Superman's power level

[sepharih]

Like most things, it's a matter of degrees. Spider-Man is what I'd describe as a relatable character, and Superman is not--but that's not to say he's a completely alien, unknowable character. Though the difference between them is one of degrees (not one of black and white), it remains an important one.

It's a scale, and Superman, in the interpretation I feel is ideal, possesses a power and moral integrity that inevitably places him on the opposite side of the scale--and that works for him, when written by individuals who have the talent and imagination to conceive of conflicts on such a scale.

So basically you're saying that Spider-man is a more down to earth character while superman is not and should not be. I don't disagree with this assessment, but I'm not sure I would characterize that as not being relatable...but that's semantics at that point.

I could not disagree more; I believe the exact opposite is true. It was never a question of whether he'd hit people hard enough or fast enough; it was always a question of whether or not he could endure the non-physical hardships.

Maybe I should clarify here:
The non-physical and moral hardships he goes through are the principle conflict in the movie, but the physical battles he fights are an extension of that conflict. IE The physical conflicts serve to represent the backdrop of the moral conflict.

He didn't so much "rise up" as he pushed a button on his gauntlet. Again, I maintain that Batman overcoming physical limitations was never the focus of any of the film's drama.

Actually, I retract that; when he managed to stop Dent after being shot, it was important there. So, one point.

See below:

Such as where? He blows through the Chechen's goons, he blows through Lau's goons, he blows through Joker's goons, he blows through Maroni's goons, and he blows through the SWAT team. The only two characters who actually manage to hurt Batman (unless we're counting dogs, which he shrugs off anyways) are Joker and the Two-Face, and I would argue it's for thematic purposes, reflecting the the moral and psychological threats they represent.

Um, Yeah.....that's the whole freakin point. If anything that works to my point. Would it have been as dramatic if the physical threat did not mirror the moral one.
Also, you're forgetting when Scarecrow practically drove him into a cement pillar. My entire theater let out a george of the jungle style “ughhhhh” when that happened. And yes of course dogs count.
You say he blows through the various goons, but what you describe as “blow through” didn't exactly look like a walk in the park to me. Was he more than capable of it in many of the instances, sure, but the film often goes out of its way at times to remind us of his mortality. If you really doubt that a major theme of the film is the physical exertion batman has to go through then what was the purpose of the scene where they reveal the various scares and bruises Batman has put himself through for his cause?

 

[SuperDaniel]

I love the Terminator, Alien movies but I dont relate to any of those characters. NOT ONE OF THEM. But i still love the movies and their story. Superman is not supposed to be relatable. This is the Marvel way. This Spider-man. And while people still dont understand that, the character is going to fail. That doesnt mean he is supposed to be an emotionless god. His emotions, while human, should be connected to his conflicts and his conflicts are things only Superman can experience. Nobody else. Conflicts like not being able to save everybody or having to choose who gets to be saved or not. These are conflicts we, as audience, understand but we dont relate. However, we stll like to see that and his story. Theres a big difference between being relatable and believable.

People should believe in Superman, his actions, his conflicts and the environment that surrounds him. That doesnt mean the character needs to be relatable or like us. Because he`s not like us. Simple as that.

 

[sepharih]

I love the Terminator, Alien movies but I dont relate to any of those characters. NOT ONE OF THEM. But i still love the movies and their story. Superman is not supposed to be relatable. This is the Marvel way. This Spider-man. And while people still dont understand that, the character is going to fail. That doesnt mean he is supposed to be an emotionless god. His emotions, while human, should be connected to his conflicts and his conflicts are things only Superman can experience. Nobody else. Conflicts like not being able to save everybody or having to choose who gets to be saved or not. These are conflicts we, as audience, understand but we dont relate. However, we stll like to see that and his story. Theres a big difference between being relatable and believable.

People should believe in Superman, his actions, his conflicts and the environment that surrounds him. That doesnt mean the character needs to be relatable or like us. Because he`s not like us. Simple as that.

.....I have so many many thoughts on this....but before I even begin espousing on anything I just want to know....forgeting the usage of words like relatable....do you agree on the SUBSTANCE of what saint is saying?

