Why I Hate Superman

[McCheese]

I didn't used to like Superman but it depends on who is writing him.

You could make that argument about pretty much every character.

For those who don't like him, which comics have you read?

Not too many. Mostly stuff out of other people's collections. I could never get into it, so I've never bought much.

 

[J. Agamemnon]

I didn't used to like Superman but it depends on who is writing him. For those who don't like him, which comics have you read?

I feel the same way. I've read the Alan Moore stories and they're very good. He can/has be/been used well in stories and is better utilized as a supporting character in my opinion. Especially in a book with group dynamic, he can easily outshine every other character with just his presence alone. Identity Crisis is a good example and even goes so far to explain it. Even before Ted Kord died, he explained Superman's presence very well in just a sentence or two.

At the same time, I just don't like the character in general. There's really no appeal for me in liking Superman. In my opinion, he doesn't have any natural flaws. The only flaws he ever has are whatever writer who writes him decides to give him and it's contained within that particular story.

Although he does have one of my top ten favorite comic quotes:

It's not about who you are, or where you're from, or what you wear on your chest. It's about what you do. It's about action.

When I first read that, it gave me goosebumps. So it's not to say if Superman is a stupid character or not. I think it's more on the basis of who can write him well enough.

 

[Iceshadow]

Not too many. Mostly stuff out of other people's collections. I could never get into it, so I've never bought much.

You should check out Matt Wagner's Trinity. I thought that he had a good take on Superman, and made good use of him in the story. It wasn't really about whether or not Supes could get hurt, but rather if he could prevent the people that aren't invulnerable from getting hurt/dying.

 

[The Overlord]

I feel the same way. I've read the Alan Moore stories and they're very good. He can/has be/been used well in stories and is better utilized as a supporting character in my opinion. Especially in a book with group dynamic, he can easily outshine every other character with just his presence alone. Identity Crisis is a good example and even goes so far to explain it. Even before Ted Kord died, he explained Superman's presence very well in just a sentence or two.

At the same time, I just don't like the character in general. There's really no appeal for me in liking Superman. In my opinion, he doesn't have any natural flaws. The only flaws he ever has are whatever writer who writes him decides to give him and it's contained within that particular story.

Although he does have one of my top ten favorite comic quotes:

It's not about who you are, or where you're from, or what you wear on your chest. It's about what you do. It's about action.

When I first read that, it gave me goosebumps. So it's not to say if Superman is a stupid character or not. I think it's more on the basis of who can write him well enough.

Still there is a benefit to Superman not having major flaw:

It actually is surprising and scary when he gets angry, because it doesn't happen often.

Compare that wolverine who is just pissed all the time, its not exciting when it happens.

That's what made superman's fights with Mongul in the "For the Man who Has everything" Mongul managed to push Superman's buttons, its more exciting when that happens once in a blue moon, instead of all the time.

 

[Foolsfolly]

His fights with Darkseid in the Bruce Timm verse...those were great. Because he let loose everything and it was world shattering punches...and Darksied kept rolling with them.

 

[E]

You know, the SUPER-HERO is always going to win in the end anyway, so in essence every single one of them is unstoppable and invulnerable.

He has a point.

 

[Gemini]

I think you're all forgetting how awesome The Captain is. For shame.

 

[marvelman]

one of the best recent superman stories (so i've heard) was issue 775 or something like that when a bunch of new superpowered heroes came in and made superman seem obsolete. then they start abusing their power, and to defeat them, superman USES HIS XRAY VISION AND HIS LASER VISION TO LOBOTOMIZE the guys. now, dont get me wrong, that is AWESOME, but it would have also been interesting if he had to deal with those guys, KNOWING he's not the big man on campus anymore.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

one of the best recent superman stories (so i've heard) was issue 775 or something like that when a bunch of new superpowered heroes came in and made superman seem obsolete. then they start abusing their power, and to defeat them, superman USES HIS XRAY VISION AND HIS LASER VISION TO LOBOTOMIZE the guys. now, dont get me wrong, that is AWESOME, but it would have also been interesting if he had to deal with those guys, KNOWING he's not the big man on campus anymore.

He didn't lobotomize anyone in that story.

 

[marvelman]

He didn't lobotomize anyone in that story.

dude, he burned out the part of the brain with his lazer vision that gave them their powers. that, to me, counts as a lobotomy.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

dude, he burned out the part of the brain with his lazer vision that gave them their powers. that, to me, counts as a lobotomy.

He didn't do that.

 

[Gothamite]

What's made Superman unreadable in the past was a LONG line of ****ty writers. I still like Kal, he's a great counter point to Bruce.

Exactly. Half of this guy's examples are instances where Superman is seen as being 'badass'. Superman. Is. Not. Badass. That's just about the only thing that I get in terms of people not liking him. He's the nicest, humblest, most caring superhero in the world.

