Superman and now Captain America. Why so much dislike for being "overpowered"?

[Fox12]

Because overpowered characters ruin any sense of tension. "Oh no, Superman has to fight Lex Luthors two unarmed thugs. I'm really on the edge of my seat now." It's okay if the opponent is equal, if not stronger, than the hero. It's also okay if the writer is brilliant and uses an overpowered character to make a statement (Dr. Manhattan). Otherwise the writer risks creating a Mary Sue character. A character like Superman is okay, but some writers take it to comical lengths. Superman survives getting smacked by two stars? Superman ties a bunch of planets together and carries them through the universe? At that point his powers border on self parody, except it's played completely straight. Taken that far it's just as bad as Batmans "shark repellent." Actually it's worse, because that was SUPPOSED to be funny. Superman can be good when kept in check though. The animated series was great, and it had one of the greatest finales of all time.

Superman's biggest problem is not that he's too good or too powerful but rather he's given to writers who don't know what to do with him half the time or don't give a shit. Which him being my favorite superhero of all time and seeing him get all this scorn these days pisses me right off. Heck I'm hoping that Man of Steel 2 will fix all this. Then again it probably won't....especially if Frank Miller worms his way in there.

Superman has a ton of untapped potential. The problem is that we're living in a cynical age where everything has to be "dark and gritty." There's no room for idealism anymore. Just look at Game of Thrones. This is sad, because you can have an idealistic character that's still complex, and you can have an idealistic film that isn't cheesy or melodramatic. You just need talented writers. I would love to see a confident, idealistic, but still flawed Superman who tries to fix things from within the system, as opposed to Batman, who tries to fix things outside the system. I think the popularity of those two characters fluctuates with the political climate and hopefulness of the country. After all, Superman represents stability, morality, and the status quo. Batman tends to represent a character who has to deal with an insanely corrupt society, and a political structure that fundamentally broken. It make sense that he's grow in popularity around the Bush/Obama years. Hopefully Superman will see a resurgence soon.

 

[pspman45]

I don't think its because they are "overpowered" per say, but because they are just binary characters in general
Superman for example, is pretty much incapable of receiving any worthwhile damage to his body unless he comes into contact with a glowing green rock. like that is literally the only thing that can stop him from being able to uppercut you into orbit. so how do you make superman a character instead of a cardboard cutout of a man? you can't exactly put his life in danger, so you have to put others in danger, making it seem as if he's too perfect to ever be realistically threatened, and he can only be defined by other people suffering.

Lets compare him to my favorite superhero, Spiderman. Spiderman can be defeated in a variety of ways. you can shoot him in the face, beat him to death with a blunt object, stab him, ect. Even though he can shoot webs from his hands, he's still human, he's still fragile. His characterization comes from him having to balance being a superhero and a regular guy, his struggle comes from having two identities that require totally different things from him. He can't let Peter Parker become Spider-Man, because he wants to live a normal life, but he can't let Spiderman become Peter Parker, or his life would always be in danger.

Peter Parker BECAME Spiderman, but Superman became Clark Kent, if that makes any sense
I don't know if the same thing applies to Captain America, but he is also pretty binary, can my shield block it?
>yes: I win
>no: I lose
His characterization is... I dunno, he seems to just be GI Joe all the time, not much of a character there. Maybe they should have a section about him trying to live a normal life and how that doesn't really work with him, that could change people's minds about him

 

[runic knight]

Cap isn't OP, that is just silly. The first page is full of reasons why.

Sup's though, that depends. With Superman, you have to understand that the average hero is on a much smaller scale then Superman. Batman is city or state-level of action, where as superman is global or galactic. When you compare Superman to the average villain of batman, it is hilariously overpower. Now, compare him to the likes of Darksied and things are a little more balanced. It really depends on how the writer utilizes the character and what the scale of the fight is. Not to say that superman can't be engaging with a much weaker foe (like a lex luthor, who makes up the weakness with tech or wits), but so often people mismatch the scale of the fight and rely on bad writing to justify why superman is having difficulty when before he could punch a new god in the face. Add to that superman's fluctuating power level depending on writers and yeah, it can be a mess of OP character or just audience no longer feeling there is a threat to the character.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

I think it's not about being overpowered more than it's about being believable.
I like Superman and Captain America, but people seem to hate the overly good archetypes.

What I really don't like is when they make a character weaker in order to make them acceptable to more people. Like one of the Superman movies had him as a deadbeat dad - he didn't know that he had a son until Lois told him. That's way lame.

