Action Comics #900 - Superman Goes Global (spoiler)

This gets buzz and it gets sales. People are on here talking about it, so they've done their job generating the buzz.

As far as Superman renouncing his US citizenship, that doesn't bother me because Clark Kent won't, not if he wants to keep reporting for the Planet at least. I understand that this is a reaction to how the real world might percieve American interventionist policy and politics generally, and Superman is a powerful tool for saying 'no, I'm not representative of any government or individual, I'm a citizen of the world'.

I think the very long post in this thread denegrating DC and the ideal of Superman is ill-informed, because that very sixty odd years of history that have been generated around Superman won't be enough to impact the broader mainstream community that doesn't read comics. He'll remain an American, he'll remain the defender of truth, justice and the American way and he'll remain Superman, essentially.

I think it's an interesting though probably short-lived tactic on DC's part to get their audience thinking a little, and if that's the intent and it's done well, it could be thought-provoking, unlike the corporatisation of Batman recently. On the other hand, it could be just there for the sales spike and it'll be back to the status quo in a years' time.

After all, this is the same Superman who has died, been split in two and even sported a mullet for a while....



S.

Well, the birthers had to turn their attention somewhere...

It’s pretty sad that DC has some Obama-Philes. I do have a few issues with this
1) It’s been pretty clear, and consistently written, that his only real limitation in his actions has been his moral compass. He hasn’t been called a boy scout for nothing. Implying the US Government somehow limits his actions would be bizarre.
2) Granted his own in-laws are associated with some fringe elements in the military, and seem to be opposed to him, the real question. How could the US government really limit him w/o calling on other super heroes( a Civil War type storyline might be interesting in the DCU).
3) Going back to number 1), by implying becoming a global citizen will somehow free him of previously unknown limitations, would seem to mean he plans on going hardcore, which would be really out of character.
4) Does it even really matter? It would only really matter if he gave his secret identity as Clark Kent, and went to live full time in the Fortress of Solitude( and I could see no good angle for Lois), not do so would be a bit hypocritical, Superman doesn’t pay taxes, Clark does, Superman doesn’t vote, Clark does, Superman doesn’t have a SSN, Clark presumably does, etc. If he didn’t do that, him going before the UN would be just big grandstanding( which is out of character), and also if he does give up his secret identity. It would hurt Lois( which is out of character).
I just have a sad feeling, the powers that be at DC, are wanting to turn him into a sort of Super-Obama like figure, rather than the Jimmy Stewart type hero we’ve known.

If Superman renounces his citizenship then how can he legally be in the United States? If he stays as Clark then he's living as a hypocrite.

I think the only responce to this is.....




MAKE MINE MARVEL!

I can think of a number of interesting things DC could do,
1) Clark and Lois finally have a baby
2) Superman comes in conflict with a new villian who is equal, with opposing ideology, sort of what he could have been had he been raised by someone else. Sort of like Red Sun. it would be critical it not be a Kryptonian or Daxamite, and to be politically correct, not something that wouldn't result in a law suit on Civil Rights grounds, not so much evil, but opposing.

Well many of the futures DC has shown us has the descendants of Superman. So somewhere there has to be a super child. DC 1,000,000 had a massive super legacy.
But I think they tried the super child with the child of Zod a couple years ago. Not sure how that went over with fans. Perhaps DC is just afraid to detail any complication a hybrid pregnancy would entail, and maybe they are not sure how long they would have to drag the whole "we're gonna have a baby" story lines.

Why are we talking about a fictional person (ie not real)? Why does this really matter? I mean seriously, come on folks get a grip on yourselves... Its not like say some super important US citizen renouncing their US citizenship.....

Funny thread.

And a really nice argument for having copyright expire in a more reasonable time frame so corporations can't permanently control parts of the culture.

I remember a while back, I think it was shortly after Lois was shot in the Middle-East, during the Ruin story, that she asked Clark about having a baby, and she basically said, "With all the people that we know and technology we have access to, it's gotta be possible." I don't think there was any follow-up to that, though.

Boy these guys really have forgotten how to write Superman havent they? They just don't know what to do with him anymore.
First they take away his powers for a year. Then they have him on new krypton for a year. Now this nonsense waklk across America and now this.

Get with the programme DC. The guys name is Superman. Remember?
Get him back to the forefront again, doing the things no other hero can do.
Send him across the universe fighting outlandish threats noone else can manage.

And stop with this superwimp rubbish.

Where is John Byrne when you need him? (Although Byrne weakened him a tad too much...)