this: Bruce is proud to be an American. He kicked your ass once. He can do it again if he has to.
 
outlander said:
I hate to Eaglewood a thread, but I'm always late to the party.

Yes, I am aware that we are discussing a comic boook.

There is a good bit out there somewhere that stated that Superman is not a costume/disquise donned by Clark Kent in order to perform deeds of super-heroic vigilante nature but rather Clark Kent is a disquise that the super being Kal El dons when he wishes to walk among mortals.

I don't really like that train of thought. I prefer the Kansas farm boy with exceptional powers direction better. Makes me identify with the character a little more, I guess.

I know this is a marketing ploy but I still don't like it. I would prefer that DC keep Superman out of real world events anyways. Should we hit Clark with a Hispano Ray in order to reflect changing demographics? Or maybe he should ditch Lois and enter a "domestic partnership" with Bizzaro? Maybe he could be visited by an angelic being named Gabriel and set out to establish a Kryptonian Kaliphate?

Sorry. I believe America is an exceptional country. Not a perfect one but we are trying. I know it is currently in vogue for certain types to fly their elitist flag by decrying America's stumbles. At the same time, it has become "declasse" to remember how much good America has done?

I want Superman to represent not the present agenda of any American government. I want Superman to represent the American Idea. I want Superman to be the Ideal American. To protect the weak, defend the defenseless. To do the right thing.

Kal El, I believe America is still a shining city on the hill. If you believe America has lost its way, stay and help us find its way back. Wikepedia says you are an "American Cultural Icon". I hope that is true.

But if you prefer to think of yourself as the "Last Son of Krypton", if you want to renounce your citizenship in the culture that has raised and adored you... get the hell out. Don't look back. And should you decide to become our enemy, remember this: Bruce is proud to be an American. He kicked your ass once. He can do it again if he has to.
Click to expand...
Amen brother!
 
Superman The Movie came out in 1978, and I presume the movie is intended to take place in that year.

There is a sequence where Clark becomes an adult, leaves home, and heads north. After using a green crystal to build the Fortress of Solitude he spends 12 years traveling through space obtaining a higher Kryptonian knowledge.

He left earth in 1966 and returned in 1978, making him the world's most famous Viet Nam draft dodger.

:D
 
Last edited:
Tengu: Shuster was the one with Canadian ties BUT he was living in the US at the time of Superman's creation. There was a connection to Canada again through the newspaper in the original Superman comics, too. It used to be called Daily Star (Toronto paper?) but that was changed to the Daily Planet within 3 years. The original paper editor, George Taylor, became Perry White within the same time frame, too. To say Superman's a Canadian creation.... Kind of stretching it geographically but I'm not going to quibble over the point. The Kents themselves were meant to be situated in at least the farmlands mid-Atlantic states, later moved to Kansas when more details were fleshed out in Superman's backstory in the later 1940s and 1950s.

Outlander sums up my feelings with superheroes in general. They're best dealt with as fantasy characters but the problem today is A) they're aimed at the wrong group in comics(!) WHILE the original target group is targetted in animation(!); B) half the writers at least should be doing indie comics but do hero comics because they're more profitable and higher profile especially because of the movies being made now. Ironically, while the majority of the films ARE making money comic sales are still dropping and haven't seen significant boosts due to the movies. The last time comics had sales increase due to a movie was the 1989 Batman movie. A number of comic writers are already working in the film industry or writing comics waiting to get that next gig... preferably on a higher-paying prestige project. The comics are means-to-an-end for a bunch of these guys and not their A-material or first love.... and it really shows a lot of the time.

I say comics are aimed at the wrong group thusly --- they're being written for the 20+year-old crowd that never got out of them and may or may not have great social skills. There's a presumption that comics should be aimed at these guys and that's part of why there are basically next to no kids under 20 collecting comics now. They're just not written for them! The animated shows, on the other hand, are written for general audiences but stay within the Y7 network rules. The TV series are ironically far closer to the spirit of the original classic comics and many people like me enjoy them a lot more than the current monthlies. Comics just haven't had writing like that since the early 1990s. I'd say the kid crowd (7-12) was totally abandoned by Marvel and DC by the mid-1990s. The stuff published by independents and Disney for the most part is also collected by adult fans. With the exception of whatever collected series get picked up by libraries, there just aren't a lot of kids in general reading American comics. Even the teengirl manga market collapsed!

I am firmly in the group that believes optimists write superheroes best and particularly characters like Superman and Captain America. Full-time cynics just don't understand characters that stand for higher standards, higher ideals -- the way you'd want responsible characters to act. To cynics, it's always an angle or there's something that has to be wrong with the characters or explored. It's just not that deep, IMHO. You have to be like a child in your understanding of the archetypal characters other than Batman... there are some cynical types that have written very good Batman stories.

