question about superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane

[TheCorpulent1]

Originally Posted by SuperFerret

Well, I'm good too. We're like Marvel and DC, we're the same.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by The Batman

This.

The whole "ITs just different facets of one guy" supports the marvel style of secret identity, and that just isn't Superman IMO. For me, Supes/Clark was a lot more interesting the way guys like you, kuro, and truthtothecore described him.

It really is hopeless. Not only does the modern reader not understand Superman, they cannot understand Superman. It's just been so long that Superman has been himself. Most of the modern readers have never even read the real character, and if they have, they have been taught for years that he was stupid.

Superman IS the real person, Clark Kent IS a disguise, end of story. No use to debate it with people who don't even know who Superman is or what he was created to be. Debate is a waste of time and it doesn't change anyone's mind. Unlike you, most younger readers cannot reject what they grew up with. Probably part of why we see things in a similar light is because I myself was able to reject the savage Tarzan, Hulk and campy Batman of my childhood once I encountered the original versions.

Originally Posted by SuperFerret

STOP THAT.

Let me spell this out real plain and simple here:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARVEL AND DC CHARACTERS ANYMORE.

And that is why DC will always fail and always be #2. Why read a wannabe Marvel character when you can read the real deal?

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

It really is hopeless. Not only does the modern reader not understand Superman, they cannot understand Superman. It's just been so long that Superman has been himself. Most of the modern readers have never even read the real character, and if they have, they have been taught for years that he was stupid.

Superman IS the real person, Clark Kent IS a disguise, end of story. No use to debate it with people who don't even know who Superman is or what he was created to be. Debate is a waste of time and it doesn't change anyone's mind. Unlike you, most younger readers cannot reject what they grew up with. Probably part of why we see things in a similar light is because I myself was able to reject the savage Tarzan, Hulk and campy Batman of my childhood once I encountered the original versions.



And that is why DC will always fail and always be #2. Why read a wannabe Marvel character when you can read the real deal?

Yes, it's a lot better to live in the past.

[TheCorpulent1]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Debate is a waste of time and it doesn't change anyone's mind.

One of the great tenets that modern society is built on.

[SuperFerret]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

It really is hopeless. Not only does the modern reader not understand Superman, they cannot understand Superman. It's just been so long that Superman has been himself. Most of the modern readers have never even read the real character, and if they have, they have been taught for years that he was stupid.

Superman IS the real person, Clark Kent IS a disguise, end of story. No use to debate it with people who don't even know who Superman is or what he was created to be. Debate is a waste of time and it doesn't change anyone's mind. Unlike you, most younger readers cannot reject what they grew up with. Probably part of why we see things in a similar light is because I myself was able to reject the savage Tarzan, Hulk and campy Batman of my childhood once I encountered the original versions.



And that is why DC will always fail and always be #2. Why read a wannabe Marvel character when you can read the real deal?

Please, oh great and powerful Oz, enlighten me on two things:

1) What is the "real" Superman?

2) What is a "Marvel character"?

And then I'll tell you how you're wrong.

[Batman]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

It really is hopeless. Not only does the modern reader not understand Superman, they cannot understand Superman. It's just been so long that Superman has been himself. Most of the modern readers have never even read the real character, and if they have, they have been taught for years that he was stupid.

Superman IS the real person, Clark Kent IS a disguise, end of story. No use to debate it with people who don't even know who Superman is or what he was created to be. Debate is a waste of time and it doesn't change anyone's mind. Unlike you, most younger readers cannot reject what they grew up with. Probably part of why we see things in a similar light is because I myself was able to reject the savage Tarzan, Hulk and campy Batman of my childhood once I encountered the original versions.

That is the single most ridiculous, pompous piece of absolute bull**** that has been posted on this forum since it's original conception. And having never read every post that has ever been made on this forum, since that's pretty much impossible, I can honestly say that and still speak with far less hyperbole than you have in your one ridiculous assertion that a character like Superman is limited to one, single, soulless interpretation.

Well done.

Really.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

It really is hopeless. Not only does the modern reader not understand Superman, they cannot understand Superman. It's just been so long that Superman has been himself. Most of the modern readers have never even read the real character, and if they have, they have been taught for years that he was stupid.

Superman IS the real person, Clark Kent IS a disguise, end of story. No use to debate it with people who don't even know who Superman is or what he was created to be. Debate is a waste of time and it doesn't change anyone's mind. Unlike you, most younger readers cannot reject what they grew up with. Probably part of why we see things in a similar light is because I myself was able to reject the savage Tarzan, Hulk and campy Batman of my childhood once I encountered the original versions.

