question about superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane

[Czar Colossus]

Yeah; way back when Byrne rebooted Superman; making him a H.S. football hero was one of the things that left me feeling . The other was Kal-El actually being born on Earth as he was sent as an embryo in a chamber from Krypton, where his parents (entire culture actually) were cold and emotionally detached.
Still, at least he still maintained his classic look; which to me is huge.

[The Question]

The football thing is high school. That's him before he's figured out how to balance the different sides of him. That seems relatively minor to me.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Window-dressing.

I am talking about Superman's personality.

The "window-dressing" is part of the concept. So the whole concept was not turned on it's head.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by The Question

Also, this is old, but I have to address this.

What in the name of god's green **** are you talking about?

Smallville (on for ten years despite being a stinking pile of ****)

Superman the Animated Series.

Jerry Seinfeld's superman commercials.

The fact that there is a Superman reference in every episode of Seinfeld.

The fact that the Superman logo is one of the most popular in terms of T-Shirts, stickers, and tattoos in the country.

Countless toys.

Lunchboxes, posters, artwork, that five for fighting song, the fact that every person in the United States can name every single major Superman character with ease, the fact that Kryptonite is a cultural synonym for a personal weakness, the fact that when people here the word "Superman," they think of him and not Nietzsche, the fact when people think of superheroes, the first thing they think of is Superman...

I mean, seriously, Superman still is THE superhero.

His comics just don't sell spectacularly because they know Superman books will always make a profit (which they do, another testament to his popularity) so they'll give the title to pretty much any ******* who wants it.

Been through this before...but its nice that you think having a weakass soap on a third rate network, having a cartoon that was canned after 50 episodes and isn't even mentioned in the same breath as BTAS or any other 90's cartoon that actually memorable, references in a TV show/commericials from a baby boomer who grew up when superman actually WAS popular, people who buy Any type of logo as long as it looks somewhat familiar without actually caring about what the logo represents somehow means that Superman is still THE superhero. Riiight.

Like I said, Superman is coasting off of his former glory does not mean the character is still THE superhero, hell, he isn't even THE superhero in his own company anymore, the guy who's supposed to, in many ways, be the ANTI-Superhero is. Dude's like the Queen of England: a figurehead, a representation of the way thing's used to be, but knowing who the queen is Does not mean most people actually care about the queen. Same thing with Superman.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Turning mild-mannered Clark Kent into a football hunk from one month to another is not natural evolution.

I've noticed that people around here often misuse the phrase "Character evolution", especially when trying to legitimize their personal character preferences.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by The Batman

Been through this before...but its nice that you think having a weakass soap on a third rate network, having a cartoon that was canned after 50 episodes and isn't even mentioned in the same breath as BTAS or any other 90's cartoon that actually memorable, references in a TV show/commericials from a baby boomer who grew up when superman actually WAS popular, people who buy Any type of logo as long as it looks somewhat familiar without actually caring about what the logo represents somehow means that Superman is still THE superhero. Riiight.

Like I said, Superman is coasting off of his former glory does not mean the character is still THE superhero, hell, he isn't even THE superhero in his own company anymore, the guy who's supposed to, in many ways, be the ANTI-Superhero is. Dude's like the Queen of England: a figurehead, a representation of the way thing's used to be. Does not mean most people actually care about the character right now.

But honestly, just for a second forget about the actual quality of Smallville, S:TAS or Superman Returns. Just forget about it. Isn't the fact that they keep trying to make Superman shows and movies show the fact that Superman is popular. The never ending attempt to cash in on that with tv shows and movies regardless of their quality, doesn't that show that there's a market for Superman?

Now, quality wise, while Smallville wasn't the best show by any stretch of the imagination, it was still on for 10 years. Ratings wise, it did a lot better than most shows people consider popular like every NBC comedy for example at its prime. It had better ratings than Mad Men, which is considered insanely popular. I think people like to discredit Smallville because frankly, it wasn't very good. But people tuned in every week.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Czar Colossus

Yeah; way back when Byrne rebooted Superman; making him a H.S. football hero was one of the things that left me feeling .

