I applaud DC Comics for its bravery! The company is risking SO MUCH to stand up to an establishment that includes Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby and... others!
But I gotta say, I'm just a little bit disappointed in DC.
Weren't we supposed to get a black Superman played by Michael B. Jordan 🤔🤔🤔 all of DC's remaining fans might be a little disappointed that the LGBTQ Community won this particular high-value retcon... BUT WAIT! There's still hope! Michael B. Jordan could play Bi Superman in the upcoming films! 😃😃😃 IT'S GENIUS! And I, for one, am not even a little bit disappointed that the original superhero whose image, personality, and unidirectional love-interest has remained *consistent since 1938 is now a hero someone else can admire. Because we all know we can't admire others unless they resemble you in every way.
Shame on all of those fake fans who are alienated from DC by their racism and homophobia and no other possible reason 😡😡😡. Think about how someone else feels for a change!
I know there have been other versions of Superman including black ones and possibly even LGBTQ ones (though I can't recall any rendition before this one). Because I'm ACTUALLY a comic book fan and Superman is LEGITIMATELY a character I've followed since before I could read the words on a comic page, I know these things. Superman: Red Son is one of my favorite variations, also not a bad animated film. I also know this new Superman is technically Clark/Lois's son and not the same Superman. Still, as the torchbearer of that image and legacy, I think people have a right to be perturbed. Not only because it's a reasonable, human emotion to want the things you love that hold a special place in your heart to stay the same, but also because its further sign of the creative bankruptcy besetting the modern entertainment industry.
You might say this is no different than Marvel making Falcon the new Captain America. I disagree because that felt totally earned. Those movies legitimately fostered a comradery between Cap and Falcon from 2014 through 2019 that had nothing to do with social politics. When Cap bestowed that shield, it was a touching, organic moment that represented a reasonable culmination of their friendship. Now that Falcon is Captain America, they're free to introduce politically charged elements into the new show because they legitimized Falcon's succession organically without it feeling like a forced political statement.
Admittedly, I haven't been following DC Comics in a few years... actually it looks like it's been more than a few years because I don't think I've followed or purchased anything since the New 52. Thus, I suppose I don't know for sure that this new Superman is unearned. Maybe they legitimately built this Jon Kent as a good character and natural successor to the Superman legacy in his own right. But I kinda doubt that's what happened. From the mouth of the writer, "The idea of replacing Clark Kent with another white savior felt like a missed opportunity." Thus, this change was born from political opportunism, not organic storytelling.
I don't think Falcon & Winter Soldier stuck its landing particularly well, but I believe it has the potential to be a powerful show. Not merely because "Captain America is black now and people will see that and it makes a difference." Merely SEEING a marginalized person in the shoes of an established hero does little. Creating a GOOD CHARACTER that stands on its own two feet rather than upon the shoulders of giants is the best way to give people real representation that matters.
I know, I know. I'm a white man and I largely don't know what it's like to be a kid and not have heroes who look like me. And maybe when I was four, it was nice to have the image of Superman that I could aspire to emulate. It's regrettable that some children don't have that.
But comic books, like video games and whatnot, are no longer the exclusive realm of children. They're an adult medium produced for ages three and up. I buy the "heroes looking like you" thing for adolescents who haven't developed an identity of their own yet. But this isn't for them. This Superman isn't for LGBTQ youths, its for adults who like the IDEA of providing a role model for LGBTQ youths. The sexually undeveloped young comic book fans don't care one way or another about Lois Lane or anything else Superman does between punching bad-guys. The adult comic book consumers who insist they read "graphic novels" not comic books? 🙄 Some of them might celebrate the idea of a "representative" version of Superman. THOSE PEOPLE are the ones for whom this change was made.
It's a pity, really, because DC has done this sort of thing well in the past. They've also made similar dumb mistakes in recent memory.
I'll use my personal favorite hero, Green Lantern for example:
In 1972, DC created the black, John Stewart rendition of Green Lantern. Yea, they probably did it because that was the trendy thing to do in the time. But they legitimately made Jon Stewart a good character with a unique personality to set him apart from the original. By 2001 when Jon Stewart's Green Lantern became a mainstay on the JLA TV show, he didn't feel like he was just there "to be the black character." He had a unique personality in his own right not to mention a relationship with Hal Jordan that legitimized the whole thing.
By contrast, in 2012 when DC decided to make the very original Green Lantern, Alan Scott, gay, they did nothing else to build his character. He was just kinda there... and gay. No distinguished character trademarks. And, really, not much to do. And I'm not just saying that. You can read GL Alan Scott's DC bio from 2012 to present. The character barely contributed and didn't even have a speaking role in any DC animated film or live-action series. He was just there and gay and SJWs cheered DC... Even though they did nothing but announce "this character is now gay" and let the character's extant fame do the rest.
This Superman thing feels more like the Alan Scott GL than the John Stewart GL. It's not "there's a new, unique character that happens to be bisexual" it's "there's an old, established character who we've now made bisexual." They can't be bothered to write a new good character to promote their advocacy, so they retcon an old one where someone else already did the work for them.
Yea they're pretending to create a new character in this case (which is admittedly better than what they did with Alan Scott) but that doesn't change the reality of this lazy retcon.