Why would they ruin Superman... Again?

[SupermanCosmic]

In an interview with Joe Casey on Alvaro's ComicBoards, he states that Superman can re-arrange the Solar System and tear a star apart. "I've always seen Superman as this completely over-the-top, fantastic character who has no limits whatsoever," writes Casey. Unencumbered by mental blocks, "Superman is unbeatable."

Remember the old days when Superman was strong enough to punch planets out of orbits? Sure, he was popular for a bit, but his popularity went tumbling down. What did they do as a response? They toned down his strength, significantly. He could actually be hurt! People like Darkseid, Doomsday, Green Lantern (not changing ring to kryptonite light), Wonderwoman, and many others could hurt him. Hell, even in crossovers they made Hulk, Thor, and several others hurt him. His sales went up and so did his popularity again.

Why would they do this to him again? I don't understand, why ruin Superman? Whats the point of reading a story about an unbeatable guy if you know the only way he can lose is to a rock? Pfft.

[Jack Zodiac]

Really? That's funny, 'cause I could swear Superman's book were selling their best when he could juggle planets and kick solar systems through black holes for poops and giggles.

The character isn't what makes a book uninteresting. It's the writing. Byrne wrote a great Superman for a while, which is why the book was doing so well, not because he couldn't move the moon anymore. Case in point, there was a period of time where Superman was completely depowered outside of his electric blue suit and the book sold for shit.

Long and short, Superman sells when he's being written well, not when he's having limits forced upon him by writers and editors. All-Star Superman is one of DC's best-selling books and he's even more ridiculous than good ol' Golden Age Supes, forging stars in his Fortress with his bare hands to feed to a monster that eats suns.

[SupermanCosmic]

Sure it was incredibly popular for a long time, but it lost popularity.

[Jack Zodiac]

Yeah, it only took, like... thirty years or so.

[Kid Kyoto]

Long and short, Superman sells when he's being written well, not when he's having limits forced upon him by writers and editors.


So what I'm hearing from you is that DC should abandon shared universes and monthly books and go to self-contained OGNs and miniseries so writers can choose the powerlevel they want to wrtie about.

I'll go for that!

[Jack Zodiac]

Not unless I'm speaking a different language, 'cause I believe what I said was, "It doesn't matter how ridiculously powerful or incredibly weak a character is if the people writing him couldn't plot their way out of a nutsack."

[karasu]

Those power levels just open the character up to some really goofy visuals. IF the plots are strong it can work, but the visuals man, the visuals:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v454/karasux/Superboytowingplanets.jpg

[Mike Smith]

Remember the old days when Superman was strong enough to punch planets out of orbits? Sure, he was popular for a bit, but his popularity went tumbling down. What did they do as a response? They toned down his strength, significantly. He could actually be hurt! People like Darkseid, Doomsday, Green Lantern (not changing ring to kryptonite light), Wonderwoman, and many others could hurt him. Hell, even in crossovers they made Hulk, Thor, and several others hurt him. His sales went up and so did his popularity again.

Why would they do this to him again? I don't understand, why ruin Superman? Whats the point of reading a story about an unbeatable guy if you know the only way he can lose is to a rock? Pfft.

I'd be willing to buy a well-written Superman book that has him powered up at such levels. There's something just boring about a Superman with mediocre power (in terms of comics). That's just me though.

[MaxofSteel]

I like that Supes is depowered to be honest. A writer can only do so many stories about a guy who can't be hurt/beaten. Not being invincibly strong opens up more plots and situations for Big Blue to encounter later on. So in that respect, a "weak" Superman is better imo.

I would like Supes to be a little stronger though. Not planet moving strong like he was, but getting power upgrade similar to the one he got when Mongul Jr trained him (prior to Our Worlds at War).

[niall mc cann]

Yeah, it only took, like... thirty years or so.

As opposed to the Byrne-era depowering, which created a popularity spike that lasted, what, two years? Three?

Historically speaking, the more powerful superman is the more popular, both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of the consistency of those numbers.

Also, for what it's worth, i think the best stories come from the super-superman.

