Is Superman Too Overpowered?

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok I have a question to asked. Is Superman too overpowered? The reason why I asked because I'm been discussing to other forums about Superman power and abilities. In the Pre-Crisis superman comics, Superman reached his abilities to beyond infinite. In the Post-Crisis superman comics Superman was killed by Doomsday and he was brought back to life after that. Superman powers and abilities get buffed about by every version that Superman was created. In conclusion, Superman power and abilities is too broken and overpowered. What's your opinion on Superman overpowered abilities?

[Flickerdart]

I'm pretty sure that Superman's enemies include gods, overgods, and super-overgods. He's perfectly fine for the power level of the guys he fights.

Also, modern-day Superman seems to be weaker, if anything, than some of his past incarnations. Like the Silver Age bit where he pulls a bunch of star systems after himself like a tow truck.

[Red Fel]

Ok I have a question to asked. Is Superman too overpowered?

Loaded question. The better question is: Too overpowered for what?

A great Superman story has nothing to do with how powerful he is. It's about the fact that such a powerful being constantly limits himself. It's about the person behind the godlike power, about something utterly beyond human trying to cling to his humanity. It's about the lessons we can learn about the right and wrong ways to wield absolute power. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he's totally powerful, knows it, and deals with it.

A poor Superman story is all about Supes clubbing the crap out of something. At that point, thanks to various loopholes, retcons, Red Kryptonite, and magic, it has nothing to do with how powerful he is, and everything to do with when will he be allowed to punch a dude. In these stories, he's basically Goku, able to take down his opponent once his attack is charged. The problem is that the writers have to come up with a reason for his attack to not be ready for twenty episodes until the end of the comic. So there's a hostage, or Kryptonite, or a magical curse, or he's stranded on the other side of the universe or something. And then the hostage is rescued, the Kryptonite is removed, the curse is lifted, or he makes it back using instant transmission super speed, and clobbering ensues. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he is prevented from using his power until the writers give him permission. Then he Saitamas the problem and we buy another issue.

So, short version: Is Superman overpowered? Probably. But what difference does it actually make?

[Kobold-Bard]

Ok I have a question to asked. Is Superman too overpowered? The reason why I asked because I'm been discussing to other forums about Superman power and abilities. In the Pre-Crisis superman comics, Superman reached his abilities to beyond infinite. In the Post-Crisis superman comics Superman was killed by Doomsday and he was brought back to life after that. Superman powers and abilities get buffed about by every version that Superman was created. In conclusion, Superman power and abilities is too broken and overpowered. What's your opinion on Superman overpowered abilities?

Compared to Batman, sure. But Green Lantern's power is "create anything, whether it can actually exist or not", so compared to that Superman is like a Warblade facing down a Wizard in D&D 3.5.

[Starwulf]

For future reference, this is the wrong forum for this type of question, you want the media discussion forum for stuff like this. Be warned though, Superman topics have been done to death over there, and as such they tend to get fairly heated.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Short answer? It doesn't matter.

Conflict in good Superman stories comes from a personal or moral conflict. There are other comics when you want a superficial and defined serious of action set pieces. Superman's powers allow for great dramatic and socratic storytelling on a personal scale. It's why he'll always be a more compelling character than, say, Batman.

[Reddish Mage]

It's why he'll always be a more compelling character than, say, Batman.

That's some grade A troll-bait there.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

That's some grade A troll-bait there.

It's my actual opinion, I promise you.

[HardcoreD&Dgirl]

He hasn't been overpowered in my life time...

[Legato Endless]

Ok I have a question to asked. Is Superman too overpowered? The reason why I asked because I'm been discussing to other forums about Superman power and abilities. In the Pre-Crisis superman comics, Superman reached his abilities to beyond infinite.

Sandman is one of the most critically acclaimed stories of all time. It's eponymous sometime protagonist is functionally omnipotent within his sanctum and spheres of influence. Stories centering on him do not lack for drama, as all his power doesn't do anything to solve his problems.

You can easily tell a story about 5 all powerful gods sitting around for tea. A protagonist is only overpowered when they effectively kill whatever conflict is supposed to exist in a story.


It's my actual opinion, I promise you.

That doesn't actually change how provocative the statement is though, does it? :smalltongue:

[Cheesegear]

It's why he'll always be a more compelling character than, say, Batman.

Superman is fairly boring. Clark Kent is interesting.
Bruce Wayne is boring. Batman is interesting.
EDIT: Batman stories are interesting.

See the difference?

[DJ Yung Crunk]

That doesn't actually change how provocative the statement is though, does it? :smalltongue:

I've had too many people try to delegitimise my opinion in the past. I'm sensitive to it now.


Superman is fairly boring. Clark Kent is interesting.
Bruce Wayne is boring. Batman is interesting.

See the difference?

I conflate the two, honestly.

In Batman's case, Bruce Wayne is a persona, a fabrication, a mask. He's not so much a character in his own right as he is an alter ego of Batman. So, no, he's not interesting. But it's by design.

As for Superman, identity has always been a recurring theme. Always there's the contrast between Clark Kent (the way he sees himself), Kal-El (the way he could have been) and Superman (the way other people view him). It isn't as cut and dry as the Batman example because Batman's fairly confident in his identity, where Clark Kent isn't.

EDIT: Furthermore, I actually don't agree with your premise that Batman is interesting. Gotham's interesting, Gordon's interesting, some of the Robins are interesting, the villains are interesting, but Batman is a scowling brick that all the compelling things orbit.

[Cizak]

Yes, and that's a good thing, because that's the point of his character. Superman is pretty much always as strong as he needs to be. But a good Superman story focuses on his morals, ideals, thoughts and the fact that he always limits his own strength, subconsciously or not. You can almost always bet on that Superman can punch his enemies hard enough. But the question is why he should or shouldn't, and what that decision means.

As a general point, I hate it when people say "superheroes" is one genre, because every superhero is so radically different. A Superman story should not be written the same as a Batman story. The obstacles they face are completely different.

[Cheesegear]

I've had too many people try to delegitimise my opinion in the past.

Superman is a better character than Batman. The good Superman stories are very, very good. The problem is, that there are only so many stories you can tell like that, and they've nearly all been told. The rest of Superman's catalogue pretty much involves how hard he can punch things, and that's fine, if you like that sort of thing. But, Clark Kent, a near demi-God, who sometimes almost seems like he doesn't want to be, but he has to be, someone has to be, and Superman's the only one for the job.
Of course, there is Superboy, Supergirl, Power Girl, Super Woman...And Krypto. But they're not the same.

Batman, hasn't really been good since DKR. IMO, the only interesting parts about Batman, are how he interacts with his children. I vastly prefer Nightwing over Batman, I vastly prefer Tim Drake over Batman. Jason Todd seems to flip-flop all over the place, because, just like Batman, writers can't seem to pin down what makes the character interesting. Every new writer seems to want to write Todd slightly different than before, which gets annoying. But, since DKR...Nobody really tries to do anything with Batman anymore, and that sucks.

There are some good Batman stories, but nothing that really focusses on Batman, himself. Court of Owls is about world-building, and introducing the Court, than it is about whatever Batman does. Then there's Damien Wayne, and how he interacts with Bruce. But that's on Damien rather than Bruce. Bruce already has three kids before Damien. Damien just happens to be blood-related, and more different to Bruce's adopted sons. Now I can start talking about the relationship between Grayson and Damien. Grayson and Tim. Tim and Damien. Jason and everyone not-Grayson, and Jason and Grayson, which is completely different to every single one of Jason's other relationships. There are so many things going on in the Bat-Family...But Batman is always Batman.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Superman is a better character than Batman. The good Superman stories are very, very good. The problem is, that there are only so many stories you can tell like that, and they've nearly all been told. The rest of Superman's catalogue pretty much involves how hard he can punch things, and that's fine, if you like that sort of thing. But, Clark Kent, a near demi-God, who sometimes almost seems like he doesn't want to be, but he has to be, someone has to be, and Superman's the only one for the job.

I think he can tell only a few types of stories, but that those genres are very diverse. Like I said, Superman works on a personal level and a socratic level. As a protagonist of escapist fiction I will immediately concede that he's absolute garbage. But if you're writing Superman as an action hero then you fundamentally misunderstand both the character and the action genre to begin with.


Of course, there is Superboy, Supergirl, Power Girl, Super Woman...And Krypto. But they're not the same.

When people bring up what's wrong with Silver Age Superman it's always that Superman's too overpowered. That's part of it, but it's more a symptom of the fact that Silver Age Superman is... well... just really weird! The mythology was obtuse, there are too many shortsighted gimmicks and it's just way too camp for it's own good. I like camp. My favourite Batman is Adam West. But the camp in that show, Brave & the Bold and the '66 comic was always purposeful, self-aware, contained. Silver Age Superman is all colour and noise firing off in every direction hoping to hit paydirt.


There are some good Batman stories, but nothing that really focusses on Batman, himself. Court of Owls is about world-building, and introducing the Court, than it is about whatever Batman does. Then there's Damien Wayne, and how he interacts with Bruce. But that's on Damien rather than Bruce. Bruce already has three kids before Damien. Damien just happens to be blood-related, and more different to Bruce's adopted sons. Now I can start talking about the relationship between Grayson and Damien. Grayson and Tim. Tim and Damien. Jason and everyone not-Grayson, and Jason and Grayson, which is completely different to every single one of Jason's other relationships. There are so many things going on in the Bat-Family...But Batman is always Batman.

Like I said, he's a brick that interesting things orbit. The Killing Joke is a good Joker story, The Court of Owls is a good Gotham story, Knightfall starts out as a good Bane story before becoming a good Azrael story. Even in the very underrated 1989 Tim Burton film it always feels like the perspective is from either The Joker or Vicki Vale. Compared to Superman II which is, at all times, about Clark Kent and from Clark Kent's perspective and about how things relate to Clark Kent and what he wants. You can argue that Batman stories are better than Superman stories (though I'll disagree), but I can't imagine someone who reads the character as more fleshed out and compelling than Clark Kent.

[Cheesegear]

You can argue that Batman stories are better than Superman stories (though I'll disagree), but I can't imagine someone who reads the character as more fleshed out and compelling than Clark Kent.

In any case, your opinion isn't troll-bait, because I agree with you.

[Flickerdart]

IMO the best Superman comics are the ones by SMBC (http://www.ohnorobot.com/index.pl?comic=137;s=superman).

[erikun]

Is Superman too overpowered?
It depends on the story.

As with most things, what you do with the character is more important than what the character does. Superman dealing with his concerns, personal life, or moral quandaries as a super-powered but otherwise normal person can be interesting, because it involves a somewhat different look at an otherwise human problem. Superman punching things generally isn't as interesting, because it's just action scenes and you're just waiting for the kryptonite bullet or for Supes to win. Unfortunately, while I'm not well versed on Superman comics, most of them tend to devolve into Supes punching things. Even the ones where he is supposedly doing something else, have, I've found, turned into a resolution that involves him punching things.

While I'm not that familiar with Superman comics, The Incredible Hulk has much the same problem and two Hulk comics - Hulk: The End and Planet Hulk - were actually two of the better comics I've seen out of the mainstream comic scene. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, neither were about Hulk punching things. One is an apocalypse situation where the Hulk is the only thing left alive, and the other is the Hulk on another planet and dealing with people trying to paint him as a savior.

I suspect that the difference is because Hulk is a relatively "minor" character, certainly not a face character for Marvel, while Superman is one of two/three characters which everyone would identify with DC. As such, authors probably have more liberty to deal with Hulk than they would with Superman. (although that doesn't stop vampire Batman comics from being made)

[Lacuna Caster]

A great Superman story has nothing to do with how powerful he is. It's about the fact that such a powerful being constantly limits himself. It's about the person behind the godlike power, about something utterly beyond human trying to cling to his humanity. It's about the lessons we can learn about the right and wrong ways to wield absolute power. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he's totally powerful, knows it, and deals with it.

Someone else already quoted Sandman as an example of this kind of the story, but no-one could accuse Dream of the Endless of being a flawless paragon, which is actually a large part of what makes the series interesting and what drives his character arc. There's something resembling a similar treatment in Red Son, but then certain people get unhappy about Superman having, e.g, actual character flaws or development over time.

I covered this topic indirectly before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428786-Let-s-Design-Gotham-City), but while I've warmed a little to Superman over the years there's a litany of problems with presenting the character coherently (with respect to both the shared universe and their informed/canonical attributes) that I've never quite been able to filter out.

Comics Alliance covers (http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-213-a-brief-history-of-the-wrath-of-god/) this sort of thing when talking about the Spectre, the main difference being that my personal threshold for don't-ask-questions is a little lower. (e.g, why isn't Batman's entire rogues' gallery in the Phantom Zone?)

The other problem (or perhaps a different facet of the same problem) is that the powers Superman is known for, and his ascribed personality, don't sync up particularly well. Superman's abilities are almost exclusively self-centred, invasive or destructive in nature. He can't cast illusions, project forcefields, or heal people with magic- he's the guy who can punch out an invisible locomotive with a single bound while being in no danger, or something. That's what's advertised, and that's what readers pick up his stories with a reasonable expectation of seeing. There's little point to the character otherwise, however theoretically capable he might be as a forensic scientist or shoulder to cry on.

Ergo, in order to sell Superman as a personification of virtue, he either needs a very clear justification for using those powers- i.e, either a very black and white villain of omnicidal intent, or a random natural disaster- or you need to spend a long time observing him refrain from using those powers in highly specific ways. You're defining him in terms of things he doesn't do. That's hard to do well, and many readers won't have the patience.


