Controversial Superman Opinions

[Soubhagya]

Looking at the roaring success of IT I think it would do the Superman fanbase as well as the writers some good to realize that lightheartedness and "fun" having little to nothing to do with each other. This is pretty obvious when you look at the complete different trajectory Superman and Batman have gone over the years. It's the quality of the adventure that determines whether something is "fun" or not. Not whether it's light hearted or not.

Or looking at how dominant Goku became in the 90's, while Supes was stuck in a rom-com in Lois and Clark , Goku was fighting all manner of opponents and exploring the universe.

I would like to point that IT is supposed to be scary. Lightheartedness clashes with what horror movies are trying to achieve: to scare the audience. I don't think we are in disagreement.

I agree that quality brings fun. Lightness does not automatically imply a good story.

On my part i want a lighter Superman. Serious take is everywhere. Whether the DCEU which i like or the atrocious Injustice which i hate and stay far away, darker takes are in rage. I want something else in my books. If i want to be depressed i can go see the news. Why shall i open a comic book?

I think the concept of Superman is by itself such that it suits a lighter take. He is an invincible alien who flies and shoots laser from his eyes. He is supremely strong but is stopped by a green rock. He puts on glasses and people don't recognize him. These are to some extent goofy and childish. These are some fundamental aspects of Superman. You can't take them away. One has to add things to make the stories serious.

Similarly Batman suits a darker take. He scares criminals. His enemies are psychologically twisted as he himself uses psychology of fear to achieve his ends. This is the fundamental idea. You can't take it away from Batman. If you take it away you have something like Batman and Robin of Joel Schumacher.

If you take Superman too seriously the stories will become boring in my opinion. There is a tragedy but that does not affect him so much. Batman saw his parents shot before him when he could understand what was taken from him. He lost his family and security. Spider-man lost his uncle when he was in high school. He lost his family (Uncle Ben) and may loose again (Aunt May). But Superman was a baby when Krypton was destroyed. There is no reason that it would dwell so heavily on his mind. In many takes they try to make him sad. But using common sense why should he be sad? He is super strong. Nobody can hurt him. He can fly. He can shoot lasers from his eyes. Let me repeat he does not require a laser blaster like Han Solo. His eyes shoot lasers! He is so cool! Why would such a person be unhappy? Someone like X-Men would be unhappy because they are stigmatized and hunted. Superman even though an alien is handsomely built and looks like any other American. The Kents raised him lovingly. Making a few adjustments he can live quite easily with the people. Why shall he be unhappy or sullen?

He shall be doing awesome things like punching rogue angels, or fighting robot dinosaurs. This suits him a lot more than walking all over America for...reasons.

I love Goku but sadly for all its awesomeness DBZ has not aged so well. I can enjoy Superman TAS which came at that time even now. But DBZ due to its padded stories and repetitive plots is almost unwatchable now. And what is wrong with Lois and Clark? Its target audience was different.

[stephens2177]

I would like to point that IT is supposed to be scary. Lightheartedness clashes with what horror movies are trying to achieve: to scare the audience. I don't think we are in disagreement.

I agree that quality brings fun. Lightness does not automatically imply a good story.

On my part i want a lighter Superman. Serious take is everywhere. Whether the DCEU which i like or the atrocious Injustice which i hate and stay far away, darker takes are in rage. I want something else in my books. If i want to be depressed i can go see the news. Why shall i open a comic book?

I think the concept of Superman is by itself such that it suits a lighter take. He is an invincible alien who flies and shoots laser from his eyes. He is supremely strong but is stopped by a green rock. He puts on glasses and people don't recognize him. These are to some extent goofy and childish. These are some fundamental aspects of Superman. You can't take them away. One has to add things to make the stories serious.

Similarly Batman suits a darker take. He scares criminals. His enemies are psychologically twisted as he himself uses psychology of fear to achieve his ends. This is the fundamental idea. You can't take it away from Batman. If you take it away you have something like Batman and Robin of Joel Schumacher.