I'm not sure what the sales figures are for his respective books, but i reckon All-Star Superman is about the best book on the shelves right now, and ASS is crazily powerful, as you say.

[The Batman]

I think that's a bit of a tenuous connection to be making there. During the period you're talking about most every comic was selling better and they were selling better for a good number of reasons aside from the power levels of the heroes. I mean, Supes was pretty popular when they told imaginary story after imaginary story only to take a break and tell a story where he avoided Lois's attempts to try and figure out his secret identity and marry him. Should we bring those back too?

I've read great Superman stories where he's been awesomely powerful and great stories where he's been weaker. One of my favourite eras of Superman in the Byrne years after all. Those stories weren't great because of Superman's specific power level, they were great because they were exciting stories put together by great writers and artists. That's why All-Star sells so well, it's a book put out by some top tier A-List talent. If Morrison's Superman couldn't breathe in space or was a little less stronger or less powerful those stories could still work.

For my money I like a more powerful Superman, but it's just a geeky preferece on my part. What I like even more though are great Superman stories which can come from any power level.

[PatrickG]

Well, let's connect this:

Superman was more popular than Batman or the X-Men when he was uber powerful.

Meanwhile, Batman became more popular when he became more unbeatable.

The very thing that fans and sometimes creators bitch about is also what people want to buy.

It's like the comics code's effect on super-heroes. It forced writers to get creative. Like LSD purple gorillas in rockets creative.

Removing or limiting the chance for physical defeat reframes the stories as stories which do not rely on lame fistfights and brawls but stories in which situations become the issue. Mysteries and puzzles to solve.

If you think two people punching eachother while flying is more exciting, I don't get that. Not saying Superman should never be in a fight but it should be about the situation and not any thrill that comes from watching physical combat.

[Rob on the Job]

The thing about a less-powerful Superman is that it takes more ingenuity in plotting.

It's easy to solve any problem when Superman is the most powerful being in seven galaxies.

It's more difficult when Superman has to use his head as well as what powers he has.

[niall mc cann]

I think that's a bit of a tenuous connection to be making there. During the period you're talking about most every comic was selling better and they were selling better for a good number of reasons aside from the power levels of the heroes. I mean, Supes was pretty popular when they told imaginary story after imaginary story only to take a break and tell a story where he avoided Lois's attempts to try and figure out his secret identity and marry him. Should we bring those back too?

Well, i wouldn't say no.:)

Look, i absolutely agree that the link is tenuous, and that it's the quality of the story that should be paramount, but i didn't couch the debate in those terms.

The original post suggested that there was a link... that superman was only popular when he was de-powered. All i'm saying is that there is no perspective from which that is true. I don't really believe the converse, that only a high-powered superman could work (i enjoyed the Byrne era too), i was just adding my voice to the choir pointing out that the original assertion was based on a faulty premise.

[dancj]

The thing about a less-powerful Superman is that it takes more ingenuity in plotting.

It's easy to solve any problem when Superman is the most powerful being in seven galaxies.

It's more difficult when Superman has to use his head as well as what powers he has.
I'd say the opposite. With a less powerful superman you can write about a character who poses a physical threat and Supes has to fight to beat that threat. Back in the silver age with the much more powerful supes, the threats tended not to be so physical because nothing could match him physically. Instead the writers had to come up with more imaginative (and often silly) threats which required imaginative solutions.


Personally I don't have much opinion in the argument. Some writers can work better with a powerful supes some work best with a less powerful supes.

Dan

[Bat-Mite]

Personally I prefer Uber-Superman. It takes a lot more imagination to write stories for a guy who can practically fart the universe away. When Superman is depowered, they just write him as a thug who punches people and lifts heavy objects and easily get way with that, and frankly, that is rather boring.

[The Batman]

I think that ultimately this is really boiling down to an argument over degrees. I mean, I don't know that anyone is advocating a return of super-ventriliquism or those rainbow finger beams or a Superman that can split himself into two people temporarily. This is all just a matter of how strong he is, or how fast, or if he can breathe in space right?

