The Positive Contribution of Evil Superman Analogues

[manwhohaseverything]

A movie that gives zero time or space for superman the alien dude amongst us for audience to empathise with the guy being shoved into role of jesus,devil,savior or whatever.the guy who for his entire life was running around scared of humanity as ghost or a phantom from blue collar job to another.Just snipts which was also cut btw.the only impactful scene was the alien saving the people that nuked him. that's not good enough.Espiecially when the majority of the time is spent on making us empathise with the "human" and his xenophobia.Normally,i don't care for speeches.Even the best lines of resilience, optimism..etc is given by the human and his "redemption".A second movie which also doesn't dedicate enough time to what the man of tomorrow or action should be given.That's just a fact.
i hate the theatrical version with a passion.But, Snyder and wb needs to put more effort into showing superman.Give a him a damn journey away from the effing shared universe.
I won't go into the problems with the action sequences in man of steel which resulted in audience rather than being captivated,zoning out.The climax and the complaint with that is just a symptom.The entertainment didn't happen.

[The World]

And what would that be?

No one cares if Goliath swats David if David is a jerk. Superman's fanbase has wound itself into a not over the idea that Superman beating up Batman would make Superman look like a bully. Bruce is a prick who pushes people around for fun and is better at fighting his colleagues than his actual rogues. People get a kick out of watching these Superman parodies slaughter people, the fear that Superman putting Bruce in his place was going to negatively impact Superman always was and always has been a shadow on the wall nothing more. Just like the genius idea that people couldn't handle the concept of Superman having a flying dog.

*Also looking through this thread isn't it strange to believe at one point Superman and Batman were best friends? People always deny that the World Finest stopped being a thing after COIE but it always seemed like the proof is in the pudding to the point where the fanbases don't even seem to like each other. Just another silly silver age concept that isn't "grounded" enough for modern writers.

[Agent Z]

No one cares if Goliath swats David if David is a jerk. Superman's fanbase has wound itself into a not over the idea that Superman beating up Batman would make Superman look like a bully. Bruce is a prick who pushes people around for fun and is better at fighting his colleagues than his actual rogues. People get a kick out of watching these Superman parodies slaughter people, the fear that Superman putting Bruce in his place was going to negatively impact Superman always was and always has been a shadow on the wall nothing more. Just like the genius idea that people couldn't handle the concept of Superman having a flying dog.

Okay, I really do not get what led to you misblaming the Superman fandom for this and not the writers.

*Also looking through this thread isn't it strange to believe at one point Superman and Batman were best friends? People always deny that the World Finest stopped being a thing after COIE but it always seemed like the proof is in the pudding to the point where the fanbases don't even seem to like each other. Just another silly silver age concept that isn't "grounded" enough for modern writers.

Pretty sure Jimmy was Superman's best friend not Batman. Either way, Batman was heading down that path before post crisis so the blame on wanting "grounded" writing is unwarranted.

[DochaDocha]

The natural pecking order of DC makes Batman the top dog among heroes, not Superman, and nothing good has ever come out of that stupid and not at all natural concept anyway. Superman shouldn't beat any of the other heavy hitters in the Justice League more often to a notable degree than they would beat him without special advantages or especially good match-ups, and the DC verse is luckily not Invincible or One Punch Man, or Irredeemable, or the Boys, and so on, if Superman for some reason i still don't understand must make others look bad he can screw off into his own verse like Batman probably should have long ago.

Evil Superman shouldn't be terrifying in the same way like Homelander or even just Omni-Man, specifically because he should be still in a shared verse full of other powerful superheroes and supervillains with their own stories and not in a verse full of scrubs who just exist to make him look more powerful, the most terrifying should be that if even a character who is so immensely heroic like Superman should be can get corrupted others would probably follow.

They typically don't get any aspect of Superman correct, because most of them are not even especially competent, but just overpowered in comparison to the rest of their verses which just exist for that purpose. Invincible at least makes Omni-Man competent, but also made him overpowered, because the entire verse is basically still just about the Viltrumites. To make an evil Superman competent is a good idea, to make anyone else look bad or underpowered in comparison is a bad idea, Bat-God is still the best example for that.