 

[SuperDaniel]

I agree with what Saint is saying but i think there should be a middle term. There's a fine line between writing Superman as just and inspirational image and unrelatable. I the best stories are the ones that find a reasonable balance between both. That's why I prefer stories like Superman for all seasons, They call it suicide slum, Action Comics #775, Peace on Earth, Secret Identity over All-Star Superman. I think Superman in that story is dangerously walking the line of being a unreletable god, almost emotionless. Maybe its because Morrison put too much science bs into those stories that I don't really care for. I like when Supes deal with real world problems and conflicts but in his "Supermanly" way of dealing with those, like in the issue Pa Kent dies or when he uses Kryptonian tech to cure cancer in issue 10.

 

[sepharih]

I agree with what Saint is saying but i think there should be a middle term. There's a fine line between writing Superman as just and inspirational image and unrelatable. I the best stories are the ones that find a reasonable balance between both. That's why I prefer stories like Superman for all seasons, They call it suicide slum, Action Comics #775, Peace on Earth, Secret Identity over All-Star Superman. I think Superman in that story is dangerously walking the line of being a unreletable god, almost emotionless. Maybe its because Morrison put too much science bs into those stories that I don't really care for. I like when Supes deal with real world problems and conflicts but in his "Supermanly" way of dealing with those, like in the issue Pa Kent dies or when he uses Kryptonian tech to cure cancer in issue 10.

Ok, then it sounds like we're more arguing semantics then we are arguing whether or not Superman should be "relatable".

That being the case, I only want to comment on one thing:

I love the Terminator, Alien movies but I dont relate to any of those characters. NOT ONE OF THEM.

How can you POSSIBLY feel this way? Aliens is one of the greatest action thrillers of all time and owes a great deal of that success to the fact that it's characters are some of the most well developed, and, oh yes, relatable in the genre. Time is spent developing everyone of those characters to make sure that when it hits the fan, every death death means something. And even if none of the marines...how can you not at least find a connection with Ellen Ripley?
Ditto for Sarah Connor in the Terminator....but I will give kudos to Jim Cameron for somehow finding a way to give an emotionless killing machine a semblance of characterization that was actually rather poignant. It helps that the supporting cast is well developed also....but I'll admit that the Terminator himself may very well be the exception to the rule.

 

[moviedoors]

Was Batman overcoming physical adversity actually a part of the Dark Knight? Because if you ask me, it wasn't. Batman is more or less unstoppable in that film. He dismantles everyone he touches, almost effortlessly. Yes, he takes some good hits (especially towards the end) and we see the wear on him, but that's not what that movie is about, that's not what anybody went home talking about. There was never a moment where Batman "overcame physical adversity" for dramatic purposes. It was all about the moral conflict, the psychological conflict, and his will to endure those challenges. Not the physical challenges.

Really, The Dark Knight is a great example, because Batman seems about as powerful as he could possible be. He even had his Grant Morrison Bat-God moment when he busted out his secret sonar Joker detector.

Now this is a great point. The Dark Knight was a great movie because at the end, he beat the Joker by making a choice, not by catching him or beating him up. When he chose to take the blame, he won, and that is infinitely more dramatically satisfying than some scene where an actor pretends to lift something heavy.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Ok, then it sounds like we're more arguing semantics then we are arguing whether or not Superman should be "relatable".

That being the case, I only want to comment on one thing:



How can you POSSIBLY feel this way? Aliens is one of the greatest action thrillers of all time and owes a great deal of that success to the fact that it's characters are some of the most well developed, and, oh yes, relatable in the genre. Time is spent developing everyone of those characters to make sure that when it hits the fan, every death death means something. And even if none of the marines...how can you not at least find a connection with Ellen Ripley?
Ditto for Sarah Connor in the Terminator....but I will give kudos to Jim Cameron for somehow finding a way to give an emotionless killing machine a semblance of characterization that was actually rather poignant. It helps that the supporting cast is well developed also....but I'll admit that the Terminator himself may very well be the exception to the rule.

I think you dont understand what relatable means. Relatable means that some character is like you or possess the same conflicts as you do in real life. Therefore, if your parents were killed, or you are an orphan, Batman is relatable to you. Peter Parker goes through the same conflicts most people do. Girls, money, terrible bosses, etc etc. They are relatable. Superman is not. Superman is an alien with conflicts and a sensorial perspective of the world completely different from us. However, there are some human aspects that define Superman that we can relate to: Growing up in a small town, do the right thing, have good parents, good supporting wife, good friends like Jimmy and Perry, Emil Hamilton, etc. The thing is: Superman is such a diverse character that it can be a lot of things at once. Relatable and inspirational and I believe his best stories achieve a balance of both. However, i think, with Superman, the key is to make the character believable and not make him human by making him like us. There's a lot of character moments in Earth One that are cool, believable, human but they are not things Superman would do at all, imo. One example is the fact that he simply dont save people when he is a teen, or dont care about other people. He is a total outsider. That is Peter Parker, not Clark Kent. Clark Kent, imo, should be extremely happy he has powers. He shoud love it and not deny them. Also, he almost kills a thugh with his heat vision, goes inside a fire and only bothers to save his personal belongings, is ashamed to wear his costume... tHat is not Superman at all to me.