1: Why is there no room for different interpretations? Why is "Superman IS the real person, Clark Kent IS a disguise" the end of the story? Why can't someone come along and say "hold on a minute, I have a new take on the matter of his secret identity that I think is interesting and cool, let me explain it to you?" And why is that any less valid?

2: Why is it so important to reject things? I like the Savage Hulk, I actually think he's more interesting being the default Hulk, and I like how they brought back what is now referred to as the "Joe Fixit" personality and actually integrated it into Bruce Banner's character development. Why should the Savage Hulk be rejected?

Heck, I don't even reject the campy 60s Batman. I like the Adam West show. It's really funny. If I were to write a Batman story I'd probably write the dark and broody version, but I'd never turn my nose up at a campy Batman story. If it's funny and entertaining then I'd probably like it a lot.

Why should those things that came later be rejected at all?

3: All in all, I understand Superman just fine, and I've read plenty of pre and post crisis stories. And I'm capable of seeing value in both.

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

And that is why DC will always fail and always be #2. Why read a wannabe Marvel character when you can read the real deal?

What does that mean?

[Darthphere]

The problem I see with rejecting the modern version of a character in favor of the original version is, everybody has moved on from the original version. There is no new issue written and drawn by Siegel and Schuster coming out. You're setting yourself up for disappointment and being bitter for the last 25 years about what you deem to not be the real version of your favorite character.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Batman

That is the single most ridiculous, pompous piece of absolute bull**** that has been posted on this forum since it's original conception. And having never read every post that has ever been made on this forum, since that's pretty much impossible, I can honestly say that and still speak with far less hyperbole than you have in your one ridiculous assertion that a character like Superman is limited to one, single, soulless interpretation.

Well done.

Really.

You mad, bro?


****, now I know why people do that, it's so addictive.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

Yes, it's a lot better to live in the past.

Yes, ignoring the past is a great thing.

Originally Posted by SuperFerret

Please, oh great and powerful Oz, enlighten me on two things:

1) What is the "real" Superman?

2) What is a "Marvel character"?

And then I'll tell you how you're wrong.

1-1938-1986 Superman is the real Superman.
2-A Marvel or Marvelized character is distinguished from a DC or more iconic character by flaws of character and personal conflicts. DC characters are, or were when DC was #1 and Marvel was #2, much less conflicted and much more iconic and positive in outlook and in attitude. DC teams would not bicker and argue like the FF, Avengers and X-Men did, they treated each other as equals, they were admired and idolized by the public. At Marvel, a more or less pure character like Cap sticks out. At DC a more gruff character like Metamorpho sticks out. Now over the years, as DC has attempted to become more and more like Marvel, they have given their characters flaws and issues and any DC character now is at least as ****ed up as a Marvel character if not moreso, but when the two companies were actually different from one another, the differences were vast. Of course, compared to today's comics where almost every character is a sick, violent, twisted murderous douche, the Marvel heroes of the 60's seem very goody-goody. But at the time they were darker and on the surface more complex.

Some DC characters had more complex personalities and issues than people thought, Superman easily first among them. Superman in the 60's, the era which people have been taught for 50 years now was nothing but Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy and Beppo the Super-Monkey was actually DC's most compelling character, with a very interesting veneer of melancholy under his optimistic and pure persona. Superman was very alone in the world in many ways, yearning for his lost homeworld and for the happier days of his childhood in Smallville. This was when Luthor started to become a more interesting character too, as their childhood friendship was revealed and hints that he could one day reform making the character a noble sort of villain. But this and all the other interesting development of the 60's is glossed over, mostly due to sour grapes from some of the older people that were still at DC in the mid 80's over Weisinger, and the rest from Marvel guys like John Byrne who had been taught all their lives that Superman was boring and stupid because he is so powerful.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Yes, ignoring the past is a great thing.

Except, I didn't say that ever. I actually agreed with you earlier or Truetothecore that we should learn from the past. Living in the past is a different thing together. You can respect the past, learn from it, embrace it. But to shun all modern representations in favor of the original version is living in the past. Time to join us Post-Post-Post Crisis.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Batman

That is the single most ridiculous, pompous piece of absolute bull**** that has been posted on this forum since it's original conception. And having never read every post that has ever been made on this forum, since that's pretty much impossible, I can honestly say that and still speak with far less hyperbole than you have in your one ridiculous assertion that a character like Superman is limited to one, single, soulless interpretation.

