blogs_blog_1374

Um. Batman. That recent movie was Awesome

The recent movie was good and had many professional qualities. I wouldn't call it awesome. Let's remember, too, the the movies aren't everything that define the characters, nor the writers. Batman is very fortunate that DC invests all of its best writers on him, but take those writers and apply them to Aquaman, and then we'd be having a King of the Seven Seas trilogy that would be the big thing right now.

 

I tend to look at the characters not as an audience member, but an aspiring author with visions of his own, and I look at the characters at their core and I think of what stories I can tell with them if I really dream big. I think the best stories I can tel are with Superman, then with Captain America, and then with Aquaman. Wonder Woman, Spiderman, Green Lantern, the Flash, Robin, and a few other icons represent some very interesting story potential as well, except most of them haven't been taken seriously enough by visionary artist. Batman is certainly easier to write something dramatic about, but it's hardly an impressive writing accomplishment. Give me an awesome story about Aquaman, and I'm yours.

 

24601

When I think of which superhero is better, I think of it in terms similar to the ones I used back when that "Greatest Hero of the MU" topic was going on.

 

Batman isn't really a hero anymore. The only thing that keeps him from being another Punisher is that he doesn't kill, Can you really show Batman--the modern Batman--to a kid as any kind of hero? I'm not even talking a role model. Heroes can be someone you shouldn't emulate, too. What I mean is, can Batman really be seen as a good guy? In Batman Begins, he let Ra's al Ghul fall to his death because he wanted him dead, but felt he wouldn't be responsible if it was more manslaughter than murder. In Batman media, good is relative, because he fights worse evils. Put Batman next to Superman, and he does come very close to crossing the line.

 

Of course, there are versions of Batman that are definitively heroic, like the DCAU Batman. He is very clearly a good guy, even though Superman still sees some of his methods as questionable, like that scene Grant-Sud mentioned.

 

Superman on the other hand, is always heroic, barring mind control or otherwise. Partly because he always has a human connection. Whereas Batman considers Bruce Wayne to simply be a resource for Bat-gadgets, Superman is simply an identity that Clark Kent uses so he can use his extraordinary abilities for good without fear of repercussion against his friends. He always has a human connection that Batman abandoned as a child. At least that's my interpretation of the characters.

 

So, Superman.

Kraggh, Batman isn't a villain -- he's an anit-hero, but not a villain.

 

That being said, I obviously vote Batman. Superman is cool, but I could never take him seriously. Plus I mean come on, Batman is just awesome. Not to mention Nolan's trilogy were three of the best movies ever.

 

Also because Katie is Batman, and she's like the most awesome person ever, so...obviously Batman wins.

Batman, because he's just objectively a better character.

Batman.

And hope I shouldn't have to give my reasons why.

The recent movie was good and had many professional qualities. I wouldn't call it awesome. Let's remember, too, the the movies aren't everything that define the characters, nor the writers. Batman is very fortunate that DC invests all of its best writers on him, but take those writers and apply them to Aquaman, and then we'd be having a King of the Seven Seas trilogy that would be the big thing right now.

 

I tend to look at the characters not as an audience member, but an aspiring author with visions of his own, and I look at the characters at their core and I think of what stories I can tell with them if I really dream big. I think the best stories I can tel are with Superman, then with Captain America, and then with Aquaman. Wonder Woman, Spiderman, Green Lantern, the Flash, Robin, and a few other icons represent some very interesting story potential as well, except most of them haven't been taken seriously enough by visionary artist. Batman is certainly easier to write something dramatic about, but it's hardly an impressive writing accomplishment. Give me an awesome story about Aquaman, and I'm yours.

 

24601

Well, that movie is pretty much all I know about batman

Batman, because he's just objectively a better character.

 

If we're talking about objective comparisons, you're going to need to clear up your thesis and provide a strong, convincing argument.

 

I passionately disagree. From a sociological viewpoint, this character promotes a false sense of empowerment that ends in hubris and glorification of one's own invented authority. I'm highly skeptical of what he has contributed toward culture and believe that this will come to our eventual detriment should we continue to embrace a reverence for a Dark Knight school of thought.

 

The values that Superman promotes, meanwhile, are the values that are at the core of our society, although we have a tendency to abandon them should we go long enough without a strong reminder of who we are as a people bound together by common, absolute ideals embedded with charity, trust, truth, kindness, a higher sense of justice, and the sanctity of life. It is the imperative need of all societies to have their legends, going back to the days of Hercules and Beowulf, that live within the context of their larger-than-life epics to represent their society's worldview. Superman is this legend for our era and our beliefs. You can have popular culture without a figure like Batman, but someone like Superman was always needed. I have come to view Clark Kent as a hyperbolic Atticus Finch who happened to go into reporting instead of law.

 

So therefore Superman stands for something much bigger, while Batman can stand for nothing greater than himself. Sometimes he attributes honor and justice to his name, but that's taking these ideals in vain.

 

By objectively better you might also bring in the argument that a character is objectively btter if their physical conflicts form a more interesting labrynth. Batman books indeed need a lot more attention given to plot, given the limitations of the characters. One brand of intuition leads to the conclusion that because Superman can do so much, you can't do anything with him, but my brand of intuition as a writer leads to the other end of the spectrum that because Superman can do so much, you can do a lot with him. As a writer with an imagination, I realized that though it was a challenge, he can and has been used to bring scope and magnitude to some of the greatest stories in DC comics, such as the prestigious Kingdom Come novel.

 

Even though Superman stories might rely less on the detective brand of plot development, perhaps one must consider that story in this case of different forms of narrative. For Superman, I don't necessarily see things as always based around the conflict of "villain has evil plan and he must find a creative way to stop it". Sometimes it's the consequences of the plan that he must deal with, and given the complex psychology of Superman, who's caught between multiple identities, each of which he feels equally, there can be amazing (and yes, relateable) stories centered around him focusing on not just fixing some scheme, but exploring some of the bigger ideas that are out there. Love, relationships, loyalty, and so forth. These things are inherent in a character who his the weight of the entire world on his shoulders.

 

With regards to character complexity, Batman isn't that complex. He can be dynamic in that he's intense and he has his persona, yet if we're judging character quality by their complexity, Superman has the dual identity that fans can argue about, inherently making him something more than a two-dimensional character. It is my opinion that he's both fully Superman and fully Clark Kent, and that he also happens to be fully Kal-El, creating a very complex identity indeed. Yet with many regards to his two non-Superman entities, I find that he also becomes more relateable in that he's presented as an everyman, an important monument in literature.

