Character development and personalities

[Rodrigo90]

Exactly

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I disagree. Clark Kent is the real person. Superman is his creation.

The costume and the name are his creation. The personality is not.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

However, it's nice to see that Birthright seems to be much more popular now than it was 8 years ago. I hope someday when can bury Byrne's "Man of Steel" for good.


couldn't edit this one into the post I made, for whatever reasons

 

[afan]

From Wikepedia. Obviously not necessarily the last word in Superman canon, but whatever:

Superman is most vulnerable to green Kryptonite, mineral debris from Krypton transformed into radioactive material by the forces that destroyed the planet. Exposure to green Kryptonite radiation nullifies Superman's powers and immobilizes him with pain and nausea; prolonged exposure will eventually kill him.


Here is more:

In most comics continuity, however, Superman retains his powers to some degree while exposed to green kryptonite,[citation needed] although dramatically weakened and in severe pain. Thus, attacking him with conventional weapons while exposed to kryptonite would be ineffective; only the exposure to kryptonite itself is potentially fatal. His skin also begins to turn green.





Educate me. How does this not fit in with the scenario I described? I basically have him weakened and de-powered to a Human level, but obviously he would progressively get weaker and weaker and ultimately die. I however, have him hit his foe and then kick it a distance that allows him to regain his strength. I didn't say how big a chunk of Kryptonite it was, so it could be golf ball size, as opposed to a massive New Krypton sized piece. I've got the Kryptonite effecting him progressively, not everything at once.

The weakness that Green K immediately causes Superman is so severe that he is incapable of any action.

 

[The Sage]

Now thats more like it.

I don't agree with Superman being a persona. When he set out to be a hero, he didn't do it with the intent of making a larger than life character. That's the way the people preceive him. In his mind, he's just being himself, using his gifts to save others. There's no pretending there. As Superman, he's able to be himself, not having to conceal his abilities.

It's the same way as people seeing him as being a regal or iconic figure. That's their perception, not his own. In his mind, he's just someone saving and inspiring.

The reason people don't think he has another identity is because he's not wearing a mask. Wearing a mask would indicate he has something to hide, which is why he chooses not to wear one as Superman. Plus some people don't believe someone as powerful as him would pretend to be a normal human being. That's an idea from Byrne that I liked.

As the reporter, there's pretending going on. He's acting like a normal human being, really quiet, slouching, not using his natural voice. That's the persona.

Superman and Clark on the farm are practically the same person.

 

[sf2]

good lord. the real and disguise agrument again. don't ur guys get tired?

 

[The Sage]

It definitely has its moments after discussing it for several years now.

 

[Rodrigo90]

delete

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

The weakness that Green K immediately causes Superman is so severe that he is incapable of any action.

So be it a grain of sand, or the size of a truck, it is exactly the same effect? Proximity to the Kryptonite has no bearing on this? Hmmm.. Read the second part of the Wikipedia quote, it doesn't concur with what you are claiming.

Why would Superman be affected by Kryptonite radiation, (other than he's an alien) any differently than us Humans and Earth radiation. The more you get, the worse it is, but it is progressive. Besides who's writing this little scenario, you or me? Ever heard of artistic license? At least I didn't use a Ceran wrap \S/ in my treatment.

I'm a stickler for most of the canon, but if Snyder wants to get more specific/defined, in how Kryptonite effects the M.O.S. to make it seem more realistic or logical, I'm okay with that. Not that the thought of a real Superman is logical anyhow, Just don't add any powers etc.

If you can show me somewhere in the Superman Mythos/canon that specifically precludes what I wrote, I'll concede your point and do a little re-write. This is a comic book character after all. A suitable solution is only an imagination away. btw. If you don't like my version, feel free to write your own lol.

 

[KyleDW2]

It's the way his creator, Jerry Siegel, intended for the character to be.]

Thus we run into the biggest logical fallacy of your argument. Just because someone created a character doesn't mean that they created them perfectly. With over 70 years of continuity and stories, things happened that moved the character into a better spot than when he was created. He's not just a nerdy, whining false face for the ultra invincible god man who has zero problems. Now Clark Kent is a real person, which would make sense considering that he wasn't raised as Superman and his parents never called him Superman growing up and his Christmas presents never said, "To Superman from Santa" on them. What you're talking about isn't a character. Siegel's Clark isn't a person. He's a plot device. That makes no sense, especially in a realistic film adaptation.

 

[KyleDW2]

And all this "outdated" talk is BS. No one's calling Bruce Wayne's "Act like a bored billionaire in public" routine outdated, and he's basically done that for 70+ years.

Another logical fallacy. You know why the Bruce Wayne act still works today? Because Bruce Wayne is insane. He doesn't care about his personal life. He doesn't care if everyone hates Bruce Wayne. All that matters is funding Batman. Bruce Wayne allows him to do this. That's why it still works but doesn't with Clark. Clark is still connected to the human race. He wants to be normal and have down time. The bumbling moron Clark would completely erase that as who would want to hang out with the idiot Clark from the Golden and Silver ages.

