Controversial Superman Opinions

[666MasterOfPuppets]

You don't have to like him. His fans like him. But don't be too derisive at the direction that Rebirth Superman is taking. If DC felt that it was profitable or a good choice to stick with Nuperman, then they would have. If people were reading Nuperman or even just attached to him, then DC wouldn't have needed to do Rebirth in the first place.

But that's the thing, isn't it? Even before CoIE, or Flashpoint, whatever problems Superman had at the time could have been solved with better writing. I agree with what other people in this forum say regarding Nuperman: him being purposefully sunk by DC in order to bring back Superdad, via the "Truth/DCYou" crapfest. Personally, and as a sidenote, I was just fine with both of them around.

Instead of writing better stories, they just go the easy route and hit the reboot (or in this case deboot) button.

Also, on the unbelievability of Lois never having known Clark was Superman before he told her. Uh....isn't that also the case for Nuperman and NuLois?

Yup. The magic of comic books right there.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you're both talking about that clumsy burn in Infinite crisis. And I'll then have to disagree that any main Superman would bust a normal guy for talking mean at him. Maybe a Marvel pastiche.

As for comparison,



About as good.

*LOVE* For Tomorrow.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

The dodged punch It was in No man's land. Which brings me to another controversial opinion. Gotham is not a challenge to Superman. He would clean it in no time and make it into something similar to Metropolis. There's still be super crime but not at the level Batman allows.

Never read No Man's Land (but I did pick up Shadow of the Bat #75 from the supermarket rack. That thing's committed to memory from reading it so much) or much regular Batman in general. Apparently Superman made a cameo in 566 that sounds neat, where they even got Bogdanove to draw it.

I'm really undecided on where he should stand with Gotham. But mainly because I find Gotham so strange. The worst Lex is still not the Joker, and usually that kinda relentless murderer I don't really read because it makes no sense for them to just go back to some weak jail.

I don't remember if it was in For Tomorrow. But Kal helps Bruce fix things in Gotham (like, re-establishing electrical power to the city after a huge blackout and such), but soon afterwards the city goes to hell again. Batman just tells Supes "they're not ready".

[Anthony Shaw]

No era would be immune to bad mouthing on the internet. Not a single one, if teens or adults are involved. The difference with Byrne would be that by all accounts his run had fantastic sales.





I'm gonna go ahead and guess you're both talking about that clumsy burn in Infinite crisis. And I'll then have to disagree that any main Superman would bust a normal guy for talking mean at him. Maybe a Marvel pastiche.

As for comparison,



About as good.

Great scenes!

Did the first scene take place shortly after Jason died?

[adkal]

Great scenes!

Did the first scene take place shortly after Jason died?

Yes.

Superman had been asked to step in in order to help avoid Batman creating an international incident.

Batman didn't take too kindly to it, initially (and, really, needed something/one to hit) but they worked it out.

[Ascended]

Concerning Clark and Gotham....

The problem Superman would have with Gotham is the same problem he has with the rest of the world. The people.

Clark could fly in, find every major villain and every major mob boss, collect enough evidence to put them away for multiple life sentences, and drop them all off at Jim Gordon's doorstep wrapped in steel gift wrap. It'd take maybe a week at the most.

Half of those mob bosses wont ever see the inside of a jail cell because they've got the judges in their pockets. The other half will get a slap on the wrist and be back on the street in short order. Best case scenario is, like Harvey Dent said in Dark Knight "18 months with no drugs on the streets" That's assuming a cop on the mob's payroll doesnt screw up the evidence locker and they all walk free within 48 hours. The costumed lunatics? They'll end up back in Arkham, because that's where the unstable people go, and we all know how good Arkham is at helping people with severe mental issues.

Superman might be able to stop all these villains and bad guys, but Gotham's corrupt system means nothing will stick. If Superman really wanted to save Gotham that would mean he'd have to take down half of the civil servants in the city, from judges to the head of the sanitation department, a big chunk of the police force, and a number of bankers and businessmen who enable the criminal element to prosper. Then he'd have to make sure that the new people who replace all those who just got pulled down are quality people who won't take a bribe or fold under threats. Once that was done, then he could go after the mob and psychos.

