Superman renounces American citizenship

thecolorsblend wrote:That's true. I'll dig up the comic if you want but it happened and it was for a pretty good reason. The entire world recognized the good Superman was doing and so they made him a citizen of some kind in all UN member states and, from there, a bona fide law enforcement official in each country as well... so if Superman happened to be flying over Chile and witnessed a crime, he had the legal authority to take the perp out. It didn't come about at the expense of his American citizenship, it simply broadened his legal authority to a truly global level.

And something else? This came about after operating for years as Superboy and then several years as Superman, where he'd proven himself trustworthy and responsible. As much as anything, it was the entire world recognizing Superman's worldview (shaped and defined by American parents). It was meant to say something about his influence; there was no deeper political agenda to it at all. It was simply a token of pretty much global respect.

Sooooo...... Good idea? bad idea?

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:That's true. I'll dig up the comic if you want but it happened and it was for a pretty good reason. The entire world recognized the good Superman was doing and so they made him a citizen of some kind in all UN member states and, from there, a bona fide law enforcement official in each country as well... so if Superman happened to be flying over Chile and witnessed a crime, he had the legal authority to take the perp out. It didn't come about at the expense of his American citizenship, it simply broadened his legal authority to a truly global level.

And something else? This came about after operating for years as Superboy and then several years as Superman, where he'd proven himself trustworthy and responsible. As much as anything, it was the entire world recognizing Superman's worldview (shaped and defined by American parents). It was meant to say something about his influence; there was no deeper political agenda to it at all. It was simply a token of pretty much global respect.

Sooooo...... Good idea? bad idea?

The global citizenship thing? Given that they're honoring Superman, whose worldview was shaped by American parents, I'd view it as a good thing. I don't think it was ever mentioned again after that one story though.

thecolorsblend wrote:The global citizenship thing? Given that they're honoring Superman, whose worldview was shaped by American parents, I'd view it as a good thing. I don't think it was ever mentioned again after that one story though.

It's a can of worms that NEVER needed to be opened, but now that it IS, that's a way to put a lid on it PERMANENTLY.

Oh yeah:

Hoooooooooo boy! Did DC just screw themselves or what?

The US KILLS Bin Laden, and Superman doesn't want to be an American at the same time?

No kidding!



Eat it, DC!

Ap what you said above would be a nice way to fix this little renouncment deal.

webhead2006 wrote:Ap what you said above would be a nice way to fix this little renouncment deal.

Definitely.

http://www.the-gutters.com/comic/131-stuart-sayger

Haha nice one ap

Apologist Puncher wrote:

No offense to you but I hate hate fuckingHATE that song.

thecolorsblend wrote:No offense to you but I hate hate fuckingHATE that song.

I know what Parker & Stone were trying to do, but I just love it for the opposite reason.

It's funny.

Newsarama wrote:What’s missing from SUPERMAN #712?
June 22nd, 2011
Author Jill Pantozzi

The answer? The intended story.

The original solicitation for Superman #712: wrote:Meet Los Angeles’s newest super hero in the latest Chapter of “Grounded”: Sharif! But Sharif discovers that in today’s current cultural climate, some people don’t want his help – they just want him gone. Can Superman aid Sharif and quell a prejudiced public, or are there some problems too big even for the Man of Steel to solve?

That was a story written by J. Michael Straczynski and Chris Roberson, part of the long-delayed “Grounded” arc, originally solicited for June 8. DC sent out a media release late yesterday that states:

Please note the new contents for SUPERMAN #712, now written by Kurt Busiek with art by Rick Leonardi, a cover by Carlos Pacheco and Jesus Merino and a variant cover by Stanley “Artgerm” Lau.

This fill in issue contains a lost classic, Lost Boy: A Tale of Krypto the Superdog, set shortly after Superboy died in Infinite Crisis and Superman went missing.

DC Comics determined that the previously solicited story did not work within the “Grounded” storyline. However, Chris Roberson, will be back for the final two issues of Superman’s year long walk across America. As we near the conclusion, catch up with Superman next month as he makes stops in Portland and Newberg, OR.

SUPERMAN #712 is scheduled to arrive in stores on June 22.

Hmm. Well, that’s cool that the Busiek story is finally seeing the light of day and hey, Krypto! Who doesn’t love Krypto? But what happens to the Sharif story now? According to DC’s website, Superman #713 has Superboy and Supergirl meeting up with Clark in Portland, #714 in Seattle for his last stop. Does that mean the original #712 is canned for good? Here’s the cover for the new Superman #712:



The intended story revolved around a non-white hero coming into contact with prejudice in America. With all the flack DC has gotten recently for its patriotism (or lack thereof), is it any wonder this story got pulled at the last second? Roberson spoke with Newsarama back in March about the character Sharif:

Roberson wrote:I didn’t create Sharif so much as I salvaged him from the back issue bins. The defender of Los Angeles is a character who appeared as a teenager in the pages of the Superman titles back in the early ’90s (and drawn by none other than Curt Swan, as it happens!), but we’re meeting him here a few years later, when he’s taken on a new costumed identity in his new hometown.

