Character development and personalities

[SuperDaniel]

And yet, what always defined Superman in all ages was the fact he uses his powers for good because he was raised right. That why he is a hero.

If you do good with your powers, you're Superman. If you do bad, you're Luthor. That was always the simple premise of the character.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm sorry, but the 'which is the disguise debate' really gets on my nerves.

Clark is a man who can NEVER really be himself, other than when he is around his parents, or people that know his secret.

Superman is an idea he created, in order to inspire people.

Deciding to wear glasses and stoop and look very average as Clark Kent in Metropolis was a choice he made so that, combined with the public's hopeful assumption that the alien superhero would be beyond a mortal identity, he would never be found out.

Neither one is who he is.

I don't think Superman's personality is what he is really like. He has to constantly remember to be perfect. He has to stay fairly distant, he has to be authoratitive, commanding and confident.

And while he can be a bit more relaxed and natural as Clark, he is still constantly aware that he can't appear too heroic, too confident or too noble, or people might start to suspect something.

Who is he? Clark Kent, son of Johnathon and Martha Kent, raised in Kansas. Simple as that. The only thing is, the people in his Metropolis life just don't know him that well, because he puts up a facade.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. You might as well make Peter Parker a high school jock or Ben Grimm a rich high society kid or Scott Summers a frat boy if you want to make Clark Kent the real person and Superman the disguise.

Plus, it is hardly a coincidence that since they abandoned Superman as his creator intended him to be, the characters popularity and relevance has fallen to near zero.

1. There have been plenty of examples of the original concept of a superhero changing over the years. In fact, wasn't the first incarnation of Superman a villain?

And look at Batman. The whole 'killing people' debate is down to the fact that over the years, different writers have had different takes.

2. I really don't think giving him a stronger human side is the reason Superman's popularity and relevance have decreased. It's a combination of people simply not enjoying what they view as 'flawless and unbeatable' characters anymore, and the Reeve movies becoming something of a joke for younger generations.

Precisely. Clark was never raised and was not born to be a normal man. From his childhood on, his life was a preparation for greatness. And so the meek Clark that he developed as a way to walk among and even a little bit below mortal men became a prized possession for Kal-El.

I disagree.

I don't recall ever reading a comic in which the Kents raise him to be anything but a normal man. They raised him to be a good man, and supported him when he decided to do something with his gifts, but it's not like the minute he got powers they started prepping him for 'greatness'.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I have to agree with hopefulsuicide now, especially regarding of how the kents raised him. lol

However, hopefulsuicide, being authoritive, commanding and confident isnt a facade. It is who he really is. The only think fake about Superman is that he pretends he doesn't have a normal life. He omits the truth to the average joe to protect the people he is close to.

Superman as a personality isnt a construct. It is who he is. He is perfect and noble. The image of Superman of the general audience is the construct but he isnt the one projecting it. He is simply being who he was raised to be and who he is. A good man with a great sense of care and responsibility.

Daily Planet Clark is much more of a construct.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I have to agree with hopefulsuicide now, especially regarding of how the kents raised him. lol

However, hopefulsuicide, being authoritive, commanding and confident isnt a facade. It is who he really is. The only think fake about Superman is that he pretends he doesn't have a normal life. He omits the truth to the average joe to protect the people he is close to.

Superman as a personality isnt a construct. It is who he is. He is perfect and noble. The image of Superman of the general audience is the construct but he isnt the one projecting it. He is simply being who he was raised to be and who he is. A good man with a great sense of care and responsibility.

Daily Planet Clark is much more of a construct.

I don't think he is perfect. Superman is never afraid. Superman is never crabby. Superman is never bored... he's always perfect.

But Clark is all those things sometimes.

I really like what Lois said in the LnC episode 'Sex Lies and Videotape'.

What makes you think the world's going to start trusting Superman again when they find out that he's been lying to them all along -- about who he really is? Clark, there's a greater 'truth' to protect here and that's the idea of who Superman is. If you tell the world you're married, that you have feelings and desires like everyone else, the image of the hero is shattered, gone. People need to believe in the mythic truth -- that's what Superman is all about. That's what you need to protect above all else, even if it's at my expense!

