Superman Is Too Overpowered

[Bartmanhomer]

As much as I like Superman. I feel like Superman is too overpowered. I mean most Superman villains are just too weak for him to fight. The only real villain who can actually beat and kill Superman is Doomsday. All the other villains that Superman's faces are total garbage. Like seriously DC comics, throw in a powerful villain just like Doomsday and make the fight more interesting and serious. What do you think about this topic?

[Peelee]

I think this topic is not very good; you are only looking at superficial aspects of Superman and ignoring the character's depth. There is more to a hero than punching a villain, and what typically makes Superman interesting is internal conflict, not raw strength or powers.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think this topic is not very good; you are only looking at superficial aspects of Superman and ignoring the character's depth. There is more to a hero than punching a villain, and what typically makes Superman interesting is internal conflict, not raw strength or powers.

Such as....? :confused:

[Peelee]

Such as....? :confused:

....such as internal conflict. There's a reason Superman's greatest enemy is Lex Luthor, a normal human. Most people don't read comics to see who can punch who better.

[Bartmanhomer]

....such as internal conflict. There's a reason Superman's greatest enemy is Lex Luthor, a normal human. Most people don't read comics to see who can punch who better.

Have Lex Luthor ever killed Superman: no. So how the heck is Lex Luthor is Superman's greatest enemy? :mad:

[Peelee]

Have Lex Luthor ever killed Superman: no. So how the heck is Lex Luthor is Superman's greatest enemy? :mad:

What does that have to do with anything? Joker has never killed Batman. Kingpin has never killed Daredevil. Innumerable archenemies have never killed their respective heroes.

Lex Luthor is universally accepted as Superman's archenemy. His greatest villain. DC presents him as such. The people who write Superman stories present him as such. You may disagree, but that doesn't make you correct.

[Bartmanhomer]

What does that have to do with anything? Joker has never killed Batman. Kingpin has never killed Daredevil. Innumerable archenemies have never killed their respective heroes.

Lex Luthor is universally accepted as Superman' an archenemy. His greatest villain. DC presents him as such. The people who write Superman stories present him as such. You may disagree, but that doesn't make you correct.

Then they're not true archenemies if have this no-kill rule. I've read comics where villains kill heroes and vice versa. :annoyed:

[Peelee]

Then they're not true archenemies if have this no-kill rule.

So this is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Even if it weren't, that is not a requirement I've ever heard, and not one that exists to my knowledge. Again, just because you don't like it does not mean you are correct.

[Bartmanhomer]

So this is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Even if it weren't, that is not a requirement I've ever heard and not one that exists to my knowledge. Again, just because you don't like it does not mean you are correct.

Agree to disagree. If writers want to make a good storyline then people don't have a no-kill rule and be done with it. As I mentioned before Doomsday is the only real villain who can kill Superman. Lex Luthor is a puny ant compared to Doomsday. :annoyed:

[Psyren]

I mean most Superman villains are just too weak for him to fight. The only real villain who can actually beat and kill Superman is Doomsday. All the other villains that Superman's faces are total garbage.

Uh... Darkseid? Zod? Metallo? Eradicator? Supes has plenty of "hits really hard" villains besides Doomsday, if that's what you're looking for.

[Peelee]

Agree to disagree. If writers want to make a good storyline then people don't have a no-kill rule and be done with it. As I mentioned before Doomsday is the only real villain who can kill Superman. Lex Luthor is a puny ant compared to Doomsday. :annoyed:

No, we do not "agree to disagree." Lex Luthor is canonically Superman's archenemy. You do t like it. I'm not asking you to like it. I'm asking you to accept it.

Google search for "Superman's archenemy" (https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-sprint-us-revc&source=android-browser&sxsrf=ALeKk02QoMFRZTaTLR5Y_N-KhDNjkNMxow%3A1595401911184&ei=t-YXX87mCu2FggfJ96m4AQ&q=superman+archenemy&oq=Superma&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYADIECCMQJzI FCAAQkQIyBQgAEJECMgQIABBDMgoIABCxAxAUEIcCMgQIABBDM ggILhCxAxCDATIHCC4QsQMQQzoHCCMQ6gIQJzoECC4QQzoFCAA QsQM6BAguECc6BwguEBQQhwJQqkZYrk9g-1RoAnAAeACAAYcBiAH9BZIBAzEuNpgBAKABAbABD8ABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp).

Lex Luthor Wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor).

Lex Luthor's DC page (https://www.dccomics.com/characters/lex-luthor).

You can disagree all you want. You will still be wrong. Lex Luthor is Superman's greatest enemy.

[Hopeless]

Then they're not true archenemies if have this no-kill rule. I've read comics where villains kill heroes and vice versa. :annoyed:

Have you ever watched Smallville?

That pretty much exemplifies everything you're getting wrong about this.

[Fyraltari]

The entire point of the Superman character is that he could solve all his problems with brute force but chooses not to. He always chooses to use the minimal amount of force needed. He always look for the solution with the less violence and pain involved. The challenges Superman have to face aren’t physical, they are moral.

Lex Luthor is the greatest example of that, which is why he is often considered Superman’s archenemy ahead of Darkseid or General Zod who can take Superman on on a physical level. Who is Luthor? Just a man. A rich, powerful and smart man but a man none-the-less. Superman could kill him at any time, but that would be murder, so he doesn’t. But Luthor challenges Superman on another level, like the time he became President of Superman’s country of adoption. That’s not a problem Superman can just punch away. He has to deal with this.

[Mystic Muse]

Have Lex Luthor ever killed Superman: no. So how the heck is Lex Luthor is Superman's greatest enemy? :mad:

How are you defining ever? Because he's technically done it once. Technically.

Also, having killed somebody is kind of a poor metric for greatest enemy in a setting where Death varies between "Mild vacation" to "Opportunity to rule the galaxy."

Lastly, Superman is not too overpowered. He may be too overpowered for certain stories that certain people want to tell, but that is a different issue entirely. You rarely ever put Superman in a story that would be a fit for Batman (Except that one time in the animated series, and it was glorious).

