Alternate disguises for Superman... Should Superman wear a mask?

[Kurt Wagner]

One thing I never ever understood was why the writers of the comics and movies thought the glasses & suit outfit for clark was an effective disguise for Superman? Seriously... Would no one at the Daily Planet suspect they are the same person??? Especially Lois, who regularly sees and works with Clark, and then also is saved by Superman?

How the hell is Lois considered as one of the greatest investigative reporters in Metropolis??? Doesn't make sense.

I think Superman should wear a mask to protect his identity from the world. Many other superheros do it, why shouldn't he? Besides, it's not like Clark could go around and wear a mask if the goal is to blend in as a human.

So what would be possible and realistic options to address this issue?

[knowsbleed]

no.

[7heBoss]

No he can't wear a mask, that would just be silly. Everyone at the Daily Planet would think Clark was a weirdo if he showed up to work with a mask everyday.

[MessiahDecoy123]

:facepalm:

*sigh*

[Kurt Wagner]

No he can't wear a mask, that would just be silly. Everyone at the Daily Planet would think Clark was a weirdo if he showed up to work with a mask everyday.

I'm not saying that Clark should wear the mask... :doh:

I'm asking what alternative disguises could Superman use? It makes absolutely no sense that his main physical disguise is a pair of glasses. The business suit doesn't count as a disguise... since it doesn't disguise his face enough for people to make the connection... If you're working with someone in any work environment that requires daily interaction with your coworker... Would you notice that there is a resemblance between him and the most powerful superhero on Earth if the only difference is a pair of glasses?

Another words, the film has to address this issue in order for one to believe superman and Kent could be the same person. Why would it fool the movie characters and not the audience? Of course the audience already knows given all the movies and TV series that have been made... but in order for it to exist in the world of the film, it's just not realistic.

[7heBoss]

I'm not saying that Clark should wear the mask... :doh:

I'm asking what alternative disguises could Superman use? It makes absolutely no sense that his main physical disguise is a pair of glasses. The business suit doesn't count as a disguise... since it doesn't disguise his face enough for people to make the connection... If you're working with someone in any work environment that requires daily interaction with your coworker... Would you notice that there is a resemblance between him and the most powerful superhero on Earth if the only difference is a pair of glasses?

Another words, the film has to address this issue in order for one to believe superman and Kent could be the same person. Why would it fool the movie characters and not the audience? Of course the audience already knows given all the movies and TV series that have been made... but in order for it to exist in the world of the film, it's just not realistic.


Haven't you seen Kill Bill Volume II? Superman is his real identity, Clark is the one in disguise so that is why I made the SARCASTIC remark about Clark wearing a mask. And as awesome as it may sounds in theory, a mild mannered luchador would be kind of lame

[KalMart]

I'm not saying that Clark should wear the mask... :doh:

I'm asking what alternative disguises could Superman use? It makes absolutely no sense that his main physical disguise is a pair of glasses. The business suit doesn't count as a disguise... since it doesn't disguise his face enough for people to make the connection... If you're working with someone in any work environment that requires daily interaction with your coworker... Would you notice that there is a resemblance between him and the most powerful superhero on Earth if the only difference is a pair of glasses?

Another words, the film has to address this issue in order for one to believe superman and Kent could be the same person. Why would it fool the movie characters and not the audience? Of course the audience already knows given all the movies and TV series that have been made... but in order for it to exist in the world of the film, it's just not realistic.
It's not about glasses hiding a face...it's more about the fictional world that they all live in...a world in which there's no precedent for a Superhero, and no reason for anyone to really believe he's anything but Superman all the time. For all anyone knows, Superman is still Superman in some other part of the world when they don't see him....why would they think something as stupendous and surreal as he is would be walking amongst them in disguise?

So if there's no reason to think he's anything but Superman, then no-one's really looking for him amongst the 'regular' people. If they were, it'd be a hot topic every day in the tabloids or what have you....people would be claiming that their dentist, or a waiter, or an actor in a commercial, etc. were Superman because they kinda' look like him. Or they'd probably associate his possible 'other side' with someone in a leadership role. or someone who actually stands out in society. There is no 'Superman the comic-book hero' in the world of Superman, so 'alter-ego' isn't really a relevant concept. The last person they'd suspect is some mild-mannered, relatively unremarkable/unassertive reporter with a full-time job.

For example....in our world, if there's a big-time movie star....as far as we know, when we're not watching them in movies, we assume they're spending private time as themselves at home, or reading scripts, or working on their next project, etc. We're not looking for them in disguise as a bus-boy, or the person who works in Starbucks, or in the accounting department where we work. So basically...the best way to stay hidden is to not let anyone know you're actually hiding.

[knowsbleed]

This is not going to be a Batman movie... which Christopher Nolan has smothered with realism. Superman doesn't need a mask... nor does the movie need to explain why he doesn't. It's just part of what it comes with being Superman.

[Mr. Thing]

Superman needs to convince the world he is...how should I put it...a symbol of honesty. He's an alien, and as an alien, he must prove he's there to help. He's never going to convince people going around wearing a mask. They're gonna be scared s***less.

[KalMart]

http://i36.tinypic.com/2w4wak9.jpg

[Kurt Wagner]

Haven't you seen Kill Bill Volume II? Superman is his real identity, Clark is the one in disguise so that is why I made the SARCASTIC remark about Clark wearing a mask. And as awesome as it may sounds in theory, a mild mannered luchador would be kind of lame

I have and know what you are saying... my point is that Clark is not enough of a disguise and there's no real way to disguise him further (other than facial hair, maybe) without him fitting in as a human... thus making me wonder if there's a way to disguise Superman.

How does the comics address this issue?

[Kurt Wagner]

It's not about glasses hiding a face...it's more about the fictional world that they all live in...a world in which there's no precedent for a Superhero, and no reason for anyone to really believe he's anything but Superman all the time. For all anyone knows, Superman is still Superman in some other part of the world when they don't see him....why would they think something as stupendous and surreal as he is would be walking amongst them in disguise?

So if there's no reason to think he's anything but Superman, then no-one's really looking for him amongst the 'regular' people. If they were, it'd be a hot topic every day in the tabloids or what have you....people would be claiming that their dentist, or a waiter, or an actor in a commercial, etc. were Superman because they kinda' look like him. Or they'd probably associate his possible 'other side' with someone in a leadership role. or someone who actually stands out in society. There is no 'Superman the comic-book hero' in the world of Superman, so 'alter-ego' isn't really a relevant concept. The last person they'd suspect is some mild-mannered, relatively unremarkable/unassertive reporter with a full-time job.

For example....in our world, if there's a big-time movie star....as far as we know, when we're not watching them in movies, we assume they're spending private time as themselves at home, or reading scripts, or working on their next project, etc. We're not looking for them in disguise as a bus-boy, or the person who works in Starbucks, or in the accounting department where we work. So basically...the best way to stay hidden is to not let anyone know you're actually hiding.

good point.

[KalMart]

:woot::oldrazz:


http://i36.tinypic.com/6nv1bb.jpg

[7heBoss]

http://i36.tinypic.com/2w4wak9.jpg

There we go, Problem Solved. Thanks to Kalmart the Crisis has be averted

[hopefuldreamer]

:doh:

Literally my response to this topic.

Like this hasn't been discussed a thousand times over before.

Yes, the idea of glasses being an effective disguise, is on the face of it a little ridiculous.

But there are reasons why he can't wear a mask, as KalMart has shown (love the manips BTW :p)

Fans have made their peace with the Clark Kent disguise for many reasons.

I think the biggest one is that he ISN'T wearing a mask, and therefore everything thinks he isn't hiding what he looks like. It sort of doesn't occur to anyone he might have a normal life somewhere, because they would assume that to do that he'd have to hide his face... which he isn't.

The Clark Kent disguise works really well because it's so unexpected. He is the only hero to work that way. No one questions him. No one thinks of him as being deceptive or having anything to hide.

And Clark is such a normal guy personality wise, that no one thinks he's the alien superhero either... it's just too weird an idea.

[KalMart]

http://i37.tinypic.com/mjrfr7.jpg

[hopefuldreamer]

:woot::pal::hehe:

[Slugster]

Ha- larry-us!!!

[KalMart]

http://i38.tinypic.com/2nk49k3.jpg

[hippie_hunter]

Haven't you seen Kill Bill Volume II? Superman is his real identity, Clark is the one in disguise so that is why I made the SARCASTIC remark about Clark wearing a mask. And as awesome as it may sounds in theory, a mild mannered luchador would be kind of lame
The interpretation that Bill gave in Kill Bill was crap and shows he has no understanding of the character. Superman doesn't look down upon humanity, he loves humanity and cares deeply for them and the bumbling Clark Kent persona that Clark portrays allows Superman to be a part of humanity.

The true identity of Superman is Clark Kent, the one that he allows Lois, Ma, Diana, Kara, Conner, and Bruce to see. He sees Earth as his home and has Ma and Pas' values as his core, yet he appreciates his Kryptonian heritage.

As for the mask issue. Absolutely not. Superman cannot wear a mask. The whole point of him not wearing a mask is so that people could see his face and develop a sense of trust with him since they know that he is an all powerful alien who looks like one of them.

And his disguise makes sense as well. The glasses he wears dulls down his eye color. He slouches so that he doesn't look as tall. And he appears dull, weak, and bumbling so that people won't think that a man like him could be Superman (when one of Lex's computers deduced that Clark Kent was Superman in John Byrne's run, Lex refused to accept the conclusion because he refused that a man like Superman would allow himself to be Clark Kent).

[KalMart]

http://i33.tinypic.com/zwxchu.jpg

[mego joe]

no.

Ditto.

[Lighthouse]

I have and know what you are saying... my point is that Clark is not enough of a disguise and there's no real way to disguise him further (other than facial hair, maybe) without him fitting in as a human... thus making me wonder if there's a way to disguise Superman.

How does the comics address this issue?

Suspension of disbelief. This is just one of those unspoken agreements between the creator and the audience. You have to buy that Clark won't be recognized behind his persona, or Superman just isn't going to work for you.

Personally, I think Christopher Reeve took it to a new level; changing his hairstyle, posture, and mannerisms. He made it just believable enough that Clark and Superman were two different people. But the truth of the matter is that no matter how thoroughly it's explained, in the end you just have to decide whether or not to accept it. Much like accepting that a man can burst into flames without burning, or that a massive power source can come from a ring.

In terms of disguising Superman though, it would totally go against his character. If you remember JJ Jamison in Spider-Man, the entire reason he hates Spidey is because of the mask. JJ feels Spider-Man is hiding something, and can't be trusted. Often, Spider-Man is made to seem like villain to the general public, because of his mask and his abilities. Simply, it's hard to trust someone who wears a mask.

Now you take a character like Superman, who has nearly God like in his powers. Public reaction to a man like this would most certainly be overwhelming fear. It's the primary reason Lex hates him so much, and in fact, is even more powerful a weapon against Superman then kryptonite. Superman needs people and governments to know that he is trustworthy, that it's okay for someone in danger to trust their life in his hands. He does this by his deeds, his honesty about his alien origins, and by showing his true face.

[7heBoss]

The interpretation that Bill gave in Kill Bill was crap and shows he has no understanding of the character. Superman doesn't look down upon humanity, he loves humanity and cares deeply for them and the bumbling Clark Kent persona that Clark portrays allows Superman to be a part of humanity.

The true identity of Superman is Clark Kent, the one that he allows Lois, Ma, Diana, Kara, Conner, and Bruce to see. He sees Earth as his home and has Ma and Pas' values as his core, yet he appreciates his Kryptonian heritage.

As for the mask issue. Absolutely not. Superman cannot wear a mask. The whole point of him not wearing a mask is so that people could see his face and develop a sense of trust with him since they know that he is an all powerful alien who looks like one of them.

And his disguise makes sense as well. The glasses he wears dulls down his eye color. He slouches so that he doesn't look as tall. And he appears dull, weak, and bumbling so that people won't think that a man like him could be Superman (when one of Lex's computers deduced that Clark Kent was Superman in John Byrne's run, Lex refused to accept the conclusion because he refused that a man like Superman would allow himself to be Clark Kent).


Don't worry, i know. I was just making a point. I understand how Clark feels about his identity. Here is proof, one of my favorite Superman quotes. Not exactly from the comics but Superman none the less.

Lois: "you are Superman"
Clark: "No, Lois. Superman is what I can do. Clark is who I am."

[KalMart]

http://i37.tinypic.com/zmchw3.jpg

[Lead Cenobite]

I think it's way too late to put Superman in a conventional superhero mask, it's just too jarring a change. Can anyone honestly imagine Superman wearing a domino mask or a cowl? It's about the same as Batman WITHOUT a mask. It's completely contrary to the image of Superman. Much moreso than removing the underwear, I'd say.

If it's really such an issue, just say Superman is using precise muscle control to make subtle changes to his face while he's Superman. Just enough that if someone were to suspect Clark and Superman are the same, they look more closely and notice they aren't exactly the same.

[Franklin Richards]

The way Byrne explained it was that you never got a good look at Superman's face. He moved too fast or if he was in a place with alot of cameras he vibrated real fast so that the pic was fuzzy.

All you ever saw was a flashy suit flying away.


:supes: :supes: :supes:

[Lead Cenobite]

I don't think that explanation holds up when you're talking about Lois, someone he is around a lot as both Clark and Superman.

[El Payaso]

Explanations about why people don't realize Superman and Clark have the exact same face are always poor.

Kryptonian glasses that makes him look different, him vibrating, him hypnotizing people, nobody thinking that's "logic."

But a mask is NOT the answer.

[Lead Cenobite]

Kryptonian glasses are a second option I've thought of. They project a holographic mask over Clark's face, so it's a mask without anyone realizing it.

[Sam]

Oh yeah! A dark blue mask would be great, with a big \S/ in the forehead and no space for eyes. He doesn't need, just use x-ray all the time and see through the mask, and hear through the mask using his super hearing!!

Ok.. this is IRONY, before someone starts banishing me. mask.. wtf idea.

I dont see any reason why all the frenzy about "why no one realize Clark and Superman are the same person".

First, not that much ppl knows Clark, beside some Daily Planet staff, of course. Its not like a billionaire Bruce Wayne that everyone knows who he is.

Second, just change a little tone of voice, glasses, different clothes and posture.

Third, no one puts too much thinking about Superman having a secret identity. He is just Superman all the time, helping ppl.

Fourth, suspension of disbelieve. Come one, u are buying the idea of a extra terrestrial that looks exactly like humans, came from a planet years-light of distance as baby, have amazing powers and use underwear outside his paints. U can easily buy the idea about Clark/Superman dual identity as it is without crazy ideas like mask or hypnosis glasses. Just like it was done several time on the past.

Of course, its always fun to play with the idea of someone have that feeling of "hmm.. he has something familiar". What also was done in the past, and it is ok.

[KalMart]

Explanations about why people don't realize Superman and Clark have the exact same face are always poor.

Kryptonian glasses that makes him look different, him vibrating, him hypnotizing people, nobody thinking that's "logic."

But a mask is NOT the answer.
Or....just no-one in the actual story knowing that Superman has an alter ego/secret identity.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=18823523&postcount=7

[El Payaso]

Or....just no-one in the actual story knowing that Superman has an alter ego/secret identity.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=18823523&postcount=7

Yes, that incapacitates people from recognizing two faces that are the same.

[KalMart]

Yes, that incapacitates people from recognizing two faces that are the same.

If they are in different suits, have a different demeanor/presence, and one wears glasses...and is relatively invisible or unremarkable in the workplace...it can certainly help...if no one has any reason to look for a hidden Superman amongst them in normal daily life.

It's okay...take your time with it. ;)

Here in NYC, there are many a big-time movie star who can go to the corner store or walk around the city unrecognized with nothing more than a baseball cap. unless, of course, the paparazzi knows where they live and hangs around with cameras ready....so as long as Superman doesn't give out his address....

[SuperMike335!!]

One thing I never ever understood was why the writers of the comics and movies thought the glasses & suit outfit for clark was an effective disguise for Superman? Seriously... Would no one at the Daily Planet suspect they are the same person??? Especially Lois, who regularly sees and works with Clark, and then also is saved by Superman?

How the hell is Lois considered as one of the greatest investigative reporters in Metropolis??? Doesn't make sense.

I think Superman should wear a mask to protect his identity from the world. Many other superheros do it, why shouldn't he? Besides, it's not like Clark could go around and wear a mask if the goal is to blend in as a human.

So what would be possible and realistic options to address this issue?


I'm Glad you asked. No, he should not wear a mask, you only need to point out to the audience that because he does not wear one as Superman, nobody is looking for a secret identity.

http://a.imageshack.us/img827/2531/0000011askaboutthemask.jpg

[KalMart]

http://i38.tinypic.com/8znwci.jpg

[The Question]

I don't think that explanation holds up when you're talking about Lois, someone he is around a lot as both Clark and Superman.

Unless, in this version, Superman and Lois didn't really have a close relationship, and he was more of a somewhat distant public figure that he was chasing after, and the most time he ever spend with her as Superman was a very quick hello/goodbye and maybe a sound bite. I think that would make her obsession with Superman and relationship with Clark more interesting, actually. It would at least be less cheesy than "My true love is on love with my alter ego, POR QUE!!!!!!???"

[Clarkman]

KalMart and 7heBoss, PLEASE, keep the manips coming!
This could be the best thread ever!

:awesome:

[El Payaso]

If they are in different suits, have a different demeanor/presence, and one wears glasses...and is relatively invisible or unremarkable in the workplace...it can certainly help...if no one has any reason to look for a hidden Superman amongst them in normal daily life.

So if I change my suit and put on some glasses at my work where I have a different role than at home and my wife goes there... she might not recognize me at all, even if she talks to me.

It's okay...take your time with it. ;)

Why? Do you need some time to get used to your own idea?

Here in NYC, there are many a big-time movie star who can go to the corner store or walk around the city unrecognized with nothing more than a baseball cap. unless, of course, the paparazzi knows where they live and hangs around with cameras ready....so as long as Superman doesn't give out his address....

Do those stars have regular jobs where people talk and interact with them on a daily basis and - of course - don't recognize them in spite of everything?

It's okay...take your time with it. ;)

[Anubis]

They had that show where they got stars to do jobs like work in a Starbucks or a grocery store, and see how many people noticed them. They'd work for hours with the occasional, you know, you look like....nah. Eventually people would figure it out though.

Of course a guy whose on TV or in the movies all the time is not the same as guy who flies around at super speed and saves people, rarely getting on camera. So joe blow shouldn't be able to recognize Supes at all. A lot of people don't seem to get that. I think it's due to the God's eye view of events. If you threw out the fact that you already know that Clark Kent and Superman was the same person, you probably wouldn't realize it if Clark was standing right in front of you pouring you a cup of coffee.

As far as Lois...I think she should suspect. I mean back before they got together, she always suspected. Spent much of her time trying to out him too. But Supes would break out a Superman robot, or get J'onn to show up as Clark so they could both be in the same place at the same time. Leaving her looking stupid.

Ultimately, I go by the simple logic of the universe. Nobody thinks Supes has a secret I.D. and Clark's mastered the ability of hide in plain sight. Changing up body language, speech, everything. He effectively learned how to become a different person. No different than an undercover cop, or spy.

[KalMart]

So if I change my suit and put on some glasses at my work where I have a different role than at home and my wife goes there... she might not recognize me at all, even if she talks to me.
No...if you were a hero in a world that never had superheroes or stories about alter egos before, and people only saw you in a cape and tights, and had no idea that you were anything but that hero....you could probably use a different name, wear a jacket and tie, some glasses, and get a job in an office where no one would think you were that hero they see doing heroic things, as long as you don't call a lot of attention to yourself at work. It's not just the face that people are gawking at when it comes to Superman.

Why? Do you need some time to get used to your own idea?
No, but you could obviously use some.....more. Nice try, though. ;)

Do those stars have regular jobs where people talk and interact with them on a daily basis and - of course - don't recognize them in spite of everything?
Maybe they do...and we don't know about it because the disguise works. the difference being that we know that an actor is someone other than who we see on screen. With Superman, what reason to they have to believe that Superman isn't always Superman, even when they don't see him?