Well done.

Really.

Why? Because I said that once I encountered the original versions of characters that were different from what I grew up with, I was able to put aside my own biases and look at what the characters creators intended?

I maintain that character are usually handled best when they are used in a manner that is consistent with their creator's intentions. And how in the hell is Jerry Siegel's version of Superman souless? It's HIS character. He had the meek Clark Kent be the might Superman in reality because of his own personal neuroses and sexual frustrations. He even SAID as much. How can a character that is that personal a creation, where the author is putting his own emotions out there on the page, be souless?

Ridiculous.

[SuperFerret]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Yes, ignoring the past is a great thing.



1-1938-1986 Superman is the real Superman.
2-A Marvel or Marvelized character is distinguished from a DC or more iconic character by flaws of character and personal conflicts. DC characters are, or were when DC was #1 and Marvel was #2, much less conflicted and much more iconic and positive in outlook and in attitude. DC teams would not bicker and argue like the FF, Avengers and X-Men did, they treated each other as equals, they were admired and idolized by the public. At Marvel, a more or less pure character like Cap sticks out. At DC a more gruff character like Metamorpho sticks out. Now over the years, as DC has attempted to become more and more like Marvel, they have given their characters flaws and issues and any DC character now is at least as ****ed up as a Marvel character if not moreso, but when the two companies were actually different from one another, the differences were vast. Of course, compared to today's comics where almost every character is a sick, violent, twisted murderous douche, the Marvel heroes of the 60's seem very goody-goody. But at the time they were darker and on the surface more complex.

Some DC characters had more complex personalities and issues than people thought, Superman easily first among them. Superman in the 60's, the era which people have been taught for 50 years now was nothing but Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy and Beppo the Super-Monkey was actually DC's most compelling character, with a very interesting veneer of melancholy under his optimistic and pure persona. Superman was very alone in the world in many ways, yearning for his lost homeworld and for the happier days of his childhood in Smallville. This was when Luthor started to become a more interesting character too, as their childhood friendship was revealed and hints that he could one day reform making the character a noble sort of villain. But this and all the other interesting development of the 60's is glossed over, mostly due to sour grapes from some of the older people that were still at DC in the mid 80's over Weisinger, and the rest from Marvel guys like John Byrne who had been taught all their lives that Superman was boring and stupid because he is so powerful.

1) How so? I'm not going to take your opinion as fact just 'cause.

2) Marvel hit on a good thing with their method in the 60's, but things were heading there ("there" being treating the characters as real people, not untouchable ideals) anyway, Lee, Kirby and the rest just hit on it first.

Seriously, the only sour grapes I'm seeing here is you being an old fogey about kids today and their newfangled Superman. Many posters here have plainly said that they read and loved the pre-crisis stuff, but you dismiss them on the principle that they also enjoy post-crisis stuff.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Why? Because I said that once I encountered the original versions of characters that were different from what I grew up with, I was able to put aside my own biases and look at what the characters creators intended?

I think it's more because you tend to be kind of rude about it. Saying things like "You're not true Superman fans" does't endear you to people.

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

I maintain that character are usually handled best when they are used in a manner that is consistent with their creator's intentions. And how in the hell is Jerry Siegel's version of Superman souless? It's HIS character. He had the meek Clark Kent be the might Superman in reality because of his own personal neuroses and sexual frustrations. He even SAID as much. How can a character that is that personal a creation, where the author is putting his own emotions out there on the page, be souless?

Ridiculous.

The characters in Twilight are based on Stephane Meyer's personal neuroses and sexual frustrations, but they're completely soulless because she's a **** writer. I'm not saying Seigel's Superman is soulless, I'm just saying that a writer having a personal stake in a character doesn't automatically make them a good or compelling character.

I have to ask you, why is a character handled best when used in a manner consistent with the creator's intentions? That's not always the case. Daredevil didn't become the Daredevil that people think of and love until Frank Miller. Chris Claremont's initial run on the X-Men is significantly better than the Lee/Kirby run. Johnny Cash's cover of Hurt kick's the original Nine Inch Nails version in the balls.

The creator of something isn't always the person who does that thing the best. Sometimes they don't see something in their work that only an unbiased outsider can. And even if they are the best, what's wrong with different interpretations?