Superman isn't supposed to be a superhero about punching things. My favorite comic about the essence of who Superman is supposed to be, is of him stopping a girl just before she's about to jump off a building, telling her that her therapist really did get stuck in traffic, and that she's so much stronger than she thinks she is.

Superman is supposed to represent hope. He's supposed to be the paragon that humanity aspires to. Having him win or lose a fist fight is generally so orthogonal to the point of the character and the types of stories he's supposed to be in, I'm not sure why you decided to fixate on it.

Besides, in the grand scheme of things he's really...not that overpowered. Sandman by Neil Gaiman has multiple characters that are stronger, and that technically takes place in the DC multiverse.

[Saintheart]

Uh... Darkseid? Zod? Metallo? Eradicator? Supes has plenty of "hits really hard" villains besides Doomsday, if that's what you're looking for.


No, we do not "agree to disagree." Lex Luthor is canonically Superman's archenemy. You do t like it. I'm not asking you to like it. I'm asking you to accept it.

Google search for "Superman's archenemy" (https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-sprint-us-revc&source=android-browser&sxsrf=ALeKk02QoMFRZTaTLR5Y_N-KhDNjkNMxow%3A1595401911184&ei=t-YXX87mCu2FggfJ96m4AQ&q=superman+archenemy&oq=Superma&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYADIECCMQJzI FCAAQkQIyBQgAEJECMgQIABBDMgoIABCxAxAUEIcCMgQIABBDM ggILhCxAxCDATIHCC4QsQMQQzoHCCMQ6gIQJzoECC4QQzoFCAA QsQM6BAguECc6BwguEBQQhwJQqkZYrk9g-1RoAnAAeACAAYcBiAH9BZIBAzEuNpgBAKABAbABD8ABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp).

Lex Luthor Wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor).

Lex Luthor's DC page (https://www.dccomics.com/characters/lex-luthor).

You can disagree all you want. You will still be wrong. Lex Luthor is Superman's greatest enemy.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EnviousYoungBlacklab-size_restricted.gif

[Lethologica]

This excellent video about the Ip Man martial arts movie series is also coincidentally an excellent video about some of the different ways to challenge Superman.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP2KlkBgol4

You can write a Doomsday for Superman once in a while, but if you want to tell a story where the hero is physically matched or overmatched, why are you writing a Superman story when there's a billion other characters who fit that story more easily? Superman is more interesting when the conflict isn't one he can solve by being the strongest.

[paddyfool]

It's worth noting that there are canonically significantly more powerful characters than Superman or Doomsday within Superman's roster of antagonists, such as Mr Mxyzptlk and the Anti-Monitor. (Generally he has to outwit the former and team up vs the latter).

But, as has been said, the usual challenges he faces are moral, rather than directly physical.

[HandofShadows]

I think this topic is not very good; you are only looking at superficial aspects of Superman and ignoring the character's depth. There is more to a hero than punching a villain, and what typically makes Superman interesting is internal conflict, not raw strength or powers.

To me this is exemplified by a story called "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?" (Action Comics #775 and basis for the movie "Superman vs. The Elite" from 2012.) I'm not a fan of Superman by any means and this story is one of the best damn stories I have read.

[TeChameleon]

I've said it before, I'll say it again; Doomsday is a boring grey spike monster that looks like the nineties coughed up a hairball. He was just a plot device; the real villains of the Death and Return of Superman storyline were the Cyborg Superman and Mongul. Honestly, Superman could have spontaneously dropped dead from a brain aneurism and the story would have been largely unchanged (aside from the admittedly rather good shot of the torn cape on a pole). Best case scenario is locking Doomsday and Superboy Prime in a small box and letting them murder one another until the end of time.

How powerful a hero is or isn't is almost never what drives a truly good storyline; heck, Spider-Man can crush most of his rogue's gallery like insects (with a few obvious exceptions), but you don't often see people complaining about him being overpowered... Doc Ock, Vulture, Kingpin, Chameleon, Mysterio, most of the various Goblins, Jackal, Boomerang, the Beetle, even Electro are all so little physical match for Spidey that they might as well just lie down and save time once he gets into punching range. And most of the villains who are a physical match for Spider-Man are dumber than a sack of hammers, so...

Anyways, back to Superman; most people don't read his comics just for muscly people in spandex beating on each other. He's still got a respectable number of foes that can at least come close to matching him; a few have already been named. And more than a few are simply playing by a different set of rules, and the story revolves around how Superman deals with that.

... and if you're reading Superman comics for people murdering one another, could I maybe suggest that you're not reading the right comic series for that?

[Xyril]

Agree to disagree. If writers want to make a good storyline then people don't have a no-kill rule and be done with it.

You're going to have to justify why then. As in articulate, with specificity, reasons why a no-kill rule makes it impossible to have a good story line.

People are probably going to inundate you with counterexamples, but I'm curious to hear your reasoning first. What characteristics do you feel define a "good storyline," and how is a no-kill rule intrinsically incongruent to those characteristics? What are examples of comics, or even works in other genres, that you would hold out as good storylines?

Normally in these debates, I can usually see how everyone arrives at their position, even if I'm 100% convinced that some of them are wrong. However, in this case I kind of suspect that the way you look at fiction might be drastically different than how most people do. Normally, we make a lot of implicit assumptions that in certain fundamental aspects of how we view fiction, we're all the same--and normally, that's a reasonable assumption to make. In this case, however, I'm not so sure.

There's a lot of great fiction where the central drama is whether our hero is strong enough to survive/kill a powerful enemy. There's also a ton of terrible fiction in that category, especially in the superhero genre, because it's difficult to make the question of whether one arbitrary power set is stronger than another one in a setting with loose continuity. In a vacuum, there's no real dramatic tension in presenting your hero and your villain, and waiting to tell your audience which one you arbitrarily gave over 9000 power. Add a larger body of work with stricter continuity, and things get more interesting. If you have hundreds of Spider-man comics and hundreds of Wolverine/X-men comics, and they all imply a ton of information about the type and limits of their power, and then you have them fight, then that whole body of work can make that conflict more interesting because people are adding their own knowledge and inferences to try to guess where the outcome will go. Or alternatively, you take the strongest man in the world, and he turns out to be the second strongest man in the world, after a new, powerful enemy. Suddenly, the protagonist who spends his stories brute-forcing his way to victory has to adapt. Maybe he has to be clever for the first time ever. This is potentially great drama--not only is it an impetus for character development, it can also be framed in such a way that the search for a "brains over brawn" solution is very relatable to the audience.