When Batman swoops in to rescue someone from falling off a 20-storey building, you know he values that person enough to risk injury or death saving them. When Superman does it, you know he values that person at least as much as... 20 seconds of his spare time. That's not a bad thing, but it's also a pretty modest lower bound on his virtue.

I'll stick with Batman.

[Killer Angel]

Sandman is one of the most critically acclaimed stories of all time. It's eponymous sometime protagonist is functionally omnipotent within his sanctum and spheres of influence.

Except for Erinyes, of course. :smallwink:

[BWR]

Except for Erinyes, of course. :smallwink:
Under special circumstances.

[Eldan]

Except for Erinyes, of course. :smallwink:

Even them. He basically says, in the end, that while they could and would destroy his entire domain, they can't really hurt him long-term. At least as long as he hides from them and lets them destroy.

[GloatingSwine]

Someone else already quoted Sandman as an example of this kind of the story, but no-one could accuse Dream of the Endless of being a flawless paragon, which is actually a large part of what makes the series interesting and what drives his character arc. There's something resembling a similar treatment in Red Son, but then certain people get unhappy about Superman having, e.g, actual character flaws or development over time.

People often misunderstand what "flaws" actually mean for a fictional character.

Flaws in a fictional character means something the character lacks. Something that gives rise to needs and wants so that the character has a reason to do something.

In the case of Superman, who is the last of his kind, alone in the universe, he lacks social contact. Which is what gives rise to the persona of Clark Kent. Clark Kent is a way for Superman to experience humanity and the things which the community of humanity gives its members; friendship, love, etc. That's why he can feel the lure of humanity to the extent that he might reasonably give up all his power just to live as Clark, because his power fundamentally seperates him from others because they're not seeing him as a man, they're seeing him as Superman, the position no the man.

Flaws do not mean "cannot punch the baddie hard enough", punching the baddie is a beat in the story which underpins the dramatic growth of the character as a person. In Superman 2 it wasn't Superman punching Zod that was the point of the story, it was the decision to be Superman.

(See also: For The Man Who Has Everything either in comic or DCAU animated form)

[McStabbington]

Loaded question. The better question is: Too overpowered for what?

A great Superman story has nothing to do with how powerful he is. It's about the fact that such a powerful being constantly limits himself. It's about the person behind the godlike power, about something utterly beyond human trying to cling to his humanity. It's about the lessons we can learn about the right and wrong ways to wield absolute power. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he's totally powerful, knows it, and deals with it.

A poor Superman story is all about Supes clubbing the crap out of something. At that point, thanks to various loopholes, retcons, Red Kryptonite, and magic, it has nothing to do with how powerful he is, and everything to do with when will he be allowed to punch a dude. In these stories, he's basically Goku, able to take down his opponent once his attack is charged. The problem is that the writers have to come up with a reason for his attack to not be ready for twenty episodes until the end of the comic. So there's a hostage, or Kryptonite, or a magical curse, or he's stranded on the other side of the universe or something. And then the hostage is rescued, the Kryptonite is removed, the curse is lifted, or he makes it back using instant transmission super speed, and clobbering ensues. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he is prevented from using his power until the writers give him permission. Then he Saitamas the problem and we buy another issue.

So, short version: Is Superman overpowered? Probably. But what difference does it actually make?

This was essentially the $64,000 question I was going to ask, and the answer is exactly right: whether Superman is overpowered depends greatly on what story you want to tell.

If the goal is to have a mystery plot where the key is keen observation skills, then yes, Superman is overpowered because his observation capabilities are essentially off the charts. That doesn't mean you can't tell any story with Superman in it. It doesn't even mean that you can't tell a mystery using him as the central character; if anything, Supes is a fantastic character to do with it because he's all about using the right amount of force against the right person, and a mystery plot is all about resolving what force is necessary to stop which person from what dastardly scheme. But the mystery simply has to hinge on something other than observational detail: an insight, an intuition, something that requires collating the flood of information he gets in the right way at the right time.

Similarly, if the goal is to tell a gritty, street-level story where your hero is little more than a street tough with a good heart, two fists and a lot of moxie who is trying to save his city block from encroaching drug dealers, then yes, Superman is either overpowered, or he's engaging in some form of Superdickery where he could help but isn't. But again, this doesn't mean you can't tell that story and have Superman be an integral part of that story; it just means you have to be clever in formulating your challenge to the hero. Rather than encroaching gangs, maybe it's corrupt city officials who want to tear the city block down for nefarious reasons. In that story, Superman could immensely contribute, because he can offer some support that comes laterally and creatively like knowing exactly which filing cabinet to check when someone happens to find the right key, help contacting this Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist he knows at the Daily Planet to spread word when news breaks, and knowledge of what the right thing to do is in a crisis.

The point being, Superman is extremely powerful, and in a lot of stories, especially stories where the goal is to punch the bad guy as hard as he needs to be punched, then yes, Superman is overpowered, and it foregone that he will punch said villain as hard as he needs to be punched. That is in essence Superman's one superpower, just expressed in a multitude of ways. But that doesn't mean you can't tell any story about him, or that any story that does include him has no value. He's a tool that in the right plot can mean the whole world just by being exactly what he is. It's just your job to find him that right plot.

[Wardog]

I think part of the problem with Superman is that there have been so many different versions of him, with radically different power levels, and consequently radically different challenges to deal with, that people can have very different expectations of what Superman should or could be doing.

If you've grown up with a god-like Superman who spends his time either battling other god-like beings, or exploring why he should solve a particular problem without using his god-like powers that's one thing.

Whereas if you're main exposure to Superman is one of the more toned-down versions like the Adventures of Superman TV series, or the Christopher Reeve films, or the Lois & Clark series, where superman spends a lot of his time rescuing people from more every-day disasters (and isn't fast enough to stop two nuclear missiles fired in opposite directions), then the idea of a planet-towing, super-luminal can-do-anything Superman can seem ridiculously over the top.

[Reddish Mage]

Yes, and that's a good thing, because that's the point of his character. Superman is pretty much always as strong as he needs to be. But a good Superman story focuses on his morals, ideals, thoughts and the fact that he always limits his own strength, subconsciously or not. You can almost always bet on that Superman can punch his enemies hard enough. But the question is why he should or shouldn't, and what that decision means.

I am not an avid reader of comics, and after reading this I am starting to wonder where I can find comics that reveal all these groundbreaking ethical masterpieces.



Superman is a better character than Batman. The good Superman stories are very, very good. The problem is, that there are only so many stories you can tell like that, and they've nearly all been told.

There seems to me to be an endless number of stories revolving around moral conundrums a demigod might face, not to mention all the stories about Superman just wanting to be Clark Kent or solve Clark Kent's problems, then there's the stories where Superman doesn't have Superman's powers, the stories that call for a diplomatic solution, stories that test the limits of Superman's powers or involve challenges that outright exceed those limits (I know...impossible right), and that's just getting started on the categories of the possible stories.

In my own camp, I would like to like Superman, I want to like Superman, but every time I see Superman it's a disappointment. The only really brilliant incarnation I've seen of Superman has been in Elseworlds Comics, I liked certain episodes of Smallville, the rest of what I've seen are disappointments.

[FoolManChu]

I'm not the biggest Superman fan out there, so I'm not familiar with every story arc he's ever been a part of. But, my reaction to that question is yes. One of the reasons I've never really liked Superman is because he's basically impervious to anything besides what is supposed to be an incredibly rare material which is only found from the debris of an utterly destroyed planet. So, there's no stakes in most of the Superman stuff I've read or seen. If he can't be hurt then there's not a reason to get emotionally involved in what he's doing, at least for me, because you know that it's all gonna turn out fine in the end. That's true with just about any hero and especially superhero, like James Bond will always win in the end. There is a possibility though that he might not, and that adds tension to the story and tension and stakes are what you need to make the audience care. Sadly, in my opinion, the only time they can add stakes or tension in a Superman story is if yet another guy happens to find the super rare stuff that can stop him... yet again. That opens up another can of worms, which is the repetitiveness of it all and nobody likes that.

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not the biggest Superman fan out there, so I'm not familiar with every story arc he's ever been a part of. But, my reaction to that question is yes. One of the reasons I've never really liked Superman is because he's basically impervious to anything besides what is supposed to be an incredibly rare material which is only found from the debris of an utterly destroyed planet.

Even though it's still page one, it's a bit late to post something that naive. People have headed that one off since the OP talking about Doomsday. Basically, Superman has been written as being vulnerable to a lot of stuff...other Kryptonians, other Aliens, alien weapons, literal gods, demigods whatever, magic, science-run-amuck...this just from a casual viewer.

No, Superman is merely absolutely impervious to all the normal things that could hurt a human...like Batman or James Bond. That may take some of the interest out when Superman stops a robbery or something, but it allows for him to take on all the superhuman challenges that no human can credibly face (and to take them on in superhuman ways). The question becomes...where are the examples of these great superhuman stories?

[Cheesegear]

The question becomes...where are the examples of these great superhuman stories?

You only have to ask.

That are actually in continuity? There are lot of good Superman stories outside. But, here's off the top of my head...

Birthright (the Man of Steel movie borrows heavily from this book, mostly in the parts where Supes isn't punching things)
...for all Seasons
Peace on Earth
For Tomorrow

Geoff Johns and Kurt Busiek wrote some great stuff (and some stinkers) in the late 200x's, starting with Up, Up and Away and Last Son, Escape From Bizarro World, Brainiac and I think ending with New Krypton. After Johns stops writing Supes, it gets bad.

EDIT: What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way? (a.k.a; Superman vs. The Elite) How could I forget?

New 52 Superman is fairly dumb. And you can thank Nolan's Batman trilogy for that. Batman V. Superman is going to be terrible. Because that kind of Batman can't exist in the same world as Superman.

[Dienekes]

I'll reiterate some points I suppose.

It depends entirely what the point of the story is. Are you examining what pressures a man has when they are granted the powers of a god? Are you trying to show the indomitable spirit against all oppositions? Are you trying to show that absolute power does not need to corrupt absolutely though the temptation will always be there? Each of those ties to one or more Superman stories that I think are quite excellent, in those situations his boundless power make for some interesting displays that while being totally different to our own life nevertheless hold up a mirror to our morality and challenge the reader to be better. Quite frankly a good Superman story can be a work of art. While he has never been even close to one of my favorite comic-book characters there is definite artistic merit and great stories to be told of about a character exactly as powerful as Superman is in the comics, whatever that power actually is at a given time.

That said, there are a whole batch worth of stories where Superman's power, if anything, do hinder the story. This tends to be when he is brought to face enemies that fight on a scale that just doesn't make sense to be threats to him anymore. Stories where the premise requires him to conveniently forget his abilities in order for the story to work. In a lot of ways, he is a lot like V in Order of the Stick in that regard. The Giant has even said that he has found a bunch of ways to get him/her out of the action because his/her godlike power would negate quite a few of the threats in our current comic. Imagine Haley's confrontation with zombie-Crystal if Vaarsuvius was there, for example. He/she plays on a level that many of the other characters and threats just don't play at, so he/she has to be dealt with. Now, so far, The Giant has done a phenomenal job of having V sit out when he/she's not needed or will disrupt the story. And his/her power is used extraordinarily well to demonstrate her own powerlessness and her personality flaws. So far V getting shipped out of the story when appropriate has created it's own interesting stories, but imagine trying to pull off this trick for 50+ years. In those cases where Superman's presence would solve the plot if any of his abilities were used to the extent shown elsewhere, where the stories just don't make sense with him sitting in them, then yes, Superman has too much power for the story he is being put into.

However, that is not a point against the character, you wouldn't call a character bad just because he doesn't fit into a specific story. Atticus Finch is an excellent character (if we ignore the sequel anyway), but he would not fit in a kaiju monster hunter story. That is not a problem with either the character or the type of story, I know both can create excellent works of art and great narrative. But, together they just don't fit particularly well. That's more on the fault with the writer than anything else.

[Calemyr]

Superman isn't too overpowered in his own stories, to some degree. As others have said, his good stuff is where he's actually fighting his own powers - where he knows how easily he could fix something and how badly he'd break everything else if he tried. There still seems to be way too often where he's almost viewed as a detriment to his own stories, introducing crippling weaknesses and such, intentionally limiting him so that his awesomeness doesn't save the day before a story can be told, but those are the weak stories.

Superman, however, is absurdly overpowered outside of his stories. He's Chuck Norris squared. Doesn't matter what you pit him against, popular opinion will have him win, with the unique exception of Batman, where the populous is pretty evenly split. When a man can bench press a planet for days, you can't compare him to much of anything and get an interesting result without rigging the game or arbitrarily applying the limits he places on himself.

[thorgrim29]

EDIT: What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way? (a.k.a; Superman vs. The Elite) How could I forget?


I liked that one a lot.

Also I didn't read the comic so I can't compare but the All Star Superman cartoon was good too. It showed Supes as a godlike being that, at the end of the day, cares deeply about everyone and just wants to do right by them. I also really like Luthor in that cartoon.

[Lacuna Caster]

People often misunderstand what "flaws" actually mean for a fictional character.

Flaws in a fictional character means something the character lacks. Something that gives rise to needs and wants so that the character has a reason to do something.
No, I was talking more about 'flaw' in the sense of 'problematic facet of personality'- a vice or sin or foible.

Superman's craving for social contact is one of his more humanising aspects, alright, but, uh... ...this is kind of what I'm talking about when I mention incoherence. New York alone has roughly one crime every 2 minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Murders_by_year), so it's not clear how certain versions of Superman get time to sleep, let alone hold down a 9-5 or spend weekends in Smallville. It's an old puzzler (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then).

