Worst versions of Superman?

[Agent Z]

Ok I don't know if I'd say Mad Scientist but he was a Mad Genius. Eisenberg's Luthor had daddy and God issues while Hackman's Luthor was a Genius who hated this Alien getting in the way of his plans. Hackman's Luthor sounds more like Lex than Eisenberg IMO.

Daddy issues and hatred of god like beings are nothing new to Lex

[DochaDocha]

I try to call what is good to be good and what is bad to be bad. Its a more balanced viewpoint. And i can enjoy most versions in this way.

Trying to call something bad because its bad in the long run is not always accurate. Batman and Robin destroyed the franchise. It should have affected Batman in the long run. But in response they got the Nolan Trilogy. Without Batman and Robin there wouldn't be Dark Knight. At best we would have been struck with a mediocre series of films.

But i respect your viewpoint. I see a lack of Man Of Steel 2 in their slate. Only talks of different directors. On the other hand Wonder Woman is becoming the queen of DCEU. No problem with her but I am worried that JL may be the last time i am going to see Superman in years at the big screen. Yours maybe the words of wisdom indeed.

There are a lot of things that I like and dislike simultaneously. As for long- and short-run, that just seemed like an easy classification for message boards. For instance, I think a long time ago, there was once a good EVIL SUPERMAN! story that fans enjoyed, but then a lot of people ended up copying it and bad precedents were set. Another such example would be "Tower of Babel," as it was interesting when I first read it, but it implanted the seeds for continuously many stories that Batman beats all. Ugh.

Anyway, I don't mean to imply short-run gains are not as important as long run. If you liked something when it came out, it has value. In a vacuum, that story would be good. Unfortunately, you can't eliminate the correlation statistic that it has with the stories that followed. So bringing us back to "Babel," would I call it good or bad? Overall, mostly good, because it's short-run value is great. It's long-run value kind of sucks, unfortunately, because people quoting the wrong message from that story, i.e. that Batman can beat the entire team, even though that literally does not happen in the story.

[Soubhagya]

There are a lot of things that I like and dislike simultaneously. As for long- and short-run, that just seemed like an easy classification for message boards. For instance, I think a long time ago, there was once a good EVIL SUPERMAN! story that fans enjoyed, but then a lot of people ended up copying it and bad precedents were set. Another such example would be "Tower of Babel," as it was interesting when I first read it, but it implanted the seeds for continuously many stories that Batman beats all. Ugh.

Anyway, I don't mean to imply short-run gains are not as important as long run. If you liked something when it came out, it has value. In a vacuum, that story would be good. Unfortunately, you can't eliminate the correlation statistic that it has with the stories that followed. So bringing us back to "Babel," would I call it good or bad? Overall, mostly good, because it's short-run value is great. It's long-run value kind of sucks, unfortunately, because people quoting the wrong message from that story, i.e. that Batman can beat the entire team, even though that literally does not happen in the story.

I agree about 'Babel'. Funny that we forget that actually Bruce did not defeat the Justice League. Imagine he keeps a Kryptonite ring in his belt at all times. Makes sense but makes me question the level of trust and friendship between them. Superman knows that but i would find it odd that my (best) friend always carries something by which to harm me.

Let us see what happens in the future. One thing i think most fans would agree is that DC is not doing a good job in making new fans for Superman through other media. Iron Man was at most a second tier hero before RDJ. Now he is among the most well known and beloved heroes for the general public. I am sure a lot of fans would have come to comics due those films. Superman on the other hand is not increasing the fan base. DC would rather make a Krypton series then the generally well received Tyler Hoelchin. Try to get over the distaste in the last episode. His was an entertaining performance. A show centered around him may do wonders.

Injustice has done great injustice to Superman. The kids who are reading and playing those would one day grow up and may write Superman. What might happen then? Its anyone's guess. But it does not look good.

[Agniwolf]

Injustice has done great injustice to Superman. The kids who are reading and playing those would one day grow up and may write Superman. What might happen then? Its anyone's guess. But it does not look good.

maybe that is the catch, maybe someday he will be relegated permanently to the role of villain

[Soubhagya]

maybe that is the catch, maybe someday he will be relegated permanently to the role of villain

Omg, a Nazi-Supes does not look too far-fetched isn't it?

[Agniwolf]

Omg, a Nazi-Supes does not look too far-fetched isn't it?

there was already one, maybe he will come back

edit: there were 2

[Soubhagya]

there was already one, maybe he will come back

edit: there were 2

I meant something like HydraCap. A company wide event. AUs are not as problematic then having that in the main universe. Such a thing will taint him forever. Practically destroy him as the symbol of hope.

[Agniwolf]

I meant something like HydraCap. A company wide event. AUs are not as problematic then having that in the main universe. Such a thing will taint him forever. Practically destroy him as the symbol of hope.

or not, the question would be "hope to whom?" as twisted as that may sound

[Soubhagya]

or not, the question would be "hope to whom?" as twisted as that may sound

Man! Hope to whom? That's a bit too much for my small mind!



Let us not get into that. Let us hope that Superman stays in reasonably good hands.

[Agniwolf]

Man! Hope to whom? That's a bit too much for my small mind!



Let us not get into that. Let us hope that Superman stays in reasonably good hands.

oops, sorry, forgot the smiley, didnt what to go full conspiracy

[Soubhagya]

oops, sorry, forgot the smiley, didnt what to go full conspiracy

Its fine!

But there is a flimsiest of possibility that it might happen. One does question the stuff the future writers are reading. As i said its very flimsy. Such a thing would be attempted in desperation if ever attempted. Future DC leaders would do this more readily then present ones during such a 'desperate' situation.

We need not fear that. Its a worst case scenario.

