Has Superman ever been written with the Spider-man formula?

[Huntsman Spider]

I will say that Superman and Spider-Man as characters have many similarities. No character in DC is more like Spider-Man than Superman, and by that I mean character, I don't mean 'archetype' or other shorthand dogwhistles by which people assume that the specky kid of AF#15 is frozen in amber perpetually.

Spider-Man as a character is constantly hobbled by questions of identity and duality, and that's Superman. Batman for instance has no such duality...it's clear that he's Batman and Bruce Wayne is just a front, and as a rich dude his personal life and supporting cast don't factor at all. Superman likewise has this double life. As he says in STAS, "I am Clark Kent. I NEED to be Clark Kent. I'd go crazy if I was Superman all the time." You can't imagine Bruce saying that about being Batman. So Spider-Man and Superman are fundamentally stories about the hero and his supporting cast, and the villains are secondary. You can do plenty of good to great Superman and Spider-Man stories with just them doing regular stuff hanging out with supporting cast and so on.



In the case of the Byrne stuff, I've never read it all the way through so I can't comment. I will say that Lex Luthor as businessman was inspired by Kingpin in Miller's Daredevil, at least that's what DC writers at the time pointed out. Neil Gaiman called him "skinny Kingpin" (he had to write that version in his BLACK ORCHID Miniseries and later said he prefered Silver Age Superman who you can imprison time and time again but "you can't imprison his mind"). I don't think businessman Lex is a very interesting character compared to Fisk and Osborn (whether Pre-ASM#122 or Post-Clone Saga). To be frank, I actually don't consider Luthor in any version (save for the DCAU of course) to be an especially impressive and compelling villain. There are any number of DC villains and certainly Marvel villains better than him. Doctor Doom had more villainous chemistry with Superman in the Jim Shooter penned crossover than he did with Lex, tbh.

In general I'm not a Lex Luthor fan, and while I accept that he's a classic villain and Superman's arch-enemy in that the consensus favors this too much and too long for this to ever change, I prefer other Superman villains like Bizarro (talk about a character whose potential hasn't been scratched yet), Brainiac, and especially Mr. Mxyzsptlk as Superman's enemies. Contrary to popular belief Superman has a good rogues gallery, actually. It's not as good as Batman's and Spider-Man's of course, but then no other hero can measure to that, and Superman's rogues are better than many other heroes.

When Luthor became President, it didn't produce any good stories or great stories, whereas Osborn becoming Head of HAMMER gave us DeConnick and Rios' OSBORN, "World's Most Wanted" by Fraction/Larocca in Iron Man, Thunderbolts, Dark Reign: Fantastic Four by Hickman.

Understandable. I can respect that. DCAU Lex was generally the best version of Lex. That said, I actually remember that line you cite from Superman TAS coming in the same episode that had the actual stones to tackle corruption and abuse of power in policing, as well as injustice in the justice system, by having Clark Kent investigate a man on death row for a murder it turns out he didn't commit, then survive a murder attempt by the real killer, although he has to pretend at first the attempt succeeded for fear of giving his identity as Superman until he can expose the real killer and save the man he framed from being executed. Rather brave and bold episode for 90s superhero animation.

The thing with Batman is that there's Bruce Wayne the public front and Bruce Wayne the man that defines Batman's humanity. Without that Batman really is just a nutcase in a Batsuit who can't relate to anyone and only cares about the Mission no matter the cost while forgetting what the Mission was actually about.

It did lead to an animated film based on Jeph Loeb's Superman/Batman storyline.

And they brought Clancy Brown back to voice Lex there, so . . . That said, I do agree with your assessment of "Bruce Wayne" and "Batman," insofar as Batman's overall humanity (more than just lacking superpowers, by the way).

[Frontier]

And they brought Clancy Brown back to voice Lex there, so . . . That said, I do agree with your assessment of "Bruce Wayne" and "Batman," insofar as Batman's overall humanity (more than just lacking superpowers, by the way).

Don't be knocking Mark Rolston or the live-action Lex's .

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yes if not for Static, who was more inspired by Spider-Man than literally any other superhero (the term 'Black Peter Parker' arguably applies to Virgil Hawkins even more than it did to Bendis' Miles Morales). But I agree with your overall point.

Thanks.

