Is Superman Too Overpowered?

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok I have a question to asked. Is Superman too overpowered? The reason why I asked because I'm been discussing to other forums about Superman power and abilities. In the Pre-Crisis superman comics, Superman reached his abilities to beyond infinite. In the Post-Crisis superman comics Superman was killed by Doomsday and he was brought back to life after that. Superman powers and abilities get buffed about by every version that Superman was created. In conclusion, Superman power and abilities is too broken and overpowered. What's your opinion on Superman overpowered abilities?

[Flickerdart]

I'm pretty sure that Superman's enemies include gods, overgods, and super-overgods. He's perfectly fine for the power level of the guys he fights.

Also, modern-day Superman seems to be weaker, if anything, than some of his past incarnations. Like the Silver Age bit where he pulls a bunch of star systems after himself like a tow truck.

[Red Fel]

Ok I have a question to asked. Is Superman too overpowered?

Loaded question. The better question is: Too overpowered for what?

A great Superman story has nothing to do with how powerful he is. It's about the fact that such a powerful being constantly limits himself. It's about the person behind the godlike power, about something utterly beyond human trying to cling to his humanity. It's about the lessons we can learn about the right and wrong ways to wield absolute power. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he's totally powerful, knows it, and deals with it.

A poor Superman story is all about Supes clubbing the crap out of something. At that point, thanks to various loopholes, retcons, Red Kryptonite, and magic, it has nothing to do with how powerful he is, and everything to do with when will he be allowed to punch a dude. In these stories, he's basically Goku, able to take down his opponent once his attack is charged. The problem is that the writers have to come up with a reason for his attack to not be ready for twenty episodes until the end of the comic. So there's a hostage, or Kryptonite, or a magical curse, or he's stranded on the other side of the universe or something. And then the hostage is rescued, the Kryptonite is removed, the curse is lifted, or he makes it back using instant transmission super speed, and clobbering ensues. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he is prevented from using his power until the writers give him permission. Then he Saitamas the problem and we buy another issue.

So, short version: Is Superman overpowered? Probably. But what difference does it actually make?

[Kobold-Bard]

Ok I have a question to asked. Is Superman too overpowered? The reason why I asked because I'm been discussing to other forums about Superman power and abilities. In the Pre-Crisis superman comics, Superman reached his abilities to beyond infinite. In the Post-Crisis superman comics Superman was killed by Doomsday and he was brought back to life after that. Superman powers and abilities get buffed about by every version that Superman was created. In conclusion, Superman power and abilities is too broken and overpowered. What's your opinion on Superman overpowered abilities?

Compared to Batman, sure. But Green Lantern's power is "create anything, whether it can actually exist or not", so compared to that Superman is like a Warblade facing down a Wizard in D&D 3.5.

[Starwulf]

For future reference, this is the wrong forum for this type of question, you want the media discussion forum for stuff like this. Be warned though, Superman topics have been done to death over there, and as such they tend to get fairly heated.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Short answer? It doesn't matter.

Conflict in good Superman stories comes from a personal or moral conflict. There are other comics when you want a superficial and defined serious of action set pieces. Superman's powers allow for great dramatic and socratic storytelling on a personal scale. It's why he'll always be a more compelling character than, say, Batman.

[Reddish Mage]

It's why he'll always be a more compelling character than, say, Batman.

That's some grade A troll-bait there.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

That's some grade A troll-bait there.

It's my actual opinion, I promise you.

[HardcoreD&Dgirl]

He hasn't been overpowered in my life time...

[Legato Endless]

Ok I have a question to asked. Is Superman too overpowered? The reason why I asked because I'm been discussing to other forums about Superman power and abilities. In the Pre-Crisis superman comics, Superman reached his abilities to beyond infinite.

Sandman is one of the most critically acclaimed stories of all time. It's eponymous sometime protagonist is functionally omnipotent within his sanctum and spheres of influence. Stories centering on him do not lack for drama, as all his power doesn't do anything to solve his problems.

You can easily tell a story about 5 all powerful gods sitting around for tea. A protagonist is only overpowered when they effectively kill whatever conflict is supposed to exist in a story.

It's my actual opinion, I promise you.

That doesn't actually change how provocative the statement is though, does it?

[Cheesegear]

It's why he'll always be a more compelling character than, say, Batman.

