Controversial Superman Opinions

[NaVi]

Kryptonite and all its weaknesses must be gone (they are fine for a young superman, but not for the world's greatest hero). Before they were a weakness of Superman but now they are of the character and his universe. Beyond Batman and his thousand times more effective kryptonite, I am tired of reading stories with a villain whose only threat is that he knows Superman's weakness. Metropolis is the home of superman but not his world, it is ridiculous that 99% of the stories of a planet destroyer focus on a city, it is sad (pathetic) to see how superman fights with zod or breiniac and all the destruction they cause They are a couple of streetlights that have fallen, superman should travel throughout the universe, and yes, I know that it is the house of green lantern, but if there are 1000 heroes on earth, in the universe with a little effort for sure you can have 2.

[manwhohaseverything]

Sure it is, that's all Superman does and he's in more titles than Action Comics. What drama are you talking about? I'd understands if this was about Spiderman since he's a character who's in a soap opera but this is Superman. Everyone cares about their parents, especially a family as close as the Kent's. That's all incredibly vague. Superman constantly saves the world from alien conquerers, super-villains and the mob.

sorry, i can't engage in this . You haven't actually addressed anything i have said. only used slipperyslope arguments and examples. Those are'nt really worth a response. . Big whoop! He takes on problems from outside that can be clearly marked as "outsider bad guys" because they are alien. Any chance of introspection, looking at yourself and your own society isn't done. The character's introspections largely has him. and what? His death? To show his "suffering". That's laughable.what? am i supposed to feel bad about that?Tommy doesn't break the reality created by his fiction . His comedy when used is designed to poke fun with a point. Deadpool rarely does that. As if those two are the same.No i didn't, criticise every superman from goldenage. Only The character's gradual change into something that's unrecognisable. There is a big difference. Moreover, i told you before. I don't flippin care for snyder superman. I take it easy on snyder superman and his fans. Because there is mob mentality and bullying that happens to anyone who Likes that superman. The last thing i want to do is take on an easy target. Well mate, Superman was a defensive bully. He bullied back bullies that where picking on the weak. Its clear to me you haven't read any goldenage comics. Are you kidding me? Goldenage superman didn't change anything?Me on the otherhand has read both goldenage and modern superman stories. The only character that's modelled remotely after siegel and shuster's superman is morrison's tshirt and jeans superman whom i have said was fantastic already.Modern superman is postcrisis superman from the 2000's who replaced new52 superman as well.You seriously, don't see how superman is all about drama, now? When was the last time superman had a good action sequence and the prioritiy was that in book? That's right it doesn't happen. Heck! One of the reason new52 superman was replaced is shipping. That tells you something.

Mate, Anyone will tell you playing "the idiot" is shonen gag. The characters in real tough situations doesn't behave like that.The character always stand up for their convictions. As far as i am concerned, even if that were true, i would take any idiot who actually tries and exerts himself over an intelligent person who doesn't and is all about not looking bad infront of people. Same logic i used for strength applies here.

Just like strength, that isn't used to protect the weak is no strength. An intelligence that doesn't solve problems is not intelligence at all. A wisdom that's doesn't make you concious of the society and the self is no wisdom. Those with any kind of power can act on it based on altruism, can remain uncorrupted. .

Modern Superman's intelligence, wisdom.. Etc is far worse than luffy's. Luffy gets things done. His instincts let's him know there is no going around some walls. You have to punch it even if your hands gets broken in the process. Exaggerations doesn't mean those stories don't have a point. It's just a story telling tactic. They are allegorical in nature. Superman is about allegories. Any idiot would tell you that he can't exist in reality. Moreover, goldenage superman's separation has nothing to do with what i am talking about. Major elements of superman comes from siegel, shuster and fleischer. If you take their minds, elements, vision and superman out. You wouldn't have a superman. So, this idea that Superman can exist without these creators or "grown" past them is a bogus claim.That separation wasn't done to make siegel and shuster's superman a separate character,btw.They decided take things that were redundant and placed it elsewhere. Other creators have only worked with their toys and added layers on top. The big changes in characters personality, attitudes.. Etc ofcourse came from comics code, with bill finger's origin for the superman..etc.Moreover, dude! Ditko, kirby and lee vision still rules what's marvel.Creation require actual thinking and imagination, not just playing with what others have already created for yoh. There is a reason moore critics the industry of not having created anything actually new in decadeds. I have bolded the philosophy of superman.As long as superman character's philosophy is this.He wouldn't some be some messianic guardian of the planet. He would be the champion of the weak and the oppressed. If he isn't then that "ain't superman". Period. That's my opinion.if you think leaders just come in the form of politicians and military guys. Then you need to really look into the definition of a leader. Moreover, circus strongman with any ethical base would fight for those that are weaker than him. That doesn't make them military. A man can stop someone from harming others, stopninstitutional/structural violence without desiring or actually controlling them.It's like this mate, You can be a jackass or bully if you want. But, the minute that hurts anyone. I am gonna kick your ass. Because i have the sake freedom to do choose to act. The violence i use would only be defensive. Superman wouldn't be using power/violence to restrict others, but to defend those that need it and himself from it.Military dictatorships and stuff like that use power to restrict others in the first place. You wouldn't have any option to be a jackass or a bully.

