Christopher Nolan to take over Superman.

[Majin Gojira]

Trying to think about ways to play with it, I thought of playing with his Mass vs. incoming mass sorta thing. IE: He might be tossed around easily, but only because he doesn't have the mass to counter all that force. It doesn't hurt him too much, but it chucks him around.

Then I realized that could be easily countered with his flight powers.

[Ghost Rider]

Trying to think about ways to play with it, I thought of playing with his Mass vs. incoming mass sorta thing. IE: He might be tossed around easily, but only because he doesn't have the mass to counter all that force. It doesn't hurt him too much, but it chucks him around.

Then I realized that could be easily countered with his flight powers.

Even funnier think of this.

He has enough power in flight and endurance to cancel out and asorb the entire force he puts into his SUPAHMEGAGIGATON blow that he does to Darkseid. The one that sends Darkseid flying like a paper doll...but he he still feels or reels from being slapped around by said being?

The saddest part is let's say they do a baseline he cannot go below, then the offended writer goes "Magic, Kryptonite(insert color), SUPERSCIENCE!!!. The largest problem of Superman, and only a few ever delve into said thought and sadly Grant Morrison is the only one who approached even the JLA correctly, is that one Superman is the BIG GUN. Yes, there are a number who are thought of as more powerful, but the perception of it is that Superman can and usually does win the day because of his extraordinary set of powers and intelligence. The second? The JLA is for the big guns to handle threats above and beyond their means. But those are for another time.

To go back to the title matter, Nolan can establish a baseline for Superman and stay to it. I wouldn't care if he used star moving, time punching, galaxy hopping Superman as long as he doesn't get hit by a regular rock and goes "Guh...". Don't go into dial-a-power mode and really Nolan will have done what 90% of the comic community of writers never have in Superman's history.

[Majin Gojira]

Your comment reminded me of something from the old Superman TV series: Superman can stand up to bullets, but DUCKS out of the way of THROWN guns.*

I guess this problem has been plaguing the franchise for half a century at least.

* (Of course he ducked, the guns were actually on set )

[Temujin]

Hell there's plenty from but the best is the CUT LOOSE sequence. Darkseid is punching and beating on Superman like a bitch, he reacts with pain multiple times...and his big moment? He does more to the enviroment then Darkseid's beating even did in the slightest.

The problem with that entire sequence? Action/reaction. If Superman can just shrug off his own hits, the speed at which he went at, and it has that much effect on Darkseid. Darkseid's shit shouldn't have phased him. You don't hold back how much your muscles/bones/whatever forcefield Superman has, you hold back how energy you apply to an event.

I hated that aspect of the episode, and it goes to what I said earlier about fighting intelligently so as not to cause too much collateral damage. Way to go Clark, you just caused more damage in two minutes than Osama Bin Laden. Same goes for his fight with Captain Marvel earlier. Sure he may help clean up, but why cause that much damage in the first place if you can avoid it.

Put your opponent down hard and fast if you can, or lead your opponent away to a safer area if they can fly; or if a ground pounder, fling the fucker in the requisite direction.

Unless you want to conclude that Clark actually LIKES to be worked over before he decides yeah, I guess now I actually DO have to stop you.

Now I got this image of Supes sprouting a boner like Hooded Justice!

[Batman]

I actually LIKED the Timmverse showing the collateral damage that would inevitably result from superpowered beings duking it out in a city, even at the relatively low power levels of the Timmverse metas (not to mention Clark's apparent inability to leave an indoors action sequence by any way OTHER than crashing through the roof ). Is it stupid for the heroes to do that? OF COURSE. It was stupid for Clark to go HTH with Doomsday. It's stupid for me to NOT call in JLA backup when I'm in over my head. Stupid for me to SEND AWAY superpowered backup when it shows up without me asking. We HAVE to be stupid or else there'll often be no story.
So there SHOULD be massive collateral damage, yet I don't think we see all that much of it in the comics. Or more properly, it never really REGISTERS because the action AND the visuals focus on the characters. Clark throwing a car through a windowfront, punching people through walls, heat visioning through several buildings or punching holes in walls in sheer frustration while actually still in his Clark Kent persona and numerous others at least to me meant...nothing, possibly because we never get to see the scene of the damage afterwards. Seeing it in the Timmverse and actually seeing it HAPPEN made it more REAL.
Yeah, I KNOW, but I hope you get my meaning.

[Temujin]

Seeing collateral damage is certainly important. I mean if a fight starts in the middle of the city between two heavies than we're going to see some buildings go down, as we should. But what's stupid is that sometimes they make no effort to minimize the damage, especially by getting the fight away from the general populace. Supes of all people should not only know better, being the boyscout that he is it should be at the forefront of his mind when getting involved in a fight. But sometimes its like he's in a roid rage and just mindlessly fights with little regard to those around him.

[Batman]

Did you miss the part where I admitted that we're inherently abysmally stupid?

[Temujin]

Did you miss the part where I admitted that we're inherently abysmally stupid?

Yeah, misinterpreted your post a bit. Been a bit distracted with the Trojan(s) that popped back up on my computer yesterday after I just reset and reinstalled everything.

[Dark Hellion]

Personally, I have always found Superman to be most compelling when there is no attempt made to hash out his realism. I think he works best as an icon and a thematic element of the story. In the end it doesn't matter how he flies or the exact amount he can lift but what is done with those powers.

