Do you like your favorite characters to be invincible?

[lemonpeace]

I don't want my heroes to be unstoppable but I want them to be formidable; I want to see my favorite characters do cool ****. Once the crossover into unbeatable/invincible territory they lose that human element for me.

Luckily for me a lot of my favorite heroes don't get focus from DC often, so I don't have to worry about that /s

[hareluyafan1]

At the end of the day, they are all invincible. No matter how much Green Arrow can be physically defeated, the bad guy will never be able to actually kill him (and have it stick). And no matter how down and out they are just before the end of the story the hero always winds up on top come the last page. The "invincible heroes are boring" crowd would have a point if we had stories where Batman really lost and Hal Jordan didn't prevent the universe from being destroyed.

Beg your pardon but I must firmly disagree with this.

Firstly, to use your example, Batman has "really lost" multiple times. For example when Swamp Thing beat him to a pulp and then walked away. Batman did not "wind up on top come the last page," he had to concede to Swamp Thing's demands. Or when Azrael beat him senseless, threw him in a freezing river and then ran downstream to fish him out. Again, Batman did not "wind up on top." "Come the last page" he was thawing out at Dr Thompkins place while Azrael was out doing his thing. Or how about how Bronze Tiger defeated him in their first encounter and Batman never won in any of their rematches. A character does not have to be killed to be defeated and they don't always close the story on a winning note.

Second, even if they do wind up on top at the end, that doesn't change the fact that they lost a previous battle. In "Batman vs. Predator" sure we know Batman will ultimately prevail by the end but he still lost the first battle where he was seriously injured and forced to flee. Like I said a character does not have to be killed to be defeated.

Finally, even if we go by your notion (the hero will ultimately prevail), that doesn't change the fact that these stories still have drama by showing how close the hero comes to losing. That's just basic suspension of disbelief. I mean what are you saying? That we know the heroes will prevail so we may as well not bother reading or writing comics, or any kind of story? Sounds to me like you lack imagination.

No, but I dislike it when really powerful characters are nerfed or "brought down to normal" to prove some kind of dubious point. Usually the writer is just lazy and can't come up with viable threats, or (worse) there is the need to make them "relateable." Morrison is not a lazy creator, and can come up with challenges for these characters while embracing them for their full ridiculous capabilities. Because it's silly fantasy at the end of the day.

I see your point but personally I don't think "nerfing" powerful characters is inherently a bad thing. Sometimes it can open up a lot of possibilities for interesting stories. For example there was a Marvel "What-if?" story where Thor was sent back in time and fought Conan (Thor's powers were greatly diminished as a side-effect of the time travel). Obviously we all know Thor would easily beat Conan under normal circumstances so he had to be weakened to make it a "fair" fight but what's wrong with that? The point of the story was to see how they interact, first as foes than as friends, not to see who'd win.

[Lightning Rider]

I will say I prefer characters like Superman or Dr. Manhattan to be defeated by "other" means. Moral conondrums, emotional losses, symbolic losses. Or physical losses that stem from those other categories. But they are the exception, I think.

[stargazer01]

At the end of the day, they are all invincible. No matter how much Green Arrow can be physically defeated, the bad guy will never be able to actually kill him (and have it stick). And no matter how down and out they are just before the end of the story the hero always winds up on top come the last page. The "invincible heroes are boring" crowd would have a point if we had stories where Batman really lost and Hal Jordan didn't prevent the universe from being destroyed.

Good points. Many Batman fans will assure you that he can defeat Superman and the whole JL w/ prep time because he's that smart. BvS kind of proves it. Although Lex outsmarted him.

And despite all that, Batman is still very human and very relatable...

[SiegePerilous02]

I see your point but personally I don't think "nerfing" powerful characters is inherently a bad thing. Sometimes it can open up a lot of possibilities for interesting stories. For example there was a Marvel "What-if?" story where Thor was sent back in time and fought Conan (Thor's powers were greatly diminished as a side-effect of the time travel). Obviously we all know Thor would easily beat Conan under normal circumstances so he had to be weakened to make it a "fair" fight but what's wrong with that? The point of the story was to see how they interact, first as foes than as friends, not to see who'd win.

If there is an in-story reason for it, like your Thor example, it can work. The classic Edmond Hamilton story where Superman ends up in the far future and loses his powers under the power of a red sun and has to use his whits to get home is how it should be done. Same with his escape from Bizarro World in All-Star.