And that's a big job even for a Superman, with thin chances of success. The powers of a god only get you so far when you have to work within a broken system.

[adkal]

Thanks for the correction for whatever reason I thought it was from No Man's Land when Superman came in to help.. Anway about oversight. Superman is faster than light he can patrol both cities at the same time. He can be anywhere at any time and do anything Batman does but better and faster. Unlike Lex the Joker doesn't hide what he is. Gotham city is not a challenge at all for Superman.

Concerning Clark and Gotham....

The problem Superman would have with Gotham is the same problem he has with the rest of the world. The people.

This is what I was alluding to with regards to 'oversight' - Metropolis still has its darker areas (Suicide Slum, for example), but the people are, overall, lighter than their Gotham neighbours (not saying that the regular folk in Gotham are 'dark'...)

[Jim Kelly]

I think of Metropolis as Upper Manhattan, everything above 42nd St., and Gotham as Lower Manhattan, everything below 42nd St.

[Francisco]

This is what I was alluding to with regards to 'oversight' - Metropolis still has its darker areas (Suicide Slum, for example), but the people are, overall, lighter than their Gotham neighbours (not saying that the regular folk in Gotham are 'dark'...)

Yeah but that's nonsense the writers come up with so Gotham never changes. Because they need Gotham to stay a hellhole so Batman can keep brooding in the shadows. Hell Superman could simply devote his time to destroy the smuggled cargo and make the drug lords and mobsters to go bankrupted. With no money they can't buy politicians, cops and other public servants.

[DochaDocha]

Yeah but that's nonsense the writers come up with so Gotham never changes. Because they need Gotham to stay a hellhole so Batman can keep brooding in the shadows. Hell Superman could simply devote his time to destroy the smuggled cargo and make the drug lords and mobsters to go bankrupted. With no money they can't buy politicians, cops and other public servants.

I like to think that Superman did much of that to Metropolis, thus making it a nicer place to live than Gotham.

[The World]

LMAO at the idea of Batman being instrumental in differentiating Superman. The Bat complex is worse than I thought and thankfully we have those sca.s to disprove that notion.

Uh no buddy, it's about how he carries himself. Confidence and self assurance. Bruce was just an example but since that apparently vexed your nerves compare how he handles the conflict between the mexican workers and their (employer?) from Superman 247 to Superman slumping off after the woman tells him about her dead husband in Superman 700 or 701.

One guy was the Man of Steel and the Champion of the Oppressed the other is responsible for naive farmboy. Clearly the mindsets behind the different iterations were in completely different area codes.

[Ascended]

Yeah but that's nonsense the writers come up with so Gotham never changes. Because they need Gotham to stay a hellhole so Batman can keep brooding in the shadows. Hell Superman could simply devote his time to destroy the smuggled cargo and make the drug lords and mobsters to go bankrupted. With no money they can't buy politicians, cops and other public servants.

Until the mob bosses start finding new ways to smuggle their product. Maybe they hire Warp and have him come and go in sound-proof rooms. Or Mirror Master. Or the Shade, or anyone else who can teleport. Sure, that extra cost would impact them and have repercussions for the black market economy, but how much does Warp charge compared to the time and effort and cost of traditional smuggling? Lots of shush money passed around that Warp bypasses. Or maybe they just get real sneaky; Clark's senses don't make him omnipotent.

Now, that said, Superman certainly could make some major headway in Gotham in a way that Batman never could. Clark could, if nothing else, take the most dangerous people out of play for good (Joker deserves a trip to the Phantom Zone and he's one of the few humans Clark might actually throw in there). But Metropolis isn't crime free, even after years of Clark's direct effort. Muggers, bank robbers, corrupt politicians and businessmen, they all still exist. And on top of that Metropolis is the super-crime capital of the world. So why would we expect Gotham to be cleaned up? Clark might force out the mob and the psychopaths, but those people will just be replaced with new criminals. Likely ones who don't need any dynamite to blow up buildings.

That's the thing. You can't clean up a whole city by yourself, the people themselves have to do that. And Gotham doesnt want to be clean. Superman could help bring in some changes, mainly by being an inspiring force (just like in Metropolis) but he can't solve the world's problems for us.

