Kryptonian powers need to be toned down a bit...

[mathew101281]

Low level and moderately powered superheroes are easier to write, they just are. It’s why I feel Batman has supplanted Superman as DC’s most prominent hero in recent years. It’s why Batman has had more good runs then Superman. Their are only so many ways to challenge world beaters like Superman Wonder-woman or Shazam. Power creep is also a factor. In a lot of cases you can tell these types of heroes weren’t designed to be as powerful as they became. A lot of them have rendered most of their rogue’s gallery impractical as realistic threats, or are relegated to fighting cosmic or god-tier threats only.

This is in stark contrast to mid tier and street level heroes that have a wider and more diverse collection of things that can convincingly challenge them.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't follow the argument. Yes, under-powered characters are easier to write--but that doesn't mean the writing is better. It's like how formulaic sit-coms are easier to write--just follow the tropes and plug in the jokes--that doesn't make them better sit-coms. Superman is a challenge to write, when he's at his top power level, but the writers that can handle that challenge are the best writers in the business. The writers who feel the need to cheat, and take the powers away, are showing you that they aren't very good writers.

[DochaDocha]

It’s why I feel Batman has supplanted Superman as DC’s most prominent hero in recent years. It’s why Batman has had more good runs then Superman.

Somewhat related to Jim Kelly's point, Batman has had more good runs than Superman in large part because top writers tick with Batman more than they stick to Superman? Why? Maybe they like Batman more, or it's easier to write for Batman. I don't know, but all of these things add up.

[Kuwagaton]

I see "more good" but I read "more popular." Batman doesn't have to be at his best to be in demand. There's a trade for almost any or all Batman. Michael Golden has an artist spotlight made up halfway by covers where Curt Swan has nothing... that can't be a quality thing.

The idea that Superman's power means he needs better writers with more imagination to me leaves out the point that it's all the same writers. From O'Neil to Snyder they get much better mileage with Batman, so maybe the imaginative people the character needs just aren't out there. Except I guess the people who spent years on him without more somewhere else. Maggin in a recent interview stated that in one period of his time the only ones who wanted to write Superman were Bates, Wein, and himself. That was a period where Superman could go from sobbing on his own behalf to pulling every living thing off the planet when he wanted. No really, that's what Wein had him do once. To me that's the least imaginative type of story resolution even if it is kinda funny. I sure think his Batman is cool, though.

So if this Man of Steel is only medium level relative to other super-heroes in action, why does this guy get the Superman name? You would think one of the other heroes would be called Superman, like Spectre, Captain Atom, Martian Manhunter or Doctor Fate. That's not the most important reason for Superman to be super-powerful, but it is one of those nagging questions that's hard to resolve, if Superman is really just a mid-level jobber.

I love Superman as a character and think he's the mightiest of earth heroes, but I have to admit I think his name is low tier. Tougher than Green Lantern or Robin but that doesn't say much. Super is just barely prevalent now, usually when someone orders more than average amounts of food or if someone is "super excited" for a soccer game or something. Captain Atom and Martian Manhunter sound tough. Even Hawkman has that predator and prey thing going for it.

[Jim Kelly]

I think it showed a weakness in Denny O'Neil that he would so often de-power one of the more powerful heroes he wrote, in order to bring them down to the level of stories he specialized in. I think if he really tried, he didn't need that crutch.

But I will say stories about Superman losing his powers or being in a weakened state are effective. However, the key to this is that Superman has to already be established as a super-powerful character (in continuity) for this kind of story to work. Yarns like the Sand Superman Saga and Who Took the Super Out of Superman were very good, because it was interesting to see how Superman dealt with that challenge, after having had so much power.

And the clue to all this, whether Superman is up or he's down, is character. If writers are getting hung up on the powers, maybe they're too focused on the slugfests. The great Superman writers--like Bates, Maggin, Moore and Morrison--made it about the character. As long as we're invested in Superman's experiences, we will be interested in how he confronts a new situation.

The reason I love the Immortal Superman so much isn't only because of its epic nature, it's also because Superman suffers through so much in this story. I feel great empathy for him, when the gift of such great power and long life turns out to be a curse that leaves him in a state of despair.

The Neil Gaiman Sandman is the same thing. We never worry that he has too much power, but because of the power dynamics in his world, he's trapped by his own failings as a character. That's what's interesting about the stories. And I always thought Gaiman was using a lof of the classic Superman for the Endless.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yes his popularity has taken hits but what evidence is there really that it is because of reduced power levels? His popularity actually was declining before that.

All Star is a story with a planned ending and he died and stayed dead there.