I get that people want to see their superheroes be more human, but it's been overdone. I also get why people don't like polarized archetypes, but those kinds of characters make for great stories. The "anti-hero" has been overdone.

 

[Psytrese]

I wish people would stop for a minute to ensure they've actually added something of value in a post. I've essentially read the same reply 50 times by 50 different people and the topic has not been furthered any.

 

[DementedSheep]

You sure its not because they're pure boy scout type characters who tend to be held up as examples of the best of mankind? that sort of protagonist seems to have fallen out of favor. Cap if anything is underpowered compared to most.

With characters being OP in general, it is relative. It depends on what they are fighting and how it is written. The problem is when you have them fighting galactic threats one month and then fighting street or city level threats the next and they seem to forget half the stuff they can do that would be an instant win. Although shared universes also have the issue where you get situations that X insanely powerful character should be able to just come in and solve but doesn't for some reason.

I usually like protagonist on lower end of the power scale. Street level not world defending.

 

[Ruisu]

I think it's not about being overpowered more than it's about being believable.
I like Superman and Captain America, but people seem to hate the overly good archetypes.

What I really don't like is when they make a character weaker in order to make them acceptable to more people. Like one of the Superman movies had him as a deadbeat dad - he didn't know that he had a son until Lois told him. That's way lame.

I get that people want to see their superheroes be more human, but it's been overdone. I also get why people don't like polarized archetypes, but those kinds of characters make for great stories. The "anti-hero" has been overdone.

Everything is overdone in comics. That's hardly a reason to say one kind of hero is "better" than other kind. The perfect hero has been way overdone as well. Any character make for great stories if you can make something bold with it, instead of relying in the same safe scenarios all the time.
It's okay to have an "overly good" archetype, as long as you actually do something with it.

And a super-hero being more human doesn't mean he is a "anti-hero". You can make a superhero not be a huge paragon of justice and virtue and still be someone who is always trying his best to do good for others. Being human means more that this super-hero will make mistakes and will not be a god.

 

[Dethenger]

It is not in and of itself. I'm just having too much fun with the science lesson to let it go.

lol except its not a science lesson, no one here actually thinks Vibranium is real. You are just coming across as a condescending something AND you have simultaneously derailed the thread.

I don't think he came off as condescending, and why would anybody need to believe Vibranium is real for this to be informative? If a biologist was here explaining why werewolves couldn't be real, you learning something is not contingent on you thinking that werewolves were real.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Just to chime in on the"iron man has no powers"comment. Iron man does have powers.he can fly, is impervious to most harm and can shoot energy beams and rockets.also super strength and can breathe underwater.Tony Stark might not have any powers, bit iron man certainly does.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Captain America is overpowered? I never noticed, he gets trashed pretty good by the end of "The Avengers", and he essentially has to commit suicide at the end of "Captain America" in order to save the world. He probably wouldn't last a minute going against Hulk or Abomination without some backup.

Superman I can kind of get (even though Doomsday did kill him), and the problem with a hero being overpowered is that it removes any suspense if they're only fighting baddies who don't stand a chance against them. Part of the idea of these guys being "heroes" is that they put their lives on the line to protect others, but if Superman is never in any real danger, then he isn't really putting his life on the line. If that's the case, then he's just doing a good deed and not really doing anything amazingly "heroic".

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Wait a minute, Captain America? The same guy on the team as a god and the god damn Incredible Hulk? Overpowered? I don't see it.

Same here...unless they're talking about the comics but I thought Captain America was more or less beloved in all of the media he's been in recently...I was going to post a pic of Captain America in Hell fighting demons alongside Thor but I can't find it because I can't remember which comic it's from...to highlight how awesome Cap is.

 

[Reiper]

It is not in and of itself. I'm just having too much fun with the science lesson to let it go.

lol except its not a science lesson, no one here actually thinks Vibranium is real. You are just coming across as a condescending something AND you have simultaneously derailed the thread.

I don't think he came off as condescending, and why would anybody need to believe Vibranium is real for this to be informative? If a biologist was here explaining why werewolves couldn't be real, you learning something is not contingent on you thinking that werewolves were real.

Because bringing science into this thread was absurd from the beginning. Its like the annoying guy who sits beside you in a movie and goes "that would never work in real life". Likewise, if in a thread about "why are vampires and werewolves so OP", someone started talking about why werewolves are biologically unrealistic, it would be off-topic and silly.

The reason it is condescending is because he, and you, are assuming we don't know why vibranium and werewolves wouldn't exist, and we must be "taught". If we wanted to know, assuming we didn't already, we would create a thread on the topic or consult Wikipedia. Thus the posts in this context are irrelevant and unwanted.

