"Hey Superman!" Topic

Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.

Pisses me off beyond belief. DC has absolutely no clue at all.

Epic marketing fail.

Even if one looks at it pragmatically or as "just a comic book" or even "an interesting artistic choice," the fact of the matter is that a large part of Superman's readership (not to mention moms and dads looking at a gift comic book for a kid) will be either turned off or even angered by this move. Does DC actually think they're going to find more new readers because of this decision than they will lose in established readers? If so, they've been huffing the colorist's ink.

This is quite possibly the most idiotic long-term marketing move they could have made. Sure, the one issue will gain buyers among the curious and those who just want to poke John Q. Patriotic Public in the eye, but how long will those buyers remain with the brand? The one issue? Maybe three more till the novelty wears off? And then what? You've angered a significant portion of the fan-base, made many moms and dads even less likely to buy your product for their young progeny, and you've gained… nothing but the shallow and temporary applause of a few fringe-politics media types who don't like comic books anyway.

Dumb move.

Free to do it, of course (I suppose Supe still likes *that* aspect of America). But dumb.

By the way, I wasn't aware that "Superman" was an American citizen.

Clark Kent is. But "Superman" isn't. "Superman" is a job title. So technically there would be no "citizenship" to renounce. Or is Mr. Kent planning on revealing his secret identity to the world?

Or might somebody say, "Well, Superman, have you got any documents to prove your citizenship status? You've told us you were actually born on another planet, not in a US territory, and that means neither of your birth parents would have been citizens of the United States of America, so you have no legal claim to citizenship under the Constitution anyway. Unless, of course, you can produce formalized adoption records? No? Then did you go through the naturalization process and take an oath of citizenship before a judge or other recognized federal authority? No? Well, then, you're not a citizen to begin with. By the way, might you have voted in any federal, state or local elections? Yes? Then I'm sorry, but we have to place you under arrest for voter fraud. Or do you dispute the government's authority to make and enforce such laws, Mister 'Truth and Justice'? Because it looks to me like you're now down on all three parts of your former slogan. You've lied about your citizenship status, you've broken election laws, and in so doing, you've clearly acted against 'the American way.'"

did I miss something?

One of the stories in Action comics #900:

"When Superman drops in on an Iranian protest to stand with demonstrators in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience, the U.S. government takes him to task for acting as an instrument of national policy. Superman responds by renouncing his American citizenship and proclaiming himself a citizen of the universe."

*shakes head*
Did they really have to go there?

Yes, richarDISNEY, yes they did. *facepalm*

How come in the movies Superman can have bullets bounce of his chest, but ducks when some one throws a gun at him ?

link

Note the part where it says, "In the comic, Superman never actually renounces his citizenship, he only talks about his plans to do that."

So, Superman is clearly guilty of Thoughtcrime in the eyes of many.

The more interesting aspect of this is, is Superman a free individual? Or is he the chattel of the US government? Can one only stand up for what is right if it doesn't cause problems for policy makers?

Superman has often stood up against the US government. There's nothing new nor unpatriotic about that.
What is new (and idiotic) is the obnoxious idea that renouncing US citizenship is either good, noble or even serves any useful purpose whatsoever. In fact, it's the coward's choice. Rather than accept the responsibility of a citizen to act to change the policies of government (which is the whole idea behind the US system), the "renouncer" runs off to sulk in a corner and whine "I'm not responsible for what they're doing, you can't blame me, they're the meanies."

Absolutely pathetic.

The real Clark Kent, raised by Ma and Pa Kent, would never even entertain the faintest glimmer of the thought.

DC achivied exactly what it wanted. Everyone is talking about Superman now. And people who wouldn't have bought the line are now going to go out and get this issue and maybe a few more, and then 6 months down the road DC will retcon the who thing, or it will be a evil Luther Superman clone, whatever.

