Controversial Superman Opinions

[Tzigone]

I think it's mostly because those things affect mundane day-to-day life the way the diplomatic relations with Atlantis don't*. There's no real follow-through with a lot of those changes you mention. That super-advanced tech - usually only used by heroes and villains or relevant supporting characters, not by the masses. Or even other titles - we see several things in other books that absolutely would have allowed Barbara Gordon to be healed from her paralysis, but she wasn't for a long time because that would be an unacceptable change to the story. When you start dealing with social issues, day to day life should change. But then the world would be too different than our own if those changes actually spread. I mean, sure, heroes can take them on, but they can't actually reshape society and have the current "super-powered person in a world mostly like our own" hold.


For the record, I don't like the diplomatic relationships with Atlantis or Themyscira, either.

*Well, they don't in the comics - the trade agreements absolutely would in the real world but a lot of the domino effect is ignored in comics.

[Vordan]

Moore's Marvelman is one of the greats of comic book history, but I can see where a lot of people would say that Superman shouldn't be like that.

However, I'd suggest that a story where Superman, aliens, meta-humans, and other super-natural "comic book stuff" have significant impact on global society is pretty natural. Both Young Justice the animated series and the Marvel Studios film series present a world which increasingly fails to strongly resemble real life, because of the obvious complications to real global politics created by aliens, new technology, super-advanced civilizations, magic, etc. I don't think fans have any sort of particular problem with the idea of a world which doesn't resemble real life anymore because of super-heroes. We don't have diplomatic relationships with Atlantis, or arc reactors, or Helicarriers, or Faster-Than-Light space travel in real life, and I find the question of how we would develop with those things to be very compelling.

And frankly, I don't see why Superman or other super-heroes tackling real world social or political issues should be the one and only place where we stop and say "Hang on! If they do that, it won't look like Real Life™ any more!"

Don’t get me wrong: I think the obsession with “realism” and reflecting the world “outside your window” is stupid. But as long as DC chooses to go that route, of course Superman and other heroes are going to look ineffectual. They literally can’t change it not because it’s outside of their abilities to do so but because editorial won’t let that happen. I’m the guy who advocates for a Metropolis that actually lives up to being the “City of Tomorrow” instead of a NYC pastiche. I want more out there storylines and designs.

[godisawesome]

Don’t get me wrong: I think the obsession with “realism” and reflecting the world “outside your window” is stupid. But as long as DC chooses to go that route, of course Superman and other heroes are going to look ineffectual. They literally can’t change it not because it’s outside of their abilities to do so but because editorial won’t let that happen. I’m the guy who advocates for a Metropolis that actually lives up to being the “City of Tomorrow” instead of a NYC pastiche. I want more out there storylines and designs.

It’s kind of funny to think about how a DCU Earth where Metropolis is as sci-fi heavy as it was after Brainiac 13 (floating LexCorp tower, creepy mutants in massive super-sewers, etc.) might actually set the bar for the whole world high enough to better accommodate there being so many Green Lanterns compared to other sectors, Batman having so many supersuits, there being a genuine Flash family dealing with blue collar Rogues who still have super-science weapons and powers, Themiscyra and Atalantis being partially magic and politically powerful factions, and so many super teams and the occasional massive supervillain societies...

...All of which lends itself to a world complicated and advanced enough that even a full ostentatiously powered Superman might not be able to solve it’s more mundane problems; a world where third world strongmen can still field decent metas and such.

Maybe Superman would benefit from every other property acknowledging they’re a “Five minutes into the future” reality compared to ours?

[manwhohaseverything]

Snyder tried that, he failed miserably since he didn't understand the appeal of Superman.



His power levels go up and down, and the DCU is a large place there are numerous other super-heroes in his league like J'onn J'onz, Dr. Fate, Flashes, Green Lanterns, the Thunderbolt, the Spectre and more at any given time. Many, many super-heroes would make short work of those people if DC wanted them to. But we disagree on how he does it.




And Snyder's Superman, but Superman in general? No. The majority of his works have been dismissed. Except all Luffy does is hit people, and he is a free agent not a would-be conquerer. This isn't Superman's "current" treatment, this has been what Superman's been written post-WWII. Shared universes change everything, since he's not he sole super-power in his universe. Even Golden Age Superman wasn't alone in the DCU. This isn't about how "interesting" Tommy is it's about his moral authority and he has none. He's a joke character himself, in fact. He's DCU Deadpool. I don't know why you find it so hard to relate to other super-heroes the DCU has, sure they're larger than life but so is every super-hero comic - including Superman. What comics have you read or adaptions you've seen? Jason Todd became a killer anti-hero, but if you like him you'd like AzBats. Do you like Helena Bertinelli? It's just such a niche focus for super-heroes being "relatable" as if characters can't be relatable outside of that narrow scope. How are they relatable?