As for Static, well he was created for Milestone Comics, independently from DC before being bought out in the 90s. But Spider-Man comics influenced DC across the board. Take Batman during the Strange Apparitions era of the 1970s. This was a run which tried to make Batman and Bruce "younger", so Batman is now more youthful, living in his own apartment in the city, and has relationship woes with Silver St. Cloud who he wants to get together but can't because he's Batman and who leaves him when she finds his identity. So that kind of internal angst was very much an attempt to make Batman more like Spider-Man.

Also Spider-Man was web swinging and perching on city promontories, long before Batman got his grappling hook from the Burton movies. Before Batman mostly travelled via Batmobile and Batwing (which has sorta become redundant now that Batman can glide and grapple for basic traversal) and travelling the city by swinging around was a Spider-Man thing long before it was a Batman thing. Green Goblin killed Gwen a decade or so before Joker crippled Batgirl and crowbarred Jason. That's one of the frustrating parts of discussing Marvel and DC rivalries, everyone assumes these companies are monoliths which didn't mutually influence, change, and transform each other and cross-pollinate ideas back and forth.

DC had other characters in the vein of Peter Parker though, like Nightwing who had Marv Wolfman writing him fresh after leaving Marvel and his run on Spider-Man. Kyle Rayner even moreso. And in cartoons you have Terry McGinnis.

Without that Batman really is just a nutcase in a Batsuit who can't relate to anyone and only cares about the Mission no matter the cost while forgetting what the Mission was actually about.

Have you read Batman comics lately? He's also that guy in the Arkham Games, the DCAU around Batman Beyond and Justice League, and Batfleck. Batman sacrificing all happiness, personal bonds, and simple decency for the Mission is the default of his character for a good period of time. Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy has been the surprising exception to this.

Don't be knocking Mark Rolston or the live-action Lex's .

Seriously? Luthor's been a consistent disappointment in every live action version. Whether it's the laughing clown by Gene Hackman (great actor, poor material, miscast), Kevin Spacey's Luthor who's scary (and now unwatchable), and now of course Eisenberg's Luthor.

None of the live-action Luthors are brilliant inventors. They are just conmen and crooks who hate Superman because reasons.

[Agent Z]

Thanks.

As for Static, well he was created for Milestone Comics, independently from DC before being bought out in the 90s. But Spider-Man comics influenced DC across the board. Take Batman during the Strange Apparitions era of the 1970s. This was a run which tried to make Batman and Bruce "younger", so Batman is now more youthful, living in his own apartment in the city, and has relationship woes with Silver St. Cloud who he wants to get together but can't because he's Batman and who leaves him when she finds his identity. So that kind of internal angst was very much an attempt to make Batman more like Spider-Man.

Also Spider-Man was web swinging and perching on city promontories, long before Batman got his grappling hook from the Burton movies. Before Batman mostly travelled via Batmobile and Batwing (which has sorta become redundant now that Batman can glide and grapple for basic traversal) and travelling the city by swinging around was a Spider-Man thing long before it was a Batman thing. Green Goblin killed Gwen a decade or so before Joker crippled Batgirl and crowbarred Jason. That's one of the frustrating parts of discussing Marvel and DC rivalries, everyone assumes these companies are monoliths which didn't mutually influence, change, and transform each other and cross-pollinate ideas back and forth.

DC had other characters in the vein of Peter Parker though, like Nightwing who had Marv Wolfman writing him fresh after leaving Marvel and his run on Spider-Man. Kyle Rayner even moreso. And in cartoons you have Terry McGinnis.



Have you read Batman comics lately? He's also that guy in the Arkham Games, the DCAU around Batman Beyond and Justice League, and Batfleck. Batman sacrificing all happiness, personal bonds, and simple decency for the Mission is the default of his character for a good period of time. Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy has been the surprising exception to this.



Seriously? Luthor's been a consistent disappointment in every live action version. Whether it's the laughing clown by Gene Hackman (great actor, poor material, miscast), Kevin Spacey's Luthor who's scary (and now unwatchable), and now of course Eisenberg's Luthor.

None of the live-action Luthors are brilliant inventors. They are just conmen and crooks who hate Superman because reasons.

Smallville's Luthor was an inventor and well received. As was Supergirl's Lex Luthor.

If we were to judge villains based on bad adaptations, Dr Doom would be considered the worst villain in comic history.

