I'm a little lost after all that Crisis stuff. Superman is the first superhero on this Earth?
Spoilers "Superman & Lois" Season 1 spoiler discussion!
- Thread starter The Realist
- Start date
Well, if the history established in Legends season 2 still holds, the Justice Society were the first, but they were secret.
It looks like the first modern, public superhero in the amalgamated Earth-Prime history was Black Lightning, who started out in 1998 according to the Arrowverse Wiki. The second was probably either Superman, who started in 2001 according to this episode, or Batman, who was an established vigilante by the time Kate and Beth Kane's mother was killed in 2003.
He started the same year Smallville debuted. It's crazy to think that Clark is still younger than him.
I loved the line Clark says that he had to prove to the public he wasn't a threat when he started. That reminds me so much of the character in BvS. In fact, I could easily see this Superman being like Cavil's 20 years from now.
Keep wishing. They will never allow Batman to be used on air.Okay, now I want a BL/Supes/Bats team-up, set in the 00s
Well there is the ongoing story we are getting from Captain Luthor about his Superman going evil. Probably implying that
"Stand. Down."
For all the natural nice-guyness he projects, Hoechlin can be imposing when he needs to be.
It was to parallel Jordan's story, and to set up the later conversation where he talked about how the people's trust in him was tested every time he used his powers. He said as much -- that "even just today" he was tested.
I really like the way this show is handling Superman. This was a good illustration of how real strength is about controlling oneself rather than dominating or hurting others. Giving into anger and pettiness, hurting people just because he could, would be weakness, a weakness Jordan almost succumbed to. And Jonathan showed greater strength by stopping him, regardless of the cost to himself.
This is a blatantly false statement.
"After I shot Superman, he seemed kind of upset with us."
"Upset for no reason, you say. Troubling..."
How so? Has he shown up on Batwoman?
It's a blatantly false statement because it is predicated on an outdated concept regarding how TV access to characters is handled.
Batman is still seen as too big of a character for TV. That hasn’t changed yet.
Again, this is a blatantly false statement.
Television access to DC Comics characters is determined on a case-by-case basis, and there is absolutely no template or restriction in place regarding whether or not a particular request for television access to a particular character gets approved.
Nice to get insider information.
I mean, we're poised to have, like, five different Batmen at once in the movies, and they've already cast a guy for the CW-verse. It doesn't seem very forbidden to me.
There's nothing "insider" about what I said.
It's something we've known for quite a while, but people still don't understand or believe it.
Similar threads
