NOT EVERYBODY HATES X IN THIS CASE SUPERMAN. Thank you for the attention. what I hate is the "Why do everybody" threads that go ahead and assume everyone thinks the same way. That drives me up the wall, because most often I don't join up with what everybody apperently does. Which means that it's not everybody. Becuse:
It is the friggin' confirmation bias with a sweeping generalisation thrown at our faces.
Oh god forbid somebody use a colloquial phrase to describe the prevailing opinion of a certain community, especially when they question it showing they don't have faith in the face value generalization in the first place.
Is it the prevailing opinion? Is it, really? Because I have never found that to be the case. Up to this point it has been "I recently saw several guys who liked/disliked what I myself dislike/like". The closest to "prevalent" is something like "anime" where the matter does get a lot love/hate but also a lot of the opposite. "Everybody" is again not appropriate at all.
NOT EVERYBODY HATES X IN THIS CASE SUPERMAN. Thank you for the attention. what I hate is the "Why do everybody" threads that go ahead and assume everyone thinks the same way. That drives me up the wall, because most often I don't join up with what everybody apperently does. Which means that it's not everybody. Becuse:
It is the friggin' confirmation bias with a sweeping generalisation thrown at our faces.
Oh god forbid somebody use a colloquial phrase to describe the prevailing opinion of a certain community, especially when they question it showing they don't have faith in the face value generalization in the first place.
Is it the prevailing opinion? Is it, really? Because I have never found that to be the case. Up to this point it has been "I recently saw several guys who liked/disliked what I myself dislike/like". The closest to "prevalent" is something like "anime" where the matter does get a lot love/hate but also a lot of the opposite. "Everybody" is again not appropriate at all.
Right, it isn't the prevailing opinion, though OP obviously sees that it is and is challenging that. The thread title is a bit of harmless hyperbole built around colloquialism.
OT: I never really liked super man, not because of anything like relatability but I just felt he wasn't very exciting. I think it's a lot like Dragon Ball Z where even though there are all these powerful people it essentially comes down to Goku to beat the big bad guy. With superman it's even worse though, because he's so powerful that his enemies have to match him. This means that Superman is the single exclusive person capable of saving the day.
I ain't harping on you here but... these are two excellent source materials to work with.
I hate when people say the only thing interesting about Batman is the bad guys. Claiming that is a bit shortsighted, like claiming CoD is only popular because of regenerating health. It's fine if the villains are your favorite part but Batman isn't shown up by them by any means. Bruce Wayne is a great character study. He is every bit as twisted as his villains. He breaks the law - in the name of justice, he pretends to be Bruce Wayne - not Batman, he will use any means necessary to bring someone to justice - except a gun. The dude is not boring and his villains bring nothing to the table he doesn't already. The dude is possessed by his own legend and embodies revenge the same way joker embodies psychopath or scarecrow embodies fearmonger. This doesn't even touch on the compound character of Gotham City.
Superman is the same way but is usually written poorly. It took them to the year 2000 before exploring the fact that he doesn't like he fits in on our world. He isn't part of it and he is reminded of that fact every day. He feels responsible for us yet doesn't feel as though he belongs. Resentment would surface towards Earthlings, his parents, and just his overall situation. Even his boy scout good deed attitude is a great thing to use as a character study because it is so slanted. "Well, Superman, what is the right choice in a case of Euthenaisa?" Don't use the comic to push a political ideology (which often happens) save that shit for Captain America. Use the comic to try and explore the character and what is right and wrong in a morally grey situation. Have some choices that Superman has to make where he doesn't know what if his decision is right but have him stand by his decision because that is what he would do. However, throw conflict at him and then have him come out with a bad ass speech about the topic that really explores not only why he stands by his decision but why he understands the opposing viewpoint.
They screw up every time they use the mindset "If Superman would do it, it is clearly the right thing to do." That totally robs the character of depth and insight and comes off shallow. Superman is another great character study opportunity, the material isn't flawed. The writers are. His powers are so irrelevant but that is what everyone focuses on. His internal struggle is insanely rich in material but very rarely tapped into.