 

What it all comes back to, however, is my belief in how these subtly create an atmosphere that sets the tone for our culture, in which case, I say to bring on the Big Blue Boyscout.

 

24601

My vote is most definitely Superman. He is the kind of guy that children can look up to. He gives hope, because he shows that you don't have to be rich and able to buy or own expensive gadgets to be a hero, you just have to use what you were born with. Don't get me wrong. I like Batman too, but if I were to make a list, Superman would come out on top. When Wayne becomes Batman, his personality becomes different or darker, especially in these more recent movies. He becomes more aggressive and violent and filled with rage. As Bruce, he is mainly shown as a spoiled heir who doesn't care about his wealth and just spends. That certainly isn't always a bad thing though, like when he gives it to a charity or childrens' home. However, when Superman becomes Clark, he is still the same person. He was born with his abilities, so when he dons the glasses and changes suits, he becomes his secret identity, but still keeps the same personality. He doesn't change in order to become the hero, but stays true to who he is. Thank you!

fer cryin out loud kraggh, i woulda assumed you would have read the word objectively in that and realized that my reasoning was a joke

 

clearly not as i am now being smothered by one of your very very VERY common textwalls

My ability to detect humor on the internet is impaired, I'm afraid. I suspected, but just to be thorough, I decided to to answer as if it was an argument, as I have come across people who have made that claim and my text wall addresses all people who have made that case.

 

I hope you were laughing out of genuine humor, then. I hope there are no hard feelings here.

 

24601

fer cryin out loud kraggh, i woulda assumed you would have read the word objectively in that and realized that my reasoning was a joke

 

clearly not as i am now being smothered by one of your very very VERY common textwalls

It might have worked out better if people didn't actually make posts like that.

 

Most of the people who say they like Batman seem to give their only reason as "because" or something like that. It's not that he's better; it's that he's the hip choice of the two. Same as if you asked back in the 1940's when both of these characters were created, Superman would have gotten those folks, because in the 40's, he was the top dog of comic books. (And stayed that way pretty much until comics started getting darker, with brief intervals in which Captain Marvel or Batman were on top.)

Batman, because he's cooler, more interesting, and lives in a universe populated by more interesting people. The Joker the Riddler, and all the other villains are a lot more interesting than Lex Luther, and antagonists just as every other element do contribute to the appeal of a story. Some more points that I'm sorry I can't bother to write out in paragraph form:

 

-Superman is the god of being able to do anything. In my experiance, he is never in any danger except when the villain happens to have a random rock of some element. Batman is endangered in all of the normal ways, and he can't stop a volcano with a puff of his breath.

 

-Batman is a human while Superman is an alien. I can't see Superman as an example for the human race when he isn't even human. This also makes me uncertain with the Superman x Lois Lane romance.

 

-Much like the villains, Gotham is simply a cooler setting than Metropolis.

 

-I've only seen one live action Superman movie, Superman Returns. Not only were the Nolan Batman films fantastic, but Superman Returns was downright terrible. Similarly, of the few comics I've read, the Batman ones were better.

 

-The only thing better about Superman over Batman (IMO) are their respective animated serieses. Superman's was cool and respectable, Batman's was cheesy.

 

And that about sums it up for me.

 

EDIT: And then there's the costume. Batman's is ACE.

Batman.

 

Batman has access to billions of dollars worth of high-tech equipment, but he's still just a regular guy. He doesn't have the overpowered, deus ex machina-like qualities of Superman, who just fell out of the sky. Superman can be given any power at any time, but with Batman, the explanations for things have to fall within reason, if not actual physics.

 

I don't see Superman literally getting his back broken by Bane. If Bane tried, Superman's overpoweredness kicks in, he flips Bane over, and breaks his back.

 

Plus, come on - Superman has all these amazing abilities and he only protects one city? He could singlehandedly bring about world peace and all he does is fight crime in one city.

 

Batman has intellect and uses his wits to get out of situations. I'm not aware of Superman's IQ situation (though if I had to guess, I'd guess that it's overpowered, too), but no one who has Superman's physical skills needs to have intellect to make it work, unlike Batman, where his intellect is necessary for him to fight crime.

 

Also, you have to be pretty brave if you're human and decide to go out there and risk your life night after night. For Superman, it's easy, unless Lex Luthor's got his hands on Kryptonite again.

 

Speaking of Luthor and Kryptonite, when you only have one major enemy and one weakness, it's kind of hard to come up with convincing, non-repetitive, and legitimately good plots. Batman doesn't suffer from these problems.

To counter the statements of Sue Mickey and Roablin.

 

Batman is the richest guy in the world. And he inherited all of his assets. The intensive training he underwent would be impossible without all that dough. Superman's abilities were inherited genetically. Both were born with great power. Batman's was just more indirect.

 

Clark Kent has human problems. A romance, an actual job. A life. Bruce Wayne's life is a farce, to throw off suspicion. He would rather just be Batman all of the time. Kent is far more human than Wayne, even if he is from another planet. He was raised as a human, whereas Wayne has been little more than a empty shell since his parents died.

 

Batman's villains can't take Superman for the same reason you don't put a Little League team against the Yankees. Superman takes on Darkseid and Brainiac and so forth. Granted, Batman is often portrayed as taking on these god-level beings, but his success is largely based on plot magic--the same reason that most of you guys voted for the Daleks in the first round of this thing over R2-D2.

 

And then you can compare the kind of trouble Metropolis gets in comparison to Gotham. Gotham gets rampant street level crime, while Metropolis gets scattered attacks by intergalactic conquerers, and untouchable white-collar criminals like Luthor. And Superman could bring world peace, but it would end up being something like Justice Lord Superman rather than Boy Scout Superman, and that's not something Superman is going to do.

 

It does take skill for Superman to take on the threats he handles. How would you trick Mxysptlk into saying his name backwards? Even Superman is weaker than Darkseid, so his skill is what wins him the fights there. And speaking of overpowered, Batman is a perfect physical specimen, a supergenious, a multi-billionaire, and knows everything. And he accumulated all this skill, knowledge, ability, and resources before he reached the prime of his life. How realistic is that?

 

Vulnerability is one point I will give you.

