question about superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane

[Czar Colossus]

Superman has for the most part been the third biggest character at DC for the last 10 years or so, behind Batman and Green Lantern. If they hadn't let Jim Lee design that horrid costume (probably due to legal reasons) and had kept him in the classic suit, then even that controversy would be out of the picture and not holding Supes back, and the books would be even bigger.

Yes Yes Yes!!!

So G.L. is now more popular than Superman eh? I gotta pay closer attention I guess.

 

[Darthphere]

Yes Yes Yes!!!

So G.L. is now more popular than Superman eh? I gotta pay closer attention I guess.

It depends how you define popular. In this case, Kurosawa is defining popular by their positions on the sales chart which in this case, yes Green Lantern outsells Superman.

 

[The Question]

Until 1986 he did. After that DC turned the whole Superman concept on its head.

Let's see:

Last son of a doomed world? Check.

Flies around and saves people? Check.

Spends his days as an investigative journalist? Check.

Involved in a love triangle with himself? Check.

Fights a bald megalomaniac? Check.

Is bros with Batman? Check.

I can't say the whole concept was turned on it's head, really.

 

[The Question]

Also, how does position on the sales chart matter? Superman is a pop culture icon. Everyone knows who Superman is. Everyone knows Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Kryptonite, and Lex Luthor. Nobody knows who the **** Sinestro or Carol Ferris are. Isn't that a little more important?

 

[Darthphere]

I kind of think that the overall problem is that Superman comics have been pretty boring for a good long while, and that's entirely because of the quality of the writers they've had and not any philosophical approach to the character. And I don't even have proof for that, I could be wrong, it's just what seems likely to me.

This. It's not really how he's been written but the quality of the writing itself. Which has been poor. Though IMO, there have been more good Superman stories than bad ones in the last 25 years. We just tend to focus on the bad. I know I do.

 

[Darthphere]

Also, how does position on the sales chart matter? Superman is a pop culture icon. Everyone knows who Superman is. Everyone knows Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Kryptonite, and Lex Luthor. Nobody knows who the **** Sinestro or Carol Ferris are. Isn't that a little more important?

Of course, but it doesn't help his "They're writing Superman wrong hence why his title doesn't sell anymore, therefore he's not popular anymore" argument. Sales figures will do that.

 

[Kurosawa]

Well comics don't sell in the millions because the demand isn't there anymore. Even if lets say Superman became super popular to the point where Action Comics and Superman were the #1 and #2 books on the chart, sales would not be anywhere near what they were in the 60's. I mean, the days of buying a comic book at the supermarket with your mom don't exist anymore. Even if they wrote Superman the exact way you wanted them to, with the classic suit and everything you ever dreamed and hoped for with Superman, sales would still be in the lower 100,000's. It's just the way the business is now. Do I wish comics were selling in the millions again? Heck yes but if that ever happens (which I don't think it will) I'd be very happy....and shocked.

Honestly though, you really believe the way he was being written is what led to his diminished sales? I mean, the numbers look good right now for his titles but how much of that is a big name writer and the freshness of the relaunch and how much is that because they're writing him closer to "classic" Superman?

I think people react better to Superman when he is allowed to be himself and is more assertive. Part of it is Morrison's name, but the same could be said for the initial success of the Post-Crisis Superman because of Byrne's name which at the time held as much weight as Morrison's does now. But long term, for almost 50 years, Superman worked and was popular and when they turned key concepts of the character around-Clark Kent being the disguise one of the main ones-then the character lost what made people become drawn to him.

 

[The Question]

I think people react better to Superman when he is allowed to be himself and is more assertive. Part of it is Morrison's name, but the same could be said for the initial success of the Post-Crisis Superman because of Byrne's name which at the time held as much weight as Morrison's does now. But long term, for almost 50 years, Superman worked and was popular and when they turned key concepts of the character around-Clark Kent being the disguise one of the main ones-then the character lost what made people become drawn to him.

That was never what made me drawn to him.