Like, I love the Jimmy Hendrix version of "All Along the Watchtower." (which, by the way, isn't even the original). But I still love Bear McCreary's version, which is vastly different. Is it better? No. But it deserves the right to exits.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

The problem I see with rejecting the modern version of a character in favor of the original version is, everybody has moved on from the original version. There is no new issue written and drawn by Siegel and Schuster coming out. You're setting yourself up for disappointment and being bitter for the last 25 years about what you deem to not be the real version of your favorite character.

Except every point of factual data has shown that the 86-2010 version has failed, so here we are in 2012 going back to the basics-Clark and Superman distinct personas, Superman being more bold and assertive, the social conscience is back, and look at what else is coming back-readers.

I do have a caveat: the Post-Crisis Superman has actually been gone since Birthright, and the last decade or so has been a flux period, much like the 48-58 period was for Pre-Crisis Superman. They've been working on restoring the character for years, but now they've finally settled on a direction-I hope. I still feel things won't be full speed ahead until the lawsuit is over and DC has full control back.

But I'm actually pretty happy with the current state of Superman except for the crappy costume. Time, readers and Grant Morrison has in my mind, proved my point. Going back to the core ideas that made Superman popular and interesting in the first place seems to be working.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by SuperFerret

Many posters here have plainly said that they read and loved the pre-crisis stuff, but you dismiss them on the principle that they also enjoy post-crisis stuff.

I wish to point out that out of my listed 14 favorite Superman stories, five are pre-crisis. And that list of 14 were just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

[SuperFerret]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Why? Because I said that once I encountered the original versions of characters that were different from what I grew up with, I was able to put aside my own biases and look at what the characters creators intended?

I maintain that character are usually handled best when they are used in a manner that is consistent with their creator's intentions. And how in the hell is Jerry Siegel's version of Superman souless? It's HIS character. He had the meek Clark Kent be the might Superman in reality because of his own personal neuroses and sexual frustrations. He even SAID as much. How can a character that is that personal a creation, where the author is putting his own emotions out there on the page, be souless?

Ridiculous.

Wrong-o. On two levels.

He sold his character. Officially, Superman is DC's character. In spirit, Superman is all of our character. The day that Siegel and Shuster (and the other creators) allowed other people into their sandbox, those characters stopped being theirs. They became community creations, and the creator's intentions both no longer apply and (in many cases) no longer fit, which becomes beneficial to the character. Superman, being a communal creation, has been able to adapt to the changing pop culture climate, and has done so with consistent success.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Except every point of factual data has shown that the 86-2010 version has failed, so here we are in 2012 going back to the basics-Clark and Superman distinct personas, Superman being more bold and assertive, the social conscience is back, and look at what else is coming back-readers.

Yes, I'm sure that has nothing to do with coming off a big event and an extremely popular writer. I mean The Batman for example has admitted to only reading Superman because Morrison is writing him.

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

I do have a caveat: the Post-Crisis Superman has actually been gone since Birthright, and the last decade or so has been a flux period, much like the 48-58 period was for Pre-Crisis Superman. They've been working on restoring the character for years, but now they've finally settled on a direction-I hope. I still feel things won't be full speed ahead until the lawsuit is over and DC has full control back.

This is interesting to me. You want them to follow the creators intentions but you don't want their heirs to control the character. Seems like to me, Jerry and Joe's original intentions would be for their families to have the character, not DC.

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

But I'm actually pretty happy with the current state of Superman except for the crappy costume. Time, readers and Grant Morrison has in my mind, proved my point. Going back to the core ideas that made Superman popular and interesting in the first place seems to be working.

Keywords there.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Except every point of factual data has shown that the 86-2010 version has failed, so here we are in 2012 going back to the basics-Clark and Superman distinct personas, Superman being more bold and assertive, the social conscience is back, and look at what else is coming back-readers.

Causation/correlation fallacy.

The only thing the data shows is that these things have happened at the same time. It doesn't prove that one is causing the other.

Maybe the 86-2010 Superman wasn't selling #1 constantly because they knew that the Superman franchise will always draw in enough readers to pay for itself (which is true, a testament to his popularity, by the by), so they hand the book to any ******* who wants it regardless of wether or not he can write. Maybe Superman was falling behind Green Lantern and Batman through no fault of his own, and just because Batman and Green Lantern are really popular and selling really well right now. And maybe readers are flocking back not because the writers are doing the things you like, but because it's a reboot with a popular artist like Jim Lee at the head of it and that's going to draw in a bunch of new, curious buyers for the first couple of months regardless.

