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

[SecretWarrior]

"Get better writers" seems to be a common response.

So, I guess DC has been allowing third-rate writers pen Superman for a while now. That's why Batman and Spider-man have been outselling him for...decades?

Strange that DC would do that to one of their more famous characters.

Most of Marvel comics is Mid-Tier characters and they've been outselling DC for...as long as I can remember.

I guess I must be missing something.

I think it probably gets more and more difficult in a closely integrated shared universe...it’s just about impossible maybe to write even a moderately coherent story showing Green Arrow and Batman making telling contributions to JL adventures IF Superman is shown as a bright guy using his powers imaginatively.

It’s probably no coincidence that a high proportion of the really entertaining Superman tales in recent decades are Elseword stories.

It’s not that it’s super difficult to write entertaining tales about a really powerful Superman...it’s just that main DCU has become a less than ideal setting for him.

You nailed it. The problem isn't challenging the Flash or Superman, but doing it without messing with the balance of the DCU.

It's easier to make a story about one of Batman's villains taking over Gotham and more or less explaining why the JL isn't helping, but is much harder to tell a story about Brainiac or Mongul taking over Earth and explaining away the Justice League. At the very least the creators would have to take the JL off the board, and while they can do it if it's one or two issues, for a long arc like City of Bane or Joker War, they can't do it.

Bingo!

When is Superman's secret identity threatened? Who believes Lois and Jimmy will be killed off? Does anyone care about the property damage in Metropolis?

[SecretWarrior]

Batman, with all of his tech, is actually a mid-tier like Spider-man, but he can take on high tier characters by identifying and exploiting their weaknesses. The rest of the Bat-Family is largely street-level/low-tier.

[Agent Z]

Spider-Man and Wolverine (solo comics) are the king of awful stories.

They have more awful stories than any other superhero.

That is patently untrue.

[SiegePerilous02]

Let's not punish the characters by taking their power away for the benefit of hack writers who don't have the imagination to make it work. Or at the very least, are good writers who are just not well suited for certain characters and are better off writing street level heroes or other types of stories.

Superman and Spider-Man were both around equally popular at certain times despite the vast difference in their power levels. That's why they were chosen for the first DC/Marvel crossover. There really isn't compelling, strong evidence to suggest Superman being too powerful makes him unpopular or diminishes his storytelling potential. He kick started the entire genre as we know it and was at his most popular period during the Silver Age, he hasn't reached the same heights since even if they tried to Marvel-ize him at certain times to give him short boosts. His popularity started to fade in the 80s when trends shifted towards gritty anti-heroes, so a relative decline always seemed inevitable to a degree without power levels really factoring into it. Changing him into Spider-Man is an intrinsically flawed idea, Spider-Man is great for who he is and the types of stories he's in, but that's why I read Spider-Man when I want that. Let's not diminish variety to make all character similar.

Batman and Spider-Man's brands have just gotten way more consistent care than the likes of Superman (in recent years), Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Supergirl, etc. All-Star Superman successfully gives the middle finger to the "being too powerful ruins storytelling potential" idea, and the hype pre-release of MoS and it still doing very well despite its divisive reputation, and the hype of BvS pre-release, shows that his IP can at least still draw initial attention for movies and people want to see it. There is also the fact that characters like him and Wonder Woman can be challenged in more cerebral ways, and in that case why lower the power level at all? it's moot in those types of stories, and it leaves it on the table for other types.

Batman, with all of his tech, is actually a mid-tier like Spider-man, but he can take on high tier characters by identifying and exploiting their weaknesses. The rest of the Bat-Family is largely street-level/low-tier.

Conveniently also having said people with powers forget how their powers work or be dumbed down for his sake, or for him to pull a Deus Ex Machina out of his ass. He works better as street level who survives in crazier situations with his intellect, but should barely make it out of the situations in one piece each time. Meanwhile, Nightwing lead a team against the likes of Trigon, so he really shouldn't be considered street level over Batman.

