The state of Superman in popular culture right now

[scary harpy]

I think it's more that the same 10-20 Bat-villains catch writers imaginations and are used over and over again. I know that sounds like a lot, but it's really a ridiculously small sample size compared to the number of villains Batman has actually had over the years. And after 80 years and over saturation it's still that same group. Of Superman's villains, the only ones who have been overused are Lex and the Phantom Zone criminals mainly in the movies. Brainiac, Mxy and Bizarro show up a lot, but never in any movies, whereas characters from Batman't main pool of villains have shown up in at least one movie, if not multiple (Joker, Catwoman, the Penguin, Two-Face, etc.).

Agreed!

Batman has (I guess) about 600+ villians...and we only see the same 2 dozen over and over. And Lex is heavily overused.

I suspect the Phatom Zoners are overused for the same reason Bizarro shows up often...they can provide a real challenge for Kal...aside from natural disasters, one-shot monsters and one-shot aliens.

How much of the old Superman cartoons actually utilized his villains vs how well the Batman cartoons utilized his (though before BTAS, they weren't known for using them that effectively)? We know STAS didn't use that many for dubious reasons because Bruce Timm has proven that he's just not well suited for Superman in general.

I'd say if it's difficult to make Superman vs. bank robber story interesting...why are you having Superman do basic bitch stuff like that in the first place? If a writer doesn't have the imagination to create a clever threat for someone of Superman's power level, they'd perhaps be better off writing another character/

Some posters feel Superman versus bank robbers could be a great story. All I can say is that...it's not a story I would pay to read.

[SiegePerilous02]

Some posters feel Superman versus bank robbers could be a great story. All I can say is that...it's not a story I would pay to read.

I agree, though it depends on the context I think. I'd be fine with a Golden Age/New 52 style Superman going against bank robbers (or at least "normal" criminals with heavy artillery). Otherwise, have fully powered Superman be challenged by that stuff since he can't solve it with action. When it's time for Man of Action mode, you need Brainiac or Solaris instead.

[Ascended]

Agreed. If Batman is going to halt a bank robbery, the creators' goal is to make it imaginative and visually appealing, particularly for the screen. He's going to use some new technology, demonstrate great fighting ability, outsmart the bad guys, etc. If he just shows up and does kung fu and the bad guys all shoot like blind, drunken Imperial Stormtroopers, that's not interesting at all. Certainly many would argue that even if the setup is flawed it's still inherently interesting because Batman's life is at risk, I'd counter that most of the times stuff like this happens neither Batman nor the innocent bystanders sustain any injuries, so there's no real risk.

If you're going to have Superman vs. low-level bank robbers, you can still make it interesting if you are creative and have Superman do clever or imaginative things to stop it, instead "Hold it right there!" with his hands on his hips, they all shoot him and the bullets flatten on his torso, and he rounds them up. Like, start with the idea that Clark Kent has to stop the robbery, but without blowing his secret ID. It could be interesting.

co-signed.

People who think that Superman doesn't work at certain levels simply aren't putting in the imagination. Which is forgivable, since DC's talent usually can't be bothered to either.

But here's the thing; any story that sets Superman against any threat can be boring and flat as f*ck, or the best thing you'll read all year. It just depends on the execution.

Look at Infinite Crisis; two Supermen from different realities battle a crazy Superboy from the real world in a brawl that rages across half the universe, through an army of Lanterns, crash lands on a living, sentient planet, and ends with them brutally beating the hell out of each other with kryptonite, covered in blood and bruises and ripped costumes. On paper that sounds like the kind of fight scene that couldn't be anything other than amazing right? Even if you don't care for the "mirror match" troupe, just the scale and scope of the battle should be impressive.

Yet that fight was one of the most boring things Johns has ever written. On paper it should be an unsurpassed spectacle, yet somehow a group of highly experienced and talented professional creators, among the biggest names in the business, made it boring as hell.

Then there's something like Bendis' Toyman fight from Man of Steel. Toyman just gets trounced, it's like a child trying to fight a MMA champion. But the dialogue is entertaining, Hal Jordan's appearance is fun, and the art is engaging with tons of fun, interesting little details. It's a quality scene that is not only entertaining but tells us about Clark's character as well as Toyman's.