Superman is fairly boring. Clark Kent is interesting.
Bruce Wayne is boring. Batman is interesting.
EDIT: Batman stories are interesting.

See the difference?

[DJ Yung Crunk]

That doesn't actually change how provocative the statement is though, does it?

I've had too many people try to delegitimise my opinion in the past. I'm sensitive to it now.

Superman is fairly boring. Clark Kent is interesting.
Bruce Wayne is boring. Batman is interesting.

See the difference?

I conflate the two, honestly.

In Batman's case, Bruce Wayne is a persona, a fabrication, a mask. He's not so much a character in his own right as he is an alter ego of Batman. So, no, he's not interesting. But it's by design.

As for Superman, identity has always been a recurring theme. Always there's the contrast between Clark Kent (the way he sees himself), Kal-El (the way he could have been) and Superman (the way other people view him). It isn't as cut and dry as the Batman example because Batman's fairly confident in his identity, where Clark Kent isn't.

EDIT: Furthermore, I actually don't agree with your premise that Batman is interesting. Gotham's interesting, Gordon's interesting, some of the Robins are interesting, the villains are interesting, but Batman is a scowling brick that all the compelling things orbit.

[Cizak]

Yes, and that's a good thing, because that's the point of his character. Superman is pretty much always as strong as he needs to be. But a good Superman story focuses on his morals, ideals, thoughts and the fact that he always limits his own strength, subconsciously or not. You can almost always bet on that Superman can punch his enemies hard enough. But the question is why he should or shouldn't, and what that decision means.

As a general point, I hate it when people say "superheroes" is one genre, because every superhero is so radically different. A Superman story should not be written the same as a Batman story. The obstacles they face are completely different.

[Cheesegear]

I've had too many people try to delegitimise my opinion in the past.

Superman is a better character than Batman. The good Superman stories are very, very good. The problem is, that there are only so many stories you can tell like that, and they've nearly all been told. The rest of Superman's catalogue pretty much involves how hard he can punch things, and that's fine, if you like that sort of thing. But, Clark Kent, a near demi-God, who sometimes almost seems like he doesn't want to be, but he has to be, someone has to be, and Superman's the only one for the job.
Of course, there is Superboy, Supergirl, Power Girl, Super Woman...And Krypto. But they're not the same.

Batman, hasn't really been good since DKR. IMO, the only interesting parts about Batman, are how he interacts with his children. I vastly prefer Nightwing over Batman, I vastly prefer Tim Drake over Batman. Jason Todd seems to flip-flop all over the place, because, just like Batman, writers can't seem to pin down what makes the character interesting. Every new writer seems to want to write Todd slightly different than before, which gets annoying. But, since DKR...Nobody really tries to do anything with Batman anymore, and that sucks.

There are some good Batman stories, but nothing that really focusses on Batman, himself. Court of Owls is about world-building, and introducing the Court, than it is about whatever Batman does. Then there's Damien Wayne, and how he interacts with Bruce. But that's on Damien rather than Bruce. Bruce already has three kids before Damien. Damien just happens to be blood-related, and more different to Bruce's adopted sons. Now I can start talking about the relationship between Grayson and Damien. Grayson and Tim. Tim and Damien. Jason and everyone not-Grayson, and Jason and Grayson, which is completely different to every single one of Jason's other relationships. There are so many things going on in the Bat-Family...But Batman is always Batman.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Superman is a better character than Batman. The good Superman stories are very, very good. The problem is, that there are only so many stories you can tell like that, and they've nearly all been told. The rest of Superman's catalogue pretty much involves how hard he can punch things, and that's fine, if you like that sort of thing. But, Clark Kent, a near demi-God, who sometimes almost seems like he doesn't want to be, but he has to be, someone has to be, and Superman's the only one for the job.

I think he can tell only a few types of stories, but that those genres are very diverse. Like I said, Superman works on a personal level and a socratic level. As a protagonist of escapist fiction I will immediately concede that he's absolute garbage. But if you're writing Superman as an action hero then you fundamentally misunderstand both the character and the action genre to begin with.

Of course, there is Superboy, Supergirl, Power Girl, Super Woman...And Krypto. But they're not the same.

