The state of Superman in popular culture right now

[Vakanai]

So was Superman Returns. That made more than Batman Begins did, yet I’d hardly call that a win. MoS is the reason he’s been reduced to cameos, and even before Snyder got booted off, there was no plans to make another Superman solo. So MoS basically solidified in WB’s mind that Superman can’t sell. Therefore no, I can’t call MoS a win, it didn’t help Superman at all.

Never said it was a win, said it wasn't a complete misfire. Complete would be Catwoman or last Fantastic Four level bad. There are mediocre movies, bad movies, and total crap movies. Mos isn't that bad, made profit, has fans even now, so while you can dislike it and blame it for Superman's state of affairs now, it isn't fair to call it a "complete" misfire. We've seen those before, let's pray a Superman movie never quite makes it that low. So misfire maybe, complete misfire no.

And still, arguably better in my opinion than cameo guest star at best status, which we have now going forward. Unless you really, really love Cavill and think snippets of him without Snyder is just a glorious thing, the future ain't bright.

[manwhohaseverything]

It's not an either/or situation.

Superman can still be an aspirational figure without being one dimensional. However, as I've been saying, that type of character is much more difficult to write compelling stories for.

Nah! People have ridiculous expectations from superman.One the character cannot meet and was not created for to. Rocky is as aspirational as it gets, if you ask me. A simple, "stay out of trouble" instead of long speeches. That's what superman should be. Ashitaka is another character that has a similar arc to superman in that he goes to the big city and confronts corruption, hatred.. Etc. They put on a curse on him for an added sense of tension and tragedy. That's something i always wanted superman with. In this world an act of altruism can be rewarded with scorn and virtues can turn into vices. But, it can be reversed as well. Hence, driving superman's eternal optimism. Superman wasn't designed to be a god. That's captain marvel's domain. Superman is neither a man or a god. Superman doesn't have wisdom of Solomon. All superman has is wisdom of alien raised on earth. It's better if we keep the guy like that. I like superman who breakes his limits, than be openly limitless.

problem i see is, superman isn't in the middle of the conflict. See, superman like john carter or tarzan or any edgar rice burroughs creation is supposed to be smack dab in the middle of a conflict. Middle. He takes sides (something doomsday clock did, i agree with),but superman's conflict was always in the middle.Another thing, enough with the naivety nonsense. Atleast, shonen idiots being being idiots is funny. This is just eeesh! Give the character that air of conviction back, not naivety.

[Sacred Knight]

2000s had Smallville, JLA, Birthright, and Busiek/Johns Superman work. We got Azzarelo’s and Paul Cornell’s Luthor work. We got some good stuff during that decade even if it was uneven.

The 2010s are worse imo. His big screen return was marred in controversy. His big video game was Injustice which treated him with contempt, plus the Injustice comic which became a lot of people’s favorite comic was also chewing him up. He didn’t get any animated movies until the decade was practically over. He cameo’d in Supergirl and it was cool but didn’t get to do much. American Alien was critically and commercially successful, and then Landis ruined it by revealing himself as a jackass, meaning DC basically abandoned the property. The New 52 Superman was ruined by terrible crossovers and by Berenza being a sexual harasser who kept creators away. Rebirth started strong and ended with a whimper, with both Tomasi and Jurgens doing pretty mediocre meh work by the end (except Super Sons imo). A Super-Family animated cartoon was rejected. Johns Doomsday Clock took forever to finish. This is all my opinion, but the 2010s were his worst decade ever in my eyes.

There’s still rough times ahead, Injustice 3 is coming, the Snyder Cut is coming, we’ve got more evil Superman to suffer through from NRS and Snyder, but I remain hopeful. Rumors say I3 will be the “finale” of the triology, so hopefully I4 will feature a good Superman, and Snyder will be done forever after his Cut comes out and we can finally move on from his terrible Superman. There’s rumors that WBM is working on a Superman game, and these rumors come from some guys who do know some internal info, so maybe Supes will finally get some respect.

