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:

[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