Being to powerful is actually detrimental to a heroes storytelling potential.

[The Darknight Detective]

It doesn't help that we have Bruce Timm describing him as being intrinsically less interesting than Batman and more old fashioned, to the point where we have kids in the show saying he's kind of corny and that Batman is cooler. The lack of a lot of internal conflict isn't helping either, as he's modeled after the post-Crisis version who dropped a lot of the character's quirks. It leaned into some harmful tropes at times that people think is good for Superman ("he's so charmingly old fashioned, and at times an endearing naive farm boy at heart!") but are actually bringing him down. So it's all (rather generic) external conflict, not much internal conflict and muted wish fulfillment to create something that is just "pretty good."

As someone who loves Batman over Superman by just a nose, I can't understand this argument at all (Timm's, not yours).

[TheBatman]

I don't get this clamoring for powered down Superman when post-golden age, it's not like powered down versions have actually made him as popular as he once was. If anything, the Superman franchise remains partially remains popular by coasting off the glory the character had when he was uber powerful.

Even looking at Timmverse Superman, JL Season 1 exposed just how bad their "powered down" approach was. It's not surprising to me that JLU's "World of Cardboard" scene is arguably more iconic than anything Superman said or did in STAS. The character got to let loose, and did so in a cool way. That's Superman's real problem. He's often not presented well.

Quite frankly, part of Superman's appeal should be that he's powerful as hell. Whether people want to admit it or not, that approach does work for numerous characters who are currently popular.

[sifighter]

You know I think this is starting to focus in a bit on Superman, which is 100% understandable as one of the bigger names and one of the most powerful dc heroes, but I would also point to other powerful superheroes as well when I argue that it is the skill of the writer not the character.

Because what about Dr. Fate, or Spectre, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Shazam, Wonder Woman, Swamp Thing, and I would even argue Flash and Green Lantern (Flash has multiversal force powers and the Green Lanterns have used their willpower for wild stuff). Sure, a really strong character can be hard to write a threat around and is probably why characters have weaknesses, but it is up to the writer to tell a compelling or at least entertaining story regardless. Spectre fought the Anti-Monitor in Crisis on Infinite Earths and guess what, John Ostrander later took the character and told good stories with him, even though he could easily destroy people and nations with ease as we saw throughout the run. I honestly do think that if you can get a good writer then they can either work around the power issue or even use it to their benefit.

[Robanker]

I don't get this clamoring for powered down Superman when post-golden age, it's not like powered down versions have actually made him as popular as he once was. If anything, the Superman franchise remains partially remains popular by coasting off the glory the character had when he was uber powerful.

Even looking at Timmverse Superman, JL Season 1 exposed just how bad their "powered down" approach was. It's not surprising to me that JLU's "World of Cardboard" scene is arguably more iconic than anything Superman said or did in STAS. The character got to let loose, and did so in a cool way. That's Superman's real problem. He's often not presented well.

Quite frankly, part of Superman's appeal should be that he's powerful as hell. Whether people want to admit it or not, that approach does work for numerous characters who are currently popular.

I always felt part of the appeal was he's proof-of-concept that "absolute power need not corrupt absolutely" and that power simply reveals one's truest nature. I know we're all sick to death of "HOPE^tm" when it comes to Superman, but really it is the most uplifting idea in the world that someone could actually be all powerful and use that power responsibly. Naive? Sure, but so is hoping any superhero stay on the up-and-up.

With respect to The Spectre, my interest dwindles if he loses his limitless power.

I think the people who don't like superpowered heroes aren't going to start liking them because they're weaker. They're still going to prefer street heroes.

You're harming chocolate to water it down for vanilla fans instead of having two flavors people can both like or pick the one they do if that's their preference. Embrace both. Stop trying to make everything Batman.

[SiegePerilous02]

Agreed.

...Though this might also explain why a bunch of the S:TAS and Post-Crisis-style Superman fans are also found among the “Clark Kent is the real personality” arguments; they, like me, want to have the Clark Kent side be the more complicated and complex one, and let the Superman side have to deal with the zany adventures that go beyond “generic super-heroing.”