I'm not saying Clark is not a naturally confident person, and I think he feels more confident when he has the suit on, but when he can be himself, he doesn't have to be confident and commanding all the time... which is kind of exhausting I imagine.

 

[Kurosawa]

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.

The difference is when someone like Clapton steps on stage to play, he is putting on a performance for both the sake of art and for his own benefit as it is how he makes his living. Not that Clapton doesn't care deeply for what he plays, he obviously does. And I'm sure he sees playing the blues and spreading knowledge of that music-and of the men who preceded him that played it-as a mission of a sort. But obviously what Superman does (or would do if he was real, I suppose) is that Superman's life is one of service to others. His needs are secondary to the needs of others. Even the Clark Kent persona was originally created to protect his family, and over the years Superman came to understand that he needs to be Clark to cope with the pressures of being Superman. At the same time, the only possession that Superman has the he feels he absolutely needs to have IS Clark Kent. So I don't see the public persona of Superman as an act at all. Helping people is Superman's raison d'être.

I'm sorry, but the 'which is the disguise debate' really gets on my nerves.

Clark is a man who can NEVER really be himself, other than when he is around his parents, or people that know his secret.

Superman is an idea he created, in order to inspire people.

Deciding to wear glasses and stoop and look very average as Clark Kent in Metropolis was a choice he made so that, combined with the public's hopeful assumption that the alien superhero would be beyond a mortal identity, he would never be found out.

Neither one is who he is.

I don't think Superman's personality is what he is really like. He has to constantly remember to be perfect. He has to stay fairly distant, he has to be authoratitive, commanding and confident.

And while he can be a bit more relaxed and natural as Clark, he is still constantly aware that he can't appear too heroic, too confident or too noble, or people might start to suspect something.

Who is he? Clark Kent, son of Johnathon and Martha Kent, raised in Kansas. Simple as that. The only thing is, the people in his Metropolis life just don't know him that well, because he puts up a facade.



1. There have been plenty of examples of the original concept of a superhero changing over the years. In fact, wasn't the first incarnation of Superman a villain?

And look at Batman. The whole 'killing people' debate is down to the fact that over the years, different writers have had different takes.

2. I really don't think giving him a stronger human side is the reason Superman's popularity and relevance have decreased. It's a combination of people simply not enjoying what they view as 'flawless and unbeatable' characters anymore, and the Reeve movies becoming something of a joke for younger generations.



I disagree.

I don't recall ever reading a comic in which the Kents raise him to be anything but a normal man. They raised him to be a good man, and supported him when he decided to do something with his gifts, but it's not like the minute he got powers they started prepping him for 'greatness'.

Pre-Crisis the Kents understood from the start that Clark was extraordinary. They realized quickly that they had a responsibility not only to Clark but to the world to raise him as best as they could. This is why from a very early age, Martha made sure to encourage Clark to read writers like Horatio Alger and to study altruism. It's why she kept him away from writers and writing as a child that were less than pure. It's why Pa Kent began to take an interest in sciences and biology even beyond the agricultural studies that any farmer would know. They had to up their game considering the child they were raising. Clark knew from a very young age that he was different, that normalcy would never be a part of his life, as much as Ma and Pa tried to make it that way. At an age when most kids never even would consider such things, Clark had already decided his life would be dedicated to helping others. He had to grow up fast, although the magic of Superboy-and one of the reasons Byrne admitted getting rid of the character was a mistake-is that Superman needed to learn the ropes and a kid is much more easily forgiven for mistakes than an adult is.

Only a person like Superman (and in the history of comics, Superman is one of a kind) could feel so much empathy and feel so responsible that at age 13, failing to save the life of an old dog could make them physically ill-especially considering this was the version who could move worlds. Superman's morals and ethics are as super as the rest of him.