[LifeIsILL]

That can’t possibly be true. It’s just that they’re so popular that people actually care whether or not they get bad stories.

Ok, maybe Wonder Woman takes the #1 awful stories spot. But a lot of her bad stories were from the 50s and 60s.

Wolverine and Spider-Man's solo titles in the 90s, and even good portion of the 2000s were just terrible.

Around that time Silver Surfer had a solo series that ran for 150 issues, Shazam had a solo title that ran for 50 issues, those and even Wonder Woman's solo were just way more interesting than Wolverine and Spider-Man.

Fans just want to see a power used in a more creative way.

Then Superman isn't the one to complain about. A good portion of Superman comics is him controlling his powers and using them in a creative way.

When was the last time you saw Spider-Man use his powers in a creative way? 15 years ago when he used his spider-sense to talk to insects and turn into an actual spider?

[Jcogginsa]

Let's not punish the characters by taking their power away for the benefit of hack writers who don't have the imagination to make it work.

It's not punishing a character to portray them with a power level on a lower level than moving around planets

[SiegePerilous02]

It's not punishing a character to portray them with a power level on a lower level than moving around planets

If it's done to make a character "easier" for the writer, that's more for the writer's benefit than the character on an ongoing basis. The character gets nothing when the writer leaves.

And Hell, they toned Superman down in the Bronze Age from that level but that would still be considered too powerful for writers who are better suited for Batman or Spider-Man. In which case, go write them instead.

[Jcogginsa]

If it's done to make a character "easier" for the writer, that's more for the writer's benefit than the character on an ongoing basis. The character gets nothing when the writer leaves.

And Hell, they toned Superman down in the Bronze Age from that level but that would still be considered too powerful for writers who are better suited for Batman or Spider-Man. In which case, go write them instead.

Making a character weaker does not take anything away from them.

Especially since every character's high ends are usually vast outliers from their normal depictions. 99.99 percent of the time, they never demonstrate that level of strength, it's only once or twice. Because working situations that would demonstrate that kind of force into the majority of the issues would rapidly homogenize them and make them boring. Stories need variety and the higher the power level you go, the less variety you get. Look at the Flash. His most popular villains aren't the other speedsters, it's the Rogues. The guys who are only a threat because the writer's ignore how fast the Flash can go.

People like to bring up All-Star Superman as an example of a story where an all powerful character is still interesting, and they're right to do so. But the thing about All-Star Superman is that it's a finite story. It is self-contained, with a beginning, middle, and end. It doesn't have to constantly come up with new challenges for it's Superman, it's done. If it were an ongoing, not only would it need to come up with more stuff, it would need to do so in ways that don't retread what it's already done.

Furthermore, the more powerful something is, the harder it is to be creative. If you've got a character that can take a supernova to the face, it's impossible to have them be threatened in creative ways. That's a scale where the only way to threaten them is by hitting them with things that aren't compared to anything, and only hurt the character because the author has decided that they're powerful enough to do so. It's completely untethered from reality, and so you can't be creative.

Meanwhile, lowering the scale a bit, gives you more options. A character who can shrug off a nuclear bomb is, by any real world metric, god-like in power. Yet they aren't so over the top that they can't be threatened. You can still root their challenges in real, tangible things, instead of just arbitrary author fiat.

[SiegePerilous02]

Making a character weaker does not take anything away from them.

You're taking away power for the convenience of a story that may be better suited for another character, so yes you are taking something away from them. You're not engaging with them on their terms.

Especially since every character's high ends are usually vast outliers from their normal depictions. 99.99 percent of the time, they never demonstrate that level of strength, it's only once or twice. Because working situations that would demonstrate that kind of force into the majority of the issues would rapidly homogenize them and make them boring. Stories need variety and the higher the power level you go, the less variety you get. Look at the Flash. His most popular villains aren't the other speedsters, it's the Rogues. The guys who are only a threat because the writer's ignore how fast the Flash can go.