To me, Superman's best stories fit all sorts of molds. The first time he faces superhuman opponents and the first time he faces other Kryptonians, for example, are interesting because he's forced to adapt. Facing Doomsday, or Darkseid, or any other villain with a clear advantage in some respect can be interesting for the same reason. Lex Luthor has played many of these roles--in some continuities, he's the first to make a really strong effort to weaponize Kryptonite, so he fits the role of "raw power to be adapted to and overcome" mold, but what really makes him the archenemy is what others have mentioned: He plays by a different set of rules. Lex could plausibly kill Superman, but that's not what defines him. What makes him dangerous--and interesting is that he's the guy who can potentially force Superman to stop being Superman. There's an image that the public has of Superman, and an image he has of himself, that he embodies certain beliefs. Lex Luthor is the guy who can threaten that image in different and creative ways. If the only way to save lives is to murder an enemy or otherwise compromise Superman's values, can he do it without destroying a part of himself?

Or to use the President Luthor example, what happens when Superman's values come into conflict with one another? Superman believes in rule of law, and that he himself isn't above the law, but he also has a that vigilante impulse to help people and more abstractly to do good. Since the public and the government generally like and trust (or at least accept) him, these values are generally very compatible. However, when somebody he knows wants to cause harm has subverted the law, this is no longer the case. What's the higher imperative, thwart evil or respect our institutions? And even if Superman decides that he can keep a clear conscience but still oppose Luthor by going outside the law, what would the greater consequences be? Even if people realize that Luthor was secretly evil this whole time, they're also confronted by the fact that Superman, under the right circumstances, would be willing to go outside the law to depose a democratically elected President. How would that affect his relationship with the public in the future? If the government suddenly distrusts Superman and stop letting him have free reign, would that lead to more conflicts where Superman knows he can do some good but only by openly defying the government? Would that escalate?

[dancrilis]

The problem with Superman is that he is very power inconsistent (this is a common problem for superheros - but with Superman I think it stands out more).
For instance sometimes he can hear/see things happening in realtime on earth while he at the sun, other times he can't find people who have ran around a corner while he was distracted with something.
On a physical level sometimes it can be seen as if he is being punched into concrete it is meant to hurt him othertimes concrete might as well be air and he needs to be careful with holding back.

In relation to Doomsday - he isn't a villian in the traditional sense he the equivalent of a big angry dog (or maybe a small bear), the interesting thing is not the physical challenge he poses it is how one deals with the creature without risking innocent lives (or exposing them to risk).

Luthor could (subject to story) kill Superman anytime he wanted in virtually anyway he wanted - but he (subject to story) doesn't really want to, firstly he likes the challenge, secondly he wants people to know he is the hero when/if he does it and finally he knows that Superman is useful for knocking out creatures that might harm the planet - Superman also could kill Luthor anytime he wants but he knows if he went down that path he wouldn't be the man his father raised.

You cannot have an arch-enemy in comic books which run for decades who can and will kill the hero because eventually one of them has to die and so the rivally ends, with the hero winning most likely (probably after the villian kills themselves in a freak accident) and the villian being forgotten by future comic readers - and some villian who doesn't seek to kill the hero (maybe they seek to break or beat them) raising to be the ultimate enemy for the hero.

[Julian84]

I have to agree with SaintHeart, this doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

[Eldan]

It's why I don't watch professional sports. Hardly anyone takes the time to shoot their opponents. Or chess. Or poker.

[Fyraltari]

It's why I don't watch professional sports. Hardly anyone takes the time to shoot their opponents. Or chess. Or poker.

I agree! Chess-boxing is a step in the right direction but doesn’t go far enough. We should have chess-pistol dueling.

[Eldan]

And every round the player can decide whether to shoot their opponent or make a chess move. That should make it exciting! (Talk about advantage for white :P)

[Aotrs Commander]

The character is, in essense, superMAN, not SUPERman.

[137beth]

I'm surprised no one has brought up The Giant's comments on Superman yet:


Superman by himself is not a problem. Superman as part of the Justice League is not a problem. Superman as a member of an ensemble FBI team IS a problem, because sometimes Agent Fred is supposed to be the one to catch the serial killer. You end up resorting to a LOT of kryptonite.


But see, this isn't really the point. If the only thing a writer can do with Superman is introduce a threat even more powerful, they've already failed. The crux of Superman is that he is a being of immense power whose limitations are entirely internal. He is bound not by the laws of physics, but by the laws of man. By his own moral compass.

As far back as Plato and his story of the Ring of Gyges, philosophers have debated whether or not a man who was free from the physical constraints of society could be virtuous. If a man was invisible, it was argued, clearly he would run around doing whatever thing he could get away with because society could not stop him, and therefore justice was a social construct only. Socrates rejects that point, saying that justice exists whether or not society is able to enforce it, and the man who abuses the Ring would be miserable with his power, while the man who resists its temptations would be happy in his abstinence.

That's Superman.

That's it. That's what matters about the character. That's why his archenemy isn't the guy who's stronger than him, it's the guy who has no compunctions about violating society's rules in plain sight. And that's why the true limitation on Superman is that he can't do the same thing.

Once you reduce Superman to issues of his exact power level, you've lost sight of what the point of the character really is.


