The physics of Superman's feats. Does modern have to mean realisitc?

[Osiris-Rex]

I searched under just "Aura" and it's the same basic idea that life gives off an aura that surrounds it. It's listed as New Age pseudo-science so it's essentially like the Speed Force.

In looking up explanations for his strength and durability, I see everything from "Grew up on a heavy gravity planet" to solar absorption [or my preference, solar energy triggers latent abilities] to the bioaura, everyone of which is about equally absurd, selective in it's effects and pseudo-science.

I don't buy the heavy gravity. Otherwise he'd have massive legs like an elephant or a rhino or a brontosaurus. Animals whose large mass means their bodies have to adapt for it.

[JBatmanFan05]

I'm with fine with any or a combo of these:
a) gravitational differences
b) Kryptonians' advanced evolution
c) solar rays

It matters not to me if they are perceived today as plausible, I love them for being silly old fun pulp pseudo or junk science or ideas. Pulp sci-fi.

[marhawkman]

One version of the Kryptonian origin is that the mad genius who created Doomsday's work ended up as part of the Kryptonian genome.

[Last Son]

I don't need any more explanation then whatever ones we've gotten or not gotten over the years (fans can pick & choose I think from a broad array for their head canon). And I really especially don't want any terribly super clear uniform binding explanation. At its core, your desire strikes me as veering toward overthinking Superman. I think all fans (fanatics) of all heroes can fall into that trap too much. I'd rather someone maybe overthink what Superman means as a symbol or a hero or etc versus overthinking his powers.

I'm no Flash expert, but I'd bet the Speed Force has worked because it didn't threaten Flash's powers and fans' perceptions of his powers and ability (and it seems the S.Force mostly added to his powers, added more Silver to a SA hero). And frankly, I would never say the Flash ever needed the Speed Force explanation, I'm more just of the opinion that it doesn't offend me (as far as what I know of it). (also, Superman is on another level than the Flash in terms of being a more iconic more well defined or not superhero)

I'm not seeing a new fangled "semi-plausible explanation for why Superman can do the things he does" that doesn't appear to significantly risk overlimiting Superman's powers (or creating that perception) or doesn't allow or encourage editors or writers to get mucked up in over explanations and other overrealism stuff.

Honestly, I never even thought about this stuff until I saw people on the internet constantly nitpicking the realism of Superman's powers and feats, among every other thing about him they like to nitpick. I figured, superhero fiction is fantasy, why would it have to be realistic? I feel like there's a segment that just seems bound and determined to invalidate every little thing about the character, while they ignore and forgive the same traits in other characters.

[JBatmanFan05]

Honestly, I never even thought about this stuff until I saw people on the internet constantly nitpicking the realism of Superman's powers and feats, among every other thing about him they like to nitpick. I figured, superhero fiction is fantasy, why would it have to be realistic? I feel like there's a segment that just seems bound and determined to invalidate every little thing about the character, while they ignore and forgive the same traits in other characters.

I feel for you. I well know the experience. We as fans and individuals can hold to our own opinions. If many on the net (where there is a ton of loud DC-or-DCEU-hating Marvel types) want to constantly nitpick him to death, that's fine (it sucks, but it's fine, free country), doesn't change my long-held mind about what makes Superman awesome and enduring.

I fight my concerns about nitpicking "realism" in the Batman sphere too (and also for other heroes I'm sure).

[JAK]

Sorry I missed this reply... from 7 pages back.. lol

I don’t think so. Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Punisher and Luke Cage also use that take and are well received. And I fail to see how the other direction is any less dated given it’s been around for far longer.
Truth is, the superhero medium can’t be expected to be like what it was in the 70s.

Yes, but many of those characters fit that type of storytelling. Not everything can be one or the other. Batman works better as a darker character, etc. But the 90's "all characters need darkness and leather!" is what's going away. Thankfully.

But who's saying it needs to be what it was in the 70's? I'm saying that maturity has more levels than what appeals to an angsty 13 year old (I'm not saying you are, that's a comment in general on "realism" in comic book films and what that has generally meant). Not everything about life is bad. And you can have positive, uplifting stories that also make you think, or even straight feel-good stories that do well because the people involved know how to "sell" it.

I saw that you mentioned Supegirl, Flash, etc not doing well after season one... but the problem with those shows after the first season hasn't been the brighter outlook. It's been other factors. In fact, after the last season of Flash, they made a point to tell fans that they'd be going back to the feel of the first season because the reaction to them going darker for that long was NOT good. That should say pretty well that tastes are changing.

It's not that one is more dated than the other... one has just been done so much that it's stale when applied in a "square peg, round hole" way. A take has to fit a character, or it won't work in the long run. Kinda like if Fox made Deadpool a PG movie. Imagine the fan-rage on that, and you're close.