When they Marvelized Superman in an attempt to make him more relatable, what they really did was miss the boat. Superman was already easy to relate to-as Clark Kent. That's the purpose of Clark Kent, that the reader can identify with him and feed off the idea that if people ever got to really know them, they would see how much they have to offer.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Pre-Crisis the Kents understood from the start that Clark was extraordinary. They realized quickly that they had a responsibility not only to Clark but to the world to raise him as best as they could. This is why from a very early age, Martha made sure to encourage Clark to read writers like Horatio Alger and to study altruism. It's why she kept him away from writers and writing as a child that were less than pure. It's why Pa Kent began to take an interest in sciences and biology even beyond the agricultural studies that any farmer would know. They had to up their game considering the child they were raising. Clark knew from a very young age that he was different, that normalcy would never be a part of his life, as much as Ma and Pa tried to make it that way. At an age when most kids never even would consider such things, Clark had already decided his life would be dedicated to helping others. He had to grow up fast, although the magic of Superboy-and one of the reasons Byrne admitted getting rid of the character was a mistake-is that Superman needed to learn the ropes and a kid is much more easily forgiven for mistakes than an adult is.

Only a person like Superman (and in the history of comics, Superman is one of a kind) could feel so much empathy and feel so responsible that at age 13, failing to save the life of an old dog could make them physically ill-especially considering this was the version who could move worlds. Superman's morals and ethics are as super as the rest of him.

When they Marvelized Superman in an attempt to make him more relatable, what they really did was miss the boat. Superman was already easy to relate to-as Clark Kent. That's the purpose of Clark Kent, that the reader can identify with him and feed off the idea that if people ever got to know the real person, they would see how much they have to offer.

What comics have this kind of upbringing? I'd be interested to hunt them out

For me, the Truth is, had it not been for Post Crisis, I probably would not be a Superman fan. I can look back on Pre Crisis now and feel nostalgic about it, and enjoy the stories for what they are, but it's the John Byrne style stories that got me hooked... really got me into the characters.

And given the current trends of superhero films, and popular films in general, I think that's the kind of stories that are more likely to reach the public in a similar kind of way.

 

[Kurosawa]

What comics have this kind of upbringing? I'd be interested to hunt them out

For me, the Truth is, had it not been for Post Crisis, I probably would not be a Superman fan. I can look back on Pre Crisis now and feel nostalgic about it, and enjoy the stories for what they are, but it's the John Byrne style stories that got me hooked... really got me into the characters.

And given the current trends of superhero films, and popular films in general, I think that's the kind of stories that are more likely to reach the public in a similar kind of way.

Some of the Pre-Crisis Superboy comics and Elliot S! Maggin's two novels, Last Son of Krypton and Miracle Monday, which were both sat in that same continuity and greatly influenced Alan Moore, Mark Waid and Grant Morrison's writing of Superman is where the lions share comes from.

 

[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.

I say Superman is really himself when he's saving people, or around people who knows his secret. He's mainly not himself when he's acting quiet and mild-mannered as reporter Clark Kent.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I agree with that, though.

 

[SuperDaniel]

The difference is when someone like Clapton steps on stage to play, he is putting on a performance for both the sake of art and for his own benefit as it is how he makes his living. Not that Clapton doesn't care deeply for what he plays, he obviously does. And I'm sure he sees playing the blues and spreading knowledge of that music-and of the men who preceded him that played it-as a mission of a sort. But obviously what Superman does (or would do if he was real, I suppose) is that Superman's life is one of service to others. His needs are secondary to the needs of others. Even the Clark Kent persona was originally created to protect his family, and over the years Superman came to understand that he needs to be Clark to cope with the pressures of being Superman. At the same time, the only possession that Superman has the he feels he absolutely needs to have IS Clark Kent. So I don't see the public persona of Superman as an act at all. Helping people is Superman's raison d'être.

Oh, definitely. Lets say for example, when he does the Crossroads Guitar festival or something like that in which he doesnt make money at all and all the money goes to his drug recovery institution.

But what I meant was just the stage persona of a rock star. The image. Superman is also a image, imo. While Clark with his friends and family, for example, is not. He is just himself there. Even though, personality wise they are the same person. Metropolis Clark is the disguise, of course. That was never the debate. But, in a tiny bit, Superman is still somewhat of a construct. The symbolic image of a guy wearing tights and a cape to inspire good.