Yes his popularity was declining, and the books needed an overhaul. Characters always need periodic shake ups. But did he ever reach the heights of his old popularity again? And again, why does reducing his power levels help him? Is it to appeal to people who think he's too over powered? Most of them don't know much about the Super mythos or the character, or say he's too overpowered before turning around and saying their favorite would win, so who cares about catering to them? Everyone else, when Superman isn't Super, they just say he sucks and doesn't live up to what they expect. So just embrace it. Before the reboot, Moore was writing some great stories that didn't need to nerf him.

Where is the correlation that Spider-Man enjoys more popularity because he's not as over powered? He has different stories and different types of challenges. People love Spider-Man for Spider-Man and love Batman for being Batman (the insane Bat-God stuff isn't as popular among the mainstream, he's mostly popular for being a cool James Bond in a Dracula costume who has awesome, scary villains). Let them love Superman for being actual Superman, with all the crazy awesome stuff he can do.

He not only didn't stay dead in All-Star, he never died there at all.

I don't follow the argument. Yes, under-powered characters are easier to write--but that doesn't mean the writing is better. It's like how formulaic sit-coms are easier to write--just follow the tropes and plug in the jokes--that doesn't make them better sit-coms. Superman is a challenge to write, when he's at his top power level, but the writers that can handle that challenge are the best writers in the business. The writers who feel the need to cheat, and take the powers away, are showing you that they aren't very good writers.

Yep. It's not as if those writers are without their flaws, but when the likes of Gaiman, Moore and Morrison can write the character effortlessly and receive accolades from even mainstream sources for their work in general, it pretty much says it all.

Superman and Wonder Woman are tough nuts to crack, but they are very rewarding for those who can do it. Other characters aren't necessarily better, just different.

[Vordan]

I could buy lower tier characters being easier to write for if Spider-Man didn’t have some of the worst stories ever. Superman’s worst stories just tend to be boring. Spidey’s tends to be really bad to the core of his character. And he’s had a ton of really bad stories relatively recently no less. I’d argue outside of Superior that Slott’s run was more miss than hit. The entire 90s is a lost decade for Spidey.

How come Green Arrow doesn’t eclipse Superman saleswise like Batman? How come Iron Man doesn’t, dude was the star of the MCU? Cap doesn’t either, and he was the other break out star. Where are all their iconic storylines? Cap has the Brubaker run and that’s pretty much it honestly. How come he’s so hard to write for as a low tier character?

How come the most popular Marvel book right now is the Immortal Hulk, a book about character easily on par with Superman who literally dies and comes back in multiple issues of one run? Or Jason Aaron’s Thor run which is about freaking godhood? It’s not the power levels guys, it’s the talent, and the editorial overseeing it. I love O’Neil but he’s a guy who like Brubaker is interested in street level stories about “real” issues. He’s never pulled off a cosmic story that I know of, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible because he didn’t do it.

I just don’t really buy that some characters are inherently easier to write, not when I’ve seen so many low tier power characters get tossed to the side while Superman (and his 101 expies) are still around.

[marhawkman]

And I personally prefer a writer who balances his character out. Superman got more powerful, but his greater power comes with drawbacks as well as benefits. Maybe beyond a certain level he can perform more impressive feats but afterward he needs to recharge- so flying from here to Rann in an eyeblink means for the rest of the story his powers are weaker. Or Superman can build a wall at super-speed but the mortar might not hold (too wet or if heat visioned didn't set evenly). But we seem to more often get higher powers and nothing to offset it.

Well, there's often the collateral damage thing. Supes avoids using his full power because it tends to break things. His fight vs the Sam Benjamin Blackrock destroyed a city block. People are running in terror because Superman literally heat-visioned a 1/4 mile of asphalt to a liquid puddle.

[JAK]

I could buy lower tier characters being easier to write for if Spider-Man didn’t have some of the worst stories ever. Superman’s worst stories just tend to be boring. Spidey’s tends to be really bad to the core of his character. And he’s had a ton of really bad stories relatively recently no less. I’d argue outside of Superior that Slott’s run was more miss than hit. The entire 90s is a lost decade for Spidey.

How come Green Arrow doesn’t eclipse Superman saleswise like Batman? How come Iron Man doesn’t, dude was the star of the MCU? Cap doesn’t either, and he was the other break out star. Where are all their iconic storylines? Cap has the Brubaker run and that’s pretty much it honestly. How come he’s so hard to write for as a low tier character?

How come the most popular Marvel book right now is the Immortal Hulk, a book about character easily on par with Superman who literally dies and comes back in multiple issues of one run? Or Jason Aaron’s Thor run which is about freaking godhood? It’s not the power levels guys, it’s the talent, and the editorial overseeing it. I love O’Neil but he’s a guy who like Brubaker is interested in street level stories about “real” issues. He’s never pulled off a cosmic story that I know of, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible because he didn’t do it.

