World The Problem With The Character

[Aztec]

Will Superman fanboys attack me for this thread? Perhaps, but hear me out.

There is one glaring problem with the Superman character that separates him from Batman, Iron Man, or even the Hulk. This problem causes issues IMHO with his ability to be in a successful film today. The problem is simple: He's too damn powerful!

Think about it for a second. Why should I ever feel concerned for a character who is completely invulnerable? When is he ever in danger? Heck, if something goes wrong he can fly around the Earth and cause time to go backwards! With powers like that: How can he ever lose? It's absurd when you think about it. Where's the drama when the hero is so strong he can cause earthquakes with fists? Why fear his defeat when the hero can fly into outerspace and breathe just fine? Hell, in the comics nuclear weapons don't even stop him! If you can move faster than the speed of light, who would be able to stop you from doing anything you wanted at any point in time? You couldn't. You wouldn't even be able to see him!

The trend in superhero movies today (and it's a trend I wholeheartedly endorse) is to have more realistic depictions of superheroes. How can this be done with a character with these kinds of absurd powers?

My solution is as follows:
1) Superman needs CLEARLY DEFINED powers. As an audience, we should know exactly what Superman is capable of from the get go. Too many of the Superman films assign him powers that are too convenient later in the films. Which always begs the question: If he could have done that earlier, why didn't he?

2) Superman needs LIMITED powers. This is going to annoy quite a few of you I know, but it's the only way to make the character work. I'm sorry but flying into the sun, surviving nukes, flying into the center of the Earth, flying into outerspace, running faster than the speed of light, moving mountains, the moon, etc. is just TOO MUCH. He should certainly have super strength, but no more than say the Hulk. He should be able to fly but at a speed that doesn't make him completely unstoppable. Eye lasers, freeze breath, etc. is all cool, but a concerted effort must be made to make him more believable.

3) Less reliance on special "weaknesses". If you put #s 1 & 2 into effect then the writers would need to pay less attention on creating, often rather silly, special weaknesses for the character. Come on, a glowing green rock turns this invincible superhuman into a pu$$y? That's just silly. If he wasn't quite so invulnerable from the get go, you wouldn't need silly contrivances like that.

I am putting myself out there by posting this on this board, but these are my thoughts. Opinions?

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Krytonite turns him into a *****? Singerman was turned into one, but not the Autentic Superman real Superman fans like so much. He would be tough even without powers.

Timetravel as one of Superman's power is a little bit too hard, yes. We need just bigger villains!

 

[Superfreak]

Will Superman fanboys attack me for this thread? Perhaps, but hear me out.

There is one glaring problem with the Superman character that separates him from Batman, Iron Man, or even the Hulk. This problem causes issues IMHO with his ability to be in a successful film today. The problem is simple: He's too damn powerful!

Think about it for a second. Why should I ever feel concerned for a character who is completely invulnerable? When is he ever in danger? Heck, if something goes wrong he can fly around the Earth and cause time to go backwards! With powers like that: How can he ever lose? It's absurd when you think about it. Where's the drama when the hero is so strong he can cause earthquakes with fists? Why fear his defeat when the hero can fly into outerspace and breathe just fine? Hell, in the comics nuclear weapons don't even stop him! If you can move faster than the speed of light, who would be able to stop you from doing anything you wanted at any point in time? You couldn't. You wouldn't even be able to see him!

The trend in superhero movies today (and it's a trend I wholeheartedly endorse) is to have more realistic depictions of superheroes. How can this be done with a character with these kinds of absurd powers?

My solution is as follows:
1) Superman needs CLEARLY DEFINED powers. As an audience, we should know exactly what Superman is capable of from the get go. Too many of the Superman films assign him powers that are too convenient later in the films. Which always begs the question: If he could have done that earlier, why didn't he?

