Originally posted by -Pr-thing is pr, isn't it all silliness? Pre-crisis, post, nu52 etc... aren't superheroes highly enjoyable silliness? Other than that spot on 👆
Yeah, power creep has been an issue for a while. Even what most would classify B and C list characters have seen major bumps in power levels and feats. Feats are even starting to resemble some pre-crisis silliness at times. Sure, they're better fleshed out now because you can google shit, but a lot of them are no less ridiculous.It's because whether it's true or not, in the end it doesn't matter. The WF feat is massive either way. And the funny thing is, on top of all that, the WF feat isn't why Superman is rated so highly. It was (along with Doomsday Clock) the straw that broke the camel's back.
It really depends on how you want to view Superman as a character in DC comics. There are two viewpoints and a good amount of people on this board pick one viewpoint and defended that viewpoint as if their own life depends on it.
Viewpoint 1:
Superman is a regular fictional character in a fictional universe with no outside forces controlling it. It's like a universe we're looking at from another universe.
From that viewpoint, no matter how high the upper limits of Supermans potential are, there are still plenty of characters, who are tiers above him and beat him without breaking a sweat.
Viewpoint 2:
Superman is a metafictional character (which is a nice way of calling him a joke character), in a clearly very badly executed fictional universe. And in that very badly executed fictional universe, which gets rebooted every other month, he has been chosen as the chosen one and gets to take big dumps on all the other heroes and villains, no matter how powerful they are.
From that viewpoint, Superman is pretty much Saitama – the One Punch Man.
Oh, he's dealing with an +abstract level reality warper, who can blow the sun out like a candle and take away the source of Supermans power? Doesn't matter. Just punch him in the dick and save the day.
–––––––––––––––
My tone probably tells you how I view Superman. I don't like viewing Superman as a metafictional character, who wins, no matter what. That's a modern trend. Superman has been portrayed differently for the longest time.
Nowdays the immersion of the fictional DC universe is being broken more and more by self-impressed writers, who try to reinvent the wheel, only to realize that they actually kinda suck and have to revamp everything again.
Viewing Superman as a Kryptonian with limits also doesn't shit on all the other Kryptonians. What about Supergirl, Zod and all the others? Can they now also do what Superman does? Not really. They'd never get portrayed in that way. But Superman occasionally does, when dummy dumm dumm writer XYZ wants to be tongue-in-cheek.
That's also why it's so hard debating Superman fights on this board, or on many other boards for that matter.
Put him up against someone like the Silver Surfer and logic will tell you that Silver Surfer has the needed power set to defeat Superman fairly easily, if he fights to his fullest potential. But at the same time, you have legions of Superman fans, who view Superman as a metafictional character, who one-shots the Silver Surfer, because that's what Superman does. And the worst thing is, that modern DC comics make that a perfectly reasonable statement.
Originally posted by Enzeru
It really depends on how you want to view Superman as a character in DC comics. There are two viewpoints and a good amount of people on this board pick one viewpoint and defended that viewpoint as if their own life depends on it.[b]Viewpoint 1:
Superman is a regular fictional character in a fictional universe with no outside forces controlling it. It's like a universe we're looking at from another universe.
From that viewpoint, no matter how high the upper limits of Supermans potential are, there are still plenty of characters, who are tiers above him and beat him without breaking a sweat.
Viewpoint 2:
Superman is a metafictional character (which is a nice way of calling him a joke character), in a clearly very badly executed fictional universe. And in that very badly executed fictional universe, which gets rebooted every other month, he has been chosen as the chosen one and gets to take big dumps on all the other heroes and villains, no matter how powerful they are.
From that viewpoint, Superman is pretty much Saitama – the One Punch Man.
Oh, he's dealing with an +abstract level reality warper, who can blow the sun out like a candle and take away the source of Supermans power? Doesn't matter. Just punch him in the dick and save the day.–––––––––––––––
My tone probably tells you how I view Superman. I don't like viewing Superman as a metafictional character, who wins, no matter what. That's a modern trend. Superman has been portrayed differently for the longest time.
