Poll: Diet Superman

[DefunctTheory]

On the other side, we have Batman, and while his upbringing is very different then 99% of us, he's still human. He experiences the world exactly like we do, he's just crazy and has a ton of money.

Neither one is exactly relatable (My spell check says that's not a word, weird), but at least Batman is subject to roughly the same physical laws that I am.

That is a very narrow view of looking at things. Especially in comic books. :/

I don't look for people to relate to in comic books (Particularly DC), generally. With a few exceptions, that seems like a fools errand to me.

In any case, I'd argue that in a universe where literal gods are running around and playing fisticuffs with aliens, what physical laws a character is subject to are more important then how much money they have.

 

[mduncan50]

On the other side, we have Batman, and while his upbringing is very different then 99% of us, he's still human. He experiences the world exactly like we do, he's just crazy and has a ton of money.

20 years ago I may have agreed with you, but a funny thing happened over time, most noticeably from the mid 90s on. Despite not having "powers", he's smarter than everyone else, can defeat anyone else, and solve any problem. His superpower is he can never lose.

 

[DefunctTheory]

On the other side, we have Batman, and while his upbringing is very different then 99% of us, he's still human. He experiences the world exactly like we do, he's just crazy and has a ton of money.

20 years ago I may have agreed with you, but a funny thing happened over time, most noticeably from the mid 90s on. Despite not having "powers", he's smarter than everyone else, can defeat anyone else, and solve any problem. His superpower is he can never lose.

While the 'Batman wins everything' turn DC has taken kind be over played and depressing, it doesn't play much of a part, for me at least, when it comes relatability. I suppose I could see how it could for others.

But I'd think that would largely be irrelevant when comparing him to Superman.

 

[Lieju]

I mean, if you established a character can turn back time the audience will then wonder why he won't do it again.

And Superman gets into especially high levels of weirdness, even by comic standards.

If Superman's powers were more clearly defined, but still basically "god tier," do you think that would be acceptable?

It would help. Obviously the stories you can tell with a God-tier hero are different than ones with a basically very powerful human who can fly and punch real good. And I don't see why we couldn't have both kinds of stories in different AUs.
And you can do a story with a god-like Superman who can do anything, (Like Red Son) and that works on its own short story.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Honestly I kind of find Superman somewhat to be an iffy character.

He's a god like being and yet he still face challange of an everyday man?

Ok I haven't watched most of the animated series and only read a couple of comics. In the animated series, he had a rouster that were in the same league as him in terms of powers which in the comics he faces several powerful foes like Ulysess.

Anyway what I'm getting up is that while I don't want him to be underpowered but at the same time there should be some kind of an conflict about him just like any other superheroes (like Spidy trying to leade two lifes or Cap trying to adapt to modern time).

 

[Fox12]

Not really. My problem is that he's too much of a Mary Sue.

That said, overpowered characters are hard to write, but not impossible. Dr. Manhattan is interesting because he's detached from humanity, and because he has all this power and he doesn't want to use it. He's tied into the philosophy of the ubermansch, and the concept of a deistic clockwork God. He's way more powerful then superman, but it doesn't matter, because the dramatic tension comes from his internal struggle, instead of from an outside threat. One Punch Man works because it's a parody of OP characters.

The only thing that matters is that there's a source of dramatic tension. If it's not coming from an outside threat, then it needs to come from the internalization of the characters. The problem is that superman typically isn't well written in this way. Many of his stories focus on action, instead of on his internal struggles. I find batman more interesting because he's more likely to fail. Even if I know that he isn't going to die, there's always a really good chance that the side characters will. There's at least some gravitas to the situation.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but one of the things that's always bothered me is the whole "truth, justice, and the American way." What exactly does the American way actually mean? It sounds like the kind of vapid rhetoric you'd expect from a politician trying to gain your votes. Aside from being incredibly vague and nebulous, it also sounds weirdly nationalistic for someone's who supposed to be the ultimate embodiment of good, when is seems like he ought transcend that type of thing.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but one of the things that's always bothered me is the whole "truth, justice, and the American way." What exactly does the American way actually mean? It sounds like the kind of vapid rhetoric you'd expect from a politician trying to gain your votes. Aside from being incredibly vague and nebulous, it also sounds weirdly nationalistic for someone's who supposed to be the ultimate embodiment of good, when is seems like he ought transcend that type of thing.