I think he works best when his physical potential is taken as pretty much infinite. Basically, he is invulnerable, invincible and immortal. Unless you are among the heaviest hitters in the universe you aren't going to stop him with a physical assault. His physical power is simply awesome as well, if the problem can be solved by punching something Superman will punch the hell out if it and solve the problem. When he is on a team he is the trump card and deus ex machina in one being. There isn't a conventional challenge that he cannot handle with trivial ease. He is a boringly overpowered motherfucker with a strict moral code. His real weakness is not kryptonite, red suns, magic or some other mystical juju. No, it is moral ambiguity. All his physical power if worthless if he cannot identify which side is right and which side is wrong. It follows from the very basics of his character, Superman fights on the side of justice and punches the fuck outta evil-doers. If the sides are muddled he is ineffectual and neutered.

I think his villains work best when they shown as opposites of him. I find that there are three villains that I really think are thematically effective.
First is Lex Luthor. This goes beyond simple brain vs. brawn. Superman is a morally righteous being with otherworldly powers and a strict set of semi-legalistic rules he operates under. Luthor is a brilliant man with immense worldly power who is unscrupulous but always makes sure to skirt the rules and not break them. So, while Superman can stop Luthor's plots he cannot actually stop Luthor himself, thus setting up the possibility for endless enmity.
Second, I think Doomsday is actually a thematically effective villain who tends to fail in execution. Superman is kind, wise and almost always exercises massive self-restraint. Doomsday is a mindless, raging monstrosity who exists for simple destruction and who possesses physical power of the same magnitude of Superman. Doomsday can injure Superman and Superman needs to utilize the full extent of his power to stop Doomsday's rampages. It is an interesting inversion upon the general Superman dynamic because in this fight Superman is the brains and Doomsday the brawn.
Finally, the villain I love to see in opposition to Superman is Darkseid. Superman is the paragon of good, Darkseid is the paragon of evil. They have the same magnitude of physical and intellectual prowess. They are opposites who can readily fight to stalemate and should. Neither should receive ultimate victory because it is more important for people to be able to parse right and wrong from the gray of real life than rely on avatars such as them.

I think this is why Superman is generally difficult to use effectively. You do not construct plots around Superman because he's fucking Superman and he punches through plots like tissue paper or needs to be hit by an idiot bomb so he doesn't. Because he is Superman he can always just appear were he needs to be and smash the shit outta almost any villain. Thus, he needs to be carefully extracted from the base plot and tied into the overarching story. The question should never be "can Superman stop nuclear war between X-stan and Y-vokia?" He can. The question should be how much further will he go after stopping the nukes? Can he decide on supporting a side or not? Maybe the two countries have legitimate reasons for conflict. What does he do then? All the best Superman media I have seen almost always boils down into how his necessity for a clear right and wrong side, his incredible capacity to hope for the natural goodness of the human spirit and his tendency to give so many second chances nullify his great power when faced with people who do not share those convictions.

I find that these characteristics of Superman are what makes his association with Batman interesting. There is a powerful dichotomy between the two. Superman does not see himself as Superman but as Clark Kent. He is a middle-class farm boy raised by loving parents who lived to a ripe old age. He has unearthly powers that come from his alien heritage that makes him a physical and mental juggernaut without any need for training. He has a positive view of humanity, seeing good in everyone and has an exceedingly strict moral code that renders him unable to deal with situations in which the morality is not clear cut. On the other hand Batman is the goddamn Batman. Bruce is the disguise. He is a filthy rich city kid who's parents were killed when he was young. His powers are completely human and have been obtained through extensive, grueling training. His outlook upon humanity is dark and brooding, seeing everyone as only a few steps away from being a criminal and his moral code primarily consists of no guns, no killing, no other rules. He is good at dealing with morally ambiguous situations because he is a somewhat morally ambiguous vigilante himself. I think Kingdom Come summed up how this relationship actually works really well with (to paraphrase); Despite their differences, in the end both were men who simply did not want to see people die. Even though they are such opposites this singular point of unison is more than enough. Their dichotomy makes them pretty much the comic dream duo. Batman can untangle any web of moral complexity (often by punching things) so that Superman can get to his job of also punching shit.

As a sort of crude summation; in comic-based media nearly every problem can be solved by punching the right thing hard enough. Almost no one can punch hard enough to solve the Superman problem and the boy scout can always punch hard enough for any problem. His weakness is always in figuring out what that right thing to punch is.

[Einzige]

I'd like to see Superman portrayed as a total God. The two good Donner movies and Superman Returns played up the "soft side of the Superman", which is fine, but will eventually get run into the ground. Show me instead a Superman far beyond mortal life, which has its character story contained within it: how can a practically omnipotent entity ever hope to relate to the beings he's supposed to defend? Does he ever stop to consider how other humans must perceive him to be?

It'd be pretty easy to do, I think. The whole "boyscout in blue" thing ought to develop out of his first actions as Superman, and not an ingrained, inherent part of his character. Imagine him, fighting Villain X in his first serious battle and flinging him into the foundation of a building, which sends it toppling over on a bunch of pedestrians. How would he deal with that?

Less Clark Kent, more Übermensch.

[GuppyShark]

Dark Hellion, that is the best summary of Superman I have ever read. Well done.