Superman or Spider-Man?

**Skeeter** · 09-30-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightknight

4. Back to the "dumb" super powers. Superman's super speed and flying more than outweigh spiderman's agility and wall climbing/webslinging abilities. His superstrength and invulnerability completely beat the crap out of spiderman's super strength and damage resistance (that comes from being super strong). The only thing Spiderman has on Superman is his spidey sense. But even if superman were sleeping with his thumb in his mouth, spiderman couldn't harm him.

So? This thread is not about who could beat up whom. This thread is about which is the better character. Superman's got nothing on Spider-Man in that regard.

Lightknight · 09-30-2006, 12:26 PM

By what standards? Superman is more powerful and can/has saved far more people. Thus he is more effective as a superhero. As for spiderman, he is cooler and we can relate a lot more to his story.

So how are you making this claim? The standard used to define which one is better seems highly relative and non-objective. You can't just say, "spiderman" is better. That's just your opinion. Why is he better? He's certainly not more powerful. Power can be defined objectively, but the other points cannot.

rockstar0173 · 09-30-2006, 12:57 PM

i say aquaman

**Skeeter** · 09-30-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightknight

By what standards? Superman is more powerful and can/has saved far more people. Thus he is more effective as a superhero. As for spiderman, he is cooler and we can relate a lot more to his story.

So how are you making this claim? The standard used to define which one is better seems highly relative and non-objective. You can't just say, "spiderman" is better. That's just your opinion. Why is he better? He's certainly not more powerful. Power can be defined objectively, but the other points cannot.

So? Why is power the standard for which is the better character? Spider-Man is far more interesting as a character, more relatable. Superman is just a fantasy, whereas Spider-Man is the everyman that we can relate to. Superman's powers have always bored me; to be quite honest, it's a ridiculous combination of powers: heat-vision, super-breath? Spider-Man's powers make sense. He has the powers of a spider. Superman has the powers of an...alien who just happens to look like a human?

Superman's one claim to fame is that he was the first superhero. I'll give him that one. Siegel and Shuster created something new and different. But Spider-Man improved on the concept. Spider-Man is the better character.

***Art*** · 09-30-2006, 06:58 PM

I agree that Superman is far less interesting. The only way he can lose a fight is if kryptonite is involved Well, darn that Lex Luthor, he just always happens to have some around. Spider-Man faces more interesting enemies, as well. *shrug*

Lightknight · 09-30-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeeter

So? Why is power the standard for which is the better character? Spider-Man is far more interesting as a character, more relatable. Superman is just a fantasy, whereas Spider-Man is the everyman that we can relate to. Superman's powers have always bored me; to be quite honest, it's a ridiculous combination of powers: heat-vision, super-breath? Spider-Man's powers make sense. He has the powers of a spider. Superman has the powers of an...alien who just happens to look like a human?

Superman's one claim to fame is that he was the first superhero. I'll give him that one. Siegel and Shuster created something new and different. But Spider-Man improved on the concept. Spider-Man is the better character.

What I am saying is that Superman is superior in all objective ways to Spiderman and that anything that is left is merely subjective. We cannot adequately base our arguements on mere opinion. I agree 100% actually, that Spiderman is cooler. But I have to step back and view that as an inadequate reason for which one being better because there are just as many (if not more) Superman fanatics out there who could easily just as validly argue that Superman is cooler.

Lightknight · 09-30-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art

I agree that Superman is far less interesting. The only way he can lose a fight is if kryptonite is involved Well, darn that Lex Luthor, he just always happens to have some around. Spider-Man faces more interesting enemies, as well. *shrug*

Well now... I'm not so sure about that. Rhino? Vulture man or whatever his name is? I mean, he does have some very interesting villians but so does superman. I consider Lex, for example, to be a very interesting enemy.

One thing I love about Spidey, though, is just how vulnerable he is. Until just recently (6 comics ago?), a bullet would take him down. It gives a real sense of danger in the fights. I suppose that sort of need in a hero is what gave them the concept of the day superman died comics.