BTW, Byrne never got rid of Superboy. He was still saving people around the world when he was a teen. He just didnt use a costume and was doing it in secrecy. I dont like the idea of Superboy myself. A kid wearing a costume saving people is stupid, imo. Superman should be the only one to wear the costume. Because, to me, what works as Superman being an adult is that as an adult, he passes the wisdom and safety in his image a kid could never do.

 

[sf2]

somehow i think we will see the life of superman in... smallville.

 

[Kurosawa]

Oh, definitely. Lets say for example, when he does the Crossroads Guitar festival or something like that in which he doesnt make money at all and all the money goes to his drug recovery institution.

But what I meant was just the stage persona of a rock star. The image. Superman is also a image, imo. While Clark with his friends and family, for example, is not. He is just himself there. Even though, personality wise they are the same person. Metropolis Clark is the disguise, of course. That was never the debate. But, in a tiny bit, Superman is still somewhat of a construct. The symbolic image of a guy wearing tights and a cape to inspire good.

BTW, Byrne never got rid of Superboy. He was still saving people around the world when he was a teen. He just didnt use a costume and was doing it in secrecy. I dont like the idea of Superboy myself. A kid wearing a costume saving people is stupid, imo. Superman should be the only one to wear the costume. Because, to me, what works as Superman being an adult is that as an adult, he passes the wisdom and safety in his image a kid could never do.

I don't see Superman as a construct because I think Clark is the construct-especially considering that I like Superman best with no familial ties left, so no one really knows the real Clark Kent. Even his fellow heroes like Batman know him more as Superman although they of course know Clark Kent is his alter ego. But since I like the Kents dead and Lana not knowing he had powers, the only person in the continuity I liked that knew was Pete Ross, and of course Superman himself doesn't know that Pete knew he was Superboy. So to me, the real Clark Kent-"Smallville Clark"-died when the Kents died, and Superman has no one who really completely knows him. That makes Superman more lonely, and I like him better that way.

The big mistake getting rid of Superboy is that led to Byrne leaving the Kents alive and that kept Superman himself in Superboy mode forever. Besides, as I remember MOS, Clark was more interested in using his powers to play football and being a selfish glory hog than he did in secretly helping anyone. The Smallville Angel bit was actually originated by Maggin, then Geoff Johns used it in Secret Origin. Now it's looking more like Superboy himself is almost completely back, as they had him fighting in Smallville in broad daylight in a recent Superman/Batman issue. I've always had mixed feelings about Superboy, but since Siegel wanted him to have been part of the story as early as November of 1938, I have a hard time arguing against the Superboy career, since that is what Siegel would have done had DC allowed it. That's also part of why I have no issues with Lois knowing he's Superman fairly early on or the marriage-because had Siegel had his way, Lois would have known as early as 1940 and the whole "Lois trying to prove Clark Kent is Superman" trope would have never existed. And in fact, Siegel himself only wrote one story like that in the GA.

For a movie, I understand them waiting until adulthood to start him as Superman since the GA is too stupid to understand the whole Superboy career.

 

[GhostPoet]

I don't think he is perfect. Superman is never afraid. Superman is never crabby. Superman is never bored... he's always perfect.

But Clark is all those things sometimes.

I really like what Lois said in the LnC episode 'Sex Lies and Videotape'.

What makes you think the world's going to start trusting Superman again when they find out that he's been lying to them all along -- about who he really is? Clark, there's a greater 'truth' to protect here and that's the idea of who Superman is. If you tell the world you're married, that you have feelings and desires like everyone else, the image of the hero is shattered, gone. People need to believe in the mythic truth -- that's what Superman is all about. That's what you need to protect above all else, even if it's at my expense!

I'm not saying Clark is not a naturally confident person, and I think he feels more confident when he has the suit on, but when he can be himself, he doesn't have to be confident and commanding all the time... which is kind of exhausting I imagine.

