MovieChat Forums > Superman II (1981) Discussion > Inconsistency in Supermans strenght.

Inconsistency in Supermans strenght.

posted 10 years ago by croat-hr
5 replies | jump to latest

Oh I get it, Superman is extremely strong, like a million times stronger than ordinary man.
BUT when he looses his power and becomes like an ordinary man, a drunk street-fighter guy in a bar challenges him, Superman (Clark) gets his ass beaten, not once, but twice in a row. He can't even hit back.
And later, when he gains his power back, he fights with 3 guy simultaniously, and it's a good fight, no one prevails.
But here is the thing; Now these 3 guys are again at the same strenght as Superman, plus that they are criminals, one of them even a general, so they know how to fight.
Superman here is in comparisment just like a norman guy would fight 3 normal guys.

So he can fight 3 well trained people at the same strenght at the same time, but can't even get one hit to a drunk looser bum in a bar?

Another thing which has no sense is that later Superman had to make a revenge to that drunk looser in a bar. But why? Now he is million times stronger than him again.
That's just like I would try to make a revenge to an ant. Even I wouldn't do it, not to mention Superman who should be a really honest and loving man without any desire to revenge of any kind. That completely throws him out of his character.

[–] HellboundHero 10 years ago

Clark was inexperienced with being powerless whereas he was more experienced being super than the Phantom Zoners.

As for your second question, I have no problem with Clark humiliating that jerk. I'm not one of those people who expects Superman to be edgy and cool, but I don't expect him to be a total saint either. Rocky will live, and maybe from now one think twice about bullying and womanizing. And Superman used to beat up wife beaters so it's technically not out of character for him to rough up bad people.

[–] kurt7825 10 years ago

that makes sense

[–] avortac4 (3742) a year ago

When I tried to read your post and kept being stabbed in the soul by your reckless hostility towards a perfectly innocent language, I started to realize there's no way your post is going to express genius-level intellect - after all, anyone that can't write a few simple paragraphs in the simplest language in the world correctly, is exactly like a math expert that can't calculate 2+1 correctly.

There's no way I could muster enough patience to correct even 10% of the mistakes, errors and american typos in your post.

However, for the sake of the possible english-learners that might be reading this, I will correct your thought errors - it's the very least I can do for the benefit of future generations.

Superman is not only about strength, but even if he was, it would be a flawed comparison to simply remove his powers and make him fight three people (disregarding that one of them represents the physically weaker gender - yes, I said it, someone had to).

First of all, 'super strength' allows things that normal strength doesn't, so even without his invulnerability, he could still take much bigger punches and survive different attacks than a 'regular fight' could ever include.

Second, fights are not only about strength, they are about tactic, reflexes, proper stances, proper movements and especially proper timing for efficient snap. They are about distance, reading the opponent and intuitively knowing what to do at any given situation, being able to react in an optimal way to the opponent and so on and so forth. There is SO much more that goes into a hand-to-hand combat situations, so much depends on how you have trained yourself, how well you understand the dynamics of such and so on, that it's very much beyond the scope of this post, but suffice to say, fights can be extremely tactical, not just raw power.

Third, 'a super fight' against three opponents is a completely, utterly and unavoidably different situation than a 'regular fight' against three opponents.

[–] avortac4 (3742) a year ago

In 'regular fight', you have fewer abilities available, you can't fly, you are not invulnerable, and so on - but this also adds more things you can do exactly for the same reason. You can use guns, knives and other weapons, you can make your opponent fall, slip on a banana peel and gravity can be effectively utilized in various ways, as well as other ways to injure, confuse, obfuscate or blind your opponent. It's a different dynamic, different variation, with different set of tools and limitations, requiring very different tactics, different kind of knowledge and so on.

There are about a zillion things that are effective in a 'regular fight' that would not do anything to someone with super strength, let alone someone with the ability to fly and have invulnerability.

You can't just trade punches clumsily in both situations and think it's all that can be done, and that both situations are equal. A superman punching another superman would not do anything to the other superman, but a regular guy punching a regular guy (let alone a woman) can cause all kinds of injuries, damage, and even psychological effects that can last a lifetime. If you have your jaw broken, the rest of your life will definitely be powerfully affected, even if it manages to heal well eventually.

So, even a superpunch does nothing to a superbeing, a regular punch does something to a regular being. This means, the fights would not be equal. This should be common sense.

This means, three superpowers are not as big a threat to a superman than three regular powers would be to a regular dude. One superpunch, three superpunches, same 'zero effect'-result. One regular punch, three regular punches would absolutely devastate a regular face.

Also, if you watched the movie, he doesn't just trade punches, he defeats the three goons by OUTSMARTING them.

These things should be self-evident, but what can be expected about someone that thinks 'comparisment' is an english word..

[–] avortac4 (3742) a year ago

..not to mention that ANYONE in the world can think 'loose' is how you spell the word 'lose', and 'looser' is the way you spell the word 'loser'.

Sigh. You definitely epitomize the very expression you purport to utilize.