Showing that two things happened at the same time doesn't prove that one caused the other.

Also, I question your definition of failure. I wouldn't call being able to consistently carry four separate series and sell well enough to justify their existence and having at least of one them always sell in DC's top five book's a failure of any kind.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by The Question

I think it's more because you tend to be kind of rude about it. Saying things like "You're not true Superman fans" does't endear you to people.



The characters in Twilight are based on Stephane Meyer's personal neuroses and sexual frustrations, but they're completely soulless because she's a **** writer. I'm not saying Seigel's Superman is soulless, I'm just saying that a writer having a personal stake in a character doesn't automatically make them a good or compelling character.

Well, for starters, Jerry Siegel was about a million times better writer than Stephanie Meyer. And I think Twilight is much more mindless than soulless. I think attaching the "soulless" label to any artists work is a pretty big assumption. It's like when people call progressive rock soulless just because it's complex and hard to play. Unless Geddy Lee or whoever explicitly says,"I feel nothing when we play our songs because the complexity of playing them keeps us from having emotions when we play.", I'm gonna assume that there is soul in Rush's music even if Rolling Stone magazine claims there isn't.

I have to ask you, why is a character handled best when used in a manner consistent with the creator's intentions? That's not always the case. Daredevil didn't become the Daredevil that people think of and love until Frank Miller. Chris Claremont's initial run on the X-Men is significantly better than the Lee/Kirby run. Johnny Cash's cover of Hurt kick's the original Nine Inch Nails version in the balls.

The creator of something isn't always the person who does that thing the best. Sometimes they don't see something in their work that only an unbiased outsider can. And even if they are the best, what's wrong with different interpretations?

Like, I love the Jimmy Hendrix version of "All Along the Watchtower." (which, by the way, isn't even the original). But I still love Bear McCreary's version, which is vastly different. Is it better? No. But it deserves the right to exits.

It's not always the case, but with Superman it IS the case. Jerry Siegel didn't write ever Superman story from 38-86 but the character was consistent with what he created. And Superman was better for it.

Or let's put it this way: if something has worked for 50 years and you want to change it by doing a complete 360 with one of it's core conceits, you'd better do a damn awesome job of it. And John Byrne and the writers and artists who came after him didn't do that. Some did better than others, but no one ever surpassed the earlier version.

And by the way, these Post-Crisis Superman comics that I blast so much? I bought every single one of them the day they came out. And I own them still. Even though I really can't afford new comics at the moment due to losing my dad, I'm still trying to scheme up a way to keep buying Superman and Action at least.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Cain

One could argue that Byrne/Woflman's Clark is far more milquetoast than Golden, Silver and Bronze Age Clark though. Especially after the marriage because so many people didn't know how to write such a thing.

If they had looked at the Earth-2 marriage dynamic for inspiration it probably could've been different maybe. But they didn't. That was why so many writers had a problem with him after those guys laid down the law for the post-Crisis Superman books during the mid-80's. I say that as a post-Crisis fan. That's neither here nor there though.

The fact of the matter is this. When it comes to Marvel for example I'm a big Hulk fan. Somewhat for a lot of the same reasons I'm also a Superman fan. The dichotomy that Superman and Clark Kent have is very similar to the one that Bruce Banner and the Hulk face.

In the sense that from the point of creation all the way down to the greatest comic books featuring the guy; once the creators left the best stories played off the theme that you get 2 characters and not just one. 2 sides to a coin yes but heads certainly always looks different from tails. You need a part of Clark for Superman to exist the same way you need a part of Banner for the Hulk to exist but in the end they're their own individual characters.

Clark and Superman at times don't have the same beliefs. They do not carry the same mannerisms as many people often over state and the same applies for the frame of mind. Sometimes they don't stand for the same thing outside of the shallow look of it (they want to do good) cause they go about it in completely different ways.

This is why they could never be the "same guy". They're a representation of one being in different respects from a technical stand point obviously (same matter occupies both aspects after all). But it's also like two fabricated parts of a whole because what we see is really not the real guy anymore. As stated before in this thread the real guy died with the Kents.

That's where the fun of the comics and relatable aspect of the comics are. You have to face sacrifices in life in order to move forward. The prize is in standing your ground and surviving them. Never letting go of your principles even if you must make compromises. It's the beauty of life and why I could never fall for "Superman is not relatable" when people spew that BS.