Its like we saw in Morrison's Action. Superman pulled down Glennmorgan, but all that really did was open the door for Lex Luthor to step up. Crime didn't go away, it just evolved to keep up. Can you imagine what sort of horrors a place like Gotham would spit out to balance the scales?

[Francisco]

I like to think that Superman did much of that to Metropolis, thus making it a nicer place to live than Gotham.

This is what I mean guys. Gotham won't become a perfect city just because Superman is there. It will just become livable, nicer. Crime would be forced to hide in the corners instead of controlling the whole city. I'm assuming that Superman is going to be written as Superman instead of being dumbed down and depowered. Which is what most likely would happen if such story was written.

[Francisco]

Until the mob bosses start finding new ways to smuggle their product. Maybe they hire Warp and have him come and go in sound-proof rooms. Or Mirror Master. Or the Shade, or anyone else who can teleport. Sure, that extra cost would impact them and have repercussions for the black market economy, but how much does Warp charge compared to the time and effort and cost of traditional smuggling? Lots of shush money passed around that Warp bypasses. Or maybe they just get real sneaky; Clark's senses don't make him omnipotent.

Now, that said, Superman certainly could make some major headway in Gotham in a way that Batman never could. Clark could, if nothing else, take the most dangerous people out of play for good (Joker deserves a trip to the Phantom Zone and he's one of the few humans Clark might actually throw in there). But Metropolis isn't crime free, even after years of Clark's direct effort. Muggers, bank robbers, corrupt politicians and businessmen, they all still exist. And on top of that Metropolis is the super-crime capital of the world. So why would we expect Gotham to be cleaned up? Clark might force out the mob and the psychopaths, but those people will just be replaced with new criminals. Likely ones who don't need any dynamite to blow up buildings.

That's the thing. You can't clean up a whole city by yourself, the people themselves have to do that. And Gotham doesnt want to be clean. Superman could help bring in some changes, mainly by being an inspiring force (just like in Metropolis) but he can't solve the world's problems for us.

Its like we saw in Morrison's Action. Superman pulled down Glennmorgan, but all that really did was open the door for Lex Luthor to step up. Crime didn't go away, it just evolved to keep up. Can you imagine what sort of horrors a place like Gotham would spit out to balance the scales?

Yeah if anything Superman would just turn Gotham into a second Metropolis. Same city different type of problems. It would be interesting if the heroes were more proactive than they are portrayed. Like at some point Metropolis changes so much for the better that there are no many adventures taking place there because everything's happening elsewhere. Why would a smart villain go to Metropolis knowing it's Superman's city?

[Adekis]

There's no real reason why Superman shouldn't clean up Gotham City except that, as someone said above, Gotham needs to stay hellish for plot-reasons, and we just need to shrug. The writers should never actually try to come up with in-universe reasons why Superman doesn't do to Gotham what he already did for Metropolis, because there can never be a satisfying one. We just need to accept it, basically.

[Ascended]

This is what I mean guys. Gotham won't become a perfect city just because Superman is there. It will just become livable, nicer. Crime would be forced to hide in the corners instead of controlling the whole city. I'm assuming that Superman is going to be written as Superman instead of being dumbed down and depowered. Which is what most likely would happen if such story was written.

Ah okay. I thought you were taking it further, my bad! Yeah, with time Clark could clean up Gotham and get it to roughly Metropolis levels. The cities have different problems though, so I dont think we'd see the same style result. Gotham for instance, has corruption deep into the core of its government, whereas Metropolis' problems largely came from the private sector (Glennmorgan, Lex, Morgan Edge,etc). I think Gotham would actually be harder to clean up than Metropolis was for that reason; once Clark ran most of the corrupt businessmen out of Metropolis, the city's local government, which seemed largely just ineffective and flaccid to that point, could step in and keep that momentum going with new reforms and stuff like the SCU. Gotham on the other hand, Clark would have to pull down a lot of cops and public servants before you'd get to see any real change last. Otherwise those people would just work from the inside to keep Gotham rotten.