That's the connotation of "strong man" - they're tyrants. That makes no sense. Read Authority, you'd love it.



That being true doesn't make all Supermen that Superman. Being inspired by something is not identical to that something.



One Piece is a shonen manga which hasn't got the same rules Superman and the DCU have.



This is still incredibly vague, and speaks more for most Supermen doing things like fighting crime than Snyder's Superman. Which is another Superman that you like, despite the fact he fails to live up to the ideals you have for Golden Age Superman. This is still echoing the opinion that he should be uprooting civilisation like the Authority.




We're discussing the Superman that is, not the Superman you want to be and Superman does that, has for long than either of us have been alive. Snyder's Superman isn't solving world hunger, he can't even be bothered investigating criminals Batman's fighting in public with military grade weaponry.



What? Superman does detective work in his own comics and as Clark Kent. A common theme in his comics is fighting the mob and gangs, both mundane and super-powered. Intergang, for instance. Except Superman fights injustice both as Clark Kent and Superman, he is no pacifist even if he will try that occasionally to avoid unnecessary conflict. What he doesn't do is destroy governments or make himself a king.

This debate was about whether superman should be interfering in things or be some kind "gaurdian". It had nothing to do with Snyder's superman. If you think i am snyder stan then you are sadly mistaken.Some Goldenage pulp characters in dc are the only thing i care for. My posts were generally criticsing current treatment of superman by comparing goldenage superman and luffy to him. Moreover, a guy with giant appartment and nice paying job=/= a guy going job from job. The second is snyder's clark. First is postcrisis superman. If you really want to open that door.

I don't understand the appeal of current superman. He is a vanilla hero who gives platitudes on about "be good". Not much of sin. As said, there is no pathos to the dude. I don't care about powerlevels.What i do care about is the presentation of powers. I want powers and movements to be attractive even if its stupidity, like spinning hip thrust. That's generally it.That post was concering goldenage superman's powerlevel being small. No, it wasn't. Superman could take nukes by the time he took on stalin and hitler.

Superman in general too. Whom's work are you talking about? Mate, siegel and shuster made the first superheroes dr. Occult and superman. . If you think all luffy does is hit people. Then mate, you need to actually read one piece. It's pretty long and has pacing issues to say the least. But, luffy represents every quality goldenage superman has.Heck!even takes theme from later iterations. Finally, superman's gradual change happened with comics code introduced mandates. Moreover, batman was taken back to goldenage portrayal more or less(without the guns and stuff. Yeah! Goldenage batman used guns) by miller. Which was the reason batman character survived. He criticised superman portrayals with same portrayal as well. Making the character a stooge and caricatursing superman's stances. Please, i didn't see tommy break much forth wall. What moral authority? You are kidding yourself if you think these "high and mighty gods" on Mount olympus have any authority. Let alone moral one. Gods are dead. Product of a bygone era.That's exactly why i don't like superheroes. I like superman, because he wasn't that. Even batman a pulp character like superman feels like god more than not. Jason todd and the outlaws has been great for me since i started. Bizzaro is awesome. My favourite character other than jon.


This lol! Worthy response. What kind of idiotic nonsense is that? Do you even know what a strong man is. Why superman wears the costume? Strongmen are strength based athletes. Pls! As if goldenage superman was a tyrant any how. He could scare people and was notorious. but, the guy generally doesn't care to rule people. If you are being a jackass and an actual tyrant. he would kick you to the moon. I was planning on reading authority anyways, some people here recommended it to me. As for me loving it, that depends.

True, that. But every superman's origin is connected to siegel and shuster superman. So, divorcing it is impossible. So my statement is valid. Heck! Even batman was an attempt and took superman inspiration. He wore the skin tight strongman costume and became a vigilante because of superman was that.

Superman and rules? Superman is character that broke rules and created a different genre. He is the ultimate chain breaker. A story or narrative is just that. If it sucks, it suck. The character is boring. I have compared batman and robin with don quixote.Current Superman with dostoevsky's works as well.


