'Superman is too overpowered'... is a MYTH

[2kt09]

He's got every convenient power under the sun.
So, they keep throwing him into existential conflicts to try to make his cinematic stories interesting.

What I gather is that there's a desire for some relatively normal Clark Kent drama/dramedy with some Superman thrown in from time-to-time.

 

[Batmannerism]

He's got every convenient power under the sun.
So, they keep throwing him into existential conflicts to try to make his cinematic stories interesting.

What I gather is that there's a desire for some relatively normal Clark Kent drama/dramedy with some Superman thrown in from time-to-time.

Except for Teleportation, superpower mimicry/absorption, elemental transmutation, invisibility, intangibility, clairvoyance, magnetic field manipulation, cryokinesis, shapeshifting......you get my point. I'm not being sarcastic here or ridiculing you, but I do see things differently and I'm just drawing attention to the fact that Superman's powers may have waxed and waned and changed a bit over the years but his core powers of strength and invulnerability (and usually flight) are what he's known for - and more importantly,
, I see his real superpower is his sense of right and wrong and his will to do the right thing.

In that sense, his superhuman powers are kind of secondary, even to Superman himself - he often conveniently seems to forget his super-speed when he's not fighting super fast opponents. I don't see his power set as being a story limitation, as creative writers have managed to find even non-superpowered adversaries who present serious challenges for Superman.

Personally, while I enjoy a good "trials and tribulations of Clark Kent,Superhero farm-boy turned reporter " story as much as the next guy, my favorite Superman stories are the ones where he tackles the big stuff (not necessarily the big enemies, but the big issues e.g. Kingdom Come, which is pretty much solely a Superman story with almost no Clark Kent, until the end when he has to rediscover Clark's instinctive sense of right and wrong ). I believe that All-Star Superman is the ultimate Superman story because he deals with mortality and some of the more mythic aspects of being Superman, as well as his most human qualities. There's some Clark Kent in there, but Morrison writes from the pov that Superman is the real person, and Clark Kent the alter-ego or disguise (as distinct from John Byrne's interpretation).

But that's just me. Cheers.

 

[2kt09]

Except for Teleportation, superpower mimicry/absorption, elemental transmutation, invisibility, intangibility, clairvoyance, magnetic field manipulation, cryokinesis, shapeshifting......you get my point....I see his real superpower is his sense of right and wrong and his will to do the right thing.

In that sense, his superhuman powers are kind of secondary, even to Superman himself - he often conveniently seems to forget his super-speed when he's not fighting super fast opponents. I don't see his power set as being a story limitation, as creative writers have managed to find even non-superpowered adversaries who present serious challenges for Superman.

That's if the writers choose to make him such a master of his powers or is pragmatic enough to conveniently forget. At the very least a nagging danger alarm isn't in his power set. His will to do the right thing is what filmmakers feel the need to deconstruct because he's too idealistic.

Personally, while I enjoy a good "trials and tribulations of Clark Kent,Superhero farm-boy turned reporter " story as much as the next guy, my favorite Superman stories are the ones where he tackles the big stuff (not necessarily the big enemies, but the big issues e.g. Kingdom Come, which is pretty much solely a Superman story with almost no Clark Kent, until the end when he has to rediscover Clark's instinctive sense of right and wrong). I believe that All-Star Superman is the ultimate Superman story because he deals with mortality

That's what I mean by existential conflicts.

 

[Batmannerism]

That's if the writers choose to make him such a master of his powers or is pragmatic enough to conveniently forget. At the very least a nagging danger alarm isn't in his power set. His will to do the right thing is what filmmakers feel the need to deconstruct because he's too idealistic.
.

That's part of the reason the current characterisation of Superman isn't as well received. I believe all the ingredients are there: Cavill has the look and the charm to be an engaging Superman. What's missing is a character who we can engage with and cheer for.