Well, as with everything Superman, to me what I veer to in looking at most is the comics. Maybe its not the whole picture, but its the one I most care about far and away and thus its always my main focus. And there, to me the 2010's were a result of the damage the 2000's caused. So while there's really bad stuff there too, I give it a little more consideration for what it started out having to work with. The quality of actual talent, I say its rather even. There were only a couple great runs in 2010s, and only a couple really good ones in the 2000s. Busiek is really all that stands out to me in the 2000s, while the early 2000s highlighted by Loeb/McGuinness was at least steady, if nothing awe-inspiring. Johns, Azz, and Cornell I find all pretty overrated to be honest. With the exception of Johns' Legion storyline. But at the same time all this was during the time they were changing him up but not doing it with thought and care. So I look to the 2000s and see how they broke his continuity for the second time (I may not prefer post-Crisis continuity anymore, but it WAS a steady continuity since 1986, that can't be taken away; if they were going to put back pre-Crisis elements, which I welcomed, it should have been done with a lot more care and a lot better planning).

We'll see what the 20's bring, but so far so bad. But then again 2010 started with freaking Grounded and I at least ended up liking what they did later on for a while. So maybe something more for me is around the corner again. We'll see. If not, so it goes.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Nah! People have ridiculous expectations from superman.One the character cannot meet and was not created for to. Rocky is as aspirational as it gets, if you ask me. A simple, "stay out of trouble" instead of long speeches. That's what superman should be. Ashitaka is another character that has a similar arc to superman in that he goes to the big city and confronts corruption, hatred.. Etc. They put on a curse on him for an added sense of tension and tragedy. That's something i always wanted superman with. In this world an act of altruism can be rewarded with scorn and virtues can turn into vices. But, it can be reversed as well. Hence, driving superman's eternal optimism. Superman wasn't designed to be a god. That's captain marvel's domain. Superman is neither a man or a god. Superman doesn't have wisdom of Solomon. All superman has is wisdom of alien raised on earth. It's better if we keep the guy like that. I like superman who breakes his limits, than be openly limitless.

problem i see is, superman isn't in the middle of the conflict. See, superman like john carter or tarzan or any edgar rice burroughs creation is supposed to be smack dab in the middle of a conflict. Middle. He takes sides (something doomsday clock did, i agree with),but superman's conflict was always in the middle.Another thing, enough with the naivety nonsense. Atleast, shonen idiots being being idiots is funny. This is just eeesh! Give the character that air of conviction back, not naivety.

Again, you're thinking in terms of extremes. There's a middle ground there that plenty of creators have managed to hit, even if it's a more difficult target to hit than it is to nail characters like Spider-Man and Batman.

Superman is not unique in this regard, either. Wonder Woman is a similarly difficult character to get right, because she's built from the same aspirational mold. If you make her too perfect, she's boring, but if you move too far away towards darkness, you've lost what makes her special to people. Gal Gadot & Jenkins were able to balance the humanity of the character with the more idealized elements in the same way that Reeve & Donner were able to do with Superman. It remains to be seen if they can repeat that a second time with WW84

[The World]

MoS wasn't a complete misfire - it was profitable if divisive. And let's not forget we're comparing this to what we are allegedly going to get now - mere cameos. Can we really say that this is better for Superman going forward than having his own movie? For all that went down, 2010s at least had Superman as a star, not a backup.

Superman never went evil, except maybe one scene in JL. Oh and a dream in BvS. Not really much to go on. Yes I know Snyder had plans, but they never materialized so meh. CW though has given us "Supergirl's lesser" and now Supergirl's lesser is going the Superdad route, which I don't know how divisive that is in this fandom but I'm sure not fond of. So, what I know going forward, isn't looking as good to me as what we got before. I'm not saying the 2010s were a good decade, I largely agree they were bad and caused damage. I'm just saying in this moment the future looks worse for the next several years.

Yeah I think this is something not enough people treat with the amount of seriousness it deserves. A defining concept of modern Superman has been the writers grinding Supes down to a nub. I mean if the character we know as Superman today had been released in 1938 do you think anybody would have been impressed with him getting clobbered by Batman and Supergirl?

[Vordan]

Yeah I think this is something not enough people treat with the amount of seriousness it deserves. A defining concept of modern Superman has been the writers grinding Supes down to a nub. I mean if the character we know as Superman today had been released in 1938 do you think anybody would have been impressed with him getting clobbered by Batman and Supergirl?