No really, it is pretty state forward. A man of action is someone who struggles to bring truth and justice to people. Not, a guy who too cozy and comfortable with himself. Get it "never ending battle for truth and justice", not talking to lois at home " why do people steal? " and things like that. More over, corrupt societies need to upheavaled. That's what goldenage superman and luffy's whole stance is. Sure, enough it will be destructive. But, it's worth it. If a racist guy shoots someone and everyone else is laughing/mocking the guy that got shot. Not only does that guy with the gun deserves to be punched (that's what luffy did),that society needs to get a serious shift in perspective and upheaval . Luffy in sabody acheopalgo is that shift. He punches a celestial dragon and which creates a chain reaction that summons the navy with admiral. Later on, the place gets attacked and Bombed by the navy for pirates attacking the vip. That's the irony, navy is supposed to protect the civilians. Yet, they would rather protect the vips. And the civilians that make up the society are corrupt jackasses. Standing up for an ideal and having conviction is something current superman doesn't have the balls to do. Atleast, i don't see it. To quote one piece,
"Compared to the "righteous" greed of the rulers, the criminals of the world seem much more honorable. When scum rules the world, only more scum is born.”
"there can be no happiness in a world where undesirables are thrown away"

Superman does what? Shoving platitudes. That he does. Solving, anything ( world hunger included) or atleast trying? Nope!. What was he doing in gotham as clark kent by disobeying perry in bvs? Selling peanuts? Honestly, this snyder superman talk is quite boring.

I don't care.Superman and action comics is more about his idiotic family drama and love. It's neither noir, thriller nor action.They literally created an event just to bring back his dead parents. Superman is'nt non-violent nor does he "fight". Moreover,nonviolence =/=pacifism. Gandhi was a fighter of a different kind. Fighting is a brutal business and requires struggle.Again, quoting one piece
"Whether we wound or are wounded, the blood that flows is red."
Gandhi let his own blood flow rather than others. But, he never stopped standing up for something or fighting. Superman does things that are easy for him and lectures others on it. That isn't a fight. It's just Blah! So essentially, superman doesn't fight let alone a never ending battle for truth and justice.

Well, there goes that theory. Seriously though, leading people as one of them =/=being a king. A champion is worth a thousand saviors. Superman was the champion of the oppressed,not the savior of the oppressed.There is a big difference He wasn't above the common folks. He was one of the people.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Manwhohaseverrything:

You've defended Snyder's Superman in other threads.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ilers)/page571

There's no shame in this, like whatever Superman you want.

The only reason hew as going from job to job was because he was a drifter in Man of Steel, he was a reporter in the Daily Planet by B vs S but that didn't continue because he died at the end of that movie. His job at the Planet wasn't in danger had Clark not died, he was in the traditional status quo job wise at that stage.

Superman's been a beacon for hope and giving uplifting speeches since at least the 50's, which would include Golden Age Superman. This is a poster from that period.



This rendition is part of what made him the icon he is today, and what's boosted Captain America into relevance in the MCU.

That's very vague about the aesthetics of how you want hi to use his powers. What exactly do you want him to do with them? How that's been said is just describing Superman as is.

The power levels was bought up because of the argument that it was good that he was, and I quote "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." Golden Age Superman started much weaker than what he became.

"Works" as in media: comics, novels, movies, tv shows, cartoons. I know what Siegel and Shuster did but Superman has evolved outside their input. They're not the last word on Superman, even in the Golden Age. I'm a fan of Luffy and One Piece, and he tries to be the "Superman" in some respects in his world by being a beacon of light and doing fancy speeches. But he's ultimately a generic shonen protagonist who solves problems with his fists, which keep getting him into bigger trouble. The Comcics Code did impact super-heres like you're saying, they were restrictive but the Superman they produced was beloved. Batman with guns is far less entertaining, and becomes a copy of The Shadow or the Punisher. He needed to grow out of his pulp influences, that's why he was a superhero rather than a pulp hero.

I'm comparing Tommy to Deadpool because he's a joke character who kills people for money in the DCU, not because he breaks the forth wall. That's also what Deadpool does. The reason Tommy was bought is because you valued his opinion on super-heroes, making him a moral authority. Except that's what people do with super-heroes, they look up to them. They're moulded by them in media, as people to be inspired by. Batman's roots come from the pulps, but he's not a pulp character. He and Superman were vital in creating the genre we know today.