What's even worse: He kept his trophies after he's learned the truth about him. And why do the parents even allow it? With his powers even back then he could have killed someone easily.

The other was Kal-El actually being born on Earth as he was sent as an embryo in a chamber from Krypton, where his parents (entire culture actually) were cold and emotionally detached.

The embryo thing is really unsettling. And also quite unnecessarily complicated and not very iconic just to make Superman's citizenship legal (still somewhat odd, since Superman is not human thus I doubt the law covers such a case, a monkey also wouldn't get a passport if he's born in America "Deconstruction" can be silly, really.).

The sterile Krypton was just a consequent take on Superman: The Movie which Byrne loves. It also reflects the whole agenda: Superman must be an Earthman or even more, an US-American so Krypton must have deserved to be blown up.

Still, at least he still maintained his classic look; which to me is huge.

Real Superman fans just cannot win completely these days. And with these I mean the last 25 years.

Originally Posted by The Question

The football thing is high school. That's him before he's figured out how to balance the different sides of him. That seems relatively minor to me.

The "window-dressing" is part of the concept. So the whole concept was not turned on it's head.

Let's see. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" reboot. This time Data is a robot who hates humans. All the same as before.

And with the "different sides" thing. Superman is not real. He is not a real human being. His concept says that there is "Clark Kent" and "Superman". The first one is an act of the latter. This might not be particularly realistic. But Superman is not an ordinary guy. "Clark Kent" is a tool, a tool to get stories, a tool for recreation, a legacy for his dead foster parents, a way to become human. But it's not the same as "I act differently when I at work than when I am with my family and so does Superman/CK". It's much stronger than that. And much more interesting because:

1. Superman just is. He doesn't "turn" into a hero, it's just what it is.
2. Hardly any characters have this. Pulizer price winner Jules Feiffer called Clark Kent the most innovative feature of the Superman myth.

But of course, **** it and just turn Superman into Generic Superhero 3773

-------------
I'll be honest here: I am sick and tired of discussing this. I've been doing so for the last 4 years here and much longer in real life. So it feels like running in circles. My life should consist of more than defending the truth about Superman and most people do not want to listen. Although at least I hope that I have convinced a few guys so it wasn't all for nothing.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

What's even worse: He kept his trophies after he's learned the truth about him. And why do the parents even allow it? With his powers even back then he could have killed someone easily.



The embryo thing is really unsettling. And also quite unnecessarily complicated and not very iconic just to make Superman's citizenship legal (still somewhat odd, since Superman is not human thus I doubt the law covers such a case, a monkey also wouldn't get a passport if he's born in America "Deconstruction" can be silly, really.).

The sterile Krypton was just a consequent take on Superman: The Movie which Byrne loves. It also reflects the whole agenda: Superman must be an Earthman or even more, an US-American so Krypton must have deserved to be blown up.





Real Superman fans just cannot win completely these days. And with these I mean the last 25 years.



Let's see. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" reboot. This time Data is a robot who hates humans. All the same as before.

And with the "different sides" thing. Superman is not real. He is not a real human being. His concept says that there is "Clark Kent" and "Superman". The first one is an act of the latter. This might not be particularly realistic. But Superman is not an ordinary guy. "Clark Kent" is a tool, a tool to get stories, a tool for recreation, a legacy for his dead foster parents, a way to become human. But it's not the same as "I act differently when I at work than when I am with my family and so does Superman/CK". It's much stronger than that. And much more interesting because:

1. Superman just is. He doesn't "turn" into a hero, it's just what it is.
2. Hardly any characters have this. Pulizer price winner Jules Feiffer called Clark Kent the most innovative feature of the Superman myth.

But of course, **** it and just turn Superman into Generic Superhero 3773

-------------
I'll be honest here: I am sick and tired of discussing this. I've been doing so for the last 4 years here and much longer in real life. So it feels like running in circles. My life should consist of more than defending the truth about Superman and most people do not want to listen. Although at least I hope that I have convinced a few guys so it wasn't all for nothing.