And to talk about your examples, Sarah Connor is not relatable at all to me. Or Ellen Ripley. They are believable and we feel for their conflicts and we believe in the choices they make to overcome them. But they are not relatable at all to me, at least. The Joker is my favorite character in the DArk Knight. He's not relatable at all. I just like the character. They key to writing these character is first to understand them. Are they relatable? Are they inspirational? Are they both? Are they just simply crazy? A lot of people dont get Superman so if you dont know what the character means or is supposed to be, how can you write good stories with him?

My 2 cents.

 

[Saint]

So basically you're saying that Spider-man is a more down to earth character while superman is not and should not be. I don't disagree with this assessment, but I'm not sure I would characterize that as not being relatable...but that's semantics at that point.

"Down to Earth" and "Relatable" seem interchangeable (that is to say, what makes Spider-Man relatable is that he is down to Earth), hence my distinction.

Maybe I should clarify here:
The non-physical and moral hardships he goes through are the principle conflict in the movie, but the physical battles he fights are an extension of that conflict. IE The physical conflicts serve to represent the backdrop of the moral conflict.

Um, Yeah.....that's the whole freakin point. If anything that works to my point. Would it have been as dramatic if the physical threat did not mirror the moral one.
Also, you're forgetting when Scarecrow practically drove him into a cement pillar. My entire theater let out a george of the jungle style “ughhhhh” when that happened. And yes of course dogs count.
You say he blows through the various goons, but what you describe as “blow through” didn't exactly look like a walk in the park to me. Was he more than capable of it in many of the instances, sure, but the film often goes out of its way at times to remind us of his mortality. If you really doubt that a major theme of the film is the physical exertion batman has to go through then what was the purpose of the scene where they reveal the various scares and bruises Batman has put himself through for his cause?

Alright, I'm willing to concede the point about Batman's physical challenges--but they remain punctuation for the real conflict, for where the real drama comes from (drama being what we're talking about). Yes, you have a visceral connection where you say "Ouch, that's gotta hurt," but the true conflict of the piece is the moral conflict--and that was, at least for me as a viewer, the core source of drama.

but what you describe as “blow through” didn't exactly look like a walk in the park to me.

Most enemies in the film are absolutely dismantled by Batman, usually without landing a single blow. Seriously, think about it next time you watch. He's pretty unstoppable.

 

[sepharih]

"Down to Earth" and "Relatable" seem interchangeable (that is to say, what makes Spider-Man relatable is that he is down to Earth), hence my distinction.

Well they can be used interchangeable I suppose...but I'm really just attempting to find a vocabulary we can agree on since we don't seem to argue over the substance of the debate.

Alright, I'm willing to concede the point about Batman's physical challenges--but they remain punctuation for the real conflict, for where the real drama comes from (drama being what we're talking about). Yes, you have a visceral connection where you say "Ouch, that's gotta hurt," but the true conflict of the piece is the moral conflict--and that was, at least for me as a viewer, the core source of drama.

I don't disagree on this point...I simply believe that this physical conflict adds to the drama by making the moral conflict have actual visible implications beyond simple abstract ideas.....and having the character struggle through this physical hardship makes it that much more cathartic.

Most enemies in the film are absolutely dismantled by Batman, usually without landing a single blow. Seriously, think about it next time you watch. He's pretty unstoppable.

Hey, I need no motivation to rewatch the Dark Knight for the umpteenth time . Honestly though...I'm not saying he's getting himself as beat up as Kick-ass...i'm just saying he's taking some punches and bruises here and there, and he knuckles through it.

I think you dont understand what relatable means. Relatable means that some character is like you or possess the same conflicts as you do in real life.

…..eh......close enough.

