A more realistic Superman in a more realistic World: Superman 10,000

[PCN24454]

Not killed, but there should be tension, like when Cap fights Chitauri, STRIKE agents, Crossbones, or Thanos's Hordes. There is rarely any plausible tension in a Superman story.

Heck, even top tier MCU Avengers like Thor, Vision, and Scarlet Witch have plausible Earth-based threats from Ultron to each other.

Oh please. If you really believed that they would lose, then you haven't been reading comic books enough.

Batman, Flash, Spider-Man, protagonists by nature are invulnerable like that.

[Kuwagaton]

Well, they would be scaled accordingly.

The benefit is that you can tell more stories with him, since his threats could range beyond Lex, monsters, and aliens. I mean many of his threats like Metallo and Parasite aren't threatening. Scaling up his villains takes away their horror movie quality and just makes them dime store sci fi villains. Who cares about him fighting crime when the mob or governmental figures stand no chance? It's called Action Comics. He should be able to kick *** without disrupting global geopolitics like Dr. Manhattan.

I mean why would you ever want Superman to solve a problem with his brain, creativity, or with skilled fighting. No just have him be powerful so we can avoid seeing those things. Every ridiculously powerful shonen protagonist gets beat down has to train and comes back to avenge their loss. The anime character they compare Superman most in Goku has to regularly train to get stronger because of an opponent who is stronger, Yes it is an annoying treadmill process but he almost always never the strongest person.

I see it all the time OMG Superman has to be this powerful. They are diminishing returns on being so powerful, If Lois is falling off a building, Is there any doubt that lightspeed Superman is going to get her? If a meteor is falling at the earth, Is there any doubt that a guy who can push a planet can deal with it? After fighting Darkseid and holding his own, Who is gallery is going to be challenge? Once superman can do a certain thing it actually eliminates certain scenarios for him.

Superman being more powerful does not make him more amazing. The biggest myth is just that, What is the difference visually between Flash running Mach speed and Flash running lightspeed? Nothing. Until a strength feat is topped, It is amazing. Superman lifting a semi-trailer is amazing until you see him lift an Aircraft carrier, Which is amazing until you see him lift a Giant meteor. If the level is maintained at a certain place it will always being amazing. I remember watching the Brandon Routh Superman movie and the most amazing scene is still him stop the plane/spaceship from crashing or in Man of Steel where is holding up the oil rig that felt amazing. The some of most hype "Superman" stuff I have watched is Neo in the Matrix series. Upping the power level doesn't make something more amazing but it for certain ruins a series ability to do thing under that level again.

Side note- To be clear this is not just a Superman issue the same can be said for a ton of other DC and other heroes but where the problem comes in for Superman is that he presented at his highest levels consistently and people clearly know what his upper limits are so it harder to accept him performing under that. Whereas someone like flash is just as broken but Flash regular fights characters below his level and doesn't always show his upper limits. Flash got hit by a blow dart on CW show and I turned off my TV but most people don't have that reaction because Flash doesn't always get to cool stuff like run around the world and each time around he hits Brainiac Lex Luthor. Superman is the hero with the most consistently high-level presentation and what makes him great is also what makes him stick out like a sore thumb.

These two ideas kinda have the same gripe with me. That there aren't so many contributions to showing what he'd find to be credible obstacles, and a character like Parasite appearing so underrated.

Let me put it this way to use an example someone on another CBR board once used. Let's take an average living room. Now let's say it's waterproof and then fill it with water. BOOM! You've got at least a hundred tons right there. A calm Hulk who is about to change back to Banner could juggle that using his little finger.

You've got Ben Grimm holding up multiple collapsing buildings or Colossus stopping a train without himself budging.

Supposedly, the Marvel writers are told to ignore the handbooks (and they probably would anyway). They are supposedly told not to worry that Spider-Man can lift ten tons because it's "classes", not weight. So Spidey is really a Class 10, Colossus Class 70, Ben Class 85, Thor Class 100+, etc. In practice, that means you should present a Class 70 as stronger than a Class 10 and so on but don't adhere to the actual number of tons.