If you take Superman too seriously the stories will become boring in my opinion. There is a tragedy but that does not affect him so much. Batman saw his parents shot before him when he could understand what was taken from him. He lost his family and security. Spider-man lost his uncle when he was in high school. He lost his family (Uncle Ben) and may loose again (Aunt May). But Superman was a baby when Krypton was destroyed. There is no reason that it would dwell so heavily on his mind. In many takes they try to make him sad. But using common sense why should he be sad? He is super strong. Nobody can hurt him. He can fly. He can shoot lasers from his eyes. Let me repeat he does not require a laser blaster like Han Solo. His eyes shoot lasers! He is so cool! Why would such a person be unhappy? Someone like X-Men would be unhappy because they are stigmatized and hunted. Superman even though an alien is handsomely built and looks like any other American. The Kents raised him lovingly. Making a few adjustments he can live quite easily with the people. Why shall he be unhappy or sullen?

He shall be doing awesome things like punching rogue angels, or fighting robot dinosaurs. This suits him a lot more than walking all over America for...reasons.

I love Goku but sadly for all its awesomeness DBZ has not aged so well. I can enjoy Superman TAS which came at that time even now. But DBZ due to its padded stories and repetitive plots is almost unwatchable now. And what is wrong with Lois and Clark? Its target audience was different.

Damn that was a great post,thanks for that

[The World]

I would like to point that IT is supposed to be scary. Lightheartedness clashes with what horror movies are trying to achieve: to scare the audience. I don't think we are in disagreement.

I agree that quality brings fun. Lightness does not automatically imply a good story.

On my part i want a lighter Superman. Serious take is everywhere. Whether the DCEU which i like or the atrocious Injustice which i hate and stay far away, darker takes are in rage. I want something else in my books. If i want to be depressed i can go see the news. Why shall i open a comic book?

I think the concept of Superman is by itself such that it suits a lighter take. He is an invincible alien who flies and shoots laser from his eyes. He is supremely strong but is stopped by a green rock. He puts on glasses and people don't recognize him. These are to some extent goofy and childish. These are some fundamental aspects of Superman. You can't take them away. One has to add things to make the stories serious.

Similarly Batman suits a darker take. He scares criminals. His enemies are psychologically twisted as he himself uses psychology of fear to achieve his ends. This is the fundamental idea. You can't take it away from Batman. If you take it away you have something like Batman and Robin of Joel Schumacher.

If you take Superman too seriously the stories will become boring in my opinion. There is a tragedy but that does not affect him so much. Batman saw his parents shot before him when he could understand what was taken from him. He lost his family and security. Spider-man lost his uncle when he was in high school. He lost his family (Uncle Ben) and may loose again (Aunt May). But Superman was a baby when Krypton was destroyed. There is no reason that it would dwell so heavily on his mind. In many takes they try to make him sad. But using common sense why should he be sad? He is super strong. Nobody can hurt him. He can fly. He can shoot lasers from his eyes. Let me repeat he does not require a laser blaster like Han Solo. His eyes shoot lasers! He is so cool! Why would such a person be unhappy? Someone like X-Men would be unhappy because they are stigmatized and hunted. Superman even though an alien is handsomely built and looks like any other American. The Kents raised him lovingly. Making a few adjustments he can live quite easily with the people. Why shall he be unhappy or sullen?

He shall be doing awesome things like punching rogue angels, or fighting robot dinosaurs. This suits him a lot more than walking all over America for...reasons.

I love Goku but sadly for all its awesomeness DBZ has not aged so well. I can enjoy Superman TAS which came at that time even now. But DBZ due to its padded stories and repetitive plots is almost unwatchable now. And what is wrong with Lois and Clark? Its target audience was different.

My post wasn't about making Superman sullen or sad that would be pointless but rather about confronting a rather mindless talking point that was being espoused here for a while. Fun isn't about being lighthearted, it's about being thrilled ergo a horror movie and horror movies in general can be considered fun despite not being lighthearted. Same with Batman who's generally a character on the grimmer side but has for the most part avoided being considered dull the way Supes has because he's kept a more adventurous personality about him.

