The Heat Death of SuperMan Part 3: Isn't It Contemporary My Dear Olsen?

Do Clark Kent engage in internet debates about Goku vs ... what's his face with the cape?

We have established that for a Superman story to fairly address the “is Superman still relevant” question within its own narrative, Superman must be preexisting. Phases like “a Superman for today’s world” or “a Superman of a 21th century” didn’t make sense within the Superman reality if one were to conveyed a outer-textual meaning to the audience with the same gravitas. Superman needs to be a already long lasting presence in the narrative’s reality to not break it and reveal that it all greenscreen. A Superman origin story couldn’t and shouldn’t engage in such meta-commentary. But a Superman who have to been there since 1938AD for the “is Superman still relevant” question to work and carry the same wright out and in narrative would destroy his intended function as the contemporary Samson. If Clark Kent haven’t spent his childhood playing Pokémon games, and spending his high school years, wasting his free time engaging in internet debates on which Hololive Vtuber is best girl, would you even consider him contemporary? But since he is under Warner Bros, since Warner Bros considers meta-commentaries or meta-anything the trendiest thing, you should bet they will work the “is Superman still relevant” question in some way into the next Superman movie. Is there anyway to make the question work within a Superman narrative? without breaking his contemporariness or his narrative?

Odd thing for a fictional character or franchise to exist so long and so influencer as to imagen it being contemporary in our world is too imagen a version of our world that is in actuary somewhat different, at least in its popular culture. A contemporary Sherlock Holmes must take place in a world where the original Sherlock Holmes haven’t exist and had such a impact on all of global popular culture after it. The premise of Star Trek is that its reality is the audience’s future, but yet the characters act completely unaware that they were shown as fictional characters in a commercial franchise in Earth’s history.

So here lies the answer to our metal-question, a Superman narrative couldn’t really and shouldn’t address the “is Superman still relevant” question within its own reality, if it were to preserve the contemporariness of its Superman, or his relevancy. Any story maker, including those who make Superman movies are better making a simple Superman story about just doing the Superman thing, the Superman way than to engage in some grand depth meta-textual debate about its own title character’s relevancy. Ironically the “is Superman relevant?” question within the Superman story will only exposes the irrelevancy of its Superman. But why dose any Superman movie or story feels compel to address that very question despite its destruction of the realness of its Superman, besides Warner Bros thinking that meta-commentary or meta-everything is the hip, cool dank thing to do?

Since 1979, Ada Neo Mundie 34 pop culture have a increasingly effect on the imagery of contemporariness. 1920s-1930s were the raise of the mass produce commercialized character, Felix the cat, Mickey Mouse, Flash Gordan, Tarzan, and of course Superman. As stated, its hard to imagen a pop culture landscape without the influence of Superman, what dose something like The Eltingville Club look like in a world where no one invented the idea of Superman? Or any other heavy pop culture influence work of fiction? What do super custom hero characters look like in a world without the Superman the character? Are they more like the Shadow or Flash Gordan? If custom heroes still a thing in today’s pop culture without a Superman? What dose the Venture Bros look like in a reality of a Superman origin movie in a contemporary setting?

Since the raise of “nerd”, “Greek” or “Weeb” culture, commercial pop culture have been investing the imagery of modernity, from the shelves of our leaving rooms and the computer desks of our work places, and even the clothes that we wear, the very image of contemporary have been infected by the imagery of commercialized pop culture. To depict contemporary have been increasingly about depicting the image of characters and things from the media that we consume, including the staff that is influence by Superman. To depict contemporary is to depict a world effected by Superman the commercialized character.

The trouble of constantly trying to be contemporary as quoted by Abraham Simpson “I used to be with “it”, then they change what “it” was”. The problem with any prediction of future technology it comes down to too many things to consider at once. Zuckerberg’s Metaverse could just be another false start of the “VR revolution”!. AI art could be just another tech fad, that was then abandon by the public. the promises of gene editing and gene thereby could fall flat. But if sometime beyond Ada Neo Mundie 79 someone did invent gene editing that can change your biology, someone did invent a V.R experience that is as “real” as real. What dose these innovations mean for the contemporariness of the contemporary Samson and his fellow fictional superhuman creed?

Do Clark Kent have to work for a indie or underground newspaper since all corporate ones have no use for a biological mind in a age of A.I? What about the X Men? What will be so uncanny about someone like Beast if anyone could biologically alter themselves to be a actual furry? Why should Cyborg remain on the Justice League, Teen Titans or any other superhero team if anyone could alter themselves to become exactly like him? If everyone spends nearly if not all of their time in the metaverse or some more advance equivalent, what is there for a Superman to do with everyone on the inter-connected pseudo-reality where anyone could be the Superman?

We can theorize all we want for any number of possible futures, and their imprecations, but they would never be proven true or falsified accept if we live long enough. As far as we know, we could be heading towards a period of technological stagnation or regression, maybe because of the competence crises, WW3, major depression or any other cause of techno regression, contemporariness in 2038AD, Ada Neo Mubdie 93 could be like contemporariness in the pre Ada Neo Mundie year of 1938AD, at least on a technology sense.

But in the our current year of Ada Mundie 79, what dose doing the Superman thing, the Superman way while doing the contemporary thing, the contemporary way actually entitles?