When people bring up what's wrong with Silver Age Superman it's always that Superman's too overpowered. That's part of it, but it's more a symptom of the fact that Silver Age Superman is... well... just really weird! The mythology was obtuse, there are too many shortsighted gimmicks and it's just way too camp for it's own good. I like camp. My favourite Batman is Adam West. But the camp in that show, Brave & the Bold and the '66 comic was always purposeful, self-aware, contained. Silver Age Superman is all colour and noise firing off in every direction hoping to hit paydirt.

There are some good Batman stories, but nothing that really focusses on Batman, himself. Court of Owls is about world-building, and introducing the Court, than it is about whatever Batman does. Then there's Damien Wayne, and how he interacts with Bruce. But that's on Damien rather than Bruce. Bruce already has three kids before Damien. Damien just happens to be blood-related, and more different to Bruce's adopted sons. Now I can start talking about the relationship between Grayson and Damien. Grayson and Tim. Tim and Damien. Jason and everyone not-Grayson, and Jason and Grayson, which is completely different to every single one of Jason's other relationships. There are so many things going on in the Bat-Family...But Batman is always Batman.

Like I said, he's a brick that interesting things orbit. The Killing Joke is a good Joker story, The Court of Owls is a good Gotham story, Knightfall starts out as a good Bane story before becoming a good Azrael story. Even in the very underrated 1989 Tim Burton film it always feels like the perspective is from either The Joker or Vicki Vale. Compared to Superman II which is, at all times, about Clark Kent and from Clark Kent's perspective and about how things relate to Clark Kent and what he wants. You can argue that Batman stories are better than Superman stories (though I'll disagree), but I can't imagine someone who reads the character as more fleshed out and compelling than Clark Kent.

[Cheesegear]

You can argue that Batman stories are better than Superman stories (though I'll disagree), but I can't imagine someone who reads the character as more fleshed out and compelling than Clark Kent.

In any case, your opinion isn't troll-bait, because I agree with you.

[Flickerdart]

IMO the best Superman comics are the ones by SMBC.

[erikun]

Is Superman too overpowered?

It depends on the story.

As with most things, what you do with the character is more important than what the character does. Superman dealing with his concerns, personal life, or moral quandaries as a super-powered but otherwise normal person can be interesting, because it involves a somewhat different look at an otherwise human problem. Superman punching things generally isn't as interesting, because it's just action scenes and you're just waiting for the kryptonite bullet or for Supes to win. Unfortunately, while I'm not well versed on Superman comics, most of them tend to devolve into Supes punching things. Even the ones where he is supposedly doing something else, have, I've found, turned into a resolution that involves him punching things.

While I'm not that familiar with Superman comics, The Incredible Hulk has much the same problem and two Hulk comics - Hulk: The End and Planet Hulk - were actually two of the better comics I've seen out of the mainstream comic scene. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, neither were about Hulk punching things. One is an apocalypse situation where the Hulk is the only thing left alive, and the other is the Hulk on another planet and dealing with people trying to paint him as a savior.

I suspect that the difference is because Hulk is a relatively "minor" character, certainly not a face character for Marvel, while Superman is one of two/three characters which everyone would identify with DC. As such, authors probably have more liberty to deal with Hulk than they would with Superman. (although that doesn't stop vampire Batman comics from being made)

[Lacuna Caster]

A great Superman story has nothing to do with how powerful he is. It's about the fact that such a powerful being constantly limits himself. It's about the person behind the godlike power, about something utterly beyond human trying to cling to his humanity. It's about the lessons we can learn about the right and wrong ways to wield absolute power. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he's totally powerful, knows it, and deals with it.

Someone else already quoted Sandman as an example of this kind of the story, but no-one could accuse Dream of the Endless of being a flawless paragon, which is actually a large part of what makes the series interesting and what drives his character arc. There's something resembling a similar treatment in Red Son, but then certain people get unhappy about Superman having, e.g, actual character flaws or development over time.

I covered this topic indirectly before, but while I've warmed a little to Superman over the years there's a litany of problems with presenting the character coherently (with respect to both the shared universe and their informed/canonical attributes) that I've never quite been able to filter out.

Comics Alliance covers this sort of thing when talking about the Spectre, the main difference being that my personal threshold for don't-ask-questions is a little lower. (e.g, why isn't Batman's entire rogues' gallery in the Phantom Zone?)