If that's the case, can Superman be as strong as the story calls for?

[PatrickG]

1. He never had any of those powers except for the ventriloquism. The "splitting in two" wasn't a power. The rainbow finger beams was used on a cover but the story inside was about Superman getting a temporary new power, which is pretty cool IMO. The story in particular was very Freudian.

2. Sure. Superman can be stronger than the story calls for. Testing the limits of Superman's strength and invulnerability should be parlor tricks for a writer and not essential to the story.

[Rob on the Job]

I'd say the opposite. With a less powerful superman you can write about a character who poses a physical threat and Supes has to fight to beat that threat. ...

Good point, Dan. What I should have stated is that an all-powerful Superman tends to take the drama out of a story, IMO, because ultimately you can rest assured that practically nothing can beat him [unless you revert to those wacky 1950s stories involving a no-nothing like the Prankster giving Supes fits].

[PatrickG]

It really depends on the nature of the drama.

There's Man vs. Man. (Which doesn't have to be physical.)

And then Man vs. Nature.

And Man vs. Himself.

I think by limiting the first one to, largely, non physical confrontations, you leave more room for the other two forms of conflict which are, outside of Marvel Comics and professional wrestling, generally prefered to physical conflict as a source of drama.

[niall mc cann]

I think by limiting the first one to, largely, non physical confrontations, you leave more room for the other two forms of conflict which are, outside of Marvel Comics and professional wrestling, generally prefered to physical conflict as a source of drama.

I would say marvel's more about the third one, myself.

[PatrickG]

I'd say Spider-man is much more about the third one... To the point where he obscures people's view of the Marvel line as a whole.

And I think Spider-man and Superman are two sides of the same coin.

Orphans raised by kindly folk to be responsible. Orphans who don red and blue outfits and wrestle with conscience while wearing glasses and working at a newspaper.

I see Spider-man as a reworking of Superman to some degree, just a lot more grounded, more emo and more urban.

He even has his Lois and his Lana. Their enemies are fairly similar. Their classic motif is being the geek who's secretly a strong, confident guy.

[Rob on the Job]

I'd say Spider-man is much more about the third one... To the point where he obscures people's view of the Marvel line as a whole.

And I think Spider-man and Superman are two sides of the same coin.

Orphans raised by kindly folk to be responsible. Orphans who don red and blue outfits and wrestle with conscience while wearing glasses and working at a newspaper.

I see Spider-man as a reworking of Superman to some degree, just a lot more grounded, more emo and more urban.

He even has his Lois and his Lana. Their enemies are fairly similar. Their classic motif is being the geek who's secretly a strong, confident guy.

And there is one other trait they share: their heroic IDs are inextricably meshed with their civilian IDs.

You cannot have Superman without Clark Kent. You cannot have Spider-Man without Peter Parker. The alter-egos are crucial -- moreso than, say, Bruce Wayne is to Batman.

[niall mc cann]

I'd say Spider-man is much more about the third one... To the point where he obscures people's view of the Marvel line as a whole.

And I think Spider-man and Superman are two sides of the same coin.

Orphans raised by kindly folk to be responsible. Orphans who don red and blue outfits and wrestle with conscience while wearing glasses and working at a newspaper.

I see Spider-man as a reworking of Superman to some degree, just a lot more grounded, more emo and more urban.

He even has his Lois and his Lana. Their enemies are fairly similar. Their classic motif is being the geek who's secretly a strong, confident guy.

I wouldn't disagree with that, necessarily, though i think the superhero genre lends itself to certain of those conventions.

The Hulk, though, deals with a man vs. himself and bears little relationship to Supes. Iron Man's got that in his makeup, so does early Thor, at a push.

Even today, the current hot books are dealing with characters who are battling or rejecting parts of themselves (Moon Knight's personality schisms, She-Hulk). You could even see The Punisher as a man engaged in an ongoing standoff with the darker side of his own nature ("Doing the town, Mr. Smith?""It's tempting.").