In theory this is more of a problem with the setting rather than the character concept, but I guess that brings me to the next point-


New 52 Superman is fairly dumb. And you can thank Nolan's Batman trilogy for that. Batman V. Superman is going to be terrible. Because that kind of Batman can't exist in the same world as Superman.
I'd say the conflict isn't so much between Batman and Supes themselves as between their respective habitats, but... yeah. Gritty realistic Batman + shared universe leads to some integration challenges.


Anyhoo- For The Man Who Has Everything was nice, but the DCAU appearance that impressed me most was when Supes has this genuine look of shock and concern on his face after finding a crashed Lex Luthor unconscious, just after the latter was vigorously trying to kill him with lasers. That's, like, epic-level no-hard-feelings. :P

[Flickerdart]

New York alone has roughly one crime every 2 minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Murders_by_year)
a) That's New York, not Metropolis.
b) Do you really think there would be so many crimes if "alien that shoots lasers from his eyes" was a very real threat?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Sandman is one of the most critically acclaimed stories of all time. It's eponymous sometime protagonist is functionally omnipotent within his sanctum and spheres of influence. Stories centering on him do not lack for drama, as all his power doesn't do anything to solve his problems.

You can easily tell a story about 5 all powerful gods sitting around for tea. A protagonist is only overpowered when they effectively kill whatever conflict is supposed to exist in a story.


I would argue that Sandman doesn't draw most of its appeal from "can Morpheus solve the problem facing him?", but rather from looking at the decisions that Morpheus makes, and seeing their consequences. And also from using the Endless to talk about aspects of humanity. Really, the main drama of Sandman comes from the humans.

[thorgrim29]

b) Do you really think there would be so many crimes if "alien that shoots lasers from his eyes" was a very real threat?

Sure, probably even more. The death penalty isn't enough to deter people IRL, and I'd rather get stopped by Superman than a bunch of trigger happy cops any day of the week. Batman not so much, but Superman is all about minimum necessary force.

[Lacuna Caster]

a) That's New York, not Metropolis.
b) Do you really think there would be so many crimes if "alien that shoots lasers from his eyes" was a very real threat?
Oh, possibly not, but my point is that a guy who can circumnavigate the globe in under 3 seconds has no particular reason to limit himself to Metropolis. (Other than saying 'I don't care about stuff outside my arbitrarily-selected backyard', which... isn't really compatible with perfect benevolence.)

The uptake is that Superman can't really exist in a world that resembles ours. He'd either have no time for anything resembling a civilian life or he'd be deliberately indifferent to many instances of human suffering. And if he actually succeeded in reducing crime to a rate that's manageable by a single super-individual, then you couldn't have Gotham City. You'd have Red Son.

[GloatingSwine]

No, I was talking more about 'flaw' in the sense of 'problematic facet of personality'- a vice or sin or foible.


Yeah, but those aren't actually needed for a complete and interesting dramatic character. The other kind of flaw, the thing they lack which motivates them to action, is.

Now, a personality flaw can be a dramatic flaw (especially when it leads to a conflict between what the character wants and what they need, Superman wants to be Clark Kent but he needs to accept being Superman), but they're not actually what makes characters dramatically interesting.

[Tyndmyr]

No, I was talking more about 'flaw' in the sense of 'problematic facet of personality'- a vice or sin or foible.

Superman's craving for social contact is one of his more humanising aspects, alright, but, uh... ...this is kind of what I'm talking about when I mention incoherence. New York alone has roughly one crime every 2 minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Murders_by_year), so it's not clear how certain versions of Superman get time to sleep, let alone hold down a 9-5 or spend weekends in Smallville. It's an old puzzler (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then).



I suggest reading Irredeemable. It plays with such things quite a bit, and has a lot of fun in doing so.

[Cheesegear]

Also I didn't read the comic so I can't compare but the All Star Superman cartoon was good too.

All-Star is generally considered to be one of the best Superman stories that exists. You aren't wrong. Unfortunately, it's not in continuity. So that's why I didn't include it. :smallsigh:

[Legato Endless]

Superman, however, is absurdly overpowered outside of his stories. He's Chuck Norris squared. Doesn't matter what you pit him against, popular opinion will have him win, with the unique exception of Batman, where the populous is pretty evenly split. When a man can bench press a planet for days, you can't compare him to much of anything and get an interesting result without rigging the game or arbitrarily applying the limits he places on himself.

DCAU Justice League is a good example of this, with Superman getting arbitrarily limited quite often, usually via electricity. A fair number of comics also have this occur in some fashion. It's a lot like V really.


I'd say the conflict isn't so much between Batman and Supes themselves as between their respective habitats, but... yeah. Gritty realistic Batman + shared universe leads to some integration challenges.

DC and Marvel being so dissociated at times has a misbegotten tendency for writers try to tell stories in a world that can't host them. Faith versus doubt and the metaphysical is a common one. Whenever I see one of the movers and shakers grapple with atheism in mainline DC continuity, it never makes sense in a world where the Wrath of God walks around on the street and occasionally punches out other gods. In big visible events mortals can see.


I would argue that Sandman doesn't draw most of its appeal from "can Morpheus solve the problem facing him?", but rather from looking at the decisions that Morpheus makes, and seeing their consequences. And also from using the Endless to talk about aspects of humanity. Really, the main drama of Sandman comes from the humans.

The arc before the wake is pretty dramatically centered on Morpheus. His inability to ultimately solve the issue is the driving question of volume 9. There are mortals there, but they're swept up in the storm of his identity. The symbolism is pretty vivid about this.

[Dienekes]

The arc before the wake is pretty dramatically centered on Morpheus. His inability to ultimately solve the issue is the driving question of volume 9. There are mortals there, but they're swept up in the storm of his identity. The symbolism is pretty vivid about this.

Aye, the entire series follows the pattern of one arc that centers on Morpheus followed by an arc that either is a series of vignettes or a story that focuses on humans. But each of the vignettes and non-Morpheus-centric stories still reveal important details either about Morpheus' personality and flaws or what will tie to Morpheus' fate. The drama of the story is really all about Morpheus, his arrogance, and where his flaws and decisions will ultimately lead him.

[Talakeal]

Baseline Superman is fine. He is strong, but there are stronger people out there, and he has enough weaknesses that he can still be challenged by lower tier foes with a good plan.

The problem is Superman has a nasty habit of either making up new powers or doing things that are just flat out impossible.

A composite superman who is smarter than a super computer, can travel thousands of times the speed of light, can move galaxies, can time travel, can manipulate peoples memories with a kiss, etc. ie one who regularly uses all the powers writers have given him over the years, would change the world in an instant.

The energy needed to move a galaxy is greater than all the energy ever generated by man, if he could just store that energy (should be easy for someone as smart as him) he could end the worlds energy crisis in the blink of an eye.

He could easilly stop all crime on Earth if he wanted and still have time to be Clark Kent. And that is just the beginning.

[Brother Oni]

All-Star is generally considered to be one of the best Superman stories that exists. You aren't wrong. Unfortunately, it's not in continuity. So that's why I didn't include it. :smallsigh:

I've heard good things about Kingdom Come, but I've not read it. As I understand the premise, is it also out of continuity?

[theNater]

New York alone has roughly one crime every 2 minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Murders_by_year), so it's not clear how certain versions of Superman get time to sleep, let alone hold down a 9-5 or spend weekends in Smallville. It's an old puzzler (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then).
There is no way Superman can personally stop every crime. Even if he's capable of moving fast enough, an object that heavy moving that fast would do incalculable damage to the surroundings. This means he has to find some other way to help. What do we know about him that might lead us to discern what that is?

Well, there's this:

...I'd rather get stopped by Superman than a bunch of trigger happy cops any day of the week.
Getting arrested by Superman is probably a relatively pleasant experience. And somebody who commits a crime out of desperation and has a nice talk with kind and caring Superman on the way to jail is probably somewhat less likely to commit another crime in the future. And their family is probably less likely to become afraid of the cops, especially compared to how they'd react if the cops had killed this criminal. So there's going to be, overall, a little more trust of the cops, which in turn will make the cops less afraid and therefore (probably) less trigger happy. This triggers an overall upward spiral to the point that practically the only criminals are those who either have sat down and decided that criminality makes the most sense, or who have been criminals for so long that being a criminal is part of their self-image. This is Metropolis, as we usually see it.

The neat thing about all this is that, by taking that extra bit of time to comfort people, Superman ends up in a situation where's he's preventing more crimes in his sleep than he could in a 24-hour day of zipping around, depositing crooks in jail before they know what's happening.

[Cheesegear]

I've heard good things about Kingdom Come, but I've not read it. As I understand the premise, is it also out of continuity?

KC is also one of the better Superman stories. Unfortunately, yes. It isn't in continuity. :smallfrown:

But, back to the premise of the thread?
Q. Is Superman Overpowered?
A. Compared to what? What story are you telling?

There are a lot of great Superman stories, that feature him and him alone. That's why there are all these great Elseworlds/non-canon stories that feature Supes, because they don't have to worry about anyone else getting in the way. Writers can write good, self-contained stories about Superman, without worrying about annoying things like 'continuity' and being under editorial mandates to make 'Batman look just as good if not better'. Because it's not actually possible to make Batman better than Superman, given the way that Supes has been established.

The conversation got so stupid, that way back in 1990, Superman gave Batman Luthor's Kryptonite ring, and it's basically been in Batman's possession ever since (and used forever in pointless VS. Threads). Can Batman beat Superman? Yes. Batman can beat Superman because he has an item that renders the fight obsolete, without even trying.
B-man: "Hey Superman, remember that time you gave me a Kryptonite ring for this exact situation?"
S-man: "Sure do, Bats."
B-man: "I've still got it. I win."

In this 'story', which of the two characters is overpowered? 'Cause it ain't Superman.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm going to say yes. His feats are absurd, and it's not like he's only physically strong as he's capable of doing stuff like a lightspeed lobotomy to disable someone's powers without otherwise harming them.

Which means the only stories that can be really used are emotional ones, which can work, but then they throw him in with the Justice League and the whole thing falls apart. He doesn't play well in a wider universe.

[Anteros]

People always say that it's the struggle of a all-powerful being to be human that makes Superman interesting. I think that's fair, because it is an interesting concept, and you can get a few good stories out of that. The problem is that you can get a few stories out of it, not 100 years worth of comic material.

So yes, it is entirely possible to tell a good Superman story...they just don't do it very often. If a character is so powerful that it greatly limits the number of interesting stories you can tell about them, then they are probably too "overpowered". At least for a serial medium like comic books.

[Cheesegear]

He doesn't play well in a wider universe.

Correct. He also doesn't play well in a post-Nolan/New 52 continuity.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah, but those aren't actually needed for a complete and interesting dramatic character. The other kind of flaw, the thing they lack which motivates them to action, is.

Now, a personality flaw can be a dramatic flaw (especially when it leads to a conflict between what the character wants and what they need, Superman wants to be Clark Kent but he needs to accept being Superman), but they're not actually what makes characters dramatically interesting.
I'd agree that 'evidence of motivation' is what makes characters dramatically interesting, but the key point is getting the evidence across. You show that a character wants A by virtue of a willingness to sacrifice B to get it. e.g, "I will sacrifice my safety to protect innocents." "I will sacrifice a chance to save my girlfriend to protect the city." "I will sacrifice public respect to preserve faith in the system." et cetera.

The problem with Superman-as-written is that, by default, there's not much he can sacrifice. Like I mentioned earlier, entering a burning building to pull out survivors says a lot more about your convictions if you're not invulnerable.

You can pit him against atomic space monsters that could beat him up, but not too much, or people complain that his cape keeps getting torn. You could show him sacrificing his spare time and social ties, but not too much, or Clark Kent becomes impossible to maintain. And you could show him sacrificing his own sense of ethics, but not too much, because then he's not a spandex paladin any more. (And you'd have to establish those ethics independently beforehand for this to work.)

Basically, Superman writers have to walk this remarkably narrow tightrope in order for Superman to exhibit his canonical teflon attributes with any depth or consistency. And the world he inhabits has to be specially tailored for the purpose.

[Lacuna Caster]

The neat thing about all this is that, by taking that extra bit of time to comfort people, Superman ends up in a situation where's he's preventing more crimes in his sleep than he could in a 24-hour day of zipping around, depositing crooks in jail before they know what's happening.
All very plausible, but my point is that at no stage does spending the weekend in Smallville or on dates with Lois particularly further this utilitarian calculation. It's doubtful that using the Daily Planet as a soapbox does (and if it did, it's not clear why a public statement straight from the mouth of Superman wouldn't be more effective.) It's also not obvious why, having cleaned up Metropolis, he doesn't move on other cities with evidently higher crime rates.

I'm not saying that Superman wanting some 'me time' isn't entirely understandable and human. Likewise if he's decided that Metropolis/America is his home turf and he's not going to concern himself with wider injustice. But those are flaws, in the sense of 'deviation from optimal goodness'.

Alternatively, you could have a version of Superman that really does focus on long-term global policing, which involves forming the Justice League and/or some variety of world government (Kingdom Come, Red Son, A Better World.) But then he comes across as meddling and patronising, which is also a (very human) flaw.


Or, you can insert him in a world where crime occurs just frequently enough to eat up a large fraction of his spare time, but not more. And there's nothing wrong with that approach. It just isn't our particular world. And that really is the only world where he will always know the right thing to do.



EDIT: At any rate. I guess the point that I'm very elliptically driving at (which I think Talakeal and others have touched on already) is that many versions of Superman are too powerful for him to fit in a given setting. The early Golden Age version, for example, really had no hope of stopping global crime and therefore couldn't be blamed for not trying to. (He was kind of a jerk anyway, but I find that endearing.)