Not like anyone ever followed a rule book on strength but those Marvel characters are considerably more vulnerable overall in addition to the vague correlation to a power level that Superman doesn't have. There's no number associated with Superman's strength and that's just one of his powers. Clark Kent can't really have the problems of a Bruce banner and doesn't go to an apples to oranges dimension like Thor does, disconnected from humanity to great extents or stretches. That guy even had Don and Jake at points, y'know?

[DochaDocha]

Oh please. If you really believed that they would lose, then you haven't been reading comic books enough.

Batman, Flash, Spider-Man, protagonists by nature are invulnerable like that.

Agreed. If you rely too heavily on "will he/won't he die?" for drama and suspense, then the stories will essentially have none in serial comics and TV. It's a legitimate complaint about Superman, that he'll never really die, but we can't pretend that every thug with a gun poses a real threat to Batman's safety, either.

The drama doesn't come from life or death of the protagonists. For Superman, you can get a good dramatic story from things like will he or won't he succeed in putting a criminal behind bars, saving another person, saving another person's livelihood, keeping his identity a secret, and anything regarding romantic relationships. There are a lot of ways in which Superman can credibly fail (and for the sake of good storytelling, will fail). I think here is where Superman creators can look to things like procedural dramas for a little bit of inspiration.

[Vordan]

I mean Hulk is literally Immortal right now and he’s more popular than he’s been in ages. Death is a complete non-issue to the Hickman X-Men and they’re more popular than ever. “Will Superman lose this fight and die?” isn’t really a compelling story, the answer is going to be no. And no nameless thug is going to suddenly kill Batman, if that did happen Batman fans would have a complete meltdown, look at how butthurt they got about Tom King writing a much more flawed **** up of a Batman. Despite what people say nobody actually picks a hero as their favorite or finds them interesting “because they could lose”.

[Killerbee911]

I mean Hulk is literally Immortal right now and he’s more popular than he’s been in ages. Death is a complete non-issue to the Hickman X-Men and they’re more popular than ever. “Will Superman lose this fight and die?” isn’t really a compelling story, the answer is going to be no. And no nameless thug is going to suddenly kill Batman, if that did happen Batman fans would have a complete meltdown, look at how butthurt they got about Tom King writing a much more flawed **** up of a Batman. Despite what people say nobody actually picks a hero as their favorite or finds them interesting “because they could lose”.

You literally have missed the point in those things. Hulk loses a lot in immortal hulk, X-men clear die so they also lose. It is threat death/injury AND losing a conflict. Wolverine and Superman have exact same problem except Wolverine can be injured and lose a conflict and provides enough of buffer that people don't care that he is zero danger in any of comics. Superman in most stories does not have credible threat of losing or being hurt making superman one of the hardest character to have narrative tension in their book.

A nameless thug isn't going to kill Batman, But you can write a story where a nameless thug hurts Batman, You can write a story where a stray bullet hurts Batman. The good batman stories have him coming home from fights with injuries creating the illusion of danger and mortality. They mix in the danger of death in the series and losing just enough so where you can have narrative tension.

Finally I will mention One punch man who has turned the trope of not losing into a subversion of the trope. Every story for One Punch becomes " is this guy that is going to be the one to finally challenge him" and the answer is always no but every fight is interesting because it is presented by villains in beginning as if they have a chance. Every fight has a little narrative tension because as audience you know at some point there is going to be someone who challenges him. So the audience always wonders if this fight is going to be one. Anyways the point is even with invincible characters there ways to create tension and interest. In 24 episodes only ONE fight by main character goes beyond one hit this one . In Superman case it might be better ignore any pretense that anyone can hurt him and there is any chance of him losing. Because at least then one a person finally can hurt him or challenge it is a surprising moment for the audience and you actually get tension. But Superman comics plays the middle and is not better for it

[Agent Z]

The fact that Superman's most famous enemy is a guy who doesn't have super powers probably plays a factor in him being perceived as invincible. But I will admit that it's only perception and not true. There are plenty of foes that can hurt Superman and even potentially kill him. They just need to be used more consistently.