I saw this thread and was about to launch into a discussion of what, exactly, makes Superman so special when I remembered that I already wrote about this in another thread last year:



Superman's functionally infinite strength occupies the same stratum as Batman's functionally infinite wealth: they're handwaved attributes that the character is just assumed to be maximally competent at. And if you're thinking, "But Rich, Batman can't just buy his way out of his problems," I'd say yes, exactly. Batman can't write a check to the Joker and Superman can't punch Luthor into reforming. Nor can he heat vision himself into getting his newspaper column done on time, or make Lois fall in love with Clark using super-speed. The real conflicts of a good Superman story are ones where all his power are largely immaterial—or at least, only useful up to a point. A Superman story that he solves with nothing but his fists is like a Batman story where he buys the villain off: it can work once or twice as a lark, but it's not really what the character is supposed to be about.

The main problem with Superman stories is that a lot of the people hired to write them don't understand any of this. Or, they understand it, but find the idea of a character with such ideals to be naive or unrealistic, and thus do what they can to drag Superman down into the mud of moral ambiguity. But the point of Superman is not to be realistic, it's to be aspirational. Superman's powers are out of reach for us in the real world, but Superman's true strength—his moral fortitude—is within each of us.

The other major component of what makes Superman special is that he serves as the ultimate immigrant: a character who comes to the United States and assimilates our views and cultures while giving back his own unique contributions. Notedly, he is a symbol of the specifically American experience, as originally written by the children of Jewish immigrants in the pre-WW2 era. He represents the triumph of Nurture over Nature, the proof that it's not where you were born that matters but how you were raised, which obviously had great appeal in a country determined to cast aside ideas about class and aristocracy. Which is why there's been so many stories about what would have happened if he landed somewhere else.

All of what I've written, however, has been diluted over time. The existence of hundreds of other superheroes has watered down the uniqueness of Superman's decision to use his powers to help others, robbing him of what was once his defining characteristic. Including him in the Justice League, while fun, severely curtails the author's ability to give him problems he can't solve with his powers (like the aforementioned newspaper deadline) because the story needs to be a big spectacle that deserves 7 heroes teaming up. The zeitgeist of the time has changed, so that the straightforward ideals he once embodied are seen as stale and old-fashioned. And finally, his status as a corporate trademark instead of a character means that someone has to keep writing stories about him all of the time, even if they have nothing new to say about the character. I imagine any character that had been compulsively published weekly for 81 years would have a lot of stories available that don't really "get" the essence of the character.

Bottom line: Superman is a complex character who is very, very hard to write well in the modern context of what people expect from comics, which is an endless train of beat-'em-ups.

Oh, and now for what brought me here: Please avoid insulting or disparaging other people just because you disagree with them. That goes for everyone on this thread. Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic.

[JNAProductions]

Superman is too overpowered for most cliche hero stories. There would not be a conflict in any meaningful sense, because he's more than strong enough, fast enough, and smart enough to quickly and easily handle the threat before anything bad happens.

Superman is not too overpowered for Superman stories. Done right, Superman stories are enjoyable to read and inspire others to be better in their daily life.

A lot of this has already been said, so I won't tread old ground, but I'll add my voice to the chorus of "Superman stories, done right, are great, regardless of his immense personal power."

[dps]

Agree to disagree. If writers want to make a good storyline then people don't have a no-kill rule and be done with it.

So, then, in your view Blade Runner is a bad story because Decker doesn't kill Roy Batty or vice-versa.

[AvatarVecna]

Lol it's like some of you have never seen a Bartmanhomer thread before.

[Saintheart]

Lol it's like some of you have never seen a Bartmanhomer thread before.

My strongest thrill of recognition was when I saw Magnus Carlssen playing chess against a pigeon once, oh never mind.

[Cheesegear]

If Superman Clark Kent disagrees with Lex Luthor so much, why doesn't Clark just punch Lex into the stratosphere? That should be the story they write. Just punching.
...You don't understand Clark Kent, do you?

There's this farmer, right? His name's Johnathan Kent, and his wife, Martha-

I DON'T CARE. SUPERMAN SHOULD BE ONE PUNCH MAN.

[Bartmanhomer]

So, then, in your view Blade Runner is a bad story because Decker doesn't kill Roy Batty or vice-versa.What does Blade Runner has to do with anything? I'm taking about Superman.


You're going to have to justify why then. As in articulate, with specificity, reasons why a no-kill rule makes it impossible to have a good story line.

People are probably going to inundate you with counterexamples, but I'm curious to hear your reasoning first. What characteristics do you feel define a "good storyline," and how is a no-kill rule intrinsically incongruent to those characteristics? What are examples of comics, or even works in other genres, that you would hold out as good storylines?

Normally in these debates, I can usually see how everyone arrives at their position, even if I'm 100% convinced that some of them are wrong. However, in this case I kind of suspect that the way you look at fiction might be drastically different than how most people do. Normally, we make a lot of implicit assumptions that in certain fundamental aspects of how we view fiction, we're all the same--and normally, that's a reasonable assumption to make. In this case, however, I'm not so sure.

There's a lot of great fiction where the central drama is whether our hero is strong enough to survive/kill a powerful enemy. There's also a ton of terrible fiction in that category, especially in the superhero genre, because it's difficult to make the question of whether one arbitrary power set is stronger than another one in a setting with loose continuity. In a vacuum, there's no real dramatic tension in presenting your hero and your villain, and waiting to tell your audience which one you arbitrarily gave over 9000 power. Add a larger body of work with stricter continuity, and things get more interesting. If you have hundreds of Spider-man comics and hundreds of Wolverine/X-men comics, and they all imply a ton of information about the type and limits of their power, and then you have them fight, then that whole body of work can make that conflict more interesting because people are adding their own knowledge and inferences to try to guess where the outcome will go. Or alternatively, you take the strongest man in the world, and he turns out to be the second strongest man in the world, after a new, powerful enemy. Suddenly, the protagonist who spends his stories brute-forcing his way to victory has to adapt. Maybe he has to be clever for the first time ever. This is potentially great drama--not only is it an impetus for character development, it can also be framed in such a way that the search for a "brains over brawn" solution is very relatable to the audience.