Just because you don't get it doesn't make it rocket science, or nonsensical...and it ain't exactly a new concept. Just take it slow...it'll come. We have faith in you. ;) :up:

Beyond that..if you can't just buy the fantasy....maybe you should try a different character who wears a mask. :O

[The Question]

No...if you were a hero in a world that never had superheroes or stories about alter egos before

Why are we assuming the DCU is like that? It's pretty well established that they had comic books and the concept of secret identities before Superman. As well as superheroes, if you look at the JSA.

[KalMart]

Why are we assuming the DCU is like that? It's pretty well established that they had comic books and the concept of secret identities before Superman. As well as superheroes, if you look at the JSA.
In the actual world of Superman, has the concept of a superhero in disguise been there since....well...the Superman comics basically invented it? And we're also talking about a fictional world on film, and how you would establish conditions that would allow for such a minor disguise to work.

Now....if you establish that world in which there are already comic-hero stories about superheroes that have alter egos and conceal themselves amongst the masses before Superman's arrival (if you actually wanted to take that time/space in a movie)...then yeah, just the glasses may be a bit of a tough sell if Supes isn't wearing a mask. But if not...Superman is so clearly not just a regular man in a suit like with Batman....and because he doesn't wear a mask, it gives off more of an impression that you're seeing the whole/true thing, not someone trying to conceal their identity while being a hero. And unless he tells the public in an interview or what have you that he's also another person.....then they're probably not going to be so apt to think that he is....and they'd be less inclined to even look for him amongst themselves. Unless....like you alluded to...they clearly establish that comic/alter-ego precedent in that story, instead of assuming our real-world precedents carry over directly.

You could also have an interview with Lois in which it's alluded that he's helping out other parts of the world when Metropolis doesn't see him...or, when he's flying away and a bunch of reporters are watching on the street, a split second later Clark is right there with them, so to them he's been there the whole time and couldn't be that guy flying away...etc...

I know that a lot of fanboys don't like the awkward, nerdy, and clumsy Clark in the movies....but it does work in terms of offsetting the image that those people process when it comes to Superman. Be it body language, assertiveness, or just an overall vibe that a person gives off...the Clark Kent of the movies is generally the last person that anyone would suspect is Superman...especially the people who actually spend time around him. He's socially invisible, unauthoritative, infinitely dismissible as a suitor to Lois Lane (who's starry-eyed for the guy in the cape and tights anyway). Again, maybe not what fanboys would prefer, but all the better to make it pretty good disguise.

[Anubis]

They could get the same point across by making Clark out to be kind of a dick.

[KalMart]

They could get the same point across by making Clark out to be kind of a dick.

Probably...but would we want that? The geekiness adds a certain innocent charm to things, even if it doesn't address the vicarious empowerment needs of some fanboys or what have you. I still like the idea of Clark at home in Smallville being the whole package in terms of personality on both sides. And I also like the idea of big city life and rhythm being chaotic even for a superhero....especially one with such an uncomplicated outlook (relatively speaking) on right and wrong.

[al35077]

Yeah I've always heard that thr "real" Clark was a mixture of both personas

[KalMart]

Yeah I've always heard that thr "real" Clark was a mixture of both personas
I guess he doesn't have to conceal either side when he's with his folks.

[Anubis]

Yeah, there's Superman: the Hero, then there's Clark Kent: Journalist, and then you just got Clark: Person.

[KalMart]

http://i36.tinypic.com/6ifr4k.jpg

[manofsteel4life]

:pal:....:lmao:...:funny:

[SuperFerret]

So... the people who see Clark every day would be able to piece together that he's Superman. To this I say, so? Unless they play up the Lois-Clark-Superman love triangle, there's no reason for them to expose it, or even mention it to Clark.

[al35077]

Clark should wear a fake tom selleck moustache.

[Kurosawa]

He is hiding in plain sight. As his creator, Jerry Siegel explained:

This Superman would lead a double-life. As headline-hunting newspaper reporter Clark Kent, he would hide behind a false front of pretended timidity, so that no one would suspect that he was secretly the crusading, all-powerful Superman. As a furthering disguise, meek, mild Clark Kent would wear eyeglasses, which would give a somewhat intellectual, inhibited appearance.

For romantic interest (romance makes the world go 'round, and it could add zest to the "SUPERMAN" comic strip), I would add a very gutsy and extremely beautiful girl reporter, Lois Lane, into the strip's cast of characters. Lois would scorn klutzy Clark. She would have a crush on Superman, totally unaware that Clark and Superman were one-and-the-same person!

This time I almost fell out of bed in my haste to get it all down in script form on paper. Much later, I returned to bed, one happy guy. I felt I had come up with sure-fire ingredients for a smash-hit comic strip.

Supie, you know and I know that much of that premise came out of my own personal frustrations. I wore spectacles and was a high school boy who wrote for the school newspaper. Introverted, my thoughts kept dwelling on science-fiction, thriller pulp magazines and the movies.

There were some lovely high school girls who I admired from afar. They were not the least bit interested in me. I was not Clark (Kent) Gable. I was just another face in the crowded, busy high school corridors.

Those attractive schoolgirls in the classes and corridors didn't care that I existed. But!! If I were to wear a colorful, skintight costume! If I could run faster than a train, lift great weights easily, and leap over skyscrapers in a single bound! Then they would notice me!

Very early the next morning, I didn't bother to eat. I ran all the way, twelve blocks, to Joe's apartment where he lived with his family.

Joe read the script. Instant approval. He loved the new "SUPERMAN" format. Like me, he, too, was bespectacled and inhibited.

It's not just a pair of glasses, it is an entire facade of timidity, meekness, lack of confidence and intellectualism. Clark Kent is a non-threatening introvert, an intellectual. He puts people around him at ease by his very laid-back, "mild-mannered" manner. Basically there are three personas: "Metropolis Clark", Superman and private life Clark. It's best left vague which is the real person, and in fact Superman himself isn't entirely sure which identity is the true him:

http://superman.nu/tales2/whotook/4/18.gif

Whoever plays Superman has to play not one character, but two or maybe three. It's the complexity of the Clark Kent/Superman duality that makes Superman so much more interesting than characters like Iron Man, Spider-Man or even the Batman. They are the same person in and out of costume. Superman by his original design, is not. Being Superman 24/7 is too much for even him, and he has to assume the Clark Kent construct and walk among mortals to cope.

[super scar]

^This. I liked the steps Nolan took on showing the three personalities of Bruce Wayne. The real Bruce, the playboy and the Batman. Hope they go with something similar in Superman.

[spiderfan970]

Man...giving Superman a mask is literally the worst idea anyone has suggested. It completely goes against everything--like, I don't even know where to start explaining. Can this thread be destroyed?

[SuperFerret]

The meek, unconfident Clark Kent went out with the rest of Pre-Crisis DC. The modern Clark is far more capable and confident as a reporter and thus it makes sense why someone like Lois Lane would be attracted to him.

[KalMart]

The meek, unconfident Clark Kent went out with the rest of Pre-Crisis DC. The modern Clark is far more capable and confident as a reporter and thus it makes sense why someone like Lois Lane would be attracted to him.

It also makes it that much harder to conceal his identity of Superman, though. I think there's a good balance between the two...and perhaps the more 'capable' side of Clark frustrates/confuses Lois out of jealousy or what have you.....like beating her to a scoop, or his spelling skills, etc.. That's another thing that can keep him from being an obvious/likely suitor...the fact that he's competition.

[SuperFerret]

Lois seems like the type who'd welcome a challenge and see it as attractive.

[That-Guy]

LOL at those Alex Ross Superman pics. Keep 'em coming!

[Daybreak_st]

Do those stars have regular jobs where people talk and interact with them on a daily basis and - of course - don't recognize them in spite of everything?

It's okay...take your time with it. ;)

Have you ever seen the show "I get that a lot" it's a hidden camera tv show in which a celebrity pretends to be some regular joe. Often people simply don't recognize them or have a hard time placing but think "hey you look like somebody" the celebrity replies "yeah i get that a lot". It's funny b/c it made me think of Superman. Only a few people would be around him and clark enough to notice the similar appearance but he could always play it of as "yeah i get that a lot" :woot:. Also in everyday life i've seen people who look like celebrities but a no time do i honestly think that's really the person, just a regular guy or girl who happens to be a celebrity look-a-like.

So in the film they would need is for Superman to be fast so his picture isn't everywhere and not sit around giving interviews ect, he's always rather brief. Then have clark with a much more defined personality, kind of geeky maybe very talkative with obscure facts, and mild mannered a strong contrast to Superman. Lastly have him employ holograms or something so show clark kent with lois while Superman flys overhead. All he would need to do is fool a few people ie the DP staff. And to do that he just needs for Superman and clark to be seen at teh same time. Just creating enough disbelief so they can't be too sure about it no matter how much they look alike.

[KalMart]

Lois seems like the type who'd welcome a challenge and see it as attractive.

I dunno...maybe eventually, but at first her ego would put up a some considerable resistance.

[Kurosawa]

The meek, unconfident Clark Kent went out with the rest of Pre-Crisis DC. The modern Clark is far more capable and confident as a reporter and thus it makes sense why someone like Lois Lane would be attracted to him.

That Marvelized portrayal of Clark has been gone for some time now and a more classic, Jerry Siegel type Clark has been rightfully reinstated. Now her attraction to Clark was more along the lines that she first knew there was more to him than just the outer facade of timidity. She assumed he did that so people would underestimate him. Which is how it was originally...from time to time the real person would show through, just enough to keep Lois interested.

[The Question]

I've never really seen the whole "Clark Kent is a facade" thing. It just never made sense to me. It certainly always baffled me, the idea that he wouldn't think of himself as Clark Kent when he was raised as Clark Kent. I always thought the more multifaceted approach felt more organic. I honestly don't think either Superman or Clark is an act, per se. He is Clark Kent, a guy from Smallville who goes by Superman when he's helping people. Clark Kent is quiet and unassuming, and tries not to call attention to himself, not because it's an act, but because that's the kind of guy he is. Yeah, he emphasizes it a bit because he doesn't want anyone to suspect that he's Superman, but he's at heart a simple, decent guy who likes to live a quiet life where he can write, spend time with his friends and family, and just relax. He's Superman, obviously, because he wants to help people and fulfill his responsibilities, but having that alternate identity allows him to fly around and lift super heavy things and give inspiring speeches and be a symbol of hope for people without having any of that ruin his life. He consciously acts differently when being Clark or Superman to maintain is secret, Clark doing everything he can to be inconspicuous while Superman trying hard to be very conspicuous, but at the same time leaving no information other than "he flies and he helps people," but neither is his "real" self. They're both his real self. And I'm not saying that to be wishy washy, it's a fact. They're both aspects of his life that are extremely important to him that he needs to keep separate in order to maintain both of them, and be himself in specific ways that he couldn't if he were all one or the other.

[Clarkman]

Very good points in characterization from Kurosawa and The Question.

And KalMart is pure genius! HAHAHA

[Kurosawa]

I've never really seen the whole "Clark Kent is a facade" thing. It just never made sense to me. It certainly always baffled me, the idea that he wouldn't think of himself as Clark Kent when he was raised as Clark Kent. I always thought the more multifaceted approach felt more organic. I honestly don't think either Superman or Clark is an act, per se. He is Clark Kent, a guy from Smallville who goes by Superman when he's helping people. Clark Kent is quiet and unassuming, and tries not to call attention to himself, not because it's an act, but because that's the kind of guy he is. Yeah, he emphasizes it a bit because he doesn't want anyone to suspect that he's Superman, but he's at heart a simple, decent guy who likes to live a quiet life where he can write, spend time with his friends and family, and just relax. He's Superman, obviously, because he wants to help people and fulfill his responsibilities, but having that alternate identity allows him to fly around and lift super heavy things and give inspiring speeches and be a symbol of hope for people without having any of that ruin his life. He consciously acts differently when being Clark or Superman to maintain is secret, Clark doing everything he can to be inconspicuous while Superman trying hard to be very conspicuous, but at the same time leaving no information other than "he flies and he helps people," but neither is his "real" self. They're both his real self. And I'm not saying that to be wishy washy, it's a fact. They're both aspects of his life that are extremely important to him that he needs to keep separate in order to maintain both of them, and be himself in specific ways that he couldn't if he were all one or the other.

They're all different parts of his psyche but there is clearly a side of Clark that is a construct. But yeah, he has to be both sides to cope. Just like Batman's clashes with criminals have given him some psychological scars, so too has Superman's need to cope with his incredible responsibility manifested himself in parts of the Clark Kent identity.

[The Question]

They're all different parts of his psyche but there is clearly a side of Clark that is a construct. But yeah, he has to be both sides to cope. Just like Batman's clashes with criminals have given him some psychological scars, so too has Superman's need to cope with his incredible responsibility manifested himself in parts of the Clark Kent identity.

I don't think it's a complete construct. I think he just knows how to not call attention to himself when he needs to. I honestly think, on some level, what he desires most is to live the life he lives as Clark all the time, and be that guy, but he can't because of his powers and his responsibilities. At the same time, because he has those powers, he wants to use them because they're apart of who he is, but he also needs to be able to without having to live apart from society to get a moment's peace. So, his solution to this dilemma is to have a secret identity, and the way he makes that work is by affecting his mannerisms in both identities to throw off suspicion, as well as keeping a low profile as Clark and keeping an unusual kind of high profile as Superman. To say that one is simply a construct, I think, makes the character less complex and interesting, and ultimately robs him of the aspects of his character that make him very human.

[Kurosawa]

I don't think it's a complete construct. I think he just knows how to not call attention to himself when he needs to. I honestly think, on some level, what he desires most is to live the life he lives as Clark all the time, and be that guy, but he can't because of his powers and his responsibilities. At the same time, because he has those powers, he wants to use them because they're apart of who he is, but he also needs to be able to without having to live apart from society to get a moment's peace. So, his solution to this dilemma is to have a secret identity, and the way he makes that work is by affecting his mannerisms in both identities to throw off suspicion, as well as keeping a low profile as Clark and keeping an unusual kind of high profile as Superman. To say that one is simply a construct, I think, makes the character less complex and interesting, and ultimately robs him of the aspects of his character that make him very human.

Don't really agree as I see Superman more in the way as his creators intended for him to be. He loves being Superman and helping people. There are parts of Clark that are personal expressions of Superman, and parts that are pure construct. That's why it's best left vague. Spelling it out definitively one way or another takes a lot away from the whole thing. Pa Kent was described by Maggin as a man who was constantly underestimated, a man with quiet, mild manners, but who could step in with a calm confidence when needed. I like to think much of Clark's personality comes from his father. Clark is to me an expression of Superman's vulnerability and humility. He has to have Clark to walk among men. And you can learn a lot about people from how they treat a person like Clark.

[Daybreak_st]

I don't think it's a complete construct. I think he just knows how to not call attention to himself when he needs to. I honestly think, on some level, what he desires most is to live the life he lives as Clark all the time, and be that guy, but he can't because of his powers and his responsibilities. At the same time, because he has those powers, he wants to use them because they're apart of who he is, but he also needs to be able to without having to live apart from society to get a moment's peace. So, his solution to this dilemma is to have a secret identity, and the way he makes that work is by affecting his mannerisms in both identities to throw off suspicion, as well as keeping a low profile as Clark and keeping an unusual kind of high profile as Superman. To say that one is simply a construct, I think, makes the character less complex and interesting, and ultimately robs him of the aspects of his character that make him very human.

Personally i think the comic Superman Birthright handled it best, take a look at these panels:

http://a.imageshack.us/img11/8109/clarktravels.jpg

read that last panel. Now see how he develeops his metropolis persona:

http://a.imageshack.us/img514/1678/clarktransform.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img14/6039/clarktransform02.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img691/2421/clarktransform01.jpg

[The Question]

Don't really agree as I see Superman more in the way as his creators intended for him to be. He loves being Superman and helping people. There are parts of Clark that are personal expressions of Superman, and parts that are pure construct. That's why it's best left vague. Spelling it out definitively one way or another takes a lot away from the whole thing. Pa Kent was described by Maggin as a man who was constantly underestimated, a man with quiet, mild manners, but who could step in with a calm confidence when needed. I like to think much of Clark's personality comes from his father. Clark is to me an expression of Superman's vulnerability and humility. He has to have Clark to walk among men. And you can learn a lot about people from how they treat a person like Clark.

The thing is, Superman as the creators intended him isn't really the Superman of today at all. As the creators intended him, he was an angry violent crusader with little regard for the law who was, power wise, comparable to Spider-Man. Heck, they originally intended Superman to be a bald, super intelligent master criminal who's arch enemy was a (completely human) crusading journalist. The character has evolved a lot over the years, both at the hands of other writers and the original creators. I think he's come a long way since he first appeared and developed into a much more well rounded and human character.

In any event, if there are parts of Clark that are pure construct, then I argue that there must be parts of Superman that are pure construct as well.

[JBElliott]

No mask for Superman.

It's silly to think that people would think that Clark Kent was Superman. People's perceptions are very affected by their emotions. People would "see" Superman as being much larger and more handsome than Clark because Superman is Superman and Clark is Clark.

It's only because we, the reader or viewer, know they're the same person that it becomes a problem.

In "real life" if there was a Superman I'll bet Clark could walk into the Daily Planet wearing the suit and people wouldn't see him as Superman as long as he didn't do anything super.

No mask is needed.

[hopefuldreamer]

The meek, unconfident Clark Kent went out with the rest of Pre-Crisis DC. The modern Clark is far more capable and confident as a reporter and thus it makes sense why someone like Lois Lane would be attracted to him.

Lois is attracted to him for so many reasons, and I think his meekness is one thing that intrigues her. The fact that he is such a capable reporter, and so quitely confident but still manages to maintain his polite country boy manner and always let her lead. It's comforting. He feels safe and honest and worth her respect all at the same time.

His meekness isn't gone just because he's not portrayed as a bimbling idiot anymore. It's just different.

I've never really seen the whole "Clark Kent is a facade" thing. It just never made sense to me. It certainly always baffled me, the idea that he wouldn't think of himself as Clark Kent when he was raised as Clark Kent. I always thought the more multifaceted approach felt more organic. I honestly don't think either Superman or Clark is an act, per se. He is Clark Kent, a guy from Smallville who goes by Superman when he's helping people. Clark Kent is quiet and unassuming, and tries not to call attention to himself, not because it's an act, but because that's the kind of guy he is. Yeah, he emphasizes it a bit because he doesn't want anyone to suspect that he's Superman, but he's at heart a simple, decent guy who likes to live a quiet life where he can write, spend time with his friends and family, and just relax. He's Superman, obviously, because he wants to help people and fulfill his responsibilities, but having that alternate identity allows him to fly around and lift super heavy things and give inspiring speeches and be a symbol of hope for people without having any of that ruin his life. He consciously acts differently when being Clark or Superman to maintain is secret, Clark doing everything he can to be inconspicuous while Superman trying hard to be very conspicuous, but at the same time leaving no information other than "he flies and he helps people," but neither is his "real" self. They're both his real self. And I'm not saying that to be wishy washy, it's a fact. They're both aspects of his life that are extremely important to him that he needs to keep separate in order to maintain both of them, and be himself in specific ways that he couldn't if he were all one or the other.

Agreed, especially the bolded part.

Personally i think the comic Superman Birthright handled it best, take a look at these panels:

http://a.imageshack.us/img11/8109/clarktravels.jpg

read that last panel. Now see how he develeops his metropolis persona:

http://a.imageshack.us/img514/1678/clarktransform.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img14/6039/clarktransform02.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img691/2421/clarktransform01.jpg

Defo one of my favourites :D

[Kurosawa]

The thing is, Superman as the creators intended him isn't really the Superman of today at all. As the creators intended him, he was an angry violent crusader with little regard for the law who was, power wise, comparable to Spider-Man. Heck, they originally intended Superman to be a bald, super intelligent master criminal who's arch enemy was a (completely human) crusading journalist. The character has evolved a lot over the years, both at the hands of other writers and the original creators. I think he's come a long way since he first appeared and developed into a much more well rounded and human character.

In any event, if there are parts of Clark that are pure construct, then I argue that there must be parts of Superman that are pure construct as well.

1938 Superman is way more powerful than Spider-Man. And one of the reason Batman retains popularity and relevance is that O'Neil wisely took him back to his roots in the early 70's...while Superman is constantly being taken further and further from his roots and most of what Jerry Siegel intended him to be is long gone. As is the character being successful at all. The only similarity to the first draft Superman and what Siegel created in 1934 was the name.