Like Superman, Sharif is a character with powers and abilities far beyond those of normal folks, who came to this country as a child and grew up dedicating himself to Truth, Justice, and the American Way. But the fact that he comes not from an alien world but from another country here on Earth complicates matters for him, and he quickly learns that some people have a different idea of what "The American Way" is all about.

I have no idea whether the Busiek/Krypto story has been altered since it was first intended to be released but this is a questionable move to say the least. Will the missing “Grounded” piece affect that story at all? I’m betting not since it’s been so all over the place for the last few issues anyway. And that’s not a slight to Roberson, it’s just, what do you expect when you’re working from an outline? Any way you slice it, fans are not going to be happy about this move.

So the Krypto story was originally solicited for Superman #659. If we go by those numbers that means we should see the Sharif story in Superman #765, right? Oh wait, make that Superman #51...

URL- http://blog.newsarama.com/2011/06/22/whats-missing-from-superman-712/

Hm. So DC pulled a powderkeg story... coincidentally following the media shit-storm surrounding Action Comics #900 and as well as the media shit-storm surrounding the execution of Osama bin Laden.

Big fucking coincidence, I'm sure.

Even so, I can't hate on them for it. The simple fact of the matter is that most comics pro's are leftwing nutjobs who struggle even under the best of circumstances to keep their politics out of the story. "What, you mean Superman comics aren't my bully pulpit to air my political views? What madness is this you speak of?!"

All I can say is that this is the first Superman-related decision DC has made in a long time that I approve of.

I love how the people in our various media's like to take cheap-shots at Americans by acting like we are all just a bunch of xenophobic racists with violent intentions against ANYTHING different.

They try their hardest to make us look incredibly bad to anyone perusing their "product", whether it is based in reality, or some retarded ideology that they inherited from someone else and claim is their own. Which causes ignorant morons in other countries to say "You Americans think you are sooo good, but we know the "truth". Movies, TV and comic books say you suck. So you have to.". THEN, in the rare instance something bad actually happens, they say "See! I was right all along!!!". Nevermind that worse can and does happen EVERYWHERE in the world, and usually at a much higher rate. But you don't hear about it because these countries don't purposely try and destroy their own image.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/24/why-american-doesnt-need-superman/

Why America doesn't need Superman
By Daniel Kessler
Published March 24, 2012
| FoxNews.com

Last year, in April 2011, America lost one of its greatest heroes. In a heated meeting at the United Nations, Superman (aka Clark Kent) stood before the world and renounced his U.S. citizenship. "The world's too small. Too connected," he argued.

And so it was that the orphaned Kryptonian stopped fighting for the American Way.

This is the story told in Action Comics #900. But why must fighting for the American Way symbolize a limited worldview?

Real American heroes and American audiences understand why we fight for freedom. They understand that our country’s fundamental liberties are human rights that must be protected at home and abroad.

Superman was wrong to assume that fighting for American ideals limited his destiny as a hero.

Although Superman’s signature phrase has been edited down to "Truth and Justice," it doesn’t mean that America is without heroes. So why don’t more stories of patriotism and civic duty, like what Superman used to stand for, exist – even when we have proof that American heroism succeeds at the box office?

February’s "Act of Valor" is already one of the more successful action films in recent years; with a production budget of only $12 million, it has grossed $60 million. This film tells a true story of how real life servicemen protect our citizens.

It is heartening that a film about real red-blooded Americans fighting for real freedoms succeeds with today’s audiences.

The now-removed part of Superman’s slogan, “The American Way,” is what the movie "Act of Valor" is all about; it’s about the civic faith that supports the very ideals our country was founded on: freedom and liberty for all.

Superman’s dismissal of this principled brand of heroism parallels how many stories today dismiss the American part of American hero. In doing so, they neglect the very fact that it is this civic faith, and those patriotic principles, which inspire heroism in the first place.

Without American ideals, heroes would not exist. And without these brave heroes, our country would not survive.

The quality of entertainment coming out of Hollywood is the highest it’s ever been. The visual effects, the storylines and the use of new technologies all enhance storytelling to levels never before imagined. Going to the movies to see animated films, 3D adventures or crisp, well composed dramas has never been as satisfying. For every great film about a super-human "Captain America," it would be inspiring to American citizens, our troops and our children, to see another film like "Act of Valor."