I think the problem is that he's not used well as often as other heroes, specially in non-comic media like games and movies, so therefore he seems lacking because in comparison to other characters his material is lacking, I personally am very neutral about him, but I'm fairly sure that writing an excellent story about him isn't impossible, again Batman can come across as a really boring character too, but he's hit the jackpot recently and has gotten the right material recently, let's just hope that Superman's next movie is awesome.
It's partly because no one's read the comic books where he is shown as incredibly relatable and, despite his alien origins, a very human person with his own set of fears.
Seriously, everyone go out and buy Birthright this very second and tell me again that Superman is a "bland" character.
I've always been a bigger Batman fan though, partly because he was what I first started reading when I got into comic books.
Because he has to compete with Batman for our affections, and Batman is just a mortal man with no powers, who uses his own brains and strength to overcome villians greater than he, while having cool gadgets, vehicles and stuff to help him. When he's not fighting crime he's relaxing in his million dollar mansion with his butler and young male "companion" to sate his every need.
Batman is basically every nerds wet dream, Superman has some gamebreakingly unrelatable characteristics to his person:
First of all Superman is an alien, and that makes him on the surface instantly unrelatable. We will never be Superman, because we've already failed the entry requirement by simply being human, but we can be Batman. Anything Batman can do we can imagine ourselves doing, because it technically is possible.
Secondly Superman never had to work to achieve his powers. Superman is different from most other superheroes. Spiderman, The Hulk, Iron Man, The X-men, Green Lanterns all started out as regular-humans, and then became super-human through a process. Superman started out as this super-human entity, and then... nothing really, he had all his powers and strength from the very beginning.
Not only does this make him quite unrelatable, but he gets the appearance of a 'stale' character, since it does not appear that he is having to constantly improve himself to fight greater foes. Iron Man constantly tinkers with his suit to give it more powers, the X-men find new mutants with new powers, Bruce Banner dicks about with his own genetics to make himself stronger, smarter, more in control, etc. Batman gets new gadgets, and profiles new villians, Superman... just fights a bit harder the next time. It seems like he doesn't deserve his powers since it appears that he never has to work for them. He didn't need to train to get super strong, he was naturally as strong as he is now! He didn't need to undergo a weird experiment to learn how to fly, he developed the ability naturally.
This makes it seem like superman is overpowered, as he has everything from the get-go, it's just a matter of him using his powers, and (especially in the movies) the general plot of any villian is 1) Neutralise superman 2) Conquer world. Where 1 seems to work for a while, superman breaks free, and as soon as he's free he uses his powers to stop the villain in 3 seconds flat. It comes off as contrived, and Superman just looks like no one can stop him.
The real shame in all this is that Superman actually has a really well developed character and personality, we just never seem to get past the initial problems, but I think if a movie were able to capture the real conflicts behind Superman's status and personality it would be as good as The Dark Knight:
Thia interview from Grant Morrison is very relevent:
GB: Superman and Batman are the two defining icons among comic books, and now that you've spent considerable time with both of them as a writer, I'm curious how you've come to view them, both as separate figures and as linked opposites.
GM: Superman is very bright and optimistic. It's all the simple things. He's of the day and of the sunlight, and Batman is the creature of the night. I'm interested in the fact that they both believe in the same kind of things. But Batman is better. He's screwed up. Thats what makes him cool. Even though he's solved all his problems in his own head he is, as I see him, a man with a very dark sense of humor and a very dark view of the world. He has to overcome that constantly. He's forever fighting to make the world better, which means it's never good for Batman. The rest of us have good days. We don't fight everyday. Batman fights every single day. He has that dark Plutonian side.
GB: The public personalities of Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent don't seem as polarized as their alter egos.
GM: Bruce Wayne is a rich man. He's an artistocrat. Superman grew up as Clark Kent on a farm bailing hay, and he's got a boss that shouts at him if he's late to work. He's actually more human; Batman is the fetish fantasy psyche of the aristocrat overlord who can do anything he wants, and that's fascinating. The class difference between the two of them is important.