Variety is needed, but I'm not sure why definitively lowering characters power levels for convenience has anything to do with that. The lower level characters run into homogeny as well because they run into lack of creativity/rehashing of storylines.

Superman's mainly boring in the modern era because of the deadly combo of scaling him down and getting rid of a lot of his internal character tics. In his case, it seemed like he had more variety in his mythos (or more potential for variety) when he was at a higher power, not less.

People like to bring up All-Star Superman as an example of a story where an all powerful character is still interesting, and they're right to do so. But the thing about All-Star Superman is that it's a finite story. It is self-contained, with a beginning, middle, and end. It doesn't have to constantly come up with new challenges for it's Superman, it's done. If it were an ongoing, not only would it need to come up with more stuff, it would need to do so in ways that don't retread what it's already done.

It's not just power levels that benefit from a finite story. The pressure to come up with new stuff constantly with the same characters over and over applies to all these serialized characters. A lot of these characters have been around as early as the 40s, 50s or 60s, and they are expected to continue on indefinitely, with things like even death not being permanent. That's not a model of storytelling that lends itself to constant, new creative ideas.

Spider-Man is at a more "manageable" level than characters like Superman or Wonder Woman, but he still runs into plenty of his own ruts. Like he fights Dr. Octopus again, isn't that the same shit, different week? This is a problem Superman would (and has) run into even at a lower level.

Furthermore, the more powerful something is, the harder it is to be creative. If you've got a character that can take a supernova to the face, it's impossible to have them be threatened in creative ways. That's a scale where the only way to threaten them is by hitting them with things that aren't compared to anything, and only hurt the character because the author has decided that they're powerful enough to do so. It's completely untethered from reality, and so you can't be creative.

But again, on a monthly basis we run into writers who aren't really writing terribly creative stories regardless of the level of characters. Really creative writers can work with any power level if it's a character they connect with, while poorly suited writers or mediocre writers are going to turn in dull work regardless of the character they are working on. Tethering escapist power fantasies to reality too much also seems ill suited. It seems like an intrinsically flawed way to approach these characters. "Realism" isn't the only way for stories to have weight or have meaning. In fact, tethering them to reality too much may have the opposite effect and have things stand out even more (in a bad way) when they lean into fantastical stuff.

[Menacer]

Prefer Superman in comic...

but Batman always gets better film treatment...

Largely cause superman is cgi heavy in films... batman doesn't suffer from that handicap

[Jcogginsa]

You're taking away power for the convenience of a story that may be better suited for another character, so yes you are taking something away from them. You're not engaging with them on their terms.

No, you aren't. It is perfectly possible to tell good stories with weaker characters.

No one criticizes the DCAU because it's Superman can't move planets
No one criticizes Young Justice because it's Superman can't move planets.

Variety is needed, but I'm not sure why definitively lowering characters power levels for convenience has anything to do with that. The lower level characters run into homogeny as well because they run into lack of creativity/rehashing of storylines.

Superman's mainly boring in the modern era because of the deadly combo of scaling him down and getting rid of a lot of his internal character tics. In his case, it seemed like he had more variety in his mythos (or more potential for variety) when he was at a higher power, not less.

Because it's easier to come up with challenges when you haven't dismissed everything that actually exists in the real world from being a threat. By putting that stuff on the table, you can actually be creative instead of just throwing around nonsensically big numbers.

And I promise you, scaling Superman down is not even remotely an issue with Superman.

It's not just power levels that benefit from a finite story. The pressure to come up with new stuff constantly with the same characters over and over applies to all these serialized characters. A lot of these characters have been around as early as the 40s, 50s or 60s, and they are expected to continue on indefinitely, with things like even death not being permanent. That's not a model of storytelling that lends itself to constant, new creative ideas.