He is Clark Kent, a guy from Smallville who goes by Superman when he's helping people. Clark Kent is quiet and unassuming, and tries not to call attention to himself, not because it's an act, but because that's the kind of guy he is. Yeah, he emphasizes it a bit because he doesn't want anyone to suspect that he's Superman, but he's at heart a simple, decent guy who likes to live a quiet life where he can write, spend time with his friends and family, and just relax.

I just cannot agree less. He is not just a guy from Smallville like Spider-Man is a guy from Queens. The base elements of Siegel's design, those of projection and wish fulfillment, are the elements that the best comics writers and scholars like Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, and Neil Gaiman recognize as essential. You make Clark the reality, Superman the disguise, then Superman is no different from Batman, Spider-Man, Robin, Green Arrow, Iron Man, Captain America, Green Lantern, Flash, The Atom, Hawkman, Daredevil, etc, etc, etc. Clark is to a great deal a construct or Superman doesn't work at all and the failure of the character to connect to audiences for the last 25 years proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.


For Superman, it’s mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent that’s the disguise – the thing he aspires to, the thing he can never be. He really is that hero, and he’ll never be one of us. But we love him for trying. We love him for wanting to protect us from everything, including his own transcendence. He plays the bumbling, lovelorn Kent so that we regular folks can feel, just for a moment, super.


The particular brilliance of Superman lay not only in the fact that he was the first of the super-heroes, but in the concept of his alter ego. What made Superman different from the legion of imitators to follow was not that when he took off his clothes he could beat up everybody—they all did that. What made Superman extraordinary was his point of origin: Clark Kent.

Remember, Kent was not Superman's true identity as Bruce Wayne was the Batman's or (on radio) Lamont Cranston the Shadow's. Just the opposite. Clark Kent was the fiction.

Superman had only to wake up in the morning to be Superman. In his case, Clark Kent was the put-on. The fellow with the eyeglasses and the acne and the walk girls laughed at wasn't real, didn't exist, was a sacrificial disguise, an act of discreet martyrdom. Had they but known!


Clark Kent is Superman's demon—I said that specifically in the second book. I've always thought of him that way. Superman is the real person and Clark is the construct. Clark is a brilliant character and the creation of Superman. My take on Clark is a lot like what Chris Reeve said Clark was when he did the first movie: "Either Superman is a consummate actor or Lois Lane is an idiot. I don't want Lois to be an idiot, so Superman must be a good actor."
Everybody has a demon, everybody has a hobby, a habit that is part of his character and he can't break. Superman's is Clark. Mine is writing, Bill Clinton's is the saxophone, Jimmy Carter had to teach Sunday School, even when he was president. Luthor's demon is Superman. Superman needs Clark the way most of us need dreams.

I think the idea that Clark is the real character and Superman is a device is completely wrong-headed—because at some point, Clark has to die... and probably Superman won't, at least not permanently. I did a prose story for Martin Greenberg, for one of the anthologies he's putting together, that explores the triangle among Clark, Lois and Superman, over the course of about 150 years. Lois lives to be about 125 in my continuity and Luthor lives another 50. Superman tells the story hundreds of years in the future, as a great grey eminence flying through space, looking for a world to live in. It's the Superman/Lois love story... and Clark is an addendum to it. I think that's the way it is. Clark is there to make Superman accessible. Not the other way around.

Now I like a more vague take than this, and I think Clark is part construct, part alternate personality, which makes Superman very very very mildly dissociative, but Clark being the true persona and Superman a disguise is 100% the opposite of what Siegel and Shuster intended when they created Superman. When this was lost they lost Superman. People quit caring when Superman became like every other character.

[SuperFerret]

Superman needs to be more human than the other human heroes, otherwise he's unrelatable. His uniqueness comes from the fact that he's practically a god, but was raised in Smallville, USA (an all-American, down-to-earth anytown if there ever was one) as a good, honest humble man.

[Kurosawa]

Superman needs to be more human than the other human heroes, otherwise he's unrelatable. His uniqueness comes from the fact that he's practically a god, but was raised in Smallville, USA (an all-American, down-to-earth anytown if there ever was one) as a good, honest humble man.

Oh..the exact same story as Spider-Man, except Queens is more urban? No, the uniqueness comes from the fact that he is practically a God and he chooses to humble himself. It's a subtle difference on the surface but it makes a huge difference. Clark Kent exists for Superman to be relatable, while as Superman he is inspirational. The country boy junk is a huge part of what has made Superman a joke for years now. It's why even modern writers who claim to like him and write him well sneer at him. The power cuts and constant jobbing took the Super out of Superman, but even worse, the "Big Blue Boy Scout" crap took the MAN out of SuperMAN.

[SuperFerret]

So you want an unrelatable god pretending to be a man? Yeah, that's real comforting. If that's Superman, I'm siding with Lex.

[The Question]

1938 Superman is way more powerful than Spider-Man. And one of the reason Batman retains popularity and relevance is that O'Neil wisely took him back to his roots in the early 70's...while Superman is constantly being taken further and further from his roots and most of what Jerry Siegel intended him to be is long gone. As is the character being successful at all. The only similarity to the first draft Superman and what Siegel created in 1934 was the name.

The original Batman regularly made snarky remarks while crime fighting, carried a gun, was more than willing to kill his enemies, and while obviously not a normal guy, the full extend to his psychological trauma was never touched upon. Cut to O'Neil's Batman. Much more intellectual, completely opposed to killing to the point of it being a neurosis, and a lot more haunted. O'Neil took Batman back to his thematic roots, of being a serious super hero with darker storylines, but the character did evolve enormously.

And as I pointed out, if you were to truly portray Superman as he was portrayed originally, then what you'd have would not be Superman as we know him at all. The most obvious difference would be fewer powers, but more importantly, his personality would be completely different. He would be a violent jerkass with pretty much no regard for the law or due process who used intimidation and threats to keep bad guys in line. Superman has evolved enormously since his creation, and some of those changes are for the better.


I just cannot agree less. He is not just a guy from Smallville like Spider-Man is a guy from Queens. The base elements of Siegel's design, those of projection and wish fulfillment, are the elements that the best comics writers and scholars like Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, and Neil Gaiman recognize as essential. You make Clark the reality, Superman the disguise, then Superman is no different from Batman, Spider-Man, Robin, Green Arrow, Iron Man, Captain America, Green Lantern, Flash, The Atom, Hawkman, Daredevil, etc, etc, etc. Clark is to a great deal a construct or Superman doesn't work at all and the failure of the character to connect to audiences for the last 25 years proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But Superman is very different from all of those guys, regardless of how is secret identity works. He's an icon, and archtype, and he fills a particular niche in his universe that no one else does or can.

You can't argue that he's not just a guy from Smallville. He was raised in Smallville, under a human name, by human parents. That simply has to be integral to his identity.

I've always thought this whole "Clark is the disguise VS. Superman is the disguise" argument was somewhat nonsense, because in reality neither can be fake. They're both who he is. They both express aspects of his life that he needs but has to keep separate.

Now, I won't argue that there isn't an element of dishonesty. That there isn't an element of him trying to be something he can never be. Out of the quotes you provided I probably agree with Gaiman the most. He wants to be a normal person, desperately. But that's because he was raised by normal people as a normal person. In terms of his identity, he sees himself as Clark Kent, and his parents as Martha and Jonathan Kent. In terms of his identity, being a country boy turned big city reporter is how he wants to live his life. But he can't be that completely. So, it's who he is and what he can't really be at the same time. That's complex. That's layered. And that's what makes him interesting. His uniqueness isn't that he's a god who chooses to humble himself. It's not that his Superhero persona is who he really is and his civilian persona is an act. His uniqueness is his complexity. It's the fact that Clark and Superman are both who he really is and at the same time both a disguise. How being a simple, ordinary guy is something he desperately wants and can never be, and simultaneously, in his heart of hearts, exactly what he is. Like most people, he's a paradox of desire and self image. Clark Kent is a complicated man, and I doubt even his woman fully understands him.

[hopefuldreamer]

I just cannot agree less. He is not just a guy from Smallville like Spider-Man is a guy from Queens. The base elements of Siegel's design, those of projection and wish fulfillment, are the elements that the best comics writers and scholars like Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, and Neil Gaiman recognize as essential. You make Clark the reality, Superman the disguise, then Superman is no different from Batman, Spider-Man, Robin, Green Arrow, Iron Man, Captain America, Green Lantern, Flash, The Atom, Hawkman, Daredevil, etc, etc, etc. Clark is to a great deal a construct or Superman doesn't work at all and the failure of the character to connect to audiences for the last 25 years proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The character hasn't failed to connect to audiences for 25 years. Smallville has been running successfully for 9 years (will be 10), Lois and Clark had a 4 year run, and STAS aswell.

Superman Returns failed to connect to audiences. That's because it was using the Donner version as a basis, and Donner's Clark Kent is a disguise.

The reason Clark is a different kind of hero, and a more respected and trusted one, is BECAUSE of his humanity... he holds true to his human morals, he uses his human charm and passion, and he does everything he does because of his human feelings.

Half the other superheroes out there have lost a bit of their humanity, especially Batman. Wearing a mask definitely contributes to that I think.

It's still about wish fullfillment. We all wish we could be as good as him, and as strong as him.

I don't see why him having a lesser human side enforces that.

No one can relate to a guy who flew off to an ice castle at 18 and came out a superhero with tonnes of knowledge about the ways of krypton. The guy who does what he does because of the teachings of a dead man projected by a diamond.

EVERYONE can relate to the idea of an Orphan kid finding out that he was found in a spaceship, and developing Superpowers. The guy who has to spend his whole life keeping it a secret because he knows it's in people's nature to try to exploit him, and yet so strongly believes in the good in people that he risks everything to save lives wherever he can, just because he can. The guy who realises he can't just do nothing with the gifts he's got, and creates a complex double life just so that no one around him is in danger. The guy who inspires hope, not by being a symbol of something godly or unattainable, but by being a polite, law promoting role model for everybody, and a reassurance that there is good in the world.

[SuperFerret]

Peter Parker is essentially a man trying to do his best to perform the tasks of a god. Clark Kent is the opposite, the god trying to be a man.

[The Question]

Superman Returns failed to connect to audiences. That's because it was using the Donner version as a basis, and Donner's Clark Kent is a disguise.

No. Superman Returns failed to connect with audiences because it just wasn't very good.

[SuperFerret]

Aye, the faceless man speaks truth, says I, the polecat of superiority.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

I love it when people think that they represent the GP and try to "speak" on their behalf.

[The Sage]

While I definitely can get on board with the three persona mentality--Superman, Real Clark Kent/Kal-El, and Metropolis Clark Kent--I imagine that there isn't much of a difference personality between Superman and the Real Clark Kent, which is why I'd rather just say Superman's the real person. As Metropolis Clark, he's timid, and lacks a lot of confidence, and is ignorable. I figure he's putting on act there to create a distinction between Clark Kent and Superman.

I prefer it that way. It makes the shirt rip more dynamic, as Ruthmarks used to say. The whole "In every mild-mannered person is a Superman underneath" line. I like that.

Carry on...

[Kurt Wagner]

KalMart and 7heBoss, PLEASE, keep the manips coming!
This could be the best thread ever!

:awesome:

which is why I started it :awesome:

Seriously, not may people know the reason for why Superman is maskless and knowing it would help, especially for film and tv adaptations

[Timstuff]

Superman has nothing to hide, which is why he is anti-mask. He does not want to be an anonymous vigilante, he wants to be a symbol of HOPE. A person is a mask can never be fully trusted, whereas with Superman, he gives people his trust by showing them his face obscured, and in turn the people trust him.

[Kurosawa]

So you want an unrelatable god pretending to be a man? Yeah, that's real comforting. If that's Superman, I'm siding with Lex.

So you think the guys who created Superman and the best comics writers of the last 30 years are wrong, and the milk and cookies castrated Big Blue Boy Scout who exists to be Batman's ***** is the way to go?

I love how people claim to be Superman fans....then show complete contempt for the character, his creators, and all that he represents. It's...amazing to me.

"Superman's great...except when he's compelling, and inspiring, and self-sacrificing, and heroic. Oh, and let's never let him win and make sure he looks inferior to his peers at all times."

The original Batman regularly made snarky remarks while crime fighting, carried a gun, was more than willing to kill his enemies, and while obviously not a normal guy, the full extend to his psychological trauma was never touched upon. Cut to O'Neil's Batman. Much more intellectual, completely opposed to killing to the point of it being a neurosis, and a lot more haunted. O'Neil took Batman back to his thematic roots, of being a serious super hero with darker storylines, but the character did evolve enormously.

Batman used a gun three times in those earliest stories, and of those three times, one was a mutated monster, one a vampire, and the other time he shot to injure. It's not like he was the Punisher, and other Golden Age heroes killed way more than Batman and it wasn't always of the "crook falls off roof when kicked" variety either. Hawkman cut through 100 warriors with a sword in one story. Comics were way rougher in those days. But when I speak of O'Neil going back to Batman's roots, I don't just mean Detective 27-37. For years even after the guns were long gone, Batman still operated at night, had a gothic feel, and was based on crime pulps.

And as I pointed out, if you were to truly portray Superman as he was portrayed originally, then what you'd have would not be Superman as we know him at all. The most obvious difference would be fewer powers, but more importantly, his personality would be completely different. He would be a violent jerkass with pretty much no regard for the law or due process who used intimidation and threats to keep bad guys in line. Superman has evolved enormously since his creation, and some of those changes are for the better.

Superman in those early stories had a degree of cockiness, but Superman always had a bit of that until he was castrated in 1986 by a Canadian who was too highly influenced by Stan Lee. Every change and complaint Byrne had about Superman came word-for-word from Stan. Most importantly, what Superman had in those days a rough edge that put justice, not the law first. They should bring some of that back and in fact JMS is trying to a certain degree with his current storyline to have Superman address social issues again. And even though they both ended up working with the law, it's interesting and important to note that Batman was officially deputized in 1941 while police were still shooting at Superman as late as 1942. Being a little rowdy and rebellious against authority wouldn't hurt Superman one bit and might get him away from that establishment stooge stigma that Frank Miller stuck him with in his despicable Dark Knight Returns.

But Superman is very different from all of those guys, regardless of how is secret identity works. He's an icon, and archtype, and he fills a particular niche in his universe that no one else does or can.

Not if he is stripped of what makes him unique. A lot of what they have done has made Superman just another face in the crowd.

You can't argue that he's not just a guy from Smallville. He was raised in Smallville, under a human name, by human parents. That simply has to be integral to his identity.

It's been way over emphasized and it has terribly hurt the character. The whole emphasis on the "Midwestern" values has been part of how they have buried the Hebrew roots of Superman and turned him into some sort of Christian icon. That's why he is no longer an urbanite but a safe, simple "country boy". Siegel and Shuster were not farmer boys, and Clark Kent was created in their image. Superman was not meant to be Jesus, he was meant to be a mix of Moses and a Golem, and the son of a failed Noah in Jor-El. All this mess started with the movie, which was actually a parody.

I've always thought this whole "Clark is the disguise VS. Superman is the disguise" argument was somewhat nonsense, because in reality neither can be fake. They're both who he is. They both express aspects of his life that he needs but has to keep separate.

Now, I won't argue that there isn't an element of dishonesty. That there isn't an element of him trying to be something he can never be. Out of the quotes you provided I probably agree with Gaiman the most. He wants to be a normal person, desperately. But that's because he was raised by normal people as a normal person. In terms of his identity, he sees himself as Clark Kent, and his parents as Martha and Jonathan Kent. In terms of his identity, being a country boy turned big city reporter is how he wants to live his life. But he can't be that completely. So, it's who he is and what he can't really be at the same time. That's complex. That's layered. And that's what makes him interesting. His uniqueness isn't that he's a god who chooses to humble himself. It's not that his Superhero persona is who he really is and his civilian persona is an act. His uniqueness is his complexity. It's the fact that Clark and Superman are both who he really is and at the same time both a disguise. How being a simple, ordinary guy is something he desperately wants and can never be, and simultaneously, in his heart of hearts, exactly what he is. Like most people, he's a paradox of desire and self image. Clark Kent is a complicated man, and I doubt even his woman fully understands him.

Of the quotes I listed I feel Maggin is the most correct, as he knows the character best and has written him better than anyone. But there are two Clark Kents-the real Clark and the construct. And not only does Lois not understand Superman completely, Superman himself doesn't know which part is the real him. Clark is an act to a point....but there is a lot of Clark that is his inner self. Other heroes lack this complexity. Batman is Batman at all times. WW has the birthright like Superman has, but Diana Prince is never anything but an act (why don't people question Steve Trevor's inability to guess her secret identity like they do with Lois? All she wears is glasses too, and he is supposed to be an intelligence officer. Plus there's no hiding that figure.) And he was not traditionally raised as a country boy. He knew from childhood that he was destined for a higher calling and was prepared by Jonathan Kent for that. Now I do agree completely that it was Ma and Pa Kent's guidance that made Clark Kent Superman. That is undeniable. But his rural upbringing should just be a small part of his character, and it now is the overwhelming main trait of his personality. But I fell all three guys I quoted-three of the most learned writers in the history of comics-were dead-on in their assessments as was Alan Moore in his portrayal.

The character hasn't failed to connect to audiences for 25 years. Smallville has been running successfully for 9 years (will be 10), Lois and Clark had a 4 year run, and STAS aswell.

Superman Returns failed to connect to audiences. That's because it was using the Donner version as a basis, and Donner's Clark Kent is a disguise.

The reason Clark is a different kind of hero, and a more respected and trusted one, is BECAUSE of his humanity... he holds true to his human morals, he uses his human charm and passion, and he does everything he does because of his human feelings.

Half the other superheroes out there have lost a bit of their humanity, especially Batman. Wearing a mask definitely contributes to that I think.

It's still about wish fullfillment. We all wish we could be as good as him, and as strong as him.

I don't see why him having a lesser human side enforces that.

No one can relate to a guy who flew off to an ice castle at 18 and came out a superhero with tonnes of knowledge about the ways of krypton. The guy who does what he does because of the teachings of a dead man projected by a diamond.

EVERYONE can relate to the idea of an Orphan kid finding out that he was found in a spaceship, and developing Superpowers. The guy who has to spend his whole life keeping it a secret because he knows it's in people's nature to try to exploit him, and yet so strongly believes in the good in people that he risks everything to save lives wherever he can, just because he can. The guy who realises he can't just do nothing with the gifts he's got, and creates a complex double life just so that no one around him is in danger. The guy who inspires hope, not by being a symbol of something godly or unattainable, but by being a polite, law promoting role model for everybody, and a reassurance that there is good in the world.

The Donner version is an aberration from the traditional Superman in too many ways, and both Smallville and Lois and Clark took serious cues from it. Superman should not be overly naive and pure to the point of the Donner character. It was a parody that people took seriously. Superman should care deeply about people, yes. He should be very heroic, and should love humanity. That does not mean he should be unsophisticated and incapable of adult thinking, reasoning and realization. That is what puts Superman off to people and makes him hard to accept-that he is basically written as a naive man-child, close to retarded really. This also goes back to how Superman's intellectual side has been played down and he has been treated as a generic strongman character. It's all Marvelization really.

[hopefuldreamer]

I love it when people think that they represent the GP and try to "speak" on their behalf.

God I am so tired of having to preface EVERYTHING I say with 'IMO' just to stop posters like this trying to call me out for 'speaking on behalf of the GP' or 'stating fact'.

Is it not kind of obvious that everything I say is going to be my opinion?

No?

Fine. IMO the reason Superman Returns bombed was because it drew too much from Donner's Superman, and modern people don't relate to the 'Clark Kent' is the disguise depiction.

Better? :whatever:


The Donner version is an aberration from the traditional Superman in too many ways, and both Smallville and Lois and Clark took serious cues from it. Superman should not be overly naive and pure to the point of the Donner character. It was a parody that people took seriously. Superman should care deeply about people, yes. He should be very heroic, and should love humanity. That does not mean he should be unsophisticated and incapable of adult thinking, reasoning and realization. That is what puts Superman off to people and makes him hard to accept-that he is basically written as a naive man-child, close to retarded really. This also goes back to how Superman's intellectual side has been played down and he has been treated as a generic strongman character. It's all Marvelization really.

What cues did LnC take from Donner's version?

