Pros and Cons of Superman Not Being In A Shared Universe

[Ra-El]

A person is given more definition for each world view they are pit against; every interaction further refines your sense of identity.

Reducing Clark's world reduces Clark himself. The sour grapes we have as a result of every narrative not revolving around him isn't worth losing all the wonderful stories and interactions only possible from a shared universe. I will not lose my World's Finest stories with Clark, Bruce and Dick just because corporate greed means we must pander to braindead fanboys.

Big Pro: Just look at what Robert Kirkman did with Invincible. He created a whole world around the character and Mark was able to affect and have an importance to his world that Superman just can't have in the DCU.
And Invincible World is a big and diverse one, full of sci-fi and concepts that Superman have been lacking for a long time. Invincible War, Conquest, Viltrumite War are examples of big story lines and events that, honestly, dwarfed almost everything that happened to Superman in the last decade, imo.

Superman have 2 comics every month, in a perfect world DC would make one it's own universe, an elseworld where only Superman mithology exists.

[Soubhagya]

You can have Superman with a shared world. Supreme is a good example. There were analogues of Supergirl and Krypto. In time versions of Batman and Robin cropped up as well. Supreme had JSA and JLA too. Everything you may want can be done outside of the shared universe by being a bit creative. That's all.

I think in conics its fine. I have issues, but its workable. But in films and other media a wider DC hasn't worked in Superman's favor at all. Instead of developing Superman, what they did was use him to develop the DCEU. Result is except for some fans, people at large didn't care for this version of Superman. There were issues in Man of Steel. People weren't exactly in love with Cavill's version. Instead of trying to improve, it went downhill. Fiascos like save Martha or Super moustache made the character almost like a joke.

And need i say about Injustice or Knightmare of Superman going evil. There has been benefits of a shared universe. But cons aren't absent.

[Tzigone]

I don't think his lack of real impact is because he lives in a shared universe (even if that's also a factor). I think it's more because DC wants to keep the world more or less ecognizable as our own, and I don't think that'd change if he wasn't part of the shared universe.

I completely agree. As evidence to the court, I present that no heroes ever ended WWII back when they were (much more) standalone.

I understand that was a long time ago, but nonetheless, comics either operate in "our" world (basically) or in another. Superman has always been in "ours" which does mean there it tends to return to a status quo in regards to real-world things.

Edit: At least, none of the ones I read ended WWII. I didn't read them all, and certainly didn't read every publisher. This is a pretty much a CYA comment.

[PCN24454]

The “A-Listers” could be taken out of a shared universe and work perfectly fine. In DC’s case they were all created to exist independently on their own anyway. It’s the lesser known characters, your Blue Beetles, your Green Arrows, who benefit from being in the shared universe with Batman & Superman. Marvel would be hurt far more by it imo (aside form the mutants) since they were built as a shared universe pretty much right off the bat. That said:

I would say that Arrow was best when he was just in his own universe.

All characters could benefit from being in their own universe since they'd be allowed to develop their own stories.

[manwhohaseverything]

I am baffled that people are talking as if non-shared universe don't get to have relationships or dynamics with other characters.

[PCN24454]

I am baffled that people are talking as if non-shared universe don't get to have relationships or dynamics with other characters.

Strangely, I agree with you. It's just that the relationships are between those in the respective hero's circle.

This is arguably why Superman/Wonder Woman is a bad ship. It makes Wonder Woman into a Superman character.

[manwhohaseverything]

Strangely, I agree with you. It's just that the relationships are between those in the respective hero's circle.

This is arguably why Superman/Wonder Woman is a bad ship. It makes Wonder Woman into a Superman character.

Characters could just spin-off and be the their own hero.Why settle for batman or ww when you can have entire zwarriors or strawhat pirates or whatever?

[I'm a Fish]

Pro: Sups wouldn't be brainwashed into fighting other heroes all the time.

[Powerboy]

Positives.

Superman would be the most powerful hero.

The setting would be Supermancentric.

Superman would not be dumbed down or weakened so other characters could look better.

Negatives.

No interactions with other heroes.

[Ascended]

I came in here just to point to Invincible, but Ra-El beat me to it. If being self-contained gave us Superman comics that were of Invincible quality I'd take that in a heartbeat and not shed a single tear over losing the shared universe dynamics, because Invincible was the comic that every superhero comic wishes it could be.

