question about superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane

[TruerToTheCore]

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.

Full quote because it's true.

Well, remember, a few years ago people still claimed that Byrne's version was truer to the core of the Siegel Golden Age original than the Silver and Bronze Age character. All the result of constant propaganda from DC and hardly anyone even bothered to check this.

People who have been raised on the post-crisis incarnation like it. I get that completely. But can you not at least admit that it's not really like Superman was supposed to be and was from 38 - 86?

For example, when it comes to the Ninja Turtles I prefer the 80s cartoon version (and especially the Archie comics) and not the early comics. Probably because I encountered the series way before. And yet I'll always admit that the comics are more valid and will not complain if the new franchise is mainly based on them. And I will not run around and scream "They were stupid! Crude art, Daredevil rip off!!!"

[TruerToTheCore]

Everyone should read:



complete story: http://supermanthrutheages.com/tales4/home/

[hopefuldreamer]

Great little story, thanks

Though personally I think it can be interpreted to fit BOTH sides of this arguement.

[Czar Colossus]

Yes.
That story was brilliant.
As I have said my only real problem with this New 52 Superman is the current look of the suit (and of Clark).

[Cain]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Full quote because it's true.

Well, remember, a few years ago people still claimed that Byrne's version was truer to the core of the Siegel Golden Age original than the Silver and Bronze Age character. All the result of constant propaganda from DC and hardly anyone even bothered to check this.

People who have been raised on the post-crisis incarnation like it. I get that completely. But can you not at least admit that it's not really like Superman was supposed to be and was from 38 - 86?

For example, when it comes to the Ninja Turtles I prefer the 80s cartoon version (and especially the Archie comics) and not the early comics. Probably because I encountered the series way before. And yet I'll always admit that the comics are more valid and will not complain if the new franchise is mainly based on them. And I will not run around and scream "They were stupid! Crude art, Daredevil rip off!!!"

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Everyone should read:



complete story: http://supermanthrutheages.com/tales4/home/

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

You completely get Superman. Awesome post.

That was pretty much the best post in the entire thread. And the fact that Cain grew up on post crisis makes it better, cause no one can claim his POV is based on bronze/silver/golden age nostalgia.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by The Batman

That was pretty much the best post in the entire thread. And the fact that Cain grew up on post crisis makes it better, cause no one can claim his POV is based on bronze/silver/golden age nostalgia.

Yeah, and that perspective is part of why he was able to say what I've been trying to say, but much better. Or maybe it's just because he's a better writer. Or less of a dick.

Regardless, kudos.

I think another reason why many comic book romances and marriages fail is because of the lack of understanding and objectification of women and how intimidating sexuality is to many male comics writers, artists and fans. Even Jerry and Joe created Superman due to their own struggles with manhood-remember, they were just teenagers when he was created. And then sadly, the best marriage DC ever had ended so horribly with Identity Crisis.

I think Reed and Sue worked better because Stan and Jack were married men, and Jack's closeness to Roz was legendary.

[hopefuldreamer]

I give up.

Apparently this thread is now only for praising Cain for being a good boy and having the same opinion as you, while ignoring any posts questioning his thread...

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

I give up.

Apparently this thread is now only for praising Cain for being a good boy and having the same opinion as you, while ignoring any posts questioning his thread...

jealous?

[hopefuldreamer]

How playground of you.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be jelous of.

I'm annoyed at how often my posts questioning points people make in discussions like this, are ignored instead of addressed.

I mean, isn't that all we expect from a debate?

Not just a group of people dismissing posts by those who don't agree with them in offensive or vague ways, and praising anyone who fits into their idea of 'right'.

But an actual attempt at considering other people's comments on your ideas of a character and adressing any problems or differences in opinion they have with them maturely and with respect?

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

How playground of you.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be jelous of.

I'm annoyed at how often my posts questioning points people make in discussions like this, are ignored instead of addressed.

I mean, isn't that all we expect from a debate?

Not just a group of people dismissing posts by those who don't agree with them in offensive or vague ways, and praising anyone who fits into their idea of 'right'.

But an actual attempt at considering other people's comments on your ideas of a character and adressing any problems or differences in opinion they have with them maturely and with respect?