Ah, but see that's the problem with the films. They portray him pretty much as perfect as well. He's not. Superman loses his temper, he get's angry. There have been times he's grabbing Luther by the collar, eyes burning red about to burn a hole in his head. He doesn't (unless it's an alternate reality) but the anger is still there.

We need to see more of that...he may be an alien...but he has emotions like a human.

 

[Nemeres]

Hi.

Thought I'd offer my take on this. Yeah, a lot of folks say the reason Superman is inaccessible because of his Boy Scout nature and excessive "goodness". Then again, Superman is not like most other comic characters. This is a fact, a given.

He is "the one and only". Superman is a walking miracle, he's as good as it gets. Where so much could have gone wrong, everything went absolutely right, and he emerges as the living result of a GOOD formation of a human being.

Batman will save you at the same time he scares you. Wolverine will contaminate your air with his cigar smoke. Not Superman. If you're stuck under a pile of rubble and someone lifts it out with superhuman strength and helps you to your feet, wouldn't you like it if he had a big, reassuring smile on his face? Tenderness in his eyes? A strong, yet soft voice that tells you everything will be okay now?

The answer is yes, you would. That's what Superman is - everything you could want on your side in the face of danger and evil. And if the next Superman film doesn't have that aspect of the character, it will be a failure in the characterization aspect. It would be like having a jolly Batman, or a well-mannered Wolverine. Simply NOT Superman.

Now, don't get me wrong, I get what this thread is about - wanting Superman to be shown like an actual person, with some foibles and aspects that every person has - likes and dislikes, personality traits. I'm all for that, and I also realize that portraying him as the goodiest of goodies would be a tad boring. He IS a character after all, and not simply the force of good embodied. To be blunt, his ***** would stink too.

But his Boy Scout aspect should NOT be left out, or downplayed. Hell, if anything, I think it could help him, make him cooler. Like a cool older brother. Cool older brothers aren't crass, they aren't bullies, they don't call you a moron. They're simply COOL GUYS. Have Superman be that - a cool guy.

 

[SuperDaniel]

What about Lois Lane, Kurosawa? She knows who Superman is. Same with his Justice League friends, Supergirl, etc. The point is that you never adressed what I wanted to. Superman still lies to people about having a secret identity and being raised on Smallville so he is a construct of some form. He is an ideal, a symbol and that in itself is a construct of some kind.

Its funny how you use your bias against Byrne to justify your reasoning. Superman shouldn't be lonely. That's Batman.

And I guess you haven't read post-crisis at all because it definitely showed Superman was saving people around the world before he appeared as Superman. All those newspapers articles and all in man of steel 1 showed this and it was expanded upon later stories like Superman saving this asian girl in Bhutan, etc. Moreover, it was later retconned in the "Death of Clark Kent" that Superman didn't use his powers to be a football star. It was always his determination and will.

Still, I never liked this aspect of the story anyway too. So i`m glad to see it gone.

So, the beginning of Birthright with Clark in Africa was always a theme of post-crisis stories. Waid just expanded upon it a little bit even though I don't really like that part of the story or think it wasn't done to the maximum results. Plus, vegetarian Clark and soul-vision power is just ridiculous.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Hi.

Thought I'd offer my take on this. Yeah, a lot of folks say the reason Superman is inaccessible because of his Boy Scout nature and excessive "goodness". Then again, Superman is not like most other comic characters. This is a fact, a given.

He is "the one and only". Superman is a walking miracle, he's as good as it gets. Where so much could have gone wrong, everything went absolutely right, and he emerges as the living result of a GOOD formation of a human being.

Batman will save you at the same time he scares you. Wolverine will contaminate your air with his cigar smoke. Not Superman. If you're stuck under a pile of rubble and someone lifts it out with superhuman strength and helps you to your feet, wouldn't you like it if he had a big, reassuring smile on his face? Tenderness in his eyes? A strong, yet soft voice that tells you everything will be okay now?

The answer is yes, you would. That's what Superman is - everything you could want on your side in the face of danger and evil. And if the next Superman film doesn't have that aspect of the character, it will be a failure in the characterization aspect. It would be like having a jolly Batman, or a well-mannered Wolverine. Simply NOT Superman.