With the qualifier that that's probably an element of the superhero as a genre, inasmuch as there's a Marvel thematic preoccupation, i would say that's it.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

There was a time when people enjoyed watching their heroes (not Heroes...I seem to be the only one not fangasming over it) fail. That's changed now...now people want heroes.

That said, besides the glacially paced but crazy ASS, look at Superman Confidential. That's old school Superman (thus far...I've been hurt before) and that is great.

[Jack Zodiac]

I like that Supes is depowered to be honest. A writer can only do so many stories about a guy who can't be hurt/beaten.

Superman Confidential.

All you need to do to make a ludicrously powerful character interesting is be a more creative writer than someone who only wants to throw their main character into brawls with villains.

Superman wasn't fist-fighting Mongul or Darkseid in the Golden Age. He was time-traveling, he was planet-hopping, he was "slumming it" and dealing with simple crooks instead of spandex wearing nutjobs, he was outwitting Lex Luthor instead of smashing through his office and beating him down, he was trying to trick Mxysptlk into saying his name backwards. And those books sold. In the millions. While most books can barely pull off a pitiful couple hundred thousand these days.

I'm not saying that making Superman the untouchable monster he once was will increase sales, or that depowering him will decrease sales. I'm saying, that anybody who thinks something like this could possibly "ruin" Superman doesn't know what they're talking about.

[devinost]

I only read superman when he dies/dead or has no powers. Once Superman is alive or has his powers I cancel the book. He's too powerful

[dupersuper]

I lean towards the Byrne Supes as opposed to planet juggling Supes, but I've read Caseys' issues of Adventures of Superman, and I enjoyed them, so I see no problem. :)

[Sean Whitmore]

Personally I prefer Uber-Superman. It takes a lot more imagination to write stories for a guy who can practically fart the universe away.

Which is a good reason for writers not to use him. With a few notable exceptions, who's got the imagination to pull that off nowadays?


SEAN

[BYC]

Which is a good reason for writers not to use him. With a few notable exceptions, who's got the imagination to pull that off nowadays?


SEAN
There's too much corporate, I believe. That's why writers keep it safe. They want to simply milk the cow, but not realizing it's only creating stagnation.

[niall mc cann]

Which is a good reason for writers not to use him. With a few notable exceptions, who's got the imagination to pull that off nowadays?


SEAN

that's crazy. That's like refusing to use mechanised transport because there's no good mechanics these days. they're paid to do a job. They should do it right. If they're not capable of it, sack 'em.

[glennsim]

I just wanted to point out that yes, a good writer could write a good story about any kind of Superman. A good writer could write a good story about anything. Unfortunately, there aren't enough good writers out there.

So the real question is, what can be done to the character to create an environment that will better enable the mediocre writers we're inevitably going to get to generate interesting stories.

[Jack Zodiac]

Which is a good reason for writers not to use him. With a few notable exceptions, who's got the imagination to pull that off nowadays?


SEAN

Darwyn Cooke, Grant Morrison, Kurt Busiek, and uh... well, that's about it right now.

[Sean Whitmore]

that's crazy. That's like refusing to use mechanised transport because there's no good mechanics these days. they're paid to do a job. They should do it right. If they're not capable of it, sack 'em.

Nice theory, but decades of blandness (in comics in general, not just Superman) indicates it's just a MITE more complicated.


SEAN

[niall mc cann]

Nice theory, but decades of blandness (in comics in general, not just Superman) indicates it's just a MITE more complicated.


SEAN

Of course, but the truth is not that suddenly, one day in the late seventies, people suddenly stopped being born with creativity enough to write the stories.

A culture of embarrasment, an acceptance of mediocrity and an embracing of an ever more specialised audience created the problem. If we understand the causes, we can work against them. to stop accepting the mediocrity would be a reasonable first step.

[J. Robb]

I think Superman's power levels will always be cyclical, because everything gets old after a little while.

I have no problems with an ultra-powerful Superman, I think there's a ton of great stories to be told with that character. Widescreen adventure fables. But even if you tell a bunch of great stories in a row, eventually the formula will get old, and readers will want something different. Like the Giffen JLI and the Morrison JLA- two very different takes on the team, both (in my opinion) great. Neither one was better than the other, just different stories for different times.

