when i wrote generic i meant general.
Fighting against the status quo without offering any solutions isn't going to make Superman relevant. At best, he'll come across as a rebel without a cause. Black Panther resonated well with people because it actually offered some ideas for change rather than just railing against how things were.
I didn't say he shouldn't find solutions, I said that the answers shouldn't be clear. And I wouldn't exactly have him talk about our actual problems, just about the nature of society itself through fictional problems in the DC universe. Like how Civil War was about privacy and public safety but with secret identities.
I’m actually okay with Jon becoming a younger Superman and Clark looking a tad older but still being Superman, I think that besides the age up it offers the best of both worlds with gaining a new legacy Superman who can have new stories told while also making sure that we can keep Clark because he does deserve to stay and fans should be able to keep reading him. Personally originals and legacies should be able to be available at the same time when possible.
"It's fun and it's cool, so that's all that matters. It's what comics are for, Duh."
Words to live by.
But the problem is that Civil War was too on-the-nose. It wanted to use RW anti-vigilante laws on one side, and conventional comic-book logic on the other. It was like making a metaphor, and then comparing the metaphor to the real thing. It mixed real-world logic with comic book logic in a way that didn't make sense from an in-universe PoV.
Why? Well.. the whole superhero thing has been going on in-universe for DECADES. It's not some new problem that hasn't been tackled before. It's literally the entire reason for the existence of multiple in-universe organizations. So you're literally changing the way in-universe rules work just to make a story point. That ruins the analogy, and in the case of Civil War ruined the story too.
Sure the basic question of "is it a good idea to let anonymous vigilantes pretend to be super-police?" is worth asking, but Civil War barely even tried to pose the question let alone answer it. Sure it had a few good moments where the question got toyed with... such as Peter Parker publicly revealing his identity. "With great power comes great responsibility." But can you claim to be responsible when no one even knows your name? Pete decided that no, actually, hiding your identity really isn't responsible.
But it gets out of hand quickly and some seriously bad stuff happens instead of discussing the matter. Why? well, as I mentioned earlier, this idea isn't new(in-universe) and everyone had already made up their minds what they wanted to do, and thus people weren't talking. In the end the question gets shelved instead of answered and people decide it's not worth fighting over... instead of resolving anything. Which kinda made the entire event a moot point.
Of course... this is a question even more salient in DC, since DC has even LESSS major character with a public identity... like everyone's favorite big blue boy scout.
I'm not proposing Superman adapt Civil War. I'm stating that as a good example of heroes dealing with the issues of their world in a way that relates to society.
I don't think that's it, guys. I think people write and consume evil Superman simply because evil Superman is a terrifying villain. See Omni-Man from Invincible for another example.
What Superman fans hope for is that writers will come along who are talented enough to make hero Superman just as compelling. It shouldn't be that hard.
The problem with the fixation on “evil Superman” is the fact there are so many evil Kryptonisns already. I suppose unlike Zod, Clark requires you to trust him first.
I think what makes "evil Superman" such a popular and common troupe is that it sells itself.
Everyone on earth knows who Superman is and what he's about. They know he's a unstoppable force and immovable object rolled into one. Short of religious figures he's one of the most celebrated and beloved character/concepts in human history, with a global reach unheard of until modern times.
So to take all that and spin the archetype on its head? You instantly get a sense of deep, bitter betrayal because everyone knows such a character is meant to be a force for good. You instantly cement the threat the villain poses because everyone understands how powerful Clark is. And it's f*cking scary. There's a reason why villains like Homelander and Omni-Man are all built from the Superman archetype; it's a quick and dirty way to establish a connection with your audience and establish some baseline assumptions.
And in today's world where we don't trust those in power? Who's more powerful than Superman? Who better to use as a mouthpiece for that dissatisfaction than the godfather of superheroes? When we feel betrayed by our leaders and elected officials, when we question the system....evil Superman lends itself very easily to that mindset and can garner instant appeal. You can almost judge how happy people are with their authority figures by the amount of evil Supermen in popular culture.
"We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."
~ Black Panther.
Superman is superhero religious figure.And No,Maybe the problem is people find a guy "so good" and "locked in" good guy thing rather obnoxious and wants to tear it down.I don't find evil superman as great or scary villian or layered for that matter.Most of them are mustache twirling or the rest are "i am gonna save you.this time by force".Even the most complex ones.What is with savior nonsense?it seriously needs to die.Get characters motivations right.Darkknight returns exists because Clark's motivation is to save people.Not to do the right thing and be outcast.Be hated or hunted for it
"People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"
At the end of the day Superman is an authoritarians fantasy. A strongman who is routinely stronger than anything the world can throw at him who is explicitly stated to be "destined to change the world" by his creators. If you think about it that sounds more like a tag line for a final boss or a final antagonist than the hero. Probably plays into why he works so well as a villain.
Rules are for lesser men, Charlie - Grand Pa Joe ~ Willy Wonka & Chocolate Factory
I understand that people outside of the comic book world believe that superman is the strongest, which is why a villainous superman is dangerous, but a person who reads comics knows that evil superman is a joke. He is as dumb as a stone (he is not, but he writes to him as such), he has 20 weaknesses, his ability is null, plus half a league is as strong as Superman, the only way for Superman to be dangerous, is by being a villain in the shadows, who manipulates the world and bathes in the core of the sun (something no evil superman can do). The reason for the evil superman is because many comic book fans want their favorite hero to punch superman, or superman to take a beating.