Spider-Man is at a more "manageable" level than characters like Superman or Wonder Woman, but he still runs into plenty of his own ruts. Like he fights Dr. Octopus again, isn't that the same shit, different week? This is a problem Superman would (and has) run into even at a lower level.

1. That's not a problem that power levels fixes
2. Even if he fights the same people over and over, they can at least do new things

But again, on a monthly basis we run into writers who aren't really writing terribly creative stories regardless of the level of characters. Really creative writers can work with any power level if it's a character they connect with, while poorly suited writers or mediocre writers are going to turn in dull work regardless of the character they are working on. Tethering escapist power fantasies to reality too much also seems ill suited. It seems like an intrinsically flawed way to approach these characters. "Realism" isn't the only way for stories to have weight or have meaning. In fact, tethering them to reality too much may have the opposite effect and have things stand out even more they lean into fantastical stuff.

I'm not advocating for realism, I'm advocating against overindulgence.

Superman does not need to juggle planets in order to be an awe inspiring figure. Shrugging off a nuke would do that just fine.

[Agent Z]

Ok, maybe Wonder Woman takes the #1 awful stories spot. But a lot of her bad stories were from the 50s and 60s.

Wolverine and Spider-Man's solo titles in the 90s, and even good portion of the 2000s were just terrible.

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.

Around that time Silver Surfer had a solo series that ran for 150 issues, Shazam had a solo title that ran for 50 issues,

There is a reason these two very rarely get solo's in the first place compared to Spider-Man and Wolverine.

When was the last time you saw Spider-Man use his powers in a creative way?

Pretty much every time he combines his spider-sense, agility, web-shooters and intelligence to outmaneuver and defeat the enemy. In other words, quite often.

[scary harpy]

Making a character weaker does not take anything away from them.
...

People like to bring up All-Star Superman as an example of a story where an all powerful character is still interesting, and they're right to do so. But the thing about All-Star Superman is that it's a finite story. It is self-contained, with a beginning, middle, and end. It doesn't have to constantly come up with new challenges for it's Superman, it's done. If it were an ongoing, not only would it need to come up with more stuff, it would need to do so in ways that don't retread what it's already done.
...

Exactly!

In a finite story, a writer can do that with a superhero.

Comics are not finite stories!

...

It's not just power levels that benefit from a finite story. The pressure to come up with new stuff constantly with the same characters over and over applies to all these serialized characters. A lot of these characters have been around as early as the 40s, 50s or 60s, and they are expected to continue on indefinitely, with things like even death not being permanent. That's not a model of storytelling that lends itself to constant, new creative ideas.

Spider-Man is at a more "manageable" level than characters like Superman or Wonder Woman, but he still runs into plenty of his own ruts. Like he fights Dr. Octopus again, isn't that the same shit, different week? This is a problem Superman would (and has) run into even at a lower level.

...

This is the nature of the beast.

These are serialized characters. Yes Spider-Man and Green Goblin will fight again. This will be new to someone just beginning in comics...like we all did once a long time ago. Yes, death is not permanent; so, don't waste our time with it.

New villains are the life blood of comic books; they keep the heroes interesting. Batman and Spider-Man are easier to challenge because their power levels are more 'manageable'.

[SiegePerilous02]

No, you aren't. It is perfectly possible to tell good stories with weaker characters.

No one criticizes the DCAU because it's Superman can't move planets
No one criticizes Young Justice because it's Superman can't move planets.

People criticize DCAU Superman for not being as powerful all the time. Sometimes unfairly, sometimes fairly.

Not even a "moving planets" level. Stuff like having trouble lifting a falling plane in his first episode. It was also produced by a guy who thought Superman was more old fashioned and boring than Batman, so I don't know if the thought processes that went into it are indicative of what works for the character. Should also be noted that Timm said he wished All-Star existed as a reference when he made STAS.

Because it's easier to come up with challenges when you haven't dismissed everything that actually exists in the real world from being a threat. By putting that stuff on the table, you can actually be creative instead of just throwing around nonsensically big numbers.