What made me drawn to him is that he was someone who never fit. He's not human, but the world he came from is gone forever, and even in the versions where there are elements of it remaining he was still raised human, so he can't totally connect with other Kryptonians. He's a guy who, at the age of sixteen, stood out in a field and tried to come to terms with the almost incomprehensible fact that he was born under an alien sky. It's exaggerated, I know, but for a lot of people growing up, that resonates.

I was drawn to him because he wants to make the world a better place more than anything else. He has these skills, these abilities, and he wants to use them to make people's lives better. But at the same time he wants to be a real person. He wants to have quiet nights to himself, he wants to have friends, he wants to love and be loved in return. And balancing that with his responsibilities, which he does't just carry the burden of, he actually craves, is difficult, and he doesn't always know what the best thing to do is. But he doesn't let it get him down. He still tries anyway.

Again, exaggerated, but that really resonates with me personally. And the fact that he keeps going and never gives up despite his doubt, despite his conflicting needs and desires, that's really inspiring to me. And that's been pretty consistent regardless of the era we're talking about.

Maybe you shouldn't speak for other people so casually.

 

[The Question]

I must concur.

Pop Culture wise, no one actually gives a **** about Superman at the moment.

Where as 25 years ago, Superman was THE superhero.

Also, this is old, but I have to address this.

What in the name of god's green **** are you talking about?

Smallville (on for ten years despite being a stinking pile of ****)

Superman the Animated Series.

Jerry Seinfeld's superman commercials.

The fact that there is a Superman reference in every episode of Seinfeld.

The fact that the Superman logo is one of the most popular in terms of T-Shirts, stickers, and tattoos in the country.

Countless toys.

Lunchboxes, posters, artwork, that five for fighting song, the fact that every person in the United States can name every single major Superman character with ease, the fact that Kryptonite is a cultural synonym for a personal weakness, the fact that when people here the word "Superman," they think of him and not Nietzsche, the fact when people think of superheroes, the first thing they think of is Superman...

I mean, seriously, Superman still is THE superhero.

His comics just don't sell spectacularly because they know Superman books will always make a profit (which they do, another testament to his popularity) so they'll give the title to pretty much any ******* who wants it.

 

[Kurosawa]

Like yourself right? The only one stuck in the past here is you my friend. We've accepted the evolution of the character. Now whether it fits your opinion of what the core concepts are is another thing all together. But whether you like it or not (obviously you don't) the character evolved and DC took it one direction. So again, the only person that is having a hard time letting go of what they grew up with here is you.

Nope. I grew up with savage pidgin English Tarzan, and as soon as I learned the Burroughs version was intelligent and articulate I immediately let it go. I also grew up with the "Hulk smash puny humans" Hulk who talked in third person, and as soon as I read the early stories, I knew and admitted the original was better. Same goes for Adam West Batman. That doesn't mean I hate any of those versions, I just admit and accept that the original versions and later versions that are closer to the creators intentions are superior.

These are what we call opinions. Those are all fantastic writers and I respect and enjoy their work but at the end of the day, those are opinions. Calling a certain version of Superman superior is an opinion. The problem here is, while you in your mind are not trying to convince us to change our minds, are presenting these opinions as facts. They're not. You're not wrong in your opinion that "classic" Superman (whatever you think that is) is superior. We're not wrong to disagree. There's no way one can admit to being wrong because we just have different opinions.

Doesn't everyone present their opinions online as facts? I never see, "In my opinion, Barry Allen sucks.", I just see "Barry Allen sucks."

Maybe opinions being presented in that manner only bothers you when they are opinions you disagree with.

 

[The Question]

Nope. I grew up with savage pidgin English Tarzan, and as soon as I learned the Burroughs version was intelligent and articulate I immediately let it go. I also grew up with the "Hulk smash puny humans" Hulk who talked in third person, and as soon as I read the early stories, I knew and admitted the original was better. Same goes for Adam West Batman. That doesn't mean I hate any of those versions, I just admit and accept that the original versions and later versions that are closer to the creators intentions are superior.

The original version of King Arthur was some boring jerk who was just there to prove how enormous the English penis is. It wasn't until the French got a hold of him a few centuries later that Lancelot and Merlin got thrown into the mix and it became a story of love, betrayal, spiritual enlightenment, moral dilemmas, the corruption of power, and redemption.