The “strong man” being defined here is that of a military strongman, not Golden Age Superman. He was based on strongmen from the circus for aesthetics, it’s how you want him to use that power is what changes that definition to something far less benign. No, Golden Age Superman wasn’t a tyrant. Definitely read Millar’s Authority, that’s a run which may interest you.

That didn't make them all identical, Batman also takes inspiration from the Shadow - and the Shadow is not the same person he is. Separating each Superman from each other and the concept in general is not impossible, it's very easy. He became a vigilante but not the same sort of vigilante Superman was, in many ways he was the opposite since he had no powers and later got a kid sidekick. Other writers wanted to cash in on Superman, Bruce Wayne didn't become Batman because he knew about Superman.

Like I said Golden Age Superman is beloved, others are not. How you feel about stories is subjective, and I'd need more to go on to offer a sufficient opinion since that's still vague. When did you do that?

"Man of action" means physical activity and doing deeds rather than words, which suit Superman just fine. It's got nothing to do with being "comfy" or having good self esteem, and I don' see why those are bad. Isn't that what we all what? Who wants to needlessly suffer? But what Superman does is continuously fight for justice, and no, we're not talking about him talking to Lois about moral lessons. This is the the "military strongman" comes up, this is what the Authority are all about not Superman. It's also unsettlingly close to why Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham in Batman Begins. Golden Age Superman was stopping domestic abusers and pressuring company management to be kind to workers, not destroying society and rebuilding it. But your example with Luffy is what Superman does, he protects society from dangerous people. The World Government in One Piece is hilariously corrupt and your example shows all Luffy does is just hit people to stop things. Superman does that, but when it's bought up it's viewed as a weakness, it's baffling why Luffy doing the same thing he's perceived as being right.



Read Batman: No Man's Land Vol.3, Superman travels to Gotham to improve it after it was cut off from the world. He tried to see the best in people, despite Batman telling him to give up. He was a big reason they got a power plant working there. The only reason he didn't do more is because it was an event in the Bat-line which couldn't be solved by Superman showing up or the new stats quo would be over very quickly. Perry's disapproval of what Clark wanted to about Batman made no sense and Clark's defense wasn't that interesting, in a world after Man of Steel what he said about Batman was benign. All he did was be very vague about what he wanted to investigate at the docks, and he'd have more information to go on to lure Perry in with had he ignored Lex's thugs when he showed up to initiate Batman. He didn't even mention what Batman was doing there, for all Perry knew all Clark was talking about was rumours about Batman walking around the docks. Hardly newsworthy material, unlike Lois. Lois is a closer.




You should since that's been a complaint about Superman in your post. No, it's not - it's science fiction, and often fantasy, going to other worlds and fighting crime rings. Action is fairly constant in Superman comics. That's just comics. What do you mean by "fight?" This is very contradictory, so now Superman is bad because he's not a pacifist? Superman's fought brutal battles from angels to dark gods.



That's all Superman ever does. With your description of "leading" making Superman a king would be where that's headed. It's why he refuses to do it, because he doesn't want that kind of power over society. He is one of us, Superman may have powers but he's very grounded when it comes to humanity.

[Jim Kelly]

As a contained world, the Snyderverse works. A trilogy or quadrology is fine. But it was never well-suited to being the shared Cinematic Universe for all the super-heroes. They cut out too much from the lives of Superman and Batman that one would want to see in a full universe for those characters.

[Agent Z]

edited post. Never mind, this is going nowhere anyway.

[manwhohaseverything]

Manwhohaseverrything:

You've defended Snyder's Superman in other threads.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ilers)/page571

Superman doesn't fight for anything that really matters. He can punch any nameless alien thousands of times. It wouldn't matter. To matter, that alien needs strggles/theme of the stories need to relevant and allegorical in nature.you are stuck with king thing because you have bought into the slippery slope dogma that's created by comics creator to continue their stupid soapopera story telling. That's why you cling to the Injustice superman, nazi superman.. Etc. Because that's all you got and it ain't worth anything.Alan Moore is basically, right. The industry barely produces original ideas.No,strongman from space isn't military dictator. I haven't said anything to insinuate that and don't put word in my mouth . The kind of leader i want superman to be is'nt that.That's the stupidest thing i have ever heard.Strongmen aren't just circus guys, they exist even today. Those competions do happen. And that pic was after comics code. It was to give messages to children. But, implementing that kind of characterisation in main line while the demographics have changed to a more adult audience is quite frankly condescending. This should be what superman be saying.