Nowdays the immersion of the fictional DC universe is being broken more and more by self-impressed writers, who try to reinvent the wheel, only to realize that they actually kinda suck and have to revamp everything again.Viewing Superman as a Kryptonian with limits also doesn't shit on all the other Kryptonians. What about Supergirl, Zod and all the others? Can they now also do what Superman does? Not really. They'd never get portrayed in that way. But Superman occasionally does, when dummy dumm dumm writer XYZ wants to be tongue-in-cheek.
That's also why it's so hard debating Superman fights on this board, or on many other boards for that matter.
Put him up against someone like the Silver Surfer and logic will tell you that Silver Surfer has the needed power set to defeat Superman fairly easily, if he fights to his fullest potential. But at the same time, you have legions of Superman fans, who view Superman as a metafictional character, who one-shots the Silver Surfer, because that's what Superman does. And the worst thing is, that modern DC comics make that a perfectly reasonable statement. [/B]
That's all well and good, but Viewpoint 2 is what is 'reality' - that is to say, DC have (and always have) had him as their poster boy, just as Batman is their poster boy for streets. Viewpoint 1 cannot be true, as there ARE outside forces controlling it - the 'real-world' company, DC.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85Viewpoint 1 cannot be true, as there ARE outside forces controlling it - the 'real-world' company, DC.
I know. I'm talking about making it obvious and breaking the immersion.
Like for example, compare it to the MCU and the scene in Endgame where all the female heroes gather around and start kicking ass. Obviously manufactured to showcase stronkk wahmen and breaks the immersion for a moment with real world identity politics, but doesn't really change things for the worse in the bigger picture.
Turning Superman into Saitama does break immersion and changes things for the worse.
Edit: And I wouldn't compare Superman to Batman. Two totally different styles of selling a character. I also have issues with Batman, but that's another story. Yet I don't think that he is as bad as Superman, when it comes to "being a symbol" and riding that into oblivion.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
thing is pr, isn't it all silliness? Pre-crisis, post, nu52 etc... aren't superheroes highly enjoyable silliness? Other than that spot on 👆
Not personally, but hey, if that's what you get from it, that's fine. I can't rag on anyone for enjoying something even if I don't like it myself.
Manhattan isn't the Avengers, though.
Manhattan studied the superstructure of the metaverse(across all the fundamental points in its timeline) at a far deeper level than anyone has before, and made three distinct conclusions:
a.) Everything comes from Superman -- the metaverse itself literally revolves around him.
b.) Superman is the metaverse's "greatest antibody" when it comes to dealing with threats to creation.
c.) That it was entirely possible for Superman to kill him.
Do we have any reason at all to assume that he was wrong about any of those points, and just speaking in hyperbole to himself?
Originally posted by Enzeru
I know. I'm talking about making it obvious and breaking the immersion.Like for example, compare it to the MCU and the scene in Endgame where all the female heroes gather around and start kicking ass. Obviously manufactured to showcase stronkk wahmen and breaks the immersion for a moment with real world identity politics, but doesn't really change things for the worse in the bigger picture.
Turning Superman into Saitama does break immersion and changes things for the worse.
Edit: And I wouldn't compare Superman to Batman. Two totally different styles of selling a character. I also have issues with Batman, but that's another story. Yet I don't think that he is as bad as Superman, when it comes to "being a symbol" and riding that into oblivion.
Then it is what it is, and we have to debate off what is shown on panel.
Otherwise, we might as well just stick to handbooks. So and so is a 6, and your guy is a 5, so that's done and dusted.
Originally posted by Galan007
Manhattan isn't the Avengers, though.Manhattan studied the superstructure of the metaverse(across all the fundamental points in its timeline) at a far deeper level than anyone has before, and made three distinct conclusions:
a.) Everything comes from Superman -- the metaverse itself literally revolves around him.
b.) Superman is the metaverse's "greatest antibody" when it comes to dealing with threats to creation.
c.) That it was entirely possible for Superman to kill him.Do we have any reason at all to assume that he was wrong about any of those points, and just speaking in hyperbole to himself?