GB: I've never thought much about the class distinctions between the two.
GM: You're an American; you live in Los Angeles! You don't have to think of class distinction in the same way we Brits do. But there is very much a distinction between the two. People often forget Superman is very much a put-upon guy. Bruce has a butler, Clark has a boss ...
GB: True, but Clark also owns real estate in the Arctic, flies for free and can crush coal into fist-sized diamonds. He doesn't need to have a boss.
GM: Yeah, but he so wants to be like us. He pines after one girl while Batman has a whole host of fetish femmes fatale at his beck and call.
GB: The ladies love the car, I think.
GM: Of course. He's got everything. I like that. He's our kind of dream of the aristocrat. He's even better than the Tony Stark/Iron Man thing; he's got that as well as the dark side. That's the difference between Superman and Batman. There both interesting to write, but Batman is the sexier one, definitely.
In the end, I saw Superman not as a superhero or even a science fiction character, but as a story of Everyman. We're all Superman in our own adventures. We have our own Fortresses of Solitude we retreat to, with our own special collections of valued stuff, our own super-pets, our own "Bottle Cities" that we feel guilty for neglecting. We have our own peers and rivals and bizarre emotional or moral tangles to deal with.
I felt I'd really grasped the concept when I saw him as Everyman, or rather as the dreamself of Everyman. That "S" is the radiant emblem of divinity we reveal when we rip off our stuffy shirts, our social masks, our neuroses, our constructed selves, and become who we truly are.
Batman is obviously much cooler, but that's because he's a very energetic and adolescent fantasy character: a handsome billionaire playboy in black leather with a butler at this beck and call, better cars and gadgetry than James Bond, a horde of fetish femme fatales baying around his heels and no boss. That guy's Superman day and night.
Superman grew up baling hay on a farm. He goes to work, for a boss, in an office. He pines after a hard-working gal. Only when he tears off his shirt does that heroic, ideal inner self come to life. That's actually a much more adult fantasy than the one Batman's peddling but it also makes Superman a little harder to sell. He's much more of a working class superhero, which is why we ended the whole book with the image of a laboring Superman.
He's Everyman operating on a sci-fi Paul Bunyan scale. His worries and emotional problems are the same as ours... except that when he falls out with his girlfriend, the world trembles.
EDIT: Or for those who don't like walls of text why not watch this clip and hear the big man himself explain one of his many problems with living on earth, and see him matched against one of the many villians that is stronger than him:
From those sources you can get a clear picture of both Batman and Superman, and why they are so different. Batman is the nerd fantasy. The man with everything; girls, cars, money, and a secret life of fighting crime with a cool suit and gadgets. He is the one we come to for escapism, to have a story about self-insertion heroism, a really cool awesome guy doing cool awesome stuff, and that sort of a thing is really easy to translate over to the silver screen, hence the great Batman movies.
Superman is the one we should be coming to to delve a little deeper into the Superhero psyche. What does it mean to be human, and how are superheroes different? how close can Superman get to the life of a regular joe. Is it even right for him to seek romantic relations with a human? What does it mean to walk among man every single day hiding the power of a God? How can his powers help in situations where there is no answer to be gotten through force? What happens when there is no right answer, but you feel like you have to do something?
These questions would be a lot harder to write a movie about, so we generally get some half-baked schlock about flying around the earth so fast you reverse time, and Lex Luthor destroying the world to make an extra couple of dollars, despite having absolutely no need for any more money.
He just rarely seems threatened by anything, and is slightly too perfect/alien to be relatable. This is going from films only though, never been a Superhero Comic reader.
Considering Superman was first published in 1938, that's actually true. His original power set didn't even include flying or the heat vision. As far as I'm aware, the other major Superman-esque character in fiction was John Carter of Mars.
It is very very easy/tempting to write Superman very badly.
Sure, a Superman story could be done well, but generally won't be. Personally, I think he's at his best when he's not the focus of the story, when he's causing something to happen in someone else's story (Batman too).
IMHO, secondary characters tend to be more interesting than the big names.