I'm sorry but they may as well be black and white too me. Which is why I adore the one, and find the other kind of meh.

I don't think he was written as at all naive in LnC, nor a man-child, nor close to retarded.

He was a sophisticated, well respected journalist. He was a confident and engaging man. He was intelligent, spoke many languages, had knowledge of various different cultures and often used his intelligence to get out of sticky situations.

Yes, he's totally dumbed down in Smallville, but I don't think it's fair to make that comparison with LnC. Totally different ball game.

IMO LnC was a perfect depiction of the character of Clark Kent/Superman. There is nothing about it I do not love, and it is and always will be the basis for my absolute adoration of the character.

And since LnC is a show that very much enhanced the idea of 'Clark Kent is the man, Superman is the disguise', you can see where my opinions come from.

A lot of the comics have gone down that route, and been very well recieved.

I'd like to see it tried in a movie, especially seeing as it never has been before...

[SuperFerret]

So you think the guys who created Superman and the best comics writers of the last 30 years are wrong, and the milk and cookies castrated Big Blue Boy Scout who exists to be Batman's ***** is the way to go?

I love how people claim to be Superman fans....then show complete contempt for the character, his creators, and all that he represents. It's...amazing to me.

"Superman's great...except when he's compelling, and inspiring, and self-sacrificing, and heroic. Oh, and let's never let him win and make sure he looks inferior to his peers at all times."

Way to warp what I'm saying. You want to know the Superman that I'm a fan of? The one that is a compelling, inspiring, self-sacrificing hero who might biologically be a god-like alien, but deep in his core is far more human than most people, and he draws his heroism and idealism from that core of humanity that was instilled in him by his blue collar Joe Schmoe adoptive parents in rural America. Superman is Clark Kent is Superman.

[hopefuldreamer]

Way to warp what I'm saying. You want to know the Superman that I'm a fan of? The one that is a compelling, inspiring, self-sacrificing hero who might biologically be a god-like alien, but deep in his core is far more human than most people, and he draws his heroism and idealism from that core of humanity that was instilled in him by his blue collar Joe Schmoe adoptive parents in rural America. Superman is Clark Kent is Superman.

*claps* :yay:

[Lead Cenobite]

Fine. IMO the reason Superman Returns bombed was because it drew too much from Donner's Superman, and modern people don't relate to the 'Clark Kent' is the disguise depiction.

I really don't think the general audience cares about these kinds of details. They don't care if the movie's based on Donner or Byrne or whoever. They care about action and witty dialogue, and that pretty much sums it up.

Plus, Batman's proof that a movie can succeed when it's about a superhero who's civilian identity is an act and his hero identity is his true self. And I quote..

Bruce: Batman's just a symbol, Rachel.
Rachel: [Rachel touches Bruce's face] No, *this* is your mask. Your real face is the one that criminals now fear. The man I loved - the man who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe some day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again.

[Kurosawa]

What cues did LnC take from Donner's version?

I'm sorry but they may as well be black and white too me. Which is why I adore the one, and find the other kind of meh.

I don't think he was written as at all naive in LnC, nor a man-child, nor close to retarded.

He was a sophisticated, well respected journalist. He was a confident and engaging man. He was intelligent, spoke many languages, had knowledge of various different cultures and often used his intelligence to get out of sticky situations.

Yes, he's totally dumbed down in Smallville, but I don't think it's fair to make that comparison with LnC. Totally different ball game.

IMO LnC was a perfect depiction of the character of Clark Kent/Superman. There is nothing about it I do not love, and it is and always will be the basis for my absolute adoration of the character.

And since LnC is a show that very much enhanced the idea of 'Clark Kent is the man, Superman is the disguise', you can see where my opinions come from.

A lot of the comics have gone down that route, and been very well recieved.

I'd like to see it tried in a movie, especially seeing as it never has been before...

LnC was way off from what Siegel intended but at least Clark had a brain. I enjoyed a lot of the show except that they had Superman completely backwards. When Clark is no different from Superman I have a hard time caring much about him or Superman either. But I grew up with Maggin's Superman so that is where my roots come from. But yeah, I can stomach Superman only having one personality more when the one personality is at least mature and intelligent. The main cues it took from the Donner movies was the emphasis on the rural background, the movement of Smallville from the northeast to Kansas, and keeping the Kents alive (the movies kept Ma Kent alive which led to Byrne keeping both of them alive) and the "Clark goes home to momma" scenes that have pervaded the comics since that decision, one I do not care for at all.

[SuperFerret]

Bruce Wayne is actually similar to Clark Kent in that they have three personas, so to speak. Bruce's two put-on personas are just more extreme, while Clark's is basically just emphasis on different aspects of who he is.

[Lead Cenobite]

I agree, and that's exactly why I don't understand the aversion to everything but Byrne's interpretation. Batman's certainly deified by just about everyone in the world these days despite having a similar disguise to Superman.

[hopefuldreamer]

I really don't think the general audience cares about these kinds of details. They don't care if the movie's based on Donner or Byrne or whoever. They care about action and witty dialogue, and that pretty much sums it up.

Plus, Batman's proof that a movie can succeed when it's about a superhero who's civilian identity is an act and his hero identity is his true self. And I quote..

Bruce: Batman's just a symbol, Rachel.
Rachel: [Rachel touches Bruce's face] No, *this* is your mask. Your real face is the one that criminals now fear. The man I loved - the man who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe some day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again.

I wasn't suggesting they care it was like 'Donner's version' as such, but that they couldn't connect with a character so similar to one that was popular in the 70s.

As for the Batman comment, I have absolutely no problem with Nolan's handling of him. I've had many an arguement FOR Batman being what Bruce is now, and there is not much of his old self left.

I just don't think that's what they should do with Superman.

Can you imagine this?

Clark: It's just a symbol, Mom.

Martha: (touching his glasses). No, this is your mask. Your real face is the one criminals now fear. The boy I raised - the one who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there somewhere. Maybe someday, when Metropolis no longer needs Superman, I'll see him again.

:cmad:

LnC was way off from what Siegel intended but at least Clark had a brain. I enjoyed a lot of the show except that they had Superman completely backwards. When Clark is no different from Superman I have a hard time caring much about him or Superman either. But I grew up with Maggin's Superman so that is where my roots come from. But yeah, I can stomach Superman only having one personality more when the one personality is at least mature and intelligent. The main cues it took from the Donner movies was the emphasis on the rural background, the movement of Smallville from the northeast to Kansas, and keeping the Kents alive (the movies kept Ma Kent alive which led to Byrne keeping both of them alive) and the "Clark goes home to momma" scenes that have pervaded the comics since that decision, one I do not care for at all.

I understand that. The 'mommy' thing does sort of bring his 'coolness' down :p

It's weird how much we can love different parts of a Superheroes developement. You feel a deeper connection with one, and have a hard time caring about the other... and for me, vice versa.

[C. Lee]

And he was not traditionally raised as a country boy. He knew from childhood that he was destined for a higher calling and was prepared by Jonathan Kent for that. Now I do agree completely that it was Ma and Pa Kent's guidance that made Clark Kent Superman. That is undeniable. But his rural upbringing should just be a small part of his character, and it now is the overwhelming main trait of his personality.
Where do you Live kurosawa? In a big city or in the country? Did you realize that people act differently depending on where they were raised? His rural upbringing means everything to him. It shapes him as much as having superpowers does.



The Donner version is an aberration from the traditional Superman in too many ways, and both Smallville and Lois and Clark took serious cues from it. Superman should not be overly naive and pure to the point of the Donner character. It was a parody that people took seriously. Superman should care deeply about people, yes. He should be very heroic, and should love humanity. That does not mean he should be unsophisticated and incapable of adult thinking, reasoning and realization. That is what puts Superman off to people and makes him hard to accept-that he is basically written as a naive man-child, close to retarded really. This also goes back to how Superman's intellectual side has been played down and he has been treated as a generic strongman character. It's all Marvelization really.

Neither the Donner movie or the show LOIS and CLARK portray Superman as overly naive, overly pure, or close to retarded. Clark in the Donner movie ACTS naive....he isn't naive, he ACTS naive (you know, in an attempt to make people think he isn't the allpowerful Superman). The Clark portrayed in LOIS and CLARK is less naive than in the movies, but he again ACTS naive as part of his secret idenity. No one complains that Batman ACTS like a drunken wanker to protect his idenity....but let Clark act like he isn't all powerful and totally aware of what's going on around him, and it's time to shoot all the writers.

[Lead Cenobite]

I wasn't suggesting they care it was like 'Donner's version' as such, but that they couldn't connect with a character so similar to one that was popular in the 70s.

As for the Batman comment, I have absolutely no problem with Nolan's handling of him. I've had many an arguement FOR Batman being what Bruce is now, and there is not much of his old self left.

I just don't think that's what they should do with Superman.

Can you imagine this?

Clark: It's just a symbol, Mom.

Martha: (touching his glasses). No, this is your mask. Your real face is the one criminals now fear. The boy I raised - the one who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there somewhere. Maybe someday, when Metropolis no longer needs Superman, I'll see him again.

:cmad:



I understand that. The 'mommy' thing does sort of bring his 'coolness' down :p

It's weird how much we can love different parts of a Superheroes developement. You feel a deeper connection with one, and have a hard time caring about the other... and for me, vice versa.

I realize it's not the exact same scenario, but Clark could be a disguise for different reasons. The way I see it, Clark has always been sortof a disguise, since he's hid his powers all his life.

[SuperDaniel]

Way to warp what I'm saying. You want to know the Superman that I'm a fan of? The one that is a compelling, inspiring, self-sacrificing hero who might biologically be a god-like alien, but deep in his core is far more human than most people, and he draws his heroism and idealism from that core of humanity that was instilled in him by his blue collar Joe Schmoe adoptive parents in rural America. Superman is Clark Kent is Superman.
This! :up:

Neither is an act and to me that what makes Superman better than every hero.His disguise works because mankind is just stupid. LOL. They look at Clark and don`t see a living god. They see what everybody sees. Just a man. And thats the beauty of what Jerry and Joe intended: Beneath a simple ordinary man, lies a superhero. We are all superheroes if we put our gifts to help mankind.

And in Lois case, HG Wells put it brilliantly in the best episode of Lois & Clark:

"We are all blinded by love"

She just loves Superman so much and what he represents, being the guy who wasn`t suppose to exist, that she just doesn`t care for Clark. But that's only in the beginning of their relationship because as it progresses and she gets to know Clark more, she eventually finds out that they are the same person, really.

[hopefuldreamer]

I realize it's not the exact same scenario, but Clark could be a disguise for different reasons. The way I see it, Clark has always been sortof a disguise, since he's hid his powers all his life.

If you can call Clark Kent a disguise just because he's been keeping secrets from people, then i've used the 'Becky' disguise on numerous occasions... does that make me any less Becky?

This! :up:

Neither is an act and to me that what makes Superman better than every hero.His disguise works because manking is just stupid. LOL.

And in Lois case, HG Wells put it brilliantly in the best episode of Lois & Clark:

"We are all blinded by love"

As corny as it is, I always loved that :p

[SuperDaniel]

ComicBookResources.com caught up with artist Gary Frank at the recent Fan Expo in Toronto, Canada and asked him about the 6-issue "Superman: Secret Origin" miniseries now that the final issue has shipped. Here's an excerpt from the interview...

Did you make subtle changes or nuances when drawing the pages and panels that featured Superman versus those that featured Clark Kent? And is that part of the fun, getting to draw both sides of the iconic character?

Completely. The eternal war which is raged on forums about whether Clark Kent is the real Superman or is Clark Kent a disguise is all rubbish. There is one character and there are different elements of this guy and in some circumstances, he will play up certain elements of his character for specific reasons but it doesn't mean that awkward Clark is a fake character. He's a guy that goes to a big city, he's grown up in the country, he works in a big office with office politics and back-biting and yeah, he can juggle tractors and things like that but that doesn't help you in that situation. To that extent, he is a fish out of water. He's nervous. The fact that he could demolish the Daily Planet building is irrelevant when you take the character out of context. He's never going to use any of his feats of strength against an ordinary person so how he's going to get confidence from that? He's still a fish out of water, he's still suffering the same problems that anybody gets in an environment with which they're not familiar.

[7heBoss]

KalMart and 7heBoss, PLEASE, keep the manips coming!
This could be the best thread ever!

:awesome:

Haha, It is pretty sweet to receive credit when I didn't do anything. I'm afraid all the hilarious manips done so far were my KalMart.

However I figured I would try my hand at it since you already pointed me out.

So here you go, "Chris Nolan's Superman Alternate Costume"

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q145/Danielburt/Superman/NolanSuperman.jpg

[The Question]

It's been way over emphasized and it has terribly hurt the character. The whole emphasis on the "Midwestern" values has been part of how they have buried the Hebrew roots of Superman and turned him into some sort of Christian icon. That's why he is no longer an urbanite but a safe, simple "country boy". Siegel and Shuster were not farmer boys, and Clark Kent was created in their image. Superman was not meant to be Jesus, he was meant to be a mix of Moses and a Golem, and the son of a failed Noah in Jor-El.

I think that's seriously over analyzing it. He was raised in a small town in Kansas, that was a part of his back story from the very beginning. Fleshing that out was simply a natural part of developing the character, not a conspiracy to hide his Jewish roots and turn him into a Christian icon.

All this mess started with the movie, which was actually a parody.

No. It wasn't. At all. Richard Donner took the movie very seriously. It was one of the first comic book adaptations to actually try and make a good movie as opposed to a cheap action fest with corny jokes.

Of the quotes I listed I feel Maggin is the most correct, as he knows the character best and has written him better than anyone. But there are two Clark Kents-the real Clark and the construct. And not only does Lois not understand Superman completely, Superman himself doesn't know which part is the real him. Clark is an act to a point....but there is a lot of Clark that is his inner self. Other heroes lack this complexity. Batman is Batman at all times. WW has the birthright like Superman has, but Diana Prince is never anything but an act (why don't people question Steve Trevor's inability to guess her secret identity like they do with Lois? All she wears is glasses too, and he is supposed to be an intelligence officer. Plus there's no hiding that figure.) And he was not traditionally raised as a country boy. He knew from childhood that he was destined for a higher calling and was prepared by Jonathan Kent for that. Now I do agree completely that it was Ma and Pa Kent's guidance that made Clark Kent Superman. That is undeniable. But his rural upbringing should just be a small part of his character, and it now is the overwhelming main trait of his personality. But I fell all three guys I quoted-three of the most learned writers in the history of comics-were dead-on in their assessments as was Alan Moore in his portrayal.

A few points...

1: Batman isn't Batman at all times. Bruce Wayne? Hello?

2: People rarely bring up Diana's secret identity because, for most of the past 25 years, she hasn't had one, and has been better off for it.

But back to Superman... I kind of agree that Clark doesn't know exactly which him is the real him, but I have to go back to my old point... it's because they're all the real him. He is Clark Kent. He is Superman. These are vital aspects of who he is. You say that when Clark Kent isn't a construct, it robs the character of complexity. I disagree, I think it adds complexity. On the one hand, he has to act timid and quiet while at work and Big and heroic while Superman-ing in order to maintain his lifestyle. On the other hand, there is a part of him that is just timid and quiet, and is big and heroic, and over time the lines between the act and his real identity have been blurred. To say that he is really Superman and Clark Kent is an act, that's simplistic. To say that he really is Superman and he really is Clark Kent and they're both, on some level, constructs, that is complexity. And it's real, and it's human, and it's relatable and inspiring at the same time.

The Donner version is an aberration from the traditional Superman in too many ways, and both Smallville and Lois and Clark took serious cues from it. Superman should not be overly naive and pure to the point of the Donner character. It was a parody that people took seriously. Superman should care deeply about people, yes. He should be very heroic, and should love humanity. That does not mean he should be unsophisticated and incapable of adult thinking, reasoning and realization. That is what puts Superman off to people and makes him hard to accept-that he is basically written as a naive man-child, close to retarded really. This also goes back to how Superman's intellectual side has been played down and he has been treated as a generic strongman character. It's all Marvelization really.

He's not written as a naive man child or close to retarded, and his intellectual side has been played up enormously over the years. Some writers portray him as a dumb jack ass, but in his main book and in most mainstream DCU books, he's portrayed as an intelligent, insightful, caring person with simple tastes and strong morals. I don't see where you're getting this impression of his mainstream portrayal, unless the only things you've read of him were done by Frank Miller.

[Lead Cenobite]

If you can call Clark Kent a disguise just because he's been keeping secrets from people, then i've used the 'Becky' disguise on numerous occasions... does that make me any less Becky?

What I'm trying to say is Clark has hidden his true nature for all his life, the fact that he's an alien and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, that he has basically pretended to be someone he isn't to some degree.

If he lived his life using his powers in front of the whole world as Clark Kent, he'd likely be a different person. I mean, superpowers aren't something you can just turn off.

It's like Superman's cardboard speech on JLU. He has to put effort into acting like he's a normal man, to not hurt anyone or to not ace every single thing he does, whether it be school, work, or sports.

[7heBoss]

George Lucas' Superman Alternate Costume

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q145/Danielburt/Superman/DarthSuperman.jpg

[That person]

I wasn't suggesting they care it was like 'Donner's version' as such, but that they couldn't connect with a character so similar to one that was popular in the 70s.

As for the Batman comment, I have absolutely no problem with Nolan's handling of him. I've had many an arguement FOR Batman being what Bruce is now, and there is not much of his old self left.

I just don't think that's what they should do with Superman.

Can you imagine this?

Clark: It's just a symbol, Mom.

Martha: (touching his glasses). No, this is your mask. Your real face is the one criminals now fear. The boy I raised - the one who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there somewhere. Maybe someday, when Metropolis no longer needs Superman, I'll see him again.

:cmad:


The difference is that Batman started out as Bruce Wayne and became obsessed with the Batman character to the point of letting it conquer his psyche, but Superman was Kal-L first. He's always been a being with phenomenal powers, and he's had to mask them with the persona of a normal human. Thus, you can't really have a point of "going back," as suggested above. His human upbringing influenced him, certainly (meaning none of this Ancient Kryptonian religion bullspit. He's a Mehodist. Sorry, Kuro.) but at the end of the day he's still a god posing as a man, whose ultimate goal is not to live as one of us, but to be our protector.

[The Question]

The difference is that Batman started out as Bruce Wayne and became obsessed with the Batman character to the point of letting it conquer his psyche, but Superman was Kal-L first. He's always been a being with phenomenal powers, and he's had to mask them with the persona of a normal human. Thus, you can't really have a point of "going back," as suggested above. His human upbringing influenced him, certainly (meaning none of this Ancient Kryptonian religion bullspit. He's a Mehodist. Sorry, Kuro.) but at the end of the day he's still a god posing as a man, whose ultimate goal is not to live as one of us, but to be our protector.

But that's the thing. He was Kal first, but the first name he can remember having is Clark. Yes, he's not human, but his human disguise is still an integral part of his identity, not just some act.

[Kurosawa]

Bruce Wayne is actually similar to Clark Kent in that they have three personas, so to speak. Bruce's two put-on personas are just more extreme, while Clark's is basically just emphasis on different aspects of who he is.

Batman has no alter ego at ALL. He is Batman 100% of the time and anything he does as Bruce Wayne he does completely to serve his mission as Batman.

Way to warp what I'm saying. You want to know the Superman that I'm a fan of? The one that is a compelling, inspiring, self-sacrificing hero who might biologically be a god-like alien, but deep in his core is far more human than most people, and he draws his heroism and idealism from that core of humanity that was instilled in him by his blue collar Joe Schmoe adoptive parents in rural America. Superman is Clark Kent is Superman.

So only humans from rural America (where Smallville originally wasn't located) can teach idealism and compassion?

Where do you Live kurosawa? In a big city or in the country? Did you realize that people act differently depending on where they were raised? His rural upbringing means everything to him. It shapes him as much as having superpowers does.

I think if you had grown up reading Superman as he was written from 1938-1986 you would see it differently. Of course a huge difference then is that although he grew up on a farm and then in a small town, Smallville was portrayed as being relatively close to Metropolis and not in Kansas, which was an invention of the movies. They have way overemphasized the idea of Clark as a hick from the country since the 1978 parody. And for the record, I live in a mid-sized town and never have lived in either a rural environment or a major city.