Powerlevel was made out to be an excuse for why superman doesn't interfere by somone. I didn't bring it up and that's exactly how i used it. To argue that its a false argument that goldage superman wasn't powerful enough so he could do that. When infact goldenage superman had become powerful enough to tank anything thrown at him by the time he was taking on hitler and stalin.

I have said this before, You are oddly fixated on snyder superman and other slippery slope arguments like injustice. And funniest thing is, you actually believe the above to can be correlated. You basically make it seem like anything less than the white is automatically black.anything less than jesus is already lucifer. I don't have time to argue with that kind fallicous thinking.Nor was this argument connected to snyder superman to begin with. So have fun obsessing over the character.

[Jim Kelly]

I like "Must there be a Superman" and I think it is definitely one of the definitive Superman stories. I do think Maggin probably has a more intuitive understanding of little blue people than he does migrant workers, at least at the time. The book has good intentions but Superman comes off as tone deaf to the modern ear. He ends up telling migrant workers they should look amongst themselves rather than wait for a Superman to save them. Who is this book written for? The migrant workers from that time already had heroes from among their ranks. I would have asked Superman to leave after he took care of the earthquake. I know it's not fair to criticize a work of art out of context, but the characterization of those people was never fair. Anyways, still a great book and definitely worth reading.

I still want to know what Adekis meant by it "hurt the character going forward," before this gets buried by a lot of other posts. I'm not being facetious--I'm always willing to see things from a different perspective.

It's curious that in the story the Guardians happen to plant an idea in the Man of Steel's head, that's almost a subliminal message, which then causes him later to utter the same sentiment--and Jeph Loeb (the stepson of the Brandeis vice-president, with whom student Maggin was on friendly terms) happens to suggest this story idea to Elliot and then months later in a plotting session with Julie Schwartz, Maggin throws out this idea as his own, which he'd forgotten had originally come from Loeb. It's art imitating life.

But think of this. That was only the second comics story that Maggin had wrote and the first Superman story--his first being Green Arrow's "What Can One Man Do?" which he'd written as a term paper at Brandeis. And then, even after that, it took some months before Elliot became a regular Superman writer. Yet this story is the one that always gets singled out--which makes it seem like Maggin's greatest effort was his first one.

If it were me, I'd be a bit chastened by that. Not only is he being judged on a story he wrote when he wasn't yet experienced in comics writing--half of the credit for it is taken away by Jeph Loeb laying claim to the idea. And then all of Maggin's other work gets overshadowed by this one story?

That always bugged me. I really like the story and have fond memories of reading it, but Elliot S! Maggin had a long run of great Superman stories--so that never sat right with me. It's something about the 1970s in general, where a few stories are cherry-picked and said to be the greatest and keep being reprinted and put on best lists--which makes it seem like the hundreds of other stories from that decade are lesser.

[Steel Inquisitor]

manwhohaseverything:
The response I gave was, if anything, going overboard in engaging with your argument. Every single word of it over three posts. I don't expect you to do this but the quote you cherrypicked was hardly all I said. How does he take on "problems from outside"? What does that mean? Superman is known for fighting aliens, it's part of his niche in the DCU. It's what sets up apart from Batman and Wonder Woman. Except the examples you've used are hardly introspective, Luffy's a fighting manga - the world may be complex but his solution to everything is hitting it harder. Also, your descriptions about what he's doing are so vague I don't know what to do with it since I have no examples from the comics you're using, making it too vague to do anything with. I don't even know what runs you're talking about. Does it include movies, cartoons and tv shows? Dying from brutally fighting Doomsday to his death would fit under suffering's definition. Luffy's gone though experiences like that without dying, like with Crocodile. But he didn't actually die, unlike Superman. Why wouldn't you feel sympathy for Superman about that?