Like, you have Batman, who is all "This is my city/I own the night/etc". Then you have Huntress, who is trying to be like Batman, but doing a worse job of fitting in, and who never gets the approval she secretly wants from him, while at the same time rejecting much of his ideals. Then you have Nightwing, who is trying to be Batman, but isn't so callous as him, and wants Huntress and Batman to get along better, but doesn't expect them to, and has a thing for Huntress, but doesn't want to let that get in the way of what he is doing, and neither does she. Then you have Oracle, who is ambivalent about Huntress, supports Batman in his disapproval of her, but only to an extent, and had a thing with Nightwing and so is a bit awkward with Huntress, but recognises she's trying to blah blah blah.
Now, I probably got bits wrong, and they changed that even before the reboot ruined everything forever (oh yes it did), but my point is, Batman is useful to the story even if he doesn't show up. He affects the way all the itneresting people relate to each other.
So, with Superman...I'd like to see a Superboy and a Supergirl off together doing things, and Superman is rendered down into the glue that is splattered around to hold them together. Or something.
Largely? He's a boring invincible hero. Justice League did what I felt was some very good work with his character (particularly his fear of becoming the Justice LORD Superman) but even it acknowledged the sheer power-scale difference between Supes and everyone else, with three scenes doing a particularly good job of illustrating it:
The single thing they were most afraid of during Amazo's debut? That the android would analyze Superman and duplicate his powers, because then nobody else could handle it.
Superman's supposed death resulted in musing on the League's part about Superman's nature as their trump card.
Then there's the world of cardboard speech at the JLU finale which both noted that Superman is always holding back out of fear of killing someone, and that Darkseid was essentially the only person he ever felt could take his full power...which is saying something considering that Darkseid is a literal god who is considered one of the most powerful characters in the DC Universe...and also one of the few credible threats to him.
Let me emphasize that last bit again: One of the few credible threats to Superman is a literal god.
And of course things like this certainly didn't help:
Granted, that kind of corniness was kinda par for the course at the time, but it still managed to highlight a certain flaw: the authors were trying far too hard to make superman perfect, and their greatest failure was that they came too close to success. Supes often came off less as a hero and more of a god, and that's a good deal of his legacy. A few writers do make him interesting, but it's too easy to flub it.
Have you ever read the short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas?" It's a story about a perfect society and how no one believes it exists until they realize that perfection is built on a foundation of deliberately inflicted human misery; the life-long torture of a single child. Once that horror is described, then people believe that a place like Omelas can exist, even though it's never explained how that torture accomplishes anything. So long as something is rotten, people will believe it.
I think Superman strikes people as an unbelievable character because he lacks that foundation of rottenness. Superman is (or at least was, before the relaunch of DC's properties) a metaphor for hope. He had enough power to enslave all of humanity at any moment despite what precautions anyone else might take, yet instead of fulfilling those fears, he lived up to what we hoped he would be, and became a protector of humanity who never believed himself any better than anyone else and therefore never exerted his will to enforce his sense of morality over that of the public.
Superman exists as to serve as a beacon of hope. If your back is against an alley wall and a gun is your face, you hope that, somehow, you'll get out of it well; and Superman's appearance fulfills that hope. Everything turns out okay.
That is where the difficulty in writing Superman lies. Superman has the ability to make everything turn out okay, and drama depends on the reasonable threat that things won't be okay, that something bad will happen that the protagonist might not be able to overcome. Superman's power level makes this threat unlikely, so one has to either look elsewhere for the drama in the story or else just take pleasure in seeing how the story unfolds before its inevitable and largely predictable end.
Honestly, the idea that Superman is a boring character is nonsense to me. A character is defined by how he's written, so complaints ought to be leveled against how a given writer presents him, not how the character himself behaves. After all, he can't behave in any fashion except how a writer tells him to.
I dislike superman for the same reason I dislike Elminster and began to dislike Drizzt (though for him I am interested in seeing what happens in the transitions books and beyond. Anyway, back on topic).
Regardless of how powerful they make the enemies out to be, the basis for the character is too overpowered to be interesting to me.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