Neither the Donner movie or the show LOIS and CLARK portray Superman as overly naive, overly pure, or close to retarded. Clark in the Donner movie ACTS naive....he isn't naive, he ACTS naive (you know, in an attempt to make people think he isn't the allpowerful Superman). The Clark portrayed in LOIS and CLARK is less naive than in the movies, but he again ACTS naive as part of his secret idenity. No one complains that Batman ACTS like a drunken wanker to protect his idenity....but let Clark act like he isn't all powerful and totally aware of what's going on around him, and it's time to shoot all the writers.

Lois and Clark doesn't. The movie did. In the movie both Superman and Clark are total parodies, and somewhat mean spirited at that. I loved the original movies as a kid but the years has shown the flaws in them to me and they pale compared to the comics that were produced in that same time period. I would say most people know what they think they know about Superman from the Donner movies, Byrne and Singer included.

I think that's seriously over analyzing it. He was raised in a small town in Kansas, that was a part of his back story from the very beginning. Fleshing that out was simply a natural part of developing the character, not a conspiracy to hide his Jewish roots and turn him into a Christian icon.

As I mentioned before, Smallville was moved from the northeast to Kansas by the movie, and it was the movie that stripped away many of Superman's roots and started moving away from the design of Siegel and Shuster that the comics had followed to that point. It may have been a financial decision, as changing the public perception of what Superman is to something substantially different could have helped DC in their copyright claims against them. American Superhero comics are largely a Jewish creation, and they have moved away from that to a certain degree over the years as different people have moved into the field. It's...disappointing that they would be so ignorant of where Superman came from. Another thing Clark represents: the secret lives of the American Jewry in the 20th century, where the ethnicity was hidden under romanized names, privately Jewish, publicly American. Clark Kent is basically Woody Allen. The movie switched all this and cast Jor-El as God and Superman as Jesus when the correct allegory is Jor-El is a Noah who failed and Superman is Moses/Golem/Samson.

No. It wasn't. At all. Richard Donner took the movie very seriously. It was one of the first comic book adaptations to actually try and make a good movie as opposed to a cheap action fest with corny jokes.

Donner tried but too much of the camp in the script leaked through and he didn't have anyone to teach him about Superman. I guess they didn't presume to have the right.

A few points...

1: Batman isn't Batman at all times. Bruce Wayne? Hello?

2: People rarely bring up Diana's secret identity because, for most of the past 25 years, she hasn't had one, and has been better off for it.

Bruce Wayne is nothing to Batman except a tool. He's not an alternate personality that Batman needs to operate. As far as Diana, yeah they did abandon it and I think that was a mistake, but even before then (and I was reading comics then), no one seemed to care. Maybe it was because Steve Trevor was never as interesting as Lois, maybe it was because the genders were different.

But back to Superman... I kind of agree that Clark doesn't know exactly which him is the real him, but I have to go back to my old point... it's because they're all the real him. He is Clark Kent. He is Superman. These are vital aspects of who he is. You say that when Clark Kent isn't a construct, it robs the character of complexity. I disagree, I think it adds complexity. On the one hand, he has to act timid and quiet while at work and Big and heroic while Superman-ing in order to maintain his lifestyle. On the other hand, there is a part of him that is just timid and quiet, and is big and heroic, and over time the lines between the act and his real identity have been blurred. To say that he is really Superman and Clark Kent is an act, that's simplistic. To say that he really is Superman and he really is Clark Kent and they're both, on some level, constructs, that is complexity. And it's real, and it's human, and it's relatable and inspiring at the same time.

Pretty much agree here. I would also like to add that I think Superman sees humility as a virtue, and Clark's defining characteristic is humility. Putting an ass like Steve Lombard in his place is a little moral victory that I think Superman enjoys. Superman fights for the little guy.

He's not written as a naive man child or close to retarded, and his intellectual side has been played up enormously over the years. Some writers portray him as a dumb jack ass, but in his main book and in most mainstream DCU books, he's portrayed as an intelligent, insightful, caring person with simple tastes and strong morals. I don't see where you're getting this impression of his mainstream portrayal, unless the only things you've read of him were done by Frank Miller.

Post-Crisis he has often been written in such a manner by plenty of writers. Some writers have written him with more maturity and intelligence than others, but too many people allowed themselves to be influenced by what Miller did to him in DKR. DKR was where the country boy "Clark", as his Batman would sneeringly call him, was created. A lot of people got sadistic joy at seeing Superman getting humiliated and owned in that series, and Byrne drew influence from it. The current Superman comics are somewhat different, as the character has been in a flux phase since Birthright and has yet to be completely repaired. Miller and Byrne destroyed almost 50 years of work on Superman with just 10 comics. It will take decades to fix what they wrecked if it ever does get fixed. But that will take a combination of work and will that I don't know they are capable of or willing to do to be honest. They do seem to have a clue that there is a problem...a high profile movie that removes most of the mistakes would be a good start, but reports are they plan to go with the flawed and failed direction of the 80's.

[That person]

But that's the thing. He was Kal first, but the first name he can remember having is Clark. Yes, he's not human, but his human disguise is still an integral part of his identity, not just some act.

Of course. I'm not trying to downplay it, just to point out that it is, as you said, a disguise, and that it has been for as long as he's needed to fit in among people.

[The Question]

As I mentioned before, Smallville was moved from the northeast to Kansas by the movie, and it was the movie that stripped away many of Superman's roots and started moving away from the design of Siegel and Shuster that the comics had followed to that point. It may have been a financial decision, as changing the public perception of what Superman is to something substantially different could have helped DC in their copyright claims against them. American Superhero comics are largely a Jewish creation, and they have moved away from that to a certain degree over the years as different people have moved into the field. It's...disappointing that they would be so ignorant of where Superman came from. Another thing Clark represents: the secret lives of the American Jewry in the 20th century, where the ethnicity was hidden under romanized names, privately Jewish, publicly American. Clark Kent is basically Woody Allen. The movie switched all this and case Jor-El as God and Superman as Jesus when the correct allegory is Jor-El is a Noah who failed and Superman is Moses/Golem/Samson.

So what if Smallville was moved from the Northeast to Kansas. It doesn't change anything. He's still a guy from a rural town moving to the big city.

Again, you're over analyzing it. The biggest stretch is saying Jor-El was cast as God. He was far from God like. I also find the Moses allegory suspect.

Donner tried but too much of the camp in the script leaked through and he didn't have anyone to teach him about Superman. I guess they didn't presume to have the right.

He seemed to know quite a lot about Superman. Making changes for artistic reasons isn't the same as not knowing the material. And it doesn't change the fact that the movies were not a parody.

Bruce Wayne is nothing to Batman except a tool. He's not an alternate personality that Batman needs to operate. As far as Diana, yeah they did abandon it and I think that was a mistake, but even before then (and I was reading comics then), no one seemed to care. Maybe it was because Steve Trevor was never as interesting as Lois, maybe it was because the genders were different.

I don't agree with you about Batman. That idea just seems too simplistic. The fact is that he is Bruce Wayne, heir to the Wayne family fortune and son of Thomas and Martha Wayne. That means something to him. Yes, he's a lot more obsessive than Superman, but he has ties to the normal parts of his life, like Alfred.

Post-Crisis he has often been written in such a manner by plenty of writers. Some writers have written him with more maturity and intelligence than others, but too many people allowed themselves to be influenced by what Miller did to him in DKR. DKR was where the country boy "Clark", as his Batman would sneeringly call him, was created. A lot of people got sadistic joy at seeing Superman getting humiliated and owned in that series, and Byrne drew influence from it. The current Superman comics are somewhat different, as the character has been in a flux phase since Birthright and has yet to be completely repaired. Miller and Byrne destroyed almost 50 years of work on Superman with just 10 comics. It will take decades to fix what they wrecked if it ever does get fixed. But that will take a combination of work and will that I don't know they are capable of or willing to do to be honest. They do seem to have a clue that there is a problem...a high profile movie that removes most of the mistakes would be a good start, but reports are they plan to go with the flawed and failed direction of the 80's.

I don't see it. I have consistently seen Superman portrayed as an intelligent, mature, highly moral person who commands the respect of the people around him. Yes, he's a country boy, but that's not a bad thing. That doesn't mean he's a hick, it means he's a humble person with strong morals who enjoys the simple things in life. He certainly hasn't been portrayed as borderline retarded. COuld you give me some examples of what your talking about outside of Frank Miller?

Of course. I'm not trying to downplay it, just to point out that it is, as you said, a disguise, and that it has been for as long as he's needed to fit in among people.

It's a disguise, but it's also who he really is. The man has layers.

[C. Lee]

I think if you had grown up reading Superman as he was written from 1938-1986 you would see it differently. Of course a huge difference then is that although he grew up on a farm and then in a small town, Smallville was portrayed as being relatively close to Metropolis and not in Kansas, which was an invention of the movies. They have way overemphasized the idea of Clark as a hick from the country since the 1978 parody. And for the record, I live in a mid-sized town and never have lived in either a rural environment or a major city.

I started reading Superman in the 60's.

They didn't make him a hick from the country...the people from the city just naturally assumed he was a hick because he was from the country....because that's what every movie, tv show, book, portrays...city slickers thinking the guy from the country is a hick...stereotype upon stereotype.

I see that "parody of 1978" is your mantra of the week.

I have lived in both, and a few inbetween. From a country town of less than 200 to Orlando, Florida.


Lois and Clark doesn't. The movie did. In the movie both Superman and Clark are total parodies, and somewhat mean spirited at that. I loved the original movies as a kid but the years has shown the flaws in them to me and they pale compared to the comics that were produced in that same time period. I would say most people know what they think they know about Superman from the Donner movies, Byrne and Singer included.Not sure what movie you were watching. In the Donner movie...Clark is a bumbling, stumbling, "Oh Gee", naive, farmboy....WHEN FOOLING THE BIG CITY PEOPLE BY ACTING THAT WAY. He is obviously not really the way he acts (such as when he acts likes hes stumbling to obscure that he is catching a bullet)...that kind of thing.

And Superman in the movie...he's noble, heroic, self sacrificing, nice, friendly......I don't really see what there is to complain about there.

[Lead Cenobite]

But that's the thing. He was Kal first, but the first name he can remember having is Clark. Yes, he's not human, but his human disguise is still an integral part of his identity, not just some act.

I believe there was a time in the comics when Clark could actually remember being on Krypton, but I prefer the interpretation where he doesn't become aware of his alien heritage till he's older. To me, no matter which identity is considered the true ID, Superman should have a human personality and not fly around shouting "great Krypton" or "great Rao". Still, I do think Superman should care about Krypton and love his biological parents, as opposed to the Byrne interpretation where he has a big freakout over finding out he's alien and then brushes his heritage under the rug and tries to forget about it.

[The Question]

I believe there was a time in the comics when Clark could actually remember being on Krypton, but I prefer the interpretation where he doesn't become aware of his alien heritage till he's older. To me, no matter which identity is considered the true ID, Superman should have a human personality and not fly around shouting "great Krypton" or "great Rao". Still, I do think Superman should care about Krypton and love his biological parents, as opposed to the Byrne interpretation where he has a big freakout over finding out he's alien and then brushes his heritage under the rug and tries to forget about it.

Yeah, my biggest problems with Byrne's reboot were Krypton being so obviously douchey and Lex's purely "I want money" personality. I mean, Krypton should be kinda douchey, why else would they be so stubborn as to not listen to Jor-El, and Lex should like money, but it should be a little more subtle on the part of Krypton, and Lex should have more complex motivations.

However, I do absolutely love how his Krypton looked. Regardless of how the society is portrayed, I think all adaptations of Superman should have the aesthetics of Byrne's Krypton.

[Lead Cenobite]

Something that takes after the aesthetics of the Byrne Krypton without it being a barren wasteland/ice planet maybe.

[Kurosawa]

But that's the thing. He was Kal first, but the first name he can remember having is Clark. Yes, he's not human, but his human disguise is still an integral part of his identity, not just some act.

In the Silver/Bronze Age he knew he was Kryptonian due to his power of total recall.

So what if Smallville was moved from the Northeast to Kansas. It doesn't change anything. He's still a guy from a rural town moving to the big city.

Again, you're over analyzing it. The biggest stretch is saying Jor-El was cast as God. He was far from God like. I also find the Moses allegory suspect.

Many scholars would disagree with you. And moving from a small rural town that bordered on suburbia is different than coming from a the middle of nowhere.

He seemed to know quite a lot about Superman. Making changes for artistic reasons isn't the same as not knowing the material. And it doesn't change the fact that the movies were not a parody.

He knew a fair amount, but the original script was a complete joke and he couldn't fix but so much of it. And yes, I think some of the changes-like getting away from the beautiful, Alex Raymond inspired Krypton and going to the Crystal castles Krypton were made for "creative" reasons. First thing I remember about the movie: they got Krypton wrong. It didn't look a thing like the comics.

I don't agree with you about Batman. That idea just seems too simplistic. The fact is that he is Bruce Wayne, heir to the Wayne family fortune and son of Thomas and Martha Wayne. That means something to him. Yes, he's a lot more obsessive than Superman, but he has ties to the normal parts of his life, like Alfred.

He was born Bruce Wayne, he is Batman because of his parent's loss but Bruce Wayne died when Thomas and Martha Wayne died IMO.

I don't see it. I have consistently seen Superman portrayed as an intelligent, mature, highly moral person who commands the respect of the people around him. Yes, he's a country boy, but that's not a bad thing. That doesn't mean he's a hick, it means he's a humble person with strong morals who enjoys the simple things in life. He certainly hasn't been portrayed as borderline retarded. COuld you give me some examples of what your talking about outside of Frank Miller?

Most of what Byrne wrote was that way as well. Even stuff that I like such as A Superman for All Seasons have a bit too much of it. Constant references to him as "Smallville" by Lois and others...there's lots of examples, but you've never noticed them because that is the only Superman you've ever known. To you Superman has always been this farm boy character. To me it is a new thing and not a change I care for.

I started reading Superman in the 60's.

They didn't make him a hick from the country...the people from the city just naturally assumed he was a hick because he was from the country....because that's what every movie, tv show, book, portrays...city slickers thinking the guy from the country is a hick...stereotype upon stereotype.

No one ever treated him like that before, however. Maybe it's partially more recent writers not only misunderstanding that rural people are not all ignorant hicks, but also that city people are not all insufferable asses?

I see that "parody of 1978" is your mantra of the week.

I have lived in both, and a few inbetween. From a country town of less than 200 to Orlando, Florida.

I have had a love/hate relationship about the original movie for years and even as a kid things in it annoyed me.

Not sure what movie you were watching. In the Donner movie...Clark is a bumbling, stumbling, "Oh Gee", naive, farmboy....WHEN FOOLING THE BIG CITY PEOPLE BY ACTING THAT WAY. He is obviously not really the way he acts (such as when he acts likes hes stumbling to obscure that he is catching a bullet)...that kind of thing.

And Superman in the movie...he's noble, heroic, self sacrificing, nice, friendly......I don't really see what there is to complain about there.

I thought they took it too far with Clark. Too much slapstick for my taste in some scenes. I don't want to see that Clark really. And Superman was just way too goody-goody for me and came off wimpish at times. I guess you could chalk some of it up to the idea that he had just started as Superman and was a novice at the time. I also despised that scene in II where he loses his powers and gets the crap kicked out of him in the diner. And the scene where they kick the crap out of him in Returns sucked as well. They wanted to do a scene like that to Bruce Wayne in the 1989 Batman and Bob Kane (who I am no fan of) got them to stop it...I wish they had involved Jerry Siegel in the movies somehow like they did with Kane.

[Kurosawa]

what i'm trying to say is clark has hidden his true nature for all his life, the fact that he's an alien and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, that he has basically pretended to be someone he isn't to some degree.

If he lived his life using his powers in front of the whole world as clark kent, he'd likely be a different person. I mean, superpowers aren't something you can just turn off.

It's like superman's cardboard speech on jlu. He has to put effort into acting like he's a normal man, to not hurt anyone or to not ace every single thing he does, whether it be school, work, or sports.

^^this.

[The Question]

Many scholars would disagree with you. And moving from a small rural town that bordered on suburbia is different than coming from a the middle of nowhere.

Okay. It would be more helpful to hear what their arguments would be.

And, like, I guess it's different. ALthough Smallville has never been portrayed as being in the middle of nowhere. The Kent family farm often has, being set a good few miles away from the main part of town, but the town has always been portrayed as within a reasonable driving distance to other larger places.

He knew a fair amount, but the original script was a complete joke and he couldn't fix but so much of it. And yes, I think some of the changes-like getting away from the beautiful, Alex Raymond inspired Krypton and going to the Crystal castles Krypton were made for "creative" reasons. First thing I remember about the movie: they got Krypton wrong. It didn't look a thing like the comics.

So they changed the aesthetic of Krypton. I personally never liked the old Kryptonian aesthetic. I thought it looked too silly.

He was born Bruce Wayne, he is Batman because of his parent's loss but Bruce Wayne died when Thomas and Martha Wayne died IMO.

That sounds nice and poetical, but grief and trauma are never that simple.

Most of what Byrne wrote was that way as well. Even stuff that I like such as A Superman for All Seasons have a bit too much of it. Constant references to him as "Smallville" by Lois and others...there's lots of examples, but you've never noticed them because that is the only Superman you've ever known. To you Superman has always been this farm boy character. To me it is a new thing and not a change I care for.

How is people calling him Smallville a sign of writers portraying him as a borderline retarded hick? That's just Lois being snarky at Clark, something she's always been. It's just that now they've given her snarkiness a catch phrase, one that makes sense for both characters.

[Kurosawa]

Okay. It would be more helpful to hear what their arguments would be.

And, like, I guess it's different. ALthough Smallville has never been portrayed as being in the middle of nowhere. The Kent family farm often has, being set a good few miles away from the main part of town, but the town has always been portrayed as within a reasonable driving distance to other larger places.

I just posted several comments on Clark previously, and there has been several books and essays written concerning Superman both as a Christ Figure and as a Hebrew Icon. Donner, Tom Mankiewicz and Ilya Salkind have all commented on the Christian symbolism in the original movie. Up Up and Oy Vey : How Jewish History, Culture and Values Shaped the Comic Book Superhero by Rabbi Simcha Weinstein discusses the parallels between the comic book superheroes and the men who created them and how their Jewish heritage was reflected in it. It's well worth a read, as is Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book.

Another note: when Clark got older, they moved away from the farm and Jonathan Kent instead ran a general store. Similar setting, but I think they wanted to get away from the farm image.

So they changed the aesthetic of Krypton. I personally never liked the old Kryptonian aesthetic. I thought it looked too silly.

Original Krypton was awesome to me both in terms of quality and because it referenced Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon designs which is a huge part of where superhero comics came from.

That sounds nice and poetical, but grief and trauma are never that simple.

Bruce Wayne is not an alternate personality to Batman to anywhere near the degree Clark Kent is for Superman. Bruce Wayne became Batman but Superman was born Superman.

How is people calling him Smallville a sign of writers portraying him as a borderline retarded hick? That's just Lois being snarky at Clark, something she's always been. It's just that now they've given her snarkiness a catch phrase, one that makes sense for both characters.

It's always annoyed me because it is the writers pushing it in the faces of fans like me that they had gotten rid of the 1938-1986 character when they decided they didn't care about their heritage. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about it, but it's always came off as a slap in the face. I'd rather Clark be treated and insulted as a wimp or a coward than a farmer boy.

[The Question]

I just posted several comments on Clark previously, and there has been several books and essays written concerning Superman both as a Christ Figure and as a Hebrew Icon. Donner, Tom Mankiewicz and Ilya Salkind have all commented on the Christian symbolism in the original movie.

Another note: when Clark got older, they moved away from the farm and Jonathan Kent instead ran a general store. Similar setting, but I think they wanted to get away from the farm image.

That happened for a little while in the Superboy comics. But I don't tend to think about the Superboy comics very much.

Original Krypton was awesome to me both in terms of quality and because it referenced Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon designs which is a huge part of where superhero comics came from.

Jor-El wearing a headband and a cape was just never something I could get into. I actually do enjoy Alex Raymond style aesthetics a lot, but it just never worked for Krypton in my mind. Aesthetically, my favorite Krypton is John Byrne's. How they were written kind of sucked (although there were parts of Byrne's Krypton's history I liked), but I absolutely loved how it looked. It still had a cheesy pulp sci-fi vibe going on, but it felt more organic and I personally had an easier time taking it seriously.