Okay, let's start with my original "pecking order" comment. Yeah, Batman's on the top these days, but most of us agree that's a bunch of hogwash driven by plot armor and such. Could he beat any of the JL members? Perhaps, but he should lose to most of them, blah blah blah. Superman's always picked as the go-to hero-gone-rogue because it's generally understood he'd be the most dangerous/lethal/what have you. So if you're always going to pick on Superman to fill that role, then the story should reflect this. If you think Omni-Man's killing of the Guardians of the Globe is too much, I get that, but I'm saying the one "positive contribution" (per this thread's title) is that at least it pits EVIL SUPERMAN! at the top. Homelander hasn't had an analogous scene, but its one "positive contribution" is that he's the one member of The Seven that everyone agrees you don't want to mess with.

So if you disagree with the execution, I get you, but the one thing both series get right is that they don't pick on Superman by making him the main villain AND portraying him as like Public Enemy #4.

[SiegePerilous02]

Pretty sure Jimmy was Superman's best friend not Batman. Either way, Batman was heading down that path before post crisis so the blame on wanting "grounded" writing is unwarranted.

Superman can have more than one close friend. Jimmy may have been best friend overall, but Batman was definitely the closest friend among the superhero community.

Even if foundation for Bruce getting darker was in pre-Crisis, the universe getting rebooted and erasing their history of friendship didn't help because there was no longer a natural outgrowth. Frank Miller stated that it didn't make sense for them to get along, and people drank the Kool-Aid on that, which is why the idea of a World's Finest friendship is considered outdated by a lot of fanboys.

[Quinlan58]

I'm not sure you can say DC or the fanbase doesn't care about the World's Finest friendship. I mean, basically every Batman/Superman comic ever has been about how deep down they're similar and they admire each other so much and they consider each other close friends and yadda yadda yadda. The biggest real change is that they upped the tension, but for the most part every story focusing on both of them relies on the reader understanding they're close friends (however shitty DC is at portraying the friendship). Yes, even Injustice. And no, they're not only interested in deconstructing that.

As for the fanbase, yes, for the most part I feel they're interested more in the idea they've built of that dynamic (which I'll dub drama queen tsundere Bat and wholesome simpleton Super) than on its reality, but even that dynamic has a lot of fans. The Bat/Super dynamic is so popular that it's a huge part of what makes Kon/Tim and Jon/Damian popular (and there was a lot of people saying Jon and Damian would be the closest of friends before those two ever met, purely on the idea of "oh, Son of Batman and Son of Superman").

[marhawkman]

I'm not sure you can say DC or the fanbase doesn't care about the World's Finest friendship. I mean, basically every Batman/Superman comic ever has been about how deep down they're similar and they admire each other so much and they consider each other close friends and yadda yadda yadda. The biggest real change is that they upped the tension, but for the most part every story focusing on both of them relies on the reader understanding they're close friends (however shitty DC is at portraying the friendship). Yes, even Injustice. And no, they're not only interested in deconstructing that.

As for the fanbase, yes, for the most part I feel they're interested more in the idea they've built of that dynamic (which I'll dub drama queen tsundere Bat and wholesome simpleton Super) than on its reality, but even that dynamic has a lot of fans. The Bat/Super dynamic is so popular that it's a huge part of what makes Kon/Tim and Jon/Damian popular (and there was a lot of people saying Jon and Damian would be the closest of friends before those two ever met, purely on the idea of "oh, Son of Batman and Son of Superman").

well, the Batman/Superman friendship... is a bit stretching the definition of "friend" in some continuities. So it'd make sense for Jon and Damian to have things to talk about.

[manwhohaseverything]

Well,some people got into jon cause he gut punched damian the first time they meet.For many,damian was bruce on steriods when it comes to being an ******* so wanted to see that..But,supersons is a silverage idea..

[Quinlan58]

Well,some people got into jon cause he gut punched damian the first time they meet.For many,damian was bruce on steriods when it comes to being an ******* so wanted to see that..But,supersons is a silverage idea..