You think Superman fighting bank robbers can be nothing but boring? Tell the story from the perspective of a hostage; make the reader feel their fear and dismay, and the rise of hope as Superman arrives. Or do it via flashback as reporters interview the witnesses and explore the conflicting elements in their stories. Or have the robbers plant some bombs around town beforehand to distract Clark so he's gotta deal with those explosions and still stop the bad guys. Or have "Clark Kent" walk into the bank, get "shot" in the arm, and now he has to stop the robbery while pretending to be wounded. Or do any number of things.

If all you want is to see who can punch harder, then yeah Superman fighting bank robbers is boring. But if you want to read a story? Nothing is boring if it's written correctly. And finding out how to make "Superman vs bank robbers" interesting is in actuality no more difficult than figuring out how to make "Superman fighting the god of bacteria while on the edge of a galaxy sized black hole in the middle of a tesseract storm" interesting.

When you boil it all down; a fight is a fight. What matters is how you express it.

[DochaDocha]

I don't think anyone would pay to read a full comic book of most of the top DC heroes' stopping a bank robbery as a straight-up action/drama story. On the other hand, I think for Superman, you could do an off-beat issue about it. Say Clark promised Jimmy he'd go to the bank with him but he had to stop a robbery without ditching Jimmy, and for some reason he didn't have his Superman costume available so Clark Kent has to save the day. If Justice League Action were still on the air, I could see that being an 11-minute episode. A less ridiculous scenario could be a 2-minute scene in a movie, animated or live-action.

[scary harpy]

...

Superman is much harder to design an actual threat for...he is practically a demigod. Bank robbers versus Superman is similar to Batman versus Dionysus (the Greek God); it's a bit of a one-sided fight. (Batman loses, by the way.)

...

...

I'd say if it's difficult to make Superman vs. bank robber story interesting...why are you having Superman do basic bitch stuff like that in the first place? If a writer doesn't have the imagination to create a clever threat for someone of Superman's power level, they'd perhaps be better off writing another character/

Just FYI I disagree with the idea that Superman vs bank robbers can't be good. The best Superman story in the last few years has him go against the freaking KKK (or at least an expy of them). That should be such small potatoes to Superman to make for an interesting story, and yet I can't imagine it not being regarded as a classic from now on for the character. So if someone puts the effort in with the right approach, a bank robber plot could be pretty good. I don't think it will happen, but the idea something has to be a huge threat to Superman to be worthwhile is kind of disproven at this point I think.

Agreed. If Batman is going to halt a bank robbery, the creators' goal is to make it imaginative and visually appealing, particularly for the screen. He's going to use some new technology, demonstrate great fighting ability, outsmart the bad guys, etc. If he just shows up and does kung fu and the bad guys all shoot like blind, drunken Imperial Stormtroopers, that's not interesting at all. Certainly many would argue that even if the setup is flawed it's still inherently interesting because Batman's life is at risk, I'd counter that most of the times stuff like this happens neither Batman nor the innocent bystanders sustain any injuries, so there's no real risk.

If you're going to have Superman vs. low-level bank robbers, you can still make it interesting if you are creative and have Superman do clever or imaginative things to stop it, instead "Hold it right there!" with his hands on his hips, they all shoot him and the bullets flatten on his torso, and he rounds them up. Like, start with the idea that Clark Kent has to stop the robbery, but without blowing his secret ID. It could be interesting.

...

Some posters feel Superman versus bank robbers could be a great story. All I can say is that...it's not a story I would pay to read.

I agree, though it depends on the context I think. I'd be fine with a Golden Age/New 52 style Superman going against bank robbers (or at least "normal" criminals with heavy artillery). Otherwise, have fully powered Superman be challenged by that stuff since he can't solve it with action. When it's time for Man of Action mode, you need Brainiac or Solaris instead.

co-signed.

People who think that Superman doesn't work at certain levels simply aren't putting in the imagination. Which is forgivable, since DC's talent usually can't be bothered to either.