Original doesn't always equal better.

 

[Darthphere]

Doesn't everyone present their opinions online as facts? I never see, "In my opinion, Barry Allen sucks.", I just see "Barry Allen sucks."

Maybe opinions being presented in that manner only bothers you when they are opinions you disagree with.

In most cases, you take everything said as opinions. No need for the in my opinion but you're not stating anything here as opinion. You yourself a few posts ago were saying how you cite comic sales numbers and movie receipts to show why Superman being written wrong (in your opinion) has lead to dwindling sales and loss of popularity. You're attempting to present an opinion as a fact. I don't have an issue with different opinions but the way you present them, they're not opinions. If I'm wrong (which you'll say I am) then I'm wrong. It's just the impression I get.

 

[Darthphere]

Also, this is old, but I have to address this.

What in the name of god's green **** are you talking about?

Smallville (on for ten years despite being a stinking pile of ****)

Superman the Animated Series.

Jerry Seinfeld's superman commercials.

The fact that there is a Superman reference in every episode of Seinfeld.

The fact that the Superman logo is one of the most popular in terms of T-Shirts, stickers, and tattoos in the country.

Countless toys.

Lunchboxes, posters, artwork, that five for fighting song, the fact that every person in the United States can name every single major Superman character with ease, the fact that Kryptonite is a cultural synonym for a personal weakness, the fact that when people here the word "Superman," they think of him and not Nietzsche, the fact when people think of superheroes, the first thing they think of is Superman...

I mean, seriously, Superman still is THE superhero.

His comics just don't sell spectacularly because they know Superman books will always make a profit (which they do, another testament to his popularity) so they'll give the title to pretty much any ******* who wants it.

 

[The Question]

Saying Superman is no longer relevant because he doesn't have as many fans actively talking about him is like saying Jesus is no longer relevant because there are a few more outspoken pagans and atheists these days.

 

[Kurosawa]

That was never what made me drawn to him.

What made me drawn to him is that he was someone who never fit. He's not human, but the world he came from is gone forever, and even in the versions where there are elements of it remaining he was still raised human, so he can't totally connect with other Kryptonians. He's a guy who, at the age of sixteen, stood out in a field and tried to come to terms with the almost incomprehensible fact that he was born under an alien sky. It's exaggerated, I know, but for a lot of people growing up, that resonates.

I was drawn to him because he wants to make the world a better place more than anything else. He has these skills, these abilities, and he wants to use them to make people's lives better. But at the same time he wants to be a real person. He wants to have quiet nights to himself, he wants to have friends, he wants to love and be loved in return. And balancing that with his responsibilities, which he does't just carry the burden of, he actually craves, is difficult, and he doesn't always know what the best thing to do is. But he doesn't let it get him down. He still tries anyway.

Again, exaggerated, but that really resonates with me personally. And the fact that he keeps going and never gives up despite his doubt, despite his conflicting needs and desires, that's really inspiring to me. And that's been pretty consistent regardless of the era we're talking about.

Maybe you shouldn't speak for other people so casually.

That draws in a certain amount of people, but the biggest draw of Superman, IMO (since we must preface things with that) is the concept of wish fulfillment and the idea that we are all more than we seem on the surface. What Byrne did when he turned the concept of Superman on it's head was he got rid of Clark Kent-that is to say, the nerdy, meek, "mild-mannered" Clark Kent and replaced him with the farmboy Clark Kent. And there was no distinction in character between Clark and Superman. It's one of the reasons why seeing Batman call him "Clark" when he is Superman irks me. He's not Clark. Clark is the guy in the blue suit with the red tie who is scared of his own shadow and is getting picked on. Superman is a different guy. Basically, although Byrne said he was making Clark the reality and Superman the disguise, what he really did was he got rid of Clark completely.

I love Maggin's take on Clark and Superman-that they are two different people, that Clark is a very elaborate and complex coping mechanism that Superman needs to function because no other being in the cosmos has his responsibility. And that Clark, being a great character, oftentimes writes himself and breaks free of the control of his creator, Superman. Clark has his own hobbies, interests, opinions, religion, and not all of them are the same as Superman. I think the lessening of these dual identities is why people find Superman too hard to relate to. He's either perfect as Clark and Superman or he's a worthless wuss as both.