Kingdom Come dealt with a Superman in self-imposed exile because he felt his morals were outmoded, and did a wonderful job of it. Kingdom Come Superman is extremely serious but is still a very compelling character - what the writers of B v S fail to recognize is that even a serious Superman can engage the audience, but only if the other essential characteristics that make him Superman are also there: I'm not talking about flight or heat vision, I'm referring to his essential goodness and will to do the right thing.

If they'd spent more time on this in B v S, it would have been a much more enjoyable film IMO.

e.g. The montage of Superman saving people (sort of) has him hovering over the flood victims who have painted his symbol on their home.

What needed to happen there was for us to see Superman fly down and save them......and maybe smile reassuringly or say something comforting like "You'll be safe now"

A little thing like that would have really made a difference IMO.

To be honest I don't see Superman's powers, even the Silver Age Superman who could tow a chain of planets, as a problem - but the way he is depicted certainly can be. Sure he can be conflicted, but he's still the guy
who does the right thing.

 

[2kt09]

That's part of the reason the current characterization of Superman isn't as well received. I believe all the ingredients are there: Cavill has the look and the charm to be an engaging Superman. What's missing is a character who we can engage with and cheer for.

Kingdom Come dealt with a Superman in self-imposed exile because he felt his morals were outmoded, and did a wonderful job of it. Kingdom Come Superman is extremely serious but is still a very compelling character

It's a good read, but...
authoritarian Superman is probably not the way to go either.
That's certainly a case of him being too idealistic.

 

[zlucamanz]

too overpowered wasn't a problem at all but the lack of consistent in term durability what exactly could hurt him beside his weakness and his strength why he always underestimate his inferior opponent why he not immediately put his enemy down for once and for all.

all throught out all version in his history,overall i don't like superman at all.only intersting his version was either evil superman who not hold himself anymore or death story arc like all star superman the story that test superman's turly limit.

 

[metaphysician]

Personally, I think the "overpowered" sentiment largely arises because he spends so much time in Metropolis, dealing with comparatively mundane crime. This is fine, if properly written, but there are definitely periods where he's given especially godlike power, and then spends 90% of the issue stopping bank robbers and Spider-man villains. Some of this is just the bad writing everyone gets foisted with, some of it is legacy DC vices that linger from the "godlike hero vs normal villain" days of the Golden Age.

Superman doesn't need to be depowered, though not making him a planet-juggling god is usually a good idea. Just, if he's dealing with ordinary mortal crime, it *can't* be the A plot. The A plot needs to be about character, something happening at the same time where the mundane crime or minor supervillains exist, not as challenges, but ways to make character points. Then, juggle this up with giving him superhero challenges that are actually challenging. . . and this means allowing villains to actually be powerful enough to challenge him.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I get the idea the fandom just likes to complain about things. Superman is boring because he it too powerful.
So in Man of Steel they give him Zod and people complain about all the death and destruction because
Superman can't take out Zod with one punch and has to resort to killing Zod to stop Zod.
Also in the TV show Supergirl people complain she is too weak because they give her villains as powerful as she is.

Daaayum Snap

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I think I am the only person who dislikes All Star Superman.
As someone who doesn't read comic books, I do think Superman is the most powerful DC character, but Marvel has some god like characters, some of the Xmen, who are definitely more "overpowered" than Superman. The Snyder Superman is arguably the most powerful live action Superman I've ever seen and yet he is far from the overpowered god of the comics who can move planets etc.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Nope I dislike All-Star too.

Lex was great, Supes was cool, everything else were choices I would not have made, but I respect them nonetheless.

I like What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? better than All-Star.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think I am the only person who dislikes All Star Superman.
As someone who doesn't read comic books, I do think Superman is the most powerful DC character, but Marvel has some god like characters, some of the Xmen, who are definitely more "overpowered" than Superman. The Snyder Superman is arguably the most powerful live action Superman I've ever seen and yet he is far from the overpowered god of the comics who can move planets etc.

