The Kryptonite Factor

            Bear with me as I start preaching my random psycho babble, but in light of the downfall of a new comics line(the founder of which I had worked with on the creation of one of his superheroes) I feel like pointing out exactly why this thing tanked. I hate to be the one who said "I told you so", but when you turn around and say "You're just the artist, all I want you to do is draw it, let me figure out the details", you are just begging for karma to bite you in your over inflated buttock.
           First things first, just because I'm an artist doesn't mean my area of expertise lies solely within that realm. It just means that as a career choice, I have decided to pursue art instead of writing, cooking, or even advertising. THIS IS A MISTAKE A LOT.OF PEOPLE.MAKE.
           Now that that's out of the way, on to the major problem I pointed out when I was given the outline. Other than the fact that the character's backstory and overall plot arch sucked. A cardinal rule of character development was broken.
           It is a very simple rule in creating super powered protagonists. Pay very close attention because this is kind of important.

SERIOUSLY

DO NOT EVER OVERPOWER YOUR SUPERHERO OR CLAIM HE HAS NO WEAKNESSES.

           Why is it so hard to follow this rule? Name 5 characters that have broken the rule and have been successful (by successful I mean well received, not giant moneymakers. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE).

              Tick-tock, Tick-tock…DING! Got any? 'Cause I got two, Superman and Doc Manhattan. There are more, but I feel that these are the one's that stand out above the rest.
           Now let's see Superman. He started as a flying brick, unbeatable and just a tad bit dickish (if certain covers are to be believed), then writers realized something veryyyy important. People were getting bored with his stories. They were becoming too predictable. Conflict drives the plot of any and every story, but if Superman couldn't be beaten then what was the point? Now it's obvious to see where this is going. The writers had to create a weakness for him, and so came a plot device so notorious that it has been deeply ingrained in comic book history.

 It’s Lois Lane.

           As much as everyone would probably like to "correct" me about that previous statement. Lois is Superman's greatest weakness, NOT the shiny green rock with a level of scarcity on par with that the Blue Boy Scout's race. Look back on most Superman stories(Sans silver age ), notice how stories involving Lois tend to invoke more out of him than when generic mook #46 waves a piece of Kryptonite at him? You're not just getting outer conflict, you're also getting inner conflict. You have something that could provide you dozens of stories that could derive from that moment. And People Have

Need I remind you...

            Now as for Doc Manhattan, he has to be one of the most powerful characters in comics. He actually doesn’t have any known weakness. As a matter of fact, that whole Mars subplot exists solely to keep him away from Earth, because otherwise the problem could be solved in 2 seconds flat. However, Manhattan is successful because he is written well. Also he is written this way on purpose. Moore wrote him for the sake of the story, not cause it’s cool.

at least not a 100% anyway...

            Heroes NEED weakness. I know its “lame and not cool”, but if that’s the case then how do you explain this guy:

                 Batman is without a doubt one of the coolest non-superpowered heroes EVER. He is also incredibly weak to disease, lead poisoning, alcohol poisoning, regular poisoning, bludgeoning, flaying, magic, spearing, stabbing, frying, irritable bowel syndrome, trepanning, massive blood loss…

…and hugs

            Weaknesses allow for conflict and tension, the basics that ANY good story is built on. The fact that a character has a weakness, but overcomes it in clever and creative ways IS WHAT MAKES THEM COOL. Compare Superman punching Batman:

Meh...

 To Batman punching Superman:

AWESOME.

How come when Batman does it, it's more exciting and satisfying? Because sooooooooooooooooooo many things could have gone wrong here. He could of broken his bones(which he did), or he could have missed his target completely, allowing Supes to TOTALLY ANNIHILATE HIM BY CRUSHING HIS SKULL WITH HIS PINKY. But no, Batman considered the possibility, braced himself, and knocked Big Boy Blue OUT.

STILL AWESOME.

                 When Superman does that however, its dull. Superman can punch Batman into Canada, so seeing him holding back just feels a little cheap.The minute a fight starts between Supes and anyone who isn't at his level of strength, everyone just relaxes and thinks "How long is this going to take?". When Batman is up against anybody, you never know what to expect. There's a million different ways Batman overcomes his own flaws in order to accomplish his goals. But with Superman it's all about finding the right guy and introducing him to his fist. Repeatedly.
             I mean what's the point of a story when you can just end it right then and there?This is where the first mistake was made. Not  because people are discriminating, not because people are stupid, and not because it wasn't given a chance. It was primarily because it was a shitty,boring, invincible character that no one could relate to, much less care about.
            Instead of griping about how unfair the industry is, take the damn criticism and use it to improve.