Your DC-Only controversial opinions (part II)...

[Mistah K88]

I've always found it...odd how often the "evil Superman" trope is used when there are evil Kryptonians like Zod exist.

[Tzigone]

I think for the most part people prefer characters with more dimensions, or grow into having more dimensions, rather then not...except in the case where those dimensions work against the character. In the case of Batman it's only when writers are particularly egregious about it with him that I've felt it's a serious issue.

More dimensions can be good, but aren't necessarily. I don't see that Bruce always has more (I feel like others have been lost as new ones were added). And I don't generally like "jerk" dimensions, anyway. I think I'm less tolerant than you of Batman's foibles. Once he crossed a certain line with me, even ones that I would have once regarded as forgivable and no big deal have become much less tolerable because there's so much weight on that camel's back already. I hate him treating the other Batfam like they should be at his beck and call or even that he should have any say so at all in regards to the adult members. I hate that he acts like he's the king of Gotham and like he has any say so in regards to other heroes operating there. I hate how often he is disdainful to other heroes. Nowadays, one snarky remark about another hero from Batman is enough to make me fume, whereas in the much older issues a little mutual snark wouldn't bother me - because he crossed that line of legitimately seeming not to respect so many of them so long ago. I think that's probably the major aspect - as an ongoing theme, I really don't feel like he genuinely respects other people, so every time that disrespect is displayed (especially in one-way fashion), I get irritated all over again. Sure, sometimes he says he respects them, and he even acts like it sometimes, but I just can't really buy it when he does because of all the past history and realization that the respectful attitude won't last. It feels like lip-service, rather than genuine. And him actually regarding anyone other than Clark or Diana as an equal - pipe dream.

I've always found it...odd how often the "evil Superman" trope is used when there are evil Kryptonians like Zod exist.

I think originally it may have been used precisely because Superman is so good for the contrasat. So powerful, too, of course, and even though logically other Kryptonians are just as powerful, they don't feel as powerful to an audience raised with Superman as the icon. I think evil Superman is overused (but am okay as long it stays elseworld). Gets used once as popular, then you see similar over and over -happens with a lot of popular stories, especially when you move over into adaptations. We got an evil Batman (which I didn't want), but of course, his JL couldn't take him out because he's Batman, and so must trump everyone else. He's Batgod on steroids, it seems.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't like Zod. Mainly on a matter of princiiple. The live action shows very quickly introduce Zod and other surviving Kryptonians as an enemy for Superman. MAN OF STEEL, which is supposed to be a reboot of the Superman franchise, no sooner introduces Kal-El as the Last Son of Krypton than it negates that reality by introducing Zod and his usual gang of idiots.

It seems to me the strength of the Siegel and Shuster myth is Clark being the last survivor of his people--you might want to let that story have its moment before rushing to show the audience that nope Jor-El was a screw-up and there were thousands if not millions of Kryptonians that could have survived and there was no need to put Kal-El in the tiny rocket ship and blast him off in a Kryptonite explosion.

The reason these other Kryptonians survive seems to be mainly so the writers can easily introduce villains that have the power to destroy Superman. Rather than contradicting the great tragedy of all Krypton being destroyed, I prefer an imperfect duplicate of Superman manufactured so he can fight someone that's his equal in power.

[Agent Z]

I don't like Zod. Mainly on a matter of princiiple. The live action shows very quickly introduce Zod and other surviving Kryptonians as an enemy for Superman. MAN OF STEEL, which is supposed to be a reboot of the Superman franchise, no sooner introduces Kal-El as the Last Son of Krypton than it negates that reality by introducing Zod and his usual gang of idiots.

It seems to me the strength of the Siegel and Shuster myth is Clark being the last survivor of his people--you might want to let that story have its moment before rushing to show the audience that nope Jor-El was a screw-up and there were thousands if not millions of Kryptonians that could have survived and there was no need to put Kal-El in the tiny rocket ship and blast him off in a Kryptonite explosion.

