The new Action Comics... is going to...

[King Krypton]

I'll take Quitely, but despite that debate...

I can't tell much from the interview...the artwork features something I detest in a lot of modern Superman, the look of out-of-control hating rage...some of Shuster's early work gives him a hard look, but the violence in the look of art like the panel shown here is just so beneath the universe's greatest hero.

So Superman should never get angry, never use force, or ever intimidate a villain no matter how much the situation demands it because it's "beneath" him.

I guess the Fleischer, Alyn, Reeves, and Reeve Supermen all missed the memo then.  :roll:

[Uncle Mxy]

Superman should not embody 'roid rage.

[MatterEaterLad]

Wow, this is an old thread...

But yeah, Superman should use force, get angry occasionally (as far as the memos to Superman actors, well, Christopher Reeve screams at the death of Lois, I suppose one more time would have been too much for me, and for the life of me I can't remember a raging George Reeves)...purple faced rage can be saved for five year olds and professional wrestling... Once upon a time, Superman could use his smarts to deal with situations that made him angry...

[nightwing]

I have to come down on the side of Matter-Eater Lad here.  

Of course Superman, or any man, would occasionally get angry, but for the last few years now it seems the new "iconic" image of superheroes in general is that of a raving, frothing-at-the-mouth berzerker, just itching to tear open someone's throat.  That was novel and even sort of cool back in the late 70s when Wolverine did it, but by now it's beyond tired.

Superman is not a character generally motivated by vengeance and rage, and honestly neither is Batman, for years now DC's best stab at "Wolverine Lite."  Superheroes should be about something other than mindless violence, but apparently that's what sells.

Anyway,  I think some characters can get away with it visually even if it's not good for the character in the long run.  Like Batman, who already has a scary outfit...he can bare his teeth, run around in a "battle-damaged" costume and leap on hoodlums to generate some excitement.  But seeing Superman, with his all-American good looks, bright colors and that "S" on his chest, re-imagined as a bloodthirsty avenger shown in silhouette except for red glowing eyes (and, imposssibly, the "S" somehow perfectly lit though the rest of him is inky black) always strikes me as ridiculous.  What's next, Underdog with rabies?

Oh, and George Reeves was never "raving," though he was known to set his jaw and squint his eyes.  And punch thugs right in the kisser!

[Aldous]

What's next, Underdog with rabies?

 :rotfl:

Oh, and George Reeves was never "raving," though he was known to set his jaw and squint his eyes. And punch thugs right in the kisser!

He decked quite a few. Sometimes when his dander was up he would pick up a couple of men he'd already knocked to the floor and crack their heads together, Thock! (Ouch.)

Do I need to add I thoroughly approved every time he did it?

[Permanus]

I quite agree with Nightwing that the whole superhero-doing-Dirty-Harry schtick is old and tired, and in Superman's case it never made sense anyway: he's so much stronger than everybody else that he would not even be expending any energy by knocking them around. When I lose my temper (which happens more and more as middle age sets in), I don't try to vent my fury by tearing a tissue apart.

Also, Clark grew up on a farm, in comfortable Midwestern circumstances amid plenty of parental love. He's not the sort of person who's likely to fly off the handle. I'd almost like to think of him as a laid-back, laconic farm hand first, who just happens to be the most powerful man on earth: "Oh, Luthor's causing a rampage agin', huh? Yup, they'll do that, them city folk. Guess I'd better see to it."

In his excellent (my opinion!) series, Paul Chadwick once had Concrete strike his assistant in anger, smashing several ribs, and chillingly realise that in his new, grotesque and powerful body, he could never afford himself the luxury of losing his temper again. Indeed, one rarely if ever sees the character try to intimidate people with his prodigious strength, though to be fair, he's not exactly a conventional superhero.

[Aldous]

Superman is the one super-character least likely to lose control of his temper, except perhaps for Green Lantern. Remember Superman has spent his whole childhood and beyond using rigid self-control to blend in with the multitude. Without the automatic inhibitions that enable him to function in his Clark Kent identity, he would demolish his surroundings. (The man's breath can flatten a forest. His foot can flatten a mountain.) Clark Kent is Superman's supreme exhibition of self-control. There is an element of truth in your hicksville quote, Permanus... The Man of Steel is the strong man continually frustrated by his inhibitions, self-imposed by will power, whether right or wrong, over half a lifetime. The steroid Superman frothing with rage is plainly ridiculous. Superman doesn't have to worry about losing control of his temper. His ingrained self-control probably causes him much more anguish.