About Tommy, the whole point is that he's a silly character in a comedic comic series. The fact he doesn't break the forth wall is semantics. That's not as big a difference as you're thinking.

But you do care about Snyder's Superm an. That has been clear from our discussions in the past, and with other people on this subject. What's so bizarre is that he represents many of the complaints you've had with modern Superman. The contradiction is interesting to me, and I think you've mentioned you liked Superman TAS Superman in the past, too. Which is equally jarring.

If Superman was supposed to be a bully why am I supposed to like him? This contradicts your arguments that bullies are bad. And he picked on the weak, all he was was higher in the food chain than they were. If anyone suffering in those encounters it's those people he's fighting against who don't stand a chance against him as he effortlessly crushes them into doing what he wants. There's no tension, what are they going to do? S hoot him? He didn't change society, did he?

I'm sure we're argued about Morrison's Superman, I was the one who bought the fact he defending protesters from police brutality. That Superman may be more inspired by S&S Superman with his looks, but he's not the same character they wrote. Morrison wrote that, not them.
Again, too vague about the drama. Please be specific, which books do this?

I'm going to need evidence that that was a big factor in why 52 Superman was replaced.

Shonen heroes don't "play" stupid, they are stupid. Some grow out of this, like Naruto and Yusuke, but Luffy and Goku are as stupid as they appear. Except their team mates, who are smarter than they, do the same. Standing up for convictions isn't determined by IQ, and Superman's done it routinely. I don't know what you get the looking bad in front of people thing from. Except above we have S&S Superman bullying people who don't pose any danger to him, Shonen heroes have to work to earn a win. Even Snyder Superman was outwitted by Lex, and died from fighting Doomsday.

Except current Superman does all this. He simply won't make himself a dictator. Power isn't simply about using it, knowing when not to use it is just as vital to having wisdom.

Comparing Superman to Luffy is ludicrous. They're not in the same genre or medium. Luffy's allowed to change his world more than Superman is in his by his creator/publisher. Luffy's adventures will eventually end, Superman's won't. Luffy doesn't do everything alone, if he was alone he'd be a footnote - he relies on his crew and other allies for things like strategies, intelligence about his enemies, items he needs, to find information he needs. Like Superman he builds friendships with everyone. They work together to accomplish goals they can't do on their own.
It's not the point that's the problem, it's the exaggeration of the world and the genre it's in. It's a silly world, much sillier than the DCU is. Nobody's saying Superman is in our reality, it's that he has more limitations via mandate from DC than manga does.

I bought up the individual Superman because that's what we're both doing with competing versions of Superman, the subject was “Superman in general” – which is every official Superman DC made comics about. Siegel and Shuster created the first Superman, not all of them. Supporting Golden Age Superman and disparaging modern Superman has nothing to do with the former being inspired by elements from the latter. No-one's saying they have to rip out the elements inspired by Golden Age Superman. The fact is modern Superman, which is influenced by various writers and artists, is more relevant to DC than S & S version, even the later Golden Age version evolved from what they originally had him as. This ins't Siegel and Shuster's Superman:



That's Bendis' Superman.

Those creators made new versions of Superman, they may be inspired by the original but they are their own characters. Same thing with Marvel. Being against this your argument may as well be that everyone should stop making any new stories of Superman since Siegel and Shuster aren't doing it.

The reason why new characters aren't created as much is more due to how the industry works, and politics like royalties. Why create the next big thing for the Big Two when you do it at Image and reap all the rewards? There are exceptions , like Kamala Khan, but that's what they are. And Moore's argument comes off as hypocrisy when he does erotic fan fiction of characters like Alice in Wonderland. He's a super-hero, of course he's going to protect the planet.
Those are the types of leaders which would do the things you want Superman to do, that's why I bought it up. Circus strong men didn't lead anything, they were in there circus not super-heroes. Super-heroes juts took them as inspiration for aesthetics.