Disagree that Snyder's Superman is even close to Reeve's in godlike might.

Christopher Reeve, as Superman, moved the moon, lifted a fair chunk of California and turned back time.

Reeve's superman is also super likable, something Snyder has utterly failed to make his Superman-in Man of Steel he was okay but in Bv S he was incredibly lame but for a few moments IMO.

 

[DrCosmic]

I've never fully understood the overpowered argument where Superman is concerned. It's like saying Batman is too smart or Wonder Woman is too physically capable. Create antagonists who are just as (if not more) powerful, smart, or skilled. Of course, there's a right and wrong way to do it (see: Naruto), but the same can be said for literally everything.

Because with Batman you can improve your villain in a diverse number of ways. You don't have to make Batman villains smarter, you can make them stronger or more capable. You can give them any number of powers, or they can just be hiding. With Superman, unless their powers include an incredible amount of speed and strength, no other abilities will matter, because Superman can find anyone in minutes and knock out Firefly the same way he knocks out Mr. Freeze. So for Superman's villains, you have to give him a big bruiser fight or make up magical stuff. People who don't know how to make up magical stuff think he's boring and people who aren't good at thinking up magical stuff make them feel right.

 

[DrCosmic]

Personally, I think the "overpowered" sentiment largely arises because he spends so much time in Metropolis, dealing with comparatively mundane crime. This is fine, if properly written, but there are definitely periods where he's given especially godlike power, and then spends 90% of the issue stopping bank robbers and Spider-man villains. Some of this is just the bad writing everyone gets foisted with, some of it is legacy DC vices that linger from the "godlike hero vs normal villain" days of the Golden Age.

Superman doesn't need to be depowered, though not making him a planet-juggling god is usually a good idea. Just, if he's dealing with ordinary mortal crime, it *can't* be the A plot. The A plot needs to be about character, something happening at the same time where the mundane crime or minor supervillains exist, not as challenges, but ways to make character points. Then, juggle this up with giving him superhero challenges that are actually challenging. . . and this means allowing villains to actually be powerful enough to challenge him.

This. Many DC heroes have outgrown their city. (Please give me a billion dollars and an obsession to stop crime in my city. I'd make Batman irrelevant in months). Superman is a borderline cosmic hero. Earth is his Gotham City, imho. Aliens come, he wrecks shop on 'em. He kinda steps on GL's toes a bit, but GL is honestly a cosmic hero, he'll be fine if he never defends Coast City again.

 

[Batmannerism]

Because with Batman you can improve your villain in a diverse number of ways. You don't have to make Batman villains smarter, you can make them stronger or more capable. You can give them any number of powers, or they can just be hiding. With Superman, unless their powers include an incredible amount of speed and strength, no other abilities will matter, because Superman can find anyone in minutes and knock out Firefly the same way he knocks out Mr. Freeze. So for Superman's villains, you have to give him a big bruiser fight or make up magical stuff. People who don't know how to make up magical stuff think he's boring and people who aren't good at thinking up magical stuff make them feel right.

Lex Luthor ? Brainiac ? Batman ? Have to disagree with you there dude.

Some of Superman's greatest challenges have come from enemies that can out-think him

 

[2kt09]

Maskless Batman? Space Batman? Batman?

Metallo and Parasite come to mind, but those two literally exist to weaken him.

 

[Micromind]

There are many Superheroes who are more powered than Superman, it's quite funny that no one has any issues with that.


For instance, Flash can run faster than Superman. Superman cannot reach speeds Flash can.

Dr. Manhattan is more powered than Superman as he has no weakness and can be omnipresent.

And, there are several other superheroes in Marvel comics who are more powerful than Superman, like Sentry, Hyperion, Hulk, Thor (as he has no weakness.)

 

[titansupes]

"Superman is overpowered" is a nonsense complaint. It always has been and always will be.