It's not like the debate is about something new. Everything about it has already been regurgitated multiple times.

You could still write a PM.

[hopefuldreamer]

Like I said. I give up

[Kurosawa]

Superman is a character people either get or they don't. Cain gets the character.

Really there's two different characters-38-86 and 86-2002 or so. Pick the one you like, or like both.

[Czar Colossus]

Actually, (believe it or not) I really like them both ........I just really really despise that new %&*%$#@ suit!

[Kurosawa]

My biggest dislike of Post-Crisis Superman is Post-Crisis Clark Kent, or the lack of Clark Kent. That and the football playing thing. No way the Kents would allow him to play football when they knew how physically superior he is.

I mean, there's a ton of other little things I disliked but those were the two worst. With no Clark, Superman isn't the same.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Superman is a character people either get or they don't. Cain gets the character.

Why is Superman bound by those rules?

So other characters can be interpreted in different ways by different people... but not Superman, where there is only ONE right interpretation?

That's ridiculous.

ALL characters are open to interpretation. ALL fiction is open to interpretation.

And I am so tired of certain posters defining what the 'right' interpretation is. Praising those who fall into it, and dismissing or ridiculing those who don't.

Nobody gave you that right. It's simply you, for whatever reason, determining that your opinion is worth more than others. Nothing more.

It has nothing to do with your age. It has nothing to do with how many comics you've read, or what era you grew up in.

There are plenty of people who are capable of accepting change and enjoying multiple interpretations, no matter what they grew up on or what their preffered version is.

For whatever reason, you are not. Which is fine. You don't HAVE to enjoy Superman the way he was after the Byrne reboot. You don't have to enjoy Superman in MOS.

But I really wish you'd stop telling people they don't 'get' Superman, just because they don't prefer YOU'RE favourite interpretation, and see him differently because of that.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

Why is Superman bound by those rules?

So other characters can be interpreted in different ways by different people... but not Superman, where there is only ONE right interpretation?

That's ridiculous.

Nope, I feel the same way about almost all characters, including Batman, who I like best as a grim, gothic detective, and Wonder Woman, who I like best as a feminist icon. Spider-Man I like as a social outcast who marches to his own beat, the Hulk I like as Jekyll and Hyde. I want Captain Marvel to be as much like the Fawcett version as possible. Pretty much all superheroes I want to be developed with a keen eye towards their creators intentions. It's not like characters of legend who were created so long ago and came from verbal traditions. We don't know exactly who created King Arthur or Robin Hood, but we know who created Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, etc.

ALL characters are open to interpretation. ALL fiction is open to interpretation.

And I am so tired of certain posters defining what the 'right' interpretation is. Praising those who fall into it, and dismissing or ridiculing those who don't.

Nobody gave you that right. It's simply you, for whatever reason, determining that your opinion is worth more than others. Nothing more.

It has nothing to do with your age. It has nothing to do with how many comics you've read, or what era you grew up in.

There are plenty of people who are capable of accepting change and enjoying multiple interpretations, no matter what they grew up on or what their preffered version is.

For whatever reason, you are not. Which is fine. You don't HAVE to enjoy Superman the way he was after the Byrne reboot. You don't have to enjoy Superman in MOS.

But I really wish you'd stop telling people they don't 'get' Superman, just because they don't prefer YOU'RE favourite interpretation, and see him differently because of that.

It has nothing to do with what my preference is, it has everything to do with respecting the creators of the character and wanting to see him handled in a manner that does not contradict what they intended him to be. I don't see taking the basic core ideas of Jerry Siegel and throwing them out the window as "growth" or "evolution". I see it as arrogance and disrespect. Clark Kent is not supposed to be a jock or a stud or a gentle giant. Clark Kent is a nerd and a timid coward.

Originally Posted by Jerry Siegel

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.

So to me, you take out or minimize Clark Kent-that is to say "Metropolis Clark", then you take Jerry and Joe out of the strip, because that Clark is them by design.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Nope, I feel the same way about almost all characters, including Batman, who I like best as a grim, gothic detective, and Wonder Woman, who I like best as a feminist icon. Spider-Man I like as a social outcast who marches to his own beat, the Hulk I like as Jekyll and Hyde. I want Captain Marvel to be as much like the Fawcett version as possible. Pretty much all superheroes I want to be developed with a keen eye towards their creators intentions. It's not like characters of legend who were created so long ago and came from verbal traditions. We don't know exactly who created King Arthur or Robin Hood, but we know who created Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, etc.

