There's a Lot to Love About Superman, But I'd Be Lying If I Said I Wouldn't Change the Hero

Superman is one of the oldest and greatest characters in comic book history. Over the years, his character and history have been refined to near perfection. However, with such a long tenure in the comic book world, plenty of additions have been made that I honestly don't care for. If I had my way, there are a few things I would change about the Man of Steel.

I'd personally get rid of Jonathan Kent again.

Superman's lore has changed significantly over the years. Initially, he didn't have superpowers in the traditional sense. His abilities stemmed from Krypton’s higher gravity, allowing him to leap great distances and lift heavy objects with ease on Earth.

Superman bursting throgh a wall in the Comics

Over time, this evolved—his ability to leap transformed into full-fledged flight, and his Kryptonian history was greatly expanded. He also gained new powers, like heat vision, along with weaknesses, such as Kryptonite. However, not every change to his character and history feels especially necessary to me.

I'm Not on Board with All of Superman's Lore Changes

Action Comics #1000 by Brian Michael Bendis, Jim Lee, Scott Williams, Alex Sinclair, and Cory Petit

Comic book art: Rogol Zaar from Action Comics 1000 reaches forward.

The destruction of Krypton is an extremely important part of Superman's lore. Without his planet being destroyed, the Man of Steel would never have ended up on Earth to begin with. For some reason, DC hasn't been content to just let Krypton explode naturally. Instead, they have added several characters across the media who are responsible for Krypton's destruction. One of the characters I found especially egregious in this manner was Rogol Zaar, a being created by Jor-El who ultimately ended up destroying Krypton.

DC Is Bringing Superman Back To His Smallville Origin Story, Revisiting 'The Boy of Steel'

Superman’s humble beginnings are about to be explored once more as DC announces a new direction for the Man of Steel’s iconic series, Action Comics.

Posts1

Not only was Rogol Zaar responsible for the destruction of Krypton, but he also hunted down every surviving Kryptonian, even destroying the Lost City of Kandor and eventually coming into conflict with Superman himself. I don't think this character really adds anything to Superman's history, much like when it was suggested that Brainiac was responsible for Krypton's destruction. There doesn't always need to be a culprit behind the tragedy, and I truly believe Superman needs a tragedy where there's no clear answer. This makes Superman much more relatable, which is a problem some people have with the character.

Sorry, But I've Got to Say It: Jonathan Kent Needs to Go

Action Comics #870 by Geoff Johns, Gary Frank, Jon Dibal, BIT, Brad Anderson, and Rob Leigh.

Comic book art: Jonathan and Martha Kent with a Young Clark Kent in Superman DC Comics — Jonathan and Martha Kent with a Young Clark Kent in Superman DC Comics

A character like Superman is practically infinitely powerful, which is why I think it's important that there are problems he can't solve. If Rogol Zaar or Brainiac were behind Krypton's destruction, Superman could simply defeat them, and at least he'd have avenged his dead planet. But that's not really necessary for his character. It's important that he faces tragedies he can't overcome. This brings me to another thing I would change: the Kents have got to go. As blasphemous as it sounds, the Kents aren't really serving a purpose in the comics right now.

If DC has no interest in incorporating the Kents into Superman's storylines, they might as well remove them entirely. This has been done before, as Jonathan Kent died of a heart attack in Geoff Johns and Gary Frank's Action Comics #870. It's a powerful moment because it shows that even with all of Superman's power, he's still powerless in the face of a common tragedy. Many people have lost loved ones unexpectedly, and this only adds to Clark's humanity. For that reason, I'd personally get rid of Jonathan Kent again.

Here Are Some Things I Think That Superman Could Do Without

They're Not Major Changes, But They'd Certainly Help

Superman with Kansas and Krypton behind him — Superman with Kansas and Krypton

Another thing I’ve never really cared for is the idea that Superman is entirely helpless when his powers are removed. Whether it's from Kryptonite or Red Solar Radiation, Superman can still fight. He might not be able to take on heavyweights like Lobo or Doomsday, but he's still 6'3" and around 240 pounds of pure muscle. There's no way Superman loses his powers and then gets knocked out with one punch by a regular thug. I understand that the plot might need to move Superman around, but that’s always felt like a silly plot contrivance.

Superman is a wonderful character, and over the decades, he's undergone a lot of refinement. Changes like his marriage to Lois Lane, his powers, most of Krypton's history, and the addition of a few other Kryptonians are all great additions to his lore. But there are also plenty of changes I honestly don’t care for. I think Superman would be better off without them, and it seems I’m right, as elements like Superman revealing his secret identity or characters like Rogol Zaar have largely been forgotten by DC in recent years.

Action Comics #1000 is on sale now from DC Comics!