But now that is being corrected and if they stick with it and some of the other changes long-term, the character's standing will continue to improve. I really don't see DC committing completely to Superman as their #1 character until the lawsuits are settled.

 

[Kurosawa]

In most cases, you take everything said as opinions. No need for the in my opinion but you're not stating anything here as opinion. You yourself a few posts ago were saying how you cite comic sales numbers and movie receipts to show why Superman being written wrong (in your opinion) has lead to dwindling sales and loss of popularity. You're attempting to present an opinion as a fact. I don't have an issue with different opinions but the way you present them, they're not opinions. If I'm wrong (which you'll say I am) then I'm wrong. It's just the impression I get.

I'm just showing how I try to back up my opinions with factual data.

 

[Spike_x1]

I did address this point, several times, when I mentioned how Superman's sales numbers have slipped in his heyday to what they are now not just in terms of raw numbers, but in market share. Comics do not sell in the millions any longer due to a variety of reasons-competition from other entertainment sources, a decline in the content, inability to get started as a new reader due to the "writing for the tpb" style, but even with those and other factors, if Superman was as popular as he was in the 60's, then his books would be on the sales charts in greater numbers. Superman has for the most part been the third biggest character at DC for the last 10 years or so, behind Batman and Green Lantern.

See, that's actually an intelligent, coherent response. Try that next time, instead of leading a post by brushing off quoted posters with pseudo umbrella comments like "This is a perfect example of people who fail to understand I'm right" or "I don't have to reply to Post Crisis Defenders!"

Superman sales now are beginning to improve because they have gotten the character closer to what he is supposed to be. If they hadn't let Jim Lee design that horrid costume (probably due to legal reasons) and had kept him in the classic suit, then even that controversy would be out of the picture and not holding Supes back, and the books would be even bigger.

I don't agree with characterization in writing being the main factor behind Superman's recent increase in popularity among comic reading circles. Not by a long shot. That has more to do with Morrison's name in and of itself carrying a lot of weight among even casual comic readers, the attention grabbing mentality of the relaunch, an upcoming movie, recently increased awareness of DC Comics as a whole among young readers and other newbies through videogames and cartoons and movies, etc.

Readerships' tastes change with the times, and the majority of today's audience wants big explodey stories (preferably company wide crossovers if the sales are accurate), or grimdark and hardcore s**t (the Batman archetype category) because people, for the most part, either connect with the dark brooding antihero these days, or they want to see things blow up and won't give a damn one way or the other about characterization. Most people are simple that way.

Batman specifically is bigger than Superman right now because, for more than 20 years, he's the one with the ridiculously big movies that have been essentially a license to print money, two hugely popular and award winning games recently, and his consistently having a new animated series launched every few years. Good for Batman's popularity with audiences starting to become new readers, but it's completely unrelated to the topic of whether Superman comics are popular and successful or not.

Also...

Maybe opinions being presented in that manner only bothers you when they are opinions you disagree with.

Using language like saying we're "wrong" and it's "our failure to understand" is where you're getting flack in that area, as Darth just said, as well as making you seem very immature and unable to hold conversations with people who disagree.

 

[The Question]

That draws in a certain amount of people, but the biggest draw of Superman, IMO (since we must preface things with that) is the concept of wish fulfillment and the idea that we are all more than we seem on the surface. What Byrne did when he turned the concept of Superman on it's head was he got rid of Clark Kent-that is to say, the nerdy, meek, "mild-mannered" Clark Kent and replaced him with the farmboy Clark Kent. And there was no distinction in character between Clark and Superman. It's one of the reasons why seeing Batman call him "Clark" when he is Superman irks me. He's not Clark. Clark is the guy in the blue suit with the red tie who is scared of his own shadow and is getting picked on. Superman is a different guy. Basically, although Byrne said he was making Clark the reality and Superman the disguise, what he really did was he got rid of Clark completely.