Something like him just appearing weaker for no reason so a lesser opponent can challenge him because the writer is too lazy to use their imagination is something else. Similarly Wonder Woman just getting randomly shot by handgun. It's all in the intent and execution.

[Soubhagya]

Superman is my favorite character. Ever. So, invincibility is not an issue for me.

That kind of power can be seen as restrictive to some. But it can also be liberating. MCU's Thor is one of my favorite characters in MCU. He was trying to start a dying star. Batman ain't doin that!

[Jon Clark]

Beg your pardon but I must firmly disagree with this.

Firstly, to use your example, Batman has "really lost" multiple times. For example when Swamp Thing beat him to a pulp and then walked away. Batman did not "wind up on top come the last page," he had to concede to Swamp Thing's demands. Or when Azrael beat him senseless, threw him in a freezing river and then ran downstream to fish him out. Again, Batman did not "wind up on top." "Come the last page" he was thawing out at Dr Thompkins place while Azrael was out doing his thing. Or how about how Bronze Tiger defeated him in their first encounter and Batman never won in any of their rematches. A character does not have to be killed to be defeated and they don't always close the story on a winning note.

My point about being killed is that I dislike heroes that trumpet their losses as a sign of their relatability when all there losses are conveniently non-fatal. The old Batman TV series where every episode had that cliff-hanger where the villain had Batman in a deathtrap- but non of them ever just took out a pistol and shot him in the head. That to me is more implausible than a Batman who simply defeats the villains in the first fight everytime. I have no issue with Batman being unable to arrest the Joker leading to the need for a 2nd fight.

But to me it's interesting that Batman's loses were to the Swamp Thing (not really a villainous sort). Bronze Tiger (apparently never when he was an assassin), and Azrael (who according to you saved his life). But somehow he is able to win consistently against KGBeast, the Wrath, and others who would not hesistate to kill or permanently injure him.

It's not that I want Batman to lose. It's that I want his loses not to be taken as a sign of sophistication when they are always worked out in a way where there are no real consequences to them. No one suffers permanent damage when Batman fails. He comes off as "one of the world's top combatants" rather than "a guy who wins more than he loses".

Second, even if they do wind up on top at the end, that doesn't change the fact that they lost a previous battle. In "Batman vs. Predator" sure we know Batman will ultimately prevail by the end but he still lost the first battle where he was seriously injured and forced to flee. Like I said a character does not have to be killed to be defeated.

If Batman was seriously injured and forced to flee, then what gave him the advantage in the second fight? That's what bothers me. A handful of writers bother to make the second fight anything but a formula where the setback is always followed by overcoming the setback.

Outside of one-shots I never feel like most heroes actually have to do much to earn a second win. Oliver Queen or Bruce wayne loses at the mid point of the story and then suddenly for no reason don't lose the second round. They didn't train in the interim. If they need some tech device to even the field said device is obtained in a few pages. We don't get the hero having to watch the villain go unchallenged for a week, month, etc while we wait for the hero to level up. There might be a mention of time in a given story- but it is always a montage scene or time passing between panels. Not Villain X totally trashing the hero in issue #150 and the hero actually living with the consequences of the loss fo 20-30 issues while he prepares for the rematch.

Finally, even if we go by your notion (the hero will ultimately prevail), that doesn't change the fact that these stories still have drama by showing how close the hero comes to losing. That's just basic suspension of disbelief. I mean what are you saying? That we know the heroes will prevail so we may as well not bother reading or writing comics, or any kind of story? Sounds to me like you lack imagination.

It's not that I lack imagination, it's that I lack much tolerance for the idea that having a hero get his ass handed to him for 21 pages before winning is necessarily any better than the hero winning in two panels. I don't find the fact Batman is "human" a real selling point when the next sentence points out how his Batsuit is cutting edge tech that would outlast a T-800 in combat. I don't find a hero who fails to catch a jewel thief but somehow never suffers permanent injury against an army of ninja's to be any more plausible than a counterpart who defeats both without breaking a sweat.

There is no real difference between "never missing a saving throw" and "only missing a saving throw when nothing is on the line"

[Lightning Rider]

No non-speedster should be able to punch a speedster while they're conscious. I'll even give flexibility with well-timed feints that create an opening for someone with enhanced reflexes. But when Batman was landing shots on Reverse Flash (I think only his leg was hurt), I couldn't buy it. They have to be far more incapacitated for their reflexes to be taken out of the equation.