**Skeeter** · 09-30-2006, 07:52 PM

What? Objective? How is Superman objectively better than Spider-Man? Because he's more powerful? That's pretty much the lamest reason I've ever heard...

Lightknight · 09-30-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeeter

What? Objective? How is Superman objectively better than Spider-Man? Because he's more powerful? That's pretty much the lamest reason I've ever heard...

Because in EVERY way that is objective, he is superior. Tell me, what "objective" way do you think Spiderman better than superman? "Because he's cooler" isn't objective. "Because he has cooler villians" isn't objective either. When it comes down to objectiveness, it really does need to come down to power. Unless you can seriously think of some other way.

***Art*** · 09-30-2006, 08:00 PM

The difference, Gavin, is that Skeeter and I are not talking about physical properties. We aren't talking about who could save the most lives or win the fight. Not who is most capable. We are talking about who is more interesting, more captivating...

Lightknight · 09-30-2006, 08:09 PM

I understand what you two are saying, and in the area of "coolness" I am in complete agreement with both of you that Spiderman is infinitely more interesting than big blue.

But I am following in suit with the original post. Who is, "better". Not cooler. Unless they'd like to specify that which I'm of course ok with. When simply asking which one is "better", the only legitimate response is an objective one based on facts. When asking which one is cooler, all objective rules are thrown out the window.

All I'm pointing out is when objectively proving that someone is better than another is with power. Am I wrong in that statement?

**Skeeter** · 09-30-2006, 11:06 PM

I'm saying that Spider-Man is an objectively better character based on several factors: his origin (which actually makes sense of his powers), his wickedly cool costume (spider-web design > big "S"), his everyman persona (instead of faking it like Superman), his lovable loser schtick (seriously, whens the last time you actually empathized with Superman?), and his courage against the odds (which pretty much always weigh in Superman's favor; not so with Spider-Man). He's a better character. I'm not talking about "cooler." I'm talking about better.

Powers do not make a character great.

Lightknight · 09-30-2006, 11:48 PM

Those are ALL subjective points. You think his origin is better because of how you feel about it. Not that it objectively is better. You think his costume is "cool", and I agree, but it's still subjective. You prefer his normal personality out of your own preferences, not due to objective reasoning. You find his schtick funny and enjoyable (I do too) but that again is only from personal preferences, not objective reasoning. Superman also has courage and is certainly not always with the advantage so even if those points were objective it really wouldn't affect the balance.

What you are saying, is that you subjectively like Spidey more. That's just fine, so do I. I personally would rather read Spiderman comics than most any superman comics that aren't graphic novels (I actually really enjoy DC's Graphic Novels more than most other types of comics). There's nothing wrong with that. Superman is objectively better but according to you (and me) Spiderman is subjectively better.

Remember, there are other people who absolutely love Superman for just as many reasons as you gave for spiderman. The fact that his origin makes sense to his powers (he's an alien, not a weird mutant). The fact that he takes on a tremendous mantel of humanity while not himself actually being human. That he takes responsibility for a world that is not his own. That he at least tries to fit in with normal people. That he does have conflicts socially especially where it comes to Lois Lane and others who are close to him. That there is a sort of weakness in him that he constantly overcomes to remain that pinnacle of greatness that he has been the icon for. Believe it or not, some people think the costume is cool (of course, I think Batman and Spidey whoop the crap out of the coolest costume competition). But coolness of costume clearly isn't a normal deciding factor, wolverine is by far the favorite character of the majority of Marvel fans and yet his costume is gayer than Richard Simmons has ever been.

**Skeeter** · 09-30-2006, 11:58 PM

See, I don't think those are subjective qualities. I believe they have objective elements. Besides, what does it matter if it's subjective or objective; why don't we discuss the actual characters, subjectively or otherwise, and figure out which is better. Enough of this arguing about what is objective and what is not, what a thoroughly pointless discussion. I'm far more interested in discussing the actual characters.

Lightknight · 10-01-2006, 12:06 AM

But see, things that are a matter of opinion are always subjective.