Now, don't get me wrong, I get what this thread is about - wanting Superman to be shown like an actual person, with some foibles and aspects that every person has - likes and dislikes, personality traits. I'm all for that, and I also realize that portraying him as the goodiest of goodies would be a tad boring. He IS a character after all, and not simply the force of good embodied. To be blunt, his ***** would stink too.

But his Boy Scout aspect should NOT be left out, or downplayed. Hell, if anything, I think it could help him, make him cooler. Like a cool older brother. Cool older brothers aren't crass, they aren't bullies, they don't call you a moron. They're simply COOL GUYS. Have Superman be that - a cool guy.

Well said! Great first post and welcome to the Hype!

 

[Nemeres]

Well said! Great first post and welcome to the Hype!

Why, thanks! t:

 

[KRIM]

I say Superman is really himself when he's saving people, or around people who knows his secret. He's mainly not himself when he's acting quiet and mild-mannered as reporter Clark Kent.

After examining it a bit more, I do find it disconcerting Clark's only true relationship (early in his career) is with his parents. There's a bit of interpersonal disconnect in both his public identities, and now I'm not so sure I even like that immense isolation.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I sure don't. That's why I like Clark to be a bit real too, with Superman enjoying to do simple things as going to the movies, sports games, with Jimmy, etc. This is something i want to see explored in the new movie too. Superman`s pure joy in doing simple and mundane things.

 

[KRIM]

Heh, watching Superman go to the movies and sports games is a bit weird. I'd rather have that saved for Clark. I just want to see that he isn't always putting up some invisible wall to protect his identity. I'd like to see him enjoy his life and creating genuine connection with people like any other human being, in spite of the great responsibility he feels.

The whole "He's only his true self when he's at home" reminds me too much of Bruce. I'm ok with Bats being miserable and having no good ending. Not Supes though.

 

[SuperDaniel]

^ Exactly! That's what I meant, basically. Clark going to the movies, sports games, etc, Not Superman. Superman experiencing mundane things through Clark.

 

[Herolee10]

^ Exactly! That's what I meant, basically. Clark going to the movies, sports games, etc, Not Superman. Superman experiencing mundane things through Clark.

Agreed, plus… I’ve always wanted to see Superman during his youth confront the fact that he really does need to keep himself in check given that if he allows his emotions to get the best of him during a tense situation, he could easily harm a normal thug/criminal more than he had intended to.

Honestly, when it comes to characterization, I enjoy the whole trinity like personage:

• Clark Kent on the Farm
• Mild Mannered Clark Kent: the Reporter
• Superman: Kal-el The last son of Krypton

 

[Kurosawa]

What about Lois Lane, Kurosawa? She knows who Superman is. Same with his Justice League friends, Supergirl, etc. The point is that you never adressed what I wanted to. Superman still lies to people about having a secret identity and being raised on Smallville so he is a construct of some form. He is an ideal, a symbol and that in itself is a construct of some kind.

Both Lois and the JLA met Superman first and knew Clark in the construct persona first. I found it much better Pre-Crisis when Diana and Bruce either referred to him as Superman or as Kal. Every time I see Batman call him Clark all I can picture is Miller's disgusting scenes from DKR. As I said, the true Clark Kent more or less died when Jonathan and Martha Kent died and to me his primary personality is Superman, and I don't see it as an act. I see the Metropolis Clark-which in the continuity I like is the only Clark left-as an act.

Its funny how you use your bias against Byrne to justify your reasoning. Superman shouldn't be lonely. That's Batman.