Although that stuff about Batman being suited for darker tales is pretty untrue imo, the Adam West stuff is considered a classic and The Brave and The Bold was very well received. Which is probably another thing about why Batman has been able to succeed so well is that the character has proved to be far more flexible than Superman. I think that's something that is worth thinking about

I feel it's fair to say Supes got shellacked by Goku in the 90's. That series has been more relevant to animation than Bruce Timm's entire body of work. Goku pretty much eclipsed Supes in mindshare in that time period despite being more simple and less "deep".

[DochaDocha]

I am not a fan of Drag-on Ball Zzz... (I do like the original Dragon Ball, however). Nevertheless, I can't really think of many cartoons that had more international impact in the 1990's than DBZ had. As The World says, regardless of writing quality (or lack of...), it had more influence than the entirety of the DCAU. Its narrative isn't particularly good, and the pacing is just awful, but it resonated with a lot of people, so much that they wanted to revisit the story but in a more tightly-knit retelling, and then sequels. There's a constant demand for the DB universe, and whatever demand there is to revisit DCAU Superman simply pales in comparison.

Speaking of the DCAU, Superman was probably the most critical show for world building (Batman got the universe going, but Superman was the gateway to other superheroes), but it's impact had to be the least of them all. The original Batman the Animated Series was the cutting edge pioneer, Batman Beyond was an original IP and created an entire future universe that's been oft-referenced in comics, Justice League had the largest reach, and Superman... well, it was there. I get some people think it's the best, but to me it's by far the most bland of the major shows, except for maybe The New Batman Adventures which I think was mostly a step down for Batman except that it made Gotham more amenable to a shared DCAU. Superman might technically be a better show, but it didn't inspire a new or old fan base the way DBZ did.

[Soubhagya]

My post wasn't about making Superman sullen or sad that would be pointless but rather about confronting a rather mindless talking point that was being espoused here for a while. Fun isn't about being lighthearted, it's about being thrilled ergo a horror movie and horror movies in general can be considered fun despite not being lighthearted. Same with Batman who's generally a character on the grimmer side but has for the most part avoided being considered dull the way Supes has because he's kept a more adventurous personality about him.

Although that stuff about Batman being suited for darker tales is pretty untrue imo, the Adam West stuff is considered a classic and The Brave and The Bold was very well received. Which is probably another thing about why Batman has been able to succeed so well is that the character has proved to be far more flexible than Superman. I think that's something that is worth thinking about

I feel it's fair to say Supes got shellacked by Goku in the 90's. That series has been more relevant to animation than Bruce Timm's entire body of work. Goku pretty much eclipsed Supes in mindshare in that time period despite being more simple and less "deep".

Then i must apologize. Good quality is the most important thing. I am against making Superman serious just because serious heroes like Batman are more popular. Stand by his strengths and tell good stories.

I was making the point that Batman suits grimmer takes more than Superman because this was the original design. And i completely agree with you that Batman is more flexible. I think he is among the most flexible heroes ever created. He can be just at home fighting criminals in streets as in deserts fighting bare-chested with swords. I love Adam West, Lego Batman, as well as Brave and The Bold. These are the same Batman but retooled. Look at Lego movie and say this is not the same Batman as the comics. This is no parody but a love letter to all his incarnations. They are well received due to the care and love put into them. Like you said he is really flexible. He might be having flaming swords in that utility belt to fight ghosts.

The problem starts when you start to make stories about him in this Adam West direction but without the same wit, or care. Batman and Robin tried to make something akin to Batman of 1966 but the intent was to sell toys. Thus, we have among the worst films ever.

We agree on quality being more important. But what was your point with DBZ? Its quality was not so good but i agree it was a phenomenon. What can Superman learn from this?

[DochaDocha]

We agree on quality being more important. But what was your point with DBZ? Its quality was not so good but i agree it was a phenomenon. What can Superman learn from this?

DBZ is, at best, a mediocre story. However, they were able to identify a few things that fans wanted, and excelled in enough of those areas.

To be fair, I think stuff like STAS tried to define Superman in a way they thought would be attractive to fans, but they didn't quite nail it like they did with other DCAU shows. Also, I think Superman is one of the few characters where creators start off the dialogue about the creative process by apologizing about the character, or at least talking about the subtractive design philosophy in making the character. I know Alan Burnett did in one of the DVD's, and I read one such quote from Dwayne McDuffie highlighting the fact that Superman is flawed. It's kind of a bizarro hyping tactic, where characters like Goku and Batman get praised by their creators, whereas Superman creators work backwards and chip away at his superlative nature.