Not how you've been describing how you want super-heroes to act they don't. But this isn't about simply stopping specific people who harm society, Superman does this already - this is about your argument that Superman should change society completely. Not hold back his strength, use every inch to crush society into whatever he wants it to be in. Except you've castigated modern Superman doing those very things so it's not about that.
We don't decide who the official Superman is, DC does.


This isn't about what you want him to be, this is about what Superman is.

Snyder Superman's barely in my posts. They're examples because they're the characters which do the things current Superman won't. There is a wide assortment of grey for Superman to portray, but they're not the ones that line up with the arguments I'm opposing. Except we know that's not true, we both are rigorous debaters about Superman. Snyder Superman is the perfect example of this and we both know he's a favoured Superman which you like to support. He fits right in with this subject.

Here’s the quote about power:

Dude! He was the most powerful thing on his world later on. So much so that he would have minimal effect on him directly if he decided to pick up hitler, stalin... Etc by the belt and kidnap them. Superman makes power irrelevant. He takes the power out those that are corrupt and try to oppress the weak.

This was a response from llozymandias about how his power levels weren’t consistent, how he didn’t interfere with everything and when he was an outlaw. Power levels didn’t dictate everything he did, but they didn’t make him someone who was invincible – he joined the Justice Society by WW2. In fact, the reason in his world Pearl Harbor occurred was because the Japanese fleet had the Spear of Destiny, which controlled super-heroes with magic in its wide field, including Superman, which is why they stayed out of the war in the comics. All-Star Squadron #4.

[Adekis]

You need to develop your thesis more. How do you think it hurt?

My thesis? Man, I wrote enough formal essays in college, this is a message board about super-heroes. Sometimes I'll cite my sources, but I'll never use MLA format, you know?

Anyway, I think Maggin's one of the best Superman writers of the '70s and '80s generally, but I think overall his idea about Superman holding back social growth runs counter to the way Superman was originally conceived in the '30s - as someone who does and should solve peoples' problems; no job too big, no job too small.

Or, as he says in Superman/Shazam: Return of Black Adam: "I fight for those who can't fight for themselves."

It's part of the core appeal of the character - the power fantasy of being able to help people. A Superman who worries about stunting social growth probably doesn't end the war in San Monte, or the war between Rutland and Blitzen. He probably doesn't instigate the creation of affordable, high quality public housing projects either. And you know what, he might not even help Eustace Watson get a promotion and marry his love interest. How is Eustace supposed to learn not to be so meek and to gain confidence, if Superman is the one who gets him the boss' approval?

But Watson does become more confident, opposing war is a good thing, and so is the creation of the public housing projects - regardless of whether or not Superman's means of doing these things are realistic. And they don't have to be realistic; it's wish fulfillment.

The Guardians simply using psychology on Superman to undermine his confidence... The thing that bugged me is that... there was no lasting repercussions from "Must?"

No lasting repurcussions at the time, maybe. But certainly in following decades, Superman has become much more likely to act with undermined confidence, to constantly question himself, and yes, to avoid taking action at all, lest he cause some social ill. I kind of prefer the Superman who isn't afraid to get out there and help people. There's no lesson to be learned in "Well, maybe we shouldn't try to feed the hungry." That's misguided at best.

Now maybe that more recent trend owes less to "Must There Be" than I've hitherto supposed, and more to the United States' collective lack of confidence in the wake of the seemingly endless and fruitless war on terror. In fact, now that I write that out, it seems pretty likely. hehe... well, I've written this much. But the fact remains, "Must There Be" is often presented in the light of that later development of Superman's character, as a sort of precursor to what came later, a first step to his maturity. That said, the more restrained Superman who fears to help others is not generally more mature! Rather, the ideas of such stories fail to embrace the fundamental wish fulfillment of the Action Ace's origin. Worrying about unintended consequences is a fair thing to do, and so is dealing with unintended consequences. But fearing to try to make the world a better place, goes against those core ideas of Superman. Even Batman v Superman resolves the question of unintended consequences for Superman's actions, with a commitment to continue "the never-ending battle", when he says, "This is my world."

Relatedly, I love the "Superman in Supertown" story for the opposite reason of why I dislike "Must There Be". Read on if you will:

I think the book that tackles the same topic from around the time, and one that I find easier to relate to is, "A Superman in Supertown." He hears from a heavyweight champ how Superman makes him feel obsolete. Who cares if you are the best boxer in a world with super humans? Then Superman travels to New Genesis and finds he doesn't quite fit in as a god. The tone is more about self discovery than a lecture.