[theNater]

All very plausible, but my point is that at no stage does spending the weekend in Smallville or on dates with Lois particularly further this utilitarian calculation. It's doubtful that using the Daily Planet as a soapbox does (and if it did, it's not clear why a public statement straight from the mouth of Superman wouldn't be more effective.) It's also not obvious why, having cleaned up Metropolis, he doesn't move on other cities with evidently higher crime rates.

I'm not saying that Superman wanting some 'me time' isn't entirely understandable and human.
If Superman becomes Dr. Manhattan(from Watchmen), he ceases to be good at the parts of the job that function long-term. Keeping a home, a family, a job, and friends keep him engaged in the world. "Me time" isn't just pleasant, it's necessary to be a fully functioning person. You mentioned sleep earlier; how effective a crime fighter is he gonna be when he starts to hallucinate due to lack of sleep?

Having a home, of course, means that one city is going to be the focus of his direct work. So probably best to pick a city that has lots of visitors, so that the effect can propagate("this city's really nice; when I get back I'm gonna make my city more like it"). Like, say, Metropolis.

[GloatingSwine]

People always say that it's the struggle of a all-powerful being to be human that makes Superman interesting. I think that's fair, because it is an interesting concept, and you can get a few good stories out of that. The problem is that you can get a few stories out of it, not 100 years worth of comic material.

So yes, it is entirely possible to tell a good Superman story...they just don't do it very often. If a character is so powerful that it greatly limits the number of interesting stories you can tell about them, then they are probably too "overpowered". At least for a serial medium like comic books.

You can't get 100 years of comic material out of anything without the vast majority of it being boring tripe. That's why nobody ever has.

Hell, comics run on the same 3-5 year cycle as wrestling, where they assume that most of the audience has been replaced after that time because older readers lose interest and newer ones come in, so they can just repeat the same stories with a few costumes shuffled round and it's fresh again. (See also: Civil War 2)


Which means the only stories that can be really used are emotional ones, which can work, but then they throw him in with the Justice League and the whole thing falls apart. He doesn't play well in a wider universe.

The emotional and iconic* stories are the ones people actually remember. The workaday punch-the-baddie stories are forgotten a few years later.


The argument that Superman doesn't work in shared universes with long term continuity has some kind of merit, but mostly because shared universes with long term continuity are invariably going to mostly produce bollocks anyway with even fewer diamonds in the sea of poo than solo franchise books, so it's not a big loss.




* Iconic stories are the ones that ignore continuity and just use the parts of the character that are recognisable to the general cultural consciousness. A good Superman example is All-Star Superman, but the movie representation of comic characters tend to be iconic stories as well.

[Jan Mattys]

You can't get 100 years of comic material out of anything without the vast majority of it being boring tripe. That's why nobody ever has.

Hell, comics run on the same 3-5 year cycle as wrestling, where they assume that most of the audience has been replaced after that time because older readers lose interest and newer ones come in, so they can just repeat the same stories with a few costumes shuffled round and it's fresh again. (See also: Civil War 2)



The emotional and iconic* stories are the ones people actually remember. The workaday punch-the-baddie stories are forgotten a few years later.


The argument that Superman doesn't work in shared universes with long term continuity has some kind of merit, but mostly because shared universes with long term continuity are invariably going to mostly produce bollocks anyway with even fewer diamonds in the sea of poo than solo franchise books, so it's not a big loss.




* Iconic stories are the ones that ignore continuity and just use the parts of the character that are recognisable to the general cultural consciousness. A good Superman example is All-Star Superman, but the movie representation of comic characters tend to be iconic stories as well.

That's true.
I hold dear Superman Red Son, Kingdom Come and All Star Superman, and all of these are one-shots and what-ifs.

They work because they can turn the mythos upside down and play with it with a freedom unimaginable by writers who must worry about what came before and what will come after them.

[Anteros]

You can't get 100 years of comic material out of anything without the vast majority of it being boring tripe. That's why nobody ever has.

Hell, comics run on the same 3-5 year cycle as wrestling, where they assume that most of the audience has been replaced after that time because older readers lose interest and newer ones come in, so they can just repeat the same stories with a few costumes shuffled round and it's fresh again. (See also: Civil War 2)



The emotional and iconic* stories are the ones people actually remember. The workaday punch-the-baddie stories are forgotten a few years later.



This is true, but I will still argue that the typical Superman story is worse than the average Batman/Spider-Man/Etc. story as a result of this. (I'm just using Batman as an example of another major comic book character, let's not make this a Batman thread. He has his own issues.) My point was that the design of the character limits the stories you can tell with him. This is true of any character to an extent, but not to the same extent as with Superman.

If I ask for interesting Superman stories, and most people can only point out a half dozen or so from a century worth of comics, that's an indication of a bad character.

[GloatingSwine]

This is true, but I will still argue that the typical Superman story is worse than the average Batman/Spider-Man/Etc. story as a result of this.

Even if we accept that as true, the average story for any of those characters will be utterly forgotten only a few years from its release. It doesn't actually matter if the average Superman story is slightly more average than the average Batman story, we only remember the stunningly good or stunningly bad ones anyway, and I don't think the best Superman stories are necessarily worse than the best of Batman or any other franchise costume.


If I ask for interesting Superman stories, and most people can only point out a half dozen or so from a century worth of comics, that's an indication of a bad character.

Yeah, but you won't get many more than a dozen really good stories about almost any major comic book character. You can't actually tell many more original dramatic character driven stories about Batman that happen because he's not got superpowers.

[Metahuman1]

I point you to Neil Gaimen's Sandman franchise. Death of the Endless is a wonderful and fascinating character with numerous tales about her. She's also the second most powerful being in all existence behind only one other entity, that's rather heavily implied to be the omnipotent judao-christian christian deity known as the creator and to whom Arch Angle's answer.


All the other endless are also amazingly powerful, to a level were they can throw down with heads of pantheons and reasonably expect to win, and even Arch Angles would have pause to fact them for the most part.



Why do I explain this? Because it serves to point out that as long as your willing to put in the though and effort on challenging such characters, there is no such thing AS over powered.

[Anteros]

Even if we accept that as true, the average story for any of those characters will be utterly forgotten only a few years from its release. It doesn't actually matter if the average Superman story is slightly more average than the average Batman story, we only remember the stunningly good or stunningly bad ones anyway, and I don't think the best Superman stories are necessarily worse than the best of Batman or any other franchise costume.



Yeah, but you won't get many more than a dozen really good stories about almost any major comic book character. You can't actually tell many more original dramatic character driven stories about Batman that happen because he's not got superpowers.

It matters to people who actually read comics and don't just look at them on a timeline. It matters to people wondering which comic books to invest in. It wouldn't matter if people only read about comics in a history book, or to the people who only watch the occasional movie, but to the people who actually pick them up and read them every week it matters.

I'm not touching on Batman any more because that's just gonna derail the whole thread.

[GloatingSwine]

It matters to people who actually read comics and don't just look at them on a timeline. It matters to people wondering which comic books to invest in. It wouldn't matter if people only read about comics in a history book, or to the people who only watch the occasional movie, but to the people who actually pick them up and read them every week it matters.

Yeah, but nobody actually cares about them, least of all comics publishers ;)

You have to fundamentally accept that anything that goes on long enough is going to mostly just churn along, it can't be avoided. It actually does not matter how brilliant the character design is and how compelling the stories are at first, extend it long enough and it will turn into a mostly forgettable holding pattern.

No idea ever is good enough to avoid this. Sometimes the holding pattern might be reasonably entertaining whilst you're in it, if the inflight movie is OK, but you aren't going to remember it, you're going to remember the awesome holiday you have when it's over and you land.


(There is a reason I don't read ongoing comics, I just buy good trades when they come out and skip the filler arcs)

[Lacuna Caster]

I quite liked All-Star Superman (partly because he, in a rare display of far-sighted efficiency, more-or-less cures cancer with kryptonian technology.) But also because his decisions are more poignant when he's only got X months to live- even if all he sacrificed was spare time (and it wasn't) that's kind of in short supply within the story.

Still, I broadly (and subjectively) agree with Anteros- if I stack up the best Superman stories I've come across with the best, say, X-Men stories, the latter would win out, hands down. That might be due to limited exposure, but I think it's just harder to make good Superman stories. He's accumulated too many unreasonable expectations over the years- and I think it's the combination of the power level and paladin attributes and no apparent toll on his social life that does it.


EDIT: I do kind of agree that long-running shared continuities are rarely handled well in comics generally, though.

[Killer Angel]

I've heard good things about Kingdom Come, but I've not read it. As I understand the premise, is it also out of continuity?

Already answered but yeah, it's excellent, and out of continuity.

Another interesting story, competely on its own, it's Red Son. A decidedly different take on the subject. :smallwink:

[dps]

Baseline Superman is fine. He is strong, but there are stronger people out there, and he has enough weaknesses that he can still be challenged by lower tier foes with a good plan.

The problem is Superman has a nasty habit of either making up new powers or doing things that are just flat out impossible.


Yup. Baseline Superman started out as "able to leap tall buildings in a single bound". Then he became able to fly. Then he became able to fly in outer space. And at that point, the things that were interesting for him to do and deal with when he was merely about to leap tall buildings were now trivial and pointless.

Sure, you can still write entertaining stories about him, but his power level does make it difficult to write good opponents for him. This is why Batman and Spiderman have better Rogues' Galleries than Superman--there's simply more ways to challenge them (not that they haven't had issues with power creep, too, especially Batman). Superman's only recurring villain who has made much impact on the public consciousness is Lex Luthor, and Luthor's whole deal is basically that he has at least the possibility of outsmarting Superman, which is about the best any Earthly threat can hope for against him.

[Cheesegear]

and no apparent toll on [Clark Kent's] social life that does it.

lolwat.
That's one of the defining aspects of the character; Do I save the world, or be happy? That's why those craaazy people who read comic books and not Wikipedia will tell you that Clark Kent is more interesting than Superman.

[Reddish Mage]

Superman's only recurring villain who has made much impact on the public consciousness is Lex Luthor

What about General Zod? What about Bizarro? What about Brainiac?

[Lacuna Caster]

lolwat.
That's one of the defining aspects of the character; Do I save the world, or be happy? That's why those craaazy people who read comic books and not Wikipedia will tell you that Clark Kent is more interesting than Superman.
As with all other aspects of the character, this is very much a writer-dependent variable, but the default modern-day version of Superman has time to hold down a job, a girlfriend, visit the family farm and hang out with Jimmy Olson or gossip around the Watchtower's water-cooler. He's not on some obsessive crusade that eventually alienates most of his allies and companions, and it's rare for Lois or Pa Kent to go the way of Gwen Stacy or Uncle Ben. For all the angsting on the topic, I don't think that particular version of Superman has much to complain about.

[Cheesegear]

modern-day version of Superman has time to hold down a job, a girlfriend, visit the family farm and hang out with Jimmy Olson or gossip around the Watchtower's water-cooler.

I understand that it's not cool to read New 52...But you're wrong.
Modern-day Superman barely has job. His girlfriend is Wonder Woman, the government is terrified of the two of them, and Superman is officially an Enemy of the State, and the majority of his time is spent trying to end or stop world-ending threats, even though the world hates him.

[Lacuna Caster]

Fair enough. I don't know how well the New-52 version holds up in general.

[Cheesegear]

Fair enough. I don't know how well the New-52 version holds up in general.

Some stinkers, some good.
Don't buy week-to-week. Only buy trades.

Being a Trade means the story sold well enough and/or is important enough to be made a Trade in the first place.

[GloatingSwine]

What about General Zod? What about Bizarro? What about Brainiac?

People literally only care about Zod because of Superman 2. As far as Superman villains go he's a complete nobody, Toyman probably has more stories about him.

[Killer Angel]

What about General Zod? What about Bizarro? What about Brainiac?

We know them.
All the people that read superheroes' comics know them.

But the rest of the world? My wife certainly knows Lex Luthor, but this trio? She would be "uh?", with maybe (only maybe) a vague knowledge of General Zod, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Cheesegear]

All the people that read superheroes' comics know them.

People have absolutely heard of Bizarro and/or Bizarro World. Though I don't think they'd know the origins of the phrases.
Seinfeld has a fairly memorable episode regarding the subject.

[Killer Angel]

People have absolutely heard of Bizarro and/or Bizarro World. Though I don't think they'd know the origins of the phrases.


Yes, many certainly have heard it, but if you don't know the reference, it doesn't make a great difference from not knowing it at all.
IMO it's not wrong to say that, at a worldwide level, Lex Luthor is THE known villain of Supes' stories.

[lord_khaine]

I understand that it's not cool to read New 52...But you're wrong.
Modern-day Superman barely has job. His girlfriend is Wonder Woman, the government is terrified of the two of them, and Superman is officially an Enemy of the State, and the majority of his time is spent trying to end or stop world-ending threats, even though the world hates him.

What the ****? sounds like some moron got Superman and Spiderman confused with each other, while making sure to let the awkward mix keep all of Supermans powers... :smallannoyed:

Though again, my favorite stories have always been the ones by Grant Morison, where he allows the entire JLA to be at their peak, pitting them against inhuman conquers or alien horrors.
Because Superman is not overpowered, and for that matter needs the backup of all his friends, if he is to punch out Chuthulu.


What about General Zod? What about Bizarro? What about Brainiac?

Would say that Zod is genenrally known by those who like Superman, he has been in two movies by know.
Though the rest, most likely only familiar to those who actually watched the cartoons at the very least.

[Cheesegear]

What the ****? sounds like some moron got Superman and Spiderman confused with each other, while making sure to let the awkward mix keep all of Supermans powers... :smallannoyed:

More like it turned out that people really, really liked Nolan's Batman trilogy, and editorial mandate came out that said that everyone and everything had to be dark and gritty and 'more like Batman'. Including Captain Marvel Shazam, who is technically a child, written for children.