But part of that, I’d say is how rarely any creator has managed to successfully make the Clark side both grounded and complex, so that the power fantasy element of the Superman story has you engaged with the character as a human being (character-wise, I mean.)

I think making Clark the real personality is always going to lead to boring results. He was just not designed that way going back to his original creator, and for a not insignificant amount of time afterward the rule was that Superman was putting on an act as Clark. I think ultimately the truth should be somewhere in the middle. The real guy is neither the public Superman or the public reporter Clark Kent, both are exaggerations of aspects of himself that the real him has. The same should hold true for Batman, in which Batman is an act and so his public Bruce "rich bitch" Wayne persona, but the guy who sits in the Batcave with Alfred and Dick is the real person. If forced to choose, I think "Superman is real and Clark is the mask, Bruce is real and Batman is the mask" works best for both characters. And flipping those around hasn't done them any favors: Clark is too simplified and treats being Superman as a job without much internal conflict, while Bruce has too much to the point where he's a tedious, abusive asshole.

I think if we've gotten this far with rare "Clark first, Superman second stories" that are actually interesting, it may be time to abandon the practice. He's more complex when he's an alien/Other trying to pass as one of us. Just because he's not a human doesn't mean he's not a person.

One of the best S:TAS episodes had Clark figure out an innocent man was wrongfully sentenced to die, but mouth off at Lois enough to alert the corrupt cop and have to play dead when his car blew up... and part of its secret was the fact that letting Tim Daly narrate a more fallible Clark’s POV of the story and deal with the stress of losing his life actually made it a very good human story that was still a power fantasy, given how easily Superman wins the day when Lois gets the necessary evidence. But that was maybe the best use they made of the character across the entire DCAU.

That is one of the better episodes and deserves the props it gets. i think it was more of a rarity though in quality for Superman himself.

Daly's voice performance made the STAS portions of the DCAU better for Superman though. I think that's a big part of why I liked him more in his own show. Newburn's performance in JL/U just didn't come across as nuanced, he was kind of a one note grump.

What do you think about my theory the same “power fantasy vs external conflict” argument applies to something like Tom King’s run on Batman, though?

I can't have too strong an opinion because I dropped off the run after Selina left Bruce at the alter. I'd meant to collect the trades when it was all done but the reception of the rest of the run soured me on it.

I think in general, the rotating writers find an easier way of balancing the power fantasies and external conflicts with Batman more than they do the super powered heroes. He's "easier," though that doesn't necessarily make him more complex.

As someone who loves Batman over Superman by just a nose, I can't understand this argument at all (Timm's, not yours).

Yeah, they should both be considered equally cool just in different ways. There should be variety. I reject the whole "you're either a Superman guy or a Batman guy" mentality some people have. I used to love exclusively Batman, not I love them both and favor Superman slightly. And I think Morrison favors Batman slightly, but they somehow are able to be the best Superman writer also, so it's not impossible.

You know I think this is starting to focus in a bit on Superman, which is 100% understandable as one of the bigger names and one of the most powerful dc heroes, but I would also point to other powerful superheroes as well when I argue that it is the skill of the writer not the character.

Because what about Dr. Fate, or Spectre, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Shazam, Wonder Woman, Swamp Thing, and I would even argue Flash and Green Lantern (Flash has multiversal force powers and the Green Lanterns have used their willpower for wild stuff). Sure, a really strong character can be hard to write a threat around and is probably why characters have weaknesses, but it is up to the writer to tell a compelling or at least entertaining story regardless. Spectre fought the Anti-Monitor in Crisis on Infinite Earths and guess what, John Ostrander later took the character and told good stories with him, even though he could easily destroy people and nations with ease as we saw throughout the run. I honestly do think that if you can get a good writer then they can either work around the power issue or even use it to their benefit.