To me, Superman's best stories fit all sorts of molds. The first time he faces superhuman opponents and the first time he faces other Kryptonians, for example, are interesting because he's forced to adapt. Facing Doomsday, or Darkseid, or any other villain with a clear advantage in some respect can be interesting for the same reason. Lex Luthor has played many of these roles--in some continuities, he's the first to make a really strong effort to weaponize Kryptonite, so he fits the role of "raw power to be adapted to and overcome" mold, but what really makes him the archenemy is what others have mentioned: He plays by a different set of rules. Lex could plausibly kill Superman, but that's not what defines him. What makes him dangerous--and interesting is that he's the guy who can potentially force Superman to stop being Superman. There's an image that the public has of Superman, and an image he has of himself, that he embodies certain beliefs. Lex Luthor is the guy who can threaten that image in different and creative ways. If the only way to save lives is to murder an enemy or otherwise compromise Superman's values, can he do it without destroying a part of himself?

Or to use the President Luthor example, what happens when Superman's values come into conflict with one another? Superman believes in rule of law, and that he himself isn't above the law, but he also has a that vigilante impulse to help people and more abstractly to do good. Since the public and the government generally like and trust (or at least accept) him, these values are generally very compatible. However, when somebody he knows wants to cause harm has subverted the law, this is no longer the case. What's the higher imperative, thwart evil or respect our institutions? And even if Superman decides that he can keep a clear conscience but still oppose Luthor by going outside the law, what would the greater consequences be? Even if people realize that Luthor was secretly evil this whole time, they're also confronted by the fact that Superman, under the right circumstances, would be willing to go outside the law to depose a democratically elected President. How would that affect his relationship with the public in the future? If the government suddenly distrusts Superman and stop letting him have free reign, would that lead to more conflicts where Superman knows he can do some good but only by openly defying the government? Would that escalate?I just did.


How are you defining ever? Because he's technically done it once. Technically.

Also, having killed somebody is kind of a poor metric for greatest enemy in a setting where Death varies between "Mild vacation" to "Opportunity to rule the galaxy."

Lastly, Superman is not too overpowered. He may be too overpowered for certain stories that certain people want to tell, but that is a different issue entirely. You rarely ever put Superman in a story that would be a fit for Batman (Except that one time in the animated series, and it was glorious).

Superman isn't supposed to be a superhero about punching things. My favorite comic about the essence of who Superman is supposed to be, is of him stopping a girl just before she's about to jump off a building, telling her that her therapist really did get stuck in traffic, and that she's so much stronger than she thinks she is.

Superman is supposed to represent hope. He's supposed to be the paragon that humanity aspires to. Having him win or lose a fist fight is generally so orthogonal to the point of the character and the types of stories he's supposed to be in, I'm not sure why you decided to fixate on it.

Besides, in the grand scheme of things he's really...not that overpowered. Sandman by Neil Gaiman has multiple characters that are stronger, and that technically takes place in the DC multiverse.There a lot of things where he was overpowered even he overcome his weakness to Kryptonite, magic and the red sun. :annoyed:


Have you ever watched Smallville?

That pretty much exemplifies everything you're getting wrong about this.I watch Smallville.


No, we do not "agree to disagree." Lex Luthor is canonically Superman's archenemy. You do t like it. I'm not asking you to like it. I'm asking you to accept it.

Google search for "Superman's archenemy" (https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-sprint-us-revc&source=android-browser&sxsrf=ALeKk02QoMFRZTaTLR5Y_N-KhDNjkNMxow%3A1595401911184&ei=t-YXX87mCu2FggfJ96m4AQ&q=superman+archenemy&oq=Superma&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYADIECCMQJzI FCAAQkQIyBQgAEJECMgQIABBDMgoIABCxAxAUEIcCMgQIABBDM ggILhCxAxCDATIHCC4QsQMQQzoHCCMQ6gIQJzoECC4QQzoFCAA QsQM6BAguECc6BwguEBQQhwJQqkZYrk9g-1RoAnAAeACAAYcBiAH9BZIBAzEuNpgBAKABAbABD8ABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp).

Lex Luthor Wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor).

Lex Luthor's DC page (https://www.dccomics.com/characters/lex-luthor).

You can disagree all you want. You will still be wrong. Lex Luthor is Superman's greatest enemy.
Iconic yes but not a huge threat compared to Doomsday.

[GloatingSwine]

To me this is exemplified by a story called "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?" (Action Comics #775 and basis for the movie "Superman vs. The Elite" from 2012.) I'm not a fan of Superman by any means and this story is one of the best damn stories I have read.

Ironically I don't think that's one of the better examples, because he doesn't win by being a better man, he wins because he's just stronger than the Elite and is able to impose his will on them. The comic tries to argue against "might makes right" as a path for superheroes to take, but that's exactly how the conflict gets resolved.

The best Superman stories are ones where it explores the tension between Clark Kent's desire to be Clark Kent and the fact the world needs him to be Superman.

Stories like Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, Superman II, For the Man Who Has Everything, All Star Superman, and so on.

[LibraryOgre]

Oi.

Lex Luthor is not a threat to Superman... but that's not why he's Superman's arch-nemesis.

Lex Luthor normalizes evil. He makes it nice and legal and safe, even profitable, for the person doing it. He's not the obvious evil of Doomsday or Darkseid who want to rule or destroy the world... you can always go punch someone like that, even cut loose like you normally would not (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQabrSpKcJw).

Superman could kill Lex Luthor... pretty much any human being... with little effort or thought. Lex Luthor is the guy who is beyond reach because, while despicable, he is frequently doing something not technically illegal, despite its immorality. And if it is illegal, well, good luck proving that he did it, or that it was done on his orders. Did he help write the laws that keep his immorality legal? Possibly. But Lex Luthor represents a corruption of the human spirit. Superman is, in many ways, the purification of it.

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way." Superman is the light of humanity.

[Julian84]

https://i.imgur.com/c3foVuJ.png



Seriously, elsewhere on the forum Bartmanhomer brags about being a troll. I don't know why we need a thread of a dozen people all agreeing and trying to convince someone who probably just wants to stir the pot.

