Controversial Superman Opinions

[Ascended]

all the fans cry including those of superman, it is obvious, but for some reason the fans of other heroes come to the superman forum, to criticize superman and say that their hero is the best. there is a fashion to criticize superman for everything, while the other characters are forgiven, I am tired of that fashion.

Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

To a large degree, Clark is simply held to a higher standard. Crap that everyone else gets away with, Clark gets dragged through the mud over. He's the poster boy for the superhero construct, the godfather of the genre, largely considered to be among the most powerful characters in publishing, so he gets all the heat regardless of whether its fair or other characters are even more guilty of whatever is being thrown at Clark.

Diana gets some of this too, in some ways worse, in some ways better.

As for how his power/ability compares to his peers, there's this weird internal conflict where everyone has carved out niches where they get to reign supreme but because of Superman's status in our culture, he is constantly being challenged for his position in a way others don't really have to put up with (except Diana who gets more than her share of BS). Nobody really argues about Flash being fastest, or Diana being the best fighter from among the superhumans, but everyone will argue that their personal favorite is more "powerful" (whatever that actually means) than Clark, while in the same breath saying that Superman is too powerful. That they don't see the irony is pretty funny, once you get over the sheer stupid audacity of it.

I figure, if someone writes these characters in a way where everyone is on the front line of a big fight, or is otherwise comparing them on a singular metric and not playing to their individual strengths, then you shouldn't be paying for the comic. If Batman is throwing little bombs at Despero from ten feet away then it's not a comic worth reading. But if there's a big Despero battle and Bruce is using that distraction to sneak onto Despero's ship and sabotage Despero's big planet destroying laser? Then Batman gets to look badass without the ridiculousness of his little bombs having an impact on a guy who can break worlds in half and everyone can avoid the moronic "who could beat up who?" debates.

[Robanker]

Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

To a large degree, Clark is simply held to a higher standard. Crap that everyone else gets away with, Clark gets dragged through the mud over. He's the poster boy for the superhero construct, the godfather of the genre, largely considered to be among the most powerful characters in publishing, so he gets all the heat regardless of whether its fair or other characters are even more guilty of whatever is being thrown at Clark.

Diana gets some of this too, in some ways worse, in some ways better.

As for how his power/ability compares to his peers, there's this weird internal conflict where everyone has carved out niches where they get to reign supreme but because of Superman's status in our culture, he is constantly being challenged for his position in a way others don't really have to put up with (except Diana who gets more than her share of BS). Nobody really argues about Flash being fastest, or Diana being the best fighter from among the superhumans, but everyone will argue that their personal favorite is more "powerful" (whatever that actually means) than Clark, while in the same breath saying that Superman is too powerful. That they don't see the irony is pretty funny, once you get over the sheer stupid audacity of it.

I figure, if someone writes these characters in a way where everyone is on the front line of a big fight, or is otherwise comparing them on a singular metric and not playing to their individual strengths, then you shouldn't be paying for the comic. If Batman is throwing little bombs at Despero from ten feet away then it's not a comic worth reading. But if there's a big Despero battle and Bruce is using that distraction to sneak onto Despero's ship and sabotage Despero's big planet destroying laser? Then Batman gets to look badass without the ridiculousness of his little bombs having an impact on a guy who can break worlds in half and everyone can avoid the moronic "who could beat up who?" debates.

Bro, don't ask me to do work when I'm writing Batgod. They're antithetical. I'm writing Batgod because I want to make my name popular amongst people who are willing to pay full price for braindead so when I go to creator owned-- and actually try-- every issue feels like a magnum opus.

I'm being a bit mean, but really I don't think anyone writing Batgod thinks they're actually making anything of quality. It's commercial. It's for the bills. They're writing for meatheads because fools easily part with their money. I'm not immune to it, I admit, but Batgod isn't my flavor of choice. Once someone begins writing Batgod, I basically put them in a category labled "mediocre and overhyped" (Snyder, though he remains an absolute gentleman outside his work) that only a very select few have been able to escape (Morrison). Aside from the very rare Morrisonian upset, that policy has rarely proven me wrong.

[marhawkman]

I don't really think it takes away from Superman for Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel (The real one) to be as powerful(what exactly do we mean when we say powerful) as he is. Diana had all those years of Amazonian training, Clark has all of his sub-powers, ice breath, hyper attuned senses, lazer vision, etc. Imo Superman made a name for himself without trying to compare to other heroes, idk why he'd really be trying to prove something now. Having to prove you can measure up to the other heroes is some Batman BS and best to keep it with Batman.

Also in Batman comics it's shown as a minor form of insanity.

[Kuwagaton]

I mean if people think it's annoying as a Superman fan or some other League character, try going for some other crimefighter. Cap, Punisher, Shadow, Daredevil... if they have to interact with Batman it means they have to be indiscreetly placed under him lol

I haven't seen any Batman in DC really more extreme than Hyperclan tbh

[marhawkman]

I mean if people think it's annoying as a Superman fan or some other League character, try going for some other crimefighter. Cap, Punisher, Shadow, Daredevil... if they have to interact with Batman it means they have to be indiscreetly placed under him lol

I haven't seen any Batman in DC really more extreme than Hyperclan tbh

Oh yeah. people like Green Arrow get treated like they're Batman's sidekick.

[manwhohaseverything]

I wonder what would they do if they could publish zorro.might turn him into batman's jay Garrick.poor original flash.

[The World]

The explosion of the evil Superman trope over the past few years has made me realize that people aren't actually turned off by very strong people beating down on much weaker people. The David vs Goliath thing is more myth than truth. Sure people like watching the "underdog" win but I don't think people really have all that much problem with the reverse. If you think about it that's all characters like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsay have been doing for years to great popularity.