Well, remember, Superman comes from a time when...

1. Being nationalistic was very, very important
2. There were still some unique things about the US, particularly some unique good things

In this context though, 'American Way' means freedom and the rejection of tyrants. Perhaps it is conceded to call it those things purely American, but one cannot deny that it is part of the 'American Way.'

 

[mduncan50]

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but one of the things that's always bothered me is the whole "truth, justice, and the American way." What exactly does the American way actually mean? It sounds like the kind of vapid rhetoric you'd expect from a politician trying to gain your votes. Aside from being incredibly vague and nebulous, it also sounds weirdly nationalistic for someone's who supposed to be the ultimate embodiment of good, when is seems like he ought transcend that type of thing.

I'm not American either, but I get what the intention is. It's talking about the American Ideal, not saying that America is ideal, if that makes sense. It is a country that was formed on the basis of fighting for what you believe in, takes pride in standing up for the oppressed, leading the world with freedom, and at its best, fighting to make the world better place. Again, this may not being the America of reality, but it is the ideal that it strives to be.

The American Way of life is individualistic, dynamic, and pragmatic. It affirms the supreme value and dignity of the individual; it stresses incessant activity on his part, for he is never to rest but is always to be striving to "get ahead"; it defines an ethic of self-reliance, merit, and character, and judges by achievement: "deeds, not creeds" are what count. The "American Way of Life" is humanitarian, "forward-looking", optimistic. Americans are easily the most generous and philanthropic people in the world, in terms of their ready and unstinting response to suffering anywhere on the globe. The American believes in progress, in self-improvement, and quite fanatically in education. But above all, the American is idealistic. Americans cannot go on making money or achieving worldly success simply on its own merits; such "materialistic" things must, in the American mind, be justified in "higher" terms, in terms of "service" or "stewardship" or "general welfare"... And because they are so idealistic, Americans tend to be moralistic; they are inclined to see all issues as plain and simple, black and white, issues of morality.
? William Herberg, Protestant, Catholic, Jew: an Essay in American religious sociology

 

[SweetShark]

So I'm here to ask a single question: would a Superman whose powers are significantly reduced actually start drawing in more people?

So basically, please don't tell me I'm missing the point of Superman. I like the Big Blue Boy Scout as he is (or I guess, ideally is). I'm mostly indulging a complaint I hear a lot, that his powers make him unrelatable. Personally, I don't think his powers do that at all. But hell, it makes me curious.

If the people saying this got what they wanted, would it make any difference? Would people flock to a weaker Superman who struggled more? Would he be more relatable by the virtue of not being "OP" anymore?

I honestly doubt it. I tend to think the "problem" people have relating to Superman comes more from his status as a representation of the noble ideals we are supposed to strive towards (and usually fall short of). I remember a story arc with Spider-Man where he opted to have his powers taken away and learned that while with great power comes great responsibility, the responsibility doesn't go away with the power. And I think that's what we'd see with Superman. Even if he was Normalman, he would still be the same boy scout, and I think that's what really is the issue of contention. Normalman wouldn't necessaroly be more relatable, but rather die faster than a redshirt. The power is only an issue because he as the ability to act on his virtues.

But I'm making a topic on it because I'm curious what other people think, and so I now open the floor to people to agree with me unilaterally. Or not, but the former is easier.

No actually.
Proof?