The reason these other Kryptonians survive seems to be mainly so the writers can easily introduce villains that have the power to destroy Superman. Rather than contradicting the great tragedy of all Krypton being destroyed, I prefer an imperfect duplicate of Superman manufactured so he can fight someone that's his equal in power.

MoS shows Zod from the very beginning and the Phantom Zone is established early on in the movie. At no point was the film trying to pretend Clark was the last of his kind.

[SiegePerilous02]

And yet whenever he's been made into a threat, it's at someone's expense due to poor writing. If they're going to have the GLC check him, did he need to one-punch Diana? You act like Superman fans get excited by this stuff. Feats of strength mean nothing if they're just used as a shock when it makes someone else look terrible. I love Superman and all this did was remind me of the end of Infinite Crisis where Prime got jailed. Same sequel bait, ho hum, absolutely don't care.

You can't mistreat Clark all the time, throw him one bone where he is a big threat when evil (and treating Diana worse) and claim DC respects him. It's a disservice to both.

yeah, Superman having his power on display when he's an evil zombie (or whatever this dumb **** is) and slaughtering one of the other icons isn't something most Superman fans were clamoring for, I imagine. It can be more of a disservice to Diana, but still a clear disservice to both.

Like what, specifically? I know, specifically with Murderer/Fugitive, there were some consequences but he didn't go that far then.

Lots of people have issue with the OMAC stuff. Some of the blood that resulted from that is on his hands.

I think for the most part people prefer characters with more dimensions, or grow into having more dimensions, rather then not...except in the case where those dimensions work against the character. In the case of Batman it's only when writers are particularly egregious about it with him that I've felt it's a serious issue.

People definitely do like characters with more dimensions. And I think all of DC and Marvel's characters, major to minor, have some of that at their best. But it's really down to no character being able to remain interesting indefinitely in a narrative that never ends. And some of the new dimensions aren't just additive. Like Tzigone said, some new dimensions cost us others, especially with reboots involved. Batman and especially Superman have both had this done to them since we're not dealing with one narrative that began in 1938/1939 until now.

[DrNewGod]

I don't like Zod. Mainly on a matter of princiiple. The live action shows very quickly introduce Zod and other surviving Kryptonians as an enemy for Superman. MAN OF STEEL, which is supposed to be a reboot of the Superman franchise, no sooner introduces Kal-El as the Last Son of Krypton than it negates that reality by introducing Zod and his usual gang of idiots.

It seems to me the strength of the Siegel and Shuster myth is Clark being the last survivor of his people--you might want to let that story have its moment before rushing to show the audience that nope Jor-El was a screw-up and there were thousands if not millions of Kryptonians that could have survived and there was no need to put Kal-El in the tiny rocket ship and blast him off in a Kryptonite explosion.

The reason these other Kryptonians survive seems to be mainly so the writers can easily introduce villains that have the power to destroy Superman. Rather than contradicting the great tragedy of all Krypton being destroyed, I prefer an imperfect duplicate of Superman manufactured so he can fight someone that's his equal in power.

You are correct. However, the problem becomes that almost every action/adventure hero works best when they are believably courting jeopardy. Now, we all know DC's not going to let even Darkseid murder Batman, but we have to be able to buy in to the idea that the Riddler could off The Caped Crusader to make the stories work. After all, there's only so many times you can have Superman beating up Lex Luthor without it looking unfair, or Lex outwitting him without Supes looking stupid.

In his first couple of years, when Superman could be knocked silly by a hand-grenade (actually happened), that was not such an issue. When they amped him up to a point where nuclear bombs won't get it done? You're left with three options:

1. Kryptonite being available at every local Walmart
2. A tediously endless series of hostage rescues
3. Zod (and folks like him)

Personally, I don't mind Zod, if used sparingly. The Player On The Other Side is a classic (see Black Adam, Sinestro, Ras al Ghul, etc.).

Still, your point is valid. I too favor The Last Son as an absolute. My solution would be to take a page from Virtuosity and make Phantom Zone escapees and all of Kandor recorded memories given form by some technology of Brainiacs. But...nobody asked me.