Superman would probably just use his heat-vision to melt the gun, then put the kid in prison where he'd become a hard-bitten thug who'd murder somebody a few months after getting out.

This actually makes me angry.

That's just about the last thing Superman would do. Even if he did swiftly take the gun away from the child, he'd probably fly him around the world, showing him examples of beauty and instances of hate and let the boy decide for himself from that point. He'd see that the boy got the help he needed and would remember his name and visit him from time to time, ensuring that he led the correct path. Perhaps as Clark Kent, he'd write a story about the harsh conditions that would cause a boy to use a gun.

While Superman represents and upholds the values of right-wing America, he never really earned the right to do so. The dude's a foreigner who took it upon himself to act as mankind's savior when, generally, mankind shouldn't need him (note, of course, that a significant number of the catastrophes which assault Metropolis on a weekly basis are initiated with the intent of fighting Superman – if Supes wasn't around, a lot of the criminal bull**** wouldn't be, either).

More bull****.

Superman never 'took it upon himself' to be mankind's saviour. He took it upon himself to use his abilities where they were needed most. He never saw himself as being better or worse than any human being. He simply does what he believes is required of all men or women: the best he can to ensure the world is a better and safer place. If Superman was just an ordinary man, he'd still be that heroic, only in a different way (this has been shown dozens of times in as many different stories). Even if Superman had a physical disability (say...if he was a paraplegic :wink, he'd still be that heroic, looking out for his fellow man. It never has had anything to do with his powers.

No one understands how much mankind will ultimately need to sort out their own problems more than Superman. Watch any of the Christopher Reeve movies.

Really, what lessons do the Superman comics teach? It says that mankind is full of dull, pointless weaklings and evildoers who can only be stopped by a white ubermensch from another planet, who didn't work a day in his life in order to achieve his powers. Yeah, you could say he's a symbol of "hope," but not hope in human nature – hope in an all-powerful alien who saves the world daily so you don't have to get off your butt and act like a moral person. What sort of message is that?

This is just such a lot of horse.

People are born every day of the week with genes and DNA and whatnot that ensure that they will be better looking or physically fitter or smarter than the other guy. It's up to these people to ensure that they use the gifts God (or whatever you choose to believe in) gave them as best they can, for the betterment of mankind. Everyone has talents that other people don't have. Just because one person's particular talent involves melting steel with his eyes, doesn't mean you should treat him any differently.

What's the virtue in acting like a badass hero if you were born with the ability to be a badass hero? What's more impressive: the football player who trains for years and years just to play one game of pro football, or the guy who was born with innate athletic talent?

Again, luck. It's what you do with your talents.

Maybe no one will remember the guy who only played that one game, whereas the guy with the innate talent played a thousand games and was inducted into the Hall of Fame; it doesn't matter. It doesn't make the less memorable guy any less of a man.

The answer is obvious, of course – powers earned are infinitely more impressive than intrinsic superpowers. Even though many superheroes do not "choose" their powers – from Spider-Man to Green Lantern, it's usually just happy accident that these normal schlubs get turned into superheroes – it's still a hell of a boring cop-out to simply be born with the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

I'm guessing anyone who agrees with this idiot doesn't like X-Men, either?

If Superman is capable of catching bullets with his teeth mere moments after landing on Earth,

This is just an example of bad writing.

Superman has been written many times as being too powerful to the point of not being interesting and I will agree to that. My favourite 'superpower levels' are from the Byrne era, where it was firmly established that Superman didn't gain even the slightest trace of superhuman ability until he reached his teens (by which time he had absorbed years worth of solar radiation).

And let's not forget The Dark Knight Returns, wherein Batman brilliantly beat Clark Kent almost to death (pausing only to fake his own) by using a mixture of planning and ingenuity that even Lex Luthor isn't really capable of. Even if we were to judge superhero quality solely by who could beat who in a fight, then Batman still wins, hands down.

This suggests to me that this article was borne out of some friend of this idiot professing his like of Superman and the writer disagreeing.

 

[Gothamite]

You know, the SUPER-HERO is always going to win in the end anyway, so in essence every single one of them is unstoppable and invulnerable.

Superman gets his *** handed to him and he comes back in the end and wins just like everyone else.

This is the iron-clad argument to the 'Superman-is-too-powerful' argument. In most works of fiction, the good guys win and the bad guys lose. The good guys usually go through hell before they win, but they win and everything's fine in the end.

 

[The Overlord]

This is the iron-clad argument to the 'Superman-is-too-powerful' argument. In most works of fiction, the good guys win and the bad guys lose. The good guys usually go through hell before they win, but they win and everything's fine in the end.

The villain loses in the end in most stories, but a good villain will make the hero really work for their victory, the villain will lose, but not by much. the villain loses, but lose with style.