More people would probably listen if you didn't use the phrases I just bolded. I guess I'm not a real Superman fan. They should revoke my Superman license. I'm a phony. I've been living a lie my whole life.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

But honestly, just for a second forget about the actual quality of Smallville, S:TAS or Superman Returns. Just forget about it. Isn't the fact that they keep trying to make Superman shows and movies show the fact that Superman is popular. The never ending attempt to cash in on that with tv shows and movies regardless of their quality, doesn't that show that there's a market for Superman?

Originally Posted by The Batman

Like I said, Superman is coasting off of his former glory does not mean the character is still THE superhero, hell, he isn't even THE superhero in his own company anymore, the guy who's supposed to, in many ways, be the ANTI-Superhero is. Dude's like the Queen of England: a figurehead, a representation of the way thing's used to be, but knowing who the queen is Does not mean most people actually care about the queen. Same thing with Superman.

Great analogy.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

But honestly, just for a second forget about the actual quality of Smallville, S:TAS or Superman Returns. Just forget about it. Isn't the fact that they keep trying to make Superman shows and movies show the fact that Superman is popular.The never ending attempt to cash in on that with tv shows and movies regardless of their quality, doesn't that show that there's a market for Superman?

It shows that Superman has a legacy behind it. Again, Superman has been coasting off the fact that he's Superman. And even then, WB wasn't even gonna make another Superman flick until the lawsuit forced them to, now we're getting MoS because of that, not because Superman is still THE superhero. Having a potential market does not necessarily = popular. Having to the potential to be liked as much as, say, Batman or Iron Man does not mean its gonna happen. Superman Returns is perfect proof of that.

Originally Posted by Darthphere

Now, quality wise, while Smallville wasn't the best show by any stretch of the imagination, it was still on for 10 years. Ratings wise, it did a lot better than most shows people consider popular like every NBC comedy for example at its prime. It had better ratings than Mad Men, which is considered insanely popular. I think people like to discredit Smallville because frankly, it wasn't very good. But people tuned in every week.

It was on for 10 years because it was on a mediocre network. That's like ruling in hell instead of serving in heaven. It has better ratings than Mad Men because Mad Men is an adult oriented show on a cable network, not a soap opera relying on the teenage girls and the built in superman fanbase. And even WITH those bases, I doubt Smallville will be remembered as well as, say, Lost, 24, House, etc.

Honestly, I see this convo going nowhere. Clearly, we have different ideas on whats popular. I tell you this, though...if Superman were still as popular as some would like to believe, we wouldn't have "Is Superman still relevent" arguments popping up all the time. It wouldn't even be a question.

[Darthphere]

One thing I can agree with most people here is, that it's getting tiring to discuss this. This debate pops up almost every other month. So in a way, this is where I'm at. I'm 25 years old. I was born the year Crisis on Infinite Earths happened. So you can see, I grew up with post Crisis Superman. It's the Superman I know and the one I grew up enjoying. I had the pajamas, the backpack, the lunchbox etc. I've always been a big Superman fan. The comics, pfffft. I got way too many boxes with Superman comics. As I grew up to be the wiser, more handsome Darth I am today I sought after some older stories. I own several of the Superman Archives. I can see where the differences lie between Pre and Post Crisis Superman. I've never been a huge fan of Byrne's Superman. But that stuff has been retconned 18 times over by now. At the core though, Superman is still Superman. The core values he represents are still there. This nonsense of who is the real Superman or what persona is the disguise doesn't matter really. It doesn't. What does matter is when someone is in trouble, when the world needs saving you can count on Superman giving it his all and being there. I've consumed everything I can Superman since being able to read. Hence why I take it personally when someone says I'm not a real Superman fan. That's so ridiculous. Just because we like different versions of the character doesn't make one of us real Superman fans.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Great analogy.

It's actually a terrible one because every time the Queen takes a ****, there are millions of people outside Buckingham Palace cheering her on. People like to say no one cares about The Queen or the Royals but everytime they make an appearance, the country shuts down.