But here's the thing; any story that sets Superman against any threat can be boring and flat as f*ck, or the best thing you'll read all year. It just depends on the execution.

Look at Infinite Crisis; two Supermen from different realities battle a crazy Superboy from the real world in a brawl that rages across half the universe, through an army of Lanterns, crash lands on a living, sentient planet, and ends with them brutally beating the hell out of each other with kryptonite, covered in blood and bruises and ripped costumes. On paper that sounds like the kind of fight scene that couldn't be anything other than amazing right? Even if you don't care for the "mirror match" troupe, just the scale and scope of the battle should be impressive.

Yet that fight was one of the most boring things Johns has ever written. On paper it should be an unsurpassed spectacle, yet somehow a group of highly experienced and talented professional creators, among the biggest names in the business, made it boring as hell.

Then there's something like Bendis' Toyman fight from Man of Steel. Toyman just gets trounced, it's like a child trying to fight a MMA champion. But the dialogue is entertaining, Hal Jordan's appearance is fun, and the art is engaging with tons of fun, interesting little details. It's a quality scene that is not only entertaining but tells us about Clark's character as well as Toyman's.

You think Superman fighting bank robbers can be nothing but boring? Tell the story from the perspective of a hostage; make the reader feel their fear and dismay, and the rise of hope as Superman arrives. Or do it via flashback as reporters interview the witnesses and explore the conflicting elements in their stories. Or have the robbers plant some bombs around town beforehand to distract Clark so he's gotta deal with those explosions and still stop the bad guys. Or have "Clark Kent" walk into the bank, get "shot" in the arm, and now he has to stop the robbery while pretending to be wounded. Or do any number of things.

If all you want is to see who can punch harder, then yeah Superman fighting bank robbers is boring. But if you want to read a story? Nothing is boring if it's written correctly. And finding out how to make "Superman vs bank robbers" interesting is in actuality no more difficult than figuring out how to make "Superman fighting the god of bacteria while on the edge of a galaxy sized black hole in the middle of a tesseract storm" interesting.

When you boil it all down; a fight is a fight. What matters is how you express it.

I don't think anyone would pay to read a full comic book of most of the top DC heroes' stopping a bank robbery as a straight-up action/drama story. On the other hand, I think for Superman, you could do an off-beat issue about it. Say Clark promised Jimmy he'd go to the bank with him but he had to stop a robbery without ditching Jimmy, and for some reason he didn't have his Superman costume available so Clark Kent has to save the day. If Justice League Action were still on the air, I could see that being an 11-minute episode. A less ridiculous scenario could be a 2-minute scene in a movie, animated or live-action.

I'm seeing good arguments for a good Superman Versus Bank-Robbers story. I'll admit you may be right; this could be a great story depending on who's writing it.

My original point: Bank robbers versus Superman is similar to Batman versus Dionysus (the Greek God); it's a bit of a one-sided fight. (Batman loses, by the way.)

Before I even read the story, I know the ending...and so do you...the outcome is a forgone conclusion. The bank-robbers are, at best, an annoyance to Kal; Black Adam would be an actual threat to Superman. Wonder Woman might be able to defeat Dionysus...but Batman should not.

I will concede that great stories depend on great writers. As I said, these fights are still one-sided. If I am going to suspend my disbelief, then I desire the imaginary possibility that Superman (or Dionysus) may fail in this story.

[manwhohaseverything]

I got an idea, why don't they write a superman robs a bank story for a change? That would be intriguing. wouldn't it?

[DochaDocha]

I got an idea, why don't they write a superman robs a bank story for a change? That would be intriguing. wouldn't it?

Well that's a stupid idea. Who's going to stop him? And what's he going to do with the money he stole from the bank?

I like to think when Superman's in full troll mode, he'd rob the ill-gotten gains from a bad guy's vault and leave a taunting message, like "What are you going to do, call the cops to report your stolen stolen items?"

[manwhohaseverything]

Well that's a stupid idea. Who's going to stop him? And what's he going to do with the money he stole from the bank?

I like to think when Superman's in full troll mode, he'd rob the ill-gotten gains from a bad guy's vault and leave a taunting message, like "What are you going to do, call the cops to report your stolen stolen items?"