[Agent Z]

I will say that Superman and Spider-Man as characters have many similarities. No character in DC is more like Spider-Man than Superman, and by that I mean character, I don't mean 'archetype' or other shorthand dogwhistles by which people assume that the specky kid of AF#15 is frozen in amber perpetually.

Spider-Man as a character is constantly hobbled by questions of identity and duality, and that's Superman. Batman for instance has no such duality...it's clear that he's Batman and Bruce Wayne is just a front, and as a rich dude his personal life and supporting cast don't factor at all. Superman likewise has this double life. As he says in STAS, "I am Clark Kent. I NEED to be Clark Kent. I'd go crazy if I was Superman all the time." You can't imagine Bruce saying that about being Batman. So Spider-Man and Superman are fundamentally stories about the hero and his supporting cast, and the villains are secondary. You can do plenty of good to great Superman and Spider-Man stories with just them doing regular stuff hanging out with supporting cast and so on.



In the case of the Byrne stuff, I've never read it all the way through so I can't comment. I will say that Lex Luthor as businessman was inspired by Kingpin in Miller's Daredevil, at least that's what DC writers at the time pointed out. Neil Gaiman called him "skinny Kingpin" (he had to write that version in his BLACK ORCHID Miniseries and later said he prefered Silver Age Superman who you can imprison time and time again but "you can't imprison his mind"). I don't think businessman Lex is a very interesting character compared to Fisk and Osborn (whether Pre-ASM#122 or Post-Clone Saga). To be frank, I actually don't consider Luthor in any version (save for the DCAU of course) to be an especially impressive and compelling villain. There are any number of DC villains and certainly Marvel villains better than him. Doctor Doom had more villainous chemistry with Superman in the Jim Shooter penned crossover than he did with Lex, tbh.

In general I'm not a Lex Luthor fan, and while I accept that he's a classic villain and Superman's arch-enemy in that the consensus favors this too much and too long for this to ever change, I prefer other Superman villains like Bizarro (talk about a character whose potential hasn't been scratched yet), Brainiac, and especially Mr. Mxyzsptlk as Superman's enemies. Contrary to popular belief Superman has a good rogues gallery, actually. It's not as good as Batman's and Spider-Man's of course, but then no other hero can measure to that, and Superman's rogues are better than many other heroes.

When Luthor became President, it didn't produce any good stories or great stories, whereas Osborn becoming Head of HAMMER gave us DeConnick and Rios' OSBORN, "World's Most Wanted" by Fraction/Larocca in Iron Man, Thunderbolts, Dark Reign: Fantastic Four by Hickman.

What is this potential Bizarro has that hasn't been scratched? There's never been anything deeper to him than "Superman's evil counterpart", a role that is already filled by the likes of Zod and Ultraman.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

In Smallville they tried to mine the high school hero thing.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

In Smallville they tried to mine the high school hero thing.

That comes from Superboy. For those who don't know, in 1949, Superman was so popular that they wanted to do all kinds of new stories and ideas, and also target younger readers. So they came up with the concept of doing Superman's teenage years. This created a host of problems (which are problems for the writers and creators even today) because the story establishes that Superman only began his public career when he arrived in Metropolis and met Lois Lane and became the mascot of the city and so on.

But anyway, they decided to do Superman the Teenage Years, had the character be called Superboy, had all the action take place in Smallville, Kansas. And indeed it's because of Superboy that Smallville, Pa and Ma Kent, Lana Lang (who was created as a Lois substitute because they couldn't shoehorn Lois in his young days), Pete Ross and other mainstays. Superboy led to stuff like Legion of Superheroes and other stuff, Luthor was retconned into being a kid Clark knew from Smallville (and they created an origin for his baldness because why not). * (More on this but it's tangential)

In either case, the concept of a high school hero as far as Superman goes had a precedent in Superboy, and before Superboy you had Fawcett's Captain Marvel with Billy Batson and his Marvel Family who all became teenagers as the comics went into print. Remember, Spider-Man graduated high school in Issue #28 (and very few issues of the Lee-Ditko era actually takes place in high school)...and as late as 2000, there were far more issues of Superman in any continuity, as a teenage superhero than Spider-Man (and in terms of issue count considering how successful Superboy was, even more today).