EDIT: Screw it, I went back into the wreckage of the BvS section and got this post I made on the subject:

You've picked bizarre examples here.

Reliability isn't really about having weaknesses, it's not about saying "Oh, he's just like me and doing what I'd do". It's about creating an interesting and consistent character-- It's about understanding why they'd do what they do, even if it's not what you'd do.

Re: Weaknesses and deus ex machina... That's all superheroes. That's practically all fictional characters. First of all, Kryptonite is far from the only thing that can beat Superman. Many, many supervillains (and heroes), including random villain of the week types, have gone toe-to-toe with him over the decades and come out on top, or nearly so. Whether using weapons, traps, or their fists. It happens... exactly the same as every other hero. Hell, he was once beaten to death. "But he came back to life!" you say? Well, so have many, maaanny other superheroes. Also, how is Wolverine's "I can heal from anything in seconds and practically live forever" somehow MORE relatable? Or Iron Man's intellect? Batman's brain and skills and background? Any of it?

And before you or anyone else says "But, even then, you always know Superman's going to win in the end!"... Are you really sitting there with stories about Batman, Spidey, Iron man, Wolverine, James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, Captain Kirk or Luke Skywalker, or John McClane (the ultimate every man, for many) and thinking "Oh wow, I think he's actually going to lose and die, and the Earth's going to blow up, and that'll be the end of the series"?!

Superman has the DP Clark Kent persona-- That's "relatable" in the sense that you and others espouse is so important. That's the side that has to behave like an invisible coward (compared to Supes), is lovesick for Lois and pines for her, is occasionally seen as an easy target by Lombard and others, needs to do his job or get chewed out by his boss etc. And even as the ultra-powerful Silver Age or All-Star Supes, THAT side of him grapples with complex emotional issues, to-- How to best go about saving the world, wondering about Krypton and the parents he never knew, dealing the problems he has so far failed with (restoring Kandor, rehabilitating Luthor) etc. Yet... even through all that... Even though he may question how to go about certain things sometimes... He absolutely believes in the fundamental good of himself and most everyone else.

Honestly, more than any other (mistakenly) perceived lack of physical weaknesses... I think that's what a lot of the characters critic's have a problem with-- That he's more moral, he's kinder and he's better than we'll ever be (even though he does get angry and sad on occasion). But that's what he always should be. That's just one of the core reasons he's always been and always will be such a brilliant character... He's someone to aspire to.

All the most successful, acclaimed versions of the character over his near 80 year history of being one of the biggest fictional icons in the world ("Oh, people just don't like him" my ass) are the ones that EMBRACE all that with open arms-- From George Reeves to Chris Reeve, Silver and Bronze Age Supes, All-Star and Secret Identity, Kingdom Come and Red Son (stories about him reaffirming that side of himself)... They're all kind to a fault, all unapologetically good either all the way through or by the end.

Those that aren't on board with that, who don't get it and try to change him, muddy him up, have him brood... Well, you end up with what we're getting right damn now-- a disappointment.

 

[Dr.]

"Superman is overpowered" is a nonsense complaint. It always has been and always will be.

But are we talking about the entire 80-year tenure of the character? If so, I think a good case could be made that Superman was indeed “overpowered” back in the Silver Age of comics. (And stuff like “turning back time” in STM was a remnant of this Silver Age sensibility.) Hence, the reason why - in more recent decades - Supes’ power level has been dialed back some.

Now, the OP specifically mentioned movies; and presumably this means the recent ones: SR, MOS, BvS. But amongst the various criticisms leveled at these films I don’t recall “overpowered” ever being a serious complaint. (“Too dark,” “too serious,” “too little action,” “too much action” were more typical concerns.) So in that sense, yes, the problem is a “myth” - because it’s a “straw man” argument.