I just don’t really buy that some characters are inherently easier to write, not when I’ve seen so many low tier power characters get tossed to the side while Superman (and his 101 expies) are still around.

I take you point, though I would make a slight adjustment: characters with less powers might be easier for most to write, but clearly, as you've shown, that doesn't equate to higher sales or more popularity. So the thinking that "depowering him would make him more popular" doesn't hold water.

[Vordan]

I take you point, though I would make a slight adjustment: characters with less powers might be easier for most to write, but clearly, as you've shown, that doesn't equate to higher sales or more popularity. So the thinking that "depowering him would make him more popular" doesn't hold water.

It’s not like I even have a problem with Supes getting toned down. I liked Morrison’s Action run after all, I have no problem with Street-level Superman. But this idea that “street level” = “higher quantity of good stories” just doesn’t hold up to me. Truth was after all a depowered Superman story and the story sure as hell wasn't “easier to write”. A lot of street level characters don’t have anywhere close to as many good stories as Superman does. There’s other factors to take into consideration here.

[JAK]

It’s not like I even have a problem with Supes getting toned down. I liked Morrison’s Action run after all, I have no problem with Street-level Superman. But this idea that “street level” = “higher quantity of good stories” just doesn’t hold up to me. Truth was after all a depowered Superman story and the story sure as hell wasn't “easier to write”. A lot of street level characters don’t have anywhere close to as many good stories as Superman does. There’s other factors to take into consideration here.

Yep - totally agreed!

[Stanlos]

My Superman knowledge is limited to the recent comics and the Cavill movies. I can’t stand most older pre-1990 comics so don’t know much about Superman moving at light speed or moving planets. I don’t get why Superman has to be as powerful as Wonder Woman or Marian Manhunter. I mean he’s plenty powerful so who cares if he’s not the fastest or strongest? It would be nice to see him beaten down more and have rally. People are talking about him flying into the sun. That to me is way too much. I’m mostly interested in good stories so the power thing isn’t that important but I think his powers should define him.

His creators envisioned him as a modern day Samson (which I don't dwell on as that is definitely the lower end) or a modern day Hercules. So even if we remove editorial stuff his design demands he be a peer at the minimum.

[Agent Z]

I don't follow the argument. Yes, under-powered characters are easier to write--but that doesn't mean the writing is better. It's like how formulaic sit-coms are easier to write--just follow the tropes and plug in the jokes--that doesn't make them better sit-coms. Superman is a challenge to write, when he's at his top power level, but the writers that can handle that challenge are the best writers in the business. The writers who feel the need to cheat, and take the powers away, are showing you that they aren't very good writers.

This argument strikes me as odd given Superman wasn't originally all that powerful to begin with.

[manwhohaseverything]

This argument strikes me as odd given Superman wasn't originally all that powerful to begin with.

Superman wasn't part of the dcu in the beginning as well.He was part of a world that was for all intents and purposes normal, except for him. And his power level never stayed static. therefore i don't think his creators had the opinion that his powerlevel shouldn't grow.

[Korath]

Sometime ago, a French youtuber made a very compelling video about the comparison between Goku and Superman. He stated bluntly (and he was right) that Superman is factually stronger than Goku. Even in Super Sayan Blue Super Sayan God, Goku can't punch as hard (even if he can destroy planets with his energy attacks) as Superman, nor take as much punishment and still stand to fight.

But he also pointed out that because of the nature of the mediums and their restrictions, Goku didn't need to have the abilities of Superman to look even more impressive in a fight. I don't know if it's because of some regulations concerning the comics compared to the manga, or simply the tastes of the writers/artists in the comics industry, but it is true that I often find the fight scenes a lot more compelling and visually impressive in manga, where a fight sometimes will last several chapters (something which I think is almost unheard of in comics?).

I think that comics don't want or can't have the same visceral display of power in their fights as other medias, including video games adapted from comics, which isn't a weakness as much as a choice. But I think it hinders the possibilities to reduce power creep : if you can't have Superman and another powerful rogue in a visceral battle, which will grip the reader by the guts and make him ask for more, but still want to make clear that he's the strongest guy there is ? Superman can bench press the weight of the Earth. Or survive in deep space without any apparatus. Or any other feats which indeed makes his rogue gallery largely look like non-threats.

But to be fair; I think it's a tough line to balance anyway, and I really don't see what else to do to highlight the might of Superman without fundamentally changing what comics are. And if they became indistinguishable from manga, they wouldn't be comics anymore.