It’s far too late to be complaining about Superman jobbing. DKR basically cemented Batman as better, and that was over 20 years ago. Besides at the end of the day it’s not like him losing fights has stopped people from whining that he’s “overpowered” or whatever.

[Frontier]

The 2010s are worse imo. His big screen return was marred in controversy. His big video game was Injustice which treated him with contempt, plus the Injustice comic which became a lot of people’s favorite comic was also chewing him up.

Well, not with complete contempt:

[Will Evans]

Well yeah, it was still the same guy in charge of everything. I really hope AT&T/WB aren’t actually going to give Snyder the reigns again, or we’ll be right back where we started. Bad enough that Snyder basically killed Superman’s big screen chances for the foreseeable future, I don’t want him messing up anything else. Wish we could just ditch Cavill and start over, he’s not a great actor and he brings way too much baggage with him, but as always, Superman gets an anchor wrapped around his neck while others like Batman get fresh starts.

2000s had Smallville, JLA, Birthright, and Busiek/Johns Superman work. We got Azzarelo’s and Paul Cornell’s Luthor work. We got some good stuff during that decade even if it was uneven.

The 2010s are worse imo. His big screen return was marred in controversy. His big video game was Injustice which treated him with contempt, plus the Injustice comic which became a lot of people’s favorite comic was also chewing him up. He didn’t get any animated movies until the decade was practically over. He cameo’d in Supergirl and it was cool but didn’t get to do much. American Alien was critically and commercially successful, and then Landis ruined it by revealing himself as a jackass, meaning DC basically abandoned the property. The New 52 Superman was ruined by terrible crossovers and by Berenza being a sexual harasser who kept creators away. Rebirth started strong and ended with a whimper, with both Tomasi and Jurgens doing pretty mediocre meh work by the end (except Super Sons imo). A Super-Family animated cartoon was rejected. Johns Doomsday Clock took forever to finish. This is all my opinion, but the 2010s were his worst decade ever in my eyes.

He also got trashed by Goku in Epic Rap Battles of History.

[Vordan]

He also got trashed by Goku in Epic Rap Battles of History.

Lmao did he really? Well he won Death Battle (twice) so I consider that a consolation prize for Goku fans

[Vakanai]

The 2010s are worse imo. His big screen return was marred in controversy. His big video game was Injustice which treated him with contempt, plus the Injustice comic which became a lot of people’s favorite comic was also chewing him up. He didn’t get any animated movies until the decade was practically over. He cameo’d in Supergirl and it was cool but didn’t get to do much. American Alien was critically and commercially successful, and then Landis ruined it by revealing himself as a jackass, meaning DC basically abandoned the property. The New 52 Superman was ruined by terrible crossovers and by Berenza being a sexual harasser who kept creators away. Rebirth started strong and ended with a whimper, with both Tomasi and Jurgens doing pretty mediocre meh work by the end (except Super Sons imo). A Super-Family animated cartoon was rejected. Johns Doomsday Clock took forever to finish. This is all my opinion, but the 2010s were his worst decade ever in my eyes.

Not true - All Star Superman and Superman Unbound (Unleashed? The one with Brainiac) were all in the early part of the decade.

[Will Evans]

Lmao did he really? Well he won Death Battle (twice) so I consider that a consolation prize for Goku fans

Link NSFW due to bad language

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0MW9Nrg_kZU

[SiegePerilous02]

Batman is easier to design villains for...all you need is a theme, a costume and a gadget. Some bat-villains catch writer's imaginations...others fade into limbo.

Superman is much harder to design an actual threat for...he is practically a demigod. Bank robbers versus Superman is similar to Batman versus Dionysus (the Greek God); it's a bit of a one-sided fight. (Batman loses, by the way.)

I grew up on old Superman and Batman cartoons; I found the Superman's cartoons to be dull compared to Batman's.

Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Myxyzptlk, Bizarro and the Phantom Zone villains are used over and over and over and over again. It's monotonous.
If not them, then Superman fights a one-shot monster or a natural disaster or an alien (that was never seen again).

For a long time, Superman did not have an impressive list of foes...and he's had a lot a catching up to do. I sure many writers have tried to enhance Supe's villains...I just don't know how well they've succeeded.

Since I had limited interest when I was younger, my interested has diminished as I grew older. I think there might be a warning there.