It has nothing to do with what my preference is, it has everything to do with respecting the creators of the character and wanting to see him handled in a manner that does not contradict what they intended him to be. I don't see taking the basic core ideas of Jerry Siegel and throwing them out the window as "growth" or "evolution". I see it as arrogance and disrespect. Clark Kent is not supposed to be a jock or a stud or a gentle giant. Clark Kent is a nerd and a timid coward.
.

You prefer to respect the creators of the character, on principal, in all cases.

That's fine. But it absolutely DOES have to do with you're preference.

Some people do not hold to the IMO ridiculous notion, that all deviations from an original idea should be shunned because they are different from the creators intention.

It is up to you if you feel that way. But it isn't the 'right' way of thinking about it. It is just one way of thinking about it.

It's very possible that sometimes characters are changed for all the wrong reasons, by people who have no respect for them.

But it doesn't mean people can't like the overall outcome, if the character is still enjoyable to them.

And it doesn't mean they don't 'get' the character.

All of this is entirely about preference. You say 'Superman is the real person, Clark Kent is the disguise', I say 'Neither are real, both are a disguise', and someone else will say 'Clark Kent is the person, Superman is the disguise.'

None of us are not 'getting it'.

We are all perfectly understanding the material that we take those opinions from.

And what material do we take our opinions from?

The material we PREFER.

And whether you prefer it because of your principal about only regarding the creators original characterisation as valid, or whether you prefer it because you feel it is the one that makes the most logical sense, or whether you prefer it because you grew up with it and it is just how you like the character to be portrayed - it is still completely valid.

And why do you get to say otherwise?

[SuperFerret]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Superman is a character people either get or they don't. Cain gets the character.

Really there's two different characters-38-86 and 86-2002 or so. Pick the one you like, or like both.

But only one of them is Superman, right?

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

All of this is entirely about preference. You say 'Superman is the real person, Clark Kent is the disguise', I say 'Neither are real, both are a disguise', and someone else will say 'Clark Kent is the person, Superman is the disguise.'

None of us are not 'getting it'.

We are all perfectly understanding the material that we take those opinions from.

Well, apparently you are not getting it. Read the Siegel quote.

This "every take is valid" annoys me. Superman was created by two guys, not so long ago. He is not a true mythological figure/legend like Robin Hood or Heracles where your argument might count. So take what he is supposed to be. Bring it up to date. Alright. But change the whole idea behind it? No.

And what material do we take our opinions from?

The material we PREFER.

In a perfect world the post-crisis Superman wouldn't even exist.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Well, apparently you are not getting it. Read the Siegel quote.

This "every take is valid" annoys me. Superman was created by two guys, not so long ago. He is not a true mythological figure/legend like Robin Hood or Heracles where your argument might count. So take what he is supposed to be. Bring it up to date. Alright. But change the whole idea behind it? No.

If you think my arguement doesn't count because he's not mythological, you obviously didn't understand it.

I said all FICTION is open to interpretation.

Not all historical myths are open to interpretation.

All fiction. As in all characters created, somewhere down the line can be re created in new ways.

It's the same with music too. And it doesn't matter if you prefer the original or if you prefer the 'remake'. You can still comment on the workings of the song and why you like it 'that way'.

As for the Seigel quote, I don't believe I or anyone else has ever argued that Siegel himself intended for Metropolis Clark to be the 'real' man and not a disguise.

So I really don't see how it effects our discussion about the characterisations we prefer.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

In a perfect world the post-crisis Superman wouldn't even exist.

Perhaps in you're perfect world.

But we are in the real world.

And changes exist.

[Czar Colossus]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

In a perfect world the post-crisis Superman wouldn't even exist.

I respectfully have to disagree with that......
however;
I will say
in a perfect world the new Superman redesign by Jim Lee would not exist!

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by SuperFerret

But only one of them is Superman, right?

And the other is Clark Kent. Remember, they're two different people.