What!? You want FUN in your comics? Read Marvel for that. DC is srs bsns (for better or worse).


Though again, my favorite stories have always been the ones by Grant Morison, where he allows the entire JLA to be at their peak, pitting them against inhuman conquers or alien horrors.
Because Superman is not overpowered, and for that matter needs the backup of all his friends, if he is to punch out Chuthulu.

I like the current crop of Justice League animated movies - War and Throne of Atlantis. Both written by Geoff Johns.

[Forum Explorer]

What about General Zod? What about Bizarro? What about Brainiac?

Who? :smalltongue:

(kidding, but the only one I know is Zod an Lex Luthor)

[Anteros]

lolwat.
That's one of the defining aspects of the character; Do I save the world, or be happy? That's why those craaazy people who read comic books and not Wikipedia will tell you that Clark Kent is more interesting than Superman.

Which version? The one married to supermodel award winning reporter Lois Lane, or the one currently dating the Queen of the Amazons? Clark having a crappy social life hasn't been a thing for like 20 years.

Also, I've read almost the entire New52 Superman trade, and your assessment of the situation isn't even remotely accurate. At least not unless things have drastically changed in the last few months since I dropped it. They still very much beat you over the head with how he's a goody-goody symbol of hope for the people.

[lord_khaine]

I like the current crop of Justice League animated movies - War and Throne of Atlantis. Both written by Geoff Johns.

I have seen those, and kinda felt like they were animated character assasinations.

The image quality were crisp, and the animation sharp. But the story were kinda lacking.

[Anteros]

I thought the first half of Atlantis was good. The second half was pretty awful.

I don't think the characters are particularly off though. They make Hal more of a punching bag than usual, but Johns is typically considered the Hal Jordan guy, so it's hard to consider it a character assassination.

[Cheesegear]

I have seen those, and kinda felt like they were animated character assasinations.

So, you mean that they're based off of New 52 continuity? :smallamused:

[Metahuman1]

So, you mean that they're based off of New 52 continuity? :smallamused:

They weren't?



Seriously, the new 52 had potential. I tried so, so, SOOOOO very hard to give it a fair hearing. I LIKED some of the early titles. But those have just been getting fewer and fewer and fewer in number.






I'd go read marvel if they would finally, definitively, reject the bull**** and make Joe Quesada and his cronies formally acknowledge that things like making Tony Stark and Peter Parker morally comparable to Red Skull and Morally inferior to Dr. Doom were BAD ideas, not worthy of having movies made about them, and take it out of canon. Or fix it IN Canon. it wouldn't be THAT hard. Like, 2 issues were Stark's getting his soul run through a shredder by Shuma-Groth during a story line before new-Thor saves him by beating up Shumo-Groth or something, and a totally repeal of the Super-human registration act with a new act that says any political that so much as breaths the word registration and the word act in the same sentence in context to sentient beings again is to be immediately arrested. Just for example.

I'm not asking the impossible, or even the difficult here. I'm really not.

[Anteros]

Warning. This post is going to contain multiple spoilers for New52 books.

The New52 does have some good stuff in it. The Bat-family books in particular are better than they have been for years. They have largely focused on the extended family and Gordon rather than Bruce himself and are much better for it. Batman stories are always best when he's not in the spotlight.

Justice League has its ups and downs, but making Luthor and Cold a part of the league was excellent. It also gave us the Shazam+Cyborg friendship which is great.

Most of the Lantern books are bad now (full disclosure though, I've never liked the Lantern books), but the Red Lanters run with Guy Gardner was excellent (Warning: it is very bad before issue 15 or so when Guy comes into the story and they change writers).

Depowering Superman and outing his secret identity was good in theory, but the actual writing has not been up to par. Having Superman pair up with WW instead of Lois is a bit strange, but they've already made it obvious they won't last and are setting up for him to be with Lois in the future. I think Superman is currently the weakest of the New52 main books.

Flash is ok, but I still can't get over what they did to Wally West.

I think a lot of what people don't like about the New52 is just that the characters got reset and have to go through their growing pains all over again. It's a completely valid complaint, but don't let it keep you from the series as a whole.

[Cheesegear]

The New52 does have some good stuff in it.
The Bat-family books in particular are better than they have been for years.
Justice League has its ups and downs, but making Luthor and Cold a part of the league was excellent.
Most of the Lantern books are bad now (full disclosure though, I've never liked the Lantern books), but the Red Lanters run with Guy Gardner was excellent (Warning: it is very bad before issue 15 or so when Guy comes into the story and they change writers).
Having Superman pair up with WW instead of Lois is a bit strange, but they've already made it obvious they won't last and are setting up for him to be with Lois in the future. I think Superman is currently the weakest of the New52 main books.
Flash is ok, but I still can't get over what they did to Wally West.

I agree with everything you just said.

Red Hood & The Outlaws got a lot of terrible reviews when it first debuted. But, really, on in regards to what they'd done to the character of Starfire. Which was, basically, make her an alien with completely different social cues and norms - particularly in regards to sex. Now, done well, I have nothing wrong with what Starfire could have been. Unfortunately, the few actually good writers in DC's stable are not wasting their time writing Red Hood & The Outlaws, good writers are writing good things. Like Batman, Nightwing, Batgirl and, you know...The good books that people actually want to read and will make money. No-one cares about Jason Todd (except for when he directly interacts with other members of the Bat-Family, which isn't that often, considering), which means that a bad writer was writing Red Hood, and wrote Starfire as fanservice, instead of something...Good.

Red Hood & The Outlaws has gotten better (since I have to a few stories about Jason Todd to keep up with the Bat-Family, mostly in trades), but it's still a far cry from good.

[Anteros]

Yeah, I read that entire trade because I got it for free and I like Red Hood as a character. It never really got good though. I couldn't bring myself to pick up any of Red Hood and Arsenal because Outlaws was so bad (and I'd have to actually pay for it, so nah).

[Reddish Mage]

Who? :smalltongue:

(kidding, but the only one I know is Zod an Lex Luthor)

That doesn't sound like kidding...

Does really no one mainstream heard of Bizzaro? I thought it he was a popular substitute for "opposite" or "weird."

I gotta stop saying Canada/America (depending who I'm talking to) is "like going to Bizzaro World" and when dealing with cross-border tax issues....

[Dienekes]

That doesn't sound like kidding...

Does really no one mainstream heard of Bizzaro? I thought it he was a popular substitute for "opposite" or "weird."

I gotta stop saying Canada/America (depending who I'm talking to) is "like going to Bizzaro World" and when dealing with cross-border tax issues....

Bizarro World, Bizarro, and Brainiac have all gone into cultural conscious as words, however the actual characters are much less well known. If you call someone a Brainiac they'll know it as some slightly derogatory word for nerd. But, most folks won't know it's a Superman villain, like Lex Luthor and to a lesser extent Zod. Meanwhile everyone knows who the Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, and Riddler are.

I should note, this doesn't really mean they're good characters or not. Quite frankly Brainiac is a much better villain than Penguin or Riddler, but he hasn't gotten a rather famous movie made of him.

[Anteros]

I think most people would be vaguely aware that they are Superman villains, but not much beyond that.

[Forum Explorer]

That doesn't sound like kidding...

Does really no one mainstream heard of Bizzaro? I thought it he was a popular substitute for "opposite" or "weird."

I gotta stop saying Canada/America (depending who I'm talking to) is "like going to Bizzaro World" and when dealing with cross-border tax issues....

I am aware of their existence as superman villains, and I could take a shot at guessing their powers, but I honestly don't know what they even look like.

Regardless, I do recognize those words, I thought they villains were named after the words, kinda like how Joker is named after an informal comedian, Bane is named after a word that is similar in meaning to nemesis, and Penguin is named after a large flightless bird that he sort of resembles.

[Dienekes]

I am aware of their existence as superman villains, and I could take a shot at guessing their powers, but I honestly don't know what they even look like.

Regardless, I do recognize those words, I thought they villains were named after the words, kinda like how Joker is named after an informal comedian, Bane is named after a word that is similar in meaning to nemesis, and Penguin is named after a large flightless bird that he sort of resembles.

Brianiac and Bizarro were (I believe) names of characters first before they became more commonly known words. However, probably why they were able to become so well known is that they are based off of obvious well known words, brain and bizarre respectively.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Bizarro World, Bizarro, and Brainiac have all gone into cultural conscious as words, however the actual characters are much less well known. If you call someone a Brainiac they'll know it as some slightly derogatory word for nerd. But, most folks won't know it's a Superman villain, like Lex Luthor and to a lesser extent Zod. Meanwhile everyone knows who the Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, and Riddler are.

I should note, this doesn't really mean they're good characters or not. Quite frankly Brainiac is a much better villain than Penguin or Riddler, but he hasn't gotten a rather famous movie made of him.


I think most people would be vaguely aware that they are Superman villains, but not much beyond that.

My experience in the UK (and this ages me...) is that most people knew the Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, and Riddler characters because of the popular Ward/West Batman TV series.

There was far less Superman material over here (to the extent that I am pushed to remember any) so "Braniac" was just a word. I don't remember the word "Bizarro" being used at all. I would have been hard pressed to name any Superman villain.

(Side note: In fact looking back, the vast majority of the superhero material I saw was Marvel, rather than DC - I only really saw a lot of DC material when I started dealing with someone who explicitly collected comics. Before that I think I had only heard of Superman via cultural osmosis, one of the old Republic serials1 and possibly one imported comic. Anything superman-related before the original Christopher Reeve film is a little hazy.)

Trying to drag myself back on to topic: Superman being overpowered really does depend on the story being told, and who is telling it. One of the marks of good writer2 is to be able to drop character A into setting B and make it work, and that isn't really a question of relative power.

The most memorable sequence in a Superman story for me was in a story set when he had just appeared in Metropolis, and in order, Superman:

Sees a woman (with huge stereo on shoulder at full volume) having her handbag snatched.
Intercepts the thief round the corner.
Returns the handbag to the woman.
Deposits the thief in a litter bin for the police to pick up.
Turns down the sound on the stereo and explains the concept of consideration for other people.
Flies off.


It's a couple of pages in a larger story, and I remember it because it was an amusing downtime scene and for the way it fitted the overall narrative. Is Superman overpowered for this scene? Yes, absolutely. But he doesn't necessarily need to use all his powers all the time.

I grant that a Superman story built up purely of components like thus would be...bad, but if you are in that position then perhaps you are either telling the wrong story or using the wrong character. I doubt whether Superman is the only character to be placed in stories that he doesn't really belong in.

As to the "Superman should/should not be able to fix everything" characterisation, I remember one story where pointing out the flaw in this interpretation was the whole point of the story.



1 They used to be shown in the mornings during the Christmas Holidays. I was more a Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon manboy myself.
2 EDIT: The footnote that should be here got subsumed into the text. The position is now open for any aspiring footnotes to take up.

[Cheesegear]

As to the "Superman should/should not be able to fix everything" characterisation, I remember one story where pointing out the flaw in this interpretation was the whole point of the story.

I think you might be referring to Peace on Earth, written by Paul Dini (everyone loves him, right?). It's very good.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I think you might be referring to Peace on Earth, written by Paul Dini (everyone loves him, right?). It's very good.

Sounds like an interesting story (I'll have to keep an eye out...), but it's not the one I remember. The story had more to do with natural disasters than food distribution.

[Lacuna Caster]

Kingdom Come and Peace on Earth are worth getting for the art alone, and they are pretty good stories if you overlook a few problems. But... they kind of hinge on some questionable premises.

(Premise 1 being that escalation will cause supervillains to not show restraint, when they barely showed any to begin with, and premise 2 being that Superman can fit Zod or Doomsday in the phantom zone, but not a dozen Kim Jong-Ils.)

Anyhoo, the question isn't really whether Superman can or should fix everything, and more whether spending time with Lois or Perry is particularly helpful as a method of world-improvement.

[lord_khaine]

I think regarding issue 2, then it were explained with Superman wishing to try and reform them, not inflict what might be one of the most horrible punishments possible on them.

[Lacuna Caster]

I think regarding issue 2, then it were explained with Superman wishing to try and reform them, not inflict what might be one of the most horrible punishments possible on them.
Attempts at reform are all very laudable, but my point is that there's no reason to leave generic dictators in charge of countries when Supes has no problem imprisoning other genocidal evildoers. He could drop them off at the UN to stand trial if he prefers, but just shrugging his shoulders at the problem doesn't make any sense.

[Legato Endless]

This is one of those issues that goes back to DC and Marvel trying to reflect the real world despite having massive collective universes that contains a lot of elements that should variously prevent them from doing so in certain facets. The real world has dictators that aren't overthrown for various geopolitical reasons, many of which Superman at the middling range of his power should nullify by his very existence. But to prevent the implications of Dr. Manhattan and the like, they either ignore this or invent reasons for why this doesn't occur. If most any not particularly passive Superman existed in real life, the real world wouldn't look anything like DC comics.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Note that this also applies to why super-science hasn't reshaped the world. Also, if mutants are distributed fairly evenly across the population, then the Third World just gained a massive competitive advantage, as have any other numerous minority.

So either the editors nerf the hell out of everything, or the metahuman population rewrites the planet to where it's no longer recognizable. Or you can just start by making a world that isn't ours in the first place.

[Dragonexx]

As to the dictator's thing, I have a (somewhat) relevant quote about this.


Superheroes have to ignore white-collar crime, or the suspension of disbelief falls apart completely. In fact, the whole heroic trope falls apart because the sort of black-and-white morality that allows him to hurl super-villains into the sun doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny once he starts getting involved in that sort of thing. Also, it makes for a **** comic.