 

[Skrilla31]

Personally, I think the "overpowered" sentiment largely arises because he spends so much time in Metropolis, dealing with comparatively mundane crime. This is fine, if properly written, but there are definitely periods where he's given especially godlike power, and then spends 90% of the issue stopping bank robbers and Spider-man villains. Some of this is just the bad writing everyone gets foisted with, some of it is legacy DC vices that linger from the "godlike hero vs normal villain" days of the Golden Age.

Superman doesn't need to be depowered, though not making him a planet-juggling god is usually a good idea. Just, if he's dealing with ordinary mortal crime, it *can't* be the A plot. The A plot needs to be about character, something happening at the same time where the mundane crime or minor supervillains exist, not as challenges, but ways to make character points. Then, juggle this up with giving him superhero challenges that are actually challenging. . . and this means allowing villains to actually be powerful enough to challenge him.

If I were in charge of the next Superman series after the DCEU is eventually rebooted, I would scale his powers back to start with and then gradually show him getting stronger with each movie.

The Superman movies should be like the Rocky movies where each time a newer, more dangerous and powerful enemy is revealed and the audience is left wondering whether Superman can be victorious. So that means in the first movie Superman would be lifting cars, stopping helicopters, and the big climax would be him fighting Lex Luthor in his power suit. But by the time the 3rd or 4th movie rolls around... he's in outer space stopping asteroid fields from hitting Earth and ready to throw down with Darkseid.

Just a thought.

 

[STARMAN]

His powers aren't the problem. I believe recent films have made the mistake on focusing on a conflicted alien or emotionally distant God. They think this makes him more relevant or relatable when I find it the opposite.

 

[Jochimus]

His powers aren't the problem. I believe recent films have made the mistake on focusing on a conflicted alien or emotionally distant God. They think this makes him more relevant or relatable when I find it the opposite.

Pretty much this.

 

[DrCosmic]

Lex Luthor ? Brainiac ? Batman ? Have to disagree with you there dude.

Some of Superman's greatest challenges have come from enemies that can out-think him

Fair enough, that was mostly a response to that post's ideas. In truth, there are three Superman villain templates: someone who outthinks him using advanced technology costing billions of dollars, someone who is as strong and fast as he is but doesn't do as much damage as he can do for story reasons, and someone who has his weakness and doesn't one-shot him for story reasons. Because of the scale of Superman, those three different types of villains all tend to be pretty similar. Sometimes they'll combine two of his types into one villain, but the ways you challenge Superman are very small, whereas the ways you challenge Batman are myriad. For Batman, something as simple as giving one guy a gun and another a katana changes the dynamic of the story. For Superman... who cares?

There are many Superheroes who are more powered than Superman, it's quite funny that no one has any issues with that.

For instance, Flash can run faster than Superman. Superman cannot reach speeds Flash can.

Dr. Manhattan is more powered than Superman as he has no weakness and can be omnipresent.

And, there are several other superheroes in Marvel comics who are more powerful than Superman, like Sentry, Hyperion, Hulk, Thor (as he has no weakness.)

Flash is not more powered than Superman. Cyclops has a better optic blast than Superman, but no one would say that he's more powered.

Dr. Manhattan is supposed to be overpowered, that's what makes his story work. No one expects him to fight villains. It's the same reason people don't complain that Mr. Myxlsptlk is overpowered... it's okay for him to be boring on his own, because he's not the star.

The other characters you mention are more easily seen as interesting because of their villainous and destrctive nature that causes problems for them and others, in which their power is now a drawback, or they are mythological beings who have a host of mythology proven to not be boring for centuries.

Superman is in a unique position. He is cosmically powerful, he is nearly absolutely righteous, and he defends an ordinary modern city. This premise is harder to add interest into than any other A or B-list hero.

You've picked bizarre examples here.

Reliability isn't really about having weaknesses, it's not about saying "Oh, he's just like me and doing what I'd do". It's about creating an interesting and consistent character-- It's about understanding why they'd do what they do, even if it's not what you'd do.

