That was not what this debate is about, the debate is about people being upset and this pointless change to a character that is IN FACT and AMERICAN icon, just to sell some more books and to set the stage for an international release of next years movie. See, the one thing that people are missing in all of this is that Superman was not created by the current writers, the character was not invented by DC.Blind Sight said:Random question, how is it a case of cultural sensitivity being more important then freedom of speech? Are these authors not practicing their own freedom of speech by following this storyline? Or are you simply referring to broader problems in Western society? If it's the second I somewhat agree with you due to the insane logic of my country's Human Rights Commission.theApoc said:Um, actually Superman is an American creation. Joe Shuster being born in Canada, doesn't change the fact that he was a.) also an American b.) was the co-creator c.) was living in Cleveland when they came up with the idea.Okysho said:Superman is a Canadian creation actually.
See, this is why people tend to dislike the US in other parts of the world. Do you realize how elitist that sounds. "We don't have to care about anyone else but ourselves!" We live in a world where everyone is connected all the time all around the world. There's nothing wrong with actually improving international relations instead of just using people or being a jerk. It's part of the information age we live in. Get used to it, or you might find that eventually everyone's going to back the US into a corner.
See, this is why I tend to dislike the people who post on this site. Not enough decency to do a simple internet search on something as well known as Superman. "I don't care about the facts, just what I can type to promote my opinion". We live in a world where everyone thinks their ideology trumps factual data. Where people believe that cultural sensitivity is more important than freedom of speech, or expression. It's part of the burden America bears as a superpower, damned if you do/damned if you don't. Well get used to it, because the world is already starting to realized what happens when our ideals are compromised in lieu of some misguided attempt at globalization.
And just as an aside, with the way things are going the U.S. isn't going to hold that 'superpower' position (one could argue that it's already lost it) for much longer unless some radical reforms take place. Step one would be to stop attempting to police the world the 'American way'.
So the real problem with this change to the character is not a matter of patriotism or free speech but rather an attack on the literary integrity of a fictional character. Suppose they went back and decided to change Moby Dick, where Captain Ahab did not want to kill the whale because of it being an endangered species.
This is a bad decision from a literary standpoint, not because I agree or disagree with the politics of the writer, but rather because this is not an aspect of the character that needed to be addressed. The writer created a situation where Superman's allegiance was called into question. Ignoring the fact that NO random secret service agent would say anything to the most powerful being on earth, especially considering the work that Superman has done for not only America and the entire planet. It is poorly constructed liberal tripe, nothing more. The whole idea that this is some type of statement about the character is absurd.
And for the record, no offense, but as long as our GDP out paces almost every other country on the planet and out military remains one of the most elite, the word superpower isn't going to be removed from our description. 4 years of fiscal responsibility would solve a whole lot of what is ailing this country.