[Pop Culture Corn]

Remember the old days when Superman was strong enough to punch planets out of orbits? Sure, he was popular for a bit, but his popularity went tumbling down. What did they do as a response? They toned down his strength, significantly. He could actually be hurt! People like Darkseid, Doomsday, Green Lantern (not changing ring to kryptonite light), Wonderwoman, and many others could hurt him. Hell, even in crossovers they made Hulk, Thor, and several others hurt him. His sales went up and so did his popularity again.

Why would they do this to him again? I don't understand, why ruin Superman? Whats the point of reading a story about an unbeatable guy if you know the only way he can lose is to a rock? Pfft.


If writers could only explain how Metroplolis's plumbing/sewer system withstands the power of Superman dump post a heavy night of drinking and Taco Bell, now that issue would sell gangbusters.

[The Shadow]

Superman wasn't fist-fighting Mongul or Darkseid in the Golden Age. /snip/ And those books sold. In the millions. While most books can barely pull off a pitiful couple hundred thousand these days.

While I see what you're saying I don't think it's fair to compare sales figures between the Golden Age and now.

It's like comparuing athletes from different generations.
Sure Wayne Gretzky has more points than Gordie Howe... but Howe had to fight for himself, played half the games Gretzky did per year, didn't travel on airplanes, only played 5 other teams (which meant guys gunning for you), with inferior equipment on bad ice and so on.

EVERYTHING was selling in the millions in the Golden Age.
Comics were cheaper, not as well produced, on inferior paper, had bad four-colouring, were available everywhere (for a freakin DIME!) and so on.

[Sean Whitmore]

EVERYTHING was selling in the millions in the Golden Age. Comics were cheaper, not as well produced, on inferior paper, had bad four-colouring, were available everywhere (for a freakin DIME!) and so on.

There were less comics, first of all. There were less things for comics to compete with. Comics were easier to get. Actual kids bought them.

Hundreds of reasons why they sold more in those days.

If Superman's strength level is one of them, it's low on the list.


SEAN

[MythicBrawn]

I don't like the uber-powerful Superman. His main problem is that he has too many powers. Most often, he hardly uses half of them. But, let a certain situation present itself and out came super-obscure-power to deal with said problem. Toning him down made his stories more interesting. I started reading him again after Byrne took over. Before that, his stories were just ridiculous. Also, I thought I read an interview that DC decided to revamp Superman because of poor sales. Wasn't he being outsold by Dazzler at one point? Maybe, it wasn't that comic but I vaguely remember it being a D-list, or worse, character.

[MaxofSteel]

I think we have the best of both worlds at this point in terms of power levels with All-Star and Regular Supes. So for the time being I have no reason to complain. Yay alternate continuity!:p

[Rob on the Job]

If writers could only explain how Metroplolis's plumbing/sewer system withstands the power of Superman dump post a heavy night of drinking and Taco Bell, now that issue would sell gangbusters.

Hey Pop --

How much do your figure the City of Metropolis budgets each year for kryptonite to kill the bacteria in SuperPoop and SuperPee?

[Super Buddies Forever]

I'll always prefer the Superman whose cape gets tattered, who can't breathe in space, who will bleed when punched really hard, and who can't hear things from halfway across the universe. There's something a lot more enticing about a guy with augmented skills rather than a guy who's basically a demigod.

It doesn't matter. DC is on their Silver Age wacky retro kick right now, but give it ten to twenty years and we'll see a return of Post Crisis ideas and characteristics.

[Bat-Mite]

Which is a good reason for writers not to use him. With a few notable exceptions, who's got the imagination to pull that off nowadays?


Yeah, lets make Superman so easy any idiot can write him, and then lets wonder why he is written by idiots.

[DoctorDoom]

If writers could only explain how Metroplolis's plumbing/sewer system withstands the power of Superman dump post a heavy night of drinking and Taco Bell, now that issue would sell gangbusters.
Agreed true believer!

[Jack Zodiac]

While I see what you're saying I don't think it's fair to compare sales figures between the Golden Age and now.

