Depowering of Superpowers in Medium Transformation: How the scope and strength of powers diminish between mediums

[Izanagi009]

Well, this topic has been on my mind for a while so I might as well ask here since it's a general media topic

From what i recall, Dr. Doom in comics compared to the movies is more powerful with an understanding of magic and science and many more powers than seen in the Fantastic Four Movies

On a similar note, comparing electromancers in medium, Static Shock in his own TV show and Misaka Mikoto in the RailDex franchise, I find that anime seems to be able to either use more absurd powers or take powers to a more high level abstraction.

As such, I would like to bring up this topic for discussion since i find it odd that movies like Avengers Endgame and the like can't do the same scope and strength of powers as their comic counterparts and that the same power cna have different levels of abstraction between different mediums

 

[Kae]

Well the answer is simple as far comic vs film goes, it used to be close to impossible to depict that level of power in film so it became standard to make it bit more grounded in a manner in which the special FX crew could deliver in a relatively convincing manner, after a while as effects advanced more things became plausible it had simply become the style of the Holywood comic book adaptation and it just stuck, even though modern Comic movies are so effects heavy that most of what you see are special FX, even mundane stuff such Superman's cape or lack of moustache.

At least that's my take on it, feel free to discredit it.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Well the answer is simple as far comic vs film goes, it used to be close to impossible to depict that level of power in film so it became standard to make it bit more grounded in a manner in which the special FX crew could deliver in a relatively convincing manner, after a while as effects advanced more things became plausible it had simply become the style of the Holywood comic book adaptation and it just stuck, even though modern Comic movies are so effects heavy that most of what you see are special FX, even mundane stuff such Superman's cape or lack of moustache.

At least that's my take on it, feel free to discredit it.

I won't discredit it. This thought is true. And it's exactly why I don't bother to watch comic book media on the big screen. I have no idea what's the point.

I remember years ago when they were bringing Thor to the big screen. And people said "Wait, Thor's a God. What are you going to do to make this movie interesting". And the answer was a resounding "He won't be a God. Just really strong".

Then why even bother having a story about people you think are too out there? Why tweak it? Why make a movie series on Harry Potter when you think Magic is too unrealistic, so you make them super genius with technology?

Thor is a God. The Hulk is Strength Unlimited. To mute their characters traits is meaningless.

ALSO worse is when you take a character that is substantially weaker than the others and you make them stronger just for a point. Captain Marvel, I'm looking at you.

 

[Worgen]

I think a big part of it is to be taken seriously. We haven't really seen magic in the marvel movies, Dr Strange kinda, but even that doesn't really treat it like you usually do in movies. So far most super hero stuff wants to feel grounded, like these are people with extraordinary powers but not that extraordinary.

 

[Agema]

Excessively powerful superheroes are superboring. Take Superman. What's the point? Basically, Superman can do anything and is invulnerable. Except that they quickly invented Kryptonite, because they realised at least something had to create an idea of threat to supply some dramatic action. It ends in meaningless power creep, where the villains have to ramp up in power to equal the overpowered heroes, and in the end you're inevitably saving the city, then the world, then the galaxy, then the whole goddamn universe. But you can get just as much drama and action from a much more "ordinary" hero stopping a bank robbery. It's probably also cheaper and easier to film.

Different media work differently, and they often simply won't transfer well. After about three seasons of watching Gotham, I just wanted them to clear up Gotham by shooting all the villains, and I'm heavily anti-death penality. Why on earth lock them up in Arkham asylum or some S.H.I.E.L.D. facility considering that every single time they just escape and cause incredibly ruinous damage? Except even when you kill them, they get resurrected whenever convenient, so you're in this bizarre place where being dead means nothing at all. I had to stop watching Arrow at season 2 mostly because of the typical convoluted patterns of everyone being related to or each other and having past relationships and having to service the fans by constantly bringing this weird rotating cast of heroes and villains in and out and in and out which just becomes absurd baggage. And then the bit in adaptations where there's a villain who turns to good, no wait, they're serving evil again now, no they've developed a guilty conscience and gone good, then there's that bit of mixed loyalties, and the period where they're mostly bad but feel they owe the good guys something at critical moments and... you know what? Fuck off. That's not character depth, it's inconsistent garbage written only because it's convenient to the plot.