Re: Weaknesses and deus ex machina... That's all superheroes. That's practically all fictional characters. First of all, Kryptonite is far from the only thing that can beat Superman. Many, many supervillains (and heroes), including random villain of the week types, have gone toe-to-toe with him over the decades and come out on top, or nearly so. Whether using weapons, traps, or their fists. It happens... exactly the same as every other hero. Hell, he was once beaten to death. "But he came back to life!" you say? Well, so have many, maaanny other superheroes. Also, how is Wolverine's "I can heal from anything in seconds and practically live forever" somehow MORE relatable? Or Iron Man's intellect? Batman's brain and skills and background? Any of it?

And before you or anyone else says "But, even then, you always know Superman's going to win in the end!"... Are you really sitting there with stories about Batman, Spidey, Iron man, Wolverine, James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, Captain Kirk or Luke Skywalker, or John McClane (the ultimate every man, for many) and thinking "Oh wow, I think he's actually going to lose and die, and the Earth's going to blow up, and that'll be the end of the series"?!

Superman has the DP Clark Kent persona-- That's "relatable" in the sense that you and others espouse is so important. That's the side that has to behave like an invisible coward (compared to Supes), is lovesick for Lois and pines for her, is occasionally seen as an easy target by Lombard and others, needs to do his job or get chewed out by his boss etc. And even as the ultra-powerful Silver Age or All-Star Supes, THAT side of him grapples with complex emotional issues, to-- How to best go about saving the world, wondering about Krypton and the parents he never knew, dealing the problems he has so far failed with (restoring Kandor, rehabilitating Luthor) etc. Yet... even through all that... Even though he may question how to go about certain things sometimes... He absolutely believes in the fundamental good of himself and most everyone else.

Honestly, more than any other (mistakenly) perceived lack of physical weaknesses... I think that's what a lot of the characters critic's have a problem with-- That he's more moral, he's kinder and he's better than we'll ever be (even though he does get angry and sad on occasion). But that's what he always should be. That's just one of the core reasons he's always been and always will be such a brilliant character... He's someone to aspire to.

All the most successful, acclaimed versions of the character over his near 80 year history of being one of the biggest fictional icons in the world ("Oh, people just don't like him" my ass) are the ones that EMBRACE all that with open arms-- From George Reeves to Chris Reeve, Silver and Bronze Age Supes, All-Star and Secret Identity, Kingdom Come and Red Son (stories about him reaffirming that side of himself)... They're all kind to a fault, all unapologetically good either all the way through or by the end.

Those that aren't on board with that, who don't get it and try to change him, muddy him up, have him brood... Well, you end up with what we're getting right damn now-- a disappointment.

It's telling that only in the best Superman stories is he not boring. Expert craftsmanship is needed to make this character interesting, and that expert craftsmanship does not exist in the minds of a casual observer. Which means the premise of the character sounds boring, and the most common implementations of the character are boring. This is not true for every character, and while there are stories of relatively weak people beating up Superman, those moments can never feel earned, and thus are uninteresting. Those moments where Superman experiences the pitfalls of rank and file superheroes can never make it into the greatest Superman stories, because the idea of Superman, of someone who is immensely powerful, more powerful than any man made object, is already in the mind of the reader. So Volcana, for instance, will never seem like a credible threat for Superman, but every other superhero has an interesting threatening fire character.

The missteps of the DCEU and other 'dark' incarnations are a natural result of someone who is not an expert craftsman, who is trying to make Superman interesting in the way that Hyperion is, that Sentry or Hulk or Thor are. Making him dark or destructive in some way, taking away his absolute goodness so that his immense power, and the misuse of it, can be his drawback. However, as you've observed, because the fundamental idea of Superman's goodness is deeply ingrained in the audience, they filmmakers are fighting their own mold. They are not expert craftsman who can create a compelling Superman: Red Son alternity, though they desperately try.