But a lot of the "pro's" I'm seeing here seem to be taking "self contained" to mean "one creator calling the shots" rather than just "no other IP's exist." Those're two different things, and Clark being a self-contained IP doesn't automatically mean we'd get Invincible levels of quality. Invincible was great not because it was self contained (and technically it existed in the same world as Spawn and Savage Dragon) but because a single writer was calling the shots from the first to final issues.

However, a Superman who doesn't have to deal with Diana and Bruce and Barry and Zee.....that's a Superman who gets to be the #1 in his world, without all the bet hedging that tries to give everyone their due and ultimately devalues everyone. It means that the setting can be built around Clark entirely, without rules and details that don't serve his particular kind of narrative. You can decide how "magic" works in the setting (or if it even exists at all) without worrying about how that impacts Zee and Fate and the others, and only concern yourself with how it affects Clark.

Bottom line, a self-contained Superverse will give you a tighter, more focused setting and narrative where Clark's position as the #1 hero isn't called into question by other IP's. But that doesn't mean we'd get the kind of uber-tight, super-focused storytelling that we'd get from a single creator doing the entire publication.

As for con's.....honestly, I don't think there are too many. We'd obviously lose Clark's relationships to other heroes like Bruce, Diana, Dick, the League, etc. Those relationships could be replaced easily enough though, with heroes designed specifically for Clark's universe, just like how Invincible used proxy Leaguers, proxy Avengers, proxy X-Men, proxy Titans, etc., to fill out it's universe and give Mark other heroes to interact with. But you *do* lose a lot as far as the "rule of cool" goes; Superman hanging out with Batman or Wonder Woman is inherently cooler than Superman hanging out with "Ratman" or "Amazing Girl."

I don't feel like Clark has been so well served by the shared universe that it's something he needs, and I wouldn't argue with him being in his own universe, but that's not gonna solve the problems with the franchise either.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

A shared universe is a storytelling shortcut nothing more.

Removing it wouldn't automatically make Superman better without you consciously deciding to do better storytelling.

A good tip for storytelling is JMS saying there is a 1000 stories I could tell with a married Peter Parker and a 1000 more I could tell with a single Peter Parker. I'm paraphrasing but I think the point is clear.

If you are concerned with Clark being overshadowed by other characters, that already happened in Smallville. Michael Rosenbaum's portrayal owns the stage and becomes the most interesting character in the room. No shared universe involved.

[Ra-El]

A shared universe is a storytelling shortcut nothing more.

Removing it wouldn't automatically make Superman better without you consciously deciding to do better storytelling.

A good tip for storytelling is JMS saying there is a 1000 stories I could tell with a married Peter Parker and a 1000 more I could tell with a single Peter Parker. I'm paraphrasing but I think the point is clear.

If you are concerned with Clark being overshadowed by other characters, that already happened in Smallville. Michael Rosenbaum's portrayal owns the stage and becomes the most interesting character in the room. No shared universe involved.

Consequence of keeping Superman forever trapped in Smallville and the creators having disgust to the main character actually becoming Superman, wearing the uniform and even flying.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Consequence of keeping Superman forever trapped in Smallville and the creators having disgust to the main character actually becoming Superman, wearing the uniform and even flying.

True but the failings of Smallville wasn't my point. My point was there are other problems that he would have besides a shared universe.

I could talk about the BLEACH series and it's problems too. But none of those are because of a shared universe.

Replace BLEACH with Harry Potter if you haven't seen it.

[Ra-El]

True but the failings of Smallville wasn't my point. My point was there are other problems that he would have besides a shared universe.

I could talk about the BLEACH series and it's problems too. But none of those are because of a shared universe.

Replace BLEACH with Harry Potter if you haven't seen it.

I get what you're saying, the creative failing at Superman can't be blamed only on the fact he exists in a shared universe.
But, removing him from a shared universe would also remove a lot of the tentations some creatives seem to have when writing Superman, as an example we have the fact that in the last 3 or 5 runs of the character Batman was present in one of the first arcs. In a solo universe Tomasi, Jurgens, King, Bendis and PKJ wouldn't have a Batman to use.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I get what you're saying, the creative failing at Superman can't be blamed only on the fact he exists in a shared universe.
But, removing him from a shared universe would also remove a lot of the tentations some creatives seem to have when writing Superman, as an example we have the fact that in the last 3 or 5 runs of the character Batman was present in one of the first arcs. In a solo universe Tomasi, Jurgens, King, Bendis and PKJ wouldn't have a Batman to use.

I get it but they are writers. They would have found other characters to use or stories to tell.