 

O wait, Superman's top villains are evenly matched. Darkseid is stronger, and has Omega Beams, Brainiac is smarter, about as strong, and more invincible, and Luthor is not well known as a criminal, or his crimes can't be proven in most stories, which makes him untouchable, a la Al Capone. And Superman is also vulnerable to magic, which means he has to outsmart people like Mxysptlk and other magical beings.

 

And let me throw in the Parasite for good measure, who can drain Superman's power, or General Zod, who has all of Superman's powers, or Amazo, who has Superman's powers, as well as those of the rest of the Justice League (which actually makes him more of a JL villain, but whatever). For what he goes up against, Superman is just as vulnerable as Batman.

 

You can argue that Joker is an amazing villain, but you can't say that Darkseid, Luthor, or Zod aren't on his level. Zod is basically Hitler from Krypton, Luthor is a more realistic villain than anybody in Batman's bunch, and Darkseid is... Darkseid. He's what Zod and Hitler wish they were.

 

If you ask me, however, the biggest point I disagree with is the animated series category, which you awarded to Superman. Are you sure you're talking about BTAS, or are you thinking of Brave and the Bold? BTAS is the best, and though STAS, JL, and JLU were terrific, BTAS tops them all.

It's ironic that you write an argument for superman, but the point you disagree with the most is the one point I awarded to superman. Ironic in a good way; very funny. I don't know which animated series I watched, but I've seen it at a few different locations and it has always been the same. I didn't know there was another, but I don't really follow this stuff. I was the one that always started with "Look up in the sky, it's a bird..." and so on, if that helps. Also I don't like the Justice League to much, mainly because that sticks Batman in with the other subpar DC characters. Superman fighting alongside Batman just doesn't fit in my head. And then the Flash, Aquaman, and all of those blokes I regard with less respect than even Superman. And all of my respect for Superman comes from that one cartoon series, if not for that than I wouldn't care for him at all.

 

 

Batman is the richest guy in the world.

Yeah, Batman inherited money. Superman inherited the ability to fly, and-

I was going to list his other powers but that would take to long. By the way, Batman isn't the richest guy in the world, but Superman is the most powerful guy in the world.

 

At any rate Bruce Wayne's money doesn't give him everything. You said Superman had a life, well that's fine for him. He can write stories one day and save the world in his time off. Batman has to train, exercise, practice, and devote his entire life to fighting crime. He literally can't afford to live his life like other people, because to do so would be to let his gaurd down. It strikes me as interesting; an superpowered alien lives like a human while a normal person cannot. How devoted would Superman be if he had to spend every waking hour being a secret hero?

 

It does take skill for Superman to take on the threats he handles.

Okay, so it's as Sumiki guessed. He does have Super strength and skill in addition to everything else. So there's a vllian I didn't know of who can drain Superman's power? Good thing Superman has super-intellect in addition to his lost super-breath and super-speed and laser vision and etc.

 

I haven't read many superman comics, or many batman comics for that matter. The only two other villains I remember are Mxysptlk (I couldn't spell his name before you mentioned it) and Brainiac. Anyways, beauty is to the eye the the beholder, and I much prefer Batman's villains. Also I don't care for Luther at all, and unless I'm mistaken he is the most famous Superman villain. The Joker has class. He's like Makuta and Vezon combined (in terms of character, not power).

 

Naturally with these topics, it all comes down to personal taste, but this was interesting to investigate the reasoning behind my feelings. I never thought I'd write so much on the subject.

It's ironic that you write an argument for superman, but the point you disagree with the most is the one point I awarded to superman. Ironic in a good way; very funny. I don't know which animated series I watched, but I've seen it at a few different locations and it has always been the same. I didn't know there was another, but I don't really follow this stuff. I was the one that always started with "Look up in the sky, it's a bird..." and so on, if that helps. Also I don't like the Justice League to much, mainly because that sticks Batman in with the other subpar DC characters. Superman fighting alongside Batman just doesn't fit in my head. And then the Flash, Aquaman, and all of those blokes I regard with less respect than even Superman. And all of my respect for Superman comes from that one cartoon series, if not for that than I wouldn't care for him at all.

 

 

 

Batman is the richest guy in the world.

 

Yeah, Batman inherited money. Superman inherited the ability to fly, and-

I was going to list his other powers but that would take to long. By the way, Batman isn't the richest guy in the world, but Superman is the most powerful guy in the world.

 

At any rate Bruce Wayne's money doesn't give him everything. You said Superman had a life, well that's fine for him. He can write stories one day and save the world in his time off. Batman has to train, exercise, practice, and devote his entire life to fighting crime. He literally can't afford to live his life like other people, because to do so would be to let his gaurd down. It strikes me as interesting; an superpowered alien lives like a human while a normal person cannot. How devoted would Superman be if he had to spend every waking hour being a secret hero?

 

 

It does take skill for Superman to take on the threats he handles.

 

Okay, so it's as Sumiki guessed. He does have Super strength and skill in addition to everything else. So there's a vllian I didn't know of who can drain Superman's power? Good thing Superman has super-intellect in addition to his lost super-breath and super-speed and laser vision and etc.

 

I haven't read many superman comics, or many batman comics for that matter. The only two other villains I remember are Mxysptlk (I couldn't spell his name before you mentioned it) and Brainiac. Anyways, beauty is to the eye the the beholder, and I much prefer Batman's villains. Also I don't care for Luther at all, and unless I'm mistaken he is the most famous Superman villain. The Joker has class. He's like Makuta and Vezon combined (in terms of character, not power).

 

Naturally with these topics, it all somes down to personal taste, but this was interesting to investigate the reasoning behind my feelings. I never thought I'd write so much on the subject.

Maybe I exaggerated with Bruce Wayne's wealth in relation to the rest of the DCU, but $6.9 billion buys him a sci-fy airplane, car, boat, helicopter, body armor, exploding remote controlled bladed boomerangs by the thousands, a supercomputer, a secret base in a cave, a world trip so he could train with all these people that it should have taken years to learn from each individually. Superman had to learn to fly, fight, and use his powers as well. It was not as intensive, surely, but then again, Batman's amount of training is impossible in the real world to accomplish in his teenage years. And somehow, it's more realistic. Olympic athletes train their entire lives to become an expert in their individual field, yet somehow, Batman became an expert in all of them as well as become the World's Greatest Detective, a master escape artist, and pilot in the same amount of time. I love Batman, but I don't see why any of that is believable. It's a safe bet you can ask the US Olympic team--they'll have a laugh.