No I agree, since he's the main archetype he's going to get most of the focus but it should apply to all of them. Especially Wonder Woman. It seems the main thing hindering her and MM and Captain Marvel is that DC wants Superman to be the strongest, but at the same time they seem hesitant to always fully unleash him as well. So if we were looking at a fully unleashed Superman...being slightly below that still leaves a lot of wiggle room to go nuts with these other characters.

I also imagine there's a reason one of the most popular Flash runs is Waid's in which he increased Wally's power level, and then Johns carried the torch effectively with that same level while revamping the Rogues.

[Marik Swift]

Character. Plot. Setting.

These are generally considered the principal elements of any story.

The problem with most powerful character is that the have the first two, but lack the latter. The problem with super powerful characters is that they are a level above their setting. Superman in Metropolis is essentially surrounded by a bunch of humans, who he elevates, but they don't elevate him. Metropolis is for the most part no different from New York and adds nothing truly to his characters.

Street level characters can strive in any setting cause the setting is either at their level or above it. They are a part of a bigger picture, whereas characters like Superman are the bigger picture, and so they dictate the story. But at the end of the day, they are essentially flying bricks so they can't actually dictate the story in the same way a character like Dr. Manhattan can.

Which leads to us getting stories such as "evil Superman", cause since his powerset has nothing that can meaningfully alter the setting, he needs a personality that can do so. And since Superman is essentially by the books there's never going to really be any controversy in his actions. Same applies to characters like Shazam.

Superman himself suffers from DC trying to keep him "grounded". Cause that's why he's mainly about. He's a man with godlike powers who remains grounded, philosophically, morally, etc. But these grounded traits forces his stories to remain grounded just the same His stories are forced to be about Metropolis, which itself is filled with humans who re squishy.

Superman in reality should be in a setting like Thor, but can't, cause he has to remain grounded.

Wonder Woman herself tends to suffer because of Superman by DC who still think of her as "Superman lite". Unlike Superman, she actually has the lore and setting to tell compelling stories that are on her level, but DC instead is insistent on keeping her as grounded as Superman.

[SecretWarrior]

Superman in reality should be in a setting like Thor, but can't, cause he has to remain grounded.

Wonder Woman herself tends to suffer because of Superman by DC who still think of her as "Superman lite". Unlike Superman, she actually has the lore and setting to tell compelling stories that are on her level, but DC instead is insistent on keeping her as grounded as Superman.

The first point was never an issue in S:TAS, since Superman had the tech to rocket into space and worked to resolve weird happenings at Star Labs and in the military.

Diana has no established city like Metropolis or Gotham, so she more regularly experiences challenging enemies. She's also capped by Superman, which means her power level fluctuates to adjust to whatever Superman's is, and Superman is limited to the extent that Batman has to remain relevant, since he's the company's biggest brand.

[Agent Z]

You know I think this is starting to focus in a bit on Superman, which is 100% understandable as one of the bigger names and one of the most powerful dc heroes, but I would also point to other powerful superheroes as well when I argue that it is the skill of the writer not the character.

Because what about Dr. Fate, or Spectre, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Shazam, Wonder Woman, Swamp Thing, and I would even argue Flash and Green Lantern (Flash has multiversal force powers and the Green Lanterns have used their willpower for wild stuff). Sure, a really strong character can be hard to write a threat around and is probably why characters have weaknesses, but it is up to the writer to tell a compelling or at least entertaining story regardless. Spectre fought the Anti-Monitor in Crisis on Infinite Earths and guess what, John Ostrander later took the character and told good stories with him, even though he could easily destroy people and nations with ease as we saw throughout the run. I honestly do think that if you can get a good writer then they can either work around the power issue or even use it to their benefit.