2) Superman needs LIMITED powers. This is going to annoy quite a few of you I know, but it's the only way to make the character work. I'm sorry but flying into the sun, surviving nukes, flying into the center of the Earth, flying into outerspace, running faster than the speed of light, moving mountains, the moon, etc. is just TOO MUCH. He should certainly have super strength, but no more than say the Hulk. He should be able to fly but at a speed that doesn't make him completely unstoppable. Eye lasers, freeze breath, etc. is all cool, but a concerted effort must be made to make him more believable.

3) Less reliance on special "weaknesses". If you put #s 1 & 2 into effect then the writers would need to pay less attention on creating, often rather silly, special weaknesses for the character. Come on, a glowing green rock turns this invincible superhuman into a pu$$y? That's just silly. If he wasn't quite so invulnerable from the get go, you wouldn't need silly contrivances like that.

I am putting myself out there by posting this on this board, but these are my thoughts. Opinions?

the problem isn't Superman's power's and weakness' (or lack there of). The problem is the weakness of the writers hired so far to write superman. The whole thing behind superman is the moral decisions he has to make when confronted with the double jepardy, the essential element of the superman story.

 

[Superoldguy]

Will Superman fanboys attack me for this thread? Perhaps, but hear me out.

There is one glaring problem with the Superman character that separates him from Batman, Iron Man, or even the Hulk. This problem causes issues IMHO with his ability to be in a successful film today. The problem is simple: He's too damn powerful!

Think about it for a second. Why should I ever feel concerned for a character who is completely invulnerable? When is he ever in danger? Heck, if something goes wrong he can fly around the Earth and cause time to go backwards! With powers like that: How can he ever lose? It's absurd when you think about it. Where's the drama when the hero is so strong he can cause earthquakes with fists? Why fear his defeat when the hero can fly into outerspace and breathe just fine? Hell, in the comics nuclear weapons don't even stop him! If you can move faster than the speed of light, who would be able to stop you from doing anything you wanted at any point in time? You couldn't. You wouldn't even be able to see him!

The trend in superhero movies today (and it's a trend I wholeheartedly endorse) is to have more realistic depictions of superheroes. How can this be done with a character with these kinds of absurd powers?

My solution is as follows:
1) Superman needs CLEARLY DEFINED powers. As an audience, we should know exactly what Superman is capable of from the get go. Too many of the Superman films assign him powers that are too convenient later in the films. Which always begs the question: If he could have done that earlier, why didn't he?

2) Superman needs LIMITED powers. This is going to annoy quite a few of you I know, but it's the only way to make the character work. I'm sorry but flying into the sun, surviving nukes, flying into the center of the Earth, flying into outerspace, running faster than the speed of light, moving mountains, the moon, etc. is just TOO MUCH. He should certainly have super strength, but no more than say the Hulk. He should be able to fly but at a speed that doesn't make him completely unstoppable. Eye lasers, freeze breath, etc. is all cool, but a concerted effort must be made to make him more believable.

3) Less reliance on special "weaknesses". If you put #s 1 & 2 into effect then the writers would need to pay less attention on creating, often rather silly, special weaknesses for the character. Come on, a glowing green rock turns this invincible superhuman into a pu$$y? That's just silly. If he wasn't quite so invulnerable from the get go, you wouldn't need silly contrivances like that.

I am putting myself out there by posting this on this board, but these are my thoughts. Opinions?

It worked well in 1978. If people can let go of the Donner/Puzo vision and let someone else re-boot with a fresh, modern take (and a good story) why shouldnt it work? Superman is just as relevant today as he was in the 40's, we still need heroes and Superman is the Heroes Hero.

Watching all this Batman stuff lately they said something interesting. Batman is only as good as his villains and frankly, Batman has the best villains out there. Writers for Superman should take this to heart.

 

[afan]

Aztec, in total agreement with your points, and have been posting the same for quite some time.
There is simply no potential for dramatic action if Superman's capabilities are unlimited, making Green K the only viable option to introduce it.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I have a solution...depower him a bit. It doesn't have to be a Timm/Dini level of power (I didn't have a problem with what they did but other people seemed to) but he probably shouldn't be able to control time and space or be able to easily lift giant islands filled with kryptonite while a shard of it is buried in his back. And oh yeah, no forgetful kisses.