I love Maggin's take on Clark and Superman-that they are two different people, that Clark is a very elaborate and complex coping mechanism that Superman needs to function because no other being in the cosmos has his responsibility. And that Clark, being a great character, oftentimes writes himself and breaks free of the control of his creator, Superman. Clark has his own hobbies, interests, opinions, religion, and not all of them are the same as Superman. I think the lessening of these dual identities is why people find Superman too hard to relate to. He's either perfect as Clark and Superman or he's a worthless wuss as both.

But now that is being corrected and if they stick with it and some of the other changes long-term, the character's standing will continue to improve. I really don't see DC committing completely to Superman as their #1 character until the lawsuits are settled.

I don't see why Clark Kent has to be a fabrication for that to really work, though. I don't see why he can't just be a part of who he really is from the beginning, instead of becoming one later on. People are complicated like that.

And honestly, I think that strengthens the idea of people being more than what they are on the surface. Having Clark be a fabrication, I think, is somewhat juvenile. Having him be a real part of who he is, but he also has this other side to him under the surface that's totally different but still completely him, that's a lot more mature and a lot more real. It's taken to an extreme, yes, but that's what people are actually like.

I've gathered from previous conversations that we don't really disagree about the issue of his identity, it's just a matter of what semantics and framing we're both comfortable with. Like, for example, I don't have a problem with Batman calling him Clark because I imagine that's what Superman calls himself in his head seeing as that's the name he was raised with. Or, another example, I more or less agree with your Maggin based assessment, but I'd argue that if you have to act a certain way and live a certain lifestyle part of the time in order to cope with your life, than that's who you really are, or at least a very big and significant part of who you really are. All in all, while I think I agree with you with most of the details, I think I'm slightly different because, when asked "is the real persona Superman or Clark," my answer is a much more simple "yes."

Although, I'm not super comfortable with the wish fulfillment idea. I'm not a huge fan of escapism in fiction of any kind.

 

[Kurosawa]

I don't see why Clark Kent has to be a fabrication for that to really work, though. I don't see why he can't just be a part of who he really is from the beginning, instead of becoming one later on. People are complicated like that.

And honestly, I think that strengthens the idea of people being more than what they are on the surface. Having Clark be a fabrication, I think, is somewhat juvenile. Having him be a real part of who he is, but he also has this other side to him under the surface that's totally different but still completely him, that's a lot more mature and a lot more real. It's taken to an extreme, yes, but that's what people are actually like.

I've gathered from previous conversations that we don't really disagree about the issue of his identity, it's just a matter of what semantics and framing we're both comfortable with. Like, for example, I don't have a problem with Batman calling him Clark because I imagine that's what Superman calls himself in his head seeing as that's the name he was raised with.

Although, I'm not super comfortable with the wish fulfillment idea. I'm not a huge fan of escapism in fiction of any kind.

The last sentence of your post is probably where we disagree the most, because I want my fiction to be as escapist as possible.

 

[The Question]

The last sentence of your post is probably where we disagree the most, because I want my fiction to be as escapist as possible.

I don't get that. I see that as the intellectual equivalent of junk food. The way I see it, literature exists to help people explore what it means to be a human being. If it's goal is to help them ignore it, then it's not doing it's job.

I also would not consider any of Superman's best stories to be escapist in any way.

 

[Kurosawa]

I don't get that. I see that as the intellectual equivalent of junk food. The way I see it, literature exists to help people explore what it means to be a human being. If it's goal is to help them ignore it, then it's not doing it's job.

I also would not consider any of Superman's best stories to be escapist in any way.

Some are, some aren't. Certainly he was never a pure escapist character like Captain Marvel, however. But by escapism I mean as an escape from the depressing realities of real life, an escape into imaginative and more hopeful worlds. That's also why the post-apocalyptic subgenre has never been my thing, although I do love Planet of the Apes and Escape From New York.

Certainly I like for fantasy stories to relate to the human condition to some degree, but I'm not a fan of the gritty realistic sort of stuff.

 

[The Question]

Some are, some aren't. Certainly he was never a pure escapist character like Captain Marvel, however. But by escapism I mean as an escape from the depressing realities of real life, an escape into imaginative and more hopeful worlds. That's also why the post-apocalyptic subgenre has never been my thing, although I do love Planet of the Apes and Escape From New York.