The other problem (or perhaps a different facet of the same problem) is that the powers Superman is known for, and his ascribed personality, don't sync up particularly well. Superman's abilities are almost exclusively self-centred, invasive or destructive in nature. He can't cast illusions, project forcefields, or heal people with magic- he's the guy who can punch out an invisible locomotive with a single bound while being in no danger, or something. That's what's advertised, and that's what readers pick up his stories with a reasonable expectation of seeing. There's little point to the character otherwise, however theoretically capable he might be as a forensic scientist or shoulder to cry on.

Ergo, in order to sell Superman as a personification of virtue, he either needs a very clear justification for using those powers- i.e, either a very black and white villain of omnicidal intent, or a random natural disaster- or you need to spend a long time observing him refrain from using those powers in highly specific ways. You're defining him in terms of things he doesn't do. That's hard to do well, and many readers won't have the patience.


When Batman swoops in to rescue someone from falling off a 20-storey building, you know he values that person enough to risk injury or death saving them. When Superman does it, you know he values that person at least as much as... 20 seconds of his spare time. That's not a bad thing, but it's also a pretty modest lower bound on his virtue.

I'll stick with Batman.

[Killer Angel]

Sandman is one of the most critically acclaimed stories of all time. It's eponymous sometime protagonist is functionally omnipotent within his sanctum and spheres of influence.

Except for Erinyes, of course.

[BWR]

Except for Erinyes, of course.

Under special circumstances.

[Eldan]

Except for Erinyes, of course.

Even them. He basically says, in the end, that while they could and would destroy his entire domain, they can't really hurt him long-term. At least as long as he hides from them and lets them destroy.

[GloatingSwine]

Someone else already quoted Sandman as an example of this kind of the story, but no-one could accuse Dream of the Endless of being a flawless paragon, which is actually a large part of what makes the series interesting and what drives his character arc. There's something resembling a similar treatment in Red Son, but then certain people get unhappy about Superman having, e.g, actual character flaws or development over time.

People often misunderstand what "flaws" actually mean for a fictional character.

Flaws in a fictional character means something the character lacks. Something that gives rise to needs and wants so that the character has a reason to do something.

In the case of Superman, who is the last of his kind, alone in the universe, he lacks social contact. Which is what gives rise to the persona of Clark Kent. Clark Kent is a way for Superman to experience humanity and the things which the community of humanity gives its members; friendship, love, etc. That's why he can feel the lure of humanity to the extent that he might reasonably give up all his power just to live as Clark, because his power fundamentally seperates him from others because they're not seeing him as a man, they're seeing him as Superman, the position no the man.

Flaws do not mean "cannot punch the baddie hard enough", punching the baddie is a beat in the story which underpins the dramatic growth of the character as a person. In Superman 2 it wasn't Superman punching Zod that was the point of the story, it was the decision to be Superman.

(See also: For The Man Who Has Everything either in comic or DCAU animated form)

[McStabbington]

Loaded question. The better question is: Too overpowered for what?

A great Superman story has nothing to do with how powerful he is. It's about the fact that such a powerful being constantly limits himself. It's about the person behind the godlike power, about something utterly beyond human trying to cling to his humanity. It's about the lessons we can learn about the right and wrong ways to wield absolute power. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he's totally powerful, knows it, and deals with it.

A poor Superman story is all about Supes clubbing the crap out of something. At that point, thanks to various loopholes, retcons, Red Kryptonite, and magic, it has nothing to do with how powerful he is, and everything to do with when will he be allowed to punch a dude. In these stories, he's basically Goku, able to take down his opponent once his attack is charged. The problem is that the writers have to come up with a reason for his attack to not be ready for twenty episodes until the end of the comic. So there's a hostage, or Kryptonite, or a magical curse, or he's stranded on the other side of the universe or something. And then the hostage is rescued, the Kryptonite is removed, the curse is lifted, or he makes it back using instant transmission super speed, and clobbering ensues. In that sense, how overpowered he is becomes utterly irrelevant - it's enough that he is prevented from using his power until the writers give him permission. Then he Saitamas the problem and we buy another issue.

So, short version: Is Superman overpowered? Probably. But what difference does it actually make?

This was essentially the $64,000 question I was going to ask, and the answer is exactly right: whether Superman is overpowered depends greatly on what story you want to tell.