 

[Showtime]

I am moving this to the proper section as well.

 

[Nixon]

Krytonite turns him into a *****? Singerman was turned into one, but not the Autentic Superman real Superman fans like so much. He would be tough even without powers.

While I guess that puts Donnerman into the ***** category too then doesn't it. I mean, did he put up any fight when Lex walked him into that pool?

 

[Superfreak]

he's not overpowered for cripes sake. It's just poor story telling. Look at TAS (as a TV show, they had much more opportunity to play with the 'growth' of power) but in the end, he was still pretty omnipotent. Yet TAS went on for dozens of episodes.

the problem with Superman is not in his level of power, it's how superman and his powers are challanged by potential villains. In the end, it's just poor story telling.

 

[hammy]

I don't see it so much as a problem with the character as a problem with presentation. Though I will admit he has gotten more powerful over the years; (when first created by S & S he wasn't powerful enough to turn the earth backwards.) But I think the problem of late- with SR, for instance - was incredibly poor and lackluster writing, as well as flat direction. The huge success of TDK (which we all saw coming) just underscores the failure of SR and reminds us of what Superman movies can and should be.

 

[Nixon]

Does TDK's phenomenal success underscore the failure of Nolan's own Batman Begins too?

 

[Superfreak]

Does TDK's phenomenal success underscore the failure of Nolan's own Batman Begins too?

no, because without BB, TDK would be hollow

 

[C. W. Saturn]

That's all nonsense. The Silver and Bronze Age Superman is by far the strongest and most powerful incarnation of the character and they sold MILLIONS of comics with him every year, in one month probably than today in a year.

 

[Abadleon]

He just needs a good adversary/villain.

 

[Nixon]

no, because without BB, TDK would be hollow

No, even if it follows BB, TDK stands very well on its own two feet. That it distanced itself from BB is one of the reasons that I liked it as much as I did in fact.

Really though, that's not what to OP was talking about. I don't think so anyway. They were pointing to TDK's overwhelming box office success and comparing it to SR's less than stellar $391 million worldwide.

Which is fine. But we've also got to compare it to BB's $371 million worldwide to and wonder: what happened?

 

[hammy]

Does TDK's phenomenal success underscore the failure of Nolan's own Batman Begins too?

I wouldn't say it failed. Personally, I liked TDK much better than Begins. It was a better story, more interestingly told. And BB didn't carry the expectations that a new Superman movie did.

Anyway, I still think it's not that the character is boring as much as it is the shortsightedness of those sometimes presenting him.

 

[Reebee52]

I think the biggest misunderstanding of Superman is that he's omnipotent and invulnerable. Yes, Green Kryptonite is his most obvious weakness, but there are plenty of character who can give him a difficult fight without the rock. Superman is NOT invulnerable, just insanely tough by earth standards. It's true a bullet won't pierce his skin and you could hit with a buick and the buick would lose, but there are characters and villains that easily match his strength. Superman TAS had some gerat stories with those characters, and I never watched it and thought 'oh they made Superman too weak.'
If you have one of those characters with a well written story there's no reason you can't have an amazing Superman movie.

And I personally loved Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, so I don't think the latter pointed out any failures in the first.

 

[C. W. Saturn]

Superman doesn't have to be relatable.

Can you relate to Darth Vader? No, you can't. He still rocks (At least the one in "Star Wars" and "ESB")

 

[Andy C.]

Honestly, de-powering Superman wouldn't do any good in the eyes of the public. They already expect him to be indestructible and whatnot--hell, it's become every bit as central to the character as Lois Lane and Clark's glasses. Making Superman a weakling didn't work in the 90s, and it wouldn't work in the movies because in the public's eyes, it wouldn't be the "real" Superman.

They oughta go in the exact opposite route with it--i.e. if Superman's going to be that powerful, his villains need to be just as much so. Johns' current run on Action is doing a great job of revamping a lot of his old villains, to the point where they can take on and even defeat Supes without Kryptonite or the likes. If they bring in, say, the current version of Brainiac, audiences would be in for a much bigger encounter. The folks who say that Superman is 'unbeatable' have just never seen him in a honest-to-God fight.