This post is admittedly off-topic as well, but at this point the discussion value of this thread is pretty much spent.

 

[Winnosh]

you can definitely spot an OP character based on the smell of ass on the items pulled out to challenge him. Be it bad luck or deus ex machina's superman is so powerful he basically requires bad writing to be properly opposed.

This, a thousand times this. You can only go "Oh, here's some more Kryptonite!" a limited number of times. An overpowered character's real drive comes from the fact he's protecting people, because that's the only way he can possibly fail. Unfortunately, as things get more realistic (or as its readers mature) this seems an ever-more futile fantasy.

It works if there's a whole bunch of equally powerful but different forces but even then there's problems - X-men handles it like that but ends up getting rather like Pokemon, with new things thrown into the mix to saturation point.

I think this is why people can be a big fan of these characters but have only ever seen the films - you can totally buy into the world of Superman 1, and never have to deal with the question behind the question "What if someone discovered more Kryptonite every week?"

Ok I really get tired of the ammount of times people say Superman is only challenged by people with Kryptonite or that its used all the time. DC goes years without Kryptonite ever showing up in a single issue of Superman when it does its a rare big deal.

 

[Dethenger]

It is not in and of itself. I'm just having too much fun with the science lesson to let it go.

lol except its not a science lesson, no one here actually thinks Vibranium is real. You are just coming across as a condescending something AND you have simultaneously derailed the thread.

I don't think he came off as condescending, and why would anybody need to believe Vibranium is real for this to be informative? If a biologist was here explaining why werewolves couldn't be real, you learning something is not contingent on you thinking that werewolves were real.

Because bringing science into this thread was absurd from the beginning. Its like the annoying guy who sits beside you in a movie and goes "that would never work in real life". Likewise, if in a thread about "why are vampires and werewolves so OP", someone started talking about why werewolves are biologically unrealistic, it would be off-topic and silly.

The reason it is condescending is because he, and you, are assuming we don't know why vibranium and werewolves wouldn't exist, and we must be "taught". If we wanted to know, assuming we didn't already, we would create a thread on the topic or consult Wikipedia. Thus the posts in this context are irrelevant and unwanted.

This post is admittedly off-topic as well, but at this point the discussion value of this thread is pretty much spent.

Your absurd is his fun. And there's still nothing condescending about it, because he didn't just point out the obvious as if we didn't know it--the crux of his posts wasn't "vibranium doesn't exist," it was "vibranium can't exist, and here's why," and then proceeded to explain.
The difference between this and the werewolf example is that werewolves already have a sense of magic about them, so yes, clearly a man can't change into a wolf because of an arbitrary amount of the moon is showing, and yes, for someone to come in and tell us that is insulting, because it's obvious. And if all he had said was "vibranium isn't real," that'd have been a bit condescending as well, because nobody really believes that it is. But for those who don't know, one could learn a lot from a deconstruction of vibranium, or any other fictional pseudofiction for that matter, because the purpose of those kinds of things is to be at least somewhat believable. Again, he didn't just say "vibranium doesn't exist," he explained why. Maybe my own ignorance regarding physics is showing, but I at least learned something.

 

[000Ronald]

If someone calls Cap overpowered, I'd love to see their comments regarding Morpheus and his family.

You think someone who would call Superman overpowered would be familiar with The Sandman? You have a great deal more optimism than I.

 

[Da Orky Man]

The problem I tend to find with having overpowered characters is that it makes writing a credible threat o them much, much more difficult. You get into a position where either you have to have the characters one weakness magically turn up in every episode, or have the whole country/world/universe rely on the character because any credible threat is basically immune to anything anyone 'normal' can bring to bear.

 

[thewatergamer]

I understand the complaints about superman but how is captain america "Over-powered",

also with superman I will admit that he is kind of "overpowered" but that's kind of part of his character, besides in later cartoons (can't speak for comics) he wasn't portrayed as "invincible" so much anymore, at least to my knowledge, mind you I watch the cartoons I don't read the comics so maybe I can't really say much since I don't know as much as alot of superhero fans

 

[DataSnake]

Either he successfully braces the shield such that it does not significantly move, just like in the comics/movies, and the resulting kinetic shock turns most of his innards to bone shrapnel filled goop. Or, more likely, he does not, and the shield goes flying, probably crushing him in the process.

That's what I always wondered. I mean, suppose Cap blocks a punch from the Hulk with his shield. I'll grant that the shield itself shouldn't be damaged because it's made of unbreakable super metal, but the impact of Big Green's punch ought to send it flying backward with enough force to go right through the squishy human holding it.