In which world is being mercenary equivalent a joke character. Deadpool and tommy are miles different. Deadpool is an absurdist character. Tommy isn't.

My point is superman's powerlevel is no excuse for the attitude and treatment being given to the character. Superman can tank nukes and still fight for the little guy as one of them. His power wether he leaps 1\8th a mile or flying past infinity wouldn't matter. Goldenage superman even with that kind of power did the things he did with low powerlevel. That's a bad argument. Superman makes power irrelevant. Especially, for the corrupt.

As for suffering, well i welcome suffering when it makes me better and stronger. I fear complacency more. Yeah! What you described is exactly what i mean by Superman being man of action. Well, i don't see it. Goldenage superman nor luffy gives speeches. Heck! Oda makes it Point that luffy doesn't give fullblown speeches. That's more naruto's thing. As for just hitting people in my example. Well, i wasn't trying to give counter example. I was expanding the previous example i posted where he does hit. To show why goldenage superman and luffy does interefere.Those guys are champions and current superman is mere savior. Corrupt society needs that kind of treatment and a champion,Not a savior. Luffy does punch guys. But, that doesn’t mean that's all he does. Luffy inspired coby to pursue his dream of being a marine. He showed restraint and refused to fight people that mocked his dreams. That's just two example, there are thousands. Goldenage superman was better mentor figure than the current one. As said, the character trained swaths of people . current Superman, all he does is give idiotic platitudes worth nothing. Luffy only punches those people that are in his way and are certified jackasses or bullies.

If you think goku and luffy are the same then you are mistaken. Furthermore, no it ain't easy. If you remove goldenage superman from the equation. Current Superman is left with nothing. His suit, his powers, daily planet /star, fortress/citadel, his cast(jimmy, perry, lois.. Etc) , main villain.. Etc all are the creation of jerry siegel, joe shuster and max fleischer. No, the character hasn't evolved past his creators. They just changed his personality and what he used to stand for. Moreover, batman will lose things like his costume, attitude... Etc. Yeah! Comics code had big role in that too. World government in one piece is caricature version of our own. Its a exaggerated version of our world bordering parody. That also mean the story holds some truths. One piece by design is caricature world. It's a laugh-tale just like superman's story is an imaginary story. Look at the artstyle, oda exaggerates every aspect of our own society including people to get that immersive realism and a bit of absurdity . He let's actions and other characters talk about the themes of the story, not luffy. Current Superman's speeches come from a life with out any suffering, feels hollow. So that's a problem. If luffy was just a genric shounen character. Then one piece wouldn't be this successful. Sure, enough luffy is modelled after the goku archetype. But that doesn't mean squat.just like luffy can't exist without goku, superman can't exist without the existence of tarzan, john carter, zorro... Etc. Current Superman can't exist without goldenage superman. Luffy might be "dumb shonen protagonist", well at the very least the character is way better than bull that is served in the name of complexity in superbooks.Honestly,current superman is generally dumber character.

Perry didn't want clark to run into batman. It's in the context. He is like their father figure. Hence the reluctance. Perry white is very protective of his staffs. He just doesn't like to show it. So he makes stuff up and uses sarcasm as defence. As for everything else,i don't particularly feel like talking about snyder superman movies. It's all pretty straightforward,anways.if people don't get, they don't.

As for defending snyder superman, I feel Snyder's superman/fans are unjustly demeaned and its one sided. So, i engage in the discussion when i feel like it. I don't particularly like Snyder's superman. The character doesn't have the personality or the fire i generally like in characters.but,that doesn’t mean Snyder's superman isn't superman nor does it mean the character doesn't take cues from comics. Its just not for me.But, the character has all the right to exist. Anyone, who likes Snyder's superman is a fan of the character in general. There is no if's or but. It's called being fair and my own sense of chivalry.if i like something i would say it. I wouldn't be shamed of it.Nobody in this day and age would say they like phantom,black hawks... Etc. Everyone would say, "who the heck are those guys". I unabashedly love these characters. There were people who were even in the snyder movies appreciation thread just being, well for the lack of better words "Bullying". I don't like bullies.This is my superman.


