Comics birthright or man of steel

[D'Artagnan]

That makes no sense. He wasn't born Superman. He wasn't raised as Superman. He was born Kal El, but he was raised as Clark Kent. He made the conscious descision to become Superman. He could have easily become a criminal or simply not used his powers at all. He wasn't Superman from the start. He was Clark for over 20 years before he became Superman.

(At this point, it would help if everyone was familiar with not only MoS and BR, but the original Siegel and Schuster comics as well.)

I completely understand what you are saying. John Byrne would agree with you. But S&S would not. Back in the 30's, Kal-El was always destined to be Superman (indeed, back then, the origin of a superhero was more a short explanation than anything else). Morality in those early tales was black and white; he was a man with a great gift, he helped the world. He was a hero, end of story. He was born to be Superman. He was more or less raised as Superman, depending on which comics you read. In some he was Superbaby and Superboy, in some he only became Superman. It just depends.


As for the 'S' logo, I like all the different explanations. Byrne's idea was that Supes just designed it himself, for two reasons; 1. Byrne wanted to get away from Supes' Krytpon origins so having a huge Krypton symbol on his chest was out, and 2. It's (slightly) easier to believe that Clark would use an 'S' after Lois had already named him Superman, than have a Kryptonian symbol just happen to look like an 'S', after which he's called Superman (although the latter makes more sense in that Lois doesn't just come up with the name Superman off the top of her head.....)

Birthright says that the 'S' is a symbol representing the whole of Krypton, not just the house of El.

 

[The Question]

(At this point, it would help if everyone was familiar with not only MoS and BR, but the original Siegel and Schuster comics as well.)

I completely understand what you are saying. John Byrne would agree with you. But S&S would not. Back in the 30's, Kal-El was always destined to be Superman (indeed, back then, the origin of a superhero was more a short explanation than anything else). Morality in those early tales was black and white; he was a man with a great gift, he helped the world. He was a hero, end of story. He was born to be Superman. He was more or less raised as Superman, depending on which comics you read. In some he was Superbaby and Superboy, in some he only became Superman. It just depends.

But, he wasn't born to be Superman. He was simply born. It was his descision to become Superman. He could, just as easily, become a criminal, or not used his powers at all. It was entirely his choice. He was Clark Kent before he ever donned the suit.

As for the 'S' logo, I like all the different explanations. Byrne's idea was that Supes just designed it himself, for two reasons; 1. Byrne wanted to get away from Supes' Krytpon origins so having a huge Krypton symbol on his chest was out, and 2. It's (slightly) easier to believe that Clark would use an 'S' after Lois had already named him Superman, than have a Kryptonian symbol just happen to look like an 'S', after which he's called Superman (although the latter makes more sense in that Lois doesn't just come up with the name Superman off the top of her head.....)

Birthright says that the 'S' is a symbol representing the whole of Krypton, not just the house of El.

I actually prefer it being a Kryptonian symbol myself. It seems somewhat egotistical for Clark to call himself Superman. I'd think he simply chose the symbol becaused it looked alien and would draw atention away from his face, and Lois noted that it looked like an S and called him Superman.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

But, he wasn't born to be Superman. He was simply born. It was his descision to become Superman. He could, just as easily, become a criminal, or not used his powers at all. It was entirely his choice.

Exactly! There's my point. In some versions of the story, he WAS born to be Superman. The Kryptonian deity Rao planned everything, from the destruction of Krypton to Superman becoming the most powerful man in the universe.

He was Clark Kent before he ever donned the suit.

Don't confuse the costume with the character. He was only called Clark Kent when he got to earth. His birth name, the name his parents gave him, is Kal-El.

I actually prefer it being a Kryptonian symbol myself. It seems somewhat egotistical for Clark to call himself Superman. I'd think he simply chose the symbol becaused it looked alien and would draw atention away from his face, and Lois noted that it looked like an S and called him Superman.

I don't think Superman has ever chosen his name in any of his incarnations - I could be wrong.

Intresting to note that in Man of Steel, Clark has to save a shuttle (with Lois inside) before he even comes up with the Superman costume. Lois sees him without his glasses, which is why he needs them as Clark. Presumably otherwise he would wear a mask as Superman.

 

[The Question]

Exactly! There's my point. In some versions of the story, he WAS born to be Superman. The Kryptonian deity Rao planned everything, from the destruction of Krypton to Superman becoming the most powerful man in the universe.

Are you serious? That seems very odd. Why would Rao kill over seven billion people just so that one would go to Earth, get really strong, and save Earth a bunch of times? I mean, there are plenty of characters in DC who dwarf Superman in terms of power. Dr. Fate alone could probably defeat most of the Justice League single handedly.

Don't confuse the costume with the character. He was only called Clark Kent when he got to earth. His birth name, the name his parents gave him, is Kal-El.

True. But he was raised Clark Kent. He was refered to and thought of himself as Clark Kent before he ever figured out that his birth name was Kal-El. And, he had been Clark for over two decades before he decided to be Superman.

 

[D'Artagnan]

Are you serious? That seems very odd. Why would Rao kill over seven billion people just so that one would go to Earth, get really strong, and save Earth a bunch of times? I mean, there are plenty of characters in DC who dwarf Superman in terms of power. Dr. Fate alone could probably defeat most of the Justice League single handedly.

Absolutely I'm serious! And in another version, in the 70's, The Guardians of the Universe genetically manipulated the House of El on Krypton for 10,000 years to produce Kal-El. They actually intended Superman to lead the Green Lanterns and be the ultimate protector of the entire universe! There was even a Sword of Superman that floated through space for centuries, destined to end up in his hands.