In short, I feel like this is how the characters were hyped in the 1990s:

Batman: With prep time, Batman can beat anyone.
Goku: With training, he will overcome the odds.
Superman: He has flaws, look at the flaws!

EDIT: Further reducing the above:

Batman and Goku: They're better than you think. Watch and see!
Superman: He's not as good as you think. Watch and see!

[mute90]

The weird thing about this to me is that Superman should be flexible. He's a superhero and a reporter. He's available for big brawls and investigation. The investigations can go into crime and politics and still intersect with the Superman persona. He's also an alien raised among humans so he can fit into galactic issues and street level problems. He can exist in dark or light storylines because his character is not dependent on if the whole world is shiny. He's an optimist who sees light even in the darkness. He may be immortal or long-lived and work just fine in future stories. He could be shot back in time and believably survive, thrive, and help others without modern technology. This should be a very flexible character.

[Soubhagya]

DBZ is, at best, a mediocre story. However, they were able to identify a few things that fans wanted, and excelled in enough of those areas.

To be fair, I think stuff like STAS tried to define Superman in a way they thought would be attractive to fans, but they didn't quite nail it like they did with other DCAU shows. Also, I think Superman is one of the few characters where creators start off the dialogue about the creative process by apologizing about the character, or at least talking about the subtractive design philosophy in making the character. I know Alan Burnett did in one of the DVD's, and I read one such quote from Dwayne McDuffie highlighting the fact that Superman is flawed. It's kind of a bizarro hyping tactic, where characters like Goku and Batman get praised by their creators, whereas Superman creators work backwards and chip away at his superlative nature.

In short, I feel like this is how the characters were hyped in the 1990s:

Batman: With prep time, Batman can beat anyone.
Goku: With training, he will overcome the odds.
Superman: He has flaws, look at the flaws!

EDIT: Further reducing the above:

Batman and Goku: They're better than you think. Watch and see!
Superman: He's not as good as you think. Watch and see!

Thank you for clearing this up.

I don't know what fans want. For someone like Goku people know what they want. But even Superman's own fanbase is divided.

To be fair Superman was shown as this invincible and perfect superhero before the 90s. He was doing so many awesome things that other heroes were nothing. This was like this in pre-COIE wasn't it? They did this in response to that.

Some reduction in power is understandable because otherwise there would be no conflict and we have to a depend a lot on Kryptonite . If Superman moved planets at will there would be no way to stop him when he is using his full powers. But then who said this was what the audience wanted? Was this good? I can't say about comics. But i hear generally good things about the Triangle Era.

Reduction in power is understandable but pointing out his flaws is mind-boggling. People want their hero to be the best. This reduction works for characters who were written like this. Say like Harry Potter. He is so average that it works in his favor as the readers can relate to him. But Superman's design is such that he is supposed to be really powerful. He is supposed to be above all. No one wants to identify with a hero who is powerful but incapable.

There shall be a balance. But a focus on making him more flawed is a flawed idea. Very few people care for Superman in DCEU. I liked it in parts. But if you reduce his story arc in the two films you can say he surrendered, he killed, he was beaten up and then killed. This is depressing. He is so dour and self-doubting that i sometimes doubt he does not have his heart in his job. That he would be better off somewhere else. He saved the world but people drummed up that he destroyed Metropolis. I was perfectly enjoying the Zod fight. I imagined that the buildings were empty. After all they had an alien attack. But in the sequel the fools in Wayne building had to be told by Bruce Wayne to leave the building! This is how loyal they are. Bruce maybe a swell boss but i would flee in panic. Not stop and see the destruction with my eyes waiting for my boss's order. Thank you for ruining my enjoyment DC. People at DC are weirdly fatalistic as if they want to apologize for Superman.