 

And I thought skill was the reason Batman was better than Superman. Batman is a skilled human who beats human villains. Superman is a skilled superhuman who beats superhuman villains. Of course, if all you know of Superman are the old 1940's cartoons and JLU, you probably aren't all that familiar with him. Not that that's bad, but if you know all about Batman but the bare minimum about Superman and are trying to make your judgement upon that, then it's like hearing only the prosecution in a case. And then when you throw away the argument I put forth about Parasite and other Superman villains because you have never heard of them before, it shows bias towards Batman (which is perfectly understandable).

 

I suppose the Joker has class, if you think being crazy is having class. I'm not Luthor's biggest fan either, but "class" is something he has. Like I said, he's like Al Capone. He outsmarts everybody, because he just slips through the law's fingers, just as Joker considers the GCPD and Arkham's security a joke. The difference is that Joker is a killer, while Luthor's runs a criminal empire that spans the globe, and Superman can never get a court to lock him up. Joker laughs at the law, while Luthor owns the law.

 

And of course, if you still like the crazy person thing, I did draw that Zod-Hitler comparison. And there aren't many people crazier than the Nazi corporal.

 

And since you've never heard of Darkseid, the best way I can describe him to you is that he can out-Teridax Teridax.

I'll just have to accept all that stuff about the villains I don't know. And that does seem like boatloads of money, I didn't know it was that much. I'm not an expert on the stuff, and yeah, I'm biased. But bias is what this is all about right, if I'm biased for Batman, that's because I like him more, which answers the question. And no matter what Lex Luthor does in all the stories I haven't read, I think it's his outward persona that matters as much as anything. In that regard, I do believe the colorful cast of Gotham villains trumps. Plus, I'm always particularly fond of characters who use playing cards as symbols.

 

Also, about the 6.1 billion dollars and about Batman being schooled in every form of martial arts, well, those are fair points. Honestly I didn't know about either of them though. And If I can watch or read a Batman story, whatever he does can seem perfectly normal; I don't need to know about his black belt in everything. That sounds like a ridiculous detail, but it hasn't affected my enjoyment of the story, because it isn't glaring.

 

The one point I think you were unfair with was the training part versus Superman's "learing." I wouldn't compare Batman's rigorous regimen to learning to fly. Superman had might as well learn to walk, it's a natural part of his body and so it should be as simple. Same goes for learning to control his other powers. He could probably freeze a volcano as easily as I could whistle. I've also seen him spin the earth backwards to reverse time or something, and that's ridiculous.

 

Is this the largest discussion there has been on this blog entry yet? I'm surprised that Superman and Batman won't be compared to anyone else.

 

I'll just have to accept all that stuff about the villains I don't know. And that does seem like boatloads of money, I didn't know it was that much. I'm not an expert on the stuff, and yeah, I'm biased. But bias is what this is all about right, if I'm biased for Batman, that's because I like him more, which answers the question. And no matter what Lex Luthor does in all the stories I haven't read, I think it's his outward persona that matters as much as anything. In that regard, I do believe the colorful cast of Gotham villains trumps. Plus, I'm always particularly fond of characters who use playing cards as symbols.

 

Also, about the 6.1 billion dollars and about Batman being schooled in every form of martial arts, well, those are fair points. Honestly I didn't know about either of them though. And If I can watch or read a Batman story, whatever he does can seem perfectly normal; I don't need to know about his black belt in everything. That sounds like a ridiculous detail, but it hasn't affected my enjoyment of the story, because it isn't glaring.

 

The one point I think you were unfair with was the training part versus Superman's "learing." I wouldn't compare Batman's rigorous regimen to learning to fly. Superman had might as well learn to walk, it's a natural part of his body and so it should be as simple. Same goes for learning to control his other powers. He could probably freeze a volcano as easily as I could whistle. I've also seen him spin the earth backwards to reverse time or something, and that's ridiculous.

 

Is this the largest discussion there has been on this blog entry yet? I'm surprised that Superman and Batman won't be compared to anyone else.

Not really. If it's well-informed, then it's an informed opinion, not a bias. Granted, I'm no nerd, but I've seen the movies and tv shows, and I've read a few of the graphic novels from the local library, so I've looked into this.

 

In every story, Batman at least uses forensics expertise, detective skills, martial arts, acrobatics, and his beyond military grade gear to accomplish the task. Unless you're someone who knows how hard each of those are to learn (or purchase and use), you may take it for granted. However, everyone knows how difficult it is to fly without an aircraft or have other superpowers--it's impossible--so it's up to your imagination. But that should be no handicap for a BIONICLE fan. (Oh, and it's $6.9 billion. $800,000,000 is a lot of money. )

 

I knew I might be stretching it with Superman's learning, but he started learning later in his life, which is far more difficult for someone to learn how to walk (or fly) then than in infancy. Imagine it like learning after a crippling stroke. (and he didn't have anyone to show him how, or to imitate, like infants and stroke victims do) Plus, Superman's fighting skills were still something he had to work hard on in order to face off with beings of equal or greater strength like Darkseid, Brainiac, and Zod.

 

And I don't count the turning back time thing for the same reason I don't hold the '60s TV show against Batman.

 

EDIT: And Kraagh, here, have this:

 

Why thank you, LewaLew.

 

Anyway, I'm absolutely loving this debate, and I've been wanting to have one of these for a long time so as to give me talking points to address when I write my eventual comprehensive verdict in "Why the World Needs Superman."

 

 

Batman, because he's cooler, more interesting, and lives in a universe populated by more interesting people. The Joker the Riddler, and all the other villains are a lot more interesting than Lex Luther, and antagonists just as every other element do contribute to the appeal of a story. Some more points that I'm sorry I can't bother to write out in paragraph form:

 

I can divide my argument against this into several categories. The first is in regards to the people within the universe in general. Batman probably has the most famous rogues gallery, but I'll hand it to Superman for having the greatest cast of friends. No other romantic interest achieves the same fame or autonomy as Lois Lane, who I think deserves a comic in her own right. In fact, she just might be my favorite non-powered protagonist in all of comics because of her combined independence and lovable flaws. Then there's also Ma Kent, Pa Kent, Pete Ross, Lana Lang, Jimmy Olson, Perry White, and Chloe Sullivan (please, DC Comics, make her part of the official regular cast of Clark's life in the comics) all of which are iconic parts of the good guy cast who exist independently of the superhero conflicts. In fact, I can think of ideas for movie trilogies for each, all sort of leading up to a Superman movie in a similar way that the Marvel solo hero movies led up to an Avengers movie. The point is, this cast is iconic, consistent, and it has Clark Kent's back. I can't think of any other superhero with such a strong cast within his normal life, or for that matter any hero who has one at all, which certainly has to count for a plus.