I like that story a lot, but it does kind of suck that the first half is in Forever People # 1 in March 1971, and the second half is in a whole different book, Jimmy Olsen # 147, a full year later in March 1972! Oh well, just a quirk of the writing and publication process. I think Mark Evanier or someone once said that if Kirby had been writing the same story with the same mindset fifteen years later, it could have been one of those limited series like "Dark Knight Returns" or "The Longbow Hunters," and probably would have been reprinted for a while. Instead, only the first half of that potentially truncated story really gets reprinted, which is a shame.

But I digress. Moreover, one of the things I like about it is that the reason why Superman feels out of place on New Genesis is because there are no problems he can solve! Every time he tries to save someone from some disaster, it turns out he's bungled up a normal part of the Gods' lives, like fighting a robot which is really a construction worker, or catching a falling pillar that a young woman was using to practice gravity manipulation. He goes back to Earth in Olsen # 147 because in spite of the potential social ills Rocky complained about in Forever People # 1, helping others is his thing.

No job too big, no job too small. Like I said.

[Myskin]

Not exactly a Superman opinion, but still.
The fifth dimension could be the most underused concept in the entire Superman universe. It's unbelievable how poorly imaginative it is in ... Well, every story. Morrison's AC included.

Basically, it has been depicted in only three ways throughout Superman's history:
1- A vaguely fable-like world with funny-looking characters.
2- A Hanna-Barbera/Looney Tunes universe.
3- A vaguely futuristic world as in The Jetsons.

Writers should take a note or two from DeMatteis' and Fisher's Willworld.

[Adekis]

I agree that nobody's ever really done a good job portraying Zrfff, but to be fair, it's hard to artistically convey something that shouldn't even be possible for 4-D beings like us to imagine. I don't even know how I'd suggest it - maybe go full Escher, multiply that by seven, and print the whole thing so you need 3-D glasses to see it properly presented in 2-D on the page, and even then, it still makes your head hurt.

But that's probably beyond the scope of most adventure comics. Still, if a writer-artist team actually managed to render the unimaginable as properly incomprehensible, that'd probably be pretty neat.

Personally, I kind of like Mxy's cartoonish appearance - as a form he likes and that we can understand, that is. But I don't necessarily think even trying to show the Fifth Dimension itself. is a good idea.

[Ascended]

Not exactly a Superman opinion, but still.
The fifth dimension could be the most underused concept in the entire Superman universe. It's unbelievable how poorly imaginative it is in ... Well, every story. Morrison's AC included.

I think the winner of "most underused concept" is either the 5th dimension, Almerac, or the Zone.

The Zone gets used a lot, but we don't actually know much about it. It's just a vague prison concept that might be a layer of hell or might just be a different dimension in "physical" space, or might be some kind of void between planes of reality, or might be part of limbo (depending on the story), where Zod and the other Kryptonian bad guys go between stories. Rarely does a narrative really dive into it and explore the Zone itself, despite it being used consistently for decades.

Amerac always gets ignored, despite being a giant space empire that resides squarely in the "Super" corner of cosmic DC. All we get there is Maxima and her search for a worthy consort, which is interesting and implies a lot about the culture but actually tells us very little.

And I agree with everything that's been said about the 5th dimension. Even Morrison failed to truly capture and define the place, though I did like his "story loop" concept for Vndyk....whatever his name was. Cool concept, but still does very little with the realm itself.

[Myskin]

I agree that nobody's ever really done a good job portraying Zrfff, but to be fair, it's hard to artistically convey something that shouldn't even be possible for 4-D beings like us to imagine. I don't even know how I'd suggest it - maybe go full Escher, multiply that by seven, and print the whole thing so you need 3-D glasses to see it properly presented in 2-D on the page, and even then, it still makes your head hurt.

But that's probably beyond the scope of most adventure comics. Still, if a writer-artist team actually managed to render the unimaginable as properly incomprehensible, that'd probably be pretty neat.

Personally, I kind of like Mxy's cartoonish appearance - as a form he likes and that we can understand, that is. But I don't necessarily think even trying to show the Fifth Dimension itself. is a good idea.