I don't know how to make him awesome at all times. But i like the approach they are taking in Rebirth. He is a savior. You see people in danger. Either family, or the people in general. You fear for their safety. Then Superman comes and saves the day. He does awesome things that even the League is amazed. (See Cyborg's reaction in Justice League issues during the first arc). Or the latest issue where he captured Parallax while assuring his safety. He is not ridiculously powerful that no one can stand before him. But he is so powerful that he is in a class of his own.

This is my opinion:

Goku is a fighter. His costume is of a martial artist. Show him as outmatched and overcoming all odds.

Superman is a savior. His power is invulnerability. Show him struggling to save people overcoming all odds.

Both are good approaches. The later requires more imagination. And it makes more sense for Superman. There is hardly anyone who can stand against Superman when he is in his full power. If one takes the first approach for Superman it will not be good to reduce his powers. Rather create villains more powerful then him. Create hype. Dragonball Z's slow burn had that advantage. The next villain say Frieza, then Cell, then Majin Buu each were hyped up. They were shown as someone Goku or the heroes can't beat before the fight. But then Superman is in Justice League. If you increase his powers JL would become redundant.

Show him to be unique like i pointed out. He is friendly, noble and a generally happy character. At the same time his powers are breathtaking. Show him saving others. Whether villains, or heroes, or the people, or his family it doesn't matter. The challenge is whether he can save them.

And please keep the people who are ashamed of Superman away from him. He is the coolest character ever. If by reading awesome stories based on him one finds him not cool enough rather work on something else. Such people rarely do justice to a character as sublime as Superman.

The weird thing about this to me is that Superman should be flexible. He's a superhero and a reporter. He's available for big brawls and investigation. The investigations can go into crime and politics and still intersect with the Superman persona. He's also an alien raised among humans so he can fit into galactic issues and street level problems. He can exist in dark or light storylines because his character is not dependent on if the whole world is shiny. He's an optimist who sees light even in the darkness. He may be immortal or long-lived and work just fine in future stories. He could be shot back in time and believably survive, thrive, and help others without modern technology. This should be a very flexible character.

No Superman is a very flexible character as you kindly pointed out. I was mistaken in assuming that The World was giving the example of IT (which i have not seen till now, and generalizing as grim) that Superman shall be serious. There are fans who want Superman stories to be light-hearted. Just as me. There are a lot of darker takes on the character in recent years and the fans want more lighter takes. I said that Superman is more suited to lighter takes due to his strengths as a character. It does not mean that darker takes won't work. But simply making Superman darker just because such heroes are in vogue is a bad idea. The World said that simply lighter takes for its own sake won't work.Thus i say that a writer shall focus on Superman's strengths as a character and not feel bad that he is plain or overpowered or boring. A character is as good or bad as you make it. And Superman is simply awesome.

Yet if you compare the flexibility between Batman and Superman because Batman has no powers and yet so powerful he is at home in almost any genre. And he has the advantage that he is written by those who want him to be awesome not like a lot of Superman writers who say he is not interesting enough. They shall re-think their approach to writing Superman. No ordinary character can be loved for so many decades. No character has so many fans when his last universally well received film was in the 80's. No boring character can kick start a whole sub-genre all by himself.

[Kuwagaton]

In short, I feel like this is how the characters were hyped in the 1990s:

Batman: With prep time, Batman can beat anyone.
Goku: With training, he will overcome the odds.
Superman: He has flaws, look at the flaws!

EDIT: Further reducing the above:

Batman and Goku: They're better than you think. Watch and see!
Superman: He's not as good as you think. Watch and see!

Superman in the 90s was like "from the people who brought you Death of Superman..."


I do appreciate your extensive thoughts on STAS, though. Although it's not your favorite thing, you have been excellently elaborate on your experience and memory of it.

[Soubhagya]

Superman in the 90s was like "from the people who brought you Death of Superman..."


I do appreciate your extensive thoughts on STAS, though. Although it's not your favorite thing, you have been excellently elaborate on your experience and memory of it.

On my part I never saw these shows till the 2000s. And Superman was the first DC show that i watched. I agree that Batman TAS is better in quality and JL was very popular(I saw JL at the time of its run) Superman TAS holds a special place in my heart. It was here that i found out how Superman is so special. This is a really good show by itself.