 

With regards to the villains, I'll give it to you that Batman's villains are more consistently famous, but that doesn't mean that Superman is without his great big cast of villains as well. There's Lex Luthor, of course, but I'll get to him later. The rest include the ones that LewaLew has already mentioned, ranging from Zod (who's awesome and is going to be the best part of Man of Steel), Braniac (The Avengers and the Justice League could share continuities and team up against him, and it would still be a challenge), Bizarro, Metallo, the Parasite, the occasional evil clone, and thanks to Smallville we also have Red Kryptonite to make Superman his own enemy, and finally Doomsday. What really gives Superman a hard time is that he believes so strongly that life is sacred and he can't compromise a single one, and yet the nature of the villains he's called to fight, the struggle could cut some serious scars into the world. A fight between him and Doomsday could in fact end it. It creates an immense struggle for him, it it's complicated enough to keep me interested.

 

Then consider Gog. He's an interesting villain, and I wish we could see more of him. He's a man who was saved by Superman from a nuclear blast. He set up a church worshipping Superman, and Superman had to correct him. Then Gog viewed Superman as a demon and found a way to travel to alternate dimensions and slay versions of Superman whenever he encountered them.

 

Coincidentally, there's also a villain named Magog who I also wish could get more attention and get added to the main rogue's gallery, and he's sort of an ultimate for me that belongs near the end of bigger storylines. In the Kingdom Come comic, the Joker killed Lois Lane and Superman spared his life, but then Magog comes along and kills the Joker. Magog is held on trial and Superman insists that he should go to prison, but he is acquitted and the public comes to think that Magog is the future and that metahumans should just kill villains. Superman resigns in shame, and the rest of the justice league with him. He hides away in his fortress of solitude, believing that he did more harm for the world than good, while on the outside the world rots away as Magog's vision proved a terrible mistake. He finally has to come out and reconcile with his negligence, with Magog, and with his fellow heroes. Magog also has to reconcile with himself, and the way that they each in turn challenge each other is very interesting.

 

Then there's Lionel Luthor, the trope codifier for magnificent...poptard. Sorry. I can't say the word on BZPower. He's Lex Luthor's daddy, and he manages to live up to that, or at least in Smallville. Sadly, in the last Superman comic I read, Superman: Secret Origin (I don't get why they call it a secret), they kept the name for Lex's father but made him an old drunk farmer instead. I simply can't see why they would turn down the opportunity to work with such a great villain, whose charisma, debonair attitude, confidence, power, brilliance, utter deviance, manipulative nature, smoothness, big goals, and his general way of simply being the devil. Don't ask me how he did it. These characters are difficult to write, but Smallville did it. He managed to prove himself the true and original Luthor. He's Lex's Darth Vader. It's hard to describe what makes him so aweful, because it's not something so flamboyant and as obvious as most comic book villains. If comic books had their own Phantom of the Opera, he would be it. For these reasons and more, I really wish they bring him into the mainstream, because from Smallville alone he's my third favorite villain of all time, behind Magneto and Lex Luthor.

 

Lex Luthor. He's a white-collar criminal. His works can't be tracked down. Yes, Superman could just punch the living daylights out of Lex, but he won't do that, because he's not like Batman and doesn't consider himself above the law. In fact, Superman would allow himself to be arrested if he ever broke the law. Consider his powers, of course, he doesn't really have to, but that leads to the problem of not being able to take out people like Luthor, who represents an entirely different conflict that can't be solved with brawn. Luthor is Superman's arch-nemesis because he's most often the villain behind the villain, and he can't be tracked down. People are often suspicious, but Luthor usually has something on his side, and has a very good standing with the law. In fact, the system favors him so well that there have been times that Luthor has successfully run for president, and it was an established part of the DCU for a while. So in this sense, Luthor becomes so much more than a measly person who pulls out a fragment of Kryptonite whenever Superman comes along. He represents a larger, societal problem, as the narratives of Superman stories tend to follow.

 

In fact, look at Superman. There's one more villain, and it's called society. His very existence fundamentally affects it. One of his greatest challenges is making sure that it doesn't become dependant on him, and that he uses his power to show them how to be heroic. He's constantly in the spotlight. Then when society takes a wrong turn, how can he use his problems to solve that? He can't. The same thing goes for Luthor. Luthor is just all those things in society that can go wrong.

 

Meanwhile, while Batman gets so much credit for being a superhero without powers and standing up next to Superman, Luthor gets no such credit. Seriously, this is a guy with no powers but a determination to stand up against the most powerful man in the world, and he manages to do it. That takes guts, and what sets him apart from the rest of Superman villains, as well as villains in general, it that he has to try hard. He's incredibly human. He even has his complex philosophical and psychological reasons for hating Superman, which are in a huge way based on truth, that make him an incredibly relevant villain, and perhaps the most important one in all of comics for being the anti-thesis for heroes.

 

Likewise, he also represents Der Ubermensch archetype, another profound implication within philosophy. This guy is hardcore. Like father, like son.

 

-Superman is the god of being able to do anything. In my experiance, he is never in any danger except when the villain happens to have a random rock of some element. Batman is endangered in all of the normal ways, and he can't stop a volcano with a puff of his breath.

 

People keep on using the word "rock". Then you go and call it "random". I always saw it as a crystal. Crystal sounds commanding. And let's face it, this is a crystal that comes from the exploded remains of his homeworld from millions of miles away. Out of all the space of the universe, only so much can arrive on Earth. It's a pretty rare material and not too many people have it. But let's admit it: people keep on phrasing it as "green rock" as a jest, but treat it like the radiant crystal it is, say the name with some authority, and you realize that it's not that stupid. I mean, you can make similar jokes about the simplicity of Batman using his utility belt for plot convenience. Kryptonite has how become synonymous with "Achilles Heel", which is in turn synonymous with weakness. So his weakness is his weakness, and they call it Kryptonite. Sometimes it's really rare, but in other stories it's everywhere. Is it really that big of a thing to criticize, though? He has to have a weakness. Would it have been any better if writers decided his weakness was something mundane like water? No. Kryptonite is cooler. Say it with authority, because it's an element with special properties that comes from his home planet.