Let's say that Superman rescues a bunch of people from a collapsed mine and does indeed get seriously pissed off over violations of safety codes. What does he do then? Does he go to the "bad guys" - i.e. the mine owners - and tell them to get their act together safety-wise, or he'll... what, exactly? Disintegrate them with his eye-lasers? Let it be known to the world that he's pissed with them so their stock value plummets? Frighten them into submission?

The thing is, all that would be wrong. Flat-out, straight-up wrong. That's why we have courts, and hearings, and people giving evidence and mine inspectors. Certainly he could employ his super-powers to good effect helping to gather evidence and making sure that nobody is bribed, blackmailed or otherwise dissuaded from taking part in the legal process... but seriously, *yaaaaaawn*. And also, it still amounts to "Don't you **** with these people because I say you musn't and I'm the biggest badass anywhere."

Superman can't get involved with white-collar crime because he only has blue-collar solutions: **** with Supe and he'll blow your **** up, or throw it into the sun, or grind it to powder. Anything else he can do is stuff that anyone else could do, and that doesn't make for a good story.

Without wishing to offend anyone - and such is genuinely not my intention - even war is a white-collar crime. When it's just a bunch of guys shooting each other because of something someone said about their moms, or because of drug-distribution fiefdoms, or because they don't like each other's religions or whatever, then Superman flying in, banging their heads together and telling them to stop is all cool. Once it's war - even if it's war for the same stupid reasons - the scenario changes. War is waged by governments against governments, or at least by authorities recognised by some governments as being governments, and you can't interfere with that process for the same reason you can't just terrify the mine owners into obeying safety codes. Once you've done that, you've demonstrated that you are not only able but willing to supercede the temporal authorities of "normal" humanity, and that's where politics ends and tyranny begins.

Take this scenario. An Evil Genius has managed to build himself a Weapon of Scary Doom in an obscure location in Russia somewhere. Let's say it's something along the lines of a nuke; a weapon that can destroy whole cities anywhere in the world. Superman hears about it, flies in, gets paralysed by Krypton Beams, is freed in an unlikely manner 4.8 picoseconds before the doomsday device flattens New York, prevents the destruction and zooms home to tea and medals.

All fine? Yes, up to a point. We can give the nod here because we can just about bring ourselves to believe that Russia isn't going to make a fuss about someone invading their sovereign territory to disable a potential world-menacing threat. But if it's the Russian government with the doomsday weapon, built as a deterrent, what can Superman do?

Nothing, is what he can do. Or everything, but there's no middle ground. Once he starts interfering with politics, there is no more politics.

That's one thing the comic-book writers (or at least the ones I've read, which admittedly isn't terribly many) have got right. Superheroes with Real Ultimate Power basically can't do anything except deal with Supervillains or natural catastrophes. They can only interfere with **** that doesn't "belong" to anyone. Anything else is an admission that they're in charge, and then we're either into nuclear holocaust territory or a hopefully-benevolent worldwide dictatorship. And it would happen; how many people reading this, if granted such awesome power that you could do almost anything and would never have to answer for it to anyone, wouldn't change the world for what they think is the better? And how much of an ******* would it make you, in most people's eyes, if you didn't?

A world with superheroes - or possibly even worse, with a superhero - of that calibre eventually wouldn't even have governments, just executives that existed to carry out the superhero's diktats. Or it would just have a superhero who did nothing else all day but save people from collapsed mines, runaway trains and hurricanes. There's really not much plausible middle ground.


From this thread: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49855&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Anteros]

That's a straw-man though. It's entirely possible for someone like Superman to say "Look, I'm not taking over your government, but the genocides have to stop." Organizations like the U.N. already exist to police things like this. They're just bad at it because they lack the ability to enforce their rules. It doesn't mean he has to step in and micro manage every tiny thing, or become supreme dictator just because he stops some crazy ruler from murdering their own people. He has the power to take over at any time either way, and in either scenario the only thing stopping him is his own moral compass (and Batman).

That comment is pretending that there's no possible middle ground and it just isn't true.

[Legato Endless]

Yeah, that whole spiel reads as a post-hoc rationalization rather than an actual justification.

Not to mention, if we remove the Superhero moniker from the equation, reams of popular stories have been told in which individuals with fantastic to godlike abilities intervene into the politics of their worlds. And it isn't boring. They just inhabit the rest of speculative fiction. Or comics outside the mainstream continuities.

Now, that's not to say the genre such as it is can't maintain it's laundry list of conceits, but pretending that the common premises of the Big Two arose as some kind of inevitable naturalistic evolution of the medium is absurd. It's just that tradition and a popular paradigm has ensconced within Superhero comics various elements. Parts of the speculative fiction story you don't speculate about. And of course, there have been a ton of stories deconstructing or simply ignoring such elements which weren't boring.

[Dragonexx]

While I have no doubt that that's how it might play out, at least initially, at that point, they're only really continuing because he gives his approval.

Also, is this getting too close to politics? I apologize if that's the case.

[GloatingSwine]

That's a straw-man though. It's entirely possible for someone like Superman to say "Look, I'm not taking over your government, but the genocides have to stop."

Right, the question becomes: What does he do when they don't stop?

He would have to stop them himself, and that would mean force. You can't just think "he can remove their military hardware", that doesn't stop genocides, all you need for a genocide is motivated people with machetes.

And even then that doesn't remove the root causes which are usually complicated, murky, and go back centuries so aren't readily unpicked.

So that would require more force, the only solution an individual, even Superman, could come up with is forcible seperation of factions where these conflicts arise, or forcible deposition of governments and power structures where they are involved.

Which is starting to sound a lot like ruling the world (See also: The Authority, Justice Lords).


Really, the reason that superheroes don't address these kind of situations is that they're complicated problems, and superheroes are not good at solving those because they aren't readily addressed by finding the right person and punching them real good. (And when writers try, well, that way lies Frank Miller).

[Lacuna Caster]

Well, I partly agree with Amra's analysis- there are legitimate difficulties with involving Supes heavily in situations that he can't solve by force, because, yes, people buy his comics with the expectation that laser-vision and sun-punching will be involved.

That's all a 4th wall explanation though, and as such, still a problem with the character, at least as embedded in a given setting.

The scenario Anteros and Legato have mentioned probably would amount to World Domination by the UN, with either Supes in particular or the Justice League in general giving the administration teeth (even if they didn't assume a formal position of power.) Sure, there are sociopolitical problems associated with that idea that superheroes can't easily solve, but there might be a couple good stories you could wring out of rising (or not) to the challenge. Particularly if those sociopolitical problems can manifest in the form, say of red-sun deathtraps.

Which reminds me- what recurring supervillain better embodies white-collar crime than the modern Lex Luthor? He's a corporate plutocrat typically elbow-deep in both the banking sector and the military-industrial complex, who effectively owns one of the largest US cities, supplies armies across the globe and can buy and sell a third of Congress before lunch, such that he can viably run for President but usually considers the office a distraction. Everything that makes Lex interesting relies on shifting Supes outside of his comfort zone. (Well, that and the color scheme on his power suit.)

[Anteros]

Right, the question becomes: What does he do when they don't stop?

He would have to stop them himself, and that would mean force. You can't just think "he can remove their military hardware", that doesn't stop genocides, all you need for a genocide is motivated people with machetes.

And even then that doesn't remove the root causes which are usually complicated, murky, and go back centuries so aren't readily unpicked.

So that would require more force, the only solution an individual, even Superman, could come up with is forcible seperation of factions where these conflicts arise, or forcible deposition of governments and power structures where they are involved.

Which is starting to sound a lot like ruling the world (See also: The Authority, Justice Lords).


Really, the reason that superheroes don't address these kind of situations is that they're complicated problems, and superheroes are not good at solving those because they aren't readily addressed by finding the right person and punching them real good. (And when writers try, well, that way lies Frank Miller).

He disarms them, separates them, and takes whoever instigated the event to the U.N. to stand trial. All of this takes him about 13 seconds, and then he goes back to not interfering with their affairs whenever they aren't trying to actively murder people.

There seems to be this fallacy with comic book logic that if he stops them from mass murder he suddenly has to take complete control and rule over everything. This isn't the case at all and it's a little silly to even propose it.

It doesn't make for a very good story, so writers will stick with these weak rationalizations, but let's not pretend they hold up to real world scrutiny.

[Legato Endless]

While I have no doubt that that's how it might play out, at least initially, at that point, they're only really continuing because he gives his approval.

Ah, but that's true no matter what if the Superman exists in a world that lacks adequate counter measures.


Really, the reason that superheroes don't address these kind of situations is that they're complicated problems, and superheroes are not good at solving those because they aren't readily addressed by finding the right person and punching them real good. (And when writers try, well, that way lies Frank Miller).

Which is the real reason this isn't marketable despite it's ubiquity in other genres. People expect the issue to be solved, done, over. The idea of the long struggle, of it being a something he can't forcefully overcome, or pitched in a murky morass of unknowns and unknowables isn't to the tastes of the buyers. They don't want something like that. Here at least, they get their punch out problem with moon beasts and mad scientists, to paraphrase Jayngfet from other thread.

It's a medium where so many heroes wear spandex to ape Superman's strongman costume because that's how these things are done, damn it. And it's why they simply aren't on the forefront anymore. They aren't water cooler talk. Because they lack applicability by mandate, while implicitly pretending otherwise. That's not uncommon literary hypocrisy, or even a sin, but it's oh so tediously heavy handed here. When the Big Two approach issues of contemporary consequence, they're very much more often Driving Miss Daisy than Do the Right Thing.

Even Captain America 2, the most thematically ambitious of the MCU in modern commentary, isn't really above the maligned Star Trek: Into Darkness in terms of the content of it's actual message on their subject matter, though it was integrated far better into a much superior film.

[GloatingSwine]

He disarms them, separates them, and takes whoever instigated the event to the U.N. to stand trial. All of this takes him about 13 seconds, and then he goes back to not interfering with their affairs whenever they aren't trying to actively murder people.

Y'see, you've fallen into the Mark Millar trap. There isn't a single "whoever instigated the event", there's anywhere from century to a thousand years of tribal bad feeling, political repression or favour, external upset from colonialism arbitrarily redrawing borders a century and a half ago, and so on.

Complicated problems like Rwanda don't have single causes, they have massively complicated long term causes that literally cannot be fixed in simple ways.

In order to "seperate" these people Superman would have to literally arbitrarily redraw the borders of almost every nation in most of Africa and the Middle East, displace all of the populations of those nations and then enforce that seperation by main force.

He'd have to take over the world and run it as a superpowered despot, repressing people far more harshly than the existing problems that have caused these conflicts, because that's the only way you can have a "simple" fix.

[Anteros]

Y'see, you've fallen into the Mark Millar trap. There isn't a single "whoever instigated the event", there's anywhere from century to a thousand years of tribal bad feeling, political repression or favour, external upset from colonialism arbitrarily redrawing borders a century and a half ago, and so on.

Complicated problems like Rwanda don't have single causes, they have massively complicated long term causes that literally cannot be fixed in simple ways.

In order to "seperate" these people Superman would have to literally arbitrarily redraw the borders of almost every nation in most of Africa and the Middle East, displace all of the populations of those nations and then enforce that seperation by main force.

He'd have to take over the world and run it as a superpowered despot, repressing people far more harshly than the existing problems that have caused these conflicts, because that's the only way you can have a "simple" fix.

I wrote up a detailed reply to this, but it definitely veers too far into real world politics, and I've gotten in trouble for that on this forum before. So instead I'll just say I respectfully disagree. Punishing those in power, and destroying the infrastructure they use to commit their atrocities might not end violence completely, but it would certainly curb it substantially.

[Tyndmyr]

Y'see, you've fallen into the Mark Millar trap. There isn't a single "whoever instigated the event", there's anywhere from century to a thousand years of tribal bad feeling, political repression or favour, external upset from colonialism arbitrarily redrawing borders a century and a half ago, and so on.

Complicated problems like Rwanda don't have single causes, they have massively complicated long term causes that literally cannot be fixed in simple ways.

In order to "seperate" these people Superman would have to literally arbitrarily redraw the borders of almost every nation in most of Africa and the Middle East, displace all of the populations of those nations and then enforce that seperation by main force.

He'd have to take over the world and run it as a superpowered despot, repressing people far more harshly than the existing problems that have caused these conflicts, because that's the only way you can have a "simple" fix.

Eh, that's not really how problems narratively work in superhero worlds. There's always a person behind the problem. A person who can be punched, generally. That's...the point of the whole fantasy. It's nice to envision whoever is responsible for whatever taking it on the chin.

It only doesn't actually fix things because, well, you need the environment to stay the same, narratively. You CAN'T have gotham become crime free. You can't really have the x-men live happily ever after. Either of those sort of ends a popular, profitable money train, and thus, will not actually stay fixed.

But they are invariably potrayed as right to fight for those things, and as their actions helping to fix those things.

[Lacuna Caster]

Y'see, you've fallen into the Mark Millar trap. There isn't a single "whoever instigated the event", there's anywhere from century to a thousand years of tribal bad feeling, political repression or favour, external upset from colonialism arbitrarily redrawing borders a century and a half ago, and so on.
This is the third time I've tried and failed to sum up my objections succinctly, so I'll open instead with two questions: Why do you feel that Superman has to provide simple solutions instead of nuanced ones, and why do you feel Superman has to solve the problem entirely in order for the problem to be worth tackling?

[Rogar Demonblud]

I wrote up a detailed reply to this, but it definitely veers too far into real world politics, and I've gotten in trouble for that on this forum before. So instead I'll just say I respectfully disagree. Punishing those in power, and destroying the infrastructure they use to commit their atrocities might not end violence completely, but it would certainly curb it substantially.