I loved that moment. I sort of wanted Jon and Damian to forever hate each other for the pettiest of reasons as it further escalated into Mxyzptlk levels of comedic absurdity.

[Rightoya]

Actually,superman has'nt really ever been benefited by a "shared" universe..The character can tell his own stories much better aways.Same for ww and captain marvel..Also,omni man exists in mark grayson's world.This idea that shared universe is some great storytelling and non-shared universe don't have power structure,world building,scaling..etc is just not true..

If Superman would be in his own verse , he could be as overpowered and make anyone else look as bad as he wants, because the rest would just exist for him. But DC will probably never give up on the shared verse for the comics.

Mark Grayson's world is written for the Viltrumites and an overpowered Omni Man, the original Guardians of the Globes main purposes were to be th victims of the betrayal of Omni-Man and to be a template for the new Guardians as example, and any writer who would write Superman or Kryptonians and the Justice League with that mind-set should never get allowed to write even 1 Justice League issue.

Okay, let's start with my original "pecking order" comment. Yeah, Batman's on the top these days, but most of us agree that's a bunch of hogwash driven by plot armor and such. Could he beat any of the JL members? Perhaps, but he should lose to most of them, blah blah blah. Superman's always picked as the go-to hero-gone-rogue because it's generally understood he'd be the most dangerous/lethal/what have you. So if you're always going to pick on Superman to fill that role, then the story should reflect this. If you think Omni-Man's killing of the Guardians of the Globe is too much, I get that, but I'm saying the one "positive contribution" (per this thread's title) is that at least it pits EVIL SUPERMAN! at the top. Homelander hasn't had an analogous scene, but its one "positive contribution" is that he's the one member of The Seven that everyone agrees you don't want to mess with.

So if you disagree with the execution, I get you, but the one thing both series get right is that they don't pick on Superman by making him the main villain AND portraying him as like Public Enemy #4.

Superman would be hogwash too, the entire rest of the Justice League or even just 2 heavy hitters vs just Superman should always end with an easy victory for the Justice League except Superman has special amps or phenomenal preperation, but the concept of special amps works for Batman too and preperation is typically his primary justification, and i couldn't think of any good reason why an evil Superman should be more lethal or dangerous than an evil and not jobbing Flash, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman or Green Lantern if we take a look at their power-sets and how powerful they should be. The reason why anyone makes evil Supermen is not because of his powers, if that would be truly a powers question anyone would just make evil Doctor Fates, the reason why anyone makes evil Supermen is because he is the most well known comic superhero and gets most frequently associated with being a boys scout.

That would mean Wonder Woman and Aquaman should have been unquestionably at the top in Flashpoint as example, that was not case, they on the contrary even made Wonder Woman much weaker than she was before in Post Crisis. And to put Superman unquestionably at the top just because he becomes evil is still not a good concept, except they either don't let it happen in the shared verse, or at least justify it with special amps or phenomenal but not Bat-God stupid preperation.

Main villains are often not the most powerful, and 1 of the additional problems of that concept is that Superman should be not able to become the main villain of the DC verse just with his own powers to begin with, not even Silver age Superman would have been powerful enough to terrify the evil multiversal cosmical villains running around nowadays. Just take a look at the latest Darkseid who folded Spectre, or any second villain of the Rebirth Justice League Dark as examples, why should all the evil or chaotic neutral cosmical, magical, higher-dimensional, and so on beings care if Superman became evil, if they don't collectively lost their powers could they just trap him into a pocket dimension, transform him into an ant, send him back to the big-bang, and so on if he annoys them.

[DochaDocha]

Superman would be hogwash too, the entire rest of the Justice League or even just 2 heavy hitters vs just Superman should always end with an easy victory for the Justice League except Superman has special amps or phenomenal preperation, but the concept of special amps works for Batman too and preperation is typically his primary justification, and i couldn't think of any good reason why an evil Superman should be more lethal or dangerous than an evil and not jobbing Flash, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman or Green Lantern if we take a look at their power-sets and how powerful they should be. The reason why anyone makes evil Supermen is not because of his powers, if that would be truly a powers question anyone would just make evil Doctor Fates, the reason why anyone makes evil Supermen is because he is the most well known comic superhero and gets most frequently associated with being a boys scout.

