Controversial Superman Opinions

[marhawkman]

Metropolis has frequently dipped into almost-cyberpunk dystopia depictions at various points, as well as being a more "Crime-invested" place; we've had stuff like Suicide Slum, the 100, Intergang, and in the 90's LexCorp and Project Cadmus were frequently up to no good or at least creating as many problems as they solved. And the B-13 period wasn't above getting a little dirty. In fact, I'd argue that Metropolis was more a cyberpunk playground throughout both the Bronze Age and the Post-Crisis period

Maybe Metropolis's thing should be that it's always waffling between Cyberpunk hellhole and City of Tomorrow, with ALL of that stuff happening ALL AT ONCE?

Imagine if Morrison's Blue Jeans Superman was having to deal with Intergang preying on Suicide Slum while Westfield's version of Project Cadmus uses it as testing ground and Lex Luthor is the overlord of it all...

Hahaa, I like that as a duality though. Rich side of town has super-tech, poor side of town has the scraps of tech that barely work. It feels... real. Utopias don't feel real. Utopias need a society with no evil. Human nature doesn't work that way.

[Agent Z]

I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not the biggest Superman guy. This observation is more of an outsider looking in, so I don't know how controversial it will be, but...

Metropolis needs to be a crummier and more corrupt city, and this is a reason why Superman is seen as "boring" by some fans.

I think one of the problems with Metropolis as a setting is it's become caught up in Superman's contrast with Batman. We all know how DC loves to yammer on about how Supes and Bats are opposite, but the same, two sides of the coin...light and dark, day and night, salvation and justice...blah-blah-blah.

And this has extended to their respective cities. If Gotham is this rotting cesspool of corruption and crime, Metropolis therefore becomes this shining City of Tomorrow. Crime, yes. A need for Superman, sure. But aside from killer robots and evil aliens, lacking a sense the city is fundamentally broken the way Gotham is.

So what's really the point of Superman if his chosen city is "just fine" with or without him?

Think about this on the purely visceral, wish-fulfillment level--what's the appeal of a character who's effectively invincible? They can do what they want without fear of real consequence.
But that's only heroic if the world they're doing it in is a world of corruption, bullies, injustice, and tyranny. Otherwise, they are the bully imposing their power on an unsuspecting world. A Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers steamrolling innocent people. Every tiresome evil Superman story we've already seen.

A beacon of hope only works if the world surrounding them is dark. If Metropolis is "just fine," then Superman is merely a glorified janitor keeping it tidy.
This is why DC's efforts to present him as a symbol of hope often just amount to meaningless platitudes or (worse) every other hero made to look incompetent and useless without him.

I'm not saying Metropolis needs to become a carbon copy of Gotham City, but it does need to be equally broken and corrupt in its own way. If Gotham is a urban hell of crime-lords paying off corrupt cops and government officials, maybe Metropolis needs to be a place of greedy corporate executives using their vast wealth to work the system in their favor?
And hey, who's Superman's greatest enemy? A corrupt business executive who only cares about his ego.


Maybe I'm way off the mark here. Or maybe I'm saying something fans already know. As said, I'm not a Superman guy. I'm only offering an outsider's perception of Metropolis and how it relates to Superman.

Writers are constantly trying to figure out how to make Superman more relatable and interesting. But I think maybe the problem isn't him, it's his setting.
Metropolis needs to be a s**t-hole.

Making everything around the main character a hellhole is a pretty lazy way to make them stand out as a paragon in my view.

[manwhohaseverything]

Making everything around the main character a hellhole is a pretty lazy way to make them stand out as a paragon in my view.

isn't that what snyder was trying to do?

[Agent Z]

isn't that what snyder was trying to do?

No he wasn't.

[manwhohaseverything]

No he wasn't.

then what was he trying to do?

[Agent Z]

then what was he trying to do?

Show that Superman is imperfect like everyone else.

[NaVi]

Metropolis must be a corrupt city, but that must be the problem of Clark / Lois, it is ridiculous to include a character as powerful as Superman in that kind of story, it is fine if it is a story that is seen from time to time, but much of it of the stories must be outside of Metropolis, Metropolis is the city of Clark/Lois or Steel.
For Clark/Lois Metropilis it offers infinite possibilities, in addition to allowing to create stories closer to the real world (they are journalists after all), but for Superman it is a hindrance, Metropilis only slows down the character, it is better if it disappears.