Therefore, if your parents were killed, or you are an orphan, Batman is relatable to you. Peter Parker goes through the same conflicts most people do. Girls, money, terrible bosses, etc etc. They are relatable. Superman is not. Superman is an alien with conflicts and a sensorial perspective of the world completely different from us. However, there are some human aspects that define Superman that we can relate to: Growing up in a small town, do the right thing, have good parents, good supporting wife, good friends like Jimmy and Perry, Emil Hamilton, etc. The thing is: Superman is such a diverse character that it can be a lot of things at once. Relatable and inspirational and I believe his best stories achieve a balance of both. However, i think, with Superman, the key is to make the character believable and not make him human by making him like us. There's a lot of character moments in Earth One that are cool, believable, human but they are not things Superman would do at all, imo. One example is the fact that he simply dont save people when he is a teen, or dont care about other people. He is a total outsider. That is Peter Parker, not Clark Kent. Clark Kent, imo, should be extremely happy he has powers. He shoud love it and not deny them. Also, he almost kills a thugh with his heat vision, goes inside a fire and only bothers to save his personal belongings, is ashamed to wear his costume... tHat is not Superman at all to me.

??? Ok...is Superman relatable in your view...or not. You seem to go back and forth on this matter, and the only thing I get for sure is that you don't like Earth One. If a character is not relatable, except in some ways...then he's relatable.
As I said in a seperate post...I actually completely understand what you mean by Superman not having the same view of the world or thought processes as we do. I understand it, because it makes sense considering the nature of the character, and I don't even deny that it may very well be the intended “true” form.
The problem is...while that may make for a fascinating, even compelling character......I'm beginning to believe that it will be the end of the characters career as a leading man outside of comics, because such a character ultimately serves better as an idea and standard for other charaters to measure themselves in relation too. Basically, as a supporting character.
For Superman to connect with modern audiences on an emotional level...I'm beginning to think that there is a need to humanize him further.

And to talk about your examples, Sarah Connor is not relatable at all to me. Or Ellen Ripley. They are believable and we feel for their conflicts and we believe in the choices they make to overcome them. But they are not relatable at all to me, at least.

…..I have no response to this.

The Joker is my favorite character in the DArk Knight. He's not relatable at all. I just like the character. They key to writing these character is first to understand them. Are they relatable? Are they inspirational? Are they both? Are they just simply crazy? A lot of people dont get Superman so if you dont know what the character means or is supposed to be, how can you write good stories with him?

Already went over the Joker. There's a difference between being a compelling character and being a compelling protagonist.

 

[Saint]

Well they can be used interchangeable I suppose...but I'm really just attempting to find a vocabulary we can agree on since we don't seem to argue over the substance of the debate.

I think we have an understanding, more or less.

I don't disagree on this point...I simply believe that this physical conflict adds to the drama by making the moral conflict have actual visible implications beyond simple abstract ideas.....and having the character struggle through this physical hardship makes it that much more cathartic.

Obviously I can't disagree with that.

 

[JAK®]

I'm concerned about the idea of a Superman who has no difficulty with physical adversity whatsoever because I find it to be lacking a cinematic sensibility and dramatic tension.

Nobody is suggesting this.

 

[sepharih]

Nobody is suggesting this.

Saint was; or at least he was suggesting that the dramatic tension should arise less from Superman having to physically push himself, and more from him having to control his strength without causing damage to whatever it is he's doing. IE, the problem isn't the lack of strength, but that physics can be a *****, as he put it.

I find this to be an interesting and unique way of dealing with action sequences, as well as providing insight into the worldview of a character who is virtually limitless....but fears the effect he has on the world around him.

I also fear that this approach may not be cinematic.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I'm not sure how Superman isn't relatable. He certainly acts like a person who was born and raised on earth minus his 'atypicalish' side of course. In order for Superman to be 'unrelatable' his character would have to be altered to a certain degree, like say 100%. Can he be more 'relatable' than usual? Sure. There is no denying that, and yes I know that no one was denying that.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

The hightlighted part is something that should be remembered. And why S:TAS? Superman in that show was pretty de-powered. I'd recommend the second season of the Justice League and the Justice League Unlimited for examples on how powerful Superman should be.

For instance...

[YT]MUu4ArJyZcs[/YT]

I approve of this power level.

 

[Kurosawa]

I'm not expecting Superman to be particularly powerful or impressive in MOS due to legal restrictions.

 

[The Sage]

There's a legal restriction on how powerful Superman can be?

 

[SuperAl]

this isnt DBZ, theres no power lvls for superman, would be impossible to have legal restrictions on how strong something can be.