* The entire Superboy thing has presented a problem for Superman as a character ever since,
1) That was really successful and defining for a lot of people, and those fans (Mark Waid above all) didn't like how John Byrne removed all of that Post-Crisis stuff. It introduced a lot of elements of Superman's supporting cast and tied into Legion of Superheroes which became this sub-franchise and removing it affected a lot of that, or created problems for that. So that meant a lot of people have tried to reconfigure Superman by trying to merge the timelines.
2) Logically, the arrival of Superboy kind of raised a lot of big questions about Superman as a character. If upon discovering and mastering his powers he automatically started using it to save people, why was he confined to Smallville for so many years before coming to Metropolis to become a world-superhero. Also from a continuity sense, how is it that nobody heard of Superman until he came to Metropolis.
3) Removing Superboy, unintentionally, created a problem because now the question was why did Superman spend a decade or so between his teenage years and so on before coming to Metropolis to become a superhero. What did he do all those years? Stuff like BIRTHRIGHT, and even Snyder's Man of Steel, mined this in their takes, for better and worse. Superboy at least answered the question saying 'he was Superman from the get-go' even if it made no sense continuity-wise...but what that means was that you had to provide a psychological basis for a character who, arguably (not that I agree but I concur this is valid) was never intended or capable of having one.
4) Adaptations like Reeve's Superman and the STAS kind of skirt this issue. If you see Christopher Reeve's first film, there's a huge cut and gap between him going into the Fortress of Solitude and then coming to Metropolis and meeting Lois, and ,that gap isn't explained.

Superboy is kind of the heart of the conundrum with Superman and Batman and Spider-Man. Batman having no powers you can easily explain any gaps as saying, "He was training and learning" and it makes sense and it fills space and you can tap into that to introduce and allude to stuff. Spider-Man since he became an active superhero from the age of 15 and we follow him as he has grown into his mid-20s, that means no significant gaps exist. With Superman though either he's Superman all his life, which doesn't make sense in terms of the classic and essential status-quo (Clark Kent at Daily Planet pining for Lois Lane), or that dude decided to become Superman only fairly recently and it took him ages to decide on his mission and identity as a superhero and champion of earth.

And you can see that with Spider-Man, Stan Lee and Ditko, both obviously knowing Superman and Batman were able to see the problems in the characters and find solutions. Superman was introduced as an adult superhero originally but maybe later on they thought he should be a superhero from his teenage to adult years, and have love interests (Lana, Mermaid girl) before finding "the one" in Lois. That was all retrofitted later...whereas with Spider-Man they were able to plot all that from the get-go step-by-step. You can see that in the Ditko era, where Spider-Man was in a love-triangle with Betty and Liz, neither of whom were intended to be major love interests for Peter, while Mary Jane was set-up and foreshadowed to be "the one".

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

In terms of comics I've read, I'd say Earth One and American Alien is where he felt most like Spiderman to me.

[Frontier]

Have you read Batman comics lately? He's also that guy in the Arkham Games, the DCAU around Batman Beyond and Justice League, and Batfleck. Batman sacrificing all happiness, personal bonds, and simple decency for the Mission is the default of his character for a good period of time. Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy has been the surprising exception to this.

But that's never treated as a good thing.

The comics had a big storyline in Bruce Wayne: Murderer/Fugitive about how unhealthy this perspective is.

Seriously? Luthor's been a consistent disappointment in every live action version. Whether it's the laughing clown by Gene Hackman (great actor, poor material, miscast), Kevin Spacey's Luthor who's scary (and now unwatchable), and now of course Eisenberg's Luthor.

None of the live-action Luthors are brilliant inventors. They are just conmen and crooks who hate Superman because reasons.

I was thinking John Shea, Michael Rosenbaum, and Jon Cryer.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

That comes from Superboy. For those who don't know, in 1949, Superman was so popular that they wanted to do all kinds of new stories and ideas, and also target younger readers. So they came up with the concept of doing Superman's teenage years. This created a host of problems (which are problems for the writers and creators even today) because the story establishes that Superman only began his public career when he arrived in Metropolis and met Lois Lane and became the mascot of the city and so on.