👆
Originally posted by DarkSaint85Then it is what it is, and we have to debate off what is shown on panel.
Otherwise, we might as well just stick to handbooks. So and so is a 6, and your guy is a 5, so that's done and dusted.
But there are two issues with that:
1. Superman is not a joke character all of the time. Only in specific stories. There are stories, where Superman does struggle or gets outperformed by other characters.
And Superman appears more in those stories than in stories, where he is the "multiverses greatest antibody". And that's a good thing, because if Superman was a joke character all of the time, what would be the point?
Oh, you have this powerful blonde bombshell from another universe invading the DC universe and start voidkilling all of the heralds, skyfathers and abstracts – BUT... AND THAT'S A BIG BUT! He won't get far anyway, because Superman is there to save the day. Where is the tension? Why even buy the comic?
2. If we view Superman as a joke character all of the time, shouldn't he be banned from debates? Why put a Hulk or a Gladiator up against Superman, when Superman is destined to win anyway?
It's like... Who wins: Hulk or Saitama? Saitama of course. He has been created to mock shonen anime and superhero comics. And funnily enough Saitama has been created to mock Superman. And instead of learning from it, the DC writers dive even deeper into what makes Superman a bad and boring character.
It doesn't matter that Hulk has better feats or has faced more powerful opponents. Saitama wins, because that's the whole point of the character. And now we have Superman doing that as well.
Originally posted by Enzeru
But there are two issues with that:1. Superman is not a joke character all of the time. Only in specific stories. There are stories, where Superman does struggle or gets outperformed by other characters.
And Superman appears more in those stories than in stories, where he is the "multiverses greatest antibody". And that's a good thing, because if Superman was a joke character all of the time, what would be the point?
Oh, you have this powerful blonde bombshell from another universe invading the DC universe and start voidkilling all of the heralds, skyfathers and abstracts – BUT... AND THAT'S A BIG BUT! He won't get far anyway, because Superman is there to save the day. Where is the tension? Why even buy the comic?2. If we view Superman as a joke character all of the time, shouldn't he be banned from debates? Why put a Hulk or a Gladiator up against Superman, when Superman is destined to win anyway?
It's like... Who wins: Hulk or Saitama? Saitama of course. He has been created to mock shonen anime and superhero comics. And funnily enough Saitama has been created to mock Superman. And instead of learning from it, the DC writers dive even deeper into what makes Superman a bad and boring character.
It doesn't matter that Hulk has better feats or has faced more powerful opponents. Saitama wins, because that's the whole point of the character. And now we have Superman doing that as well.
That's... precisely why he got banned for a while. People then started arguing against it and he was reinstated.
But you say it is a joke, whereas it seems to be played pretty seriously in DC. Superman saves the day, and Batman always wins (the Batman phrase was actually uttered in a canon comic btw).
And that's been shaped by the outside forces, I.e. DC editorial. I could go around and say hey, Wolverine has a 7 in fighting skills, so if he gets outskilled by someone who in a handbook has a lower rating, that's breaking the immersion.
But we don't do that. They are all fictional characters, and if tomorrow Marvel want to make Iron Man the strongest character in the Marvel Multiverse.....we have to roll over and take it.
The way I see it, "joke characters" and "meta-fictional characters" are independent categories. Thus all the following combinations are possible:
1. meta-fictional, joke: Deadpool, Mxy, ...
2. meta-fictional, not joke: Superman, Mandrakk, Clyde Wyncham / Marquis of Death, Dr. Manhattan, ...
3. not meta-fictional, joke: Saitama, Squirrel-Girl, ... (i.e. "gag characters" with ridiculously OP powers but still unable to see or manipulate the story at meta-level) or Speedball, Ringer, Stilt-Man, ... (i.e. characters with so silly powers that they usually cannot be taken seriously)
4. not meta-fictional, not joke: Wolverine, Hulk, Wonder Woman, Robin, ... (most comic book characters belong to this class).