That would mean Wonder Woman and Aquaman should have been unquestionably at the top in Flashpoint as example, that was not case, they on the contrary even made Wonder Woman much weaker than she was before in Post Crisis. And to put Superman unquestionably at the top just because he becomes evil is still not a good concept, except they either don't let it happen in the shared verse, or at least justify it with special amps or phenomenal but not Bat-God stupid preperation.

Main villains are often not the most powerful, and 1 of the additional problems of that concept is that Superman should be not able to become the main villain of the DC verse just with his own powers to begin with, not even Silver age Superman would have been powerful enough to terrify the evil multiversal cosmical villains running around nowadays. Just take a look at the latest Darkseid who folded Spectre, or any second villain of the Rebirth Justice League Dark as examples, why should all the evil or chaotic neutral cosmical, magical, higher-dimensional, and so on beings care if Superman became evil, if they don't collectively lost their powers could they just trap him into a pocket dimension, transform him into an ant, send him back to the big-bang, and so on if he annoys them.

Disagree with the bold. His powers make the story's hero come across as a huge underdog. It's just easy for casual viewers to understand without further explanation. That's why the Suicide Squad trailers for both movies mention Superman directly, and not any other Justice League member. It's why he's the villain of the upcoming SS video game, the villain in his one Batman Beyond appearance, the primary antagonist among the Justice Lords, Batman's antagonist in The Dark Knight Returns and BvS, and Injustice. You could point out issue X of comic book Y why hero Z is actually more powerful than Superman, but that doesn't resonate as well so that's why Superman gets picked on the most as the good guy gone bad. I'm sure the boy scout image helps, but it only works when in conjunction with the massive power set.

My whole point is if you're going to demean Superman by making him a bad guy, then make him a proper bad guy. I'd say The Boys goes more for the idea that Homelander can beat any other of the Seven one-on-one but a team effort can bring him down, whereas Invincible showed us he could beat the entire GG in an ambush attack (and don't forget the aspect that it was an ambush and the GGs suspected he might be mind-controlled and didn't go all out at first), and we can argue whether or not the details were right or wrong. I'm just arguing they made him effective, which is better than all those contrarian thought pieces from the 80s - 2000s that Superman really isn't all that powerful and heroes A, B, C, D, etc. could actually beat him.

[Vordan]

So, when Batman gets to be saved by Alfred it doesn't count but Superman getting help from Sinestro (which he barely needed) makes him a weakling?

Citation needed on him “barely needing” help, and nice job moving the goalposts from “he wins plenty” to “so what if he constantly loses and gets saved by others, that doesn’t make him incompetent!”

Which doesn't remote apply to Superman. It feels like your issue is that an evil Superman loses at all not how many times he does lose.

He loses every time he and Batman have a direct confrontation except once which is immediately followed up by Alfred beating him to a pulp.

You know, not liking how NRS portrays Superman is one thing but accusing them of having contempt for him is just petty and unfounded.

Not really. You can tell how a creator feels about a character by how they use them. They love Batman, it’s obvious because they center him as the main hero. They despise Superman and WW because they make them heinous monsters. They love Harley Quinn because they made her a hero and shill her hard. Sometimes a spade is just a spade Z.

[Agent Z]

Disagree with the bold. His powers make the story's hero come across as a huge underdog. It's just easy for casual viewers to understand without further explanation. That's why the Suicide Squad trailers for both movies mention Superman directly, and not any other Justice League member. It's why he's the villain of the upcoming SS video game, the villain in his one Batman Beyond appearance, the primary antagonist among the Justice Lords, Batman's antagonist in The Dark Knight Returns and BvS, and Injustice. You could point out issue X of comic book Y why hero Z is actually more powerful than Superman, but that doesn't resonate as well so that's why Superman gets picked on the most as the good guy gone bad. I'm sure the boy scout image helps, but it only works when in conjunction with the massive power set.