It's like comparuing athletes from different generations.
Sure Wayne Gretzky has more points than Gordie Howe... but Howe had to fight for himself, played half the games Gretzky did per year, didn't travel on airplanes, only played 5 other teams (which meant guys gunning for you), with inferior equipment on bad ice and so on.

EVERYTHING was selling in the millions in the Golden Age.
Comics were cheaper, not as well produced, on inferior paper, had bad four-colouring, were available everywhere (for a freakin DIME!) and so on.

Right, that's fantastic, but it wasn't my point. Superman was ridiculously powerful, but writers still told interesting enough stories to sell those books in the millions. And yes, comics had less to compete with, and a broader market, and any number of variables that affected sales, but the bottom line is that Superman's level of power doesn't make or break his character. Shitty writing is shitty writing, and the reason even hardcore Superman fans wouldn't buy his books for years, like the drop in the late Nineties, is because the writing's been pure crap, not because he can or cannot juggle planets.

So yes, we're in agreement. The portrayal of Superman's powers have diddly to do with how low or high his sales are.

[Rob on the Job]

... The portrayal of Superman's powers have diddly to do with how low or high his sales are.

But the level of Superman's sales may affect the level of his powers.

[J. Robb]

It doesn't matter. DC is on their Silver Age wacky retro kick right now, but give it ten to twenty years and we'll see a return of Post Crisis ideas and characteristics.
I think it will be quicker than that. A new crop of writers should be popping up soon that grew up with the post-Crisis DC Universe. Just as we've had to put up with writers reliving their youth with the Silver Age Krypton, and the Donner Krypton, I don't think it will be long before Byrne's Krypton is back.

[The Shadow]

but writers still told interesting enough stories to sell those books in the millions. /snip/ Shitty writing is shitty writing, and the reason even hardcore Superman fans wouldn't buy his books for years, like the drop in the late Nineties, is because the writing's been pure crap, not because he can or cannot juggle planets.

I guess it's subjective then because I think the idea of Superman chaining a bunch of planets together or getting rainbow-out-the-finger-tip powers (even for an issue) is shitty writing.

To each his/her own I guess.

[astronato]

So what I'm hearing from you is that DC should abandon shared universes and monthly books and go to self-contained OGNs and miniseries so writers can choose the powerlevel they want to wrtie about.

I'll go for that!


I would go for that too.

If there are four or more Superman books I'm be happy with four or more versions of Superman.

I am a new Superman fan but I am reading the Man of Steel trades (up to vol 2), the DC Showcases, and many trades and back issues in the past two years. I like all the versions of Superman. The Byrne Superman is good but I also like the incredibly powerful Superman with the impossible powers. It's all good.

[Pop Culture Corn]

Hey Pop --

How much do your figure the City of Metropolis budgets each year for kryptonite to kill the bacteria in SuperPoop and SuperPee?

Good point---never thought of that! THe Kyptonite would be a great angle.

See that would be a great ONE-SHOT. The Metropolis Waste/Sewage System workers dealing with Supe's waste products.

[umbc8]

Right, that's fantastic, but it wasn't my point. Superman was ridiculously powerful, but writers still told interesting enough stories to sell those books in the millions. And yes, comics had less to compete with, and a broader market, and any number of variables that affected sales, but the bottom line is that Superman's level of power doesn't make or break his character. Shitty writing is shitty writing, and the reason even hardcore Superman fans wouldn't buy his books for years, like the drop in the late Nineties, is because the writing's been pure crap, not because he can or cannot juggle planets.

So yes, we're in agreement. The portrayal of Superman's powers have diddly to do with how low or high his sales are.

It still isn't a fair comparison. In those days, ANY comics selling as many copies as even the highest selling comics of today were cancelled. Comics in general were selling better, which seems to have more to do with other options rather than writing. Also, comics have never sold as well as they did during the Golden Age, and they never will.