Lots of this stuff comics could get away with, particularly because they occur over a span of what might be decades of storylines; many readers won't be subjected to the whole limit as they move away from the comic. They can involve different writers with different takes on a hero, with an understanding of a different approach, and so on. For a coherent TV/film series over a few years, it's brain-breakingly awful, and turns the series into mush.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Excessively powerful superheroes are superboring. Take Superman. What's the point? Basically, Superman can do anything and is invulnerable. Except that they quickly invented Kryptonite, because they realised at least something had to create an idea of threat to supply some dramatic action. It ends in meaningless power creep, where the villains have to ramp up in power to equal the overpowered heroes, and in the end you're inevitably saving the city, then the world, then the galaxy, then the whole goddamn universe. But you can get just as much drama and action from a much more "ordinary" hero stopping a bank robbery. It's probably also cheaper and easier to film.

Different media work differently, and they often simply won't transfer well. After about three seasons of watching Gotham, I just wanted them to clear up Gotham by shooting all the villains, and I'm heavily anti-death penality. Why on earth lock them up in Arkham asylum or some S.H.I.E.L.D. facility considering that every single time they just escape and cause incredibly ruinous damage? Except even when you kill them, they get resurrected whenever convenient, so you're in this bizarre place where being dead means nothing at all. I had to stop watching Arrow at season 2 mostly because of the typical convoluted patterns of everyone being related to or each other and having past relationships and having to service the fans by constantly bringing this weird rotating cast of heroes and villains in and out and in and out which just becomes absurd baggage. And then the bit in adaptations where there's a villain who turns to good, no wait, they're serving evil again now, no they've developed a guilty conscience and gone good, then there's that bit of mixed loyalties, and the period where they're mostly bad but feel they owe the good guys something at critical moments and... you know what? Fuck off. That's not character depth, it's inconsistent garbage written only because it's convenient to the plot.

Lots of this stuff comics could get away with, particularly because they occur over a span of what might be decades of storylines; many readers won't be subjected to the whole limit as they move away from the comic. They can involve different writers with different takes on a hero, with an understanding of a different approach, and so on. For a coherent TV/film series over a few years, it's brain-breakingly awful, and turns the series into mush.

As much as I talk about him, I legitimately think Superman is the most interesting character. He isn't my favorite. Spiderman is. But to be raised a boy to grow into a God, and trying to eschew and limit himself every second of every day to walk among normal people is such an interesting character study.

I know people look at the powers first and the character... like fifth, but a well written superman story really has very little to do with his feats. Just the man.

 

[Dreiko]

It's kinda why I prefer animation. It's easier to depict those levels of power without needing millions in CG to get it down looking right.

 

[Terminal Blue]

As much as I talk about him, I legitimately think Superman is the most interesting character. He isn't my favorite. Spiderman is. But to be raised a boy to grow into a God, and trying to eschew and limit himself every second of every day to walk among normal people is such an interesting character study.

I always thought that superman was a very boring character.

But I also have to admit that I don't really like superheroes, and while I don't find superman very interesting, he does remind me of things I do like. I really like utopian science fiction, for example, which often has the same problem. The perfect system always wins.

When I listen to people who like superman talk about superman, it reminds me of why I like these stories, because the point isn't who is going to win, the point is how does a perfect system interact with an imperfect world, or in the case of superman how does a perfect, all powerful person interact with an imperfect world. I think how we perceive that relationship between our values and ideals and the often difficult world we live in is fundamentally very interesting and revealing.

I think what weirds me out a little about superheroes, and superman in particular, is that whole Watchmen thing. As individuals, human beings don't react well to power. If an individual person was far more powerful than everyone around them, then whether they wanted to or not they would need to make choices about when and how to use that power. (For example do they stop a nuclear war?) Like it or not, superman kind of is the ruler of earth. He's a benevolent ruler who imagines himself as a servant and doesn't usually impinge on the freedom of those around him, but that's a choice he makes.

Utopian science fiction has this problem too, but the implication is less troubling to me. There's something a little authoritarian about imagining the existence of an individual with limitless power as a good or desirable state, or that having this all-powerful good person to look after and care for us would be nice. Because in real life, the people claiming to look after us and our interests are usually not good people, and even if they are, they're still rulers.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think what you can depict in writing or comics and get away with suspension of disbelief and like not making people roll their eyes at it may differ? People's expectations for something they see in live action is probably pretty different I feel.