To be blunt, no. In the example of Rwanda (which we seem to be using as a case study), it wouldn't even reduce the bloodshed by a quarter. Most of the deaths there was ethnic Hutu killing ethnic Hutu (with machetes, note) over land distribution issues. Something to remember with many conflicts is that when it comes to a choice between watching your children slowly starve or killing your neighbor (and his family) and taking his land, well, that sucker's going down.

More details can be found in Shake Hands With The Devil by Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian General who was in command of the UN Peacekeepers in Rwanda during the massacres.

Anyway, the main point is that superheroes are stunningly useless in the real world.

[Lacuna Caster]

To be blunt, no. In the example of Rwanda (which we seem to be using as a case study)...
Yes and no. This discussion originally stemmed from Peace on Earth having a thinly veiled reference to Superman visiting North Korea.

[Forum Explorer]

Anyway, the main point is that superheroes are stunningly useless in the real world.

As written by Marvel and DC anyways. A more realistic take is that superhumans would warp and change the political landscape themselves, and would have massive influence on what was happening in their territory. As always, I point to Worm for a good story on what that might look like. (Do note I said more realistic, it is still a story, and the focus is not on providing a model on the political effects of superhumans)

[GloatingSwine]

Why do you feel that Superman has to provide simple solutions instead of nuanced ones

Because if the answers were simple enough that a comic book writer could enumerate them in 38 pages the problems wouldn't exist now, would they?


and why do you feel Superman has to solve the problem entirely in order for the problem to be worth tackling?

The problems are too complex to even begin to address in the scope of a comic story except by simplifying them sufficiently massively that they cease to even resemble the actual problems.

Y'see, I'm not talking about the diagetic version of Superman, I'm talking about what you can do in a comic book story, the limits of the ability of 38 or so pages of sequential art storytelling to convey meaning.

You couldn't even finish explaining the shia-sunni conflict in the scope of a comic book, not even a reasonable size graphic novel, let alone come up with an easy fix for it involving a man with his underpants on the outside!

[Lacuna Caster]

Because if the answers were simple enough that a comic book writer could enumerate them in 38 pages the problems wouldn't exist now, would they?
I don't think ease of understanding conveys the will to act, but if it were, this is still a 4th-wall-based meta-explanation that doesn't actually justify the character's behaviour.

Besides, as Tyndmyr already pointed out, it's not like the underlying sociological causes of street crime are simple, yet we don't have any apparent difficulty with superheroes grappling with caricatured personifications of the phenomenon.

Even if particular instances of genocide were rooted in (somehow) intractable cultural and demographic problems, after about a century of warped lunatics escaping from Arkham, I think we can handle the disappointment.

[Bartmanhomer]

What about Goku vs Superman ScrewAttack Death Battle: The first fight and the rematch? Do you think that Superman was overpowered in both fights or do you think it was even?

[Manga Shoggoth]

What about Goku vs Superman ScrewAttack Death Battle: The first fight and the rematch? Do you think that Superman was overpowered in both fights or do you think it was even?

Interestingly, the point made in the two Death Battles was that comparison is difficult in part because the two characters are really telling two different kinds of story.

[Avilan the Grey]

Short answer:
Yes.

Longer answer:
If you can bench-press the EARTH for HOURS and not break a sweat... Yes.

[Anteros]

Short answer:
Yes.

Longer answer:
If you can bench-press the EARTH for HOURS and not break a sweat... Yes.

As of Battle of the Gods Goku is on the level where he has to specifically try to not destroy the universe when he throws a punch. That's canon, and he's actually a whole lot stronger now than he was at that point.

Anything except Silver Age supes gets turned into a fine red mist at this point.

[Reddish Mage]

You couldn't even finish explaining the shia-sunni conflict in the scope of a comic book, not even a reasonable size graphic novel, let alone come up with an easy fix for it involving a man with his underpants on the outside!

You mean you can't just say "it's like the Hatfields and the McCoys" and call it a day?

...oh right people in the MidEast actually remember history and thus every single offense the other side committed.

Anyway...are there even ATTEMPTS by Superheroes to solve those sorts of real world level conflicts that don't involve becoming a dictator or reducing the conflict to a single, relatively simple, issue?

[Dienekes]

You mean you can't just say "it's like the Hatfields and the McCoys" and call it a day?

...oh right people in the MidEast actually remember history and thus every single offense the other side committed.

Anyway...are there even ATTEMPTS by Superheroes to solve those sorts of real world level conflicts that don't involve becoming a dictator or reducing the conflict to a single, relatively simple, issue?

Well, I can't say much for Superman, but I know in Batman comics (at least before New52) they had a sort of background thread that he is tirelessly going after the root of poverty and crime in Gotham. Investigating corrupt businesses, providing available jobs, specifically targeting former convicts and poor urban areas, as well as other things of that nature.

It never went anywhere, other than just saying it was happening in a few comics. But that's about as close as I can think of to a comic hero actually trying to deal with real world non-personal problems in real world ways.

Oh, wait I do remember a few comics of Superman writing editorials and actually being an investigative reporter to bring attention to problems like the overpopulation of city orphanages. Which, I guess is somewhat close to what you're talking about.

Nothing about directly stopping dictators though. Well, Captain America once punched out the president, heavily implied that he got him impeached and thrown out of office and was going to run for president, but then stopped because he didn't think it would be fair for him to run since he thought he'd win in such a landslide that it would actually stifle democracy, since he'd unintentionally become a demagogue.

[Lacuna Caster]

Dennis O'Neil's Green Lantern/Green Arrow crossover series was specifically focused on social problems, along with the less prominent Hawkworld. Not sure they arrived at much in the way of permanent solutions, but the theme was there.

[Reddish Mage]

So Superheroes can fight social problems! They are just not very good at actually defeating them.

[Darth Ultron]

What's your opinion on Superman overpowered abilities?

Way too over powered to the point the character is boring and pointless.

And it is not like he is just a powerful person in a powerful universe....he is the super most all super all powerful one in the universe. Bad guys stand no chance, and Superman always wins.

[Dienekes]

Way too over powered to the point the character is boring and pointless.

And it is not like he is just a powerful person in a powerful universe....he is the super most all super all powerful one in the universe. Bad guys stand no chance, and Superman always wins.

That's actually not true. Off the top of my head, Darkseid, Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Doomsday, Starro, Mr. Mxyzptlk, the Joker, Wonder Woman, Plastic Man, Zod, Poison Ivy, Captain Marvel, Cyborg Superman have all beaten Superman in one way or the other.

Of course there's a trick to it, you either have to face him on an equally ridiculous level of physical strength: Darkseid, Brainiac, Doomsday, Starro, Mr. Mxyzptlk, the Joker, Wonder Woman, Plastic Man, Zod, Captain Marvel, Mongul, and Cyborg Superman

Abuse Kryptonite: Lex Luthor, The Joker, Cyborg Superman

Mind control: Lex Luthor, Poison Ivy, Darkseid, Brainiac, Mongul

Or just fight him in such a way that his abilities don't actually matter: Lex Luthor and Joker

There's probably quite a few more.

Anyway, this goes back to my point. Superman isn't too strong if you tell stories that deal with his strength and the scope of him. It's just, a lot of stories have him facing opponents that he should be able to beat in a second but makes it so that he suddenly forgets abilities.

I will say, if I was ever going to re-write the DC Universe I would hit Superman with a rather heavy nerf hammer. Something like DCAU's version where he has to struggle to lift a plane, actually I'd nerf him a bit more than that, slowing him a bit so he doesn't step on Flash's toes.

[Avilan the Grey]

A sidenote:
How come all the other (except superboy?) Kryptonians are so much weaker. I get that it to 99,9% depends on the writer but...

[BWR]

Probably because Superman has to be the toughest guy around. It's his schtick and if all the other Kryptonians were his equal or superior in that respect it would make him less special. Even less than him not being the last Kryptonian anymore.

[Lacuna Caster]

So Superheroes can fight social problems! They are just not very good at actually defeating them.
Yeah, but if we mung the various continuities together, what's their batting average for ending supervillainy?

I mean, obviously, Reed Richards is Useless prevails here, but that's due to disinterest on the writers/publishers' part, not because it's intrinsically difficult for superheroes to, e.g, invent stuff. I think the situation with never fixing social problems is pretty analagous. They probably could eventually pull it off, they're just never allowed to for meta reasons.

[Lacuna Caster]

Well, I can't say much for Superman, but I know in Batman comics (at least before New52) they had a sort of background thread that he is tirelessly going after the root of poverty and crime in Gotham. Investigating corrupt businesses, providing available jobs, specifically targeting former convicts and poor urban areas, as well as other things of that nature.
This cropped up now and then in B:TAS as well. You'd get offhand remarks from Bruce Wayne about wanting to attract jobs by investing in tech companies, and there are episodes where it's specifically shown he turned low-level hoods away from a life of crime by giving them jobs, working with Leslie Thompkins or getting their boss to reform. See "It's Never Too Late" or "I am the Night", among others.

Even the supervillains were kind of an indirect social commentary- if there's one major point that the series made, it was that criminals are human.

[Anteros]

A sidenote:
How come all the other (except superboy?) Kryptonians are so much weaker. I get that it to 99,9% depends on the writer but...

Sometimes it's explained away by him having the longest exposure to a yellow sun. Like, if Kryptonians are all solar powered batteries, the others are half full while he's overcharged.

[Moak]

A sidenote:
How come all the other (except superboy?) Kryptonians are so much weaker. I get that it to 99,9% depends on the writer but...

Well.... that's not always true. Supergirl is (was?) stronger than him. I don't remember if it was the same in the "old ages", but New52 she is canonically stronger than him. Being in orbit absorbing sun radiation for years made her stronger (even not counting the power she wielded as a red lantern).

[Avilan the Grey]

Well.... that's not always true. Supergirl is (was?) stronger than him. I don't remember if it was the same in the "old ages", but New52 she is canonically stronger than him. Being in orbit absorbing sun radiation for years made her stronger (even not counting the power she wielded as a red lantern).

Interesting. Didn't know that.
But then I have basically given up on DC since New52 started.

God I miss Power Girl...

[SaintRidley]

Brianiac and Bizarro were (I believe) names of characters first before they became more commonly known words. However, probably why they were able to become so well known is that they are based off of obvious well known words, brain and bizarre respectively.

Brainiac the word absolutely originates in its current usage with the Superman character, although there does exist a 1957 advertisement that uses it before the first Superman story to introduce Brainiac:


Brainiac. A new and better electric brain construction kit.

Bizarro, interestingly enough, has not managed to be entered into the OED yet.

[Lacuna Caster]

Interestingly, I ran into a mention on this topic while browsing Ron Edwards' blog, in an otherwise tangential entry (https://adeptpress.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/man-of-steel/#more-592) on the subject of Luke Cage and blaxploitation media in the 1970s. Edwards' isn't always right, but every so often he just has a way with words...


Jerry Siegel’s original Superman is almost invisible today, obscured by his radio and then TV adaptation, by his retooling into a patriotic warrior during World War 2, and by a certain skillful blandness characteristic of 1960s DC. It’s hard to remember he was a street super, a tough guy with hardly any powers or science fiction trappings – no eyebeams, no flying, no Fortress of Solitude, no kryptonite. He was quite the scofflaw, kidnapping politicians to teach them a lesson about poverty and fightin’ crooked governors’ goons, admittedly a bit thuggish himself, and standing up for justice as he, Superman, not the establishment, saw it. Those politics were real then, and it was all about now I have some power, and always, always breaking those chains.

[Reddish Mage]

Interestingly, I ran into a mention on this topic while browsing Ron Edwards' blog, in an otherwise tangential entry (https://adeptpress.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/man-of-steel/#more-592) on the subject of Luke Cage and blaxploitation media in the 1970s. Edwards' isn't always right, but every so often he just has a way with words...

You know, that also sounds like original Batman (who would use a gun), original Arrow, James Bonds, original John Steed (I watch classic British TV okay), original etc etc....even first season Arrow.

It seems a lot of superheroes start off edgier and then go mainstream...sort of like pop stars.

[Avilan the Grey]

You know, that also sounds like original Batman (who would use a gun), original Arrow, James Bonds, original John Steed (I watch classic British TV okay), original etc etc....even first season Arrow.

It seems a lot of superheroes start off edgier and then go mainstream...sort of like pop stars.

"You are now facing the SILVER SHROUD!!!"

...Ahem.

If I remember correctly (and I probably don't) the Joker was the first villain to survive Bats, up until then every story arc had ended with Bats killing the big bad. But the Joker proved so popular that he was shown later to have survived the encounter.

[Dienekes]

"You are now facing the SILVER SHROUD!!!"

...Ahem.

If I remember correctly (and I probably don't) the Joker was the first villain to survive Bats, up until then every story arc had ended with Bats killing the big bad. But the Joker proved so popular that he was shown later to have survived the encounter.

Actually, that'd be Doctor Death and then Hugo Strange was a recurring villain before Joker's first appearance.

[GloatingSwine]

You know, that also sounds like original Batman (who would use a gun), original Arrow, James Bonds, original John Steed (I watch classic British TV okay), original etc etc....even first season Arrow.

It seems a lot of superheroes start off edgier and then go mainstream...sort of like pop stars.

Batman didn't so much start out "edgier" as "a more blatant copy of The Shadow"....

[Jayngfet]

So Superheroes can fight social problems! They are just not very good at actually defeating them.

You know I wonder why that's such a hard concept for so many people.

Green Lantern/Green Arrow had this as basically the entire point of the story. It doesn't really matter how good they are at fighting their plans to inspire the populace very rarely actually work. And that's Green Lantern and Green Arrow, the most grounded cosmic tier hero on earth and the batman knockoff who actually has to rough it. Actual Batman and Superman can't be anything more than a very temporary band-aid by comparison.