Also, as far a power levels go, that also doesn't really have anything to do with it. The Golden Age had Superman start off weak and get stronger. He was uber-powerful after WWII when sales slid. He was still uber-powerful when he became popular again during the Silver Age, then sales slid again while still uber-powerful afterwards (sales at these points were still higher than they are today). Sales were way down before the Byrne revamp, and while they went up during Byrne's run, they fell again until the Death storyline. They were up during the Death, Funeral & Return storylines, but then fell again. Interest peaked during the costume change, but it was a brief spike that fell again when readers didn't like the change. There're are more ups and downs, but my point is that writers and power levels don't necessarily affect sales that much.

Personally, I think it's just popularity of the character. During the Golden Age, America was in WWII, and Superman was a good fantasy escape. During the Silver Age, things were optimistic and Superman's happy stories were fitting for the time. But Superman's been stuck with that optimistic stigma ever since. Fans today prefer darker characters like Batman, Punisher, Wolverine, etc.

[Buried Alien]

Fans today prefer darker characters like Batman, Punisher, Wolverine, etc.

Not all, and not necessarily. I think the fans of the "darker" characters are just more vocal. There's a whole lot more to the superhero comics consumer base than just the "kewl" crowd.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[DangerRuss]

I think Superman should stick to being invincible and uber-powerful. Thats why he is Superman and not Averageman. I never want to read a comic where Superman gets hurt by characters that never could before. (or shouldn't be able to hurt him.) Its different when they introduce a new character that can hurt him. (i.e. Doomsday) because who says there aren't beings out there strong enough to hurt Superman? Just don't take his powers away and change who he is. Thats just dumb.

[Buried Alien]

I think that accounts of Superman being "boringly invincible" (quotes mine) during the Silver/Bronze Age aren't quite accurate either. In those days, Superman was indeed more powerful...but so were the threats he was up against. In comics published *years* before CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS, I saw the Pre-COIE Earth-One Superman take his share of hits, and Kryptonite wasn't always involved.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Rik Levins]

I think that accounts of Superman being "boringly invincible" (quotes mine) during the Silver/Bronze Age aren't quite accurate either. In those days, Superman was indeed more powerful...but so were the threats he was up against. In comics published *years* before CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS, I saw the Pre-COIE Earth-One Superman take his share of hits, and Kryptonite wasn't always involved.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

True. There were TONS of super-powered baddies in the Silver Age who were a genuine threat to Supes. The Parasite, Zha-Vam, Validus, Darkseid, Mordru, Mongul...that's just off the top of my head in the first ten seconds. Heck, even Mxyzptlk, while not actually evil, was always a bit scary because you knew he COULD kill Superman with a wave of his hand, if he ever really wanted to.
And Pre-Crisis Luthor came up with plenty of super-weapons, including some that didn't use Kryptonite, which were deadly enough that they didn't need it.

[Buried Alien]

It wasn't just Superman who was more powerful Pre-COIE; the rest of the DC Multiverse was proportionately more powerful as well. The Earth-One Superman didn't tower over Wonder Woman of Earth-One, the Martian Manhunter, or Captain Marvel of Earth-S in terms of power during the Pre-COIE days.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Jack Zodiac]

Also, as far a power levels go, that also doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Good point. The point I've been making since post one.

[The Foreigner]

Remember the old days when Superman was strong enough to punch planets out of orbits? Sure, he was popular for a bit, but his popularity went tumbling down. What did they do as a response? They toned down his strength, significantly. He could actually be hurt! People like Darkseid, Doomsday, Green Lantern (not changing ring to kryptonite light), Wonderwoman, and many others could hurt him. Hell, even in crossovers they made Hulk, Thor, and several others hurt him. His sales went up and so did his popularity again.

Why would they do this to him again? I don't understand, why ruin Superman? Whats the point of reading a story about an unbeatable guy if you know the only way he can lose is to a rock? Pfft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[SuperStar]

I thought Superman didn't eat because he got all his energy from the sun and he just ate in front of people as Clark Kent.

Plus I miss the stuff where he has to shave with his heat vision reflecting off a mirror!