Let Batman keep the gritty-and-realistic side of the superhero spectrum; it works for him, and it makes sense for the character. But once you're talking about a flying alien with laser eyes, you might as well throw realism out the window and go the whole nine yards with it.

 

[stargazer]

While I guess that puts Donnerman into the ***** category too then doesn't it. I mean, did he put up any fight when Lex walked him into that pool?

Exactly!

the problem with Superman is not in his level of power, it's how superman and his powers are challanged by potential villains. In the end, it's just poor story telling.

Agreed.

No, even if it follows BB, TDK stands very well on its own two feet. That it distanced itself from BB is one of the reasons that I liked it as much as I did in fact.

Really though, that's not what to OP was talking about. I don't think so anyway. They were pointing to TDK's overwhelming box office success and comparing it to SR's less than stellar $391 million worldwide.

Which is fine. But we've also got to compare it to BB's $371 million worldwide to and wonder: what happened?

It happens that maybe the movie wasn't that appealing to the gp? Maybe?

no, because without BB, TDK would be hollow

Doble standards.

Honestly, de-powering Superman wouldn't do any good in the eyes of the public. They already expect him to be indestructible and whatnot--hell, it's become every bit as central to the character as Lois Lane and Clark's glasses. Making Superman a weakling didn't work in the 90s, and it wouldn't work in the movies because in the public's eyes, it wouldn't be the "real" Superman.

They oughta go in the exact opposite route with it--i.e. if Superman's going to be that powerful, his villains need to be just as much so. Johns' current run on Action is doing a great job of revamping a lot of his old villains, to the point where they can take on and even defeat Supes without Kryptonite or the likes. If they bring in, say, the current version of Brainiac, audiences would be in for a much bigger encounter. The folks who say that Superman is 'unbeatable' have just never seen him in a honest-to-God fight.

Let Batman keep the gritty-and-realistic side of the superhero spectrum; it works for him, and it makes sense for the character. But once you're talking about a flying alien with laser eyes, you might as well throw realism out the window and go the whole nine yards with it.

 

[markstrange]

I agree with the original poster. I really don't like superman.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Superman stories are great when they are well written. The real problem is writers who simply rely on his powers to tell the story, instead of creating a good story regardless of Superman.

Batman can acceptably fail, because he's only human, in spite of his training and intelligence and abilities.

Superman, inspite of being on just this side of God, has to fail in spite of his abilities because when sometimes succeeding can make the situation worse. So for Superman, he sometimes has to let people get hurt or let catastrophies happen, because the consequences of not allowing terrible things happen can be terrible and he knows it.

In a nutshell, Batman's anguish is failing despite trying and Superman's anguish having to stand by while terrible things happen.

 

[Andy C.]

I agree with the original poster. I really don't like superman.

...and that adds to the conversation how, exactly?

 

[Cosmic]

Aztec, you're not alone in your thoughts. Far from it. I don't see this as an inherent flaw in the character, however. It's just a different sort of challenge for the writers to overcome. Downgrading his power level is just one method of addressing it. Then there's always Kryptonite, magic, or other super-powered beings. In S:TM, there was no clearly defined limit to his power, but it worked. They even spelled it out for you in plain English: he had all these powers, yet he couldn't save the people he loved the most. We can debate all day about the way it was resolved, but the point is that there's vast potential for good stories in that one little kernel. Even in SR, they touched on the aspect of him having to decide on who to save first, when a disaster strikes. This is only scratching the surface of how Superman can still be interesting despite being so powerful.

 

[hammy]

In a nutshell, Batman's anguish is failing despite trying and Superman's anguish having to stand by while terrible things happen.

Even in SR, they touched on the aspect of him having to decide on who to save first, when a disaster strikes. This is only scratching the surface of how Superman can still be interesting despite being so powerful.