There are comic books which show the world of dreams or - I am thinking of Promethea - the very structure of the universe. I can't see any problem in finding an interesting way to show a world which is entirely fictional.
I mean, they could go Lovecraft and just give some details about it without showing it, but it would take a LOT of effort to be convincing and creative. Also, what's the purpose? It's a visual medium.
It's not that they have never shown it - we have seen the 5th dimension in several books or adaptations, including Death Metal #03 or Morrison's Action Comics or even Superman TAS. It's just that what they show is not very interesting or atmospheric.

The Zone gets used a lot, but we don't actually know much about it. It's just a vague prison concept that might be a layer of hell or might just be a different dimension in "physical" space, or might be some kind of void between planes of reality, or might be part of limbo (depending on the story), where Zod and the other Kryptonian bad guys go between stories. Rarely does a narrative really dive into it and explore the Zone itself, despite it being used consistently for decades.

I agree, but the Zone has had some good moments in 80 years (I am thinking mostly of Steve Gerber's miniseries and a couple of stories) - something the 5th dimension has never had.
I had completely forgotten the existence of Almerac.

[Sacred Knight]

I don't know what the future holds with the new direction at DC, but things are so bad for Superman right now, that nothing they could do outside of stopping publishing the character at all would hurt. I almost have a feeling of the mythos playing with house money because of its current state going into this new era. Either things stay this bad, or get some degree of better. I don't think there is any further down. Maybe with more focus on digital we can get more projects not set within this broken continuity.

[Ra-El]

I think the winner of "most underused concept" is either the 5th dimension, Almerac, or the Zone.

The Zone gets used a lot, but we don't actually know much about it. It's just a vague prison concept that might be a layer of hell or might just be a different dimension in "physical" space, or might be some kind of void between planes of reality, or might be part of limbo (depending on the story), where Zod and the other Kryptonian bad guys go between stories. Rarely does a narrative really dive into it and explore the Zone itself, despite it being used consistently for decades.

Amerac always gets ignored, despite being a giant space empire that resides squarely in the "Super" corner of cosmic DC. All we get there is Maxima and her search for a worthy consort, which is interesting and implies a lot about the culture but actually tells us very little.

And I agree with everything that's been said about the 5th dimension. Even Morrison failed to truly capture and define the place, though I did like his "story loop" concept for Vndyk....whatever his name was. Cool concept, but still does very little with the realm itself.

Superman have so much potential on the cosmic side of things, it's a shame writers have him always bound to Metropolis. He have Almerac, Mongul, Brainiac, etc.
The simple fact that the writers wouldn't have to keep dosing Superman with PIS to make him fight against human villains, would do a great deal to the stories.

Just a war between Almerac and Mongul empire could give us an epic arc, or a entire run.

[Adekis]

It's a weird balancing issue. Almost Superman's entire supporting cast is in Metropolis, and they're underused too!

Meanwhile, back in the pre-Crisis days, Superman seemed to balance the Metropolis and Cosmic angles pretty easily. So maybe writers just aren't focusing on the right areas? I don't know.

[Robanker]

It's a weird balancing issue. Almost Superman's entire supporting cast is in Metropolis, and they're underused too!

Meanwhile, back in the pre-Crisis days, Superman seemed to balance the Metropolis and Cosmic angles pretty easily. So maybe writers just aren't focusing on the right areas? I don't know.

I get a sincere feeling that a lot of writers would rather be working in Gotham with how often it crops up in Superman's books. Both Lois and Jimmy's books had to either detour or take place there. It's a shame DC doesn't invest as much into building up Metropolis.

[Ra-El]

I get a sincere feeling that a lot of writers would rather be working in Gotham with how often it crops up in Superman's books. Both Lois and Jimmy's books had to either detour or take place there. It's a shame DC doesn't invest as much into building up Metropolis.

I have a big problem with this, Batman and his mythos are always present on Superman comics, so much that Superman is starting to suffer of problems he usually only had on JL books, like forgetting he is a investigative journalist, how he is smart or even how to use his powers, so that Batman or someone else can make a cameo.

[Robanker]

I have a big problem with this, Batman and his mythos are always present on Superman comics, so much that Superman is starting to suffer of problems he usually only had on JL books, like forgetting he is a investigative journalist, how he is smart or even how to use his powers, so that Batman or someone else can make a cameo.

Me too, man. I love an interconnected universe, but if we're going to bring Bruce in, he should be a consultant for Clark to discuss his leads with, not the smart guy Clark defers to because he's some bumpkin.