They could have evil zombie bankers with steroid boosts trying to stop him or something. Heck! Lex could be the owner of the bank. Have superman fight an evil cyborg security guard (evil robocop" dead or alive you're coming with me") . As for the money, I don't really know. He can spend the money to fix a slum/start a schools/hospitals in some poor country or he could just make it rain money for anyone and everyone .

[Flash Gordon]

They could have evil zombie bankers with steroid boosts trying to stop him or something. Heck! Lex could be the owner of the bank. Have superman fight an evil cyborg security guard (evil robocop" dead or alive you're coming with me") . As for the money, I don't really know. He can spend the money to fix a slum/start a schools/hospitals in some poor country or he could just make it rain money for anyone and everyone .

You had me at "zombie bankers with steroid boosts ".

[Vakanai]

Agreed. If Batman is going to halt a bank robbery, the creators' goal is to make it imaginative and visually appealing, particularly for the screen. He's going to use some new technology, demonstrate great fighting ability, outsmart the bad guys, etc. If he just shows up and does kung fu and the bad guys all shoot like blind, drunken Imperial Stormtroopers, that's not interesting at all. Certainly many would argue that even if the setup is flawed it's still inherently interesting because Batman's life is at risk, I'd counter that most of the times stuff like this happens neither Batman nor the innocent bystanders sustain any injuries, so there's no real risk.

If you're going to have Superman vs. low-level bank robbers, you can still make it interesting if you are creative and have Superman do clever or imaginative things to stop it, instead "Hold it right there!" with his hands on his hips, they all shoot him and the bullets flatten on his torso, and he rounds them up. Like, start with the idea that Clark Kent has to stop the robbery, but without blowing his secret ID. It could be interesting.

If nothing else, Superman has probably a few dozen ways at least to stop the bank robbery, so show one of the 101 ways he hasn't done before. Or maybe have him try to figure out how to stop two or three bank robberies at once. Or have him figure out the bank robbery is an inside job but now he has to prove it. Again, not saying I expect it to be done, just saying it can be done.

[Vakanai]

Agreed!

Batman has (I guess) about 600+ villians...and we only see the same 2 dozen over and over. And Lex is heavily overused.

I suspect the Phatom Zoners are overused for the same reason Bizarro shows up often...they can provide a real challenge for Kal...aside from natural disasters, one-shot monsters and one-shot aliens.



Some posters feel Superman versus bank robbers could be a great story. All I can say is that...it's not a story I would pay to read.

Yet a lot of us paid to see him fight racists. That sounds like the premise to one silly issue for an author to vent frustrations about politics today, and yet it was the best story in years. Execution is everything as they say.

[Vakanai]

I don't think anyone would pay to read a full comic book of most of the top DC heroes' stopping a bank robbery as a straight-up action/drama story. On the other hand, I think for Superman, you could do an off-beat issue about it. Say Clark promised Jimmy he'd go to the bank with him but he had to stop a robbery without ditching Jimmy, and for some reason he didn't have his Superman costume available so Clark Kent has to save the day. If Justice League Action were still on the air, I could see that being an 11-minute episode. A less ridiculous scenario could be a 2-minute scene in a movie, animated or live-action.

Works for me - sometimes those two minute scenes are some of the most memorable. Under the Red Hood - Batman saves a freaking helicopter. It's such a quick little scene, just a distraction before he goes chasing after Jason, but it was one of the best bits in the film for me. I never thought Batman could save a crashing helicopter.

Or the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, I think the episode he first fights Doc Ock. Episode starts with him busting some thieves who stole one of those semis with all the cars on the back. Two no name street criminals in a truck, should be easy. But one dude cuts the brakes and so Spidey has to stop the truck while the guy hotwires one of those cars and tries to take off. Best intro to a Spider-Man show or movie ever!

A good small scene is memorable.

I'm seeing good arguments for a good Superman Versus Bank-Robbers story. I'll admit you may be right; this could be a great story depending on who's writing it.

My original point: Bank robbers versus Superman is similar to Batman versus Dionysus (the Greek God); it's a bit of a one-sided fight. (Batman loses, by the way.)