 

[Gamma Ra]

With Sperman being a reboot and all, how mad would you guys be if the movie took this approach, by going back to his original faster than a speeding bullet levels...

http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2011/07/18/the-new-man-of-tomorrow/

The New Man of Tomorrow

Monday, July 18th, 2011

By David Hyde

(The cover to ACTION COMICS #1 by Rags Morales)​

He has been called the Man of Steel, the Last Son of Krypton and a strange visitor from a distant planet.
He is Superman, the Man of Tomorrow. As part of DC COMICS – THE NEW 52, this September will usher in a new Superman for the new century.

In the pages of ACTION COMICS, writer Grant Morrison and artist Rags Morales will present humanity’s first encounters with Superman, before he became one of the World’s Greatest Super Heroes. Set a few years in the past, it’s a bold new take on a classic hero.

* This Superman is very much an alien, one struggling to adjust to his adopted home. In the series, he must come to terms with both the loss of his home world, as well as the loss of both of his adopted parents. He is more Kal-El from the planet Krypton than Clark Kent from Kansas. He’s a loner trying to find his place in the world.

* The series’ first storyline will explore the origins of Superman’s costume, as it evolves from a look that includes jeans and work boots to a new look: a suit of battle armor that pays tribute to his Kryptonian past.

* His great powers have limits. When the series begins, Superman can leap tall buildings, but his ability to fly is in its infancy.
And in the SUPERMAN ongoing comic book series, by writer George Perez and artist Jesus Merino, will be set in present day continuity and will unleash a series of new challenges for Superman and his alter ego Clark Kent.

* Clark Kent is single and living on his own. He has never been married.

* Lois Lane is dating a colleague at the DAILY PLANET (and his name isn’t Clark Kent) and she has a new position with the paper.

Timeless and modern, classic and contemporary, but younger, brasher and more brooding, this is Superman. The New Man of Tomorrow.



http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2011/07/19/%E2%80%9Ctheres-a-lot-of-great-stuff-about-the-character-that-were-going-to-show-you-that-hasnt-been-discussed-or-presented-before-%E2%80%93-jim-lee/

“There’s a lot of great stuff about the character that we’re going to show you that hasn’t been discussed or presented before.” – Jim Lee

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011
By David Hyde


Yesterday, we revealed many new details about the more modern interpretation of the Superman mythos in DC Comics-The New 52. A new costume. An orphan. A bachelor. This September, Superman will become the new man of tomorrow.

Entertainment website TMZ exclusively broke the news that in DC Comics-The New 52, Superman and Lois Lane will never have been married. The story was picked up by numerous outlets including THE HUFFINGTON POST and MTV GEEK.

“Maybe as readers and fans, we’ve grown a little too comfortable with Superman,” artist and DC Entertainment Co-Publisher Jim Lee told USA TODAY. “Part of the creative changes we’ve put behind the mythology is to tell people, ‘Look, you may think you know Superman, but you don’t.’ There’s a lot of great stuff about the character that we’re going to show you that hasn’t been discussed or presented before.”

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

I'm not expecting Superman to be particularly powerful or impressive in MOS due to legal restrictions.

The Superman in Action Comics #1 wasn't that strong. They can make him however strong they want.

 

[JAK®]

"Look, you may think you know Superman, but you don't"

Somebody needed to say that to DC back in 1986.

 

[elgaz]

I don't think I'd be entirely happy if they followed DC's lead here and depowered Superman in MOS.

Look, you can call this a reboot, a restart, whatever you like. It's clearly a film which is not going to follow the Donner films or attempt to emulate them like Singer's film did. So in some respect, they have a clean slate and they can do whatever they like with Superman in terms of his power.

But the fact remains; a large portion of your Superman audience will have watched those Donner films, Smallville, TAS, etc. And read the comics. Even younger ones. I don't know very many people (young or old) who haven't watched some kind of Superman film. And because of that, they will go into this film with certain expectations of how strong their hero is.

I think offering forth a depowered Superman (someone who, onscreen, may not appear much stronger or more powerful than Captain America or Iron Man) will be a massive anti-climax and will not do the character any favours. It's all fine and well explaining his early depowered backstory in a comic run over weeks, months and years, ultimately leading to a more evolved and powerful Superman down the line. But with a film you have a very small window of around 2hrs on average to present forth your hero in the most impressive way possible.

Superman is the first of the superheroes, and while he may not have been as popular in recent years as Batman, he's still the most iconic. He's not a human, and he doesn't have to be limited in some way just so we can somehow relate to him. We know he's alien. And we know he's capable of amazing feats.