My take, freaking Smallville was a worse insult to everyone regarding Superman, I mean a ANGSTY SUPERMAN? Oh I am so different from normal people, oh agnst agnst agnst. Superman can have doubts, and a desire for a normal life, sure. But Agnsty???

Yeah, we tired of Smallville very quickly. From Clark's constant mooning over the way too perfect (and dull) Lana Lang to the absurd yet-another-townsperson-has-meteorite-induced-powers-that-just-happen-to-point-out-behavior-problems stories, we gave up during the first season. At least the treatment of Lex Luthor was good, although his presence in Smallville at every stage was way too convenient even for a comic book show.

DC achivied exactly what it wanted. Everyone is talking about Superman now. And people who wouldn't have bought the line are now going to go out and get this issue and maybe a few more, and then 6 months down the road DC will retcon the who thing, or it will be a evil Luther Superman clone, whatever.

Back OT. This is part of my whole point, though. They aren't inspiring people who would actually like super-hero comics to buy the comics— just people who don't like super-hero comics, and who aren't likely to change from that over the long term. Also, they may retcon it, but the retcon won't make the news. So they've alienated some of their fans, driven away people who are more likely to be fans, and they won't get some of them back… and for what? I don't think the short term pay-off (if any) is worth the risk of the long-term loss.

Yes, controversy sells, but it sells once. It's hard to sustain. At some point you run out of controversy, and then where are you? Given the poor thought behind this idea both in terms of purpose and Superman's inherent character traits, I doubt the quality is present to make those sustaining sales happen. Sure it's sales gimmick, but the problem is it's not a smart one. Unlike other comics that have contrived story-line controversy to boost interest (such as a "Death of ____" storyline), this controversy actually touches a real, sensitive issue in a way that will make people angry. Not "you can't kill off my favorite character" angry, but "you've insulted my beliefs and values" angry. The former is shallow and temporary, the latter can be deep and lasting. If you do the latter, you'd better have a good reason beyond just a sales boost, or you're just shooting yourself in the head.

For Jovian1…
picture

Responses already…
link

Maybe Superman can keep the rest of the UN peacekeepers from raping and looting and embezzling.

Could be a good thing, just what the UN needs.

The thing is with comic book collectors is that for the most part, they only collect for a small time period of their lives, 5 to 10 years at most. Now there are always the exceptions (I know several) who will collect for their whole lives, they are not going to be driven away because of anything that get's done in a comic line. Yes, some collectors are going to go away, but for the most part, they would have gone away in a couple of years anyway. By having something radical in a comic book line, new people will start looking at the line, and some will stay.

Something like this happens about every, gosh, 5 to 10 years. Last time they did this to the Superman line, they killed him. But wait! They brought him back (surprise surprise). Killing Superman off, drove several collectors away, but it brought a bunch of new collectors to the line.

I guess I am just old and jaded about the "stunts" that get pulled with comic book lines. Look at the X-men line, the Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix story line was legendary… until they decided to bring her back and retconned the whole thing.

One thing about the younger generation these days though, truth & justice don't go hand in hand with the American way for them these days. Hate to say it, but maybe they feel they have to do that for him to be indentifable with the younger generation.

Renouncing his citizenship will allow him to rediscover the good and noble side of America and choose to be a citizen again.

He will be a born again patriot.

btw, what's their spread of US v non-US sales? They are unlikely to lose foreign sales over it. Perhaps, like fictional Superman, DC has business all over the world now.

Well, it probably gets them into China.

The Dark Knight (film) wasn't allowed in China because a Chinese national is depicted as a criminal.

So that particular government ought to love this move.

I honestly do not think they'd care. Unless they are investors in DC.

But whether he goes through with the renunciation of citizenship or not, my guess is this 'crisis of faith' will lead to a re-committment to truth, justice, and the American way – as a conscious choice rather than as a given.

I stop collecting Comic years ago due to the way the writers were taking the story or characters.

These #%&*@* have done more harm then good.

They have an agenda and will let nothing stop them.