[I'm a Fish]

The explosion of the evil Superman trope over the past few years has made me realize that people aren't actually turned off by very strong people beating down on much weaker people. The David vs Goliath thing is more myth than truth. Sure people like watching the "underdog" win but I don't think people really have all that much problem with the reverse. If you think about it that's all characters like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsay have been doing for years to great popularity.

I think it’s sort of a “revenge is a dish best served cold” situation. People let the horrible person get away with it on TV because they want to see something even more horrible happen to the horrible person eventually.

[NaVi]

The evil superman is a powerful being who abuses his powers, he is a villain that appears in a filler number, the reason is that the evil superman is not a villain, he is a tool to make other heroes better. That is why the evil supermen are usually crying children (prime, ultraman, injustice).

[manwhohaseverything]

The explosion of the evil Superman trope over the past few years has made me realize that people aren't actually turned off by very strong people beating down on much weaker people. The David vs Goliath thing is more myth than truth. Sure people like watching the "underdog" win but I don't think people really have all that much problem with the reverse. If you think about it that's all characters like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsay have been doing for years to great popularity.

I think superman is turned evil precisely for that purpose.So that mr.david with batarang can beat up goliath with lazers.For example,injustice and darkknight returns.Normally in dc anyways.There are things like boys,red son,invincible ...etc that's just there to take apart superman.

[Lightning Rider]

I think superman is turned evil precisely for that purpose.So that mr.david with batarang can beat up goliath with lazers.For example,injustice and darkknight returns.Normally in dc anyways.There are things like boys,red son,invincible ...etc that's just there to take apart superman.

I wonder if there's something deeper at play here, actually. (I don't normally intend to get political in regular comics forums, but it is a controversial opinion thread, so let me put my Zizek hat on for a minute.)

In his Golden Age origins, Superman is a being of incredible power (compared to humans at least), immune from mortal dangers and irreverant in his application of justice. He is the power fantasy of the depression-era male. But the prevailing "moral lesson" of 20th century appears to be that we - as individuals, specifically - should be utterly skeptical and afraid of attempts to wield power in dramatic ways, lest we replicate Soviet Authoritarianism or Fascist Dictatorship. This view, of course, coincides with a rise in (more diffuse and less identifiable or accountable) private power, while the "public" portion of government power has shrank.

This is reflected most palpably in American culture. Almost all mainstream dystopian fiction is about some rugged, apolitical individual fighting against an oppressive governmental structure, with no real answer as to who is meant to wield power afterwards, or how. The heroes are never shown to be exercising authority themselves, only smashing it. It's like the only articulable vision of freedom is that which destroys power, and that has unfortunate political consequences; the competing conservative and neoliberal currents both rest on the idea that less government is always good, to the detriment of much needed public services and a more collective political culture.

So where does Superman fit into a culture that eschews power as inherently evil? Well, he becomes increasingly relevant only as a problem; an object to be opposed, an authority to be dismantled. I'm all for stories focused on scrutinizing and complicating the morality of superheroes (I love Kingdom Come, Red Son, and Snyder's films), but weilding immense power for the common good has probably become an alien concept in our modern culture. For that reason, so has Superman at his best.

[PCN24454]

The explosion of the evil Superman trope over the past few years has made me realize that people aren't actually turned off by very strong people beating down on much weaker people. The David vs Goliath thing is more myth than truth. Sure people like watching the "underdog" win but I don't think people really have all that much problem with the reverse. If you think about it that's all characters like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsay have been doing for years to great popularity.

I think it's based on the idea that someone so strong should be winning. If an underdog manages to dethrone the big king, then that's one less thing people can be certain of in their lives. That can be unsettling.

[Alpha]

So where does Superman fit into a culture that eschews power as inherently evil? Well, he becomes increasingly relevant only as a problem; an object to be opposed, an authority to be dismantled. I'm all for stories focused on scrutinizing and complicating the morality of superheroes (I love Kingdom Come, Red Son, and Snyder's films), but weilding immense power for the common good has probably become an alien concept in our modern culture. For that reason, so has Superman at his best.

I don't know that to be true. It's a very generic statement so the answer is both yes and no. Ultimately, what Superman most needs right now is to be fighting against a status quo, not in defense of it. I think Clark is at his best when the stories are about "how do I make the world a better place?" without there being a clear answer.

And accountability should certainly be one of the most important aspects of the character in this day and age.

[Mistah K88]

You know... I don't particularly care if Superman weighs about as much as he looks (i.e. 220 to 250 pounds) and gets knocked around by things like explosives if he doesn't particularly resist them intentionally (they just don't hurt him at all). I suppose you don't want to think too much real world physics in superhero comics though so I could understand why people would prefer that Clark be completely un-movable by anything that isn't fantasy. (That said, if they are going to use "magic" as a crutch, they should start specifying what that magic does. More "this has been enchanted to cut through anything" and less "this cut you because it's magic".)

[Lightning Rider]

I don't know that to be true. It's a very generic statement so the answer is both yes and no. Ultimately, what Superman most needs right now is to be fighting against a status quo, not in defense of it. I think Clark is at his best when the stories are about "how do I make the world a better place?" without there being a clear answer.

And accountability should certainly be one of the most important aspects of the character in this day and age.

I agree with the bolded - but that's precisely what I think people are now incapable of imagining him doing in good faith: using his power to disrupt the status quo. Aside from Morrison's run, he's either irrelevant to the status quo, or impotent (or evil and thus worse than the status quo).

I agree there shouldn't be a clear-cut answer, but I am also tired of there being no answer.