 

[The Sage]

Another logical fallacy. You know why the Bruce Wayne act still works today? Because Bruce Wayne is insane. He doesn't care about his personal life. He doesn't care if everyone hates Bruce Wayne. All that matters is funding Batman. Bruce Wayne allows him to do this. That's why it still works but doesn't with Clark. Clark is still connected to the human race. He wants to be normal and have down time. The bumbling moron Clark would completely erase that as who would want to hang out with the idiot Clark from the Golden and Silver ages.

That's been ruled out and altered in the last several years. While he doesn't care about the public's perception of him too much, Bruce does care about his personal life to a degree and acknowledges that he's both Batman and Bruce Wayne. The playboy persona is just a role that he dons from time to time.

And why does everyone think that the reporter Clark Kent persona is a bumbling moron? That's Donner's interpretation. Best one to use in the movie is Birthright's take on it.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Sage,

but he still LIES or don't tell people some things like being married to Lois or raised in Smallville or that he is Clark Kent. Superman is still a persona, in a way. Not in his actions of doing good and using his powers freely, being himself, but of protecting people he cares for. Superman is still an identity and that is a creation of some kind. No to the extent Daily Planet Clark in that a complete make over is done but still is a persona. This is what most people don't get.

Superman is only truly himself around people that know his secret.

 

[The Sage]

Sage,

but he still LIES or don't tell people some things like being married to Lois or raised in Smallville or that he is Clark Kent. Superman is still a persona, in a way. Not in his actions of doing good and using his powers freely, being himself, but of protecting people he cares for. Superman is still an identity and that is a creation of some kind. No to the extent Daily Planet Clark in that a complete make over is done but still is a persona. This is what most people don't get.

Superman is only truly himself around people that know his secret.

But the personality when he's by himself and when he's Superman is pretty much the same, isn't it?

 

[SuperDaniel]

Yes but Superman is still a persona when you analyze deeply. Its a public persona, in a way. Doesnt mean his personality is fake. But it is still a public persona because he lies to people about not having a secret identity or a normal life as Clark Kent.

So it is a bit different.

1)I think of Superman as his public persona, in a way he uses his powers freely and is himself, doing good for the others but still not telling people the WHOLE truth in order to protect those who are close to him which is a very valid and acceptable reason. He adopts a vibrant costume to be a image. Because he wants to make an impact. It is a very conscious choice to represent ideals and something greater than life. Even if he is indeed the personification of these ideals.

2)Clark is Superman`s dream to live a normal life, be human. In order to learn to protect the humans, he lives among one of them. Having a relationship with a human girl, and human friends and all. Of course he can never achieve being normal but he tries hard by wearing glasses etc. But also theres a part of Clark that is real in the sense he is kind, nice to people and wants to use being a reporter to aid his quest for Truth.

3) The other one is Clark around people that knows his secret like Lois, The Kents, Batman etc. There he is trully himself. This is what you consider Clark in the farm. No disguises, no secrets.

 

[SuperFerret]

As long as they get the personalities right, I don't care for much development in the way of changing as the story progresses. Especially if this is an adult Superman.

 

[Kurosawa]

So be it a grain of sand, or the size of a truck, it is exactly the same effect? Proximity to the Kryptonite has no bearing on this? Hmmm.. Read the second part of the Wikipedia quote, it doesn't concur with what you are claiming.

Why would Superman be affected by Kryptonite radiation, (other than he's an alien) any differently than us Humans and Earth radiation. The more you get, the worse it is, but it is progressive. Besides who's writing this little scenario, you or me? Ever heard of artistic license? At least I didn't use a Ceran wrap \S/ in my treatment.

I'm a stickler for most of the canon, but if Snyder wants to get more specific/defined, in how Kryptonite effects the M.O.S. to make it seem more realistic or logical, I'm okay with that. Not that the thought of a real Superman is logical anyhow, Just don't add any powers etc.

If you can show me somewhere in the Superman Mythos/canon that specifically precludes what I wrote, I'll concede your point and do a little re-write. This is a comic book character after all. A suitable solution is only an imagination away. btw. If you don't like my version, feel free to write your own lol.

This issue isn't just a Pre-or Post-Crisis thing, Superman's vulnerability to Kryptonite has varied so much over the years it's nothing even in the ballpark of consistent. Sometimes a small piece is enough to weaken him immediately to a point where he is immobile, sometimes he retains his powers long enough to deal with it by blowing it away, etc. The only explanation for that would be that each individual specimen has it's own radioactive potency and that's part of what makes Kryptonite such a bad weakness-it isn't consistent.

Thus we run into the biggest logical fallacy of your argument. Just because someone created a character doesn't mean that they created them perfectly. With over 70 years of continuity and stories, things happened that moved the character into a better spot than when he was created. He's not just a nerdy, whining false face for the ultra invincible god man who has zero problems. Now Clark Kent is a real person, which would make sense considering that he wasn't raised as Superman and his parents never called him Superman growing up and his Christmas presents never said, "To Superman from Santa" on them. What you're talking about isn't a character. Siegel's Clark isn't a person. He's a plot device. That makes no sense, especially in a realistic film adaptation.