[Jim Kelly]

At least in the comics, it took some time before other Kryptonians showed up. But on TV and in the movies it happens pretty quickly and I imagine the general public sees this as a big flaw in the Superman story--it makes no sense. If they could escape via the Phantom Zone, then what's the big hurry in sending Kal-El away in the rocket? And why didn't Jor-El, Lara and the others escape Krypton's doom in the Phantom Zone?

I don't recall exactly what happened on SMALLVILLE--I missed a lot of episodes back then, but I'm rewatching the series now, so hopefully I'll see how it actually happened with Zod when I get that far. From what I do remember, the phantoms were indeed phantoms and could only get out of the Zone by inhabiting the bodies of Earthlings. Now if that is how it happened, then I'm all for that. I like to think that the Phantom Zone is a death sentence and nobody actually survives--their corporeal body is gone. They only survive as wraiths and can only come back by taking over the bodies of hosts--either Earthlings or Superman.

Since there's an unlimited supply of alien super-villains, I don't see the need for having Kryptonians survive to battle Superman. Any alien will do. The other problem with the Phantom Zoners is that they have to be at full strength to be a match for Superman--so how do they get to full strength? Surely Superman, having been around for decades, should have the edge over all of them. Yet so often he doesn't--for reasons. So the writers put their thumbs on the scale to give the villains the upper hand and Superman is held back. Even with Supergirl, Superman is demoted in his power levels so his cousin can get all the glory. Superman should be the real Superman, not second best.

[Agent Z]

At least in the comics, it took some time before other Kryptonians showed up. But on TV and in the movies it happens pretty quickly and I imagine the general public sees this as a big flaw in the Superman story--it makes no sense. If they could escape via the Phantom Zone, then what's the big hurry in sending Kal-El away in the rocket? And why didn't Jor-El, Lara and the others escape Krypton's doom in the Phantom Zone?

The Phantom Zone is a prison for Krypton's most vicious criminals. Jor-El and Lara would either be condemning themselves and their son by retreating to a place full of people who want them dead or run the risk of Kal-El being raised and corrupted by the likes of Zod.

Even with Supergirl, Superman is demoted in his power levels so his cousin can get all the glory. Superman should be the real Superman, not second best.

People are never going to let that fight in Supergirl go are they? You know, for a guy who is supposed to be all about humility and inspiring others to be the best they can be it's amazing how much the Superman fandom dislikes the idea of someone surpassing or equaling him.

[Robanker]

People are never going to let that fight in Supergirl go are they? You know, for a guy who is supposed to be all about humility and inspiring others to be the best they can be it's amazing how much the Superman fandom dislikes the idea of someone surpassing or equaling him.

I think for many it's just the most recent strike at a dead horse. Superman has been one of DC's go-to whipping boys to mine or denigrate to build up another character. When Batman shows up to job so Batgirl can succeed at the same time as being an evil dictator in video games while the public opinion of him is "has-been," then I'll cede the point.

Clark is a character who everyone is fine pulling more things away from and piling more losses on because "he's all about humility," "he's already so strong," and so on. It's weird. Everyone is intended to overcome their core weaknesses (GL with the color yellow, WW with being bound, Aquaman and his need to be in the water after an hour or so, etc) except Clark (and admittedly J'onn) because then he's deemed overpowered. There's always some excuse for why it's okay for Superman to lose something, be it his connection to the Legion, his ethics, his stature as the Big Gun of the JL, and so on.

This is to say nothing, of course, of Wonder Woman who has been fighting an uphill battle with DC for 80 years.

Don't get me wrong, I get it to some degree and I think the fight on Supergirl is blown out of proportion by the fandom, but in a time where everyone is justifying that he can stand to lose something to build someone else up, there's not a whole lot being done to reaffirm him in the public eye. There's no big movie coming out, his TV show is being treated as a derivative of what's essentially a derivative of his (that already mined his history for stories, characters and so on) and his role in video games is supporting character or big bad. Hell, in movies he's being deconstructed, murdered and then hastily revived (to be a brainwashed villain or just abridged plot device depending on your flavor of Justice League).