 

Also, there are other forms. Gold Kryptonite, which takes away his powers for good. Red Kryptonite, which used to have a random effect on him, but thanks to Smallville has the much cooler properties of taking away his inhibitions.

 

Meanwhile, stopping a Volcano with a puff of his breath wouldn't work. Just saying. The physics behind that, if we were to be realistic, are more complicated. There's also the matter of catching a falling plane, which as Superman Returns demonstrates is a messy and difficult business, unless you can produce giant baseball mitts like Green Lantern. Putting out volcanoes, however, are just some of Superman's smaller problems, although now that I think about it, I could see an interesting story being made out of that. It's something that Batman couldn't stop, but Superman just might stop it on time, unless it was like Krakatoa or Mt. St. Helens all over again, in which case it would all happen too fast for Superman to do anything and the best he could do would be to evacuate people.

 

Speaking of volcanoes, you know who I love almost as much as I love Superman? Those two primal forces at the end of Fantasia 2000, the Spring Sprite and the Firebird. I mean, they were huge forces, but it was a big picture struggle that really zoomed out on things, and it spoke to me in big ways. There was something really amazing about that one brief shot at animated realization that they had. That just goes to prove that struggle doesn't have to be something on the streets in order to be interesting and in order to force a path straight to the soul.

 

-Batman is a human while Superman is an alien. I can't see Superman as an example for the human race when he isn't even human. This also makes me uncertain with the Superman x Lois Lane romance.

 

Batman is a human with inhuman talent and a psychology that's borderline. As for Superman being an example, I recall him saying "I'm not even human!" to Dr. Virgil Swann on Smallville only to get the reply "There's more to humanity than just your genes."

 

Wonderful line from Christopher Reeve.

 

Superman is excessive humanized through the complexities of his emotions, I might also add that the overall theme of how they provide examples for the human race. Figures like Batman are examples of man becoming more and rising above what it means to be a man. "A legend, Mr. Wayne," as Ra's al Ghul puts it. Superman is about a legend coming down to humanity. The first is humanistic and hollow, while the other is filled with love and humility and fa more humanity.

 

As for the romance between Lois and Clark, one of the reasons that it's so intriguing is because of those inherently tough questions, which immediately gives the romance something tough and unique for writers to overcome, but the payoff is almost always worth it when they give it a serious effort because the answers to this aren't immediately obvious and therefore that particular storyline isn't something people can just predict from a mile away.

 

-Much like the villains, Gotham is simply a cooler setting than Metropolis.

 

That's difficult to pin down. I mean, Gotham is dark and gritty, and I definitely think it's cool in the comics. Not so much in Nolan's movies. I definitely like it when it's hyperbolic. However, Metropolis has this cool feeling, too. It's futuristic, the bright hub of society, and in the movies it often has really cool sets that just give me the feeling of those old days of cinema where musicals like Singin' in the Rain ruled surpreme, and since that's something you will almost never see in movies anymore, I have that makes it pretty awesome.

 

Also, every once and a while Metropolis feels like a place I could call home, which is really impressive because I don't really feel I could ever call anything other than a small town home. That's definitely a subjective view on it, though.

 

-I've only seen one live action Superman movie, Superman Returns. Not only were the Nolan Batman films fantastic, but Superman Returns was downright terrible. Similarly, of the few comics I've read, the Batman ones were better.

 

That movie was a disappointment, but i got better with repeated viewings. There was something about it that just didn't care what other superhero movies were doing. The only real problem with it was that the conflict needed to be bigger and it shouldn't have been a rehash of Luthor's old plan. However, each scene independantly was directed perfectly, and overall, in hindsight I realized that the overall theme of the movie was pretty dramatic, which a strong critique on who Superman was.

 

The actress for Lois was terrible, though. At least Brandon Routhe was pretty cool (hurrah for Iowa).

 

Superman I&II, especially the Dick Donner versions, are simply amazing. It's not amazing in the same way that The Dark Knight trilogy is, which force a sensation of awe upon the viewer immediately, demanding it with all their might, and then gradually get less and less impressive with repeated viewings until they meet a point of equilibrium. The Superman movies are at once fun, but with repeated viewing become beloved. That, and the original two contained the Gospel story. The Big One. It's a definitive story that no superhero movie will ever really trump, unless they ant to take it again and make it both definitive and comprehensive.

 

Too bad I have doubts that Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder have any intentions of that, and they're probably just going to come up with an interpretation of it instead of expanding the interpretation of who and what he is. The sad thing is that people will think otherwise, because this will be new and this will be hip, and it will be intense and it will be dramatic, and it will be liked for similar reasons that the Dark Knight movies were liked, which is not something I think Superman should ever be indebted to. I always see Batman as indebted to Superman. Even the Dark Knight movies were to some extent, taking small bits of inspiration from the original Superman films in how to make it larger than life. I do agree that Superman has to exist in a world that's realistic and that he needs to be directed in such a way that more than just the fans can understand the heart of who he is, but I am very weary of a new film giving an audience other reasons for loving him and creating a distortion of what would be ideal. Regardless, my best wishes are to Man of Steel, and let's hope that it gets Superman back to the center of comics again with new passionate attention and new believers.

 

Also, the Superman films had John Williams compose the score. Win.

 

Now for Sumiki:

 

 

Batman has access to billions of dollars worth of high-tech equipment, but he's still just a regular guy. He doesn't have the overpowered, deus ex machina-like qualities of Superman, who just fell out of the sky. Superman can be given any power at any time, but with Batman, the explanations for things have to fall within reason, if not actual physics.

 

He's definitely not regular. He wasn't raised on a farm. He wasn't an everyman. He never felt the things that normal people felt, save for a prolonged anger over his parent's death that suggests extreme mental instability.

 

Being over-powered is relative, and deus ex machina applies to Batman comics moreso than Superman comics because of that whole utility belt (and I've also read a comic where he knew stuff for no reason whatsoever in a fashion that could only be described and deus ex machina), whereas Superman's powers are pretty well established by now, with a slightly different interpretation added every once and a while. I was frustrated with the Richard Lester Superman movies, though, for randomly incorporating hologram powers and a memory-whipping kiss out of nowhere, then never using them again. Those aren't part of his persona.

 

He fell from the sky, yes, but he didn't "just" fall from the sky. He was sent across time and space in a daring, desperate gambit from his father similar to the story of Moses being sent on a raft down the Nile. He had a spaceship and a wealth of knowledge with him.