Superman is a harder character to write well because most superhero stories rely on a lack of goodness and a lack of power, and these conflicts don't work well for Superman. That is why he is so often boring, and why he is perceived as being boring even more often than that.

 

[Boy Scout]

Because with Batman you can improve your villain in a diverse number of ways.

And you can do the same with Superman's. The only difference is scale.

You don't have to make Batman villains smarter, you can make them stronger or more capable.

Going up against a genius like Batman requires a comparable level of intelligence. Otherwise, he can figure out who you are, what you're doing, where you're hiding, and how to stop you.

When you really think about it, Batman is just as OP as Superman. It's just that his mythology and the illusion of human limitation offer more variety and less suspension of disbelief.

So for Superman's villains, you have to give him a big bruiser fight or make up magical stuff. People who don't know how to make up magical stuff think he's boring and people who aren't good at thinking up magical stuff make them feel right.

Superman doesn't need a physical challenge to be interesting.

That said: I won't argue that Superman isn't a tough character to write for. But that just means that you can't let just anyone get a hold of him.

 

[Micromind]

Flash is not more powered than Superman. Cyclops has a better optic blast than Superman, but no one would say that he's more powered.

Dr. Manhattan is supposed to be overpowered, that's what makes his story work. No one expects him to fight villains. It's the same reason people don't complain that Mr. Myxlsptlk is overpowered... it's okay for him to be boring on his own, because he's not the star.

The other characters you mention are more easily seen as interesting because of their villainous and destrctive nature that causes problems for them and others, in which their power is now a drawback, or they are mythological beings who have a host of mythology proven to not be boring for centuries.

Superman is in a unique position. He is cosmically powerful, he is nearly absolutely righteous, and he defends an ordinary modern city. This premise is harder to add interest into than any other A or B-list hero.

Superman is not without a "drawbacks or flaws", being morally righteous in a world that is not, can be considered as a "flaw", philosophically speaking, which makes him interesting.

 

[DrCosmic]

Superman is not without a "drawbacks or flaws", being morally righteous in a world that is not, can be considered as a "flaw", philosophically speaking, which makes him interesting.

It can be challenge, but no, being perfect is, by definition, not a flaw. Using this challenge in the way that flaws are usually used is possible, again as evidenced by great stories like All-Star Superman, however this kind of writing takes more skill.

And you can do the same with Superman's. The only difference is scale.

Some things don't scale well. Unpredictability doesn't scale. Mystery doesn't scale. Loved ones in peril doesn't scale. Many things that scale all scale in the same direction... e.g. Do you vaporize things with fire powers? Electric powers? Wind powers? Teleportation powers? Doing the same thing with Superman yields repetitive 'boring' stories. Another approach is needed.

Going up against a genius like Batman requires a comparable level of intelligence. Otherwise, he can figure out who you are, what you're doing, where you're hiding, and how to stop you.

When you really think about it, Batman is just as OP as Superman. It's just that his mythology and the illusion of human limitation offer more variety and less suspension of disbelief.

The challenge inherent in that premise is that he has to figure out where you are and how to stop you before you squish him, and the ways he figures out to stop you are all different, and thus, more exciting. Batman employs vastly different methods to defeat Solomon Grundy, Clayface, Bane, Killer Croc, and Man-Bat. Superman does not employ vastly different methods for his foes, much less his similar foes.

So while one could argue that they are both continuously victorious (which is not the same as being overpowered when you think about it), Batman's victories are very diverse, and can be delayed by a diverse number of commonly explored conflicts. Superman's victories are not as much.

Superman doesn't need a physical challenge to be interesting.

That said: I won't argue that Superman isn't a tough character to write for. But that just means that you can't let just anyone get a hold of him.

I agree, in fact, Superman's best stories come from when he is facing a primary challenge that is not physical, and the physical is just sprinkled in there. Unfortunately, just anyone *does* get a hold of him, and it's pretty much a crapshoot of if someone who is both very talented and very passionate about the character as commonly understood gets the reigns.