Spoiler

One-Punch Man

Saitama is the Trope of OP character: He literally don't make no effort to defeat an villain/monster/whatever thrown to him because he probably is 10000000000000000000000 times more powerful than Superman [please, don't quote me for Superman powers, I don't care].
With that said, Saitama is SO MUCH interesting than Superman because of two things:
Αwareness and Good use of the other characters.

Saitama he is VERY VERY aware how aweosme he is that make him almost not so hot to fight. There is no point. Not at all.
However he is not a stupid moron to go around tell to everyone how powerfull he is. The opposite. He is willing hide his true powers to let the other FAAAAAAAAR weakers heroes take the spotlight. Reason? Very simple. Why the Goverment pay for an Army of "weak" Heroes, is they can have only one OVER THE TOP Hero? Saitama is great. Even if he is the most OP creature in the UNIVERSE, he want to let the other Heroes overcome their difficulties.
Don't let the others tell you what you are capable to do.

Finally the whole "adventures" of Saitama are great not because of him, but because the great struggle the other people have around him facing something for their own. Saitama only work as a Deus Ex Machina. The real "meat" of his adventures are:
- The villain
- The other Heroe
- The risks of Humans losing.
Literally every villain is FAR more interesting than other villains of Superman just because they had "built up" the moment Saitama and the villains will meet. They show how much/equal powerful they are against other Heroes. However even we all know they will lose against Saitama, we are eaget to see the reasults. To see Saitama ONE-PUNCH a villains who can destroy PLANETS!!!!!!!

With all said, I will admit I though Superman was Super-Lame of how OP was for DC universe. But now I can see Superman becoming a very interesting character if the other characters around him "work for it" as well.

 

[ArcaneGamer]

So I'm here to ask a single question: would a Superman whose powers are significantly reduced actually start drawing in more people?

So basically, please don't tell me I'm missing the point of Superman. I like the Big Blue Boy Scout as he is (or I guess, ideally is). I'm mostly indulging a complaint I hear a lot, that his powers make him unrelatable. Personally, I don't think his powers do that at all. But hell, it makes me curious.

If the people saying this got what they wanted, would it make any difference? Would people flock to a weaker Superman who struggled more? Would he be more relatable by the virtue of not being "OP" anymore?

I honestly doubt it. I tend to think the "problem" people have relating to Superman comes more from his status as a representation of the noble ideals we are supposed to strive towards (and usually fall short of). I remember a story arc with Spider-Man where he opted to have his powers taken away and learned that while with great power comes great responsibility, the responsibility doesn't go away with the power. And I think that's what we'd see with Superman. Even if he was Normalman, he would still be the same boy scout, and I think that's what really is the issue of contention. Normalman wouldn't necessaroly be more relatable, but rather die faster than a redshirt. The power is only an issue because he as the ability to act on his virtues.

But I'm making a topic on it because I'm curious what other people think, and so I now open the floor to people to agree with me unilaterally. Or not, but the former is easier.

It's funny you mention that, because that ACTUALLY happened in the comics. Look up Comicstorian, he's done videos on it.

 

[SweetShark]

So I'm here to ask a single question: would a Superman whose powers are significantly reduced actually start drawing in more people?

So basically, please don't tell me I'm missing the point of Superman. I like the Big Blue Boy Scout as he is (or I guess, ideally is). I'm mostly indulging a complaint I hear a lot, that his powers make him unrelatable. Personally, I don't think his powers do that at all. But hell, it makes me curious.

If the people saying this got what they wanted, would it make any difference? Would people flock to a weaker Superman who struggled more? Would he be more relatable by the virtue of not being "OP" anymore?

I honestly doubt it. I tend to think the "problem" people have relating to Superman comes more from his status as a representation of the noble ideals we are supposed to strive towards (and usually fall short of). I remember a story arc with Spider-Man where he opted to have his powers taken away and learned that while with great power comes great responsibility, the responsibility doesn't go away with the power. And I think that's what we'd see with Superman. Even if he was Normalman, he would still be the same boy scout, and I think that's what really is the issue of contention. Normalman wouldn't necessaroly be more relatable, but rather die faster than a redshirt. The power is only an issue because he as the ability to act on his virtues.