[Eldan]

I just did.


No you didn't.

Why is the threat of death necessary for a good story?

[Tvtyrant]

Superman being weaker wouldn't be superman.

Imagine if we changed the story a little. Instead of an alien superbeing an adult human washes up on an island of immortal 5 year olds. He is effectively superhuman to them: faster, stronger, smarter, more rational. The story is about him attempting to implement rule of law without savagely injuring children or coopting their society, because one day he will be dead and they will still be there. He has to inspire and teach them to do better while protecting them from wolves and other monsters that come to eat them.

That's Superman. He fights monsters to protect the chance that humans will be better tomorrow, and tries to inspire humans to be better today. If he is weaker he just... Fights wolves.

[137beth]

Lol it's like some of you have never seen a Bartmanhomer thread before.

So if Superman were Ash Ketchum's starter pokemon, and also he won the lottery, and also a pokemon movie (with Superman in it) won the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture, and also Superman played basketball, and also Superman and Ash both gave out celebrity autographs, and also they teamed up with Tim Taylor, and also they attempted to play chess using D&D 3.5 rules, would they be powerful enough to defeat Trigak?

...And wow, I just realized that this isn't even the first thread about Superman being overpowered (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?474719-Is-Superman-Too-Overpowered) that BMH started. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Cheesegear]

But Lex Luthor represents a corruption of the human spirit. Superman is, in many ways, the purification of it.

Exemplified perfectly Lex Luthor; Man of Steel.
A Superman story, that isn't even about Superman.

[Julian84]

Superman being weaker wouldn't be superman.

Imagine if we changed the story a little. Instead of an alien superbeing an adult human washes up on an island of immortal 5 year olds. He is effectively superhuman to them: faster, stronger, smarter, more rational. The story is about him attempting to implement rule of law without savagely injuring children or coopting their society, because one day he will be dead and they will still be there. He has to inspire and teach them to do better while protecting them from wolves and other monsters that come to eat them.


Did you mean "immoral" five year olds? :smallbiggrin: Being immortal must suck if you can also be eaten and not die.

[Tvtyrant]

Did you mean "immoral" five year olds? :smallbiggrin: Being immortal must suck if you can also be eaten and not die.

It's not a perfect metaphor. I was trying to link the concept of Peter Pan's Lost Boys and Neverland in. But instead of Hook you have Superman trying to save them from themselves.

[Peelee]

But Lex Luthor represents a corruption of the human spirit. Superman is, in many ways, the purification of it.

I've never been able to find the words to distill it like that. Totally stealing it in the future.

[Eldan]

So if Superman were Ash Ketchum's starter pokemon, and also he won the lottery, and also a pokemon movie (with Superman in it) won the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture, and also Superman played basketball, and also Superman and Ash both gave out celebrity autographs, and also they teamed up with Tim Taylor, and also they attempted to play chess using D&D 3.5 rules, would they be powerful enough to defeat Trigak?

...And wow, I just realized that this isn't even the first thread about Superman being overpowered (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?474719-Is-Superman-Too-Overpowered) that BMH started. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I think the main question here is what Dragon God Ash Ketchum's Superman evoles into and hwo good he is at poker.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the main question here is what Dragon God Ash Ketchum's Superman evoles into and hwo good he is at poker.

K-Metal Dragon, and only decent if he wears mirrored sunglasses.

[Ibrinar]

https://i.imgur.com/c3foVuJ.png



Seriously, elsewhere on the forum Bartmanhomer brags about being a troll. I don't know why we need a thread of a dozen people all agreeing and trying to convince someone who probably just wants to stir the pot.

Ah he does? I assumed he was just a young child/teen. Edit:Though seeing as he joined in 15 I guess he couldn't be that young anymore.

[Bartmanhomer]

No you didn't.

Why is the threat of death necessary for a good story?

Because it bring impact for the readers.

[AvatarVecna]

Ah he does? I assumed he was just a young child.

Children learn. I've been assuming unkind things.

[uncool]

Because it bring impact for the readers.

That's an explanation of something death can do; it doesn't make it necessary. There are many ways to "bring impact" without involving death. An example of such a way: forcing a character to decide between two strongly-held principles - such as the desire to help people and, say, a no-kill rule.

[Cheesegear]

An example of such a way: forcing a character to decide between two strongly-held principles - such as the desire to help people and, say, a no-kill rule.

Imagine...

Lex: "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely."
Clark: "No it doesn't."

...You could make a story out of that. Oh wait.

[Saintheart]

https://i.imgur.com/c3foVuJ.png



Seriously, elsewhere on the forum Bartmanhomer brags about being a troll. I don't know why we need a thread of a dozen people all agreeing and trying to convince someone who probably just wants to stir the pot.

May I posit a possible rationale: it's proving an interesting experiment exploring the proposition that a theoretical level of debate can descend to the point of intersection with the Earth's core. Current indications are looking promising in that regard.

[moossabi]

Because it bring impact for the readers.

Honestly death can get downright farcical in some stories, the myriad of random nonsense deaths in the later seasons of Game of Thrones had me laughing regularly at how stupid they got. Limiting conflict to just "they need to have a fight scene where someone dies" is a hugely reductive way of looking at storytelling. Narratively speaking, death for the sake of death alone is worthless.

What branch of media are you basing this entire premise on (i.e. what Superman media have you read/watched)? This sort of position on Superman usually stems from only knowing vague surface-level details of his power roster and absolutely nothing about the deeper character writing (I was there myself before actually engaging with his content).

[137beth]

I think the main question here is what Dragon God Ash Ketchum's Superman evoles into and hwo good he is at poker.

Permission to put this quote in my extended sig?

[Bartmanhomer]

That's an explanation of something death can do; it doesn't make it necessary. There are many ways to "bring impact" without involving death. An example of such a way: forcing a character to decide between two strongly-held principles - such as the desire to help people and, say, a no-kill rule.

That's very understandable, especially in superhero comic books.