I think it's more that the same 10-20 Bat-villains catch writers imaginations and are used over and over again. I know that sounds like a lot, but it's really a ridiculously small sample size compared to the number of villains Batman has actually had over the years. And after 80 years and over saturation it's still that same group. Of Superman's villains, the only ones who have been overused are Lex and the Phantom Zone criminals mainly in the movies. Brainiac, Mxy and Bizarro show up a lot, but never in any movies, whereas characters from Batman't main pool of villains have shown up in at least one movie, if not multiple (Joker, Catwoman, the Penguin, Two-Face, etc.).

How much of the old Superman cartoons actually utilized his villains vs how well the Batman cartoons utilized his (though before BTAS, they weren't known for using them that effectively)? We know STAS didn't use that many for dubious reasons because Bruce Timm has proven that he's just not well suited for Superman in general.

I'd say if it's difficult to make Superman vs. bank robber story interesting...why are you having Superman do basic bitch stuff like that in the first place? If a writer doesn't have the imagination to create a clever threat for someone of Superman's power level, they'd perhaps be better off writing another character/

[Vakanai]

Just FYI I disagree with the idea that Superman vs bank robbers can't be good. The best Superman story in the last few years has him go against the freaking KKK (or at least an expy of them). That should be such small potatoes to Superman to make for an interesting story, and yet I can't imagine it not being regarded as a classic from now on for the character. So if someone puts the effort in with the right approach, a bank robber plot could be pretty good. I don't think it will happen, but the idea something has to be a huge threat to Superman to be worthwhile is kind of disproven at this point I think.

[manwhohaseverything]

Lmao did he really? Well he won Death Battle (twice) so I consider that a consolation prize for Goku fans

I wouldn't be celebrating. They basically stamp "boring" on superman's forehead. I prefer goku's ethics when it comes to work. So, superman winning the match itself doesn't mean much. The death battle guys themselves say it. Superman is about doing good stuff for people. That's it. Many people took it as superman is lazy. Why? Cause superman has no training, work or fight ethics. I tend to agree.

Him winning death battle was really nonsensical as well. Goku trains his entire life and has better feats. This guy just shows up gets buffed up by steroids and beats him. Why? Cause "limitlessness". I especially, didn't care for "you can't beat him". That's not demotivating at all nor fair. Especially, when the other guy is about fair competition .I am sure people would become great fans of a lazy limitless boring sun god. Good way to make a rep for yourself.

It's kind of ironic. Shuster was a fitness enthusiast . Yet, superman is not what inspires fitness guys or people who just want any kind of physical training . It's goku.If i was superman i wouldn't fight at all. There is no point. His power is hot air. An altruistic hot air but hot air nonetheless . Goku's power isn't.Anyways, i prefer superman getting his ass beat by mohammad ali than his victory against goku. That feels fair. This ain't.

"Confidence... thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.”
In short superman has no right to be confident about his physicality.

[DochaDocha]

Just FYI I disagree with the idea that Superman vs bank robbers can't be good. The best Superman story in the last few years has him go against the freaking KKK (or at least an expy of them). That should be such small potatoes to Superman to make for an interesting story, and yet I can't imagine it not being regarded as a classic from now on for the character. So if someone puts the effort in with the right approach, a bank robber plot could be pretty good. I don't think it will happen, but the idea something has to be a huge threat to Superman to be worthwhile is kind of disproven at this point I think.

Agreed. If Batman is going to halt a bank robbery, the creators' goal is to make it imaginative and visually appealing, particularly for the screen. He's going to use some new technology, demonstrate great fighting ability, outsmart the bad guys, etc. If he just shows up and does kung fu and the bad guys all shoot like blind, drunken Imperial Stormtroopers, that's not interesting at all. Certainly many would argue that even if the setup is flawed it's still inherently interesting because Batman's life is at risk, I'd counter that most of the times stuff like this happens neither Batman nor the innocent bystanders sustain any injuries, so there's no real risk.

If you're going to have Superman vs. low-level bank robbers, you can still make it interesting if you are creative and have Superman do clever or imaginative things to stop it, instead "Hold it right there!" with his hands on his hips, they all shoot him and the bullets flatten on his torso, and he rounds them up. Like, start with the idea that Clark Kent has to stop the robbery, but without blowing his secret ID. It could be interesting.