I go to a Superman movie expecting to see him fly - not make big leaps.
I go to a Superman movie expecting to see him move faster than the eye can see - not merely outrun a train.
I go to a Superman movie expecting bullets to bounce off his chest - not for him to wince with every one that hits his flesh.

I go to a Superman movie to see him do spectacular things - not to come across as someone on an equal par with less powerful superheroes we've seen on screen in recent years.

I hope MOS wows us with what Superman can do.

 

[DE LA LUNA]

I don't think I'd be entirely happy if they followed DC's lead here and depowered Superman in MOS.

Look, you can call this a reboot, a restart, whatever you like. It's clearly a film which is not going to follow the Donner films or attempt to emulate them like Singer's film did. So in some respect, they have a clean slate and they can do whatever they like with Superman in terms of his power.

But the fact remains; a large portion of your Superman audience will have watched those Donner films, Smallville, TAS, etc. And read the comics. Even younger ones. I don't know very many people (young or old) who haven't watched some kind of Superman film. And because of that, they will go into this film with certain expectations of how strong their hero is.

I think offering forth a depowered Superman (someone who, onscreen, may not appear much stronger or more powerful than Captain America or Iron Man) will be a massive anti-climax and will not do the character any favours. It's all fine and well explaining his early depowered backstory in a comic run over weeks, months and years, ultimately leading to a more evolved and powerful Superman down the line. But with a film you have a very small window of around 2hrs on average to present forth your hero in the most impressive way possible.

Superman is the first of the superheroes, and while he may not have been as popular in recent years as Batman, he's still the most iconic. He's not a human, and he doesn't have to be limited in some way just so we can somehow relate to him. We know he's alien. And we know he's capable of amazing feats.

I go to a Superman movie expecting to see him fly - not make big leaps.
I go to a Superman movie expecting to see him move faster than the eye can see - not merely outrun a train.
I go to a Superman movie expecting bullets to bounce off his chest - not for him to wince with every one that hits his flesh.

I go to a Superman movie to see him do spectacular things - not to come across as someone on an equal par with less powerful superheroes we've seen on screen in recent years.

I hope MOS wows us with what Superman can do.

Agreed. People expect Superman perform amazing feats and to use his powers tactfully. I remember watching S:TAS growing up and, even though I loved the show, I felt Superman was very underpowered. I hated seeing Superman thrashed around by a supervillain when it seemed that he wasn't using all his powers. I was like, "How can he get beat up like that! He has superspeed!" So the solution is not necessarily to de-power Superman, but to strengthen his foes and escalate the action.

I also agree that Superman should be under the laws of physics. I'm glad that Snyder is going this route because it adds drama to everything Superman does. Superman should be able to have superspeed, but I think he should have to warm-up his body to accelerate at those speeds. He should be able to lift planes, but he has to understand that the pressure could tear the plane apart. By doing this, we can make Superman wise and tactful with his powers. Let the action and drama escalate.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Can anybody answer me this...

Is it because of this lawsuit between WB and the creators family that Superman won't be flying in the rebooted comics, and would this carry on into MOS?

 

[elgaz]

I also agree that Superman should be under the laws of physics. I'm glad that Snyder is going this route because it adds drama to everything Superman does. Superman should be able to have superspeed, but I think he should have to warm-up his body to accelerate at those speeds. He should be able to lift planes, but he has to understand that the pressure could tear the plane apart. By doing this, we can make Superman wise and tactful with his powers. Let the action and drama escalate.

True, I'd like to see this handled realistically also.

Superman may be able to hit the speed of light, but he can't fly past a city or a crowd of people closely at much more than a few hundred miles per hour without serious air disturbance. Think what would happen if a fighter jet flew past your window at maximum velocity.

How can he fight an enemy in a city environment when their punches send them through buildings or harming civilians?

How can he realistically cut out all the background noise from his superhearing when he lives and works in a busy city? (Though for that one, the best explanation I heard likened it to being at a noisy party but focusing on just one conversation near you).

How does he actually limit himself on a daily basis so that he doesn't crush a mug into dust when he has a coffee, etc?

 

[Alientraveller]

Can anybody answer me this...

Is it because of this lawsuit between WB and the creators family that Superman won't be flying in the rebooted comics, and would this carry on into MOS?

No. Superman didn't fly in Action Comics #1.