If the goal is to have a mystery plot where the key is keen observation skills, then yes, Superman is overpowered because his observation capabilities are essentially off the charts. That doesn't mean you can't tell any story with Superman in it. It doesn't even mean that you can't tell a mystery using him as the central character; if anything, Supes is a fantastic character to do with it because he's all about using the right amount of force against the right person, and a mystery plot is all about resolving what force is necessary to stop which person from what dastardly scheme. But the mystery simply has to hinge on something other than observational detail: an insight, an intuition, something that requires collating the flood of information he gets in the right way at the right time.

Similarly, if the goal is to tell a gritty, street-level story where your hero is little more than a street tough with a good heart, two fists and a lot of moxie who is trying to save his city block from encroaching drug dealers, then yes, Superman is either overpowered, or he's engaging in some form of Superdickery where he could help but isn't. But again, this doesn't mean you can't tell that story and have Superman be an integral part of that story; it just means you have to be clever in formulating your challenge to the hero. Rather than encroaching gangs, maybe it's corrupt city officials who want to tear the city block down for nefarious reasons. In that story, Superman could immensely contribute, because he can offer some support that comes laterally and creatively like knowing exactly which filing cabinet to check when someone happens to find the right key, help contacting this Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist he knows at the Daily Planet to spread word when news breaks, and knowledge of what the right thing to do is in a crisis.

The point being, Superman is extremely powerful, and in a lot of stories, especially stories where the goal is to punch the bad guy as hard as he needs to be punched, then yes, Superman is overpowered, and it foregone that he will punch said villain as hard as he needs to be punched. That is in essence Superman's one superpower, just expressed in a multitude of ways. But that doesn't mean you can't tell any story about him, or that any story that does include him has no value. He's a tool that in the right plot can mean the whole world just by being exactly what he is. It's just your job to find him that right plot.

[Wardog]

I think part of the problem with Superman is that there have been so many different versions of him, with radically different power levels, and consequently radically different challenges to deal with, that people can have very different expectations of what Superman should or could be doing.

If you've grown up with a god-like Superman who spends his time either battling other god-like beings, or exploring why he should solve a particular problem without using his god-like powers that's one thing.

Whereas if you're main exposure to Superman is one of the more toned-down versions like the Adventures of Superman TV series, or the Christopher Reeve films, or the Lois & Clark series, where superman spends a lot of his time rescuing people from more every-day disasters (and isn't fast enough to stop two nuclear missiles fired in opposite directions), then the idea of a planet-towing, super-luminal can-do-anything Superman can seem ridiculously over the top.

[Reddish Mage]

Yes, and that's a good thing, because that's the point of his character. Superman is pretty much always as strong as he needs to be. But a good Superman story focuses on his morals, ideals, thoughts and the fact that he always limits his own strength, subconsciously or not. You can almost always bet on that Superman can punch his enemies hard enough. But the question is why he should or shouldn't, and what that decision means.

I am not an avid reader of comics, and after reading this I am starting to wonder where I can find comics that reveal all these groundbreaking ethical masterpieces.

Superman is a better character than Batman. The good Superman stories are very, very good. The problem is, that there are only so many stories you can tell like that, and they've nearly all been told.

There seems to me to be an endless number of stories revolving around moral conundrums a demigod might face, not to mention all the stories about Superman just wanting to be Clark Kent or solve Clark Kent's problems, then there's the stories where Superman doesn't have Superman's powers, the stories that call for a diplomatic solution, stories that test the limits of Superman's powers or involve challenges that outright exceed those limits (I know...impossible right), and that's just getting started on the categories of the possible stories.

In my own camp, I would like to like Superman, I want to like Superman, but every time I see Superman it's a disappointment. The only really brilliant incarnation I've seen of Superman has been in Elseworlds Comics, I liked certain episodes of Smallville, the rest of what I've seen are disappointments.

[FoolManChu]

I'm not the biggest Superman fan out there, so I'm not familiar with every story arc he's ever been a part of. But, my reaction to that question is yes. One of the reasons I've never really liked Superman is because he's basically impervious to anything besides what is supposed to be an incredibly rare material which is only found from the debris of an utterly destroyed planet. So, there's no stakes in most of the Superman stuff I've read or seen. If he can't be hurt then there's not a reason to get emotionally involved in what he's doing, at least for me, because you know that it's all gonna turn out fine in the end. That's true with just about any hero and especially superhero, like James Bond will always win in the end. There is a possibility though that he might not, and that adds tension to the story and tension and stakes are what you need to make the audience care. Sadly, in my opinion, the only time they can add stakes or tension in a Superman story is if yet another guy happens to find the super rare stuff that can stop him... yet again. That opens up another can of worms, which is the repetitiveness of it all and nobody likes that.

