>>112330912I agree with this, Superman is victim to more power shifts than I think any singular hero, ranging from bullet level to cosmic deity. I understand the stakes for action needing to be unique or big, and making those stakes compelling can be difficult for an 80 year old franchise, but they don't need to be bigger. Batman's memed into being the most hardcore badass character, but in reality his capabilities have changed little, it's just that each story challenges Bruce in a unique way; some physically, some intellectually, some morally, and usually a mix of those. Clark's best stories are similar in that it's not about Superman punching the bad guy, fun as it is; it's whether Superman is doing the right thing, making the right choice, saving the right people. He's at his best when he's just powerful enough to not be able to save everyone, but still try his best at the end of the day. Outsmarting the bad guy feels hollow when we know Supes can punch dimensions in half, so in TAS when he's powerful but still vulnerable and uses his brain, it feels satisfying, or even in Superman II when he tricks Zod and his gang at the end was always my favorite part of the movie.
My personal opinion is that his literal level of power isn't important; he should be unstoppable to a regular human but still have some form of limits in normal circumstances. Making him as powerful as the entire League or Darkseid level takes away from both the value of the other characters and makes him less relatable. And, again, I think he's at his best when he's being mentally or emotionally challenged as much or more than his physical power. The obvious exception being Death of Superman, where the battle was almost entirely physical but it had genuine consequences by the end of the story.