Certainly I like for fantasy stories to relate to the human condition to some degree, but I'm not a fan of the gritty realistic sort of stuff.

Like, lemme break it down with my personal favorite Superman stories:

Kingdom Come: You've got themes of vast power being wielded in ideological clashes, you have great people trapped in no-win scenarios, there's mass murder, there's dead Lois, there's the burden of moral responsibility and the tole killing takes on a person's soul. Plus all the religious iconography and themes.

For All Seasons: Superman fails to save a woman's life during a crisis early on in his career and has to deal with the fact that he can't save everyone for the first time. Deals with how different people perceive great men and how those great men have to shoulder the burden of those perceptions as well as the theme of how the never ending battle truly is a never ending battle, and we don't fight it because we think we'll ever win but because there are things worth fighting for.

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?: A bunch of supporting characters die, Mxyzptlk turns into a Lovecraft monster, all in all this comic is dark. Like all great last stand stories, it's about a heroic person facing death with dignity, and like many of the greats contains something of a bittersweet happy ending that he hero fought like hell to achieve with the hope of some kind of future rebirth.

For The Man Who Has Everything: A story of temptation, desire, and regret that explores the responsibility Superman bears and the many facets to his personality.

DC Comics Presents: Superman and Swamp Thing: Superman has an identity crisis as he finds that he's dying of a terminal illness.

What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?: A moral conflict between Superman's ideology and that of a group of violent upstart superheroes in which he stands by his principals despite them being more difficult than the looser morals of his younger counterparts.

All Star Superman: Superman is dying of a terminal illness. Again. Explores Lex Luthor's twisted psychology, how Superman dealt with his father's death, how he faces his own death, and brings an enormous amount of pathos to the colorful cast of the Superman comics.

The Death of Superman Trilogy: More dead Superman (although this is the only one where he actually dies). Shows him making a heroic last stand, follows his friends and family through the grieving process, and shows him reclaim his name and life largely through force of will.

Lex Luthor: Man of Steel: Delves deep into the mind of a murderous megalomaniac and how he rationalizes every awful thing he does as somehow being for the betterment of society.

Crisis on Infinite Earths: Supergirl dies. A bunch of characters die. It's not just a Superman story but he's at the heart of it and he gets some of the best moments.

Red Son: Explores how the cast of Superman would have developed under different circumstances. Superman is the villain, raised to believe in a tyrannical system, and Lex Luthor is the hero, a patriot sworn to defeat Superman, but they otherwise keep all of their most noteworthy character traits, such as Superman's selflessness and Lex's massive ego, making it a much more morally gray story with both sides of the conflict having heroic and villainous traits. All in all a character study of both of them under different ethical circumstances.

John Byrne's "Generations" trilogy: A ton of characters Superman is close to die while he has to carry on into the future, as well as addressing the politics of the eras the story passes through.

Superman: Secret Identity: Themes of identity, isolation, love, responsibility, and looking for purpose in life.

I wouldn't label any of these as escapist. It's a semantic thing, but what you call escapism I don't think I call escapism. Not really, anyway. "Not being dark" and escapism aren't the same thing. Something can be light and fun and still be about something meaningful. True escapism isn't about anything meaningful, it just insulates people from the world.

Even then, though, I disagree with the idea of escaping from the depressing realities of life. I don't think literature's goal should ever be to enable people to escape from the depressing realities of life. It should be to help then develop the tools to deal with the depressing realities of life.

 

[SuperFerret]

Until 1986 he did. After that DC turned the whole Superman concept on its head.

I don't think so. Seems like the character has still evolved pretty naturally.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Let's see:

Last son of a doomed world? Check.

Flies around and saves people? Check.

Spends his days as an investigative journalist? Check.

Involved in a love triangle with himself? Check.

Fights a bald megalomaniac? Check.

Is bros with Batman? Check.

I can't say the whole concept was turned on it's head, really.

Window-dressing.

I am talking about Superman's personality.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I don't think so. Seems like the character has still evolved pretty naturally.

Turning mild-mannered Clark Kent into a football hunk from one month to another is not natural evolution.