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not the biggest Superman fan out there, so I'm not familiar with every story arc he's ever been a part of. But, my reaction to that question is yes. One of the reasons I've never really liked Superman is because he's basically impervious to anything besides what is supposed to be an incredibly rare material which is only found from the debris of an utterly destroyed planet.

Even though it's still page one, it's a bit late to post something that naive. People have headed that one off since the OP talking about Doomsday. Basically, Superman has been written as being vulnerable to a lot of stuff...other Kryptonians, other Aliens, alien weapons, literal gods, demigods whatever, magic, science-run-amuck...this just from a casual viewer.

No, Superman is merely absolutely impervious to all the normal things that could hurt a human...like Batman or James Bond. That may take some of the interest out when Superman stops a robbery or something, but it allows for him to take on all the superhuman challenges that no human can credibly face (and to take them on in superhuman ways). The question becomes...where are the examples of these great superhuman stories?

[Cheesegear]

The question becomes...where are the examples of these great superhuman stories?

You only have to ask.

That are actually in continuity? There are lot of good Superman stories outside. But, here's off the top of my head...

Birthright (the Man of Steel movie borrows heavily from this book, mostly in the parts where Supes isn't punching things)
...for all Seasons
Peace on Earth
For Tomorrow

Geoff Johns and Kurt Busiek wrote some great stuff (and some stinkers) in the late 200x's, starting with Up, Up and Away and Last Son, Escape From Bizarro World, Brainiac and I think ending with New Krypton. After Johns stops writing Supes, it gets bad.

EDIT: What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way? (a.k.a; Superman vs. The Elite) How could I forget?

New 52 Superman is fairly dumb. And you can thank Nolan's Batman trilogy for that. Batman V. Superman is going to be terrible. Because that kind of Batman can't exist in the same world as Superman.

[Dienekes]

I'll reiterate some points I suppose.

It depends entirely what the point of the story is. Are you examining what pressures a man has when they are granted the powers of a god? Are you trying to show the indomitable spirit against all oppositions? Are you trying to show that absolute power does not need to corrupt absolutely though the temptation will always be there? Each of those ties to one or more Superman stories that I think are quite excellent, in those situations his boundless power make for some interesting displays that while being totally different to our own life nevertheless hold up a mirror to our morality and challenge the reader to be better. Quite frankly a good Superman story can be a work of art. While he has never been even close to one of my favorite comic-book characters there is definite artistic merit and great stories to be told of about a character exactly as powerful as Superman is in the comics, whatever that power actually is at a given time.

That said, there are a whole batch worth of stories where Superman's power, if anything, do hinder the story. This tends to be when he is brought to face enemies that fight on a scale that just doesn't make sense to be threats to him anymore. Stories where the premise requires him to conveniently forget his abilities in order for the story to work. In a lot of ways, he is a lot like V in Order of the Stick in that regard. The Giant has even said that he has found a bunch of ways to get him/her out of the action because his/her godlike power would negate quite a few of the threats in our current comic. Imagine Haley's confrontation with zombie-Crystal if Vaarsuvius was there, for example. He/she plays on a level that many of the other characters and threats just don't play at, so he/she has to be dealt with. Now, so far, The Giant has done a phenomenal job of having V sit out when he/she's not needed or will disrupt the story. And his/her power is used extraordinarily well to demonstrate her own powerlessness and her personality flaws. So far V getting shipped out of the story when appropriate has created it's own interesting stories, but imagine trying to pull off this trick for 50+ years. In those cases where Superman's presence would solve the plot if any of his abilities were used to the extent shown elsewhere, where the stories just don't make sense with him sitting in them, then yes, Superman has too much power for the story he is being put into.

However, that is not a point against the character, you wouldn't call a character bad just because he doesn't fit into a specific story. Atticus Finch is an excellent character (if we ignore the sequel anyway), but he would not fit in a kaiju monster hunter story. That is not a problem with either the character or the type of story, I know both can create excellent works of art and great narrative. But, together they just don't fit particularly well. That's more on the fault with the writer than anything else.