[SiegePerilous02]

There is no need to keep emphasizing Superman as a symbol of hope in the first place. He's here to get shit done to help make the world a better place, and loves his job. He should be active, not offering empty platitudes about hope

So there is no need to make Metropolis corrupt to have him stick out as a symbol of hope. He lives there but is by no means limited to always being there. Plus if it's always corrupt, he looks even less effective than Batman if he can't change it for the better

[manwhohaseverything]

Show that Superman is imperfect like everyone else.

I don't really understand the concept of perfect..so being imperfect flys over my head.If you mean conflicted and has self preservation instincts or isn't entirely selfless.Then i guess,i could see it.

[DochaDocha]

I'd like to add that Metropolis' less-blatant corruption than Gotham, as well as its futuristic vibe, should be reflections on Superman's influence on the city. Not to say that Batman's influence isn't as widespread as Superman's (though it probably shouldn't be), but more that there are more bad actors in Gotham for Batman to overcome, and the odds are far more stacked against him.

If you're one of those fans who see Gotham City as a character in itself and would like to see Metropolis be something similar, I understand. It would be nice if they made actual landmarks in Metropolis besides the Superman statue and the Daily Planet building.

[marhawkman]

I'd like to add that Metropolis' less-blatant corruption than Gotham, as well as its futuristic vibe, should be reflections on Superman's influence on the city. Not to say that Batman's influence isn't as widespread as Superman's (though it probably shouldn't be), but more that there are more bad actors in Gotham for Batman to overcome, and the odds are far more stacked against him.

If you're one of those fans who see Gotham City as a character in itself and would like to see Metropolis be something similar, I understand. It would be nice if they made actual landmarks in Metropolis besides the Superman statue and the Daily Planet building.

Yeah, in Metropolis the bad actors should be mostly guys like Lex Luthor who are at least pretending to be legit most of the time.

[HeartofTheStoriesWeTell]

then what was he trying to do?

I would say he was trying to make a group of superheroes (but starting with Sman) in the real world, or atleast a more realistic world.

in the stories we normally get a full view inside the characters heads. We KNOW superman is a good guy, we KNOW he is from smallville and that he was raised to be a good person, and to do the right thing. As a reader we KNOW he is the hero... now imagine someone in the real world with those powers. You don't know who they are and what they are going to do or not do. You see them save you... but what about next time? Do you trust ANYONE to be all good all the time? what does it mean if 1 person has this kind of power and they have an off daY?

do I think he handled it perfect... lol no not even close... but it was a take and one that gets more disrespect then it deserves (not that it deserves none)

[HeartofTheStoriesWeTell]

Yeah, in Metropolis the bad actors should be mostly guys like Lex Luthor who are at least pretending to be legit most of the time.

the best superman foils are ones he can't just punch

[manwhohaseverything]

I would say he was trying to make a group of superheroes (but starting with Sman) in the real world, or atleast a more realistic world.

in the stories we normally get a full view inside the characters heads. We KNOW superman is a good guy, we KNOW he is from smallville and that he was raised to be a good person, and to do the right thing. As a reader we KNOW he is the hero... now imagine someone in the real world with those powers. You don't know who they are and what they are going to do or not do. You see them save you... but what about next time? Do you trust ANYONE to be all good all the time? what does it mean if 1 person has this kind of power and they have an off daY?

do I think he handled it perfect... lol no not even close... but it was a take and one that gets more disrespect then it deserves (not that it deserves none)

Here is the thing,i would say he was more pessimistic than realistic(talking about emotional reactions..not about physics and what not).for example,Realistically a guy with superman level power getting pissed and causing damage like when zod threatened ma Kent is possible.But,to what extent?we have to consider clark's nature and nurture.The movie paints picture that superman is a walking talking disaster and nothing else in second and third act.realism is showing what is.It's not about "belief" what could happen positive(optimism) or negative(pessimism).I don't really understand the concept of Good or bad..it usually goes over my head.Because I don't know the objective standard to it.

Here is another idea superman ain't human..Realistically,superman having same impulses as us is just our attempt at anthropomorphize him.We might get pissed and cause damage..But, what are the chances of an alien species that has more than enough years on the evolutionary mechanism than us.A species that has been a civilised social creature more than our existence as homo sapiens..To be this destructive.As said,Snyder painted a picture..is it realistic or his own expression of what could be real?Ofcourse,that's might be all anyone can do..

[Agent Z]

I don't really understand the concept of perfect..so being imperfect flys over my head.If you mean conflicted and has self preservation instincts or isn't entirely selfless.Then i guess,i could see it.

Yeah, that's what being imperfect means.