My whole point is if you're going to demean Superman by making him a bad guy, then make him a proper bad guy. I'd say The Boys goes more for the idea that Homelander can beat any other of the Seven one-on-one but a team effort can bring him down, whereas Invincible showed us he could beat the entire GG in an ambush attack (and don't forget the aspect that it was an ambush and the GGs suspected he might be mind-controlled and didn't go all out at first), and we can argue whether or not the details were right or wrong. I'm just arguing they made him effective, which is better than all those contrarian thought pieces from the 80s - 2000s that Superman really isn't all that powerful and heroes A, B, C, D, etc. could actually beat him.

The period in any superhero could beat Superman was very short-lived if it ever existed at all. Starting from the 90s with the Death of Superman, DC went right back to establishing him as unmatched by any other hero.

And please, no one bring up Supergirl being said to be stronger than him which was retconned almost immediately (largely because of how obnoxious Kara was when she was brought into the post crisis universe).

[Vordan]

The same game has him save Batman from Brainiac and allows you to beat Batman by playing Superman.

That ending isn’t canon, which is why they tied it up in a comic.

Please leave the goal posts where they are.

See my other response.

Not the retort you think it is. Getting your ass beat by your enemy’s butler who then takes your greatest foe to safety is a loss not a win.

I don't, were you? Between yours and Docha's comments that seems to be the type of thing people want an Evil Superman to do.

What Superman fans want from an Evil Superman is for them to stop being made at this point. But I’ll take Clark killing Batman over the Shazam jobbing.

Again, moving the goalposts.

So no you don’t get it. Well then this is a waste of time.

You know what, I'll just leave this link to a list of feats by Injustice Superman. If you still think he's a weakling after that, I don't know what more to say to you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/respectthre...s_netherrealm/

Lmaoooooo you didn’t even read the comments did you? Here let me post one for you:

I find it weird that in this universe, Supes doesn’t hold back but it seems like every time he gets into a fight, 8-9/10 he gets beaten. Just found it a little weird but I guess that’s plot armor

Even redditters can see what you’re denying Z.

Broke my cardinal rule about never replying to you with regards to Snyder or Injustice so the L is mine. This is the last post from me about this.

[Agent Z]

Citation needed on him “barely needing” help,

He was still ready to fight even with the broken arm. Not to mention it wasn't an easy fight for Diana.

and nice job moving the goalposts from “he wins plenty” to “so what if he constantly loses and gets saved by others, that doesn’t make him incompetent!”

I'm not moving the goalposts. You are the one saying things that are blatantly untrue. I never said Injustice Superman was invincible. I simply pointed out the handful of times he loses does not take away from his overall threat. A villain losing doesn't automatically make him a weakling otherwise no villain can be taken seriously.

He loses every time he and Batman have a direct confrontation except once which is immediately followed up by Alfred beating him to a pulp.

Yeah, remember what I said about you saying things that were untrue? The opening fight in IJ2 is the only one Superman loses to Batman not counting the two-choice ending.

Not really. You can tell how a creator feels about a character by how they use them. They love Batman, itÂ’s obvious because they center him as the main hero. They despise Superman and WW because they make them heinous monsters. They love Harley Quinn because they made her a hero and shill her hard. Sometimes a spade is just a spade Z.

And sometimes fans make assumptions based on their own biases.

Mortal Kombat fans were accusing NRS of the same thing in regards to Liu Kang when they killed him off in MK 9 and brought him back as a villain in MK X. Then MK 11 had him becoming a Fire God and being the one to defeat the main villain, and all was forgiven. Joe Quesada loves Spider-Man and he wrote One More Day, perhaps the most hated Spider-Man story of the 21st Century if not the entirety of the character's history.

How much the writers coddle a character is a terrible metric to use for determining how they feel about them. A writer's job is to tell the story they think will get the most attention. Whether they succeed is another matter. Unless they outright say they hate the character or other people in the creative team say they do, such an accusation has no evidence to support it.