 

And again, I have read plenty of Batman comics. So many of the things he does do not fall within actual reason at all. Yes, there's actual detective stuff and big plot points, but filling the cracks in-between there are moments of plot magic where Batman also happened to know how to do something else, or know of some other secret, or so forth. That isn't necessarily a bad thing in writing, but using it as a point for criticism against Superman while denying that it exists with Batman is a double-standard.

 

I don't see Superman literally getting his back broken by Bane. If Bane tried, Superman's overpoweredness kicks in, he flips Bane over, and breaks his back.

 

That's why Bane is a Batman villain and not a Superman villain. As LewaLew has pointed out extensively, there are multiple villains who are quite a bit tougher than Superman who can break him. In fact, Gog has broken him and killed him. Then there has been The Death of Superman, where he was killed by Doomsday (Although the next comic where he came back was really stupid. The best use of the "Comic Book Death" was really Captain America, who had a really awesome series of stories in-between before bringing him back with a bang.). Darkseid, Bizarro, Lex Luthor, his own father, you name it. It's happened.

 

Plus, come on - Superman has all these amazing abilities and he only protects one city? He could singlehandedly bring about world peace and all he does is fight crime in one city.

 

That's a false statement, because even though he's associated with Metropolis and his extended family as Clark Kent finds their base there, he's known for being a world figure. I've never seen a depiction of him that came even remotely close to depicting him as helping only one city. He's saved Earth, saved other planets, and he's even gone over to Germany to help bring kittens down from trees. He's all over.

 

As for singlehandedly bringing out world peace, that requires the Great Compromise of Batman Morality. It requires him bringing himself up above common morals and the rule of law and appointing himself his own authority for justice. But he's not going to do that. He's just a citizen with great responsibilities. He just wishes to help people out where he can, because it's what he can do. However, he's not going to go above the law to do it. He's just the Boy Scout. There's no way his morality permits him to go about infiltrating the sovereignty of governments and stealing their nuclear weapons and other devices of war, even though that would be nice. But by then, he would be too powerful, and there are people who accuse him of being a man with a God complex as it is. There are people who say that he's just some guy who has all of humanity enslaved. That would prove their argument correct, but he's above their accusations, and the accusations are wrong.

 

So therefore, Superman cannot bring about world peace alone. He instead works beside humanity, and does what he can. He can fly fast and visit many places real fast and do a lot in a good day's work, but once it's all said and done, he cannot solve all of the world's problems. As his father, Jor-El, said, "You cannot save the world twenty-eight hours per day." It's a simple reality.

 

That particular argument against Superman is really shallow and a straw man very reminiscent of the types of mud throwing that goes on during a political campaign. It irks me quite a bit.

 

Batman has intellect and uses his wits to get out of situations. I'm not aware of Superman's IQ situation (though if I had to guess, I'd guess that it's overpowered, too), but no one who has Superman's physical skills needs to have intellect to make it work, unlike Batman, where his intellect is necessary for him to fight crime.

 

Matter of fact, Superman's incredibly smart. Smart enough that he's considered using his intellect to find a cure for cancer in one paticular comic. He has a wealth of Kryptonian knowledge in his Fortress of Solitude, and he is sometimes depicted with perfect memory. Those reasons beside, t would make sense that he's smart, because Clark Kent is smart. He's mild-mannered reporter who got hired because "not only does he know how to treat his editor-in-chief with the proper respect, not only does he have a snappy, punchy prose style, but he is in my forty years in this business the fasted typist I've ever seen!" In other words, he's that wholesome and really competent journalist of the Daily Planet, the Atticus Finch of reporters, where he uses his brains to address societal problems with his words to solve the problems that brawn can't.

 

This short paragraph is dedicated to the point which is self-evident at this point that there are villains and larger problems that Superman must address or wishes to address but can't due to the conflicts being non-physical in nature.

 

Finally, I understand where you're coming from when you say that his intellect would make him powered. In no way would this ever fit in an RPG, even if within the RPG everyone else existed at a similar power level, because in a text based RPG everyone would argue over these things and it would be difficult to do anything without describing himself as being just powerful enough to do something just to maintain an aura of dominance in the game. From that standpoint, I completely understand. That's God-modding. For fine, controlled Superman stories, however, this isn't an issue.

 

Also, you have to be pretty brave if you're human and decide to go out there and risk your life night after night. For Superman, it's easy, unless Lex Luthor's got his hands on Kryptonite again.

 

Or if he's facing Brainiac, Metallo, Doomsday, or anyone with magic, but let's shed aside those simple views of bravery.

 

As much as Superman represents the obvious aspects of heroism, there's also the subtle, everyday things in life. For Batman, it's easy to fight crime day in and day out. There's nothing else he'd rather do. Superman has a heart of gold, however, and there are many things he would rather do. He would give it all up for love if he could. He would rather be with Lois Lane and spend more time with his mother. He still wishes his father was around, but neither of the men who claim that title can ever be there for him again save for I spirit. He would rather have recognition for an article he wrote, and the love he gets as a heroic reporter means more to him than the love he gets as the flying birdplane that people see in the sky. He would give it all up for that.

 

He would. But he goes the opposite direction. According to his father Jor-El's will, he continues on his mission, because that's what he's meant to do. Batman doesn't give up anything because he doesn't have anything to give up. Clark Kent does.

 

He has the courage to say no to his desires. He has the courage to deny himself his dreams. he has the courage to put the needs of others before his own, all the time, every time. In Superman Returns, he came down to Lois and asked her what she heard. She didn't hear anything, but he heard everything. He heard seven billion people all at once who needed help. He heard the cries of thousands who cried out for deliverance, and he couldn't live with himself taking this one moment off to be with her, and he had to leave. He has the courage to suffer.

 

And he's not driven by anger. He's guided by his conscious and by his love for his family and friends, and he's willing to suffer like no man a life of denying himself his wants. That's what I call brave.

 

Speaking of Luthor and Kryptonite, when you only have one major enemy and one weakness, it's kind of hard to come up with convincing, non-repetitive, and legitimately good plots. Batman doesn't suffer from these problems.

 

The part about Luthor has been disproved by this point, so I will move onto the Kryptonite misconception.

 

Kryptonite is not Superman's greatest weakness. It's one of three. One of them is magic. The first and greatest of his weaknesses, however, is his humanity. Good Superman authors recognize this. This is how stories like that with Magog are created. This is how Smallville consistently had great episodes (even though it definitely wasn't the definitive element of the Superman origin story, in solidified many of the elements that should be).