Bruce Wayne is not an alternate personality to Batman to anywhere near the degree Clark Kent is for Superman. Bruce Wayne became Batman but Superman was born Superman.

He wasn't born Superman. He was born super, but he had to grow up into Superman. He could have just as easily turned into a colossal douchebag or a neurotic wreck of a person if he'd been raised under different circumstances.

It's always annoyed me because it is the writers pushing it in the faces of fans like me that they had gotten rid of the 1938-1986 character when they decided they didn't care about their heritage. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about it, but it's always came off as a slap in the face. I'd rather Clark be treated and insulted as a wimp or a coward than a farmer boy.

It has nothing to do with them forgetting their heritage. Clark is from Smallville. Lois likes making fun of Clark. Lois is the type who would look down on rural towns for not being as awesome as big cities, as well as the type who would belittle people by not bothering to use their names. Hence, she calls him Smallville. It then evolves into a term of endearment over time. It just makes sense for the characters.

[That-Guy]

George Lucas' Superman Alternate Costume

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q145/Danielburt/Superman/DarthSuperman.jpg

Hey, at least he's a better choice than Hayden Christiansen. :woot:

[Kurosawa]

That happened for a little while in the Superboy comics. But I don't tend to think about the Superboy comics very much.

Yeah, for about 30 years it was set up that way in Superboy comics.

Jor-El wearing a headband and a cape was just never something I could get into. I actually do enjoy Alex Raymond style aesthetics a lot, but it just never worked for Krypton in my mind. Aesthetically, my favorite Krypton is John Byrne's. How they were written kind of sucked (although there were parts of Byrne's Krypton's history I liked), but I absolutely loved how it looked. It still had a cheesy pulp sci-fi vibe going on, but it felt more organic and I personally had an easier time taking it seriously.

Byrne's Krypton from design to characterization has always disgusted me. I hate his costume designs apart from Alpha Flight. The only thing I ever cared for on his Superman run was some of his action scenes. I can stomach it as a guild in the Johns compromise, although when I think of Jor-El, I think cape and headband always. I just thought it was awesome looking.

He wasn't born Superman. He was born super, but he had to grow up into Superman. He could have just as easily turned into a colossal douchebag or a neurotic wreck of a person if he'd been raised under different circumstances.

Yeah, that is true. That's part of why I love the bit in Maggin's second novel where Jor-El sends a message ahead to Einstein and Einstein selects the Kents as parents. That particular take is unworkable now but I think Jor-El wouldn't be so irresponsible as to send Kal-El to Earth without an idea of who should raise him. Smallville touched on this too. In the Silver Age comics, Jor-El watched Earth and the Kents in particular. While it was of course somewhat silly, the idea that Jor-El was impressed by Jonathan Kent is really really cool and I like the idea that they were chosen.

It has nothing to do with them forgetting their heritage. Clark is from Smallville. Lois likes making fun of Clark. Lois is the type who would look down on rural towns for not being as awesome as big cities, as well as the type who would belittle people by not bothering to use their names. Hence, she calls him Smallville. It then evolves into a term of endearment over time. It just makes sense for the characters.

I meant the writers and artists forgetting the heritage of the comics that came before them.

[The Question]

Yeah, for about 30 years it was set up that way in Superboy comics.

Are you certain? Granted I didn't read a lot of Superboy comics, but I read a lot more than most people of my generation, and I got the impression that the convenience store angle didn't come up very often.

In any event, I don't think having Jonathan run a convenience store was to distance themselves from the farming, I think it was just more convenient for the Kents to be closer to downtown Smallville for story reasons.

Yeah, that is true. That's part of why I love the bit in Maggin's second novel where Jor-El sends a message ahead to Einstein and Einstein selects the Kents as parents. That particular take is unworkable now but I think Jor-El wouldn't be so irresponsible to send Kal-El to Earth without an idea of who should raise him. Smallville touched on this too. In the Silver Age comics, Jor-El watched Earth and the Kents in particular. While it was of course somewhat silly, the idea that Jor-El was impressed by Jonathan Kent is really really cool and I like the idea they were chosen.

I don't mind the idea of them being chosen. I just think the only way it would work is if Jor-El contacted them in some way. It certainly wouldn't work with them finding the baby in the ship on the side of the road.

But all in all I kind of like that Jor-El's final act was a desperate one to save his son. And in most versions he left some kind of computer doohiky to help guide Kal-El's upbringing if he never found a proper home. It just ended up being unnecessary until Clark needed to built the Fortress.

I meant the writers and artists forgetting the heritage of the comics that came before them.

I get that. But what does Lois calling Clark Smallville have to do with that?

I also disagree with you on principal with that. As the years went by, more and more writers and artists were people who grew up reading Superman and other comics. They know the heritage better than anybody.


EDIT: Also, I forgot to ask, why do you think getting rid of Wonder Woman's secret identity was a mistake?

[That-Guy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/that-guy/superocket.jpg?t=1283488817

[Kurosawa]

Are you certain? Granted I didn't read a lot of Superboy comics, but I read a lot more than most people of my generation, and I got the impression that the convenience store angle didn't come up very often.

In any event, I don't think having Jonathan run a convenience store was to distance themselves from the farming, I think it was just more convenient for the Kents to be closer to downtown Smallville for story reasons.

Yeah, I have Adventure Issues from the mid-50's and they were off the farm by then. The whole farm thing was never referenced much in Superboy stories. Clark was already nebbish in them. It was never important until the movie.

I don't mind the idea of them being chosen. I just think the only way it would work is if Jor-El contacted them in some way. It certainly wouldn't work with them finding the baby in the ship on the side of the road.

But all in all I kind of like that Jor-El's final act was a desperate one to save his son. And in most versions he left some kind of computer doohiky to help guide Kal-El's upbringing if he never found a proper home. It just ended up being unnecessary until Clark needed to built the Fortress.

Usually it's just treated as a total matter of chance, but I do kinda like the idea that he wouldn't just send Kal-El to Earth and just hoped it worked out...I can see both ways really. Fortunately Tony Soprano wasn't taking a country drive that day I guess.

I get that. But what does Lois calling Clark Smallville have to do with that?

I also disagree with you on principal with that. As the years went by, more and more writers and artists were people who grew up reading Superman and other comics. They know the heritage better than anybody.

It gets on my nerves. Plus she never got a good comeuppance for it like she would for other taunts of Clark. The fun of Clark is he catches all that flak but gets people back from time to time. And if the current writers and artists knew the heritage it only showed in how much of it they got rid of. I'll never believe John Byrne knew jack about Superman comics past the TV show, the movie and what Stan told him. If nothing else, he bought the Marvel line on Golden/Silver/Bronze Age Superman hook, line and sinker.


EDIT: Also, I forgot to ask, why do you think getting rid of Wonder Woman's secret identity was a mistake?

I'm not a big fan of superheroes who don't have secret identities past Elongated Man and the FF. And I like the chicks in glasses look. And I like the Lynda Carter spin transformation. Or maybe it's just Lynda Carter that I like. :oldrazz:

[The Question]

Yeah, I have Adventure Issues from the mid-50's and they were off the farm by then. The whole farm thing was never referenced much in Superboy stories. Clark was already nebbish in them. It was never important until the movie.

I was never a huge fan of the Superboy comics myself. I always preferred the idea that Clark didn't become Superman until early adulthood. But then I'm a sucker for coming of age stories.

Usually it's just treated as a total matter of chance, but I do kinda like the idea that he wouldn't just send Kal-El to Earth and just hoped it worked out...I can see both ways really. Fortunately Tony Soprano wasn't taking a country drive that day I guess.

They actually did a story with that once. It involved clones made from space gas and other such silver age silliness, but it had an exact duplicate of Superman being raised by a pair of gangsters. It wasn't actually very good, though.

It gets on my nerves. Plus she never got a good comeuppance for it like she would for other taunts of Clark. The fun of Clark is he catches all that flak but gets people back from time to time.

I've never really seen a need for Lois to get comeuppance for it. In part because being called Smallville isn't something Clark would be ofended by, in part because it does become a term of endearment as their relationship develops, and in part because I prefer a Superman who's above getting back at people for petty stuff like that. As both a journalist and a super hero, he has much larger concerns, and as an intelligent and mature individual, he doesn't really see a point in petty revenge.

And if the current writers and artists knew the heritage it only showed in how much of it they got rid of. I'll never believe John Byrne knew jack about Superman comics past the TV show, the movie and what Stan told him. If nothing else, he bought the Marvel line on Golden/Silver/Bronze Age Superman hook, line and sinker.

Just because he had a different opinion of the character than you doesn't mean he didn't do his research. And the fact is, John Byrne is not the only person who ever wrote Superman since 1986, and a large number of those people were fanboys from an early age.

As for the thing about Marvel's line about silver age Superman... I have to say, Marvel was kind of right. While there were undeniably some gems for Superman during the silver age, the majority of his stories of that era weren't very good. They were silly and stupid. You had Superman dressing like a witch doctor and Lois and Lana Lang having petty battles for Superman's affections and being all around flat, boring characters defined only by how much they wanted to jump his bones. It got better in the 70s, no doubt about it, but the 50s and 60s weren't Supes' finest hours.

I'm not a big fan of superheroes who don't have secret identities past Elongated Man and the FF. And I like the chicks in glasses look. And I liked the Lynda Carter spin transformation. Or maybe it's just Lynda Carter that I liked. :oldrazz:

I just don't see a point in Diana having a secret identity. Like, maybe at first, just to blend in and get to know the world before she starts trying to make waves, but all in all she only had it because of tradition, not because she needed one. I thought she was at her best when they dropped it and played up her political role.

[Kurosawa]

I was never a huge fan of the Superboy comics myself. I always preferred the idea that Clark didn't become Superman until early adulthood. But then I'm a sucker for coming of age stories.

I can take or leave Superboy although if I were in charge of the movies, I'd use him...and do a LoSH spinoff.

They actually did a story with that once. It involved clones made from space gas and other such silver age silliness, but it had an exact duplicate of Superman being raised by a pair of gangsters. It wasn't actually very good, though.

Yeah, I remember that one.

I've never really seen a need for Lois to get comeuppance for it. In part because being called Smallville isn't something Clark would be ofended by, in part because it does become a term of endearment as their relationship develops, and in part because I prefer a Superman who's above getting back at people for petty stuff like that. As both a journalist and a super hero, he has much larger concerns, and as an intelligent and mature individual, he doesn't really see a point in petty revenge.

Superman should never be above making sure jackasses get theirs. Main thing is it to me is tied into the whole farmboy thing that I dislike. And I think it's a stupid nickname.

Just because he had a different opinion of the character than you doesn't mean he didn't do his research. And the fact is, John Byrne is not the only person who ever wrote Superman since 1986, and a large number of those people were fanboys from an early age.

It's pretty clear from his stories that he didn't know jack about 1938-1986 Superman. Like in the pocket universe fiasco where he had his Superman kill the Phantom Zone villains and he misused Gold K. If a Kryptonian has their powers taken away with Gold K, then Green K is harmless to them. Byrne and Mike Carlin (who also doesn't know jack) failed to research that fact. He just doesn't know what he's doing. And a lot of current writers who were fanboys come off like they didn't know comics existed before 1985, including the alleged continuity expert Geoff Johns.

As for the thing about Marvel's line about silver age Superman... I have to say, Marvel was kind of right. While there were undeniably some gems for Superman during the silver age, the majority of his stories of that era weren't very good. They were silly and stupid. You had Superman dressing like a witch doctor and Lois and Lana Lang having petty battles for Superman's affections and being all around flat, boring characters defined only by how much they wanted to jump his bones. It got better in the 70s, no doubt about it, but the 50s and 60s weren't Supes' finest hours.

Stan spouted that stuff because DC and Superman in particular, was the competition. All of the silliest stuff was gone by the Bronze Age, not retconned out but written out gracefully. Some of it was silly but then again there's some silly Marvel stuff too. Stan definitely did not have Superman's best interests at heart when he slammed the character and Byrne was a fool to buy into it. But I never trust Marvel guys or Batman guys with Superman anyway. Although Denny O'Neil is one of my favorite writers and he wrote some good Superman stuff, he really couldn't handle the character long-term either. What people instinctively do with Superman is they try to deconstruct him. This is a mistake. It takes a special kind of writer to handle Superman-he is way more difficult to handle than Batman and it shows. As soon as a writer says they cannot handle Superman being extremely powerful, or being a dual personality, or being married...they just need to take another assignment because to me they have proved themselves incapable of writing him.

I just don't see a point in Diana having a secret identity. Like, maybe at first, just to blend in and get to know the world before she starts trying to make waves, but all in all she only had it because of tradition, not because she needed one. I thought she was at her best when they dropped it and played up her political role.

I like superheroes to have secret identities. The only WW stuff I really love is the Golden Age and bits of the Perez run just for the visuals.

[The Question]

Superman should never be above making sure jackasses get theirs.

Why? It's petty and juvenile.

Main thing is it to me is tied into the whole farmboy thing that I dislike. And I think it's a stupid nickname.

Well, the thing is, he is from a farm. He is, technically, a farm boy. I don't see the problem in writers referencing something that is a part of his backstory.

It's pretty clear from his stories that he didn't know jack about 1938-1986 Superman. Like in the pocket universe fiasco where he had his Superman kill the Phantom Zone villains and he misused Gold K. If a Kryptonian has their powers taken away with Gold K, then Green K is harmless to them. Byrne and Mike Carlin (who also doesn't know jack) failed to research that fact. He just doesn't know what he's doing. And a lot of current writers who were fanboys come off like they didn't know comics existed before 1985, including the alleged continuity expert Geoff Johns.

Changing things to suit the story isn't the same thing as not knowing what the deal is in the first place. I think most of the instances of writers forgetting where Superman came from that you're talking about isn't them forgetting anything or not doing research, it's them having done the research and deciding to use aspects of the Superman mythos that haven't been seen for a while for their story but changing them to suit their story.

Stan spouted that stuff because DC and Superman in particular, was the competition. All of the silliest stuff was gone by the Bronze Age, not retconned out but written out gracefully. Some of it was silly but then again there's some silly Marvel stuff too. Stan definitely did not have Superman's best interests at heart when he slammed the character and Byrne was a fool to buy into it. But I never trust Marvel guys or Batman guys with Superman anyway. Although Denny O'Neil is one of my favorite writers and he wrote some good Superman stuff, he really couldn't handle the character long-term either. What people instinctively do with Superman is they try to deconstruct him. This is a mistake. It takes a special kind of writer to handle Superman-he is way more difficult to handle than Batman and it shows. As soon as a writer says they cannot handle Superman being extremely powerful, or being a dual personality, or being married...they just need to take another assignment because to me they have proved themselves incapable of writing him.

He may have been saying that because DC was the competition, but he was right. The 50s and 60s Superman comics weren't good. If by the bronze age what you're referring to is the early to mid 70s and onward, then yes, I agree. But silver age Superman... heck, silver age DC in general... I prefer silver age Marvel to say the least.

I like superheroes to have secret identities. The only WW stuff I really love is the Golden Age and bits of the Perez run just for the visuals.

But why? It doesn't suit every character.

[Kurosawa]

Why? It's petty and juvenile.

Not really. It's part of the entire wish fulfillment angle of Superman.

Well, the thing is, he is from a farm. He is, technically, a farm boy. I don't see the problem in writers referencing something that is a part of his backstory.

It was never a big part of the story before, and I feel making it such an overwhelming part of the characters persona is a bad mistake. It's a small part of his background and his life, not the defining characteristic.

Changing things to suit the story isn't the same thing as not knowing what the deal is in the first place. I think most of the instances of writers forgetting where Superman came from that you're talking about isn't them forgetting anything or not doing research, it's them having done the research and deciding to use aspects of the Superman mythos that haven't been seen for a while for their story but changing them to suit their story.

No chance. They didn't know what they were doing, period. The fact that they had Superman kill proves that. That story is worse than any silly Silver Age story ever printed and is the lowest point in Superman's history IMO.

He may have been saying that because DC was the competition, but he was right. The 50s and 60s Superman comics weren't good. If by the bronze age what you're referring to is the early to mid 70s and onward, then yes, I agree. But silver age Superman... heck, silver age DC in general... I prefer silver age Marvel to say the least.

Superman's Return to Krypton, the Death of Superman, the Super-Key to Fort Superman...there are a ton of awesome Silver Age Superman stories along with some silly ones. Jerry Siegel wrote a ton of awesome stuff in the 60's. But I am actually not a huge Silver Age fan. I am mostly a Golden and Bronze Age fan, and the Silver Age elements I liked best were leftover from the Golden Age. Like the whole Lois/Lana trying to expose Superman's identity? Totally a Silver Age thing. Siegel wrote one story like that in the Golden Age. It's not part of the core and I don't miss it one bit. Those stories to me are wasted stories. Awesome stories like where Superman and Jimmy Olsen go into Kandor and fight crime as Nightwing and Flamebird...that's the kind of Silver Age stuff I like.

But why? It doesn't suit every character.

According to Wonder Woman's creator, it suited her. I am about purity of superheroes to their creators' visions like strict Constitutionalists are about the US Constitution, not to take a political side because I'm not qualified to say who is right about that issue. But I do feel my knowledge of comics is enough to justify my belief that the core concepts of characters that made them successful in the first place are essential to any interpretation.

[hopefuldreamer]

Okay, looks like I left the message boards just at the right time, or i'd have been posting all night!

I'm not gonna get in the way now though, you guys have a flow going.

The difference is that Batman started out as Bruce Wayne and became obsessed with the Batman character to the point of letting it conquer his psyche, but Superman was Kal-L first. He's always been a being with phenomenal powers, and he's had to mask them with the persona of a normal human. Thus, you can't really have a point of "going back," as suggested above. His human upbringing influenced him, certainly (meaning none of this Ancient Kryptonian religion bullspit. He's a Mehodist. Sorry, Kuro.) but at the end of the day he's still a god posing as a man, whose ultimate goal is not to live as one of us, but to be our protector.

We know he was Kal first. As far as Clark is concerned, in his memory, he was Clark first. Before his parents told him how they found him, all he knew was Clark. Yes, finding out who he really was has affected his 'Clarkness' because it made him secretive and guilty a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean he became that Kryptonian boy 'Kal-el'. It just never happened.

My fake quotes there were mainly based on the Donner movies, where he goes off to the fortress and comes out as Superman. And in that sense, there might be a 'going back'... but it was all just to show a hideous comparison.

P.s. I really hope they dont bring religion into it!

[That person]

We know he was Kal first. As far as Clark is concerned, in his memory, he was Clark first. Before his parents told him how they found him, all he knew was Clark. Yes, finding out who he really was has affected his 'Clarkness' because it made him secretive and guilty a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean he became that Kryptonian boy 'Kal-el'. It just never happened.

My fake quotes there were mainly based on the Donner movies, where he goes off to the fortress and comes out as Superman. And in that sense, there might be a 'going back'... but it was all just to show a hideous comparison.
I don't think learning where came from or emerging from the fortress represent becoming Superman as much as learning who he was all along.
P.s. I really hope they dont bring religion into it!
Absolutely. That was just one of the most prominent examples of how Superman's rural Midwestern (or Northeastern) upbringing affected him deeply. On the off-chance that there is a scene that necessitates prayer, I'd rather it be to Christ than Rao, but it would be better to avoid such a scene altogether.

[Kurosawa]

No religion, the last thing they need is a controversy over that. If it was up to me, I'd have him swear by Rao (people convert to different faiths all the time), but then you'd have religious nuts whining about Superman rejecting the Christian God or some such crap, and...that's not a mess you want to get into with any character.

[That person]

No religion, the last thing they need is a controversy over that. If it was up to me, I'd have him swear by Rao (people convert to different faiths all the time), but then you'd have religious nuts whining about Superman rejecting the Christian God or some such crap, and...that's not a mess you want to get into with any character.

Honestly, I don't think people would make a huge deal either way. A brief swear by Rao or a short conversation with a Christian minister a la All Seasons probably would probably offend about as many people as the scene with Venom going to church in Spider-Man 3. It shouldn't be a major plot point, but if it advances the story I don't think it would be harmful to include it in a small capacity.

