Why characters like Thor and Silver Surfer, that have no weaknesses, are always praised for their power, while Superman...

Why characters like Thor and Silver Surfer, that have no weaknesses, are always praised for their power, while Superman, a character that has a hundred different weaknesses, always gets people bitching about how he has "no weaknesses"?

Attached: bvs5-56dd77fb5f9b5854a9f60a04.jpg (1024x1024, 142.98K)

Bump

>inb4 godku i kneel

Hi Tommy! Been a long time.

Hi, Charlie. Can you answer my question?

Tommy or not, he’s not wrong

Superman's boring boyscout reputation. That's literally the only reason.

Attached: 1411555259941.jpg (384x554, 116.21K)

Captain Marvel is arguable more of a boy scout though

I fail to see the connection between Superman's boyscout reputation and people saying that he has no weaknesses when he is so obviously one of the heroes with the most weaknesses of all.

>Thor and Silver Surfer, that have no weaknesses, are always praised for their power
Because that's their point. They're the brawl.
Superman is supposedly the one that can do anything, you don't complain about Thor not doing something for fixing New York city crimes because it's not his problem.
Superman just doesn't do anything for stopping Joker from killing children.

He's not as popular. And these days his personality has been relegated to literally a boy, rather than boyscout.

Attached: 1407669061963.jpg (526x176, 31.8K)

>Superman is supposedly the one that can do anything
Nobody but casuals say this. Also I can say the same thing about Thor not killing Norman Osborn.

Thorfags are hypocritical cancer

So, if Superman doesn't make the universe he lives in an utopia, he has no weaknesses?

And if Thor refuses to do anything to clean the world he lives in, he must be praised for his power?

Those explanations make no sense.

Because Marvel is held to lower standards.

How many weaknesses must Superman have in order to match this "high standard" of the DC Universe? He already has more than anyone, but it clearly isn't enough to satisfy his haters.

20? 30?

People largely didn't care about Thor until Ragnarok, where he was given a more fun personality. And Surfer is a bit of an edgelord, people like that.

>where he was given a more fun personality.
Leave

How is this supposed to explain why Superman gets the "he has no weaknesses" complaint when he has more weaknesses than everyone?

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. I make a very clear question and people answer with something completely unrelated.

>Those explanations make no sense.
I was talking about how your shouldn't mix up different superheroes in the hope it makes sense.
When I read Superman I see a guy that can virtually lift infinite because he lifted the infinity pages of the infinity book and goes everywhere in the world at helping people, a little kid is falling from a building in Japan? Superman is already there.
But then you realize that this Superman doesn't do anything for Gotham, for Star City and then you ask "why is he a dick like that if the book wants us to believe he could?".
Thor and Silver Surfer are literal gods that don't want to do anything with humans affairs and they don't have to.
Being strong is just because they're gods.
Superman is a god that's supposedly should do something.
>Also I can say the same thing about Thor not killing Norman Osborn.
It's not his problem

So, if Superman saved fewer people, he would be a better hero?

Thor is praised as a hero because he doesn't care about making the world he lives in a better place?

I still cannot see why "he has no weaknesses" is a complaint aimed at a superhero with multiple weaknesses like Superman, but not aimed at the ones with no weaknesses like Thor and Silver Surfer.

Is anyone here actually able to explain this? I don't want to get another non-answer.

Superman can’t be everywhere at once to fix every goddamn problem you retard. Also he stays out of Gotham because Batman is an autist that pushes other heroes out of his turf.
>Not his problem
So what we’ve established is that it’s okay to have a broken OP character with no weaknesses so long as they’re an asshole. Got it

SS isn't a street hero. Or even a regular vilean buster. He usually jobs and is meant to be over the top.

Thor gets put in his place despite having no weakness. IE he gets over powered and beat down.

To the masses, Superman just overcomes despite his weakness. If you don't have the green rock or a gun to the head of his loved ones, than you're just fucked and not beating him in hand to hand.

>If you don't have the green rock or a gun to the head of his loved ones, than you're just fucked and not beating him in hand to hand.
Which of these strategies Doomsday used when he beat Superman? And all the other villains that have beaten him?

What did Alex Ross mean by this?

I find the biggest reason Superman sucks balls is because his fanbase are insufferable pedantic twats with as little personality as their holier than though demigod 'hero' who also has a shitty costume design.

I think that pretty much sums it up?

Attached: images (7).jpg (215x235, 5.14K)

>So what we’ve established is that it’s okay to have a broken OP character with no weaknesses so long as they’re an asshole. Got it
Yes, Mark Millar explained it pretty well.
>So, if Superman saved fewer people, he would be a better hero?
Not the point.
>Thor is praised as a hero because he doesn't care about making the world he lives in a better place?
He is a god, he is no hero or villain.
>I still cannot see why "he has no weaknesses" is a complaint aimed at a superhero with multiple weaknesses like Superman, but not aimed at the ones with no weaknesses like Thor and Silver Surfer.
Because weaknesses as you say are just plot devices.
"He can't lift a planet?"
"Lol he lifted saturn!"
It's the strenght that counts.
Thor's weaknesses are normal super strenght, and SS weaknesses are Black Panther and really strong punches

You don't see the problem that DC had to jump and prance around making a character who could actually beat Supes into a pulp?

And who do the masses actually know? Right now most of them have the JL movie depiction stuck in their mind where he just makes everyone look like a useless tool and oneshots the big bad.

Every movie that isn't shit always reuses Lex or Zod. You can't claim "all the others" if DC themselves doesn't even bother to showcase anyone.

GODku... STRONGku... SUPERIORku... HANDSOMEku... CHADku... I KNEEL

Attached: 1590765533009.jpg (842x693, 488.44K)

>You don't see the problem that DC had to jump and prance around making a character who could actually beat Supes into a pulp?
Like how Marvel announced Gorr? Whom at the end of the day was killed by Thor anyway?

Superman is defeated more often than Captain America, this "SUPERMAN IS NEVER DEFEATED REEEEEE" makes about as much sense as "SUPERMAN HAS NO WEAKNESSES REEEEEEE".

>Yes, Mark Millar explained it pretty well.
Post Millar's explanation here. I wanna see it.

And Millar is a big Supermanfag that thought that Superman should be even more powerful, I doubt he shares your opinion.

If Superman saved fewer people, would people stop saying that the character that has more weaknesses than any other has no weaknesses? Yes or no?

And nobody gives two shits about Gorr. Thor's a god who goes thorough his end cycle of god death almost as much as DC explodes their universe.

I pointed out to you the problems. The majority don't read comics. That includes Thor and Silver Surfer. Do majority do take in TV and Movie where Thor is depicted as being pretty grounded even as the strong guy. You want Superman to get that kind of respect, nerf his strength, deliver more movies that require the use of his brains and brawn among equal enemies, and stop listening to the trolls here who don't read comics.

>Thor gets put in his place despite having no weakness. IE he gets over powered and beat down
And every time Thorfags whine about it

Thor has died and has been reborn several times. Death is not the ultimate tale.

>You want Superman to get that kind of respect, nerf his strength
He’s already nerfed as hell

>Post Millar's explanation here. I wanna see it.
In Ultimates Thor claimed he doesn't have to save everyone if he doesn't want.
>If Superman saved fewer people, would people stop saying that the character that has more weaknesses than any other has no weaknesses? Yes or no?
yes

>In Ultimates Thor claimed he doesn't have to save everyone if he doesn't want.
An irrelevant line from one Millar comic is Millar's explanation?

Tell me how that aligns with the fact that Millar is a big Supermanfag that wanted to make him even more powerful, please.