This wasn’t the general complaint. It was that it shouldn’t have been in the movie at all and all of the destruction was Superman’s fault despite him causing less than a fraction of it with people ignoring the context behind it.

That's my observations just using basic psychology, really. They apply those more to Superman because they were conditioned to look at the films more "realistically". People wonder on the reaction to MoS vs Avengers - there's the answer. Seems obvious to me. Them blaming it on Superman is largely an emotional reaction to everything else. Yes, Superman is generally held to a higher standard, but that's not the full reason why the reactions were so different.

That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone say this in regards to Superman. Moviebob certainly doesn’t have this opinion when it comes to the Silver Age.

Yes, but there's what people *say* and what they really *mean* or what they'll accept. Believe me, I've talked to enough people about this to know that large swatches of them said one thing and largely meant another. Not everyone, granted (like MovieBob). But a good number, I'd wager.

That’s more an issue in JL than BvS. He only beat Superman due to the latter holding back and not being prepared for Kryptonite. During the Doomsday battle, his contributions are luring the monster to another location and ineffectively shooting at him from a distance to provide a distraction.

It's definitely an issue in BvS. We're supposed to apply crippling realism to Superman in the Batman fight, yet Batman goes through two buildings and can walk or lift an arm? Suuuuuure... and I'll take the bridge WB is selling while I'm at it.

From what I see, many Superman fans, particularly the ones that hated Man of Steel, see the power fantasy aspect as most essential above all else. Case in point, I remember a lot of people liking him beating up the Justice League despite all the bitching and moaning over the idea of Superman and Batman fighting in the last movie. Suddenly, Superman fighting other superheroes is fine when he’s winning. Snyder at least had the fight be treated like a bad thing and not a chance to show off the winner’s power. This is also how you get masturbatory puff pieces like Action Comics 775, where the writer is more interested in showing Superman’s dominance over expies of other characters rather than writing him as an altruistic person. If getting rid of the power fantasy aspect means stories like that are avoided in future, I can only see it as a good thing.

If that's what you see, than I'm afraid you're not seeing the full picture, imo. It's certainly not true for me. I talk about it because it's what's largely missing in the DCEU version. It's a VERY essential part of Superman, yes, though not the only one. But.... the reason everyone bitched about Batman fighting Superman is because we knew exactly how WB was going to handle that: with all the grace of a sugar-rushing toddler. Using lines from Miller's TDK guaranteed that reaction. Fans know very well what that did to Superman's social perception, and the book (and Miller) have a tainted reputation for it. To say Superman got no respect in BvS would be putting it mildly, imo. "Showing dominance at the expense of other characters" is exactly what they did with Batman to Superman - inadvertently making both characters look dumb in the process. So, yeah, to see Superman finally shown to have power and half of a brain does appeal to fans who've watched him get beaten down for a long time now just to lift up "insert character x here". That's not what fans "really want". It's just revenge for what happened in BvS. A better term escapes me, but that's blood-lust. Not the same thing.

Power fantasy isn't that. That's a cheap high. Power fantasy is more like the flight scene in MoS. The Superfeats collage in S:TM. The plane rescue scene and the bullet bouncing off his eye in SR.

If JL is any indication, the power fantasy aspect is coming back with a vengeance - not the vs JL fight scene, but him flying a whole building of civilians down and his smarts in taking down Steppenwolf.

[Carabas]

I'm goingwith Grant Morrison's explanation.

“Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”

Given the nature of Superman's powers, you just can not explain his powers in any way that uses real world anything.

[Kuwagaton]

That would have to include the "because ants" explanation from Action #1

[Last Son]

http://anewdomain.net/on-the-physics...y-suck-so-bad/

I just wanted to post this because this is something that kinda gnaws at me. What is it with people like this? He talks about the subject as if he's discussing the deleterious effects of tobacco or trans fat. It bugs me enough when people nitpick superhero physics, but when they actually get into this "people shouldn't watch and read superhero comics and movies because they don't reflect what really matters in life" talk, it's like they're saying that one of my favorite genres simply shouldn't exist because it's rotting humanity's collective brain and giving us unrealistic expectations about society. There's a similar line of thoughts about how superheroes promote fascism and reflect negative traits in society that need to be erased. To me, this is no better than people who blame school shootings on video games, because some of us are actually capable of discerning reality from fantasy and don't base our life choices on superheroes punching each other through sky scrapers or criminals stealing cars and mowing down pedestrians in a video game.