Btw, action in action comics generally sucks. And No, that's not the focus. The focus generally clark kents stupid drama. Who cares if the guy dates or if guy's parents are alive. They don't mean a damn thing. A Fight means a conflict due to difference of opinion whether with justified or unjustified reasoning from both parties, or atleast one part or none. Fighting for truth and justice,is a fight. Gandhi fought the british by using nonviolent means.martin luthor did the same for civil rights. Regardless, conflicts generally leave a scar mental, physical or emotional to you or others. Superman generally doesn't deal with any. So essentially, superman doesn't fight at all.

[SiegePerilous02]

Don’t get me wrong: I think the obsession with “realism” and reflecting the world “outside your window” is stupid. But as long as DC chooses to go that route, of course Superman and other heroes are going to look ineffectual. They literally can’t change it not because it’s outside of their abilities to do so but because editorial won’t let that happen. I’m the guy who advocates for a Metropolis that actually lives up to being the “City of Tomorrow” instead of a NYC pastiche. I want more out there storylines and designs.

I would love for Metropolis to look like Fritz Lang's version, or the anime film loosely inspired by it. Just colorful, weird and fantastical.

Gotham should always look like Anton Furst's design. Instant atmosphere just by looking at it. Most gorgeous Gotham ever (in an ugly way). I get bored looking at regular looking cities since I can see those in pretty much anything (or in real life)

[Tzigone]

I’m the guy who advocates for a Metropolis that actually lives up to being the “City of Tomorrow” instead of a NYC pastiche. I want more out there storylines and designs.

I'm a proponent of a non-NYC design (including not having the island) for Metropolis. Don't care that much about visual design, but I like the idea of more new buildings, innovation in architecture being associated with the city, etc. Of course, that could come with some turning out to be fads, but that's a risk when you run with the latest trends.

[Adekis]

I think it's mostly because those things affect mundane day-to-day life the way the diplomatic relations with Atlantis don't*. There's no real follow-through with a lot of those changes you mention. That super-advanced tech - usually only used by heroes and villains or relevant supporting characters, not by the masses. Or even other titles - we see several things in other books that absolutely would have allowed Barbara Gordon to be healed from her paralysis, but she wasn't for a long time because that would be an unacceptable change to the story. When you start dealing with social issues, day to day life should change. But then the world would be too different than our own if those changes actually spread. I mean, sure, heroes can take them on, but they can't actually reshape society and have the current "super-powered person in a world mostly like our own" hold.

You're right, a lot of that super-tech isn't necessarily shown impacting ordinary lives, usually, and nor do the changes that most super-heroes make have that much of an impact - but I don't see why it couldn't be that way. Anything from suped up holographic smart phones to using Themysciran medical tech to increase life expectancy the world over, to re-frosting the ice caps with macro versions of Captain Cold's cold guns, I think it could be really interesting and compelling. I don't think it's more realistic or more interesting for people like Wonder Woman or Thomas Morrow to exist without having larger scale impact on lives and society. There's a limit to it, but not a huge limit.

To quote two different versions of Lex Luthor (yeah, yeah, I know, bad guy), first the one from Superman Returns: "Prometheus was a god who stole the power of fire from the other gods and gave control of it to mortals... You see, whoever controls technology controls the world... Gods are selfish beings who fly around in little red capes and don’t share their power with mankind. No, I don’t want to be a god. I just want to bring fire to the people."

And second, the one from Justice League: Gods and Monsters: "You'll find that Kryptonian science has dramatic applications for Earth, in medicine, engineering, physics. Be a real hero."

The fact that the first Lex is acting in bad faith to deliver such a speech is irrelevant to my point - it's inconceivable that none of the super-tech, with its numerous places of origin, would fail to make its way to public use, while instead being used pretty much exclusively for Crime Busting - except for contrivance. Now plot contrivance is important to the sustenance of the super-hero genre, to be sure, and that's fine - but I'm not convinced this particular contrivance is an always an improvement. Of course there are certainly some time when it's important to keep things more grounded, but surely not always.

It’s kind of funny to think about how a DCU Earth where Metropolis is as sci-fi heavy as it was after Brainiac 13 (floating LexCorp tower, creepy mutants in massive super-sewers, etc.) might actually set the bar for the whole world high enough to better accommodate there being so many Green Lanterns compared to other sectors, Batman having so many supersuits, there being a genuine Flash family dealing with blue collar Rogues who still have super-science weapons and powers, Themiscyra and Atalantis being partially magic and politically powerful factions, and so many super teams and the occasional massive supervillain societies...