Superman can't really stop a corrupt executive or a street pusher with some bad stuff on him. He can punch them, yeah, but in a broader scale there's so many he can't devote his time to punching all of them.

[lord_khaine]

One of the reasons for why i like Superman is that his goal is more to inspire us to punch those people ourself.

[Lacuna Caster]

You know I wonder why that's such a hard concept for so many people...

...Superman can't really stop a corrupt executive or a street pusher with some bad stuff on him. He can punch them, yeah, but in a broader scale there's so many he can't devote his time to punching all of them.
Why does he have to punch all of them? Wouldn't punching a couple produce some noticeable knock-on effects in the lives of many individuals? What's so hollow or quixotic about that?

If you want to argue that violence isn't a long term solution or that there are more efficient ways to go about producing social change, sure, you can make a case for that. But I'll say again that Superheroes' inability to fix social problems is entirely due to meta reasons. There's nothing that anyone can do to combat poverty, violence or political repression that superheroes aren't at least as capable of doing, and usually more so. These guys run multinational corporations with the GDP of a fair-sized country, and in some cases they actually rule countries. They have access to fabulously advanced alien technologies which could revolutionise energy production, terraforming and healthcare, not to mention outright magic. They can read minds, shapeshift and exhibit overwhelming charm, which surely helps in political lobbying, espionage and diplomacy. What other tools do you need?


I might be projecting a little here, but the gist I sometimes get from stories like Peace on Earth is that people want a sort of reassuring moral soporific- they want to be told that if the most powerful beings imaginable cannot fix (or even dent) a given social problem, then there's surely no hope for ordinary mortals, and therefore no reason for them personally to concern themselves with hungry brazilians. **** that noise.

[Lacuna Caster]

...So, yeah, what lord_khaine said.

You know, that also sounds like original Batman (who would use a gun), original Arrow, James Bonds, original John Steed (I watch classic British TV okay), original etc etc....even first season Arrow.

It seems a lot of superheroes start off edgier and then go mainstream...sort of like pop stars.
Hell, you can compare the early seasons of B:TAS with season 4- it's possibly a straightforward case of executive meddling once a character/franchise hits a certain threshold of public awareness and success.

And of course, there was the comics code, though that was likely more a tool to drive competitors (like the popular EC horror comics at the time) out of business. (Hell, DC even sued Captain Marvel into submission around the same time, and it's hard to imagine a more child-friendly character.)

[Kalmageddon]

I get that Superman is supposed to be invincible and all that, but I have a question for those that actually read Superman's comics:

Does Superman really explores the "invincible hero unable to change the world" aspect?

And I don't mean "has it ever happened?" because with all the time he's been published, the answer will probably be "Yes", what I'm asking is if this is the real focus of Superman, because otherwise being invincibile serves no purpose to its character other than a cheap way of making him more impressive.

My opinion is that Superman is the way it is because he's been published for far too long and nowdays he's recognized for his OPness more than anything else due to power creep over the years and the complete lack of coherence typical of Marvel and DC comics. Otherwise he could just as easily have reasonable powers and still be an example of justice, an inspiration to us all and all that.

[lord_khaine]

I get that Superman is supposed to be invincible and all that, but I have a question for those that actually read Superman's comics:

Does Superman really explores the "invincible hero unable to change the world" aspect?

It was actually explored quite a bit in Grant Morrisons JLA number 1.
Where a rival group of alien heroes appeared and took a much more active hand in things, but it at the same time turned out that what they had done fell apart as soon as they were gone.

At the end Superman and wonder Woman had a conversation about it, the gist being.

Superman: They said that they could "fix" things, but thats not how it works
WW: And what does that mean for us? are we doing to much or to little? where is the line between helping and meddling?
Superman: I can only say what i belive, humanity need to find their own path, we cant carry them.
WW: then what are we good for, what are we suposed to do?
Superman: Catch them when they stumble.

[Kalmageddon]

It was actually explored quite a bit in Grant Morrisons JLA number 1.
Where a rival group of alien heroes appeared and took a much more active hand in things, but it at the same time turned out that what they had done fell apart as soon as they were gone.

At the end Superman and wonder Woman had a conversation about it, the gist being.

Superman: They said that they could "fix" things, but thats not how it works
WW: And what does that mean for us? are we doing to much or to little? where is the line between helping and meddling?
Superman: I can only say what i belive, humanity need to find their own path, we cant carry them.
WW: then what are we good for, what are we suposed to do?
Superman: Catch them when they stumble.

Aaand that's exactly why I speficied if this is the "real focus" of Superman's comics.
1 issue is nothing in almost 80 years of publishing. What I'm saying is that if Superman's invincibilty and general OP'ness is essential to the story and the character, exploring the various facets of said powers should be the norm, not the exception. And yet most of Superman's stories revolve around him doing some uber-feats to save the universe or whatever, not really exploring anything deep.
One Punch Man is a good example on how you actually explore a concept like that. From a comical point of view, sure, but at least it's clever enough to try.

We accept Superman the way it is out of Grandfather Clause and because of all the value and symbolism that's been piled on top of him by the collective, not because he's such an amazing example on how to do an "invincible hero" right.

[lord_khaine]

Aaand that's exactly why I speficied if this is the "real focus" of Superman's comics.
1 issue is nothing in almost 80 years of publishing. What I'm saying is that if Superman's invincibilty and general OP'ness is essential to the story and the character, exploring the various facets of said powers should be the norm, not the exception. And yet most of Superman's stories revolve around him doing some uber-feats to save the universe or whatever, not really exploring anything deep.
One Punch Man is a good example on how you actually explore a concept like that. From a comical point of view, sure, but at least it's clever enough to try.


You can hardly find a "real focus" in 80 years of publishing, and since i have not read every single issue then its kinda hard to take any example but the one standing out the most from my own personal collection.

[LibraryOgre]

For reference, The Chronological Superman (http://thechronologicalsuperman.tumblr.com/) is taking on the superhuman task of exploring his entire bibliography.

I think there have been various attempts to examine what Superman means... Kingdom Come was one of them, and Red Son was another. But it's always going to come down to the author. I can write stories about Superman punching bank robbers all day, or I can explore the idea of "Superman gets fabulously wealthy and uses his money to effect change"... but that can easily be outdone by the next author, who wants to focus on Superman fighting aliens in space.

Really, I think it was said well above... Superman's problem isn't that he's too powerful. It's that he's limited in how his power applies. Professor Xavier is potentially much more powerful than Superman, simply because he could enforce his will (either worldwide or with specific, influential, individuals). Superman serves as an example, who can solve some problems because of his great power, but has to otherwise lead people to change by example. As Jor-El said,


Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and your power are needed. But always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son.

[Talakeal]

For reference, The Chronological Superman (http://thechronologicalsuperman.tumblr.com/) is taking on the superhuman task of exploring his entire bibliography.

I think there have been various attempts to examine what Superman means... Kingdom Come was one of them, and Red Son was another. But it's always going to come down to the author. I can write stories about Superman punching bank robbers all day, or I can explore the idea of "Superman gets fabulously wealthy and uses his money to effect change"... but that can easily be outdone by the next author, who wants to focus on Superman fighting aliens in space.

Really, I think it was said well above... Superman's problem isn't that he's too powerful. It's that he's limited in how his power applies. Professor Xavier is potentially much more powerful than Superman, simply because he could enforce his will (either worldwide or with specific, influential, individuals). Superman serves as an example, who can solve some problems because of his great power, but has to otherwise lead people to change by example. As Jor-El said,

Geeze, and people say the religious allegories in the Snyder version are too blatant.

[Legato Endless]

Hell, you can compare the early seasons of B:TAS with season 4- it's possibly a straightforward case of executive meddling once a character/franchise hits a certain threshold of public awareness and success.

Huh. Elaborate?

[Reddish Mage]

For reference, The Chronological Superman (http://thechronologicalsuperman.tumblr.com/) is taking on the superhuman task of exploring his entire bibliography.

I think there have been various attempts to examine what Superman means... Kingdom Come was one of them, and Red Son was another. But it's always going to come down to the author. I can write stories about Superman punching bank robbers all day, or I can explore the idea of "Superman gets fabulously wealthy and uses his money to effect change"... but that can easily be outdone by the next author, who wants to focus on Superman fighting aliens in space.

Really, I think it was said well above... Superman's problem isn't that he's too powerful. It's that he's limited in how his power applies. Professor Xavier is potentially much more powerful than Superman, simply because he could enforce his will (either worldwide or with specific, influential, individuals). Superman serves as an example, who can solve some problems because of his great power, but has to otherwise lead people to change by example. As Jor-El said,

Superman isn't as limited as you are saying though. He has all the knowledge Jor-El acquired in the Universe at his fingertips, that potentially includes mind controlling everyone on Earth if Superman desired...

Often times Superman's limitations are self-imposed, are inconsistencies, or the result lack of imagination (either in comic or out of comic). Superman also tends to rely on his own powers and not on Kryptonian technology, his robots, his dog, or his friends, but there are plenty of times when he makes good use of those assets.

[Jayngfet]

I get that Superman is supposed to be invincible and all that, but I have a question for those that actually read Superman's comics:

Does Superman really explores the "invincible hero unable to change the world" aspect?

And I don't mean "has it ever happened?" because with all the time he's been published, the answer will probably be "Yes", what I'm asking is if this is the real focus of Superman, because otherwise being invincibile serves no purpose to its character other than a cheap way of making him more impressive.

My opinion is that Superman is the way it is because he's been published for far too long and nowdays he's recognized for his OPness more than anything else due to power creep over the years and the complete lack of coherence typical of Marvel and DC comics. Otherwise he could just as easily have reasonable powers and still be an example of justice, an inspiration to us all and all that.

In a real sense, that's exactly what Superman is meant to be.

We forget, almost a century later, what Superman originally stood for an did. He was conceived and brought to life as the kind of guy who attacks rogue businessmen and beats up abusive husbands. Once you strip away the supervillains and aliens and crazy stuff built up around him, that's what Superman is meant to be: The guy who sticks up for the little guy and doesn't have to be afraid of someone bigger or with more resources. And yeah, as far as symbols to rally around, it's not a bad one. Even in universe it works, otherwise the whole Legion of Superheroes thing wouldn't exist. But by the same measure, it can only work so well.

The reason I used Green Lantern and Green Arrow specifically is because there's a reason even they can't get rid of those problems, and that's because they have power. Not in the sense of being super OP and able to blow away any bad guys, but because they just plain can not wrap their heads around the kind of issues that cause crime and horrible things to happen.

I mean ultimately, an older playboy billionaire, no matter what his politics, can't really understand what's going through the mind of a teenaged heroin addict with no family. They won't exactly understand what it's like to have a slumlord bulldoze their home, so they rarely think to check or understand. They can't even really handle things like a dirty businessman quietly abusing an entire town off in the shadows if they don't actually hear about him from whatever city they're in.

A Super Hero can stop crime. They can stop the crime they see and understand right in front of them, when they're actually able to. In Supermans case he can stop a lot. Even the stuff going on behind closed doors he can catch with his super senses. But he can't really change why people do what they do, and fast as he is, he can't be in multiple places at once(he probably can, but you know what I mean).

[Drascin]

Aaand that's exactly why I speficied if this is the "real focus" of Superman's comics.
1 issue is nothing in almost 80 years of publishing. What I'm saying is that if Superman's invincibilty and general OP'ness is essential to the story and the character, exploring the various facets of said powers should be the norm, not the exception. And yet most of Superman's stories revolve around him doing some uber-feats to save the universe or whatever, not really exploring anything deep.
One Punch Man is a good example on how you actually explore a concept like that. From a comical point of view, sure, but at least it's clever enough to try.

When characters are this old, they have no focus. Batman is supposed to be about gritty detectiving, right? Except an overhwelming most of Batman's time is not actually spent detecting because writing detective stories is hard when you can have Batman just magically be prepared or figure out the bad guy's plan out of nowhere and then have a punch fight.

Basically any character that passes through more than a few writers will lose all focus, with ocassional moments of "spark" that actually capture the essence of the character mired down in a bunch of easy wrting written purely to fill pages and get paid. It's the nature of the beast.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yeah, it's not really sane to ask "what's Superman's focus?" outside the context of a specific story or a specific run.

It would be like asking "what's Leonardo Dicaprio's focus?" Superman's like an actor, he's played many different roles in many different stories.

On another note, I'm with Lacuna Caster here: much of the stupid in superhero comics is only due to out-of-universe reasons, with in-universe reasons rarely standing up to scrutiny. In particular, the stupidest things in DC and Marvel are caused by the conceits of shared universe and shared continuity. That's why many of the often-named superhero classics are "non-canon" or otherwise self-contained stories: such formats can do away with much of the stupid and explore concepts better.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah, it's not really sane to ask "what's Superman's focus?" outside the context of a specific story or a specific run.

It would be like asking "what's Leonardo Dicaprio's focus?" Superman's like an actor, he's played many different roles in many different stories.

On another note, I'm with Lacuna Caster here: much of the stupid in superhero comics is only due to out-of-universe reasons, with in-universe reasons rarely standing up to scrutiny. In particular, the stupidest things in DC and Marvel are caused by the conceits of shared universe and shared continuity. That's why many of the often-named superhero classics are "non-canon" or otherwise self-contained stories: such formats can do away with much of the stupid and explore concepts better.
At the risk of flogging a live horse, the adept press blog has another interesting entry (https://adeptpress.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/verse-this) on the subject. The overall gist being that long-range consequences and setting development are all important to storytelling, but handing a particular centralised commercial agency final veto over it's form tends to have cons that vastly outweigh the pros. You get the form of continuity without the substance.