But I'm making a topic on it because I'm curious what other people think, and so I now open the floor to people to agree with me unilaterally. Or not, but the former is easier.

It's funny you mention that, because that ACTUALLY happened in the comics. Look up Comicstorian, he's done videos on it.

Do you have a link? The guy have a lot of videos which maybe I look in the future. Curious if this story of Superman was good.

 

[happyninja42]

So I'm here to ask a single question: would a Superman whose powers are significantly reduced actually start drawing in more people?

So basically, please don't tell me I'm missing the point of Superman. I like the Big Blue Boy Scout as he is (or I guess, ideally is). I'm mostly indulging a complaint I hear a lot, that his powers make him unrelatable. Personally, I don't think his powers do that at all. But hell, it makes me curious.

If the people saying this got what they wanted, would it make any difference? Would people flock to a weaker Superman who struggled more? Would he be more relatable by the virtue of not being "OP" anymore?

I honestly doubt it. I tend to think the "problem" people have relating to Superman comes more from his status as a representation of the noble ideals we are supposed to strive towards (and usually fall short of). I remember a story arc with Spider-Man where he opted to have his powers taken away and learned that while with great power comes great responsibility, the responsibility doesn't go away with the power. And I think that's what we'd see with Superman. Even if he was Normalman, he would still be the same boy scout, and I think that's what really is the issue of contention. Normalman wouldn't necessaroly be more relatable, but rather die faster than a redshirt. The power is only an issue because he as the ability to act on his virtues.

But I'm making a topic on it because I'm curious what other people think, and so I now open the floor to people to agree with me unilaterally. Or not, but the former is easier.

For me personally, yes it would make him more relatable. It's a (usually) foregone conclusion that nothing's really going to directly threaten Superman himself. He's so unkillable, that unless I see someone with green in their outfit, I'm pretty much going to assume that Supes isn't going to be hurt at all. So the threat then just becomes "Can he accomplish X before Y happens?" and that gets somewhat tiresome to me. I would like it more, if he wasn't completely all powerful, and that he had some very real, and easily attained limits to his powers. Not totally shut them down like kryptonite, but simply "this is the limit to what I can do". It would make his struggles more engaging, because then I could more easily see how he is putting himself in direct threat for the sake of others. He might die from this fight, because he's not bulletproof. He might not be able to save those people, because he doesn't have infinite strength/speed/stamina. Etc etc.

It would make him morerelatable. I can still identify with him to a certain level, but I don't find his challenges all that challenging when reading them. Like I said, there are just some assumed things with Superman that lessen the implied threat to any scene he's in.

 

[mduncan50]

I think the point of Superman, is he's not relatable. At least, not in a way where we can see ourselves as him. I think the point, is that he is supposed to be an allegory for wanting to be better than what we are.
Like how he encourages Power Girl to make friends and date humans, to help her not lose touch with the society that she is suppsoed to protect. The idea that, "how can you best serve the people, when you are so out of touch with them?" *coughMarvelcough* And to an equal extent *coughDCcough*

He's not really supposed to be relatable, he's supposed to be an inspiration, if not an aspiration. At least, that's wha I get from him.

Curious as to the origin of your Marvel cough. I mean sure gaining powers will almost always separate you from the majority of society, but I've always found Marvel characters to, for the most part, be more relatable and "human" as it were, when compared to the god-like beings of DC. And I'm not saying one is better than the other. I think it is great to have the two different perspectives and that THAT is the difference that DC films should try to focus on rather than trying to be "grounded" and "serious".

 

[BabySinclair]

No actually.
Proof?

Spoiler

One-Punch Man

Spoiler: snip

Saitama is the Trope of OP character: He literally don't make no effort to defeat an villain/monster/whatever thrown to him because he probably is 10000000000000000000000 times more powerful than Superman [please, don't quote me for Superman powers, I don't care].
With that said, Saitama is SO MUCH interesting than Superman because of two things:
Αwareness and Good use of the other characters.