Just to show how good it is i am posting a link. This is not a challenge to you or anyone here. A lot of fans might have read it already as this is from Ask Chris. I will search for an appreciation thread to post this.

http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-...imated-series/

[Kuwagaton]

Ha, wow, that was almost exactly two years ago.

I've not seen a whole lot of the show in recent years, but it always holds up. Despite the fact that it came out on the wings of Batman, honestly, I find it just as enjoyable. Glad my guy got his series at a pretty decent length before American action cartoons started to wane significantly in popularity.

[DochaDocha]

Superman in the 90s was like "from the people who brought you Death of Superman..."

That'd be hilarious when the upcoming animated Death of Superman comes out:

From Warner Bros. Animation, who brought you the Death of Superman, comes another Death of Superman...

I do appreciate your extensive thoughts on STAS, though. Although it's not your favorite thing, you have been excellently elaborate on your experience and memory of it.

Appreciate the kind comments.

[phantom1592]

This is probably going to make me VEEEEEEERY unpopular, but...

Mixing the Watchmen characters with the mainstream DCU is a bad idea that undermines Dr. Manhattan as an indifferent observer and weakens the original Watchmen story as a universe where DC comics once existed in that universe. And undermines Superman as the most powerful being in the DCU.

Superman isn't the most powerful... That would at LEAST be Spectre. Not even counting the 'hold the multiple earths apart' from COIE



He should always be ONE of the most powerful ever... but Dr. Manhattan on the level of Spectre is still fine with me.

I'll have to disagree. I'm critical of the movie but I though the fight was the best part. Part of it was quality, another part of it was over-the-top schlock. I agree with you about the parts you liked.

Kind of agree with this. I absolutely love that bit where the kryptonite is wearing off and Batman's blows are hurting less... and less... and... Oh crap...

The rest of the movie was a slog, but I really liked that part. For the most part I HATED DKR... One person bragging about a fight while the other is saying 'Stop fighting... Your heart!!!' doesn't make for an 'epic battle' for me.

I definitely felt both Superman losing to Supergirl in a 'fair' fight and him lauding Supergirl for her sacrifice saying he couldn't have given up Lois for the Earth were awful character moments for Superman. That lost all the goodwill Hoechin's Superman gained in his first appearances. Both were damning narrative choices for the season finale, though the Lois one was far worse for Superman to be sure.

Honestly, I never had an issue with that... I didn't even pay any attention to it at the time. Is the general opinion that Superman would have sacrificed Lois to save earth? That doesn't feel right. Superman would have FOUND A WAY TO WIN for everyone. He wouldn't have sacrificed Lois... he wouldn't have sacrificed Earth... but he really wouldn't have chosen one over the other... When Superman's on the Job, nobody dies today. Even if other people DO die... it's not because Superman picked one over the other...

At least that's the ideal. Zac Snyder obviously disagrees :P

[Stardust]

Honestly, I never had an issue with that... I didn't even pay any attention to it at the time. Is the general opinion that Superman would have sacrificed Lois to save earth? That doesn't feel right. Superman would have FOUND A WAY TO WIN for everyone. He wouldn't have sacrificed Lois... he wouldn't have sacrificed Earth... but he really wouldn't have chosen one over the other... When Superman's on the Job, nobody dies today. Even if other people DO die... it's not because Superman picked one over the other...

At least that's the ideal. Zac Snyder obviously disagrees :P

I don't understand the issue with that either, when does Clark ever sacrifice one to save others when that one isn't himself?
And why should he start with sacrificing humans with his own wife/girlfriend?

[Jon Clark]

I don't understand the issue with that either, when does Clark ever sacrifice one to save others when that one isn't himself?
And why should he start with sacrificing humans with his own wife/girlfriend?

The idea was that Kara had just been forced to choose between her boyfriend (Mon-El) and Earth. You can fault the writers for setting it up that way, but there wasn't an option to save both. Trying to comfort her Superman basically said that if he had the same choice (i.e. no third choice) he'd have chose to save Lois and thus Supergirl did something he wouldn't/couldn't. Technically since it wasn't an option there is a chance that if he'd really had to choose Superman might not act the way he thinks he would.