Here is another capitivating image I stumbled upon.
This may not be in line with Metropolis but perhaps this would be a nice wide pan shot of krypton (not to deviate, but since the topic of krypton was broached).
![]()
Exactly. Just like TAS.I would make it an all seasons city, bright and clean. It should have a feel for "this is what the world will be like in five years, if everything was prosperous."
Criminals should be very high tech, and disasters should happen regularly. The city is almost under the complete rule of Lex Luthor, with him controlling businesses and the law, until Superman comes along and gives people the hope and strength to fight and take it back.
Here is another capitivating image I stumbled upon.
This may not be in line with Metropolis but perhaps this would be a nice wide pan shot of krypton (not to deviate, but since the topic of krypton was broached).
![]()
My take on the whole "dark Metropolis vs. light Metropolis" is as follows:
Basically, there's a key difference between Superman and Batman: Superman's job is not to just fight crime, but to do things that the police and emergency workers cannot. Remember how in the Max Fleischer cartoons, he would say "this looks like a job for Superman?" His goal was not to replace the people who were already keeping Metropolis safe, but to intervene when something happened that they couldn't handle. Most of the conflict in Metropolis is external, and Superman is there to keep the city from being ruined by it.
With Batman, on the other hand, he is living in a city that is already rotten. The evil in Gotham City is coming the city itself, and Batman is trying to cut it out like a surgeon with a scalpel. Wheras Superman is protecting the purity of Metropolis from those who would exploit it, Batman is trying to weed out the dark elements of a city that is already corrupted.
Also, something to remember is that Superman is a symbol of hope, and taking on tasks like weeding out corruption is not something he can approach the same way as Batman. Batman is unapologetically a vigilante, and he'll do whatever it takes to bring down Gotham's crooks just short of killing or maiming them. Much of the public already has an unfavorable view of him, so it doesn't matter to him if he's liked or not. Perhaps it's better that Superman is in a cleaner city, because if he was forced to resort to anti-corruptive measures the way Batman is, he'd also be labeled a vigilante and his effectiveness as a symbol would be reduced.
Some might argue that Batman's city is a more compelling one, and one could certainly make the argument that it is. However, that does not mean that Superman's city needs to emulate it, because Superman and Batman are not supposed to be the same. Superman by nature is supposed to be a lighter character who lives in a world of light and color, whereas Batman's world is one of darkness and grit.
What Cities are these??
that actually looks like a city, more scyscraprs and it wouls really look like metropolis
Completely agreed.I would make it an all seasons city, bright and clean. It should have a feel for "this is what the world will be like in five years, if everything was prosperous."
Criminals should be very high tech, and disasters should happen regularly. The city is almost under the complete rule of Lex Luthor, with him controlling businesses and the law, until Superman comes along and gives people the hope and strength to fight and take it back.
Same here. Something along this.
as long as they still use bullets, im all fort his manI would make it an all seasons city, bright and clean. It should have a feel for "this is what the world will be like in five years, if everything was prosperous."
Criminals should be very high tech, and disasters should happen regularly. The city is almost under the complete rule of Lex Luthor, with him controlling businesses and the law, until Superman comes along and gives people the hope and strength to fight and take it back.
Completely agreed.
Same here. Something along this.