You don't have to dismiss stuff that exists in the real world from being a threat, you just need to apply it in creative ways so it doesn't seem out of place with the larger than life stuff. Grounded real world threats can harm his supporting cast, which regardless of his power level he angsts about not being able to protect 24/7. There are also threats he can't solve with his powers anyway, more "can't solve this with your fists" problems, and those work just as well as when he's more powerful, so it's not necessary to scale him down.

And I promise you, scaling Superman down is not even remotely an issue with Superman.

You can promise that, but it hasn't really resulted in anything too memorable. There's a reason most of his classic stories are either outside of the main canon or are from before the Byrne reboot, with the exception of his death. Most of his enduring popularity as an icon is grandfathered in from when he was more powerful and at the height of his popularity.

1. That's not a problem that power levels fixes
2. Even if he fights the same people over and over, they can at least do new things

1. Scaling down the powers doesn't really fix it either. It's rather incidental to the problems mainstream superhero comics face
2. They don't do anything any more new than the same people Superman faces over and over again either.

I'm not advocating for realism, I'm advocating against overindulgence.

Superman does not need to juggle planets in order to be an awe inspiring figure. Shrugging off a nuke would do that just fine.

You really don't have to use the juggling planets thing, that's not really the level people advocate for. He'd already been scaled down down in the Bronze Age, the arguments are against periodically scaling him down even further like they initially did post-Crisis. In comics that have aged more poorly than some of his classic Bronze Age stories.

These are serialized characters. Yes Spider-Man and Green Goblin will fight again. This will be new to someone just beginning in comics...like we all did once a long time ago. Yes, death is not permanent; so, don't waste our time with it.

New villains are the life blood of comic books; they keep the heroes interesting. Batman and Spider-Man are easier to challenge because their power levels are more 'manageable'.

So how is that different from Superman fighting Zod or Brainiac again being new to somebody?

We're not exactly swimming in new exciting villains for Batman or Spider-Man. How many great new ones are there that actually stuck for these more manageable characters that are supposedly easier to write? Meanwhile, what's the problem with using Solaris or Vyndktvx?

Not a very convincing argument.

[Killerbee911]

Saitama is actually the least interesting character in his own manga. The story usually revolves around the the characters around Saitama. Who for the most part are way less powerful.

Goku is the same way.

This is not true. Not even remotely

Writing powerful characters takes a different mindset. It is not about winning and losing, We already know the answer to that question. It is how to interestingly solve problems with the main character. Superman and Shazam don't struggle in today's market because they are powerful, They struggle because they are powerful characters who don't unleash their powers. There is literally a genre about characters being OP in manga/manhwa and pretty much all shonen main characters become ridiculously powerful. Both are extremely popular, Being powerful isn't detrimental to a story unless a writer puts a character way outside the competition they are supposed to fighting.

This brings me to Batman and Spiderman are raise to way outside of the competition they are fighting and then writers hit delete like we forget they can do these things. It might work for some of you guys but Batman runs around in powersuits all the time, Batman is shown to be Martial art God then Batman turns around and fights Joker, Riddler, etc who don't have a shot of beating him a fight. The only difference between Batman and Superman it is easier to accept writers downgrade him. But it doesn't work on me because everytime I see him get shot, poisoned by gas or fall off a building. I am like that would have happened if you had your powersuit on.

As I get older as comic book fan, I like strong continuity less and less. Because that is what force characters into these traps. Every story beginning, middle, and end. Trying to keep a story without an ending and characters at the same age forever has consequences. As businesses I get it but I don't forget that Batman goes up against Bronze Tiger, Lady Shiva and Deathstroke in hand to hand. I don't forget that Batwing is running around suit that all Batfamily could be wearing, I don't forget that he has other powersuits. Batman is just as bad Superman in terms of power level, And if he isn't as bad as Superman in power levels then he is stupid.