Quote:

the G-man said:
If you want, and are able, to explain why something new is good, that's cool. More power to you.

You, however, faced with objections from some of us about the kid, fell back on the idea that it was good simply because it was new.

Maybe that isn't how you meant it, but that's how you presented it.



I think you're reading an argumenative angle to my words, as opposed to a difference of opinion.

Why is the kid something positive in my book? Very simple. It adds another layer to a tired and repetitive story. I love Superman. Always have. Always will. However, you can only present the same "love triangle/hero/secret ID/origin/Truth, Justice, American Way" angle so many times, and in so many incarnations, before it becomes redundant. Unless you change aspects of it, it can even become stagnant.

If anything needs new life breathed into it, its a sixty-year-old franchise based around the most fantastical...and reportedly...the most unrelatable of all fictional/comic characters. Change his suit? Details, sure. Change the origin? Tweak it. Update it. No problem. But, if the Corporation deems that he must always be with Lois, then, having a child with her would be the next logical step. This does nothing but add to the story possibilities, in my opinion.

As for your opinion that it's somehow unethical or immoral for him to have a child, but not play an active role as the father...well, I disagree. It's the 21st Century, and I think that by adding such a modern component of family life to the stories, you are allowing new angles and fresh commentary to be made on real life.

Contrary to belief, Superman Mythos must expand, progress, and grow. Otherwise, it will simply become irrelevant in an increasingly sophisticated and complex new century.

Does that explain my viewpoint?