What's the last thing he got to star in lately that wasn't him getting deconstructed, killed or jobbing for others to shine? Man of Steel in 2013? A brief moment in Justice League? There's not a whole lot of content, and the current influx of new fans from other media are coming in thinking he sucks or is inferior to characters who essentially rode in on his coattails for generations. I actually had to explain to a coworker that a lot of what they loved in Supergirl was actually repurposed from Superman. This stuff has a way of coming back to the source material in an annoying way, too. I fully expect Joker (the movie) to start informing the character within 3-5 years, for good or ill.

It's not a great time to be a fan of the character, especially when DC's best idea to bring attention back to him is to have Frank Miller retell the one Superman story everyone is more sick of than him dying-- his origin.

[superduperman]

People are never going to let that fight in Supergirl go are they? You know, for a guy who is supposed to be all about humility and inspiring others to be the best they can be it's amazing how much the Superman fandom dislikes the idea of someone surpassing or equaling him.

The fight itself isn't what bothered me. It's his response. He said he wouldn't be able to make the same sacrifice she did. THAT'S what I took issue with. It's the same old Injustice "logic". "I can't live without Lois! I would go crazy without her!" The Lois defining who he is gets old after a while. In terms of her beating him, there are all kinds of in-universe explanations they could come up with. Female Kryptonians process sunlight more efficiently than males do. It was her show, I wasn't expecting her NOT to be able to beat him.

[Vordan]

I've always found it...odd how often the "evil Superman" trope is used when there are evil Kryptonians like Zod exist.

God man all I want is one of those “Evil Superman” Elseworlds to just be a Zod story. That would be cool, Supes Rogues besides Lex get nothing.

[phantom1592]

The fight itself isn't what bothered me. It's his response. He said he wouldn't be able to make the same sacrifice she did. THAT'S what I took issue with. It's the same old Injustice "logic". "I can't live without Lois! I would go crazy without her!" The Lois defining who he is gets old after a while. In terms of her beating him, there are all kinds of in-universe explanations they could come up with. Female Kryptonians process sunlight more efficiently than males do. It was her show, I wasn't expecting her NOT to be able to beat him.

I always see it as a backhanded slam AGAINST supergirl. Honestly she had a tough decision and felt terrible and he was trying to make her feel better.

But the flipside of that... do you think he COULD have done the same thing? Honestly, I can't picture a scenario where Clark WOULD have made that that same 'sacrifice'. She exiled Mon-el away from earth... I can't imagine Superman EVERY doing that to Lois. He may do it for himself.... but he's never been the guy who will sacrifice one person to save a bunch of others. He's also not the kind who would poison the atmosphere to kill an entire race... He's not really a 'chose the lesser evil' kind of guy. He's more 'Does the impossible in a way nobody ever imagined' kind of guy.

I really don't see 'You did something I wouldn't have been able to.' as a sign of weakness. Superman would have found ANOTHER way.

[phantom1592]

God man all I want is one of those “Evil Superman” Elseworlds to just be a Zod story. That would be cool, Supes Rogues besides Lex get nothing.

I sincerely want to see batman just get his POUNDED by Zod in under 2 seconds. All those plans... all those contingencies that show he's a real threat to Superman... only ever work because Superman honestly doesn't WANT to hurt him. Put him against a full evil raging Kryptonian?? Yeah, let's see what Bruce has.

One of my favorite issues where Max Lord made him think Batman was Mongul or Brainiac and he just cuts loose... and the next scene shows batman in intensive care at the watchtower.

[Jim Kelly]

Funny how I never identified a specific Supergirl story where she comes off as more powerful than Superman, yet somehow everyone knew which story I must mean. I wasn't referring to one story--I just get the sense, over the last fifteen years, that a lot of writers want to give Supergirl the edge over Superman to prove her worth.