Those characters do get the overpowered criticism as well. Not as often as Superman because they aren't as exposed as he is and writers are more likely to downplay their power levels compared to him. Martian Manhunter's powers are so often ignored compared to Superman's that Geoff Johns had a line in Blackest Night where a Black Lantern J'onn had to remind people that he was almost as strong as Superman. Wonder Woman will commonly get jobbed to show how much more powerful Superman is than her with Alan Moore's "For The Man Who Has Everything" story and its adaptation being a good example and her depiction in the Justice League movie being a fairly recent one. The Spectre is definitely overpowered but he's seen as antiheroic on his best days and he's more of a horror character anyway. Dr Fate is of the same deal but is usually pitted against equally overpowered enemies in comparison to Superman and Wonder Woman whose rogues gallery is very inconsistent in powers.

[godisawesome]

The first point was never an issue in S:TAS, since Superman had the tech to rocket into space and worked to resolve weird happenings at Star Labs and in the military.

Diana has no established city like Metropolis or Gotham, so she more regularly experiences challenging enemies. She's also capped by Superman, which means her power level fluctuates to adjust to whatever Superman's is, and Superman is limited to the extent that Batman has to remain relevant, since he's the company's biggest brand.

...Did anyone else really like the post-Brainiac 13 Metropolis and world, the one leading up to Our Worlds At War? I *did*... and that was a world with random weird mutant things popping out of the sewers, Mercy and Hope being Amazons, pretty much all tech in Metropolis on steroids, and the Polkistani Zoe, who even if he wasn’t the Phantom Zone guy we know and love, provided at least a decent Dr. Doom and Latveria parallel to torment Superman, and has my favorite Parasite story (where he masquerades as Lois) and my favorite Team Superman stories.

In that particular setting... street level crime involves giant lasers, mutants, and robots. It’s kind of like how Hercules is cool when he exists in a world with the monsters and allies has to face and team up with in the Labors.

The problem with that era was you could tell they wanted the Phantom Zone back so hard that the retcon shenanigans with it started popping up; the Zone is great to have back, but I’d argue it would fit better with an Earth where the escapees would have a bit more of a challenge in Metropolis.

[LifeIsILL]

In the 90s, Diana had the Messner-Loebs run with its god-awful art style and derailment of Hippolyta's character. It was then followed up by John Byrne's run which was only slightly better. The only good things that came out of these runs were Artemis and Cassie Sandsmark and even the latter needed a different writer in order for her to get fans. Then we had the 2000s which started off fairly strong with Jiminez and Rucka's runs only to be derailed by the lead-up to Infinite Crisis, was followed up with the idiotic "Who Is Wonder Woman?" miniseries and then by "Amazons Attack" which to this day remains one of the worst WW stories ever written. For Spider-Man and Wolverine in the 2000s to be worse than this, they'd have needed to have an entire decade of One More Days.

That's exactly what Wolverine's 90s stuff is....One More Day level stuff. Mostly nonsensical.

Even his 2000 stuff isn't good besides the Mark Millar stories. You had Wolverine Origins which was much-maligned. And then the ridiculous Romulus origin story. And then the ultimate climax where they reveal Wolverine was evolved from a family of wolves or some crap. And then it just gets even more nonsensical with the angel saving him from death story....even though he can't die. Really makes Byrne Wonder Woman or Silver Surfer read like a masterpiece.

Maybe you should try Catwoman or Luke Cage's solo comic, way worse than most overpowered superhero books.

[PCN24454]

Character. Plot. Setting.

These are generally considered the principal elements of any story.

The problem with most powerful character is that the have the first two, but lack the latter. The problem with super powerful characters is that they are a level above their setting. Superman in Metropolis is essentially surrounded by a bunch of humans, who he elevates, but they don't elevate him. Metropolis is for the most part no different from New York and adds nothing truly to his characters.

Street level characters can strive in any setting cause the setting is either at their level or above it. They are a part of a bigger picture, whereas characters like Superman are the bigger picture, and so they dictate the story. But at the end of the day, they are essentially flying bricks so they can't actually dictate the story in the same way a character like Dr. Manhattan can.