Check out Superman Annual # 10, which you can read online here http://superman.ws/tales2/sword/

So yes, not only was he born to be Superman, his entire family and perhaps even Krypton as well were born for him to be Superman.

 

[The Question]

That is mind numbingly stupid. Why couldn't Rao just have a Kryptonian go to Earth? Why kill seven billion people?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

That is mind numbingly stupid. Why couldn't Rao just have a Kryptonian go to Earth? Why kill seven billion people?

It's complicated. Read the comics.

 

[The Question]

It sounds complicated. Unnecessairily so. What comics did this happen in?

 

[Morgoth]

I ahve got to read Birthright, just to see for my self what it's all about. I also need to reread Man of Steel. I love that book.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I ahve got to read Birthright, just to see for my self what it's all about. I also need to reread Man of Steel. I love that book.

Both books are fantastic, really. Man of Steel is serialised, Birthright reads like a movie.

 

[The Question]

Now, Maybe I should have really sat down and read the whole thing, but Birthright just seemed kind of boring to me. Though, I'm very much against anything related to "Clark and lex being best buddies as kids" being in continuity, so maybe I'm a little biased.

 

[darwinwins]

MoS invalidated 48 years worth of Superman stories. Why not rip on it for disregarding more than twice the history Birthright replaces?

Besides, very little of the Byrne-Jurgens version has stuck to the overall mythos. Tycoon Lex and the Kents being alive are all that's stuck. Everything else has been bypassed in favor of a more pre-Crisis conception of Superman. And a lot of the what was done in the Byrne-Jurgens era (as well as the Berganza era) was really awful, or at the very least misguided. If the goofier aspects of the pre-Crisis era can and have been bypassed, why should 1986-1999 be inviolate?

too bad your post goes unmentioned by the peanut gallery. i agree. it's stupid to argue this based on erasing so much history when MoS invalidated the history before it. and in any case, it's just a comic book.

 

[The Question]

The thing is, almost all of the histoy that MoS invalidated was the campy 60s stuff. You know, the 100 different issues of Superman trying to kill Jimmy or Lois or turning into a genie or stuff like that. Only a few actually good stories were invalidated, to the best of my recolection. Most of the good stuff remained.

 

[darwinwins]

how does that one saying go ... you can't have your cake and eat it, too?

 

[The Question]

How does that apply? They primairily got rid of the very lame or campy stories. Only a few of the actually good ones, and only because they made no sense without the campy ones.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

Birthright is superior to MOS in virtually EVERY way/

 

[Kandorcitizen]

Birthright

 

[Agentdemon]

But, he wasn't born to be Superman. He was simply born. It was his descision to become Superman. He could, just as easily, become a criminal, or not used his powers at all. It was entirely his choice. He was Clark Kent before he ever donned the suit.

There's no way he could "choose" to be a criminal, his upbringing doesn't exhibit the neseccary factors.

I agree with Bryan singer though, farm clark is the truest part of him while metropolis clark and superman are more a facade.

 

[The Question]

There's no way he could "choose" to be a criminal, his upbringing doesn't exhibit the neseccary factors.

There are no "necesairy factors." While many criminals are pruducts of their upbringing, some people simply become criminals because they feel like it.

 

[Spike_x1]

What "necessary factors" are needed? Personally, I've grown up in a goody-two-shoes lifestyle, going to church as a youngster, both parents are active in my life, no alcoholism or drugs involved anywhere, and no trauma anywhere to be seen, but I was taken home in a police car twice last year for fighting in public. Care to explain that to me?

Some people just choose to do bad s**t because they want to. No psycho-babble necessary.

 

[Spike_x1]

too bad your post goes unmentioned by the peanut gallery. i agree. it's stupid to argue this based on erasing so much history when MoS invalidated the history before it. and in any case, it's just a comic book.

Well, MOS didn't invalidate all of that.

There was this one little story that probably just flew right over your head which was responsible for erasing all of the continuity that came before it. What was it called? Oh yes, now I remember. The F-ing Crisis on Infinite Earths!

Man of Steel simply gave us a new origin to go with the blank slate that COIE gave to us. If you're going to put the blame for wiping out 48 years of continuity on one particular story, put the blame on COIE.

 

[DavidTyler]

..........
I don't think Superman has ever chosen his name in any of his incarnations - I could be wrong.

Intresting to note that in Man of Steel, Clark has to save a shuttle (with Lois inside) before he even comes up with the Superman costume. Lois sees him without his glasses, which is why he needs them as Clark. Presumably otherwise he would wear a mask as Superman.

Byrne spent a lot of time figuring out many minor details and finding a way to explain them in rational ways. The glasses being just one more detail.


Still, I find it interesting as to how many posters here are willing to throw that all away and criticize Byrne just because splashy, sparkly 'Birthright' is the latest flavour. I'm betting that a few years down the road, after the glitz of Birthrights 'newness' has worn off, fans will have a lessor opinion of it.

Byrne's not a great writer but he is a phenominal with concepts.

 

[Spike_x1]

Byrne spent a lot of time figuring out many minor details and finding a way to explain them in rational ways. The glasses being just one more detail.


Still, I find it interesting as to how many posters here are willing to throw that all away and criticize Byrne just because splashy, sparkly 'Birthright' is the latest flavour. I'm betting that a few years down the road, after the glitz of Birthrights 'newness' has worn off, fans will have a lessor opinion of it.

Byrne's not a great writer but he is a phenominal with concepts.

Couldn't agree more .

 

[Whack Arnolds]

MOS is corny just like Superman: The Movie.