But anyway, they decided to do Superman the Teenage Years, had the character be called Superboy, had all the action take place in Smallville, Kansas. And indeed it's because of Superboy that Smallville, Pa and Ma Kent, Lana Lang (who was created as a Lois substitute because they couldn't shoehorn Lois in his young days), Pete Ross and other mainstays. Superboy led to stuff like Legion of Superheroes and other stuff, Luthor was retconned into being a kid Clark knew from Smallville (and they created an origin for his baldness because why not). * (More on this but it's tangential)

In either case, the concept of a high school hero as far as Superman goes had a precedent in Superboy, and before Superboy you had Fawcett's Captain Marvel with Billy Batson and his Marvel Family who all became teenagers as the comics went into print. Remember, Spider-Man graduated high school in Issue #28 (and very few issues of the Lee-Ditko era actually takes place in high school)...and as late as 2000, there were far more issues of Superman in any continuity, as a teenage superhero than Spider-Man (and in terms of issue count considering how successful Superboy was, even more today).




* The entire Superboy thing has presented a problem for Superman as a character ever since,
1) That was really successful and defining for a lot of people, and those fans (Mark Waid above all) didn't like how John Byrne removed all of that Post-Crisis stuff. It introduced a lot of elements of Superman's supporting cast and tied into Legion of Superheroes which became this sub-franchise and removing it affected a lot of that, or created problems for that. So that meant a lot of people have tried to reconfigure Superman by trying to merge the timelines.
2) Logically, the arrival of Superboy kind of raised a lot of big questions about Superman as a character. If upon discovering and mastering his powers he automatically started using it to save people, why was he confined to Smallville for so many years before coming to Metropolis to become a world-superhero. Also from a continuity sense, how is it that nobody heard of Superman until he came to Metropolis.
3) Removing Superboy, unintentionally, created a problem because now the question was why did Superman spend a decade or so between his teenage years and so on before coming to Metropolis to become a superhero. What did he do all those years? Stuff like BIRTHRIGHT, and even Snyder's Man of Steel, mined this in their takes, for better and worse. Superboy at least answered the question saying 'he was Superman from the get-go' even if it made no sense continuity-wise...but what that means was that you had to provide a psychological basis for a character who, arguably (not that I agree but I concur this is valid) was never intended or capable of having one.
4) Adaptations like Reeve's Superman and the STAS kind of skirt this issue. If you see Christopher Reeve's first film, there's a huge cut and gap between him going into the Fortress of Solitude and then coming to Metropolis and meeting Lois, and ,that gap isn't explained.

Superboy is kind of the heart of the conundrum with Superman and Batman and Spider-Man. Batman having no powers you can easily explain any gaps as saying, "He was training and learning" and it makes sense and it fills space and you can tap into that to introduce and allude to stuff. Spider-Man since he became an active superhero from the age of 15 and we follow him as he has grown into his mid-20s, that means no significant gaps exist. With Superman though either he's Superman all his life, which doesn't make sense in terms of the classic and essential status-quo (Clark Kent at Daily Planet pining for Lois Lane), or that dude decided to become Superman only fairly recently and it took him ages to decide on his mission and identity as a superhero and champion of earth.

And you can see that with Spider-Man, Stan Lee and Ditko, both obviously knowing Superman and Batman were able to see the problems in the characters and find solutions. Superman was introduced as an adult superhero originally but maybe later on they thought he should be a superhero from his teenage to adult years, and have love interests (Lana, Mermaid girl) before finding "the one" in Lois. That was all retrofitted later...whereas with Spider-Man they were able to plot all that from the get-go step-by-step. You can see that in the Ditko era, where Spider-Man was in a love-triangle with Betty and Liz, neither of whom were intended to be major love interests for Peter, while Mary Jane was set-up and foreshadowed to be "the one".

Oh ok. I never read those comics so I didn't mention them.

[Huntsman Spider]

Smallville's Luthor was an inventor and well received. As was Supergirl's Lex Luthor.

If we were to judge villains based on bad adaptations, Dr Doom would be considered the worst villain in comic history.

Fair points.

In Smallville they tried to mine the high school hero thing.

Yeah, and I'd add that Smallville basically took the old Superboy comics as referenced by Revolutionary_Jack and dialed up the angst and drama a la Spider-Man. He even had a bullying rival in the vein of early Flash Thompson and Lana Lang was (arguably) his version of Liz Allan, insofar as the plot began with him pining for her while she was dating his aforementioned bully/rival, and she eventually began to reciprocate his feelings.

[John Venus]

Smallville is when Superman felt the most Spider-man-like to me. Interestingly the creators of Smallville, Alfred Gough and Miles Miller would also go on to write the screen play for Spider-man 2 so the parallels may have been intentional.