Here's the loneliest guy ever because he can no longer be who he was raised as being. He's powerful as hell and could kill us all but never will because of what the Kents did for him. The same way the kid they raised with the exception of the Legion will not be known by anybody else. They didn't want him to stay stagnant they wanted him to grow they knew he was special. He'll never be as open and honest with anybody like he was with the Kent's no matter how much he ends up loving them and caring for them because he has to now be more. That's awesome ****.

It's something he cherishes as the best time of his life. He can't look back though he must move forward cause it's what the Kent's wanted for him. He's so selfless because of the people that raised him and it's beautifully poetic in that way cause he knows it could've been different. He could've been raised by heartless bastards. So he gives himself up as a true individual because the people who knew that individual aren't around anymore.

He honors their memory though through what they blessed him with (his ethics, his character and Superman and Clark Kent the journalist) and even though he'll die alone because he'll see every one he loves die before him he still carries on because of the legacy of what those people did for him in the first place.

His parents died so that part of him is gone. However they also gave him 2 gifts a way to disguise himself amongst us and express those down to earth desires and help people that way. As well as a way to really express himself as he really is but in a more boisterous manner and also inspire others to do the same through that honesty and selflessness. It's why "Superman is the real guy". It's as close to the real guy as you'll get.

The hook of it is how selfless this man really is. It's a tragedy in that sense. He could never really be honest around anybody anymore. Yet even as Clark he's still Superman cause Superman is not what he "does" it's who he is.

If Clark is walking in a park and sees a kite in a tree and a kid crying for that kite on the ground he'll use his super breath to slyly get it down. That's not something a human could do and in the eyes of the public Clark Kent is a human; only his parents know he's an alien but that's something only a Superman can do. He doesn't think like us; he'll outlive us and do things that our beyond our physical capacities. Who he was is not who he is anymore. In the sense that he no longer has his parents to really show the Clark Kent that they raised to. They were his confidants.

It doesn't mean Clark is a dullard though. I think too many people were misguided by the Donner movie to really understand that pre-Crisis Clark wasn't exactly a push over nor milquetoast either. Reeve's Clark is much more a fabrication and interpretation from Reeve's own genius than it was ever fidelity to pre-Crisis Clark.

It's probably why as much as I enjoyed the movie and the animated series (I don't find it mediocre at all it's one of the better media adaptations) my favorite media version of Superman and Clark is George Reeves.

That version got it. I grew up post-crisis but also took time to buy the archive collections from previous eras as well & overall I prefer pre-crisis books to post-crisis ones because of that.

You completely get Superman. Awesome post.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

You completely get Superman. Awesome post.

Thanks. I know you've enjoyed Action Comics but what have you thought about Superman? even though Perez' arc was extremely mediocre to me I did appreciate that it also dealt with the duality pretty well.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Cain

Thanks. I know you've enjoyed Action Comics but what have you thought about Superman? even though Perez' arc was extremely mediocre to me I did appreciate that it also dealt with the duality pretty well.

I thought the Perez stuff was fine. Nicola Scott is such a good artist she almost made the Lee costume work. Some people thought it was too wordy, but it didn't bother me.

I mean, 70's Killraven was a little bit wordy:



But even that doesn't bother me.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

I thought the Perez stuff was fine. Nicola Scott is such a good artist she almost made the Lee costume work. Some people thought it was too wordy, but it didn't bother me.

I mean, 70's Killraven was a little bit wordy:



But even that doesn't bother me.

Nicola Scott is one of the best. I'd read anything she pens it's why I bought JT Krul's Titans book. I appreciated that it was wordy actually I just felt the narrative itself was still way too decompressed for my taste and not worth dragging out. It just wasn't something compelling enough for 6 issues of a book.

The fact that a sentient force latched on to Supes' suit or whatever was dragged out beyond the point of it even being interesting anymore. It could've easily been resolved in 2 issues. The pacing the book has now with Giffen and Jurgens is more my flavor.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by Cain

The fact of the matter is this. When it comes to Marvel for example I'm a big Hulk fan. Somewhat for a lot of the same reasons I'm also a Superman fan. The dichotomy that Superman and Clark Kent have is very similar to the one that Bruce Banner and the Hulk face.

