I’m not much of a modern day Superhero fan but, considering one of the originals Superman, I wonder where his story line would have gone had he absolutely no indefensible weakness whatsoever here on Earth?
Precisely - and that was the reason there had to be a weakness invented for every super-hero. For a story to have an element of tension, there has to be a perceived possibility that the hero might lose.
In my opinion, this is the weakness in the Superman storyline. Other than kryptonite, he is basically indestructible, and therefore, not really relatable. Most superhero movies these days (Batman, Spider-Man, etc.) feature heroes who are much more relatable (Batman has no superpowers but has a lot of angst, Spider-Man has lady problems, etc.)
Apparently the original Superman did not have the vast arsenal of superpowers he had later on. Originally he was just extra strong and extra fast. The attribution to him of more and more fancy superpowers, what one might call "power creep", made him virtually unbeatable, creating a problem for the writers. It forced the invention of a weakness (kryptonite) that could actually reintroduce an element of "Is our hero done for?". Green Lantern was another example of this. That bloody ring could, it seemed, handle any and every situation, with seemingly limitless energy at its disposal. Too bad it was ineffective against anything coloured yellow.
Superman is also vulnerable to magic and if I'm remembering correctly he's at a disadvantage when dealing with that idiotic imp from the fifth dimension.
I would have loved the “Gotham” series to have followed the whole Batman characters progression. I loved the original aura and gritty presentation. Unfortunately and disappointingly that was never to be. Could have been a great one.
It actually came close to that in the '70s. By the time DC had expanded his abilities to encompass a super-intellect, they'd almost written themselves into a corner as to how many challenges he could overcome. If you're as fast as Flash, who needs Flash? If you're smarter than Batman, who needs Batman? If you're as strong as Wonder Woman, who needs Wonder Woman? If your lawyers are better than Fawcett's, who needs Captain Marvel?
Doomsday would like a word with you. Of course, there's also the threat given to Superman's friends and family, or even just the planet Earth as a way to 'beat' him.
Not just superheroes but in one case a Super Lawyer as the new latest “Perry Mason”. The total concept and presentation of that show was so damn good. I was greatly looking forward to a long run of that show and development of the main characters. I really miss what it could have been.
The biggest 'Krytonite' Superman has ever had, the writers that are currently writing him! Have you heard? Superman has a son. Originally, he was the same age as Robin and actually had a pretty well-received book with him. The writers, in their infinite wisdom, decided from one month to the next, to 'age up' Superman's son and decided to call HIM Superman! Oh, have I mentioned, he's gay! His father, Superman, has recently been shown to be bi-sexual! I'm an old-timer, does the current use of the word 'woke' fit this scenario? It always blows my mind that a company that owns the rights to the most recognized character in the world, can't figure out how to market him. In books OR movies!
Honestly, I think we got to that point. Not "too many", just a long run of them over decades. Once it's established he can do a thing, that automatically takes that challenge off the table.
This is a constant Disney protest as well. The established fans begin to believe the characters are real, yet cannot ever let them change. A character is owned by a media company that makes its' living using the characters to sell product to consumers. Once the character becomes more valuable than any one storyline, they start doing the obvious: appealing to more and more consumers, based on their realities, not those of a niche of established fans. So, why shouldn't Superman be a dad, why shouldn't he have a son, why shouldn't the son be gay, if these attributes allow them to reach a wider audience? Captain Marvel (and this time I'm talking about the Marvel Comics one) had been a female for some time. Spider-man has been at least three different people. And, I almost cringe at the response once I bring this up...there was a Star Wars movie with a black character. In terms of marketplace reality, none of these things are a weakness.
....Wonder Woman has been around for many decades. Her origin always shows her to come from an island entirely inhabited by women, no men. Isn't such a stretch to think what the sexuality of that scenario is and yet, I never, ever thought about it as a child. Why is it such a big deal today?
I have no problem with Superman or Superman II's sexual orientation. If Superman II is gay, then it's up to you whether to make a big deal of it. Is it so bad that out of the large pantheon of action superheroes, one or two of them turn out not to be heteronormative? I dare say it's a smaller proportion than the proportion of their readers, who after all wish to project themselves onto the characters in the stories. The "ageing up" is more of a problem. Long-running adventure strips have always had this issue. The reader demographic, originally mostly young boys, want the characters to be either their own age, eg. Robin, or else to be old enough to be a grown adult but not to have started to lose the good looks and the muscles. In their twenties, permanently. DC Comics have tied themselves in knots trying to explain how the characters they have been portraying for several decades continue to look young and virile.
Supes originally wasn't as super as he got to be. He didn't fly at first but could leap, which might look like flying sometimes. I bet they came up with the kryptonite angle once they realized he had gotten that bit too fantasy powerful! If you could trick the old/original Captain Marvel into saying "Shazam!" he'd turn into a kid. In a Mad parody once he had the hiccups and went "Shaz-hic!" so was muscle guy on top only with kid legs below.
As an older fan who grew up reading Marvel in the 80s, I'm amused by the objections/reactions sometimes made to the MCU films, or recent Marvel comics. At this point, there's been at least six or seven Captain Americas (a couple retroactively revealed to have taken the role in the 50s when Steve Rodgers was on ice), four or five Iron Men, multiple Spider characters (including one from 2099, Peter and MJ's daughter from a possible future, a not-dead Gwen Stacy from an alternate reality, etc.). And on and on. There was a female Thing (from the Fantastic Four) at one point, Sharon Ventura. I'm not that much of a DC reader, but it's my understanding that the Superman with kids exists on another Earth, not the one that's the main focus of DC Comics, and the original Superman still exists, and hasn't changed. With Marvel (and I suspect with most of DC, as well), there hasn't been a "definitive" version of a character for a long time. The multiverse/infinite earths concepts have been around for a few decades, at least.
And, you haven't even seen Spider-Gwen yet! A few years back, I started reading some of the Marvel Ultimate books, and found them very satisfying. The only thing remotely interesting to me at this point, being a matured male who has lived through all of these character changes an revamps umpty-ump times, is the way I grew up watching Marvel exploit and re-exploit their properties endless times to the point where the fan who grew up with a character, simply cannot recognize them now. And then, watched a similar media giant named Disney, make an industry out of fiercely protecting their own properties. And now, watching that same media giant, buy the company that used to exploit their own legends...and fund that same process, as they do it again, over-and-over.