[The Question]

Because Superman is possessed by demons.

I'm sorry, this is really bugging me. How can they NOT be two different aspects of the same person? Regardless of which one is more "true," unless he's possessed then they are the same person. Because they are. Because it's just one guy changing his clothes back and forth and answering to different names. That doesn't mean he's not a complex, nuanced character with unique identity issues, but it does mean they're both the same individual.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by SuperFerret

But only one of them is Superman, right?

Only one of them is Superman as the guys who created him wanted him to be, yes. The other character is a glorified Sentry or Hyperion. He's not much more Superman than them, but he has the name and the look and that counts for a lot, counts for enough to fool people who either don't know any better or don't care to know any better that he's as legit as the original version.

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

You prefer to respect the creators of the character, on principal, in all cases.

That's fine. But it absolutely DOES have to do with you're preference.

Some people do not hold to the IMO ridiculous notion, that all deviations from an original idea should be shunned because they are different from the creators intention.

It is up to you if you feel that way. But it isn't the 'right' way of thinking about it. It is just one way of thinking about it.

It's very possible that sometimes characters are changed for all the wrong reasons, by people who have no respect for them.

But it doesn't mean people can't like the overall outcome, if the character is still enjoyable to them.

And it doesn't mean they don't 'get' the character.

All of this is entirely about preference. You say 'Superman is the real person, Clark Kent is the disguise', I say 'Neither are real, both are a disguise', and someone else will say 'Clark Kent is the person, Superman is the disguise.'

Originally Posted by Jerry Siegel

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.

It's not what I say. It's not my character. It's Siegel's character, without him there is no Superman, no DC Comics, no Superherohype, no comic book industry. Siegel says Clark is an act, Clark is an act. That doesn't mean that he isn't an essential and maybe the essential part of the character. Clark Kent is Jerry and Joe. Take him out, you take them out, and you lose the entire point of the character. Byrne's Superman was a winner as Clark who was secretly an even bigger winner as Superman-successful, physically impressive, attractive to women, high school athlete, perfect family, and then on top of all that he has superpowers. That's like cheering for Steve Jobs to win the lottery.

[quote]None of us are not 'getting it'.

We are all perfectly understanding the material that we take those opinions from.

And what material do we take our opinions from?

The material we PREFER.

That's fine. But I PREFER to respect the intentions of the characters creators. So classic Superman, articulate Tarzan, grim Batman, etc.

And whether you prefer it because of your principal about only regarding the creators original characterisation as valid, or whether you prefer it because you feel it is the one that makes the most logical sense, or whether you prefer it because you grew up with it and it is just how you like the character to be portrayed - it is still completely valid.

And why do you get to say otherwise?

I feel my opinion is the most legitimate because it is the creators intentions. My personal involvement with the material is of no consequence.

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Well, apparently you are not getting it. Read the Siegel quote.

This "every take is valid" annoys me. Superman was created by two guys, not so long ago. He is not a true mythological figure/legend like Robin Hood or Heracles where your argument might count. So take what he is supposed to be. Bring it up to date. Alright. But change the whole idea behind it? No.

Agreed. Clark working in TV like in the 70's or blogging, etc now is an update. Clark as some gentle giant character who isn't a nerd is going away from the concept of Clark Kent.

In a perfect world the post-crisis Superman wouldn't even exist.

Yeah, had they listened to Moore and Cary Bates they would have revamped Superman within the existing continuity.

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

If you think my arguement doesn't count because he's not mythological, you obviously didn't understand it.

I said all FICTION is open to interpretation.

Not all historical myths are open to interpretation.

All fiction. As in all characters created, somewhere down the line can be re created in new ways.

It's the same with music too. And it doesn't matter if you prefer the original or if you prefer the 'remake'. You can still comment on the workings of the song and why you like it 'that way'.

As for the Seigel quote, I don't believe I or anyone else has ever argued that Siegel himself intended for Metropolis Clark to be the 'real' man and not a disguise.

So I really don't see how it effects our discussion about the characterisations we prefer.



Perhaps in you're perfect world.

But we are in the real world.

And changes exist.

And those changes, while they have their supporters, have not led to success for the character as his popularity and relevance have waned since they were made, plus it makes Superman quite generic.