I also believe, unless someone can conclusively prove to me otherwise, that the chief editors at both Marvel and DC have been angling for Hollywood jobs for quite a while now, too. Their best interests have NOT been in putting out quality booklines and just publishing good comics for a while. It's about the easy money of licensing out properties/ideas for movies, T-shirts, and games as well as relying too much on event books and company-wide crossovers for temporary book sales boosts. The trend on even those crossovers has been downwards, too...

It breaks your heart to see what's become of the current monthly books but the good news is that there have never been more reprints of classic, older storylines than there are now! I see the trade/HC market as being the one bright spot in the publishing even though both Marvel and DC have scaled back their deluxe reprint lines (Masterworks and Archives) in favor of reprinting classic storylines, doing an occasional omnibus book, or reprinting recent stories and classic creator runs. The glass is still half-full although the milk arguably went sour half ago!
 
Question:

Has anyone actually read the issue in question, and the issues surrounding it? Like, to get the context of this decision?


I mean, I get the overall sense of disgust or handwringing or whatever you want to call it regarding a decline in civic unity in the U.S., a general coarsening of public discourse (both political and social), and the like, but perhaps THIS particular example is being taken out of context for the sake of eye-grabbing headlines?


I mean, I could see an a scenario where Superman gives up his U.S. citizenship so that the U.S. won't be targeted for reprisals for his actions, or so the U.S. is legally protected from potential repercussions if Supes crosses an international border to kick Braniac's butt or somesuch (a situation which actually DID occur with Green Lantern, FYI). Or perhaps that Supes would rather represent the IDEALS of America than the GOVERNMENT of America and thus chooses to lead by behavioral example rather than mere citizenship. I seem to recall that the story was he was doing this because of international law (which further ties into the "Comics are for kids? I think not." argument...).


All I'm saying is that there COULD be genuinely patriotic reasons why he'd do this. Heck, when Captain America went "underground" as "Nomad" in the 1970s (in response to the Watergate scandal -- or Marvel's equivalent of it) and then again as "The Captain" back in the mid 80s in response to what happened in Daredevil when Nuke basically destroyed Hell's Kitchen after a corrupt officer redirected him at the Kingpin's behest. In both cases it was because the government had failed to live up to Steve Rogers' own sense of ideals/patriotism. It wasn't some "America-hating/bashing" thing. It was because his attitude was that he was only loyal to the American dream, not to the government; to the higher ideals of America and not its government of men.

So, again, I can see where an action like this could be a statement of loyalty to such ideals, rather than to the government, and where one makes such a move in furtherance of those ideals.



Of course, the media will be only too happy to simply print a story that says "CAPTAIN AMERICA NO LONGER AN AMERICAN!!" and let people fulminate about it, just as they would print a story that reads "MAN BURNS FLAG" or "MAN HEAPS DIRT ON FLAG" without bothering to explain that the man was doing so out of respect because the flag had been dropped on the ground (I seem to recall there being some flag etiquette where you're supposed to burn or bury the flag when it's touched the ground).
 
Solo4114 said:
Question:

Has anyone actually read the issue in question, and the issues surrounding it? Like, to get the context of this decision?
Click to expand...

What? And provide an INFORMED opinion during the discussion??

Clearly, you are new to the internet sir!! :lol
 
Solo4114 said:
Question:

Has anyone actually read the issue in question, and the issues surrounding it? Like, to get the context of this decision?


I mean, I get the overall sense of disgust or handwringing or whatever you want to call it regarding a decline in civic unity in the U.S., a general coarsening of public discourse (both political and social), and the like, but perhaps THIS particular example is being taken out of context for the sake of eye-grabbing headlines?


I mean, I could see an a scenario where Superman gives up his U.S. citizenship so that the U.S. won't be targeted for reprisals for his actions, or so the U.S. is legally protected from potential repercussions if Supes crosses an international border to kick Braniac's butt or somesuch (a situation which actually DID occur with Green Lantern, FYI). Or perhaps that Supes would rather represent the IDEALS of America than the GOVERNMENT of America and thus chooses to lead by behavioral example rather than mere citizenship. I seem to recall that the story was he was doing this because of international law (which further ties into the "Comics are for kids? I think not." argument...).