But since the changes that you like have been made, Superman has LOST popularity, respect, and relevance. If Superman was as big as ever or bigger than ever-like Batman, a character who was first published just a year later-is-then maybe your argument would hold water. But Superman ISN'T as big as ever, and in fact he has become less and less important to DC over the years to the point that the main reason they are even making this movie is to retain the rights to the character. Not only is Superman NOT #1 in comics like he SHOULD be, he isn't even #1 at DC Comics, the #2 company. He's not even #2 there-Batman is DC's #1 character and Green Lantern is now DC's #2 character. Superman as Jerry Siegel created him to be was hugely popular BECAUSE Clark Kent was the disguise and Superman was the reality-no other superhero was like that. Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, Ray Palmer, Scott Summers, Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, the list can go on and on-all lived a live of normalcy and "became" Spider-Man, Batman, The Atom, Cyclops, Captain America, Iron Man, etc. It could be a great childhood like Bruce Wayne's (up to age 8 that is) or a childhood of abuse and suffering like Scott Summers, but either way at one time they didn't have powers or an inkling of a destiny to help mankind. Only Superman was born and raised to be a great hero. It's what made him UNIQUE.

Another logical fallacy. You know why the Bruce Wayne act still works today? Because Bruce Wayne is insane. He doesn't care about his personal life. He doesn't care if everyone hates Bruce Wayne. All that matters is funding Batman. Bruce Wayne allows him to do this. That's why it still works but doesn't with Clark. Clark is still connected to the human race. He wants to be normal and have down time. The bumbling moron Clark would completely erase that as who would want to hang out with the idiot Clark from the Golden and Silver ages.

Wow, not only do you not understand Superman at all, you also fail to understand Batman. Bruce Wayne is completely sane. He is driven, and oftentimes he is aloof, hard and cold, but is not insane.

And yes, Clark Kent is Superman's way of connecting with the human race. But that doesn't mean that he thinks of the Clark Kent construct as his true self. He thinks of the Clark Kent that Ma and Pa knew as he true self, and that person is the same person as Superman. But the Clark Kent that he pretends to be a different, and that creation is Superman's expression of his own vulnerability. Metropolis Clark is Superman's softer side. And the bumbling idiot Clark you refer to is the Chris Reeve version, and the Donner movies is NOT the Pre-Crisis Superman.

 

[SuperDaniel]

edit

 

[SuperDaniel]

edit

 

[SuperDaniel]

edit.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Even though i disagree with Kurosawa a lot of the times regarding post-crisis and still do not believe that the changes Byrne made was the reason Superman lost popularity, he is right regarding the above arguments.

However, Kuro, dont you think Superman is also a public persona, even though he is not faking being who he was raised to be and is, but dont you think he puts on the costume to be a image, to be the representation of the ideals personified and that he omits certain truths from the average joe in order to protect the people he cares and are close to him?

Therefore, Superman is also some kind of persona. A public image. Even though his actions and personality aren't fake. Superman is still a name, construct. Not to the extent Daily Planet Clark is, but he a construct anyway. In a way that Clark uses his powers the same way a rock star sings on stage. Stage personas doesnt mean it isnt you since the music youre playing is coming from you and your expressing and doing the things you can.

For example, when Eric Clapton steps on stage and starts playing guitar, people refer him as god, it is a public/ stage persona, he wears certain outfits to be consistent with the shows. That doesnt mean that Eric is a complete construct because he is doing what he do as playing guitar and singing his songs but that Eric is a bit different from when he is with his family and friends. It is still a different perception.

 

[SuperFerret]

The original version of the character is not only so far off from what I would consider "Superman" or even a "superhero", but also worlds away from anything resembling a good character.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

This issue isn't just a Pre-or Post-Crisis thing, Superman's vulnerability to Kryptonite has varied so much over the years it's nothing even in the ballpark of consistent. Sometimes a small piece is enough to weaken him immediately to a point where he is immobile, sometimes he retains his powers long enough to deal with it by blowing it away, etc. The only explanation for that would be that each individual specimen has it's own radioactive potency and that's part of what makes Kryptonite such a bad weakness-it isn't consistent.

Thanks for clarifying this. I'd like them to make Kryptonite affect Superman differently depending on the size of the piece, His proximity to it, and lastly the duration he is actually exposed to it. If The M.O.S. sees it soon enough, in some cases he should be able to grab it quickly, and throw it to a safe distance away. I don't want him to be completely immobilized the minute the smallest fragment his waved in his face.

 

[SuperDaniel]

The original version of Superman is what defined the word superhero in the first place. A hero with superpowers. More than normal.

 

[SuperFerret]

And like that character, the word has changed over time. Just having powers doesn't make you super, and just saving someone doesn't make you a hero.