I understand what you mean about unstoppable characters, and I sort of agree. I don't have a problem with having powerful characters as long as they're in situations that are on their same scale of power. I think that, at least currently, Superman faces foes that are on his power scale. I think that's a relatively recent development, though.
I think his origin is fine. I think it's pretty much timeless. I'm not sure that it would be an improvement to try to reflect any particular time period. On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Cary Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I honestly don't know- but take my comment with a big grain of salt; I > haven't followed the DC universe in years (it always seemed inherently > cheesy to me- too many "lad" and "kid" names, I guess). > Superman is just too inherently powerful to be interesting to me. Sure, he > gets beat down from time to time, but he always rallies, and those fights > have to intentionally omit how significant his other non-strength and > invulnerability powers are. I find flawed characters the most compelling- > Morpheus in the Sandman series could be practically omnipotent at times, but > was still fragile and mistake-prone to the point of his own death and > rebirth. He reeked drama because of rules that hamstrung his powers and > choices, and this conflict sparked many of the story ideas. Juggernaut or > Gladiator of the Shiar superheroes in Marvel is are bit analogus; physically > "unstoppable" characters that benefits by the fact that they are bit > players. The fact that they are so powerful limits what you can do with > them, and when they have been in the spotlight (as Juggernaut was for a > while) they had to depower him a bit. I for one can't stand the child reboot > plot- reboot the character as less powerful by making them a kid again > (clone, offspring, time traveller, what have you). > His origins are too entrenched to be changed; everyone knows he's from > Krypton and why, that he grew up in the midwest with Ma and Pa Kent, and > that he works at the Daily Planet in Metropolis and has romantic tension > with Lois Lane. They know what he can do (faster than a speeding bullet, > more powerful than a locomotive, and has freakin' laser beams from his > eyes). His character doesn't reflect the world we face anymore; he's a > product of the early century. Batman has stayed popular because he's a more > nuanced and deeply flawed character that has morphed several times over his > existance. Compare the Dark Knight to the cheesy Batman of the 60's, to the > first incarnation of Batman. The XMen were successful because they reflected > themes of the 80's and 90's. The recent reboot of the Superman franchise > illustrated just how time has passed the character by; he had been missing > and the world had grown up. A romantic character in a setting with no > romance left. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
