Heroes like Superman (especially prime) and the Hulk are just invincible. They cannot be beaten because they gradually get endlessly stronger. Does this hurt their genre? Does it ruin the thrill of watching them fight because everyone knows that no matter what, that hero will win? If it’s possible to beat any of these heroes, who could do it and why hasn’t it been done yet?
The invincibility does hurt the genre, because it makes stories too predictable. It severely limits the routes stories can take. For example, the only real way to put Superman into danger, is to a) give him a Kryptonite, b) take his power away. Both were done too much in the past, and people pretty much know what is going to happen with each story. There is no thrill to it. However, these super heroes' positions in pop culture are too solid, and it makes it difficult to shake the status quo. The character who can defeat the invincible character must be invincible too, but stronger as well. But what is the limit of such invincibility? There is only so much you can do before the display of strength becomes utterly ridiculous. For example, Akira Toriyama said in interview the greatest display of strength he could express in Dragon Ball was destroying a planet. But what if a new character has be stronger than that? How is anyone going to depict that and make the audience "understand" that? Invincibility in a hero may sound ideal, but in a long run it will be a trouble for creators. – idleric7 years ago
Hence why I dislike the Hulk. This of all topics needs expanding on. – SpectreWriter7 years ago
I definitely think this hurts the genre. However, the right artist could make this invincibility a flaw. They fight and always win, and perhaps they become tired of their schtick as their audience has, and try to change, but cannot due to their invincibility... – Kathleen Lassiter7 years ago
Superman cannot just be hurt by Kryptonite. So long as a character is within his weight class, they can hurt him. If you want to argue that's still too invulnerable, fine, but the fact that Mongul, Darkseid, Zod, Brainiac, etc can all injure him hurts the argument that there's no dramatic tension. – Winter7 years ago
The Hulk's invincibility works to the storytelling potential of the character, in my opinion. Joss Whedon explored this brilliantly in Marvel's "The Avengers." The idea that a man knows he is, for all intents and purpose, really a murdering monster, but can't do anything about it is really compelling.
He'd want nothing more than for someone else to be able to put him down and end his - and other people's - misery. But the Hulk can't be stopped.
He also can't even kill himself, either, as he said. He's also very unpredictable. The comics have explored that because of his power, he's at once both a great asset but also a loose cannon. Many stories have shown that after the Hulk helped the Avengers defeat a threat, they had to turn their efforts towards stopping him when he went rampant. Knowing that there's this very powerful being out there - which people like Loki have actually exploited - also doesn't help Banner's conscience. He's a very tormented person. – BradShankar7 years ago
I think the "invincibility" of characters like the Hulk and Superman, does hurt the genre. While both feature "weaknesses", the Hulk's human form, and Superman's susceptibility to kryptonite/magic. However, they often overcome these shortcomings. Superman has been "defeated" several times, he sometimes implies that this is due to him showing physical restraint. The Hulk simply gets stronger and stronger. Unfortunately, I think this makes him an uninteresting character. – Jiraiyan7 years ago