In the sense that from the point of creation all the way down to the greatest comic books featuring the guy; once the creators left the best stories played off the theme that you get 2 characters and not just one. 2 sides to a coin yes but heads certainly always looks different from tails. You need a part of Clark for Superman to exist the same way you need a part of Banner for the Hulk to exist but in the end they're their own individual characters.

No. It is completely not the same.

Banner to Hulk is a physical and mental transformation. His mind and body literally change.

Clark Kent to Superman is still the exact same mind and body, just in a different outfit and acting a different way.

Originally Posted by Cain

Clark and Superman at times don't have the same beliefs. They do not carry the same mannerisms as many people often over state and the same applies for the frame of mind. Sometimes they don't stand for the same thing outside of the shallow look of it (they want to do good) cause they go about it in completely different ways.

I'm sorry... but wtf?

Doing good in different ways as each persona is not an indication that Clark Kent and Superman have different beliefs... what are you talking about?

I mean, the only way one mind can have two personas that have different beliefs, is if they have multiple personality disorder.

And last time I checked, Superman was not insane. Clark Kent is not some seperate part of him. He's just himself, in one of his costumes.

Originally Posted by Cain

This is why they could never be the "same guy". They're a representation of one being in different respects from a technical stand point obviously (same matter occupies both aspects after all). But it's also like two fabricated parts of a whole because what we see is really not the real guy anymore. As stated before in this thread the real guy died with the Kents.

That's where the fun of the comics and relatable aspect of the comics are. You have to face sacrifices in life in order to move forward. The prize is in standing your ground and surviving them. Never letting go of your principles even if you must make compromises. It's the beauty of life and why I could never fall for "Superman is not relatable" when people spew that BS.

Here's the loneliest guy ever because he can no longer be who he was raised as being. He's powerful as hell and could kill us all but never will because of what the Kents did for him. The same way the kid they raised with the exception of the Legion will not be known by anybody else. They didn't want him to stay stagnant they wanted him to grow they knew he was special. He'll never be as open and honest with anybody like he was with the Kent's no matter how much he ends up loving them and caring for them because he has to now be more. That's awesome ****.

It's something he cherishes as the best time of his life. He can't look back though he must move forward cause it's what the Kent's wanted for him. He's so selfless because of the people that raised him and it's beautifully poetic in that way cause he knows it could've been different. He could've been raised by heartless bastards. So he gives himself up as a true individual because the people who knew that individual aren't around anymore.

He honors their memory though through what they blessed him with (his ethics, his character and Superman and Clark Kent the journalist) and even though he'll die alone because he'll see every one he loves die before him he still carries on because of the legacy of what those people did for him in the first place.

His parents died so that part of him is gone. However they also gave him 2 gifts a way to disguise himself amongst us and express those down to earth desires and help people that way. As well as a way to really express himself as he really is but in a more boisterous manner and also inspire others to do the same through that honesty and selflessness.It's why "Superman is the real guy". It's as close to the real guy as you'll get.

The hook of it is how selfless this man really is. It's a tragedy in that sense. He could never really be honest around anybody anymore. Yet even as Clark he's still Superman cause Superman is not what he "does" it's who he is.

If Clark is walking in a park and sees a kite in a tree and a kid crying for that kite on the ground he'll use his super breath to slyly get it down. That's not something a human could do and in the eyes of the public Clark Kent is a human; only his parents know he's an alien but that's something only a Superman can do. He doesn't think like us; he'll outlive us and do things that our beyond our physical capacities. Who he was is not who he is anymore. In the sense that he no longer has his parents to really show the Clark Kent that they raised to. They were his confidants.

It doesn't mean Clark is a dullard though. I think too many people were misguided by the Donner movie to really understand that pre-Crisis Clark wasn't exactly a push over nor milquetoast either. Reeve's Clark is much more a fabrication and interpretation from Reeve's own genius than it was ever fidelity to pre-Crisis Clark.

It's probably why as much as I enjoyed the movie and the animated series (I don't find it mediocre at all it's one of the better media adaptations) my favorite media version of Superman and Clark is George Reeves.

That version got it. I grew up post-crisis but also took time to buy the archive collections from previous eras as well & overall I prefer pre-crisis books to post-crisis ones because of that.

See now i'm just finding that you're contradicting yourself...

Originally Posted by TheCorpulent1

I think people get too hung up on dividing Superman into neat, tidy sides. Clark Kent is Kal-El is Superman. They're the same person. He just chooses to show different parts of himself to different people in different parts of his life--exactly like everyone else does every day.

It's posts like this that should completely be the end of it