[DochaDocha]

I agree about 'Babel'. Funny that we forget that actually Bruce did not defeat the Justice League. Imagine he keeps a Kryptonite ring in his belt at all times. Makes sense but makes me question the level of trust and friendship between them. Superman knows that but i would find it odd that my (best) friend always carries something by which to harm me.

Back to "Babel" (sorry, kind of off-topic), but while I defend Batman's characterization as socially awkward (to put it mildly), there was supposed to be an understanding between Batman and Superman that Superman trust Batman to do the "right thing" if Superman went rogue, and that's why Superman gave Batman the Kryptonite ring. So in a sense, Superman shouldn't take it personally if Batman came up with a contingency plan to bring down Superman, nor should he be slighted in the least if Batman brings it around with him all the time. Superman kind of gave him the green light to do that. On the other hand, Superman would understand why other JL members would be angry. It's been a while since I've read that TPB, but if the story went into that level of nuance between Superman and Batman's oddball relationship, it would've been better, but I don't think Waid wanted to invest in that specific facet of the story.

I've argued for years TV and movies often don't do Superman justice the way comics do. My favorite Superman comics did their best to put us, the readers, in Superman's shoes. Usually, TV and movies don't really do that. I think JL stories also fail us, the Superman fan, when they don't go out of their way to make us empathize with the guy. This is not saying that Superman has to be relatable to us, but that we at least have to feel his thought and emotional process, even if it's so absolutely foreign to ourselves.

EDIT: That was a lot of rambling in the second paragraph, but I think it's a not necessarily trivial aspect of "bad" Superman stories.

[marhawkman]

"I dare you to try"? That's Viza'Aziv isn't it?

Oohh.. I wanna see her again. She was very interesting.

[Ascended]

Back to "Babel" (sorry, kind of off-topic), but while I defend Batman's characterization as socially awkward (to put it mildly), there was supposed to be an understanding between Batman and Superman that Superman trust Batman to do the "right thing" if Superman went rogue, and that's why Superman gave Batman the Kryptonite ring. So in a sense, Superman shouldn't take it personally if Batman came up with a contingency plan to bring down Superman, nor should he be slighted in the least if Batman brings it around with him all the time. Superman kind of gave him the green light to do that. On the other hand, Superman would understand why other JL members would be angry. It's been a while since I've read that TPB, but if the story went into that level of nuance between Superman and Batman's oddball relationship, it would've been better, but I don't think Waid wanted to invest in that specific facet of the story..

I've never held Bruce's contingency plans against him.

This is a world where demonic/magical possession, mind control, evil alternate universes, clones, and tragic future selves all exist and the biggest, most dangerous heroes in the universe run up against these kinds of threats on a fairly regular basis.

You're damn right someone should have the keys to taking down the League.

Its not just Batman who should have contingency plans for his League peers; they all should know each others' weaknesses. And they should all have plans for taking down Bruce as well. Because let's be real here, if anyone's gonna step over the line and go full-on psycho, it's probably Batman.

[Soubhagya]

Back to "Babel" (sorry, kind of off-topic), but while I defend Batman's characterization as socially awkward (to put it mildly), there was supposed to be an understanding between Batman and Superman that Superman trust Batman to do the "right thing" if Superman went rogue, and that's why Superman gave Batman the Kryptonite ring. So in a sense, Superman shouldn't take it personally if Batman came up with a contingency plan to bring down Superman, nor should he be slighted in the least if Batman brings it around with him all the time. Superman kind of gave him the green light to do that. On the other hand, Superman would understand why other JL members would be angry. It's been a while since I've read that TPB, but if the story went into that level of nuance between Superman and Batman's oddball relationship, it would've been better, but I don't think Waid wanted to invest in that specific facet of the story.

I've argued for years TV and movies often don't do Superman justice the way comics do. My favorite Superman comics did their best to put us, the readers, in Superman's shoes. Usually, TV and movies don't really do that. I think JL stories also fail us, the Superman fan, when they don't go out of their way to make us empathize with the guy. This is not saying that Superman has to be relatable to us, but that we at least have to feel his thought and emotional process, even if it's so absolutely foreign to ourselves.

EDIT: That was a lot of rambling in the second paragraph, but I think it's a not necessarily trivial aspect of "bad" Superman stories.

I agree that there shall be contingency plans. I believe a few arcs before that the villains had taken control of hero's bodies. Its pretty normal that heroes can be controlled by villains through means like posession or body swaps. Most JLrs had problem with the fact that he did not inform them. A lack of trust.

Is the ring in canon? Like Superman gave that to him to keep it always in his belt? It seems odd if he did not give that and Batman did that himself.

Superman always had a hit and miss nature with other media. Its just that the last few years have not been good. At a time when superheroes are becoming so popular and characters like Ant Man are becoming household names Superman has not clicked with everyone. Dolores mentioned that a generation will grow up thinking that Superman works as a villain courtesy Injustice.

I hope they get Superman to make a strong and positive impact in Justice League. Hulk in Avengers did not have much screen time. But he was one of the highlights. If the movie is a grand success then i can get Man of Steel sequels. Or else let him be forgettable. Then these films would act as a trilogy of sorts. (Where the lead was mostly absent). And just maybe hope for a Hoelchin show a few years down the line. Due to some reason they seem not to want two Supermen.

While they don't often get Superman right in other media its necessary that there are good versions. Especially now when comic books are the 'in' thing. A lot of fans are becoming fans due to the successes in these media. All important heroes (save the likes of Green Lantern) have good representations. Lack of interest in MoS sequel does indicate that people are not demanding his return. That's a sad state of things. I actually want that MoS sequel with lessons learnt from WW. People either think of him as fully serious or like Reeve. A balance just like WW would do the job.