[Rockphed]

This excellent video about the Ip Man martial arts movie series is also coincidentally an excellent video about some of the different ways to challenge Superman.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP2KlkBgol4

You can write a Doomsday for Superman once in a while, but if you want to tell a story where the hero is physically matched or overmatched, why are you writing a Superman story when there's a billion other characters who fit that story more easily? Superman is more interesting when the conflict isn't one he can solve by being the strongest.

There is an urban legend told among engineers about a factory that had a machine go down. They called the supplier and somebody was dispatched. They got there about 15 minutes later, walked to the middle of the plant, turned 1 screw a quarter turn. After waiting a couple seconds for things to start moving again, he walked out. The next day his company sent a bill for $1000. Being mystified by the huge bill, they asked for an itemization. It came back:

Travel to and from site: $80
Turning 1 screw 1 quarter turn: $0.30
Knowing which screw and how much: $919.70

In like fashion, punching the villain into submission is the easy part of being Superman. Knowing who the villain is harder. Getting the villain put away for his crimes is the ultimate goal.


Or to use the President Luthor example, what happens when Superman's values come into conflict with one another? Superman believes in rule of law, and that he himself isn't above the law, but he also has a that vigilante impulse to help people and more abstractly to do good. Since the public and the government generally like and trust (or at least accept) him, these values are generally very compatible. However, when somebody he knows wants to cause harm has subverted the law, this is no longer the case. What's the higher imperative, thwart evil or respect our institutions? And even if Superman decides that he can keep a clear conscience but still oppose Luthor by going outside the law, what would the greater consequences be? Even if people realize that Luthor was secretly evil this whole time, they're also confronted by the fact that Superman, under the right circumstances, would be willing to go outside the law to depose a democratically elected President. How would that affect his relationship with the public in the future? If the government suddenly distrusts Superman and stop letting him have free reign, would that lead to more conflicts where Superman knows he can do some good but only by openly defying the government? Would that escalate?

Somewhat like why Gandalf and Galadriel cannot take up the ring and smite down Sauron with it: even if they win (which is not a sure thing) the world loses. So Supes needs to be super careful about how he breaks the law. I have heard it said that Clark Kent feels like he failed if he ever has to put on the cape.

[Aotrs Commander]

That's an explanation of something death can do; it doesn't make it necessary. There are many ways to "bring impact" without involving death. An example of such a way: forcing a character to decide between two strongly-held principles - such as the desire to help people and, say, a no-kill rule.

Leaving aside even the chasm-wide differentiation between "peril" and "actual potential for character death" as children's shows use the former but not the latter, I wonder how many examples of good stories where there was no strictly no credible threat of death1 if we could be bothered?

(It's harder than you might think, but by no means impossible.)

Lemmee think:

Asterix (any, except MAYBE on instance I can think of in one book)
Friendship is Magic (majority of)
Girls und Panzer (I mean, it's basically a sports anime only with tanks being the sport?)



Now, I'm a bit constrained by my own preferences, I'm sure people with a wider taste (re: any taste or culture at all) than the murderous evil magical space Lich can do orders of magntiude better than I.




1Should "credible threat" include the meta "the series is named after them so in no realistic way is the main character actually going to die and certainly not permenantly, except maybe at the very end" though I would be interested in knowing if anyone can think of a series with a titular character who DID die explictly part-way through their own series and not replaced by a legacy character (and was a deliberate writing choice, rather than a necessity of casting). I'm sure they exist.

[Bartmanhomer]

Honestly death can get downright farcical in some stories, the myriad of random nonsense deaths in the later seasons of Game of Thrones had me laughing regularly at how stupid they got. Limiting conflict to just "they need to have a fight scene where someone dies" is a hugely reductive way of looking at storytelling. Narratively speaking, death for the sake of death alone is worthless.

What branch of media are you basing this entire premise on (i.e. what Superman media have you read/watched)? This sort of position on Superman usually stems from only knowing vague surface-level details of his power roster and absolutely nothing about the deeper character writing (I was there myself before actually engaging with his content).
The comic books of course. :smile:

[Keltest]

1Should "credible threat" include the meta "the series is named after them so in no realistic way is the main character actually going to die and certainly not permenantly, except maybe at the very end" though I would be interested in knowing if anyone can think of a series with a titular character who DID die explictly part-way through their own series and not replaced by a legacy character (and was a deliberate writing choice, rather than a necessity of casting). I'm sure they exist.


Well, there was the Dresden Files, where the main character dies and becomes a ghost about halfway through. Dunno if it counts, because he gets better, but he is dead for real for an entire book.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, there was the Dresden Files, where the main character dies and becomes a ghost about halfway through. Dunno if it counts, because he gets better, but he is dead for real for an entire book.

It would be rather amusing to make a story where the first book has a fairly normal plot but ends with the protagonist dying. All further books in the series take place in the afterlife and the protag never gets resurrected or has any contact with her/his friends again. Like a portal fantasy but with the afterlife, they just have to move on and deal with a new setting.

[GloatingSwine]

Well, there was the Dresden Files, where the main character dies and becomes a ghost about halfway through. Dunno if it counts, because he gets better, but he is dead for real for an entire book.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SamgviMdxes

[moossabi]

The comic books of course. :smile:

That's a range of several decades (will be a century 18 years from now) worth of content from a wide range of authors over a wide range of social climates - any chance of narrowing that down?

[Saintheart]

It would be rather amusing to make a story where the first book has a fairly normal plot but ends with the protagonist dying. All further books in the series take place in the afterlife and the protag never gets resurrected or has any contact with her/his friends again. Like a portal fantasy but with the afterlife, they just have to move on and deal with a new setting.

For interest, the book series Guardians of the Flame by Joel Rosenberg is actually analogous to that. Starts out as what you might call a proto-isekai series, where a D&D-with-the-serial-numbers-filed-off gaming group gets teleported into the setting, which is a lot more real, gritty, and deadly than they'd originally thought. The first book is about getting home ... and then getting back to the setting, for reasons I won't get into. And the conclusion of that first book basically then slams the door on them ever getting home again, they have to adapt to the world they're in.

