I don’t think that’s true at all, and there are nearly 100 years of Superman comics full of stuff that doesn’t fit that. I feel like you are commenting on the movies specifically and coming to the conclusion that these are the ONLY choices.
When they make a movie, they are OBSESSED with the 2nd idea. An enemy with equal power. Which is why we’ve seen 2 movies starring general Zod, despite him not being that major of a character. It’s why we got Doomsday in the Justice League movie. Hollywood filmmakers are clearly in love with the idea of two super people bouncing off buildings for 90 minutes. In the comics though, this would be boring as hell. “Essentially no stakes” as you put it. Correct. It’s boring. I hate that the movies always want Superman to become this. Because it’s not what the comics are like at all.
There are many options you have missed. There are limits to Superman’s powers. Remember that these are from detective comics. A good Superman comic involves a mystery for Clark Kent/Superman to solve. Like who is supplying Intergang with weapons. A good episode from the kids cartoon show starts with Clark Kent being assassinated, then Superman trying to figure out who did it and why. Superman Red Son (which has a cartoon movie with some changes), puts Superman in the USSR instead of Kansas, for truth, justice, and the communist way. Again, not remotely any of the 3 plot lines you have suggested.
Superman (2025) did a great job with this. Yes you’ve got an “equal” super-being for him to fight (Hollywood wouldn’t accept anything less), but ultimately it’s about Lex Luthor and the plot behind it all.
The Boys is a poorly written show that loves violence. They ran out of ideas within a couple years. Not surprised at all that everyone hated the ending. They wrote themselves into a corner very early on. They were always pushing the idea that violence was the answer, very unlike Superman in nearly every way. The fact that you see this as comparable to Superman is pretty frustrating. Frankly I think the whole show is a bit of a middle finger to Superman. It’s literally a show about how much they think Superman sucks. The show that’s about Superman sucking, isn’t a satisfying portrayal of Superman? Shocker.
Like… “Superman” is Clark Kent. A reporter who discovers crime, then he also has the powers to stop it. But the “Superman” you describe is a super-being who is boring when he bounces off buildings, always being power scaled or losing his powers so that the fights will be interesting for Hollywood. Do you see the difference?
I don’t think that’s true at all, and there are nearly 100 years of Superman comics full of stuff that doesn’t fit that. I feel like you are commenting on the movies specifically and coming to the conclusion that these are the ONLY choices.
When they make a movie, they are OBSESSED with the 2nd idea. An enemy with equal power. Which is why we’ve seen 2 movies starring general Zod, despite him not being that major of a character. It’s why we got Doomsday in the Justice League movie. Hollywood filmmakers are clearly in love with the idea of two super people bouncing off buildings for 90 minutes. In the comics though, this would be boring as hell. “Essentially no stakes” as you put it. Correct. It’s boring. I hate that the movies always want Superman to become this. Because it’s not what the comics are like at all.
There are many options you have missed. There are limits to Superman’s powers. Remember that these are from detective comics. A good Superman comic involves a mystery for Clark Kent/Superman to solve. Like who is supplying Intergang with weapons. A good episode from the kids cartoon show starts with Clark Kent being assassinated, then Superman trying to figure out who did it and why. Superman Red Son (which has a cartoon movie with some changes), puts Superman in the USSR instead of Kansas, for truth, justice, and the communist way. Again, not remotely any of the 3 plot lines you have suggested.
Superman (2025) did a great job with this. Yes you’ve got an “equal” super-being for him to fight (Hollywood wouldn’t accept anything less), but ultimately it’s about Lex Luthor and the plot behind it all.
The Boys is a poorly written show that loves violence. They ran out of ideas within a couple years. Not surprised at all that everyone hated the ending. They wrote themselves into a corner very early on. They were always pushing the idea that violence was the answer, very unlike Superman in nearly every way. The fact that you see this as comparable to Superman is pretty frustrating. Frankly I think the whole show is a bit of a middle finger to Superman. It’s literally a show about how much they think Superman sucks. The show that’s about Superman sucking, isn’t a satisfying portrayal of Superman? Shocker.
Like… “Superman” is Clark Kent. A reporter who discovers crime, then he also has the powers to stop it. But the “Superman” you describe is a super-being who is boring when he bounces off buildings, always being power scaled or losing his powers so that the fights will be interesting for Hollywood. Do you see the difference?