[godisawesome]

I see it as two issues:

- Superman does have several foes whose can make interesting opponents and villains if written well and used consistently, as others have noticed; it wasn’t lowering Superman’s powers that made the conflicts of STAS interesting as much as using the rogues gallery enough to make them genuinely memorable recurring threats. While they very deliberately lowered his power level there, the basic principle of making sure that if Metallo or Parasite show up they actually give a good showing would hold true with any version fo Superman that isn’t pure power fantasy.

- Some of the better Superman stories have zeroed-in on making sure the main conflict is clever and can’t be resolved just by superpowers alone. That’s ideally what Lex’s big advantage should be, and honesty even regular human villains who simply pose challenging conundrums can suffice, like the dirty cop trying to hide his murder in STAS and “killed” Clark Kent.

[Zero Hunter]

I would rather read a Superman who is a little weaker who has to use his brains to win sometimes more than I would one who is just so strong he can punch his way out of everything. That is why the post Crisis John Byrne version has always been my favorite version. He was still increadably powerful, but he was not god level. Just constantly having to create stronger and stronger villains is not the answer.

[Alpha]

Even the strongest Superman in the world can't easily stop a complez hostage crisis created by one of Toyman's shenanigans.

[Stanlos]

I would rather read a Superman who is a little weaker who has to use his brains to win sometimes more than I would one who is just so strong he can punch his way out of everything. That is why the post Crisis John Byrne version has always been my favorite version. He was still increadably powerful, but he was not god level. Just constantly having to create stronger and stronger villains is not the answer.

But with the vastness of Supes powers he is never NOT using his brain. That is why he hasn't disintegrated a continent or sent the planet hurtling into the sun

[Kuwagaton]

You literally have missed the point in those things. Hulk loses a lot in immortal hulk, X-men clear die so they also lose. It is threat death/injury AND losing a conflict. Wolverine and Superman have exact same problem except Wolverine can be injured and lose a conflict and provides enough of buffer that people don't care that he is zero danger in any of comics. Superman in most stories does not have credible threat of losing or being hurt making superman one of the hardest character to have narrative tension in their book.

A nameless thug isn't going to kill Batman, But you can write a story where a nameless thug hurts Batman, You can write a story where a stray bullet hurts Batman. The good batman stories have him coming home from fights with injuries creating the illusion of danger and mortality. They mix in the danger of death in the series and losing just enough so where you can have narrative tension.

Finally I will mention One punch man who has turned the trope of not losing into a subversion of the trope. Every story for One Punch becomes " is this guy that is going to be the one to finally challenge him" and the answer is always no but every fight is interesting because it is presented by villains in beginning as if they have a chance. Every fight has a little narrative tension because as audience you know at some point there is going to be someone who challenges him. So the audience always wonders if this fight is going to be one. Anyways the point is even with invincible characters there ways to create tension and interest. In 24 episodes only ONE fight by main character goes beyond one hit this one . In Superman case it might be better ignore any pretense that anyone can hurt him and there is any chance of him losing. Because at least then one a person finally can hurt him or challenge it is a surprising moment for the audience and you actually get tension. But Superman comics plays the middle and is not better for it

Much of Superman's history runs with the idea that such things are more impressive when they're not frequently out at the forefront of a story. You can make him appear strong by always winning, but he appears even stronger and to many of us more interesting when it's not a matter of winning or losing. It's why I miss when writers like Byrne would do a story where the world's strongest man finds contests of strength trivial. Any one can come up with a story where the characters just punch each other to the moon and back. Action competes with Aquaman, but also Archie or All Star Western just as well. He's the superhero poster boy but he's still built different.