Originally Posted by The Batman

It shows that Superman has a legacy behind it. Again, Superman has been coasting off the fact that he's Superman. And even then, WB wasn't even gonna make another Superman flick until the lawsuit forced them to, now we're getting MoS because of that, not because Superman is still THE superhero. Having a potential market does not necessarily = popular. Having to the potential to be liked as much as, say, Batman or Iron Man does not mean its gonna happen. Superman Returns is perfect proof of that.



It was on for 10 years because it was on a mediocre network. That's like ruling in hell instead of serving in heaven. It has better ratings than Mad Men because Mad Men is an adult oriented show on a cable network, not a soap opera relying on the teenage girls and the built in superman fanbase. And even WITH those bases, I doubt Smallville will be remembered as well as, say, Lost, 24, House, etc.

Honestly, I see this convo going nowhere. Clearly, we have different ideas on whats popular. I tell you this, though...if Superman were still as popular as some would like to believe, we wouldn't have "Is Superman still relevent" arguments popping up all the time. It wouldn't even be a question.

But the people bringing up that question are not the "Post Crisis Defenders" but the people who are still stuck in the Bronze age and before that. Let me ask you, is Superman still relevant to you? I know he's extremely relevant to me, if he wasn't I wouldn't be bothering with this thread.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

At the core though, Superman is still Superman. The core values he represents are still there. This nonsense of who is the real Superman or what persona is the disguise doesn't matter really. It doesn't. What does matter is when someone is in trouble, when the world needs saving you can count on Superman giving it his all and being there. I've consumed everything I can Superman since being able to read.

So we could just replace Superman with any other superhero. The essential stuff doesn't matter.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

So we could just replace Superman with any other superhero. The essential stuff doesn't matter.

But what's essential in your opinion? Superman is from another planet. Clark Kent is his secret identity. He fights bad guys and saves the world every week. What more do you need that is considered essential?

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

It's actually a terrible one because every time the Queen takes a ****, there are millions of people outside Buckingham Palace cheering her on. People like to say no one cares about The Queen or the Royals but everytime they make an appearance, the country shuts down.

Do they? I don't care about it.

The thing is, people still tend to think about the Queen, but do they really know about what's truly behind this? European monarchy relies on religious people since the basic foundation is that the royals were chosen by God and that's the legitimation. But do people still believe this? I doubt it.

So people buy Queen souvenirs, they buy Superman shirts, but do they really know **** about what it's about?

But the people bringing up that question are not the "Post Crisis Defenders" but the people who are still stuck in the Bronze age and before that. Let me ask you, is Superman still relevant to you? I know he's extremely relevant to me, if he wasn't I wouldn't be bothering with this thread.

I don't think I am stuck in the past. I don't want comics of today copying the early days. But there is much to learn from them.

[Spike_x1]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Turning mild-mannered Clark Kent into a football hunk from one month to another is not natural evolution.

Playing football back in high school doesn't mean he can't be mild mannered. And Byrne's version of Clark was mannered pretty mildly. Humble, kind, polite, etc.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

But what's essential in your opinion? Superman is from another planet. Clark Kent is his secret identity. He fights bad guys and saves the world every week. What more do you need that is considered essential?

"Yes, it's Superman. Strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great Metropolitan newspaper fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way."

Doesn't work without it.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Playing football back in high school doesn't mean he can't be mild mannered. And Byrne's version of Clark was mannered pretty mildly. Humble, kind, polite, etc.

There is hardly any difference between Superman and Clark Kent in the Byrne stories.

One thing that was a good idea: To have Cat Grant swoon over Clark Kent. But it would have worked much better with the pre-crisis version. Since post-crisis Clark WAS a hunk. So Lois liking Superman and Cat Grant liking mild-mannered Clark Kent would have been pretty interesting. But so there wasn't much difference.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Do they? I don't care about it.

The thing is, people still tend to think about the Queen, but do they really know about what's truly behind this? European monarchy relies on religious people since the basic foundation is that the royals were chosen by God and that's the legitimation. But do people still believe this? I doubt it.

So people buy Queen souvenirs, they buy Superman shirts, but do they really know **** about what it's about?