[SuperDaniel]

Kurosawa saying that Smallville is just a small part of his backstory/history is just PLAIN BS and shows how little he understands Superman. Smallville is supposed to be the paintings of Norman Rockwell brought to life. The best portrayal of all the american dreams and wishes. It is the perfect city for Superman to be raised as the Kents are the best parents.

To deny these roots are just STUPID. And Question, are you still debating with him? He is so stubborn he will never change his mind. He likes Superman being a jackass.

Byrne was the best thing that ever happened to Superman. Before him, the character was a joke, dated and no one could take him serious. I can't read any of these old stories and take them seriously. They are just so dumb compared to today's standards. The period between his run and Death of Superman is probably the best time ever in his history. The stories are so damn good that you have to be a complete fool to ignore that. Eradicator, lost in space, intergang, etc etc.

Byrne did 2things wrong: Making Superman kill and that porn movie bs. Superman didn`t(!) make a porn movie but you shouldnt write a story about that.

The rest is a work of art and Man of Steel will always be in the hearts of many fans as the defining origin for Superman. Because of that, we have the awesome TAS, which is so good that it hurts, and the best portrayal of Lois & Clark relationship ever: Lois & Clark. Forget the movies and SR. People love to criticize that series but they got one fundamental aspect of Superman right: his relationship with Lois. And gave us Teri Hatcher!!!!

He planted the seeds for LexCorp, Superman parents being alive, New Luthor we know nowadays, not the mad scientist stupid fool of pre-crisis, Clark as real as Superman and part of his personality showing more complexity. And finally, somebody took the comics seriously. I cant stand any pre-crisis story besides the Alan Moore ones. They are just so dumb and dated. Golden Age? Superman that doesn`t fly and is a complete *******? No thanks. Silver age? LOL Don`t get me started. Bronze age? A little bit better but not quite.

HAIL BYRNE, ORDWAY, JURGENS AND company!

Now the Superman comics are this huge mess because people like living in the past instead of going to the future and evolving the character.

[hopefuldreamer]

I don't think learning where came from or emerging from the fortress represent becoming Superman as much as learning who he was all along.

I disagree with that so much... learning he is 'Kal-el' isn't learning who he was all along. It's learning who he was BEFORE and who he might have been if his planet hadn't exploded.

But who he is and always will be, is Clark Kent, raised by Jonathon and Martha Kent.

You talk to anyone who's adopted and i'm sure you'd get the same opinion. You don't stop being who you were raised as, just because you find out more about your real parents and where you were born.

[The Question]

And Question, are you still debating with him? He is so stubborn he will never change his mind. He likes Superman being a jackass.

.... huh?


What?

Oh.


Jeez, I've been gone for like, two days or something.

Byrne did 2things wrong: Making Superman kill and that porn movie bs. Superman didn`t(!) make a porn movie but you shouldnt write a story about that.

Eh, Byrne did more things wrong than that. Over simplifying Lex Luthor's backstory and motivations to "greedy businessman who's always been a bastard" and making Krypton such a blatant and unsympathetic dystopia were kind of lame. Now, giving Lex a company and fortune and making him more subtle and skillful in his villainy, and updating Krypton's aesthetic were both really good ideas. It's just that he dropped the ball in terms of characterization for both of them.

[SuperDaniel]

I meant that he layed the foundation for the version of Luthor we all love as many other aspects, the alien look of Krypton, a Clark someone Lois could actually fall for, making the relationship seem more real, No grief in Superman's life to become Superman(parents dieing), etc. The only thing i don`t like about his Krypton is that he got rid of all the back story with jor-el, zod etc. I think Geoff Johns eventually created one that was a sum of all eras and i like it more. I really liked the TAS version of it with Braniac.

[The Question]

He laid the groundwork, but his ideas for what Lex and Krypton should be were kind of lame. I'm glad other writers came a long and fixed it up. Lex having a company and being rich off of his inventions makes sense. It brings his villainy to another level. He always said he was an intellectual villain, and there you have him, for once, fighting smart instead of hard. But that should be a natural extension of him being a genius scientist and criminal mastermind who has a unique vision of how the world should be run, not his defining trait. I'm glad we eventually got portrayals of Luthor that were the best of both worlds.

[SuperDaniel]

Lex Luthor Man of Steel and the unauthorized Biography are probably my 2 favorite Luthor stories ever. Another one that is also good is the one he talks to this waitress in a restaurant. They wouldnt ever be made if it wasn,'t for Byrne. He saved Superman, imo, despite whatever crap Kurosawa says about him. I like everything he brought to Superman: Space plane Constitution, Clark traveling the world, NO SUPERBOY( **** you, Geoff Johns), Lois Lane as a very independent woman and something beyond a damsel in distress, Billionaire Luthor with LexCorp, Kents alive, Aura explanation( I've always thought the costume coming from Krypton was really stupid and never made sense), Clark more relatable instead of a bumblin fool. There are so many good stories written in that period.

[Kurosawa]

Kurosawa saying that Smallville is just a small part of his backstory/history is just PLAIN BS and shows how little he understands Superman. Smallville is supposed to be the paintings of Norman Rockwell brought to life. The best portrayal of all the american dreams and wishes. It is the perfect city for Superman to be raised as the Kents are the best parents.

To deny these roots are just STUPID. And Question, are you still debating with him? He is so stubborn he will never change his mind. He likes Superman being a jackass.

Byrne was the best thing that ever happened to Superman. Before him, the character was a joke, dated and no one could take him serious. I can't read any of these old stories and take them seriously. They are just so dumb compared to today's standards. The period between his run and Death of Superman is probably the best time ever in his history. The stories are so damn good that you have to be a complete fool to ignore that. Eradicator, lost in space, intergang, etc etc.

Byrne did 2things wrong: Making Superman kill and that porn movie bs. Superman didn`t(!) make a porn movie but you shouldnt write a story about that.

The rest is a work of art and Man of Steel will always be in the hearts of many fans as the defining origin for Superman. Because of that, we have the awesome TAS, which is so good that it hurts, and the best portrayal of Lois & Clark relationship ever: Lois & Clark. Forget the movies and SR. People love to criticize that series but they got one fundamental aspect of Superman right: his relationship with Lois. And gave us Teri Hatcher!!!!

He planted the seeds for LexCorp, Superman parents being alive, New Luthor we know nowadays, not the mad scientist stupid fool of pre-crisis, Clark as real as Superman and part of his personality showing more complexity. And finally, somebody took the comics seriously. I cant stand any pre-crisis story besides the Alan Moore ones. They are just so dumb and dated. Golden Age? Superman that doesn`t fly and is a complete *******? No thanks. Silver age? LOL Don`t get me started. Bronze age? A little bit better but not quite.

HAIL BYRNE, ORDWAY, JURGENS AND company!

Now the Superman comics are this huge mess because people like living in the past instead of going to the future and evolving the character.

Disgree with everything you wrote but I realize this is just an attempt to flamebait. You hate Superman from 38-86, there is no changing that. Our arguments are a prime example of the huge schism in the Superman fanbase, one Batman fortunately doesn't have. I could refer you to great Superman comics and Maggin's awesome novels, but you choose to believe what Stan taught Byrne and what Byrne taught you: that Superman sucks and to be good he has to be changed to something that is not Superman.

[SuperDaniel]

whatever, man. You keep your opinions and i'll keep mine. I actually read those novels and read the comics. But I just cant stand his vision on Clark Kent that is a complete act. Or even the Reeve movies. Byrne, Jurgens and company did better. Just look at any story drawn by Tom Grummet. It is so good that it hurts.

HAIL BYRNE and company!

Byrne laid an amazing groundwork and everything that came after him was even better!

[Kurosawa]

whatever, man. You keep your opinions and i'll keep mine.

HAIL BYRNE!

Agreed.

HAIL SIEGEL AND SHUSTER (who actually created Superman)!!

[SuperDaniel]

Not the best version of him, THOUGH. Thank god the character has evolved BEYOND the original creators!

[Kurosawa]

Not the best version of him, THOUGH. Thank god the character has evolved BEYOND the original creators!

You're right...Maggin wrote some great stuff with him before it ended in 1986. And just recently, Grant Morrison wrote some nice stories in All-Star Superman, which is the 21st Century template.

[Nimibro]

i had an idae: why won't he'll have no pupils, his eyes completley white (it'll give a more alien-ish effect), and while he's clarck, he'd wear prostethic ears and contact eye lenses (for the pupils)?

[TheCalling]

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p202/LiveToWin/supesmakes.jpg

[The Question]

Lex Luthor Man of Steel and the unauthorized Biography are probably my 2 favorite Luthor stories ever. Another one that is also good is the one he talks to this waitress in a restaurant. They wouldnt ever be made if it wasn,'t for Byrne. He saved Superman, imo, despite whatever crap Kurosawa says about him. I like everything he brought to Superman: Space plane Constitution, Clark traveling the world, NO SUPERBOY( **** you, Geoff Johns), Lois Lane as a very independent woman and something beyond a damsel in distress, Billionaire Luthor with LexCorp, Kents alive, Aura explanation( I've always thought the costume coming from Krypton was really stupid and never made sense), Clark more relatable instead of a bumblin fool. There are so many good stories written in that period.

Jeez, I really don't like the unofficial biography. Largely because of how Lex sums up his motives at the end. It's just so simple and so blatantly and uninterestingly evil. He's by no stretch a good person, but Lex has more layers than that. I like Man of Steel better because it's about said layers.

I won't deny that Byrne did a lot of good things for Superman, but he was not the best Superman writer, he just set the standard for what better Superman writers worked with and improved on.

[DavidTyler]

What Kurosawa fails to acknowledge (...and I've pointed this out to him so many times that I don't know why I keep trying) is that the Superman books were some of the lowest selling books on the shelves until DC asked Byrne to revamp the character. It was either fix the problem or let Superman become a dim memory.

Yeah, I get it... Kuro is a huge fan of anything that doesn't disrupt his childhood image of the character but there are so many of us that also grew up with the character that couldn't sit thru another lame Bippo the superchimp/Lois as a cliche trying to discover Superman's secret identity/Luthor with yet another lame scheme and gadget. DC was trying hard to make Superman a more interesting read. They tried to do some things with the character under the last part of Curt Swan's run but the problem was there were too many barnacles on boat to allow it to sail. It even got to the point where - not only was Clark NOT the last son of Krypton, it seemed the only Kryptonians who didn't die were Jor-el and Lara. Luthor was just a cliche mad scientist. In an attempt to make him more of a threat they gave him the power suit. Fortunately, that part of the attempt survived into Corporate Shark Luthor. Anyone here remember the goofy Lynx arc? The Superman continuity just needed to be scraped clean and add the better elements back in a way that made sense and just wasn't silly.

So... here I go again (Hey, I played that last night in the club... the audience went nuts!) trying to bring K into the light... I should just call it a lost cause and move on.

[TruerToTheCore]

What Kurosawa fails to acknowledge (...and I've pointed this out to him so many times that I don't know why I keep trying) is that the Superman books were some of the lowest selling books on the shelves until DC asked Byrne to revamp the character. It was either fix the problem or let Superman become a dim memory.

Not true at all. He wasn't the top star anymore, compared to many Marvel books, but becoming a "dim memory"? seriously?

Yeah, I get it... Kuro is a huge fan of anything that doesn't disrupt his childhood image of the character but there are so many of us that also grew up with the character that couldn't sit thru another lame Bippo the superchimp/Lois as a cliche trying to discover Superman's secret identity/Luthor with yet another lame scheme and gadget.

You always confuse the Silver Age with the Bronze Age. That said, story elements did repeat because their was a steady influx of new readers while many other grew out. You are comparing two completely different states of the industry.


DC was trying hard to make Superman a more interesting read. They tried to do some things with the character under the last part of Curt Swan's run but the problem was there were too many barnacles on boat to allow it to sail.

Those last parts of the Swan run weren't the result of DC trying to do new things with Superman, BTW. Back then, when writers and artists didn't turn in their work three months after the scheduled release every issue was already produced at least half a year in advance. Julie Schwartz, Curt Swan and the other in charge of the books already knew that the end was coming in form of a total reboot so they just started to get experimental and didn't really care about the quality anymore, they were just releasing their material they had left (LexCorp was a result of this process, BTW). That's why Superman in the last two pre-crisis years was a little bit low on quality. (Which, in return, made Byrne look better :cwink: )

DC tried to make Superman a more interesting read by turning him into a Marvel guy and by hiring the biggest writer of that era. But this did fail, the sales declined steadily, the new Superman wasn't even accepted by most people at DC, so Byrne left the title earlier than expected (and flew to another planet where he still lives today).


It even got to the point where - not only was Clark NOT the last son of Krypton, it seemed the only Kryptonians who didn't die were Jor-el and Lara. Luthor was just a cliche mad scientist. In an attempt to make him more of a threat they gave him the power suit. Fortunately, that part of the attempt survived into Corporate Shark Luthor. Anyone here remember the goofy Lynx arc? The Superman continuity just needed to be scraped clean and add the better elements back in a way that made sense and just wasn't silly.

The problem of most Superman fans is NOT the continuity, when do you ever get that? It's also not about going new ways. It's about that they went with the lamest way possible. But who wants to have exciting adventures in space when there's porn to be made?

[C. Lee]

Agreed.

HAIL SIEGEL AND SHUSTER (who actually created Superman)!!

Hail Lester Dent (who created Doc Savage)!!

[Lead Cenobite]

What does Doc Savage have to do with anything? Yes, we all know he served as an inspiration for Superman, but he's hardly a ripoff if that's what you're trying to imply.

[Superman Prime]

The only time it is permissible for Superman to wear a mask is if he's posing as another superhero for whatever story reason. Like when he impersonated Batman in that one episode of S:TAS.

[C. Lee]

What does Doc Savage have to do with anything? Yes, we all know he served as an inspiration for Superman, but he's hardly a ripoff if that's what you're trying to imply.

Clark Savage Jr.
Called The Man of Bronze
Described as a Superman
Had a Fortress of Solitude in the arctic
Described as having superhuman strength, hearing, eyesight, intelligence


I didn't say rip off (you did)...I'm just saying who came first.

[Lead Cenobite]

I'm aware that Doc Savage has peak human abilities, but I've never heard them described as superhuman.

[C. Lee]

I'm aware that Doc Savage has peak human abilities, but I've never heard them described as superhuman.

Then you need to read the pulps and the original advertising for them.

[Lead Cenobite]

I'm not interested in reading Doc Savage books, I just want proof that he actually had super strength and it wasn't just some embellishment by the writers. Can he leap tall buildings, lift cars over his head, is he bulletproof? Is he definitively superhuman?

[C. Lee]

I'm not interested in reading Doc Savage books, I just want proof that he actually had super strength and it wasn't just some embellishment by the writers. Can he leap tall buildings, lift cars over his head, is he bulletproof? Is he definitively superhuman?

You're kidding right? You actually have your nose out of joint because I pointed out that many of the characteristics and descriptions of Superman (1938) were predated by descriptions of Doc Savage (1933)?

BOTH Doc and Superman were written as entertainment by human beings. Both Doc and Superman are the results of embellishment by the writers. Doc was written as being trained from the earliest childhood by his father for a life of fighting crime. He is described as having the ultimate in human physical prowess. He has the strength of several men, he has trained his hearing to hear things others can't, he has superior eyesight and can see things that others can't. He has doctorites in medicine and many other sciences, he is an expert in martial arts, he is a genius who designed many of the things that people these days take for granted. And the most important thing to remember about him....he is a work of fiction. He's not real...and sadly neither is Superman.

I pointed out that the creaters of Superman took many aspects od Doc's mythos and incorporated that into his. If that hurts your sensibilities and you think you need to start an argument over which one can really jump the highest...well.....they...are...both...fiction.

[GreenKToo]

I seem to recall a Doc Savage film I saw when I was a kid. That was along time ago tho so I may be wrong.

[Kurosawa]

What Kurosawa fails to acknowledge (...and I've pointed this out to him so many times that I don't know why I keep trying) is that the Superman books were some of the lowest selling books on the shelves until DC asked Byrne to revamp the character. It was either fix the problem or let Superman become a dim memory.

Drama much? The character was hardly in trouble, and clearly he wasn't in the trouble that he is now. Those last few years were mostly placeholders, although Maggin's awesome "Ghost of Superman Future!/The Einstein Connection." issue which is better than anything Byrne ever wrote did come out of it.

Yeah, I get it... Kuro is a huge fan of anything that doesn't disrupt his childhood image of the character but there are so many of us that also grew up with the character that couldn't sit thru another lame Bippo the superchimp/Lois as a cliche trying to discover Superman's secret identity/Luthor with yet another lame scheme and gadget.

Umm...my favorite version is the Golden Age, not the Silver, with the Bronze Age a close second. And people who represent the Silver Age as nothing BUT Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy, Lois trying to expose his identity or Beppo the Supermonkey are either ignorant or lying. There were stupid stories and there were serious, great stories. All eras have had stupid stories-you know, like Big Barda and Superman doing porno or Clark and Superman being raised as brothers, or Superman having a force field and vibrating his face so he couldn't be photographed, or Lois being a mega-***** every issue, or...I think I've made my point.

Link discusses many of Byrne's degrading stories concerning women: BTW this is not a defense of the long running Lois and Lana as incredible shrews in Silver Age comics, as I never cared for that at ALL, and neither did Siegel, as he only wrote one story in the Golden Age where Lois suspected his identity and in fact wanted her to discover it in 1940.

http://www.heroplay.com/features/articles/display.php?id=27

DC was trying hard to make Superman a more interesting read. They tried to do some things with the character under the last part of Curt Swan's run but the problem was there were too many barnacles on boat to allow it to sail. It even got to the point where - not only was Clark NOT the last son of Krypton, it seemed the only Kryptonians who didn't die were Jor-el and Lara.

Superman being the last son of Krypton might have been an interesting take if 1) Krypton had been appealing at all and if 2) Superman had given a damn about his Kryptonian heritage. Byrne had a Krypton that deserved to be destroyed and a character that only regarded his heritage as an interesting story, like I would if I read something in an Encyclopedia or online.

Luthor was just a cliche mad scientist. In an attempt to make him more of a threat they gave him the power suit. Fortunately, that part of the attempt survived into Corporate Shark Luthor. Anyone here remember the goofy Lynx arc? The Superman continuity just needed to be scraped clean and add the better elements back in a way that made sense and just wasn't silly.

Maggin's Luthor was more complex, interesting and sympathetic than anything Byrne wrote with Luthor. In fact, seeing as his Luthor didn't kill, I would say the Maggin Luthor is morally superior to Byrne's "Superman" who murdered in cold blood. Maggin and Cary Bates had a pitch that used the existing continuity and I'd love to see it. Alan Moore was right when he warned DC about alienating their current readers and creating a schism amongst Superman fans. The lack of a schism with Batman is a good part of why Batman flourishes while Superman flounders.

So... here I go again (Hey, I played that last night in the club... the audience went nuts!) trying to bring K into the light... I should just call it a lost cause and move on.

I actually have had good things to say about some of what Stern, Jurgens, Joe Kelly and several other writers did with Superman during the Iron Age (86-2000), so I feel I am not as unreasonable as you think.

Clark Savage Jr.
Called The Man of Bronze
Described as a Superman
Had a Fortress of Solitude in the arctic
Described as having superhuman strength, hearing, eyesight, intelligence


I didn't say rip off (you did)...I'm just saying who came first.

Very true, but to me that just explains more of why the two most innovative elements of Superman's creation was Clark Kent and the costume.

[Lead Cenobite]

You're kidding right? You actually have your nose out of joint because I pointed out that many of the characteristics and descriptions of Superman (1938) were predated by descriptions of Doc Savage (1933)?

BOTH Doc and Superman were written as entertainment by human beings. Both Doc and Superman are the results of embellishment by the writers. Doc was written as being trained from the earliest childhood by his father for a life of fighting crime. He is described as having the ultimate in human physical prowess. He has the strength of several men, he has trained his hearing to hear things others can't, he has superior eyesight and can see things that others can't. He has doctorites in medicine and many other sciences, he is an expert in martial arts, he is a genius who designed many of the things that people these days take for granted. And the most important thing to remember about him....he is a work of fiction. He's not real...and sadly neither is Superman.

I pointed out that the creaters of Superman took many aspects od Doc's mythos and incorporated that into his. If that hurts your sensibilities and you think you need to start an argument over which one can really jump the highest...well.....they...are...both...fiction.

