Who do you think is a better villain, Toyman or Prankster?

[mathew101281]

Eh, they're both puny, unsuitable villains for a planet-splitter like Superman.

Donate both of them to Green Arrow's rogues gallery. They seem much more up his alley (as evidenced by Toyman's appearances in SMALLVILLE vs Oliver Queen)

I've always felt that way about those characters. They don't seem like they should pose much of a challenge to comic book superman. STAS Toyman worked for me because animated Superman was a lot less powerful and Toyman was supped up.

[daBronzeBomma]

I don't want Supermans rogues gallery to be that limited.

Nor do I.

But the only villainous human who should ever pose a serious threat to Superman is Lex Luthor. The only way to have other human villains like Trickster or Toyman to be viable threats is to de-power Superman (which I am completely against) or have them exclusively threaten his more vulnerable human allies like Lois, Jimmy, Perry Ma/Pa Kent (should they still be alive), Lana Lang, John Henry Irons, etc. Which could work, but then we're understanding these guys are not Superman's enemies really, just murderers who target Superman's pals.

More to the point, these two seem like they are really in the wrong rogues gallery. Against a more human alpha hero, both of these guys could shine as villains, or at least reach Penguin/Riddler status, which right now, they're a long way off. I vote Green Arrow, mainly because outside of Deathstroke and Deadshot (that's recent: they're usually not GA villains) and Merlyn and Onomatopoeia, I can't really think of too many GA rogues.

Superman is god-like and his enemies should likewise be god-like (talking about Darkseid, Brainiac, Zod, Doomsday, Bizarro, Metallo, Parasite, Manchester Black, etc). Even Luthor has his god-like moments. Supes shouldn't be wasting time with guys like Toyman or Prankster.

[dupersuper]

Nor do I.

But the only villainous human who should ever pose a serious threat to Superman is Lex Luthor. The only way to have other human villains like Trickster or Toyman to be viable threats is to de-power Superman (which I am completely against) or have them exclusively threaten his more vulnerable human allies like Lois, Jimmy, Perry Ma/Pa Kent (should they still be alive), Lana Lang, John Henry Irons, etc. Which could work, but then we're understanding these guys are not Superman's enemies really, just murderers who target Superman's pals.

They don't have to attack Superman directly to be Superman villains. There's a reason some Superman video games have a life meter for Metropolis.

[Jim Kelly]

It's interesting to see a big powerful hero undermined by what seems to be a puny foe. In fact, I'd say this was a running theme on the covers and inside the comics during most of the 1940s for Superman. After the initial shock of seeing a man who can do impossible things, the only other way to go was to show that powerful man defeated by seeming mundane threats.

This is what I like about J. Wilbur Wolfingham. He doesn't really pose a threat to Superman, but he gets around Superman because his scams seem legitimate. Superman can't touch JWW until the guy reveals himself to be a scoundrel. That seems to be the premise with the early Prankster, as well. He pulls off hoaxes and he doesn't appear to be a threat, until his scams have unpredicted consequences for Metropolis.

If Superman can only be challenged by foes that are at the same power level as him--or else super-intelligent--then we're doomed to getting the same kind of stories all the time. The one advantage that the 1940s stories had is that they were usually about odd characters. There was never any doubt that Superman would bring them to justice in the end, but the entertaining part of the story was trying to figure out what these characters were up to.