Batman is less lonely and more off-putting. He lost his parents, but (Post Crisis) he had Alfred growing up, he has his various sidekicks, etc. To me, I feel that his loved ones find Batman hard to like (at times) but easy to know. I think Superman is the opposite. His friends and family gravitate to him-he is easy to like and love, but hard to know. Kara had a life as a Kryptonian, wheras Kal never did. To me Superman is not completely comfortable with humans on Earth or with Kryptonians in Kandor. That doesn't mean he cannot relate to them or be close to them, it's just that no one has really had his experience. Like a lot of early American immigrants, Superman is too American for the old country, but too Kryptonian to be completely human. That was the experience of many Jews in 20th Century America-they were outcasts of a sort wherever they were. But with Superman it is compounded because he is the only Kryptonian who has had this experience, and the only people who really understood him-Ma and Pa Kent-are gone. To me that makes Superman more compelling because under all the light and optimism and positive vibes that Superman should be all about, there is real loss and pain and a streak of loneliness. I don't think Superman is miserable, and I think he generally should be an upbeat character. But under all that there is a bit of melancholy to his life and that's why leaving the Kents alive and having Lana share his secret from childhood, etc, hurts the character, IMO.

Now I do support the marriage, but to me Lois considers herself married to Superman and not Clark Kent because she would understand that Clark is a construct. But the closest I ever got to see Lois married to the Superman that I liked best was Lois Kent of Earth-Two in Mr and Mrs Superman, and I don't think Kal-L ever had the melancholy streak that Kal-El had, mostly because he didn't know he was a Kryptonian until he was a grown man and had been Superman for 10 years. But for Kal-El, he grew up knowing he had lost a world and then when he lost Ma and Pa, he felt like he had nothing.

And I guess you haven't read post-crisis at all because it definitely showed Superman was saving people around the world before he appeared as Superman. All those newspapers articles and all in man of steel 1 showed this and it was expanded upon later stories like Superman saving this asian girl in Bhutan, etc. Moreover, it was later retconned in the "Death of Clark Kent" that Superman didn't use his powers to be a football star. It was always his determination and will.

I was probably too disgusted by the scenes of Clark being a glory hog to even notice the other stuff. It's of little matter now since they did retcon all of that out in Secret Origin anyway. Regardless, the "Smallville Angel" bit was first used by Maggin in his novels, something else like Lexcorp that Byrne lifted and is wrongly credited for.

So, the beginning of Birthright with Clark in Africa was always a theme of post-crisis stories. Waid just expanded upon it a little bit even though I don't really like that part of the story or think it wasn't done to the maximum results. Plus, vegetarian Clark and soul-vision power is just ridiculous.

Soul-vision was lifted from Maggin and I like it fine; no interest in Clark as a vegetarian. Clark needs his Beef Bourguignon. I thought the Africa part of Birthright was fantastic, as was Birthright's Krypton. I liked most of Birthright except Superman almost giving up and having to get a pep talk from Mommy and Daddy, tbh. Yet another case where keeping the Kents alive, God bless 'em, hurts Superman and makes him look like a wuss.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Well, on Smallville Lois knows that Clark is a construct and even helps him do it. She knows she will be married to Superman. I like this version also.

But one thing that i like from post-crisis is that Lois was always shallow in pre-crisis, falling for Superman because of his powers since Clark was basically the same person as Superman inside disguised by a mild-mannered facade. On post-crisis, they corrected that by making her fall in love with Clark when she is able to see past her prejudices and finds out basically they were the same person inside. Nice, kind, humble. It makes more sense if Clark is less than a joke. I dont like the Chris Reeve Clark because theres no way Lois would ever fall in love with a bumblin fool. Reeve toned down by SIV and was able to attract someone like Lacy...

I truly understand the feeling of being an outcast because i have this immigrant feeling myself. I live in the US and i`m from Brazil. And no matter who many friends i have here, i still will always feel different. I think this is important to Superman also. However, the point is that this loneliness is over by the moment he starts a relationship with Lois.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Well heres what I can gather.

Superman is an extension of Clark Kent. Clark was raised to be a responsible man. To be a good person,cause the Kent's are like that themselves.

Clark realises the importance of being responsible,but its known that he has survivors guilt,and therefore his feeling of being responsible escalates into having the responsibility of being the worlds saviour.

But of course he has a human understanding of how people themselves need to be saved. They need a hero to look up to and inspire them to do the right thing.

Being Superman is more than about saving people from disasters.

Superman therefore is a creation. Or at least at first he was. Cause I agree with Kurosawa,that when the Kent's died,he had no reason to be 'their' Clark anymore.