Ok then, so where does that leave Superman? If he's just derivative of Doc Savage, where's the value? What's the point in liking a character that's nearly a copy of another? I care about things like this. Tell me I need a life, I don't care. I just don't like it when I see something I enjoy unravel before my eyes till it's nothing.

[TruerToTheCore]

Very true, but to me that just explains more of why the two most innovative elements of Superman's creation was Clark Kent and the costume.

Absolutely. But it's unrealistic and doesn't make sense :wow:

BTW, on the whole rip-off thing: Some people pretend it's the worst thing in the history of mankind, yet it's vital to progress as a whole. Just because someone had a good idea doesn't mean he has the best execution for it, but with strong copyright in the past those other tribes couldn't have adapted the wheel because of infringement and we would still live in caves ;)

Superman and Batman are better than the characters they ripped off, even if they aren't 100% original.

[Kurosawa]

Absolutely. But it's unrealistic and doesn't make sense :wow:

BTW, on the whole rip-off thing: Some people pretend it's the worst thing in the history of mankind, yet it's vital to progress as a whole. Just because someone had a good idea doesn't mean he has the best execution for it, but with strong copyright in the past those other tribes couldn't have adapted the wheel because of infringement and we would still live in caves ;)

Superman and Batman are better than the characters they ripped off, even if they aren't 100% original.

Yep, plus the entire immigrant angle and how Superman's guise as Clark mirrored the dual lives of Jews in America, as many of them worked under romanized and assumed names keeping real life secret identities, the fellow in my avatar as good an example as any.

I'd also like to add that Superman's situation parallels things like the history of music: the Beatles were clearly influenced by artists from the 50's but they did the same kind of music much better than most of them. Siegel and Shuster exceeded their influences much like Lennon and McCartney did.

[Anubis]

I've always found Superman to be more interesting than Moses.

[SuperDaniel]

I actually have had good things to say about some of what Stern, Jurgens, Joe Kelly and several other writers did with Superman during the Iron Age (86-2000), so I feel I am not as unreasonable as you think.

LOL. There's hope. Actually, my favorite time of the Superman books is when Byrne left the book and the writers worked with what he estabilished.

Golden age? Do you like a Superman that doesn't fly, is a vigilante and has no regard for the law?

By the way, the examples you cited in the private message of him being cocky are not him being cocky at all but smart and confident. That`s a whole different story. If you analyse deep down, our versions of Superman aren`t that different. I just don`t like Clark to be an act. Thats why i said i prefer how the real world Clark Kent was portrayed in Secret Identity. That personality is the perfect Clark. Someone who is just reserved and a person who has another perspective on life and uses his writing to change the world and do good. Instead of writing books, something that our fictional Clark can do too, he is a reporter to uncover the truth and write about it. I dont like Clark to be a jock and extremely confident too, same as you.

Its funny, all origin stories portray Clark as somewhat of an outsider, hates to be an alien, different, more Peter Parker like. In secret origins he was portrayed like that and i didn`t like it. In fact, i would like Clark for once, to enjoy his amazing powers and love being who he is. He loves to have this different perspective on life, flying and all. And even helping people when disaster comes. I don`t want Clark to be Superboy and wear the costume but using his powers for good from an early age is something nice. I want Clark proud to be different and proud to have these amazing abilities he can use for good, from early on. Proud that he can just fly to the moon and watch the earth and all. All-star Superman had a little bit of that.

[C. Lee]

I seem to recall a Doc Savage film I saw when I was a kid. That was along time ago tho so I may be wrong.

It was made in 1975...starred Ron Ely (Tarzan TV series) as Doc. Ron did a really fine job in his portrayal....but the movie was very bad. It was played as a camp comedy instead of the Indiana Jones style of the original books. I, as well as others, are working on fanedits of the movie to make it more watchable.

[C. Lee]

Ok then, so where does that leave Superman? If he's just derivative of Doc Savage, where's the value? What's the point in liking a character that's nearly a copy of another? I care about things like this. Tell me I need a life, I don't care. I just don't like it when I see something I enjoy unravel before my eyes till it's nothing.

So...I have to do all the work for you huh? Ok...here's something to think about.

Unlike Superman, Doc has no secret idenity....so with Superman you have stories about creating and maintaining it. The troubles it causes in his life with friends and family. The drama of threats to reveal it or to do harm to his family and friends because of it.

Unlike Superman, Doc is not an alien from another world....so with Superman you get stories about knowing you are not human, but was raised as one and must live among them with hardly any connection to your true heritage or the people you are actually from. Plus Doc doesn't have to worry about lunatics wanting him dead or disected because he is an alien. Having fanatical bigots screaming for your death and hatred towards you because you are different creates nuances to your character.

Unlike Superman, Doc is neither invulnerable nor posesses unlimited strength....so the way they enter into and act during dangerous situations differs. Doc only flies using an airplane or helicopter....and the top speed of one during his time was around 150 mph....that's a mere stroll for Supes.

I could go on and on...but my original intent was not to destroy your life but to give you something new and interesting to think about. So I started you off with some things to think about here...now you can contemplate what else makes Superman unique.

[Kurosawa]

LOL. There's hope. Actually, my favorite time of the Superman books is when Byrne left the book and the writers worked with what he estabilished.

Golden age? Do you like a Superman that doesn't fly, is a vigilante and has no regard for the law?

Superman flew in the Golden Age, it just took a while. Siegel was the writer when he was codified as being able to fly. And for the others, I don't see anything wrong with Superman choosing justice over the legal system from time to time, and I strongly support him having a social conscience. I certainly do not support him being the government stooge that Miller made him into and Byrne followed up on. I think being such an establishment suckup and stooge is a good part of why many people see Superman as lame.

I don't know if you've ever read it, but the Outsiders origin involves Superman being an establishment stooge and refusing to help with a terrorism in Markovia because the US didn't want him to. That was suggested to Mike W. Barr by Frank Miller who sees Superman as nothing more than a mindless servant of the authorities. Byrne worked with this and shaped his Superman to fit Miller's characterization in DKR. His Superman is the same character.

By the way, the examples you cited in the private message of him being cocky are not him being cocky at all but smart and confident. That`s a whole different story. If you analyse deep down, our versions of Superman aren`t that different. I just don`t like Clark to be an act. Thats why i said i prefer how the real world Clark Kent was portrayed in Secret Identity. That personality is the perfect Clark. Someone who is just reserved and a person who has another perspective on life and uses his writing to change the world and do good. Instead of writing books, something that our fictional Clark can do too, he is a reporter to uncover the truth and write about it. I dont like Clark to be a jock and extremely confident too, same as you.

Clark was usually portrayed as being excellent at his job Pre-Crisis too, either at the Planet or producing and anchoring GBS News. The sillier Clark is more the movie version. But Clark was created to be an act, at least in part. I always like the idea that Superman himself isn't sure how much of Clark is an act, but he knows he needs to be Clark to cope with his responsibilities as Superman.

Its funny, all origin stories portray Clark as somewhat of an outsider, hates to be an alien, different, more Peter Parker like. In secret origins he was portrayed like that and i didn`t like it. In fact, i would like Clark for once, to enjoy his amazing powers and love being who he is. He loves to have this different perspective on life, flying and all. And even helping people when disaster comes. I don`t want Clark to be Superboy and wear the costume but using his powers for good from an early age is something nice. I want Clark proud to be different and proud to have these amazing abilities he can use for good, from early on. Proud that he can just fly to the moon and watch the earth and all. All-star Superman had a little bit of that.

Well, while Clark has some issues with hiding his powers, generally he enjoys having them and the things he can do to help people with them. And part of the point of scenes where he is watching other guys play football and regretting that he can't play is that he wouldn't feel right dominating with his powers. So it's an example of his moral character. I also always loved Pa Kent's enthusiasm for all the things Clark could do and came home and told him about. "Shh, Clark, you know how your Ma worries...so you say the atmosphere of Neptune kind of tastes like Pistachio popsicles? Do be careful, son...." As for Superboy, I don't feel he's something that has to be part of the story but he was created by Siegel, he makes sense, and even Byrne admits that getting rid of him was a mistake.

[SuperDaniel]

I also hate the way Miller writes Superman so we agree on that. Superman believes in justice and in the law. Justice in an ideal that is always present. Law can change but he isn`t like Batman. He always, imo, has to operate under the law, arresting criminals, bringing them to justice without being, at the same time, a government tool. It would be actually cool to see some stories to each Superman helps to improve the law as it is, in the US, dealing with death penalty and all. A stronger conscience, as you`d say. Him doing something more real world, facing real world problems. I've seen some stories that briefly dealt with that but i`d like an entire run to do it, explore him to the maximum of his capacities as an inspirational character. I mean, how many origins do we have to see in the comics? They should just erase continuity once and for all and forget about it as it does nothing but create a huge mess because somebody will never be pleased by the changes. The comics are a mess because of that. Creating more closed stories should be a goal. In fact, i kind wish they would create titles for the Golden Age, Silver Age, etc so we would have many different eras of superman being published, pleasing every fan. With a character that has 70+ history and different incarnations, it would be stupid to chose one and run with it. Or even make another one. The focus should be on creating good stories. All-star did an amazing job with the silver age Superman. Issue #6 is just beautiful, even though i personally don`t like any of the Kents ding.

[Kurosawa]

So...I have to do all the work for you huh? Ok...here's something to think about.

Unlike Superman, Doc has no secret idenity....so with Superman you have stories about creating and maintaining it. The troubles it causes in his life with friends and family. The drama of threats to reveal it or to do harm to his family and friends because of it.

Unlike Superman, Doc is not an alien from another world....so with Superman you get stories about knowing you are not human, but was raised as one and must live among them with hardly any connection to your true heritage or the people you are actually from. Plus Doc doesn't have to worry about lunatics wanting him dead or disected because he is an alien. Having fanatical bigots screaming for your death and hatred towards you because you are different creates nuances to your character.

Unlike Superman, Doc is neither invulnerable nor posesses unlimited strength....so the way they enter into and act during dangerous situations differs. Doc only flies using an airplane or helicopter....and the top speed of one during his time was around 150 mph....that's a mere stroll for Supes.

I could go on and on...but my original intent was not to destroy your life but to give you something new and interesting to think about. So I started you off with some things to think about here...now you can contemplate what else makes Superman unique.

Good points and I agree with all. And any fan of Superman or of fantasy adventure in general would do themselves a lot of good to check into Doc's adventures. They are insanely important and influential. And it's great stuff.

[TruerToTheCore]

I've always found Superman to be more interesting than Moses.

Yeah, I mean all this stuff about a burning bush who speaks, stabs that turn into snakes and the Red sea business -- that's so Silver Age.

[Kurosawa]

I also hate the way Miller writes Superman so we agree on that. Superman believes in justice and in the law. Justice in an ideal that is always present. Law can change but he isn`t like Batman. He always, imo, has to operate under the law, arresting criminals, bringing them to justice without being, at the same time, a government tool. It would be actually cool to see some stories to each Superman helps to improve the law as it is, in the US, dealing with death penalty and all. A stronger conscience, as you`d say. Him doing something more real world, facing real world problems. I've seen some stories that briefly dealt with that but i`d like an entire run to do it, explore him to the maximum of his capacities as an inspirational character. I mean, how many origins do we have to see in the comics? They should just erase continuity once and for all and forget about it as it does nothing but create a huge mess because somebody will never be pleased by the changes. The comics are a mess because of that. Creating more closed stories should be a goal. In fact, i kind wish they would create titles for the Golden Age, Silver Age, etc so we would have many different eras of superman being published, pleasing every fan. With a character that has 70+ history and different incarnations, it would be stupid to chose one and run with it. Or even make another one. The focus should be on creating good stories. All-star did an amazing job with the silver age Superman. Issue #6 is just beautiful, even though i personally don`t like any of the Kents ding.

I really think allowing Superman to step outside of the law or at least not be a total stooge from time to time would help the characters reputation a lot. I do agree that seeing some stories where he could use his influence and also his influence as Clark to try to change the law is a good idea. There's no reason that Clark shouldn't say, write an Op-Ed condemning exploitation of the poor, etc. I think Superman's main mission is to help people. This makes him different from most other villain of the month characters. Superman has a higher calling and should work towards higher goals. There's no reason why certain things in daily life in the DCU Earth couldn't be better than real life-it balances out all the threats to the Earth's survival from supervillains. The recent JMS issue where Superman helps revitalize Detroit's economy is a good example. Or the floods currently in Pakistan. On Earth-0 Superman could stop those, it would easily be balanced out by all the destruction from the recent JLA/JSA crossover.

Continuity wise, I don't see as big a problem as you. One reason I liked the Pre-Crisis DC better was the simplicity of it: Golden Age Earth-Two, Silver to Bronze Earth-One, etc. It honestly wasn't that hard to figure out. I'd gladly accept them continuing the Post-Crisis version just as he was first created if there was an Earth-One and/or and Earth-Two Superman book as well. The DCU is all about doppelgangers and counterparts and if Marvel's fans can keep Ultimate Spidey and 616 Spidey straight and just read the one they like then I don't see why DC fan can't. The Superman of today is in a flux phase, very similar to the era from Siegel and Shuster's departure until Weisinger took completely over in 1958. I really don't anticipate DC having a completely unified plan and direction until the legal issues are settled.

[SuperDaniel]

Thank god i don`t read the comics anymore as I used to in the 90's. Just the ones that interest me. I`m reading the Stracinsky run and liking it. Read Secret Origins and thought it was meh. Last pages were good but Donut Parasite was just so stupid. Totally skipped on the Return to Krypton saga but read the Brainiac ones and liked it. All-Star Superman is amazing but overrated, IMO. Just re-read Superman: Secret Identity and, god, one of the best Superman stories ever. The art is just unbelievable.

[Kurosawa]

I have mixed feelings about the books atm except Action Comics where Lex is very entertaining.

[KalMart]

http://i52.tinypic.com/vp973o.jpg

[GL1]

One thing I never ever understood was why the writers of the comics and movies thought the glasses & suit outfit for clark was an effective disguise for Superman? Seriously... Would no one at the Daily Planet suspect they are the same person??? Especially Lois, who regularly sees and works with Clark, and then also is saved by Superman?

How the hell is Lois considered as one of the greatest investigative reporters in Metropolis??? Doesn't make sense.

I think Superman should wear a mask to protect his identity from the world. Many other superheros do it, why shouldn't he? Besides, it's not like Clark could go around and wear a mask if the goal is to blend in as a human.

So what would be possible and realistic options to address this issue?

An excellent point.

Many other superheroes do it, why shouldn't he?

Much of brand loyalty comes from a familiar appearance. If Cheerios suddenly came in a blue box, they'd lose business. If Fords started looking like Hondas they'd lose a LOT of business. Giving a character in a visual medium, who exists primarily as their image a different image is offensive to that characters fans and off putting to those who have a casual interest in them.

Why [did] the writers of the comics and movies thought the glasses & suit outfit for clark was an effective disguise for Superman?

Because, at that time, it was. He also had a hat, and did all manner of things to hide his identity, including what became known as 'bumbling Clark.' Comics also weren't subject to the same scientific scrutiny, as you can see by looking at some of the devices Superman and Lex Luthor cooked up. Long story short: It WAS a good idea back then, and helped make Superman extremely popular.

Seriously... Would no one at the Daily Planet suspect they are the same person??? Especially Lois, who regularly sees and works with Clark, and then also is saved by Superman? How the hell is Lois considered as one of the greatest investigative reporters in Metropolis???

This is an excellent question, one that's never really been fully addressed to my satisfaction. It becomes even more grievous in a live action adaptation, when we, as viewers can SEE the resemblance, the logical acrobatics of 'no one would think to look for him' create a cognitive dissonance between the very simple reality of we can see both characters as the same actor, we see that same actor interact with Lois Lane as both characters, and she is none the wiser. That's pretty frustrating, unless the difference is enough to make the audience question their resemblance.

So what would be possible and realistic options to address this issue?

They're as numerous as the stars my friend. And I'd suggest employing 5-10 of them so Lois does not look cosmically stupid. We want the audience to fall in love with her, after all, so we can't have her looking all... ignorant, y'know?


Acknowledge Clark resembles Superman. We all know he does, and pretending he doesn't is an intelligence insult, so the smartest thing is to deconstruct and then reconstruct that idea. Earlier in the thread they noted celebrities undercover how people would look at them and say 'nah, couldn't be.' Superman Returns actually had a descent scene of this. Having Clark lose a Superman look-alike contest could be a funny way of doing it.
Give Clark alibis. If Clark has a recorded message (panicked to explain his unresponsiveness) call Perry White or Lois Lane while Clark is visibly saving people, or flies a distance and changes mid flight to appear across town when Lois believes he's right near her... heck, have him give his neighbor John Irons his credit card so that he's making charges elsewhere while Superman's heroing. Basically, make it seem like there's reason to believe they're not the same person. Let Clark be SMART about his identity.
PROVE to Lois that Clark is not Superman. Clark under the effects of kryptonite nearby is shot and rushed to the hospital, and we all know Superman can take bullets (it would really mess Lois up if she was the one that pulled the trigger, because she was 'so sure.') Have Bizzaro show up looking completely Superman like at first (ala TAS) so that Clark and Superman can be clearly seen together.
Have them speak differently. My version of Clark would actually have a midwestern country accent, the way many small towners do. The vocal identification would be totally different, beyond just 'how authoritative they sound.'
Convince us its a different person with makeup and costume and so forth. They can change the way people look, then change the way they look, and it lends a great deal of credibility to the whole thing. Get a movement coach to make sure they move differently when they walk.
Reduce Superman's height. There's no way to make this make sense if Superman is 6'11" Let him be 6'1 for crying out loud.
Keep the out of focus/blur thing at first. When Superman is first seen, being out of focus makes him unidentifiable, until Clark figures out how to stay ahead of the press (he has the inside scoop) and keep his private life private, on the advice of his mother. That said, you can't have him generating trust amongst the populace, or building any kind of relationship with Lois, if he's constantly 'out of focus.'
Lose the bumbling Clark, but a playful, country, slightly backwards, typically oblivious Clark really does make the idea of him being Superman pretty preposterous, *especially* if that's the way Clark actually is, which makes sense for his upbringing, all things considered. He's not a city boy, by any means.
Illustrate that Superman is Clark's 'professional' persona. When people understand the difference between these two characters, when you can show, not tell that "Superman is what I do. Clark is who I am." Then it becomes much easier for an audience to accept that other people see them as different, because they do.
Thin the glasses. This won't really help, but it will make the whole thing less ridiculous, and if you practice the rest of these suggestions, you won't need 1950s black frames anyway. It would be kinda fun if Clark couldn't get the latest lenses in 'trifocals.'


Because this surreal aspect of the mythos is such a big deal, and part of the reason so few people connect with Superman, because he lives in an alternate world where there is not only incredible science, but people *think* differently, and don't know these two people are identical in facial structure... make it a part of the storyline, Lois' attempt to get Superman's real identity, and alongside her budding romance with Clark, you could have a different take on that triangle all together.

Conclusion: Should Superman wear a mask?

Superman does wear a mask. A mask of professional conduct and idealism that conceals his true nature as a down to earth, emotionally vulnerable human being. Not a mask of fabric. Such things are far too easy to see through, especially for a Superman.

[The BatDude]

You're right...Maggin wrote some great stuff with him before it ended in 1986. And just recently, Grant Morrison wrote some nice stories in All-Star Superman, which is the 21st Century template.
Maggin is definitely one of my favorite Superman writers but lets not forget that the seventies rocked for Superman. Not only did the film come out in '78 but you had Elliot S! Maggin, Cary Bates, Len Wein, Jack Kirby, Paul Levitz, Marty "Pesky" Pasko, Gerry Conway, Robert Kanigher, and Dennis O'Neil doing some great stories.

[RachelDawes]

Acknowledge Clark resembles Superman. We all know he does, and pretending he doesn't is an intelligence insult, so the smartest thing is to deconstruct and then reconstruct that idea. Earlier in the thread they noted celebrities undercover how people would look at them and say 'nah, couldn't be.' Superman Returns actually had a descent scene of this. Having Clark lose a Superman look-alike contest could be a funny way of doing it.


That would be a funny and economical way of showing that it's possible for people to overlook a celebrity even when he's right in front of them. :up:

Your other ideas are also excellent.