15 Fan Theories About Superman That Are Actually Plausible

From Redditor u/urik9:

In Man of Steel, Superman was sent to Earth to have sex. A lot of sex. It struck me while watching the movie. Why would Jor-El put all of Krypton genetic info in Kal-El's DNA? It's of no use to him and has nothing to do with his superpowers. Jor-El says he wanted Kal-El to be a bridge between Kryptonians and Humans but that how does that make sense if all the Kryptonians are dead? It all works only if you think of Kal-El's mission as that of spreading Kryptonian DNA. It's established at the start that his parents have a thing for natural procreation. Even breaking Krypton's greatest taboo is nothing compared to their belief in the importance getting it on. So their son's mission is to spread the love and all those extra Kryptonian genes they built into him to create Kryptonian-Human hybrids. He is the bridge. His is more subtle alien invasion.

From Redditor u/darkpassenger9

TL;DR: Clark Kent is an investigative reporter. Bruce Wayne is a celebrity, and the murder of his parents was a big deal. Superman said "Martha" on purpose because he knew Martha Wayne was Batman's dead mother.

Clark Kent is a reporter. Bruce Wayne is a famous billionaire, and his parents, Thomas and Martha Wayne (and their murders), would have been very well-known. It is established that Clark Kent knows Bruce Wayne is Batman well before the climax (when he uses his super-hearing to pick up Alfred on comms, and when he calls Batman 'Bruce'). Superman KNEW Bruce Wayne's mother, Martha, was murdered before his eyes, leading him down the path to becoming Batman. It's public knowledge. This means that Superman also knows that Batman's mother had the same name as his adoptive mother, Martha Kent. When he says "Martha! You're letting them kill Martha," (instead of something a little more natural sounding, like "you're letting them kill my mother") it's a last-ditch effort to get through to Batman by using something they have a common, something important to Batman, that also speaks to Superman's "humanity."

[Read the full theory here]

From Redditor u/Gaalsien:

tl;dr: The threat of Doomsday mutation shackled Kryptonians to a dead planet and stagnated their society.

After watching Man of Steel, I was left with the obvious question of 'why don't Kryptonians exist outside their solar system?'. Why do they shackle themselves to a planet with a sun and atmosphere that is literally poison to them, especially when it is shown that they had colonies at one point, though these colonists have all since died. Did they just voluntarily withdraw to a backwater hellhole of a world, rather than enjoy a galaxy of superpowers? This seems odd. Seems like bad writing. Then in Batman v Superman, when Lex attempts to create a mutated Kryptonian, the computer warns 'Action forbidden - it has been decreed by the council of Krypton that none will ever again give life to a deformity so hateful to sight and memory - the desecration without name.' This clearly indicates that a Doomsday-like entity has occurred before, most likely through mutation, and presumably caused such destruction that anything risking the creation of another such being was forbidden. 

[Read the full theory here]

From Redditor u/PlatinumGoat75:

We commonly perceive the Clark Kent persona to be an act. We think that Superman is really himself when he's in his tights. But, is that true? In many depictions of Superman's early life, he was home schooled as a young child, but later went to High School. In school he had a "dorky" persona. He had a number of close friends, but he dressed and acted in a stereotypically nerdy way. He only began acting confidently when he started donning the tights. So, when is Superman really acting? I think its reasonable to argue that he puts on a facade when he's acting as Superman. It's hard to believe that he has been pretending to be a dork since childhood.

I think its much more likely that he's being himself when he is Clark. The Superman persona is just a superficial personality. Also, in classic depictions, Superman was often a little hammy. Maybe this is because the meek Clark is acting as he imagines a hero would act. Superman seemed hammy because Clark was a hammy actor. I think this makes Superman a much more sympathetic character. Under this interpretation, he's not just a bland boy scout. He's soft spoken and insecure. He spent years pining after a single woman, too nervous to tell her how he feels. I feel bad for him. He had a hopeless crush on a coworker for much of his working career. Worse, she fell in love with a persona that is very different from Clark's real personality. Her infatuation with "Superman" must have really crushed him.

Also, consider the fact that Jimmy Olsen treats Superman as a friend. Jimmy is undeniably a dork. So, is Superman just humoring him? Or, does he really consider Jimmy a pal? When they're together, do they talk and laugh? Are they friends because they can be nerdy together? I think this interpretation makes Superman's origin stories much more compelling. If the Clark Kent persona is an act, then why do we care about the employees of the Daily Planet? In that case, they would have no real relationship with Superman. But, if the Clark Kent personality is real, then the Daily Planet stories tell us about the hero's real personality. That dynamic is so interesting. A group of people idolize a superhero, while unwittingly getting to know the real him as a coworker.

All in all, it think the stories make more sense and are more interesting if Superman is a dork.

From Redditor u/nonuniqueusername:

This is something that I thought of as a kid and I thought was going to be made official in the '90s when they killed Superman and a clone Superboy appeared. The clone Superboy had something called tactile telekinesis. He could use telekinesis on things he was touching, letting him mimic Superman's abilities. Because telekinesis fits Superman better than any kind of thing about different gravity or density or anything else they've come up with to explain his powers. If you make the leap of faith that he has telekinesis, you can explain superspeed and flight (moving himself), superstrength that defies physics like picking a plane up by its wingtip without the wing breaking off (moving the plane), invulnerability (force field; moving objects away from his skin). You can even explain things like heat vision and frost breath (moving molecules faster or slower).

So if you take the jump that he has telekinesis, you have to address the question of "Why doesn't he act like Jean Grey?" My answer is that he grew up without telekinesis as part of pop culture. Moving faster, flying, strength, toughness... that's all traditional stuff from legends and myths. Even blowing on your food to cool it down or hating something so much you wish it would burst into flames; staring a hole right through something. These are all concepts that he grew up with. So he subconsciously used his telekinesis to create these powers.

[Read the full theory here]

From Redditor u/gimmeajob:

Think about it, they act as a disguise by projecting an fake image to anyone so that nobody is able to recognize him when he has to be Clark Kent. Superman has access to advanced technology, so making such artifact would not be a problem at all.