Before I even read the story, I know the ending...and so do you...the outcome is a forgone conclusion. The bank-robbers are, at best, an annoyance to Kal; Black Adam would be an actual threat to Superman. Wonder Woman might be able to defeat Dionysus...but Batman should not.

I will concede that great stories depend on great writers. As I said, these fights are still one-sided. If I am going to suspend my disbelief, then I desire the imaginary possibility that Superman (or Dionysus) may fail in this story.

Knowing the ending isn't always a problem - sometimes the journey there is worth it. Again, no one thinks the Klan can ever beat Superman, but wow the trip to see Superman smash it was worth every red cent.
Besides, the robbers could always have weapons gotten from Apokolips via Intergang or Lex or Ultrahumanite.

I got an idea, why don't they write a superman robs a bank story for a change? That would be intriguing. wouldn't it?

Could work. Find out why Superman is robbing a bank. Mind control or hypnosis? Amnesia and being duped by a robber? Lex hit him with whatever color kryptonite turns Clark bad? The bank wants him to stress test their new security measures? There's a lot of fun ways you could go with that. Just start with "Oh no, Superman has turned to a life of crime!" opening to get people hooked then find a fun way to explain it.

[SpideyCeo]

And hey don't get me wrong, I love the straight up sci-fi and fantasy stuff too. But there's room for both. You can put metaphors in those stories too, or once in a while don't even have to do that much. But the core of the character should be all the above, always. Fighting against the corrupt authority, fighting alongside the true and pure in law enforcement, or just plain putting the fear of god against the corrupt normal guy beating his wife or abusing his/her children all of that stuff. That's a large part of the very soul. Superman will penetrate and attack the black heart of anything, long story short. If it ruffles a feather, perfect. It should. Heck maybe I'd come across a story that would ruffle mine That would just mean he's written doing what he should be written doing.

Tyrion is dead and doesnt exist.

[Ascended]

I'm seeing good arguments for a good Superman Versus Bank-Robbers story. I'll admit you may be right; this could be a great story depending on who's writing it.

My original point: Bank robbers versus Superman is similar to Batman versus Dionysus (the Greek God); it's a bit of a one-sided fight. (Batman loses, by the way.)

Before I even read the story, I know the ending...and so do you...the outcome is a forgone conclusion. The bank-robbers are, at best, an annoyance to Kal; Black Adam would be an actual threat to Superman. Wonder Woman might be able to defeat Dionysus...but Batman should not.

I will concede that great stories depend on great writers. As I said, these fights are still one-sided. If I am going to suspend my disbelief, then I desire the imaginary possibility that Superman (or Dionysus) may fail in this story.

The thing is, we always know who is going to win. Whether Clark is fighting a mugger who has nothing but a knife on him, or an army of higher dimensional cannibal gods from the far side of the Source Wall, at the end of the story the protagonist is going to win. It's the nature of the narrative structure.

So yeah, when you hit that first page of "Superman v bank robbers" you know Superman will win. But you also know from the first page of "Superman v Darkseid" who is going to win. It's just a matter of how we get there.

Now, it's highly unlikely that Clark's going to walk away from the bank robbers bruised and bleeding. They're not a threat to him physically. But so what? There's other ways to hurt him. Maybe an innocent bystander gets hurt in the fray and Clark blames himself. Maybe one of the bank robbers is a 14 year old kid and despite all of Clark's efforts to save him the kid refuses help and just *wants* to be bad. Maybe somebody's safety deposit box gets destroyed in the chaos and the owner tries to sue Superman. There's tons of ways to give the story real stakes and put some pain on Clark without him actually losing or getting physically hurt.

[SpideyCeo]

^ Either way its not compelling reading or exciting to set up a mediorce premesis of superman being inconvienced by something beneath his beyond human concept of the ubermensh. Plus superman has super intelligence like batman, taking on petty crime tatically on the same level as batman is sometimes, just add physical god capabilites and awareness than the story becomes a bad one when you have to challenge supes without utilizing his established fundamental compentance hes aquired in previous stories in the past.

Emotionally, superman is always supposed to be the best of the best when it comes to being prepared for the worst.