Which leads to us getting stories such as "evil Superman", cause since his powerset has nothing that can meaningfully alter the setting, he needs a personality that can do so. And since Superman is essentially by the books there's never going to really be any controversy in his actions. Same applies to characters like Shazam.

Superman himself suffers from DC trying to keep him "grounded". Cause that's why he's mainly about. He's a man with godlike powers who remains grounded, philosophically, morally, etc. But these grounded traits forces his stories to remain grounded just the same His stories are forced to be about Metropolis, which itself is filled with humans who re squishy.

Superman in reality should be in a setting like Thor, but can't, cause he has to remain grounded.

Wonder Woman herself tends to suffer because of Superman by DC who still think of her as "Superman lite". Unlike Superman, she actually has the lore and setting to tell compelling stories that are on her level, but DC instead is insistent on keeping her as grounded as Superman.

That seems to be a fairly shallow view on how setting works. That literally ignores everyone in a Superman setting. He stays in Metropolis because there are actual interesting characters.

His setting isn't anything different from Spider-Man's setting, so why is his limited by his powers.

[Ra-El]

That seems to be a fairly shallow view on how setting works. That literally ignores everyone in a Superman setting. He stays in Metropolis because there are actual interesting characters.

His setting isn't anything different from Spider-Man's setting, so why is his limited by his powers.

Because Spider-Man vs Green Goblin without holding anything back won't level NY, but Superman vs Mongul could destroy Metropolis.

[SiegePerilous02]

Those characters do get the overpowered criticism as well. Not as often as Superman because they aren't as exposed as he is and writers are more likely to downplay their power levels compared to him. Martian Manhunter's powers are so often ignored compared to Superman's that Geoff Johns had a line in Blackest Night where a Black Lantern J'onn had to remind people that he was almost as strong as Superman. Wonder Woman will commonly get jobbed to show how much more powerful Superman is than her with Alan Moore's "For The Man Who Has Everything" story and its adaptation being a good example and her depiction in the Justice League movie being a fairly recent one. The Spectre is definitely overpowered but he's seen as antiheroic on his best days and he's more of a horror character anyway. Dr Fate is of the same deal but is usually pitted against equally overpowered enemies in comparison to Superman and Wonder Woman whose rogues gallery is very inconsistent in powers.

I wouldn't say that's a good example considering where their powers were established to be at that time in continuity. Pre-COIE Superman was firmly established as being the strongest hero, and Mongul was a villain that he had never definitively defeated up until that point. Either solo or with the help of Supergirl or the Legion. It's not really jobbing if there was plenty of precedent for Superman being stronger than Wonder Woman, and this being a villain it was doubtful even he could defeat (and doesn't even in this story, let's not forget). There is no expectation going in that she'd win.

Wonder Woman's rogues gallery being inconsistent in power level is hard to say since DC rarely even uses them in a modern context. Superman's major foes are not very inconsistent though, they are either on his level or even above it (Mxy).

[PCN24454]

Because Spider-Man vs Green Goblin without holding anything back won't level NY, but Superman vs Mongul could destroy Metropolis.

Wouldn’t Thor fights level Asgard as well? It would; we just don’t care about Asgard. At least not to the level of somewhere like New York.

That’s why I feel “Cosmic” series are so niche. No one really cares about the setting. That’s why we’re ok if it gets blown up.

Not to mention that if everything but the person they’re fighting against is getting destroyed, they’re not using their power efficiently.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Superman is my favorite superhero, but I do believe he can be harder to write than most superheroes.

However, only PART of the reason is that Superman is so powerful.

The other part is that Superman is so virtuous that you really can't give him any real "cool" attitude to go along with his powers.

So, you have a very powerful hero who never really is allowed to cut loose with his powers in an exhilarating way the way Thor or Hulk can, for example, because that's not Superman's personality. Superman also doesn't crack wise or quip like a lot of popular heroes do, so he gets that boring Boy Scout reputation.

And, while I love Superman, I can see why others don't if they're used to reading Spider-Man or Wolverine. Their personalities can carry them through their (many) bad stories.