On Smallville, Lana was Clark's 'Gwen Stacey', Lois felt like his 'Mary Jane' while Chloe was actually closer to comic book Lana Lang in being a reporter who helped Clark. The Lionel/Lex dynamic mirrored the Norman/Harry dynamic and Clark/Lex relationship had parallels with Peter/Harry relationship. Clark being a superhero in Smallville, albeit a secretive one, was from Superboy. Instead of 'responsibility', Clark was burdened by 'destiny' and his attempts to avoid his destiny ends up backfiring on him, much like it does for Peter. Clark even quits being his superhero self a few times. He lost his powers at the start of season 5 and when Tom Welling returned for the Crisis crossover, he had chosen to give up his powers and live a normal lives. He even has two kids (two daughters) , meanwhile Peter in MC2 has two kids (daughter and son).

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Smallville is when Superman felt the most Spider-man-like to me. Interestingly the creators of Smallville, Alfred Gough and Miles Miller would also go on to write the screen play for Spider-man 2 so the parallels may have been intentional.

Good catch, there.

On Smallville, Lana was Clark's 'Gwen Stacey', Lois felt like his 'Mary Jane' while Chloe was actually closer to comic book Lana Lang in being a reporter who helped Clark.

It's probably for the best if you don't talk about Chloe, that character was an annoying fan-insert at the get-go and is now unwatchable owing to NXVIM.

The Lionel/Lex dynamic mirrored the Norman/Harry dynamic and Clark/Lex relationship had parallels with Peter/Harry relationship.

That makes sense.

[Agent Z]

* The entire Superboy thing has presented a problem for Superman as a character ever since,
1) That was really successful and defining for a lot of people, and those fans (Mark Waid above all) didn't like how John Byrne removed all of that Post-Crisis stuff. It introduced a lot of elements of Superman's supporting cast and tied into Legion of Superheroes which became this sub-franchise and removing it affected a lot of that, or created problems for that. So that meant a lot of people have tried to reconfigure Superman by trying to merge the timelines.
2) Logically, the arrival of Superboy kind of raised a lot of big questions about Superman as a character. If upon discovering and mastering his powers he automatically started using it to save people, why was he confined to Smallville for so many years before coming to Metropolis to become a world-superhero. Also from a continuity sense, how is it that nobody heard of Superman until he came to Metropolis.
3) Removing Superboy, unintentionally, created a problem because now the question was why did Superman spend a decade or so between his teenage years and so on before coming to Metropolis to become a superhero. What did he do all those years? Stuff like BIRTHRIGHT, and even Snyder's Man of Steel, mined this in their takes, for better and worse. Superboy at least answered the question saying 'he was Superman from the get-go' even if it made no sense continuity-wise...but what that means was that you had to provide a psychological basis for a character who, arguably (not that I agree but I concur this is valid) was never intended or capable of having one.
4) Adaptations like Reeve's Superman and the STAS kind of skirt this issue. If you see Christopher Reeve's first film, there's a huge cut and gap between him going into the Fortress of Solitude and then coming to Metropolis and meeting Lois, and ,that gap isn't explained.

Superboy is kind of the heart of the conundrum with Superman and Batman and Spider-Man. Batman having no powers you can easily explain any gaps as saying, "He was training and learning" and it makes sense and it fills space and you can tap into that to introduce and allude to stuff. Spider-Man since he became an active superhero from the age of 15 and we follow him as he has grown into his mid-20s, that means no significant gaps exist. With Superman though either he's Superman all his life, which doesn't make sense in terms of the classic and essential status-quo (Clark Kent at Daily Planet pining for Lois Lane), or that dude decided to become Superman only fairly recently and it took him ages to decide on his mission and identity as a superhero and champion of earth.

This is one of those "problems" that fans make to be far complicated than it actually is.

If Superboy exists and didn't leave Smallville until he was an adult, that's just being a regular teenager. If you want, have him operate in secret until he feels ready to go public. If Superboy doesn't exist, that's no big deal. What was he doing all those years before becoming Superman? Anything a normal person would do like going to college.

[Agent Z]

It's probably for the best if you don't talk about Chloe, that character was an annoying fan-insert at the get-go and is now unwatchable owing to NXVIM.

She's only unwatchable for people who never liked her in the first place. Most audiences don't let what an actor does affect how they feel about a fictional character.

It's also funny to have Chloe get criticized for being a fan insert when that's what Jimmy Olsen has been.