This the problem when the writers power creep Superman too much and don't let his villains catch up (ex: when he was god-like in the 70s).

Superman has to fight villains that can match him (this why Superman vs. Toyman stories are always kinda stupid.)

I do think the writers are making Supes a bit too powerful nowadays, I don't like the fact Darkseid jobs to Supes, compared to 70s or 80s, when Darkseid was out of his league. Mongul got turned into superman's whipping boy to, now Superman's dog can beat him up.

See this is the problem the writers forget that these guys are supposed to threats to Superman, not jobbers to be dispatched easily.

I think the problem isn't Supes, its his villains, his rogues gallery needs a serious revamp.

 

[J. Agamemnon]

Still there is a benefit to Superman not having major flaw:

It actually is surprising and scary when he gets angry, because it doesn't happen often.

Compare that wolverine who is just pissed all the time, its not exciting when it happens.

That's what made superman's fights with Mongul in the "For the Man who Has everything" Mongul managed to push Superman's buttons, its more exciting when that happens once in a blue moon, instead of all the time.

I forget where I heard this but I remember reading that Superman holds his powers back so when he fights, he's not actually using his full power.

 

[Jaggyd]

I forget where I heard this but I remember reading that Superman holds his powers back so when he fights, he's not actually using his full power.

It was during the fight with the Black K altered Supergirl.

 

[The Overlord]

I forget where I heard this but I remember reading that Superman holds his powers back so when he fights, he's not actually using his full power.

What I'm saying is superman should cut loose once and a while, when facing a very dangerous enemy (that's what made the finale of JLU so good).

Superman using all his power against Toyman would seem like overkill, not so with Darkseid.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Superman could fight people like the Toyman and stuff but the stakes are different. Instead of being in danger himself it's other people who are in danger, like Lois or Jimmy, or Cat Grant's kid who Toyman eventually killed.

It's not always about Superman surviving a fight, it's about him solving problems and making everybody safe, not just himself.

 

[Planet-man]

First of all, TwilightEL already soundly murdered the entire article two pages back.

Second, Gothamite is absolutely right.

Third, the whole "Superman doesn't have weaknesses thing" is utter bull****.

NOT because of Kryptonite or Magic or Physically Stronger Villains. You could write legions of Superman stories without ANY of those three weaknesses. Look at Lois & Clark or The Adventures Of Superman. They used Kryptonite maybe 8 times between them, magic half as many, and equally strong villains even less. And they still had what? 250+ good Superman stories?

And he wasn't powered down in those shows. They just knew how to write good stories, with plots that required thought and investigation and detective(or journalist) work before he could punch or vibrate his way through them. Hell, Lex ****ing Luthor. Meets none of the above criteria(well, occasionally Kryptonite, but more often than not it's just good old thinking-things-through).

Also:

It's not always about Superman surviving a fight, it's about him solving problems and making everybody safe, not just himself.

And on and on and on.

 

[The Overlord]

Superman could fight people like the Toyman and stuff but the stakes are different. Instead of being in danger himself it's other people who are in danger, like Lois or Jimmy, or Cat Grant's kid who Toyman eventually killed.

It's not always about Superman surviving a fight, it's about him solving problems and making everybody safe, not just himself.

The problem is with Superman's senses and x-ray vision and super sped, he should be able to capture Toyman before he could threaten anyone, it would take a lot of PIS to buy Superman having problems doing so.

Plus Superman fighting a child killer, is jarring, Superman should not fight that kinda villain.

First of all, TwilightEL already soundly murdered the entire article two pages back.

Second, Gothamite is absolutely right.

Third, the whole "Superman doesn't have weaknesses thing" is utter bull****.

NOT because of Kryptonite or Magic or Physically Stronger Villains. You could write legions of Superman stories without ANY of those three weaknesses. Look at Lois & Clark or The Adventures Of Superman. They used Kryptonite maybe 8 times between them, magic half as many, and equally strong villains even less. And they still had what? 250+ good Superman stories?

And he wasn't powered down in those shows. They just knew how to write good stories, with plots that required thought and investigation and detective(or journalist) work before he could punch or vibrate his way through them. Hell, Lex ****ing Luthor. Meets none of the above criteria(well, occasionally Kryptonite, but more often than not it's just good old thinking-things-through).

Also:


And on and on and on.

That show wasn't very good though, it kinda sucked.

STAS was way better, where Superman was less powerful and the villains were way more dangerous.

That what the problem with Superman Returns, he didn't have a villain that pose a physical threat (and movie Lex barely counted as a mental threat either.)

As seen with superman Returns, superman just saving people over and over again, gets kinda boring.

To extent a hero is defined by his or her villains, the villains should pose a threat to the hero, without the hero relying Plot induced stupidity for the story to last more three panels.