What always annoyed me about this argument and counter-argument is that nobody ever wants to let Superman take the middle-ground. Yes he's an icon, but when people seriously try to make him JUST the icon in the light, the best we can hope for is the ridiculous that is Superman of Earth-2. Contrary, when we dump him in the complete darkness, we'll end up with a Justice Lord or a Prime Superman.
The best stories are always when Superman juggles his near omnipotence with his humanity, constantly walking the line of when he has the right to intervene. Why is it so hard for the writers to realize that the human aspect can be exposed to darkness? I mean really: his arch-enemies are LEX LUTHOR and ZOD; everything dark about the man, and everything dark about the Kryptonian! Yes he's an icon of puirty, but the drama can come from overcoming the temptation that would make him akin to Justice Lord Superman and using his powers for good.
EDIT: After noticing many fact errors in the above-mentioned Variety article, note that the Siegal lawsuit was about getting backpay on royalties dating back to 1999. They're still going to liscence Superman to DC, they just want to get paid for it.
The best stories are always when Superman juggles his near omnipotence with his humanity, constantly walking the line of when he has the right to intervene. Why is it so hard for the writers to realize that the human aspect can be exposed to darkness? I mean really: his arch-enemies are LEX LUTHOR and ZOD; everything dark about the man, and everything dark about the Kryptonian! Yes he's an icon of puirty, but the drama can come from overcoming the temptation that would make him akin to Justice Lord Superman and using his powers for good.
EDIT: After noticing many fact errors in the above-mentioned Variety article, note that the Siegal lawsuit was about getting backpay on royalties dating back to 1999. They're still going to liscence Superman to DC, they just want to get paid for it.