 

Enter new villains like Magog. He turned Superman's humanity against him and brought Superman to shame. Enter societal problems. Enter disagreements with other superheroes. Enter stories where Superman doesn't even know what the problem is.

 

I'm just going to throw this out there and say that the way my intuition works you can see Superman do even more stories than Batman because he can do more things. I can imagine how Batman was initially creative, where the creative thought process going into him said "We have these heroes who can do cool things that you can't normally do stories with, but why don't we do the counter-intuitive thing and try to do a lot with someone who actually has less?" So back in the day, Batman was counter-intuitive. Now he's the sort of character who one can more intuitively imagine stories with than with Superman due to people hearing the argument for him more and more often.

 

But really, Superman lives in a big, hyperbolic world. It works. They can be good, but by a different standard than Batman. Let's face it and admit that Batman's form of heroism is based more around crime-fighting, and by the very nature of this is more villain-oriented, whereas Superman has to branch out between stories of man vs. man, man vs. nature (or society), and man vs. self. That solves the problem of repetition. It also zooms out the picture to something much bigger that requires vision, and even though that's harder (because vision isn't something that's easy and it transcends intuition), the end result is something that should be very convincing on a level that's very different than Batman comics.

 

Just because it's harder to write, doesn't mean it's not as good. That just usually means that the end result is all the more worth it, and indeed they are. My favorite comic storyline is Kingdom Come. I highly recommend it.

 

And that, my friends, is roughly 25% of what my eventual comprehensive Superman essay will look like.

 

My name is,

Jean Valjean

Another illustration of why Superman must not be above morals is analyzed in the story "What's So Funny 'Bout 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way'?" In that story, Superman was faced with the popularity of Manchester Black's Elites--a team of anti-heroes who regularly took no prisoners, and were loved by the public as a result, while Superman's policy was seen as a product of the past that was inneffective in the modern world. Eventually, Superman has enough of Manchester Black's vigilante crime, and challenges the Elites. He is trounced and bloodied in a worldwide telecast, but suddenly begins picking off the Elites one by one in their own brutal fashion. Manchester Black becomes shocked as his team falls, and then sees Superman approaching with a wild gleam in his eye.

 

Superman stares into his eyes, and suddenly, Black's powers are gone. Black falls to the ground, stunned, as Superman explained that he used focused heat vision through Black's eyes to cut out the anomaly in Black's brain that gave him his power. Black, stutters in protest. "You.., you're Superman... you don't... you don't do this! You-- they saw!" Black says, turning to the camera. "Everyone on earth saw, you degenerate! Everyone saw what you did to us, and they know! They know you're no better than us. You're no better! There's nothing special about you!"

 

Then Superman replies. "Yes... they did see, didn't they? They saw all the ugliness, the anger... and I bet it frightened them. It frightened me, when I decided to cross that line.. do what you do... I was terrified. Thought it would be tough--but you know what? Anger is easy.Hate is easy. Vengeance and spite are easy. Lucky for you, I don't like my heroes ugly and mean. Just don't believe in it."

 

Superman goes on to explain that he did beat the Elites, but he didn't kill or maim them. And for Black, he just gave him a minor concussion that temporarily disabled his psychic powers. He showed that the brutal ways of antiheroes--even the ones that just maim, rather than kill, like Batman--aren't heroic.

 

"If you think this is over, you're living in a dream world!" Black screams at Superman.

 

"I wouldn't have it any other way." says Superman. "Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul I swear... until my dream of a world where dignity, honor, and justice becomes the reality we all share--I'll never stop fighting. Ever."

 

What that story shows (aside from the fact that Superman was bloodied in the fight with the Elites, and thus can be harmed without kryptonite and magic) is that Superman is a greater hero than Batman in that he doesn't become a symbol of fear and terrorize and maul his enemies. Superman believes in ideals that Batman has abandoned, instead believing that his one rule of no killing justifies his vigilante crime-fighting style. Where Batman considers himself the last word in Gotham, Superman answers to a greater morality.

With how Jean described Lex as being rich and using his money and power against his enemies makes me think of him as Batman, except for the part of using it against whom is considered the good guy.

With what Lew stated, I agree that Batman has abandoned the ideals that we continue to see in Superman.

I am truly living this debate.

Well you've blown me away with your reasoning, Kraggh. You really are turning into a Bonesiii Although unfortunately I have not had the same good experiences with Superman that you've had, I can now see him as a very respectable character and may look more into it if I come across anything at the library. In particular, Smallville should be good to watch, as a few people have recommended it to me.

 

My favorite appearance of Superman was in The Iron Giant. He never actually appeared as a person, but his character's morals and heroism motivated the Iron Giant to become a hero himself. I think that those heroic qualities are what you superman fans are after, rather than just the "cool" factor. From what you've said here it looks like those characters might be present in Smallville and his other stories, so they could be very engaging if so. Also, you have successfully made the villains sound cool, which I've never heard before. I knew that Luthor was the most famous villain, but I've only really encountered him in Superman Returns and a few kid's comics. I still hold Superman Returns to be a terrible movie though, and I've seen it twice. The reason I dislike that movie (I think it's the second worst superhero movie after Green Lantern) is because I thought he was a terrible father. You can make up your own thoughts about that, but I couldn't like Superman and Lois's relationship, and wouldn't like to be in Superman's son's position.

 

I'm skeptical about the Nolan Superman movie as well, although I really liked his Batman trilogy. Half the reason his movies are so great (maybe one-third the reason) was Hans Zimmer's compositions. I'm not sure if he will be composing for Man of Steel, but I can't see his style translating well to Superman. The same goes for Nolan's directing style, actually. Zimmer might not be the composer though; I remember for the trailer they used Lord of the Rings soundtrack.

 

Anyways, I'm glad to have given you points to address and I'm glad to be able to revise my position somewhat. The Iron Giant has been one of my favorite superheroes for a while now, and if Superman can relate, that would be great.

Please people, we all the know the real best superhero is Aquaman.

Has anyone seen the new Man of Steel poster? I believe that it basically sums up why Superman is who is he is, and it takes all of those walls of text up there and brings them together into a single cohesive image. It shows Superman front and center, hands cuffed. It is very obvious from the picture that superman can break out of the handcuffs, but he won't.

 

Just my two cents.