[Rockphed]

Now, I'm a bit constrained by my own preferences, I'm sure people with a wider taste (re: any taste or culture at all) than the murderous evil magical space Lich can do orders of magntiude better than I.

Do any Jane Austen stories count? Persuasion has the idiot sister who bashes her brains out, Pride and Prejudice has Jane almost die of a cold she gets walking in the rain, Sense and Sensibility has Maryanne decide to become a romance heroine and perish in sight of her one true love, Mansfield Park has the brother who gets sick. I don't think Emma is ever in any danger, but my wife doesn't like the movie and I have never read the book all the way through so I am sketchy on the details.


It would be rather amusing to make a story where the first book has a fairly normal plot but ends with the protagonist dying. All further books in the series take place in the afterlife and the protag never gets resurrected or has any contact with her/his friends again. Like a portal fantasy but with the afterlife, they just have to move on and deal with a new setting.

The Five People You Meet in Heaven has this as the premise, though it does spend most of the book going through flashbacks to the protagonists life.

[Peelee]

Honestly death can get downright farcical in some stories, the myriad of random nonsense deaths in the later seasons of Game of Thrones had me laughing regularly at how stupid they got. Limiting conflict to just "they need to have a fight scene where someone dies" is a hugely reductive way of looking at storytelling. Narratively speaking, death for the sake of death alone is worthless.

What branch of media are you basing this entire premise on (i.e. what Superman media have you read/watched)? This sort of position on Superman usually stems from only knowing vague surface-level details of his power roster and absolutely nothing about the deeper character writing (I was there myself before actually engaging with his content).

The comic books of course. :smile:

Well in that case Superman is vastly underpowered. Why, there was even a time when he had to constantly eat hamburgers as fast as he could, or he would starve to death (https://www.comicbookdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/act454cover.jpg)! How could you expect Superman, who provides all his services for free, to pay for such a vast amount of hamburgers? Clark Kent has a bank account, but he's a meek reporter and isn't making enough of a fortune to fund his enormous hamburger needs. What is he supposed to do, punch his stomach into submission? That will just make him vomit and need more hamburgers! Use heat vision on the hamburgers? They're already cooked! What is a poor Superman to do?!

[dancrilis]

Well in that case Superman is vastly underpowered. Why, there was even a time when he had to constantly eat hamburgers as fast as he could, or he would starve to death (https://www.comicbookdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/act454cover.jpg)! How could you expect Superman, who provides all his services for free, to pay for such a vast amount of hamburgers? Clark Kent has a bank account, but he's a meek reporter and isn't making enough of a fortune to fund his enormous hamburger needs. What is he supposed to do, punch his stomach into submission? That will just make him vomit and need more hamburgers! Use heat vision on the hamburgers? They're already cooked! What is a poor Superman to do?!

He also has a major disadvantage.
http://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hardcore15dk.jpg

... I am not talking about kryptonite.

[Aotrs Commander]

Do any Jane Austen stories count? Persuasion has the idiot sister who bashes her brains out, Pride and Prejudice has Jane almost die of a cold she gets walking in the rain, Sense and Sensibility has Maryanne decide to become a romance heroine and perish in sight of her one true love, Mansfield Park has the brother who gets sick. I don't think Emma is ever in any danger, but my wife doesn't like the movie and I have never read the book all the way through so I am sketchy on the details.

I mean, probably? Like I say "anyone with actual tatse or culture" would know better than me...!

[Tvtyrant]

Do any Jane Austen stories count? Persuasion has the idiot sister who bashes her brains out, Pride and Prejudice has Jane almost die of a cold she gets walking in the rain, Sense and Sensibility has Maryanne decide to become a romance heroine and perish in sight of her one true love, Mansfield Park has the brother who gets sick. I don't think Emma is ever in any danger, but my wife doesn't like the movie and I have never read the book all the way through so I am sketchy on the details.



The Five People You Meet in Heaven has this as the premise, though it does spend most of the book going through flashbacks to the protagonists life.

That was a good book. I actually cried when I read that one!

[Brother Oni]

Children learn. I've been assuming unkind things.

Given his absolute reliance on Grammarly and the fact that he's mentioned he has a mental disability (I believe he's moderately autistic), you're probably being a bit unkind.

[Bartmanhomer]

That's a range of several decades (will be a century 18 years from now) worth of content from a wide range of authors over a wide range of social climates - any chance of narrowing that down?

No. I don't think so.

[Tvtyrant]

No. I don't think so.

Thankfully then, Superman died when exposed to the sun and is now a time traveling deity who doesn't directly influence the situation on Earth. He is no longer overpowered.

[Morgaln]

Leaving aside even the chasm-wide differentiation between "peril" and "actual potential for character death" as children's shows use the former but not the latter, I wonder how many examples of good stories where there was no strictly no credible threat of death1 if we could be bothered?




That is very much genre-dependent; for example romantic comedies almost never deal with peril, much less actual potential for character death. So for people who like that kind of story, the answer would be "many." Which is, as you pointed out yourself, the problem with this question. As soon as you ask for "good" stories of that kind, instead of just stories, you're asking for a subjective opinion.

[Willie the Duck]

Because it bring impact for the readers.

One of the most loved, hated, reviled, cherished, criticized and defended but most of all talked about DC comic narratives was a seven volume series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Crisis_(DC_Comics)) where the entire JLA is reduced to a complete and utter mess of self doubt, moral uncertainty, personal devastation, and death -- all through the mechinations of one mentally ill spouse of one of the B-list heroes, using said heroes technology once and then everything else through manipulating C- and D-list villains.

[moossabi]

No. I don't think so.

Ah got it so you have no desire to rationalize any of your positions to better understand yourself and just want to post uninformed hot takes based on kindergarten qualifiers like "character needs to die." This thread makes sense now.

[GrayDeath]

Lol it's like some of you have never seen a Bartmanhomer thread before.

QFT.


I tried quite a few times to actually discuss/help.

I have given up now.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Closed for review.