...All of which lends itself to a world complicated and advanced enough that even a full ostentatiously powered Superman might not be able to solve it’s more mundane problems; a world where third world strongmen can still field decent metas and such.

Maybe Superman would benefit from every other property acknowledging they’re a “Five minutes into the future” reality compared to ours?

I think so - or at least that if super-heroes start out in a world that looks like ours, it isn't going to stay that way for too long. I pretty much agree with everything you just said.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the obsession with “realism” and reflecting the world “outside your window” is stupid. But as long as DC chooses to go that route, of course Superman and other heroes are going to look ineffectual. They literally can’t change it not because it’s outside of their abilities to do so but because editorial won’t let that happen. I’m the guy who advocates for a Metropolis that actually lives up to being the “City of Tomorrow” instead of a NYC pastiche. I want more out there storylines and designs.

Yeah, that's all true. Here's an idea: what if DC used its incessant rebooting to let society, technology, culture, actually progress in accordance with the super-influences during a reboot or two? I suppose Bendis and his conception of the United Planets is as good an example as any. Let that story play out until it's reached a full-out "happily ever after" for the world, and then instead of rebooting their line in some sort of celestial or temporal catastrophe or crisis, just say "And they lived happily ever after. Meanwhile, elsewhere in Hypertime, a rocket falls to Earth!"

It's not a perfect solution obviously; getting the endless-reboots-that-still-try-to-enforce-continuity-for-some-reason to do something good for a change, is not really what they're designed for, but the thought came to me, and I think it's an okay idea given this specific discussion.

As an alternate idea, and probably more palatable to "editorial," I'll admit that a more permanent "five minutes into the future" approach to DC, like godisawesome suggested, is prooooobably more sustainable than the kind of actual "progress" that I've been arguing for here this whole post, haha!

And we've seen that "five minutes" approach work in multiple versions of DC worlds, like the DCAU and Young Justice TAS.
I would like it if that approach was just... a little more universalized through the world, maybe.

[Sacred Knight]

I don't know if this is even going to be that controversial but...

Pick a debilitating weakness (note I'm not saying vulnerability, I'm talking specifically debilitation). Is it Kryptonite? Is it red sunlight? Is it magic? Pick one. But you can't friggin' have all three anymore.

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't know if this is even going to be that controversial but...

Pick a debilitating weakness. Is it Kryptonite? Is it red sunlight? Is it magic? Pick one. But you can't friggin' have all three anymore.

Kryptonite. Maybe red sun as well if default Kryptonian strength is around Golden Age level.

Get rid of magic though.

[Sacred Knight]

For me its Kryptonite as well. The most classic. Magic shouldn't be anything special. You can hurt him with it, big whoop. It means you can fight him, but it doesn't mean he can't fight you back. Lots of things can hurt him when you get past the Earth-bound, he fights stuff he's not invulnerable to all the time now. Red sunlight to me should be pretty much worthless as an instant weapon because I think it should take a long time for that to take effect. It shouldn't be just something where Batman can make a flood light of it that if you shine it on him, boom he's powerless. If you find a way to capture him, stick him in a room with it for weeks or something, maybe that does something. But that obviously requires a lot of effort. The only no-nonsense equalizer any joe could wield if he were to acquire it should be Kryptonite. Its poison, it works fairly fast, its immediately recognizable. Its stood the test of time as his great equalizer, so it did something right. Use that one.

[godisawesome]

Magic I don’t think should be considered a weakness in the same way that Kryptonite and Red Sun radiation is... and to be frank, Kryptonite and Red Sun radiation shouldn’t be similar either.

Kryptonite immediately saps strength and causes pain, and can kill with enough exposure in a short amount of time. Red sun radiation doesn’t actually harm him, it just means he depletes energy and doesn’t replenish it - so he gradually grows weaker in terms of his abilities, but his health remains fine.

Magic? It shouldn’t cause him extra harm... he just shouldn’t be 100% invulnerable to it. Silver Banshee’s scream is a physical thing, so he has some invulnerability to that. Shazam’s lighting should just be lightning; sufficient amounts can stagger Superman the same way Livewire’s powers can, but it’s not a trump card in the traditional sense of being an insta-in Apia tor, and he and Shazam slug it out like regular flying bricks. But if the Queen of Fables pulls them off into fairytale land, he ain’t stopping that, and if Zatanna spoke a specific spell at him that didn’t rely on human physics, he wouldn’t be any more invulnerable to it than a regular human in the same situation.