[Stanlos]

Remember the old days when Superman was strong enough to punch planets out of orbits? Sure, he was popular for a bit, but his popularity went tumbling down. What did they do as a response? They toned down his strength, significantly. He could actually be hurt! People like Darkseid, Doomsday, Green Lantern (not changing ring to kryptonite light), Wonderwoman, and many others could hurt him. Hell, even in crossovers they made Hulk, Thor, and several others hurt him. His sales went up and so did his popularity again.

Why would they do this to him again? I don't understand, why ruin Superman? Whats the point of reading a story about an unbeatable guy if you know the only way he can lose is to a rock? Pfft.

I think the difference between Pre-Crisis and Post Crisis interps is simply the understanding of the universe and the world around us is greater on the average now than it was then, and audiences are now more complex (and educated) themselves. So, x character moving a planet like it is a ball would not 'wow' audiences today--it would make us roll our eyes and point out physics learned in Elementary School (3rd grade, I think).

As to their being unbeatable, uh that is kind of the point for characters like that (I love THE COMPLETE HISTORY books--if you can get them! I know there are ones for SM and WW, haven't seen one for Cap but there is a wonderful section of Alter-Ego that details his history). That kind of puts them in a bind when today's readers are all about flaws and anti-heroes and imperfections. But even back then, writers had to come up with ways to write around their characters' invincible-ness which basically amounted to 'well, let's not think about that right now--for this story y is true'. For Superman, there was all kinds of Kryptonite and EVERYONE had some. There were different solar wavelengths and devices that created them apparently were available at 711. WW could be exploded and hop from planet to planet unprotected in the 40s and was not affected by having a plank cracked over her head but the next story would have her vulnerable to a blow to the base of the skull with a hand. And I remember being annoyed with the JSA guys with the whole electrical principles thing and high voltage for the Marvels thinking that was a change. But lo and behold, in the old days an electric eel and a powerline did indeed change him back. But he could be exploded and shot at with no probs.

It is just the nature of comics.

[Mike Smith]

I think that accounts of Superman being "boringly invincible" (quotes mine) during the Silver/Bronze Age aren't quite accurate either. In those days, Superman was indeed more powerful...but so were the threats he was up against. In comics published *years* before CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS, I saw the Pre-COIE Earth-One Superman take his share of hits, and Kryptonite wasn't always involved.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Exactly. I love seeing Superman up against huge threats and think it makes for fun stories. Like someone else said, I like Superman being super, not average in comparison to some other heroes. To me at least, it seems sometimes some may like a watered-down Supes as it makes other heroes/villains seem more powerful and relevant.

I had a chance to watch some Justice League with my nieces and nephews, and it was an episode where Supes was getting knocked around a bit and not taking out his share of baddies. One of them said, "I thought Superman was supposed to be strong. He's pretty weak." I think one of the most appealing aspects of Supes can and should be amazing strength and resolve, no matter the circumstance. While it's true he doesn't have to be the physically strongest hero to show such things, and more stories may be created by weakening his powerset, with all the heroes that now exist in titles I think Superman risks becoming a part of the crowd if the current trend of writing/showing him as vulnerable as Joe Hero continues.

Kids like to see heroes in action, but they may also tend to remember and take pride in the most powerful leader who can single-handedly go against ridiculously powerful threats.

[Rob on the Job]

Good point---never thought of that! THe Kyptonite would be a great angle.

See that would be a great ONE-SHOT. The Metropolis Waste/Sewage System workers dealing with Supe's waste products.

Working title: "Metropolis's Filthiest -- the Daily Battle Against the Deadliest Bacteria Known to Man!"

The one-shot would reveal, among other things, that Metropolis Pollution Control Plant is in daily contact with Supes to figure out his diet for the day, as the plant supervisor tries to figure out if he will need to bring on additional help upon learning that Supes plans to eat a meatball sub that evening.

[Harding Prime]

I think whatever they are doing now with Superman's character is some of the best they have done in YEARS, how many years, I don't know, it just seems that good. Since the restart after IC, there seems to be a true Superman that everyone can relate to. He is very powerful again, not planet moving, but the world's savior like he is suppose to be. The comic right now is great and I hope it stays that way.