Saitama he is VERY VERY aware how aweosme he is that make him almost not so hot to fight. There is no point. Not at all.
However he is not a stupid moron to go around tell to everyone how powerfull he is. The opposite. He is willing hide his true powers to let the other FAAAAAAAAR weakers heroes take the spotlight. Reason? Very simple. Why the Goverment pay for an Army of "weak" Heroes, is they can have only one OVER THE TOP Hero? Saitama is great. Even if he is the most OP creature in the UNIVERSE, he want to let the other Heroes overcome their difficulties.
Don't let the others tell you what you are capable to do.

Finally the whole "adventures" of Saitama are great not because of him, but because the great struggle the other people have around him facing something for their own. Saitama only work as a Deus Ex Machina. The real "meat" of his adventures are:
- The villain
- The other Heroe
- The risks of Humans losing.
Literally every villain is FAR more interesting than other villains of Superman just because they had "built up" the moment Saitama and the villains will meet. They show how much/equal powerful they are against other Heroes. However even we all know they will lose against Saitama, we are eaget to see the reasults. To see Saitama ONE-PUNCH a villains who can destroy PLANETS!!!!!!!

With all said, I will admit I though Superman was Super-Lame of how OP was for DC universe. But now I can see Superman becoming a very interesting character if the other characters around him "work for it" as well.

This pretty much sums up my views. Sperman is literally the DC version of OPM, he wins because he is so much more powerful than everyone else. His stories shouldn't be about how he can punch someone really hard, they should be about his relationships with other superheroes and especially with humans.

 

[elvor0]

Clark Kent is caring, kind, thoughtful, optimistic about his fellow man, and would be just as brave and unyeilding even without his powers. Obviously I should imagine Clark does have feelings of isolation and feeling unstuck between two worlds due to his kryptonian heratige, but I don't know where this push has come from to write him to purposefully isolate himself and alienate himself from man kind, it is precisely that human connection that makes him Superman.

It's not really about the powers though. Frankly the kind of people who don't like Supes aren't going to like him regardless of whether or not he can bench press the moon. People who criticise him usually complain that he's too nice and frankly that's bollocks. If he wasn't a boy scout he wouldn't be Superman, he would just be a super powered man and those are a dime a dozen. And if you don't want to read about the big blue boyscout? Then don't. Even Superman himself says it:

Spoiler

And of course the famous scene from All Star Superman:

Spoiler

Batman goes on to say

It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then?he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him.

Superman is an icon and relatable to every single one of us, you just need to look past the powers to see the S.

Hes called Captain America.

One of the most iconic and recognisable superheroes in the world vs a a C-Lister who became popular again because movies do more bank than comics.

Not sure that's an even comparison.

No, I agree, Marvel Movie-verse Captain America is more or less Superman without his powers. You've missed his comparison. He's not saying that Captain America is equatable to Superman in terms of popularity of influence, he's just saying that Cap has a very similar personality to Supes, and that the closest comparison to showcasing Superman without his powers that exists is MCU Captain America. Steve Rogers was still as brave and noble even without the Super Serum, much like your notion in the OP that Supermans powers now allow him to properly act on those virtues.

 

[Cicada 5]

Superman is infinitely more relatable than Batman on the most basic level. Superman is a guy that was raised in Kansas and who has a grounded view and morals implanted in him by the Kents that raised him. Batman is a rich kid that had his parents shot, is good at everything, and has all the best gadgets in the world. You tell me which one best fits you as a person?

Superman is one of the best heroes ever and "nerfing" him means nothing.

On a superficial level, yes. But not when you really look at it. Superman is smarter then any real person will ever be. He thinks faster then a normal person, he has absolute movement, gravity is a pointless concept as far as he is concerned, he hears everything, sees everything, can experience/sense things on a molecular level, feels no pain, doesn't get tired, doesn't feel threatened, doesn't get weak. Basically, everything that makes up being a human, things we can't ignore, Superman gets the choice to opt into - He's as human as he wishes to be because he wishes it, not because he has to.

