This has been a problem for far, far, longer than you think. The silver age definitely had it, the golden age probably did, and I wouldn't be surprised if it cropped up in the proto-superhero stories, like Zorro. It's a consequence of having a long-form story where the narrative's status quo isn't allowed to meaningfully change and characters either aren't allowed to die or aren't allowed to stay dead. Recurring antagonists also can have much richer characterization and more complex relationships with the protagonists, which makes writing stories about them more appealing the more often they appear.

The usual trajectory for a new superhero or new incarnation of an existing superhero is to start off with street-level problems, then get a nemesis that has strong ties to those street level problems, then have the dynamic between the two grow in prominence to eclipse all other parts of the plot. The Joker, for instance, always starts off as either a mob boss with a gimmick or a serial killer with a gimmick, not far removed from the mundane crime Batman always starts with, but always winds up with a fixation on Batman and spawns stories designed as some commentary on Batman's no-killing rule. Again and again and again, dozens of times over the decades.

Why? Because the dynamic between the two characters tends to be fascinating and results in audience engagement.

Eh, most of the old school titles are just too 'Soap Opera ish' for me. It's was supposed to be action and adventure and mystery with good art. Last 2 decades, it's become people coming back from the dead, clones, ridiculous story lines that have nothing to do with the original character.

It's ridiculous.

Indie books and limited series are my go to now. Even those start to run out of gas if they are kept around too long.

This is the cop vs firefighter superhero discussion.

Batman is a cop. The very DNA of the character is almost entirely about fighting crime. His origin starts with a violent crime. Sure he'll save people (the end of the last movie he saves people from a flood) but mostly he's working on crime.

Superman works best as a firefighter. He's rescuing people, controlling and mitigating damage, etc... His origin story is a global catastrophe. He will get into fights, but mostly in service of mitigating damage. He will stop crime, but mostly in service of safety. His main villain isn't a guy who can fight him (generally speaking).

Most characters and stories have a bit of each.

From a screenwriting perspective, an antagonist can provide escalation and give a voice to the challenges the protagonist faces. It's just a very good tool. A Batman movie where he's just getting people out of a burning building (for example) might work, but it would feel off somehow.

I've always felt that superhero stories reduce problems to something that can be solved through violence and, for that reason, dont really like them. After a while, the plots all seem the same, too.

Villains sell toys and merch. You can't make an action figure of the public

Nearly all stories told are reflective of the propaganda culture of the era. Justifying the cult of billionaire exceptionalism has been the theme for a long time.

THIS, EXACTLY THIS.

I find it strange to call today's supers "heroes" when the least they do is help others. They look more like guys with superpowers beating each other up, more like Japanese Shonen than anything else (mind you, I like Shonen, but there's a limit).

That's why I love that in The Batman (2022) the climax is seeing Batman saving civilians, the same with James Gunn's Superman.

I WANT TO SEE MORE SUPERHEROES BEING HEROIC, DAMN IT.

In project management, we call it "scope creep." Day one, the job is to use your newfound powers for good. Maybe stop a mugging. Day two, catch a bad guy. Day 3, try to balance life and your secret identity while foiling a bank heist. Day 200, you're negotiating with an interdimensional cosmic deity for the survival of the Universe by demonstrating feats of strength and fortitude.

Have you watched Thunderbolts and the new Superman? They do actually rescue people (Superman way more).

I was thinking in the theater while watching Thunderbolts: "Huh, a scene where the heroes are rescuing people? I haven't seen that in a long time."

Superman even saved a squirrel. 🤩

What about villains then? Are they still all about bank heists and murdering everyone in the city, or have they shifted to hunting superheroes now? I’m asking because I don’t watch those movies.

I recommend two good videos about superhero movies.

1 - Defenders of the Status Quo

https://youtu.be/LpitmEnaYeU

2 - The people vs Clark Kent

https://youtu.be/xLUvR8zKbh0

I just hate the trend that people want to make villains more generic evil. like how much shit ultraman got for the prescreening when he hits krypto thats actively fighting him. HES A VILLAIN, HES NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD.

I guess that's why people like spiderman most? His constant struggle with the villain because he need to juggle between beating villain and saving civilians. If he just went anti-hero he's pretty much formidable.

Superman and Lois.

Almost every episode has a scene where he flies off to help people across the globe.

I like how Invincible addresses this. He tries to save people but it always ends disastrously because normal people break really easily when handled by someone with super strength and speed. His best bet is to take out the villain that is the source of danger.

Invincible has some of that. Going out of his way to save people at the cost of his personal life. Lots of fighting and gore ofc, but still seems a lot more heroic than a lot of Marvel heroes atp.

there was a Superman comic about him getting cancer and dying. really good, bout the only superhero stuff I liked. not being edgy, it was just good because it was finally about something