Peak Superman to me is stuff that came out in the early or late (as in after the death of Supergirl) bronze age, or the second chunk of the Joe Casey run. It encompasses the Siegel stuff where the sci fi bounced between humorous and thoughtful, or the early stuff with the strip style gags padding a truly unbeatable character. It's not like the Superman New 52 title, chip on his shoulder and his back to the wall with clenched fists and red eyed insecurity. I'm not really knocking a lot of new stuff so much from a quality standpoint as saying it looks like a character just trying to stay afloat in a market flooded with the same.

[Vordan]

You literally have missed the point in those things. Hulk loses a lot in immortal hulk, X-men clear die so they also lose. It is threat death/injury AND losing a conflict. Wolverine and Superman have exact same problem except Wolverine can be injured and lose a conflict and provides enough of buffer that people don't care that he is zero danger in any of comics. Superman in most stories does not have credible threat of losing or being hurt making superman one of the hardest character to have narrative tension in their book.

A nameless thug isn't going to kill Batman, But you can write a story where a nameless thug hurts Batman, You can write a story where a stray bullet hurts Batman. The good batman stories have him coming home from fights with injuries creating the illusion of danger and mortality. They mix in the danger of death in the series and losing just enough so where you can have narrative tension.

Finally I will mention One punch man who has turned the trope of not losing into a subversion of the trope. Every story for One Punch becomes " is this guy that is going to be the one to finally challenge him" and the answer is always no but every fight is interesting because it is presented by villains in beginning as if they have a chance. Every fight has a little narrative tension because as audience you know at some point there is going to be someone who challenges him. So the audience always wonders if this fight is going to be one. Anyways the point is even with invincible characters there ways to create tension and interest. In 24 episodes only ONE fight by main character goes beyond one hit this one . In Superman case it might be better ignore any pretense that anyone can hurt him and there is any chance of him losing. Because at least then one a person finally can hurt him or challenge it is a surprising moment for the audience and you actually get tension. But Superman comics plays the middle and is not better for it

I didn’t miss the point at all. The X-Men can not die permanently, so death is no longer a narrative factor, Hickman literally says that in his interviews. They made it a goddamn joke that Quire has died every issue of X-Factor, and you’re telling me death is still a factor?

Hulk is the same, even when he “loses” it doesn’t stop him at all, he got cut to bits and ended up eating the scientist who was dissecting him! The main thrust of their stories is not “can this enemy kill Hulk/X-Men?” it’s “can the X-Men avert the machines winning?/Can Hulk prevent himself from being possessed by the One Below All?”

Nobody buys for a minute that Batman is going to die. Nobody actually believes he will. Nobody believes that even if he did that it would somehow last or matter outside of an Elseworld.

And saying the majority of Superman stories have no chance of him losing is dishonest. In Bendis’ run he gets the **** kicked out of him by Rogal, Mongul, Red Cloud, and a bunch of other villains. In Jurgens Action he almost died at the hands of the Revenge Squad and had to be bailed out by the Superfamily. In Tomasi he got beaten up by Eradicator, Manchester Black, Bizarro, and others. In Morrison Action he was tortured by Lex, almost killed multiple times by Vyn and had to be saved by other people, failed to save the astronauts on Mars and watched them die, and was nearly killed by Metallo and Brainiac.

He gets his ass kicked all the time and has failed to save people multiple times. Anyone who says otherwise simply isn’t reading his books. I mean what exactly do people who think he’s OP, think happen in his books? He just walks in, one shots his opponent and walks out?

If Superman truly didn’t face threats that could hurt him, he would not still be around, he would not have survived this long. The threats are scaled up to pose a challenge to him. DC has repeatedly made an effort to showcase his limits, people just don’t read his comics and thus speak out of ignorance or because they only know him through memes. I mean even Superman Prime One Million just got killed in Future State, and ASS Superman almost died on Bizarroworld, he was only saved thanks to Zibarro. Even the most powerful versions of Superman aren’t all-powerful and still need help.