All I'm saying is that there COULD be genuinely patriotic reasons why he'd do this. Heck, when Captain America went "underground" as "Nomad" in the 1970s (in response to the Watergate scandal -- or Marvel's equivalent of it) and then again as "The Captain" back in the mid 80s in response to what happened in Daredevil when Nuke basically destroyed Hell's Kitchen after a corrupt officer redirected him at the Kingpin's behest. In both cases it was because the government had failed to live up to Steve Rogers' own sense of ideals/patriotism. It wasn't some "America-hating/bashing" thing. It was because his attitude was that he was only loyal to the American dream, not to the government; to the higher ideals of America and not its government of men.

So, again, I can see where an action like this could be a statement of loyalty to such ideals, rather than to the government, and where one makes such a move in furtherance of those ideals.



Of course, the media will be only too happy to simply print a story that says "CAPTAIN AMERICA NO LONGER AN AMERICAN!!" and let people fulminate about it, just as they would print a story that reads "MAN BURNS FLAG" or "MAN HEAPS DIRT ON FLAG" without bothering to explain that the man was doing so out of respect because the flag had been dropped on the ground (I seem to recall there being some flag etiquette where you're supposed to burn or bury the flag when it's touched the ground).
Click to expand...


QFT!!!
 
Solo4114 said:
Question:

I mean, I could see an a scenario where Superman gives up his U.S. citizenship so that the U.S. won't be targeted for reprisals for his actions, or so the U.S. is legally protected from potential repercussions if Supes crosses an international border to kick Braniac's butt or somesuch (a situation which actually DID occur with Green Lantern, FYI). Or perhaps that Supes would rather represent the IDEALS of America than the GOVERNMENT of America and thus chooses to lead by behavioral example rather than mere citizenship. I seem to recall that the story was he was doing this because of international law (which further ties into the "Comics are for kids? I think not." argument...).
Click to expand...



......oh yeaaaaa.... that could be it too.

Well, we'll see. The end of the world is tomorrow so if Supes doesn't save us that mean he's a traitor. :)

I think that this is a good example of how the media has really taken over our lives. A lot of people just believe whatever the headlines say without actually making informed decisions for themselves. Myself included, when I first started reading this thread I thought I immediately thought it was ridiculous without considering that there could have been good intentions behind it.

Thank you for reminding me to take a step back once in a while and judge situations for myself rather than having others do it for me. :thumbsup
 
This place is going to get boring fast if everyone starts actually considering context and framework, all of a sudden.

HEY LOOK There's a government-sprayed contrail above me! I can feel my DNA rearranging! What does it mean that there were two Darrens? TWO DARRENS!
 
Solo4114 said:
Question:

Has anyone actually read the issue in question, and the issues surrounding it? Like, to get the context of this decision?
Click to expand...

It was really just a short 4 or 5 page mini story that didn't seem all that important to be honest. DC quickly announced that it was a stand-alone story and will not be followed up at all. DC Backtracks Superman renouncing his citizenship

Also, at the end of the comic it shows Superman through the years with this pic:
Recent image by Kilstryke on Photobucket

Yeah, still American! If anything, the whole story has me worried about the new movie since David Goyer wrote that piece!
 
Last edited:
Goyer, IMHO, isn't that good a writer to begin with.

He's so memorable that I snoozed through whole issues of the comics of his that I've read and I CAN'T REMEMBER A DARN THING IN THEM!

Yeah, fairly mediocre all over.

I'm aware of his Batman/Blade movie connections but color me unimpressed by the movie work so far... Don't care for his movies, period.

All in all that little bit of Superman story -- which was a naive political statement by Goyer -- really didn't belong in that issue. To begin with, after the percolation on the uprisings in the Middle East had settled, the last thing that most of these protesters wanted was a Western-style government let alone democracy... A lot of them wanted Sharia law -- theocratic states like Iran that are against the idea of individual freedoms and liberty. It's pretty much morning to sunset religious routine.

The context Goyer put Superman in with 20/20 hindsight was as bone-headed as the analysis by "media foreign experts." Those initial news analyses have been proven completely wrong and it just shows the problems of both Western foreign policy and their reaction to recent Middle Eastern events... when the leaders and their advisors DON'T understand the other guys (Middle Easterners in this case), they're going to make the wrong assumptions and do some really stupid things. Sure, secular dictators are bad but do you honestly think a jihadist-led government is better????

In retrospect, DC upper management is fairly aware that what their Superman editor allowed was a PR disaster, and it was not even the foreign policy implications that made the character look so bad to most people.... it was going against the grain of what the character's been since World War II, the rejection of the "American" part. That's basic Superman 101. WHEN you fail to understand something as basic as that for a character, you have to ask if the right editors and writers are being assigned to Superman. It should have never been okayed. And it won't help long-term sales, either, other than for one otherwise insignificant, mediocre issue.... But that's how comics are today. They're very short-sighted not looking at the long-term...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top