On the other side, we have Batman, and while his upbringing is very different then 99% of us, he's still human. He experiences the world exactly like we do, he's just crazy and has a ton of money.

Neither one is exactly relatable (My spell check says that's not a word, weird), but at least Batman is subject to roughly the same physical laws that I am.

I've read a lot of Batman comics. The guy had his back broken and recovered with no ill effects, can burst into a room and take down several armed gunmen with zero effort and once mastered a technique that put him in a death like trance. He has become even less human if anything and Gotham too cartoonish to be considered a real place.

 

[MeatMachine]

On his own, Superman doesn't interest me much - one of the reasons being his titanic abilities.

When other superheroes, particularly the Justice League, create a dynamic among themselves, I think Superman's godlike complexion even among other exceptionally powerful characters is one of the most fascinating dynamics in comics, and the basis for a lot of conflicts.

In most iterations of the Justice League (again), Superman is seen as a superweapon - a borderline trump card. Although much of this outlook goes unspoken among them, Batman always carries kryptonite on him as a countermeasure in case Superman goes rogue or gets corrupted somehow (which has happened several times). Additionally, Superman's greatest nightmare is becoming so unwieldingly powerful that he inadvertently kills and destroys those he loves and seeks to protect - which is half of the reason why he is usually expressly concerned with practicing restraint and solving problems with as minimal effort as requires.

These themes of Superman's indestructibility and measureless abilities are fantastic traits when expressed as a double-edged sword among heroes and "good guys". Unfortunately, they are a lot harder to express on screen to an audience with only a passing familiarity with the comic universe, so they are usually either botched horribly or outright neglected.

 

[mduncan50]

Curious as to the origin of your Marvel cough. I mean sure gaining powers will almost always separate you from the majority of society, but I've always found Marvel characters to, for the most part, be more relatable and "human" as it were, when compared to the god-like beings of DC. And I'm not saying one is better than the other. I think it is great to have the two different perspectives and that THAT is the difference that DC films should try to focus on rather than trying to be "grounded" and "serious".

The cough was more having to do with being out of touch with the people.

Still not sure what you mean though. How is Marvel and DC out of touch with the people?

 

[DEAD34345]

Superman is infinitely more relatable than Batman on the most basic level. Superman is a guy that was raised in Kansas and who has a grounded view and morals implanted in him by the Kents that raised him. Batman is a rich kid with dead parents, who is good at everything, and has all the best gadgets in the world. You tell me which one best fits you as a person? -snip-

Um... The one who isn't an alien god with super powers? Come on, you can't just leave out the part that makes your argument ridiculous, that's cheating. Relating to someone with more money or skills than me isn't that difficult. Certainly less so than relating to someone who is born with abilities so great that he's the most powerful being on the planet without even trying.

I don't like superman for many reasons, but the main one for me is that there's just nothing interesting about his personality or emotions. Yeah, sure, he stands for "Truth, Justice and the American Way!", but anyone could stand for that if they were born with godlike superpowers. He never seems to be challenged in any particular way, either psychologically or physically, so what is there for me to care about?

Batman isn't the greatest character or anything, but at least he has some edges. He's clearly pretty much as psychotic as the villains he fights, his motives are closer to more human desires like revenge rather than trying to flawlessly embody some perfect ideal, and the morality of what he does is often cast into serious doubt. There's lots of interesting things that can be done with that.

Superman does the right thing, always, and succeeds, always. That's kind of his deal and the whole point of his character, he's a super man. That is incredibly boring to me.

OT: If you nerfed superman it wouldn't be superman anymore. Would it be interesting? I don't know, it depends how it was done, I suppose. Why do that rather than just make up a new superhero with lesser powers, though? It'd piss off a lot less people that way.