It's like what Tarantino demonstrates in ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD where Rick Dalton guest stars on all these TV shows to get beat up by the lead--because everyone knows Rick Dalton, from BOUNTY LAW, is a tough guy.

It's funny how everyone was ready to jump on Tarantino for letting Bruce Lee get beaten by Cliff Booth--which if you're following the story plays into the trope that was described earlier. Tarantino lets Booth prove his worth by taking on Bruce Lee--because we all know that Bruce Lee was a tough guy to beat (and he also trained Sharon Tate, which is referenced in the movie). So it's actually a tribute to Lee, just as it's a tribute to Rick Dalton. It's also a wrestling trope. To prove the worth of a new star, he has to beat an established star.

So I understand why the trope is there and that it's kind of a tribute to Superman's star power. But if he keeps getting beat, like with Rick Dalton, he eventually will have no star power left. I can buy someone getting the drop on Superman every once in awhile but it shouldn't be an ongoing thing.

And to say that Supergirl is greater than Superman in power doesn't make much sense to me--just like the Phantom Zone criminals being greater doesn't make much sense. Superman has been around a lot longer, he's had a lot of fight experience and his powers should have built up over time. There seems to be one set of rules for Superman and another set of rules for any other Kryptonian.

[Agent Z]

Funny how I never identified a specific Supergirl story where she comes off as more powerful than Superman, yet somehow everyone knew which story I must mean. I wasn't referring to one story--I just get the sense, over the last fifteen years, that a lot of writers want to give Supergirl the edge over Superman to prove her worth.

It's like what Tarantino demonstrates in ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD where Rick Dalton guest stars on all these TV shows to get beat up by the lead--because everyone knows Rick Dalton, from BOUNTY LAW, is a tough guy.

It's funny how everyone was ready to jump on Tarantino for letting Bruce Lee get beaten by Cliff Booth--which if you're following the story plays into the trope that was described earlier. Tarantino lets Booth prove his worth by taking on Bruce Lee--because we all know that Bruce Lee was a tough guy to beat (and he also trained Sharon Tate, which is referenced in the movie). So it's actually a tribute to Lee, just as it's a tribute to Rick Dalton. It's also a wrestling trope. To prove the worth of a new star, he has to beat an established star.

So I understand why the trope is there and that it's kind of a tribute to Superman's star power. But if he keeps getting beat, like with Rick Dalton, he eventually will have no star power left. I can buy someone getting the drop on Superman every once in awhile but it shouldn't be an ongoing thing.

And to say that Supergirl is greater than Superman in power doesn't make much sense to me--just like the Phantom Zone criminals being greater doesn't make much sense. Superman has been around a lot longer, he's had a lot of fight experience and his powers should have built up over time. There seems to be one set of rules for Superman and another set of rules for any other Kryptonian.

There has never been a story where she comes off as more powerful than Superman. In post crisis, her being more powerful than him was lip service and it was eventually dropped once one writer pointed out that Superman held back a lot so it only seemed like Kara was more powerful.

Also, there are a number of factors that differentiate the situation in Tarantino's film from a Superman/Supergirl fight. Not the least of which being that Bruce Lee was a real person.

I always see it as a backhanded slam AGAINST supergirl. Honestly she had a tough decision and felt terrible and he was trying to make her feel better.

But the flipside of that... do you think he COULD have done the same thing? Honestly, I can't picture a scenario where Clark WOULD have made that that same 'sacrifice'. She exiled Mon-el away from earth... I can't imagine Superman EVERY doing that to Lois. He may do it for himself.... but he's never been the guy who will sacrifice one person to save a bunch of others. He's also not the kind who would poison the atmosphere to kill an entire race... He's not really a 'chose the lesser evil' kind of guy. He's more 'Does the impossible in a way nobody ever imagined' kind of guy.

I really don't see 'You did something I wouldn't have been able to.' as a sign of weakness. Superman would have found ANOTHER way.

That doesn't make Superman a better hero than Kara. It makes him a luckier one than her.