And add to that, this misunderstanding of how Superman's flying power works. Every scientist wannabe claims Superman should be pushed down by whatever large object he's carrying, but they fail to understand when Superman is flying, the force that lifts him into the air is much more powerful than helium in a balloon. It's not like a person could grab him by the foot and weigh him down.

[Powerboy]

I don't buy the heavy gravity. Otherwise he'd have massive legs like an elephant or a rhino or a brontosaurus. Animals whose large mass means their bodies have to adapt for it.

Yes that and, to explain his Silver Age and even Post-Crisis power levels, Krypton would have to have such overwhelming gravity that it would just about be pulling the universe towards it.

[Powerboy]

http://anewdomain.net/on-the-physics...y-suck-so-bad/

I just wanted to post this because this is something that kinda gnaws at me. What is it with people like this? He talks about the subject as if he's discussing the deleterious effects of tobacco or trans fat. It bugs me enough when people nitpick superhero physics, but when they actually get into this "people shouldn't watch and read superhero comics and movies because they don't reflect what really matters in life" talk, it's like they're saying that one of my favorite genres simply shouldn't exist because it's rotting humanity's collective brain and giving us unrealistic expectations about society. There's a similar line of thoughts about how superheroes promote fascism and reflect negative traits in society that need to be erased. To me, this is no better than people who blame school shootings on video games, because some of us are actually capable of discerning reality from fantasy and don't base our life choices on superheroes punching each other through sky scrapers or criminals stealing cars and mowing down pedestrians in a video game.

And add to that, this misunderstanding of how Superman's flying power works. Every scientist wannabe claims Superman should be pushed down by whatever large object he's carrying, but they fail to understand when Superman is flying, the force that lifts him into the air is much more powerful than helium in a balloon. It's not like a person could grab him by the foot and weigh him down.

Yeah I know. "Magic isn't real and that means the Lord of the Rings sucks".

In other news, "Witches are not real. Take that Shakespeare, you third rate hack".

"There is no real evidence for consciousness separated from body. So long, Arthur C. Clarke."

"Insufferable boors with no imagination attack anyone who has one." Oh, wait. That one is valid and that article proves it.

[Jon Clark]

Yes that and, to explain his Silver Age and even Post-Crisis power levels, Krypton would have to have such overwhelming gravity that it would just about be pulling the universe towards it.

But to be fair he'd have had to be harnessing the power of an entire star if he was getting the powers from sunlight, so it's not like any of the explanations ever make much sense based on his power-level.

[Last Son]

Yeah I know. "Magic isn't real and that means the Lord of the Rings sucks".

In other news, "Witches are not real. Take that Shakespeare, you third rate hack".

"There is no real evidence for consciousness separated from body. So long, Arthur C. Clarke."

"Insufferable boors with no imagination attack anyone who has one." Oh, wait. That one is valid and that article proves it.

Listen to his laugh. "The more you know, the less you can watch". I guess that's why there's millions of people above the age of 5 who can watch Harry Potter movies. Doesn't realize that most people aren't as anal retentive as he is and can be entertained by stuff they know isn't physically possible. The reason a lot of us like sci-fi and fantasy is because we like to see things happen in fiction that we know is impossible.

He talks about how real problems can only be solved by team work and not just one super person. He uses Martin Luther King as an example of someone who is elevated to superhero status even though the civil rights movement took more than one charismatic, intelligent figure in order to happen. But the thing is, even considering the need for team work to solve the world's problems, that doesn't mean individuals shouldn't push themselves to their limits and try to be the very best. That's what superheroes and Superman represents to me, a person using their potential to the fullest but the point isn't to overshadow the efforts of others and render everyone else irrelevant, it's to set an example.

Another thing is even though superheroes aren't often that realistic, it gives us something to shoot for. I think all along, our fiction, our fantasy has driven us toward scientific advancements. Things we take for granted today were fantasy 100 or 1000 years ago, like space travel or artificial intelligence. If nobody dared to imagine something that was at the time impossible, where would we be? Would science even be looking into the possibility of faster than light travel if not for Star Trek?

[llozymandias]

But to be fair he'd have had to be harnessing the power of an entire star if he was getting the powers from sunlight, so it's not like any of the explanations ever make much sense based on his power-level.

Some of his feats would have required more power than our sun could generate. And there were times there were several kryptonians on earth at the same time. If his power-level were related to the sun's energy output, then every time another kryptonian (or daxamite) showed up Superman would feel his power-level drop.

[stephens2177]

So can we say Krypton imploded because of it's insane gravity,and thats why Kryptonians are so powerful and can fly?

And can we also say that the sun is a trigger,that starts a chain reaction in their bodies?

And finally can we say that Kryptonians are superior in every conceivable way,by many levels,more than humans?