Next month, as we mourn the anniversary of losing the American Superman, perhaps we can be reminded of the super men and women who defend our country. They are still out there, fighting for Truth, Justice and, yes, the American Way.

Daniel Kessler is the co-founder and President of Cherry Tree -- an American values children’s entertainment company.

Basically a commercial for 'Act of Valor' using this retarded story-line, but the main point still stands.

Even now, the sheer existence of this story (however non-canonical it was even at the time, however irrelevant it may post-New 52, whatever) still pisses me off. Lefties and other hosers can argue whatever they like but the intent of this story (which is to say the popular understanding of it) is clear.

But something else...

So why don’t more stories of patriotism and civic duty, like what Superman used to stand for, exist – even when we have proof that American heroism succeeds at the box office?

Not directly tied to that (although kinda), back in January'ish 2006, I checked out the numbers for the strongest box office performers of 2005. It wasn't stuff like Brokeback Mountain; it was Batman Begins, Harry Potter- Goblet of Fire, Star Wars Episode III, Chronicles of Narnia, etc. You know, "populist entertainment".

Think that was a fluke? Think again.

-- Toy Story 3 (Top grosser of 2010)
Domestic Gross: $415,004,880
Widest Release: 4,028 theaters
Window: June 18, 2010-December 2, 2010
Widest Release: 4,028 theaters

-- Despicable Me (7th highest grosser of 2010)
Domestic Total Gross: $251,513,985
Widest Release: 3,602 theaters
Window: July 9, 2010-January 20, 2011

-- Black Swan (25th highest grosser of 2010)
Domestic Gross: $106,954,678
Widest Release: 2,407 theaters
Window: December 17, 2010-May 5, 2011

I tried to make the above as apples:apples as possible. You've got fun, middle America-friendly movies coupled with arguably the year's "controversial" and "provocative" movie. As I say though, it's not exactly a completely fair comparison. Toy Story is part of a successful franchise (and, many would argue, Pixar's most important franchise). On top of that, Toy Story 3 had a much wider release than Black Swan did. As if all that wasn't enough, they were released at different times of year.

Even so, we can still draw some important conclusions here. Notice that the difference in gross between Black Swan and either of the above three movies isn't off-set by the difference in theaters playing each film. In other words, even doubling the number of theaters playing Black Swan would not have put it in the same league (as far as box office dollars are concerned) with either of the above two movies.

Now, you could reasonably argue that Black Swan was a strong performer for such a relatively limited release and such a shoe string budget. But since when has Hollywood ever been about per-widget margin like that??? That's the Apple model and Big Hollywood rarely follows that. Their model has depended for decades on volume and repetition. It's a cynical but dependable formula: make a successful movie, make tie-ins, make a sequel, build a franchise, wash, rinse, repeat. They make their nut at the box office, sure, but the gravy is in merchandise, home video sales and inevitable sequels.

By any standard, not least of which being pure box office performance, the first two movies are better, safer and more profitable bets.

But even if you run with the "margin" argument, explain to me why more movies like Passion of the Christ (which, though a 2004 movie, beat the piss out of Black Swan too) don't get made. In their own ways, are they not both pretty damned explicit and shocking? Also, whether pro or con, ignore your personal reaction to the religious angle; just stick with the numbers.

Going beyond even that, it's been shown that throwing in more profanity, more sex or more violence doesn't necessarily benefit a film's bottom line. In fact, the numbers tend to show that the overall more "clean" a movie is, the better the final numbers tend to be. More blood, more tits and more cursing does little or nothing to broaden the audience... but it's been shown to severely limit it.

It thus can't be greed. If it's only about the money, why don't we see more "populist" stuff? Why don't more such things ever get made when they're shown to make big profits? People who say Hollywood is only out for money aren't paying attention to the bottom line. What sells (and sells big, I might add) and what they continually push are two COMPLETELY different things. Their commitment to their ideology goes beyond even money (just stop and think about that for a minute). This is why critics and the media elite are so quick to criticize irrelevant things like the acting in Act of Valor. They know the movie is going to be successful so they hit it on technical shit that, in the context of a movie like Act of Valor, is completely missing the point.

Incidentally, I'm not out to vilify Black Swan. I've never seen it but it's got a reputation. Based on what I know, I wouldn't take anybody under the age of 18 to see something like that. The reason I mention it though is that it was 2010's annual "controversial" movie which, when you start counting up all the pennies, is clearly one of the riskier bets Hollywood makes year in and year out. And yet they keep making the same bet... year in and year out... even when they lose!

WHY?

Now that is a pretty bad article there and like you said ap just trying to hype up that movie likely. Plus it doesnt really matter all that much since that whole dropping citizenship thing has been wiped out with the whole reboot in books like colors said. It sucks folks try to take things out of context or drag out unrelated things into comics and other stuff.