In both cases, a lot of people don't. What they do know is, The Queen and Superman are popular so I better get me a t-shirt. I wouldn't expect the masses to know Superman real deep like we think we do at least, lol. People gravitate to Superman because he's the quintessential superhero. He's still the man. Sure Batman is real hot right now but I've had my fair share of friends ask me when Superman is going to get a good movie. All I can do is shake my head and hope that it's real soon.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

I don't think I am stuck in the past. I don't want comics of today copying the early days. But there is much to learn from them.

Of course, I fully agree with that.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Doesn't work without it.

That's fine. I mean, it's coming down to semantics but ok.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

In both cases, a lot of people don't. What they do know is, The Queen and Superman are popular so I better get me a t-shirt. I wouldn't expect the masses to know Superman real deep like we think we do at least, lol. People gravitate to Superman because he's the quintessential superhero. He's still the man. Sure Batman is real hot right now but I've had my fair share of friends ask me when Superman is going to get a good movie. All I can do is shake my head and hope that it's real soon.

I am not sure. Friends of mine bought a Superman shirt, but do they really know much about the character? No. Superman is more of a cult icon these days. Ozzy Osbourne, Chuck Norris, the Beatles, Cassablanca (not that they are equal or something ) are icons. But do people really know the stuff they have done / actually seen the movies? No.

The most common reaction to Superman I get is "he's boring".

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

I am not sure. Friends of mine bought a Superman shirt, but do they really know much about the character? No. Superman is more of a cult icon these days. Ozzy Osbourne, Chuck Norris, the Beatles, Cassablanca (not that they are equal or something ) are icons. But do people really know the stuff they have done / actually seen the movies? No.

The most common reaction to Superman I get is "he's boring".

Oh I get that too but we know otherwise. I can't control what the masses think but to me Superman is not boring by any stretch of the imagination.


I hate that we're agreeing and getting along, can we go back to fighting?

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

Oh I get that too but we know otherwise. I can't control what the masses think but to me Superman is not boring by any stretch of the imagination.


I hate that we're agreeing and getting along, can we go back to fighting?

I long for harmony. Part of my character.

And yes, I also do not think Superman is boring, but I cannot really blame "civilians" for thinking that. It's not like Superman Returns, Superman IV, Smallville, S:TAS and L&C were particularly great stuff. In one of the most successful comic book of all time he was portrayed as an idiot.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

I long for harmony. Part of my character.

And yes, I also do not think Superman is boring, but I cannot really blame "civilians" for thinking that. It's not like Superman Returns, Superman IV, Smallville, S:TAS and L&C were particularly great stuff.

Get some quality stuff out there and things will change. I mean, we had Batman and Robin before we got Batman Begins.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

But the people bringing up that question are not the "Post Crisis Defenders" but the people who are still stuck in the Bronze age and before that. Let me ask you, is Superman still relevant to you? I know he's extremely relevant to me, if he wasn't I wouldn't be bothering with this thread.

I disagree with the idea that Bronze Agers question Superman's relevency. I think it comes from the current generation of superhero fans, because Bronze Agers and so on have already given up on the current character. Superman is relevant to me only because of Morrison's current work. Other than that, I'd rather just look at past stuff, even if I did grow up with post crisis.

[Spike_x1]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

There is hardly any difference between Superman and Clark Kent in the Byrne stories.

His manners are still mild. He's Clark Kent. He's a reporter. End result = he's still Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter.

Whether or not he played football in school is inconsequential to that equation.

Any questions on how different or similar those aspects of him actually are, and how necessary those differences are, I'll simply direct you to The Question's posts on the subject. He's said pretty much everything that I could on the topic.

One thing that was a good idea: To have Cat Grant swoon over Clark Kent. But it would have worked much better with the pre-crisis version. Since post-crisis Clark WAS a hunk. So Lois liking Superman and Cat Grant liking mild-mannered Clark Kent would have been pretty interesting. But so there wasn't much difference.

I'll agree that that could have been interesting, but that doesn't mean that the way it was actually written was bad. I thought that it was perfectly fine as it was and just as interesting as it could have been if it were written pre-crisis. It just had a different kind of story that it wanted to tell.